A42757:321
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.
Now here I shall make such animadversions, as shall not ⟨p. 103⟩only enervate the strength which these arguments may seem to have against Church censures: but also afford some strong reasonings against Erastus, from those very grounds rightly apprehended, from which (upon misapprehensions) he disputeth against the excluding of scandalous sinners. First, it is certain that for divers sins against the moral Law, the sinners were appointed not only to bring their Trespass-offerings, but to confess the sin which they had committed, and to declare their repentance for the same, and till this was done, the Trespass-offering was not accepted. Let us but have the like, that is a confession of the sin, and declaration of repentance, and then men shall not be excluded for scandals formerly given. mErastus himself acknowledgeth that in this point of the confession of sin, the analogy must hold betwixt the old and new Testament; only he pleadeth, that the very act, the very desiring of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is really a confession that he is a sinner who desireth it: and that, much more, it may suffice, if sinners being asked by the Minister, confess themselves to be sinners, and that they have not perfectly kept the Commandments of God. But all this, say I, can not satisfy the argument drawn from that confession of sin under the Law. For, 1. It was not a confession ipso facto, by the bringing of the Trespass-offerings, but by word of mouth, and nthus it hath been expounded by the Hebrew Doctors. The owners of sin and Trespass-offerings, when they bring their oblations for their ignorant or for their presumptuous sins, atonement is not made for them by their oblation, until they have made repentance, and confession by word of mouth. 2. It was not a general confession that one is a sinner, and hath not perfectly kept the Commandments of God, (for who did ever refuse to make such a confession, that were in their right wits? that limitation is as good as nothing, when we speak of the suspending of any from the Lords Table.) But it was a confession of the particular individual sin, which had been committed, Levit. 5. 5. And it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing. Mark, in that thing.