A42757:1014
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.
Secondly, I answer directly, I distinguish the Major, I deny the Minor. I distinguish the Major: Those who have been admitted to Baptism ought to be admitted to the Lords Supper caeteris paribus, if the proportion hold in the particulars, and if they be as free of scandalous sins now when they desire to receive the Lords Supper, as they were when they desired to receive Baptism. He needed not make so great a matter of our suspending from the Sacrament a person formerly deemed fit to receive Baptism. For why? the person is a scandalous person now which he was not th•n. My limitation of caeteris paribus he himself▪ must admit; otherwise how will he defend his own Principle, that the flagitious, abominable and obstinate sinners who cannot be reduced by Admonitions, may and ought to be excommunicated, and so to be cut off from the Lords Supper, and all other public Ordinances, although formerly deemed sit to receive baptism? The Minor I utterly deny as most false and as a reproach ca• upon the Apostles themselves. Mr Prynnes Rule is so large, that Turks or Pagans who practically live in Idolatry, common swearing, adultery, drunkenness, murdering, stealing, or the like, and are known to live in those abominable scandalous sins, ought nevertheless upon a mere external sleight confession of sin, and profession of the Christian faith, be baptised. When I expected his proof from the Apostles times, he only tells us that Philip baptized Simon Magus though he were in the gall of bitterness and bond of ⟨p. 483⟩iniquity, Acts 8. Yea, saith he, many other who turned Wolves, Apostates, Heretics were baptised by the very Apostles, Acts 20. 2. Tim. 3. If he had proved that Simon Magus was known to be in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity when Philip did baptize him, or that the Apostles did baptise any (upon a sleight external profession) who were then known to be Wolves, Apostates, and Heretics, he had said more for his cause then all his book saith beside. But to tell us that some persons baptized (he might as well have said that some persons who received the Lords Supper did appear afterward to be in the gall of bitterness, Wolves, Apostates, Heretics, is as much as to travel, and to bring forth nothing. For how shall ever this reach the admission of known profane persons to the Lords Supper?