A42757:912
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.
Difficilis, facilis, jucundus, acerbus es idem; Nec tecum possum vivere, nec sine te.
But to treat of that case of conscience in general is not hujus loci; for this Text speaks of not eating with an excommunicate person. Neither yet shall I need here to examine Mr Prynnes six considerations p. 12, 13, 14. which he wisheth to be pondered by Separatists and Independents misled, (as he thinks) by our fallacious argument: I hope he doth not mistake our Question so far as to comprehend the sinfulness of any private Christian his receiving of the Sacrament, when and where some scandalous sinners are admitted to the Sacrament, that private Christian not being accessary to the sin of the Minister and Eldership in admitting those scandalous sinners.
But to treat of that case of conscience in generall is not hujus loci; for this Text speaks of not eating with an excommunicate person. Neither yet shall I need here to examine Mr Prynnes six considerations p. 12, 13, 14. which he wisheth to be pondered by Separatists and Independents misled, (as he thinks) by our fallacious argument: I hope he doth not mistake our Question so farre as to comprehend the sinfulnesse of any private Christian his receiving of the Sacrament, when and where some scandalous sinners are admitted to the Sacrament, that private Christian not being accessary to the sinne of the Minister and Eldership in admitting those scandalous sinners.