A42757:1079
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, The Apostle argues that Abraham the father of the faithful, and whose justification is as it were a pattern of ours, was not justified by Circumcision, or (as Aquinas confesseth upon the place) that Circumcision was not the cause but the sign of Justification. Rom. 4. 9. 10. 11. We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? When he was in Circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in Circumcision but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised xIf Abraham the father of the faithful, got not so much ⟨p. 509⟩as the Sacrament of initiation, till after he was justified and sanctified, how shall we think of receiving, not only the Sacrament of initiation, but the Sacrament of spiritual nourishment, while unjustified and unsanctified? And if God did by his Word make a Covenant with Abraham, before he received Circumcision the seal of that Covenant, must it not much more be supposed, that they are within the Covenant of grace, who eat and drink at the Lords Table, and consequently, that those who are children of disobedience and wrath, and strangers to Christ and the Covenant of Grace (apparently and manifestly such, though not professedly) ought not to be admitted to the Lords Table under colour of a converting Ordinance, it being indeed a seal of the Covenant of grace.
Fifthly, The Apostle argues that Abraham the father of the faithfull, and whose justification is as it were a pattern of ours, was not justified by Circumcision, or (as Aquinas confesseth upon the place) that Circumcision was not the cause but the signe of Justification. Rom. 4. 9. 10. 11. We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousnesse. How was it then reckoned? When he was in Circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in Circumcision but in uncircumcision. And he received the signe of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousnesse of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised xIf Abraham the father of the faithful, got not so much