A42757:1168
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.
The ninth Argument which alone may conclude the point, shall be taken from Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine. If the Sacrament be a holy thing, and if profane scandalous impenitent sinners be dogs and swine, then to give the Sacrament to such, is to profane and pollute the Sacrament, and indeed no better but worse then to give pearls to swine. Mr. Prynns▪ reply vindic. pag. 39. doth not take off this Argument. For without any proof, he restricteth to certain particulars that which the Text saith generally both of the things and of the persons. First for the things, He saith the Text is principally intended of not preaching the Gospel to such, so that we must seclude them from the Word as well as from the Sacrament. But I ask, is it meant only of the Word? He hath not said so, nor will (I think) say so. Erastus himself pag. 207. confesseth it is meant also of the Sacraments. The Text saith not, the holy thing, and the pearl, but holy things, pearls. It must therefore be understood respective. Some are so vile, and so abominably prodigiously profane, blasphemous, mockers, persecutors, that I ought not to preach to such, but to turn away from them to others, according to Christs direction, and the Apostles example. Others are such as I may preach unto, yet ought not to pray or give thanks with them, nor to admonish them (and much less give them the Sacrament) Others I may admonish and pray with them, yet ought not to give them the Sacrament. And all these by reason of that rule, Give not that which is holy to dogs, &c. So that we are not bound up by this Text, either to seclude men from the Word, or otherwise from no holy: thing. Next, The Argument holds à fortiori, from the Word to the Sacrament. For saith iPareus. If Christ said this of the Word, which is common to the converted and to the unconverted, how much more must it be said of the Sacraments, which are instituted only for such as are converted.
The ninth Argument which alone may conclude the point, shall be taken from Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine. If the Sacrament be a holy thing, and if prophane scandalous impenitent sinners be dogs and swyne, then to give the Sacrament to such, is to prophane and pollute the Sacrament, and indeed no better but worse then to give pearls to swine. Mr. Prynns reply vindic. pag. 39. doth not take off this Argument. For without any proof, he restricteth to certain particulars that which the Text saith generally both of the things and of the persons. First for the things, He saith the Text is principally intended of not preaching the Gospel to such, so that we must seclude them from the Word as well as from the Sacrament. But I ask, is it meant onely of the Word? He hath not said so, nor will (I think) say so. Erastus himself pag. 207. confesseth it is meant also of the Sacraments. The Text saith not, the holy thing, and the pearl, but holy things, pearls. It must therefore be understood respective. Some are so vile, and so abominably prodigiously prophane, blaspheous, mockers, persecuters, that I ought not to preach to such, but to turn away from them to others, according to Christs direction, and the Apostles example. Others are such as I may preach unto, yet ought not to pray or give thanks with them, nor to admonish them (and much lesse give them the Sacrament) Others I may admonish and pray with them, yet ought not to give them the Sacrament. And all these by reason of that rule, Give not that which is holy to dogs, &c. So that we are not bound up by this Text, either to seclude men from the Word, or otherwise from no holy: thing. Next, The Argument holds à fortiori, from the Word to the Sacrament. For saith