A42757:1139
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.
Answ. 1. This Argument doth necessarily suppose, that an unconverted, unmortified, unworthy person, while such, may yet worthily receive (and so by that means be converted) the contrary whereof I have demonstrated in my tenth Argument. 2. If the Sacrament be not worthily received, without repentance, faith, and self-examination (for which cause men are dehorted to come, except they repent &c.) then there is perfect non-sence in the Argument, for to say that the Sacrament when worthily received is the instrument of conversion, is as much as this; The Sacrament is an instrument of conversion to those who are already converted. 3. That rule of Contraries is extremely mis-applied. The rule is Oppositorum, quatenus talia, opposita sunt attributa, Contraries have contrary attributes. gThe comparison must be made secundum differentias quibus dissident, Otherwise that old fallacy were a good Argument. A single life is good, therefore Marriage is evil; Virginity is pure, therefore Marriage is impure: Whereas Marriage and single life are not opposed in the point of good and evil, purity and impurity, but in the point of immunity from worldly cares and troubles. So it is a bad consequence (at least against us) unworthy receiving of the Sacrament is an instrument of obduration, Ergo Worthy receiving of it is a mean of conversion. For we hold that worthy receiving and unworthy receiving are not opposed in point of conversion, but in point of sealing: the worthy receiving seals remission and salvation: the unworthy receiving seals judgement. But Mr. Prynn still takes for granted what he had to prove; viz. That this particular is one of those differentiae quibus dissident ista Opposita.
Answ. 1. This Argument doth necessarily suppose, that an unconverted, unmortified, unworthy person, while such, may yet worthily receive (and so by that means be converted) the contrary whereof I have demonstrated in my tenth Argument. 2. If the Sacrament be not worthily received, without repentance, faith, and self-examination (for which cause men are dehorted to come, except they repent &c.) then there is perfect non-sence in the Argument, for to say that the Sacrament when worthily received is the instrument of conversion, is as much as this; The Sacrament is an instrument of conversion to those who are already converted. 3. That rule of Contraries is extremely mis-applyed. The rule is Oppositorum, quatenus talia, opposita sunt attributa, Contraries have contrary attributes. g