A42757:313
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 fourth and fifth Answers which Mr. Prynne gives that there is no such warrant for keeping back scandalous persons from the Lords Table, as there was for keeping back the unclean from the Passover; and that suspension for legal uncleanness: proves not suspension for moral uncleanness, These I say do but petere principium, and therefore to be passed over, because he takes for granted what is in controversy.
The fourth and fifth Answers which Mr. Prynne gives that there is no such warrant for keeping back scandalous persons from the Lords Table, as there was for keeping back the uncleane from the Passeover; and that suspension for legall uncleannesse: proves not suspension for morall uncleannesse, These I say doe but petere principium, and therefore to be passedover, because he takes for granted what is in controversie.
I shall therefore proceed to that which he addeth in the next place, in answer to an argument of mine in my controversial fast Sermon, (as he miscalleth it) The argument as I did propound it, was this. Those scandalous sinners that were not admitted to offer a trespass offering (which was reconciling ordinance) without confession of sin, and Declaration of their Repentance for the same, were much less admitted to the Passover (which was a sealing Ordinance) without confession of known and scandalous sins, if they had committed any such. But circumcised persons, if they were scandalous sinners, were not admitted to offer a trespass offering (which was a reconciling Ordinance) without confession of sin and Declaration of their Repentance for the same Lev. 5. 5. 6. Ergo ⟨p. 99⟩Mr Prynne answereth pag. 17. its a meer non-sequitur. 1. Because contradicted (as he thinks) by 1 Cor. 10. which is a contrarious argument, and I shall answer it in the proper place. 2. He saith that examination of the Conscience, Repentance, and Confession, are no where required of such as did eat the Passover, it being only a commemoration of Gods mercy in passing over the Israelites first borne, when he slew the Egyptians: but there being no remission without confession, it was necessary that those who came to offer a trespass-offering for some particular sins, should confess those very sins, yet not to the Priest, but to God alone.