A42757:1084
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.
Ninthly, That Ordinance which hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it, nor any example in the Word of God of any converted by it, is no converting Ordinance. But the Sacrament of the Lords Supper hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it, nor is there any example in all the Scripture of any ever converted by it. Therefore it is no converting Ordinance.
Tenthly, That Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake is not a converting Ordinance. But the Lords Supper is an Ordinance whereof Christ would have no unworthy person to partake. Ergo. The proposition I prove thus. It is not the will of Christ that converting Ordinances should be dispensed to no unworthy person (for else how should they be converted) but only he hath forbidden to dispense unto unworthy persons such Ordinances as belong to the Communion Saints. The Assumption I prove from 1 Cor. 11. 27. Whosoever (though otherwise a worthy person & one converted to the state of grace) shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body & blood of the Lord. v. 29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lords body. If the unworthiness of that particular act, in respect of the manner of doing it, make a man so guilty and liable to such judgement, how much more the unworthiness of the person that eats and drinks? For a ⟨p. 512⟩mans state, the course of his life, and the frame of his Spirit, is more then one single act. This therefore doth prove that he that is an unworthy person (if he come to the Lords Table) doth eat and drink unworthily (Whence is that where the Apostle saith vers. 29. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, the Syriac Interpreter hath it, he that eateth and drinketh thereof being unworthy, or indignus existens:) Which may be also gathered from the interweaving of vers. 28. between vers. 27. and vers. 29. He that eats and drinks, not having before rightly examined himself, eats and drinks unworthily. But he that is an unworthy person, and comes to the Lords Table unworthily and unpreparedly, eats and drinks not having before rightly examined himself. Ergo. What of that? will you say.