A42757:1008
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.
Thirdly, yea himself must needs admit an exception from his major proposition, for by his own principles, those that have a true right to the Sacrament, as visible members of the visible Church, may be excommunicated and so deprived, not only of the Sacrament, but of all other public Ordinances. When he tells us here that nothing but an actual excommunication can suspend them from this their right, he doth but beg that which is in question. And if his Argument conclude against a lesser Suspension from their right, why not also against the greater?
Thirdly, yea himselfe must needs admit an exception from his major proposition, for by his owne principles, those that have a true right to the Sacrament, as visible members of the visible Church, may be excommunicated and so deprived, not onely of the Sacrament, but of all other publique Ordinances. When he tels us here that nothing but an actuall excommunication can suspend them from this their right, he doth but begge that which is in question. And if his Argument conclude against a lesser Suspension from their right, why not also against the greater?
Fourthly, he hath not proved his minor, especially being understood of the second kind of right, which renders me• actually and presently capable of the thing. He saith that the Sacraments were bequeathed by Christ, to his visible Church on Earth, and all visible members of it. Which he hath not proved, and I deny it, except it have this limitation, all visible members of the visible Church, which are (visibly or in external profession and conversation) qualified according to the rule of Christ, and against whose admission to the Sacrament there is no just exception.
Fourthly, he hath not proved his minor, especially being understood of the second kind of right, which renders me• actually and presently capable of the thing. He saith that the Sacraments were bequeathed by Christ, to his visible Church on Earth, and all visible members of it. Which he hath not proved, and I deny it, except it have this limitation, all visible members of the visible Church, which are (visibly or in externall profession and conversation) qualified according to the rule of Christ, and against whose admission to the Sacrament there is no just exception.