A42757:52
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. XI. A Confutation of the strongest arguments of Erastus, namely, those drawn from the Law of Moses.
The strength of these Arguments put together. Which is not only enervated, but retorted. That the confession of sin required Levit. 5. 5. Num. 5. 6, 7. was a confession of the particular sin by word of mouth: and that this confession was required even in criminal and capital cases. That moral, as well as ceremonial uncleanness, was a cause of sequestration from the Sanctuary, yea much more, the moral uncleanness being more hateful to God, more hurtful and infective to Gods people. That the exclusion of the unclean under the Law could not so fitly signify the exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven, as from communion with the Church in this life. That this legal Type did certainly signify a sequestration of scandalous or morally unclean persons from Church-Communion under the New Testament, is proved from Isaiah 52. 1. 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17. also from the exposition of Peters vision Acts 10. That among the Jews such as attended a litigious action, or at least a capital judgement, upon the preparation day, were thought defiled and not allowed to eat the Passover. That it was not left to a mans free will to judge of his own cleanness or uncleanness, nor to expiate his sin when he pleased. That the universal precept for all that were circumcised to eat the Passover, doth admit of other exceptions, beside those that were legally unclean, or in a journey. The great difference between ⟨image 16⟩