A42757:1092
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.
Fourteenthly, If Baptism it self (at least when ministered to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance, far less is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance. But Baptism it self (at least when ministered to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance. Ergo.
Fourteenthly, If Baptisme it self (at least when ministred to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance, far lesse is the Lords Supper a regenerating or converting Ordinance. But Baptisme it self (at least when ministred to those that are of age) is not a regenerating or converting Ordinance. Ergo.
The ground of the Proposition is, because Baptism hath a nearer relation to regeneration then the Lords Supper, and therefore hath the name of the laver of regeneration. The Assumption I prove thus. 1. Because we read of no persons of age baptized by the Apostles, except such as did profess faith in Christ, gladly received the Word, and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of grace did appear (I say not that it really ⟨p. 515⟩was in all, but somewhat of it did appear in all.) 2. If the Baptism of those who are of age be a regenerating Ordinance, then you suppose the person to be baptized an unregenerated person (even as when a Minister first preacheth the Gospel to Pagans, he cannot but suppose them to be unregenerated:) But I believe no conscientious Minister would adventure to baptize one who hath manifest and infallible signs of unregeneration. Sure, we cannot be answerable to God if we should minister Baptism to a man whose works and words do manifestly declare him to be an unregenerated unconverted person. And if we may not initiate such a one, how shall we bring him to the Lords Table?
The ground of the Proposition is, because Baptisme hath a nearer relation to regeneration then the Lords Supper, and therefore hath the name of the laver of regeneration. The Assumption I prove thus. 1. Because we read of no persons of age baptized by the Apostles, except such as did professe faith in Christ, gladly received the Word, and in whom some begun work of the Spirit of grace did appear (I say not that it really