A42757:1042
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.
gFestus Honnius Disp. 43. Thes. 3. confuting the Popish opinion of the Sacraments working or giving grace, brings this reason against it; They that receive the Sacraments, have this grace before they receive them, neither are any to be admitted to the Sacraments who may be justly supposed not to be justified and sanctified.
- gFideles enim ante usum Sacramentorum hanc gratiam omnin• habe•t: neque ad Sacramentorum usum accedere debent qui ea• gratiam pro aetatis modo non habeat, neque admittendi sunt qui eam non habere meri•o praesumuntur.
Aretius Comment. in Mark 14. loc. 3. observeth, Qui admissi sint ad istam Coenam? discipuli solum, Who were admitted to that (eucharistical) Supper? the Disciples o•ely. Hence he inferreth: Quare mysteria haec ad solos fideles pertinent: Wherefore these mysteries do pertain to the faithful alone: that is, to those who are supposed to be converted and believers.
Aretius Coment. in Mark 14. loc. 3. observeth, Qui admissi sint ad istam Coenam? discipuli solum, Who were admitted to that (eucharistical) Supper? the Disciples o•ely. Hence he inferreth: Quare mysteria haec ad solos fideles pertinent: Wherefore these mysteries do pertain to the faithful alone: that is, to those who are supposed to be converted and beleevers.