A42757:1004
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.
He first premiseth six conclusions. Supposed conclusions he may make them, but proved Conclusions they are not. The first of them is indeed ushered in syllogistically, but very weakly, as shall appear. The strength of his discourse he contracteth into this argument.
He •irst premiseth six conclusions. Supposed conclusions he may make them, but proved Conclusions they are not. The first of them is indeed ushered in syllogistically, but very weakly, as shall appeare. The strength of his discourse he contracteth into this argument.
Those who have a true right to the Sacrament, as visible members of the visible Church, ought not in justice or conscience to be deprived of it, in case they demand it, by any Minister or Presbytery. But all unexcommunicate Christians, who are able to examine themselves, as visible members of the visible Church, have a true right to the Sacrament, in case they do demand it, when publicly administered. Ergo, they ought not in justice or conscience be deprived of it, by any Minister or Presbytery, when publicly administered, if they shall require it.
Those who have a true right to the Sacrament, as visible members of the visible Church, ought not in justice or conscience to be deprived of it, in case they demand it, by any Minister or Presbytery. But all unexcommunicate Christians, who are able to examine themselves, as visible members of the visible Church, have a true right to the Sacrament, in case they doe demand it, when publiquely administred. Ergo, they ought not in justice or conscience be deprived of it, by any Minister or Presbytery, when publiquely administred, if they shall require it.
Answ. First, this is fallacia plurium interrogationum; for these words, as visible members of the visible Church, both in the Major and Minor, clog and confound the argument, and patch up two distinct propositions into one.