A42757:1113
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.
God only being able to judge close Hypocrites. If they be not qualified, as I have said, then we do not grant that they ought to be admitted.
God onely being able to judge close Hypocrites. If they be not qualified, as I have said, then we do not grant that they ought to be admitted.
His second Argument hath no strength at all. All Ordinances which strengthen grace do more or less begin or beget it, and ⟨p. 524⟩the Directory it self calls the Sacraments means of grace pag. 52. What then? The Directory calls this Sacrament means of grace, because by it Christ and all his benefits are applied and sealed up unto us, and we are sealed up by his Spirit to an assurance of happiness and everlasting life. But (saith he) why may not the Sacraments convert as well as confirm. I have given many reasons for it. If he could prove that what confirms doth also convert, why did he not do it? If he could not prove it, why brings he a strong affirmation instead of an Argument? As for that which he addeth, that the Lords Supper is received not once as Baptism, but frequently. For this very end, that those who often fall into sin through infirmity, may likewise by this Supper often rise again, be refreshed, comforted, and get strength against their corruptions and sins: and is it not then a converting as well as a confirming Ordinance? What a wavering is here? Is the raising, refreshing, and comforting of those who often fall through infirmity, the conversion or first grace which now we dispute of? Or whether doth he not here yield the cause? For the refreshing and comforting and strengthening of those that fall through infirmity, is the effect of a confirming not of a converting Ordinance. And in this sense Divines have given a reason, why we are but once baptized, but do often receive the Lords Supper, because Baptism is the Sacrament of our initiation, the laver of regeneration; (I mean not that which hath been called Baptismal regeneration, fancied to be common to all the baptized, but I mean that which is wrought in and sealed to the Elect baptized) the Lords Supper is the Sacrament of our spiritual nourishment and strengthening: and it is enough to be once born, once regenerate, but we must be often nourished and strengthened.