A42757:1206
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.
and sooner suffer my blood to be poured out, than give the Lords blood unworthily, and contrary to my duty ([Greek or Hebrew]) to such as are horribly scandalous. He concludeth that this discipline is medicinal and profitable in the Church, and that the keeping back of the scandalous, is the way to make many worthy Communicants.
and sooner suffer my blood to be poured out, than give the Lords blood unworthily, and contrary to my duty (〈non-Latin alphabet〉) to such as are horribly scandalous. He concludeth that this discipline is medicinal and profitable in the Church, and that the keeping back of the scandalous, is the way to make many worthy Communicants.
Can any man imagine that all such unworthy persons were excommunicate and wholly cast out of the Church? Do not all Chrysostoms Arguments militate against the admission of any scandalous and unworthy person known to be such? saith he not, that all simply or without distinction whom they perceived to come unworthily were to be put back? If only excommunicate persons were kept back from the Sacrament, what needed all this exhortation to those that did administer the Sacrament ⟨p. 569⟩to be so careful, cautious, and heedful, whom they would admit? And if none were to be excluded from the Sacrament but those that were branded with the public infamy of excommunication, what needed this objection to be moved, how shall I know such?
Can any man imagine that all such unworthy persons were excommunicate and wholy cast out of the Church? Do not all Chrysostomes Arguments militate against the admission of any scandalous and unworthy person known to be such? saith he not, that all simply or without distinction whom they perceived to come unworthily were to be put back? If onely excommunicate persons were kept back from the Sacrament, what needed all this exhortation to those that did administer the Sacrament ⟨p. 569⟩