A42757:984
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.
I proceed to the second answer. Granting that Judas did receive the Sacrament, that can make nothing for the admission of scandalous sinners whose profaneness and ungodly conversation is known, and maketh their name to stink in the Church. For Judas his wickedness was not public nor known before he had got the sop and gone out, and left the company of Christ and the Apostles. And moreover he who argueth from Christs receiving of Judas to the Sacrament, when though his sin was yet secret, yet Christ knew him to be a devil; to prove that the Eldership may and ought to admit one to the Sacrament, whom they know to be a Judas, a Devil: may as well argue from Christs choosing of Judas to be an Apostle when he knew him to be a Devil, to prove the lawfulness of the Elderships choosing of a Minister whom they know to be a devil. But now for that point of the scandal or secrecy of Judas his sin, let us hear Mr Prynnes reply, pag. 26, 27. He gives it four feet to run upon. But the truth ⟨p. 468⟩is, it hath but two (the same things being twice told) and those how foundered you shall see by and by.
I proceed to the second answer. Granting that Iud•s did receive the Sacrament, that can make nothing for the admission of scandalons sinners whose prophannesse and ungodly conversation is knowne, and maketh their name to stinke in the Church. For Iudas his wickednesse was not publique nor knowne before he had got the sop and gone out, and left the company of Christ and the Apostles. And moreover he who argueth from Christs receiving of Iudas to the Sacrament, when though his sinne was yet secret, yet Christ knew him to be a divell; to prove that the Eldership may and ought to admit one to the Sacrament, whom they know to be a Iudas, a Divell: may as well argue from Christs choosing of Iudas to be an Apostle when he knew him to be a Divell, to prove the lawfulnesse of the Elderships choosing of a Minister whom they know to be a divell. But now for that point of the scandall or secresie of Iudas his sinne, let us heare Mr Prynnes reply, pag. 26, 27. He gives it foure feet to runne upon. But the truth ⟨p. 468⟩is, it hath but two (the same things being twice told) and those how foundered you shall see by and by.