A42757:1010
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.
Fifthly, when he concludeth, that no unexcommunicated Christians who are able to examine themselves (that is, as himself hath explained, who are not naturally disabled as children, and fools: though he shall find it a very hard task to prove, that all other unexcommunicate Christians besides these, ⟨p. 481⟩are able to examine themselves) ought in justice or conscience to be deprived of the Sacrament by any Minister or Presbytery: he doth upon the matter conclude, that the Ordinances of Parliament Octob. 20. 1645. and March 14. 1645. authorising Presbyteries to suspend from the Sacrament scandalous persons unexcommunicated, are contrary to all justice and conscience. N. B.
Fifthly, when he concludeth, that no unexcommunicated Christians who are able to examine themselves (that is, as himselfe hath explained, who are not naturally disabled as children, and fooles: though he shall finde it a very hard taske to prove, that all other unexcommunicate Christians besides these, ⟨p. 481⟩are able to examine themselves) ought in justice or conscience to be deprived of the Sacrament by any Minister or Presbytery: he doth upon the matter conclude, that the Ordinances of Parliament Octob. 20. 1645. and March 14. 1645. authorising Presbyteries to suspend from the Sacrament scandalous persons unexcommunicated, are contrary to all justice and conscience. N. B.
Sixthly, as touching that limitation yielded by himself, that they must be such as are able to examine themselves, I ask, 1. Are persons grossly ignorant able to examine themselves? 2. Are drunken persons able to examine themselves? 3. Are men of corrupt minds and erroneous, yea profane principles, who call evil good, and pervert Scripture to the defending of some gross sins, are these able to examine themselves? 4. Are those who are known that they had never any work of the law upon their consciences to convince or humble them (for by the Law is the knowledge of sin) able to examine themselves? If the answers be affirmative, then surely this self-examination is not rightly apprehended what it is. If the answers be negative; then those who in their addresss to the Lords Table are found ignorant, or drunk, or defenders of sin, or presumptuous and unconvinced, and do manifestly appear such, though they be not excommunicated, and being professed Christians, and desiring the Sacrament, yet ought not to be admitted.