A42757:1226
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.
arguing for the right of all visible members of the visible Church to the Sacrament, he saith that nothing but an actual excommunication can suspend them from this their right. 4. Vindic. pag. 17. He saith that a particular examination of the Conscience, and Repentance for sin, is no where required in Scripture of such who did eat the Passover. And herein he distinguisheth the Trespass-offerings, and the Passover, that in bringing a trespass offering men came to sue for pardon, and make atonement, and that therefore confession of sin was necessary. But in the Passover | 4. Ibid. pag. 24. He saith that the Passover was the same in substance with the Eucharist under the Gospel, wherein Christ was spiritually represented and received, as well as in the Lords Supper. But how can this be, if repentance for sin was not necessary in the Passover, and if it was only a commemoration of a by▪ p•st temporal mercy in sparing the first born of the Israelites? ⟨p. 579⟩there was r• atonement &c. but ONLY a commemoration of Gods infinite mercy in passing over the Israelites first born when he sl•w the Egyptians. | 5. Vindic. pag. 18. He saith that immediately before the institution of the Sacrament, Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him, and that Judas was the last man that said Is it I? immediately before the Institution. And pag. 27. he saith. That the other disciples did eat the Sacrament with Judas, after Christ had particularly informed them and Judas himself, that he should betray him. | 5. Yet pag. 25. He reckoneth that very thing to have been after the Institution of the Sacrament: for to that Objection that Judas went out before Supper ended, immediately after he received the sop, whereas Christ did not institute the Sacrament till after Supper: he makes this answer, that the dipping of the sop (at which time Judas said is it I?) was at the common Supper, which (saith he) succeeded the Institution of the Sacrament, so that the Sacrament was instituted after the Paschal, not after the common Supper. And pag. 19. He argues that Judas did receive the Sacrament upon this ground, that all this discourse and the giving of the sop to Judas was after Supper ended; but Christ instituted and distributed the Sacrament (at least the bread) as he sate at meat, as they were eating, before Supper quite ended. ⟨p. 580⟩