A42757:429
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 second cause was a mis-accident from the Mid-wife, who did half stifle it in the birth, from which did accrue a most dangerous infirmity, of which it could never recover. bRead the preface of Erastus before the Confirmation of his ⟨p. 165⟩Theses; also the close of his sixth Book; put these together, you will find him yield, that all ought not to be admitted promiscuously to the Sacrament, but that such admission be according to the custom and rule observed in the Church of Heidelberg (and what that was, you may find in the Heidelberg Catechism Quaest. 82. & 87. namely a suspension of profane scandalous persons from the Sacrament, and in case of their obstinacy and continuing in their offences, an excommunicating of them.) He yields also that these seven sorts of persons ought not to be esteemed as members of the Church, and that if any such be found in the visible Church, they ought to be cast out. 1. Idolaters. 2. Apostates. 3. Such as do not understand the true Doctrine, that is, Ignorant Persons. 4. Such as do not approve and embrace the true Doctrine, that is, Heretics and Sectaries. 5. Such as desire to receive the Sacrament otherwise then in the right manner, and according to Christs Institution. 6. Such as defend or justify their wickedness. 7. Such as do not confess and acknowledge their sins, and profess sorrow and repentance for them, and a hatred or detestation of them. And thus you see as Erastianism pleadeth for no favour to Sectaries, or whosoever dissent in doctrine, or whose Tenets concerning Christs Institution, or manner of Administration, are contrary to that which is received in the Church where they live: (for cit is content that all such, were they never so peaceable and godly, be cast out of the Church by excommunication. All the favour and forbearance which it pleadeth for, is to the loose and profane) So neither doth it altogether exempt the profane, but such only as do neither deny nor defend their wickedness, but confess their sins, and profess sorrow for them. Let the Erastians of this time observe what their great Master hath yielded touching the Ecclesiastical Censure of profane ones. Which though it is not satisfactory to us, for reasons elsewhere given, yet it can be as little satisfactory to them.
The second cause was a mis-accident from the Mid-wife, who did half stisle it in the birth, from which did accrue a most dangerous infirmity, of which it could never recover.