A42757:48
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.
CHAP. IX. Whether in the Jewish Church there was any suspension or exclusion of profane, scandalous, notorious sinners, from partaking in the public Ordinances, with the rest of the children of Israel in the Temple.
CHAP. IX. Whether in the Iewish Church there was any suspension or exclusion of prophane, scandalous, notorious sinners, from partaking in the publique Ordinances, with the rest of the children of Israel in the Temple.
The affirmative is proved by plain and full testimonies of Philo, and Josephus, beside some late Writers well acquainted with the Jewish antiquities. That the Publican Luke 18. came not into the Court of Israel, but into the Court of the Gentiles. Nor can it be proved, that he was a profane Publican, so much as in the opinion of the Pharisees and Jews. That the Temple into which the adulteress was brought John 8. was also the Court of the Gentiles: neither was she admitted into the Temple for worship, but brought thither for a public trial and sentence. Seven Scriptural arguments brought to ⟨image 15⟩prove an exclusion of the scandalous and known profane persons, from the Temple. Somewhat de jure Zelotarum. What esteem the Hebrews had of an Heretical or Epicurean Israelite. That the Temple of Jerusalem was a Type of Christ, (which is instanced in ten particulars) and had a Sacramental holiness in it, so that the analogy is not to be drawn to an exclusion of profane persons from the Word preached, but from the Sacrament.
THe affirmative is proved by plaine and full testimonies of Philo, and Iosephus, beside some late Writers wel acquainted with the Jewish antiquities. That the Publican