A42757:307
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. If it was so, doth not this make as much against himself as against us, unless he will say, that the Analogy must hold so far, that all Baptized persons whatsoever, none excepted (if it be not in cases of necessity or disability) how scandalous, impenitent, and obstinate soever they be, ought to be admitted to the Lords Table? so there shall be no excommunication at all (which yet himself granteth) for if any Baptized person, (though such as Master Prynne himself would have to be excommunicated) shall be shut out from the Church and from all public Ordinances, and so from the Lords Supper, because of his obstinacy and continuance in some foul scandal, after previous admonitions, in so doing, we shall, by his principles, do contrary to the Law of the passover, in the point of Analogy. 2. The Texts cited by him, prove that men were debarred for legal uncleanness, but there is not one of them which will prove that men were debarred only for legal uncleanness, and no man for moral uncleanness. Yea, one of those Texts. Ezra. 6. 21. tells us that those who were admitted to the passover, were such as had separated themselves from the filthiness of the heathen of the Land, to seek the Lord God of Israel. 3. That moral uncleanness, I mean known profaneness or scandalous sins, did render men uncapable of eating the passover I shall prove anon by divers arguments, unto which I remit Master Prynne.
Answ. 1. If it was so, doth not this make as much against himselfe as against us, unlesse he will say, that the Analogy must hold so farre, that all Baptized persons whatsoever, none excepted (if it be not in cases of necessity or disability) how scand•lous, impenitent, and obstinate soever they be, ought to be admitted to the Lords Table? so there shall be no excommunication at all (which yet himselfe granteth) for if any Baptized person, (though such as Master Prynne himselfe would have to be excommunicated) shall be shut out from the Church and from all publike Ordinances, and so from the Lords Supper, because of his obstinacy and continuance in some foule scandall, after previous admonitions, in so doing, we shall, by his principles, doe contrary to the Law of the passeover, in the point of Analogy. 2. The Texts cited by him, prove that men were debarred for legall uncleannesse, but there is not one of them which will prove that men were debarred onely for legall uncleannesse, and no man for morall uncleannesse. Yea, one of those Texts.