A42757:111
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.
CHAP. XIII. Twenty Arguments to prove that the Lords Supper is not a converting Ordinance.
1. From the nature of signs instituted to signify the being or having of a thing. The significancy of Sacraments à part ante. 2. Sacraments suppose faith and an interest had in Christ, therefore do not give it. 3. The Lords Supper gives the new food, therefore it supposeth the new life. 4. It is a seal of the righteousness of faith, therefore instituted ⟨image 29⟩for justified persons only. 5. From the example of Abraham's Justification before circumcision. 6. From the duty of self-examination, which an unregenerate person cannot perform. 7. From the necessity of the wedding garment. 8. Faith comes by hearing, not by seeing or receiving. 9. Neither promise nor example in Scripture of conversion by the Lords Supper. 10. Every unconverted and unworthy person, if he come (while such) to the Lords Table) cannot but eat and drink unworthily, therefore ought not to come. 11. The wicked have no part in an Eucharistical consolatory Ordinance. 12. Christ calleth none to this Feast but such as have spiritual gracious qualifications. 13. They that are visibly no Saints, ought not to partake in the Communion of Saints. 14. Baptism it self (at least when administered to persons of age) is not a regenerating, but a sealing Ordinance. 15. From the necessity of the precedency of Baptism before the Lords Supper. 16. From the method of the Parable of the lost son. 17. From the doctrinal dehorting of all impenitent unworthy persons from coming to the Sacrament, unless they repent, reform, &c. (allowed by M. Prynne himself) which a Minister may not do, if it be a converting Ordinance. 18. From the incommunicableness of this Ordinance to Pagans, or to excommunicated Christians for their conversion. 19. From the instrumental causality of a converting Ordinance, which in order doth not follow, but precede conversion, and therefore is administered to men, not qua penitent, but qua impenitent, which can not be said of the Sacrament. 20. Antiquity against M. Prynne in this point. Witness the