A42757:1018
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.
The fifth, that God only infallibly knows the hearts, and present state of all men, is no whit nearer the point The Eldership •udggeth of words and works, professions and practises. By their fruits ye shall know them.
The fifth, that God onely infallibly knows the hearts, and present state of all men, is no whit neerer the point The Eldership •udggeth of words and works, professions and practises. By their fruits ye shall know them.
The sixth, that no Ministers private judgement or conscience ought to be the rule of his admitting any to, or suspending them from the Sacrament, is also wide from the controversy in hand, which is concerning the Elderships (not the Ministers) power. Of the Ministers personal duty I have spoken before.
The sixth, that no Ministers private judgement or conscience ought to be the rule of his admitting any to, or suspending them from the Sacrament, is also wide from the controversie in hand, which is concerning the Elderships (not the Ministers) power. Of the Ministers personall duty I have spoken before.
These six conclusions premised▪ Mr Prynne proceeds to prove, that a Minister in delivering the Sacrament to a scandalous unexcommunicated person, who after admonition of the danger, doth earnestly desire to receive it, &c. becomes no way guilty of his sin or punishment, in case be eat or drink judgement by his unworthy receiving of it. His first reason, because this receiver hath a true right to this Sacrament, as a visible member of the visible Church, is the same thing which I have already answered. His second reason, because e (the Minister) hath no Commission from Christ to keep back such a person, doth not conclude that the Minister becomes no way guilty &c. He had to prove that a Minister hath no commission touching this business, but only to admonish the person of the danger. I hold there are other five duties incumbent to the Minister. Of which before, If any of these duties be neglected, the Minister is guilty. Whether such a person ought to be kept back is the point in controversy, and therefore he ought not have taken the negative pro confessò.