A42757:430
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.
But whereas Erastus together with those his Concessions (that he may seem to have said somewhat) falls a quarrelling with Presbyteries for presuming to judge of the sincerity of that repentance ⟨p. 166⟩professed by a scandalous sinner, and their not resting satisfied with a mans own profession of his repentance. If his followers will now be pleased to reduce the controversy within that narrow circle, Whether a Presbytery may excommunicate from the Church, or at least suspend from the Sacrament, any Church-member, as an impenitent scandalous sinner, who yet doth not defend nor deny his sin by which he hath given scandal, but confesseth it, and professeth sincere and hearty repentance for it: (which is the point that Erasius is fain to hold at in the issue) Then I hope we shall be quickly agreed, and the controversy buried; for we do rest satisfied with the offender his confession of his sin, and profession of his repentance, unless his own known words or actions give the lye to his profession of repentance; that is, if he be known to justify and defend his sin in his ordinary discourse, or to continue in the practice of the sin, which he professeth to the Presbytery he repents of; if these or such like sure signs of his impenitency be known, must the Presbytery notwithstanding rest satisfied with his verbal profession of repentance? All that fear God (I think) would cry shame, shame, upon such an assertion. And moreover, let us take it in the case of an Idolater, Heretic, Apostate (for Erastus is content that such be excluded from the Sacrament.) Suppose such a one doth confess his sin, and professeth repentance, in the mean while is known to be a writer or spreader of books in defence of that Idolatry or Heresy, or to be a persuader and enticer of others secretly to that way, or if there be any other known infallible sign of his impenitency, must his verbal profession to the Presbytery in such cases be trusted and taken as satisfactory? I am confident Erastus himself would not have said so. Wherefore as in the case of an Heretic, so in the case of a profane person, or one of a scandalous conversation, there is a necessity that the Presbytery examine the real signs of repentance, and the offenders verbal profession is not all.
But whereas Erastus together with those his Concessions (that hee may seem to have said somewhat) falls a quarrelling with Presbyteries for presuming to judge of the sincerity of that repentance ⟨p. 166⟩