A42757:1082
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.
Seventhly, That Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment, is no converting Ordinance. But the Supper of the Lord, the marriage feast of the Kings son, is an Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment. Ergo. The Proposition hath this reason for it. If a man must needs have a wedding garment that comes, then he must needs be converted that comes; for what-ever ye call the wedding garment, sure it is a thing proper to the Saints, and not common to unconverted sinners, and the want of it doth condemn a man into utter darkness, Matth. 22. 13. The Assumption is clear from Matth. 22. 11. 12. When the King came in to see the Guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? and he was speechless. If he had been of Mr. Prynns opinion he needed not be speechless; for Mr. Prynns divinity might have put this answer in his mouth. ⟨p. 511⟩Lord I thought this to be a converting Ordinance, and that thou wouldest not reject those that come in without a wedding garment, provided that here at the marriage feast they get one. But we see the King condemneth the man for coming in thither without a wedding garment.
Seventhly, That Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment, is no converting Ordinance. But the Supper of the Lord, the marriage feast of the Kings son, is an Ordinance unto which one may not come without a wedding garment. Ergo. The Proposition hath this reason for it. If a man must needs have a wedding garment that comes, then he must needs be converted that comes; for what-ever ye call the wedding garment, sure it is a thing proper to the Saints, and not common to unconverted sinners, and the want of it doth condemn a man into utter darknes, Matth. 22. 13. The Assumption is clear from Matth. 22. 11. 12. When the King came in to see the Guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? and he was speechlesse. If he had been of Mr. Prynns opinion he needed not be speechlesse; for Mr. Prynns divinity might have put this answer in his mouth.