A42757:749
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.
8. The third Quaere, as also the conclusion of all, runneth upon a great mistake, by reason of the confounding of things which are of a different nature. There is great weigh-laid upon this, that there is as much sin & danger to a mans soul in his unworthy and unprofitable hearing of the word, as in his unworthy receiving of the Sacrament; and therefore Ministers may as well refuse to Preach unto people, whom they deem unprofitable hearers, as refuse to give them the Sacrament, because they judge them unmeet to receive it. Whether the sin of unworthy hearing be as great as the sin of unworthy receiving the Sacrament, I will not now debate. The dReply which was made to his Queries by another, hath said enough to that point. But that which I intend in this place, is (for clearing a main Principle which we go upon) to distinguish these two things. There are some Ordinances appointed for the Conversion of Sinners. There are other Ordinances appointed for the Communion of Saints. The Preaching of the word and the hearing thereof, though it hath no small influence into the Communion of Saints, yet it is also appointed for converting and bringing in Sinners who have no part in the Communion of Saints. The Sacrament was not appointed for the Conversion of Sinners, but is peculiar to the Communion of Saints. The Apostles Preached to the unbelieving Jews in the Temple and Synagogues Act. 2. 46. Act. 3. 11. 12. Act. 5. 12. 42. Act. 9. 20. 22. 23. But it is only said of those that gladly received the word, they continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers. Act. 2. 42. The Apostles Preached also to many Heathens and Idolaters, but ⟨p. 544⟩they admitted none to the Sacraments till they saw such evidences as might persuade them in the judgement of charity that they were such as might be admitted. They that are suspended from the Sacrament, yea they that are excommunicate, are admitted to the hearing of the word for their conversion, as the unbelieving Jews and Heathens were. Can any allege the like reason for admitting them to the Sacrament? Erastus himself