A42757:1150
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.
Secondly, some wicked men by their receiving the Sacrament do only draw judgement upon themselves, and these are close hypocrites: Others by their receiving of the Sacrament do involve not themselves only, but others also into sin and Gods displeasure; and these are scandalous notorious sinners.
Secondly, some wicked men by their receiving the Sacrament do onely draw judgement upon themselves, and these are close hypocrites: Others by their receiving of the Sacrament do involve not themselves onely, but others also into sin and Gods displeasure; and these are scandalous notorious sinners.
Thirdly, the sin of those who pollute the Sacrament by using it contrary to the nature and institution of it, may be the sin of others, and those others accessary to such pollution of the Sacrament two ways: either it is the sin of the whole Church, none excepted, so that none that communicateth then and there can be free of the sin, as where the bread is elevated and worshipped, all the communicants are eo ipso that they join in the Sacrament then and there, partakers of the sin of bread-worship, though perhaps some of them do not join in the act of worshipping the bread, but have done what they could to prevent or hinder it. Or it is the sin only of so many as have not done what they ought and might have done for observing the Institution, rule and example of Jesus Christ. And of this sort is the sin of communicating with scandalous and profane men. If private Christians have interposed, by admonitions given to the offender, and by petitions put up to those that have authority and power for restraining the scandalous from the Lords Table, they have discharged their consciences, and may without ⟨p. 541⟩sin communicate though some scandalous members be admitted: for such persons sin in taking the Sacrament, but worthy communicants are not partakers of their sin. But if Church-officers who have a charge and authority from Jesus Christ, to receive none whom they know to be unworthy, profane and scandalous, shall not withstanding admit such persons, they are thereby partakers of their sin, so that their receiving, or rather polluting of the Sacrament, is imputed not to themselves only, but to the Church-officers who had authority to keep them back, and did it not.