A42757:398
Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present…Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present…
Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversy concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiastical government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlessness of the chief objections made against the Presbyterial government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...Aarons rod blossoming, or, The divine ordinance of church-government vindicated so as the present Erastian controversie concerning the distinction of civill and ecclesiasticall government, excommunication, and suspension, is fully debated and discussed, from the holy scripture, from the Jewish and Christian antiquities, from the consent of latter writers, from the true nature and rights of magistracy, and from the groundlesnesse of the chief objections made against the Presbyteriall government in point of a domineering arbitrary unlimited power / by George Gillespie ...
London: printed by E.G. for Richard Whitaker, 1646
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
11. Object. If the Priests power of judging reached further than the cases of Leprosy, and Jealousy, the most was to judge of such as were unclean in any thing, and that according to their sentence the unclean were to be excluded.
11. Object. If the Priests power of judging reached further than the cases of Leprosie, and Jealousie, the most was to judge of such as were uncleane in any thing, and that according to their sentence the uncleane were to be excluded.
Ans. Not to insist now upon these Texts, Deut. 17. 9. 12. & 21. 5. Ez•. 44. 24. which hold forth the juridical power of the Priests more generally and comprehensively, without restricting it to cases of clean and unclean only; nor yet to repeat diverse other answers before given, in answer to Erastus and M. Prynne, concerning legal and moral uncleanness; I shall here only give this one answer out of that Text 2 Chro. 23. 19. none which was unclean in any thing. What cogent argument can now restrict this Text concerning the exclusion of unclean persons from the Temple, to such only who were legally or ceremonially unclean? If we should suppose and grant that it is meant only of the legal uncleanness, yet both by Analogy and à fortiori, that Text affordeth an argument against the Erastians, and I have accordingly made use of it before; Yet nevertheless I believe it will puzzle them to prove that this Text doth not comprehend those also that were morally unclean, that is, scandalous profane persons. For my part I do believe that it is meant of keeping back those that were morally unclean, as well as those that were ceremonially such. And my reasons are these, 1. The Text saith generally, none which was unclean in any thing, or as the 70 have it, [Greek or Hebrew], such as were unclean in every or any word, or (if you will) against any word, that is, against any Commandment of the Law, 2. Because impiety, profaneness, and wickedness hath the name of uncleanness, even in the old Testament; & such as commit sin and ungodliness are called unclean, and are said to defile themselves, as well as those that were legally unclean. I shall not need to expound,