A42757:992
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.
only upon this suspicion or apprehension, that they are but carnal men, not truly regenerated or sanctified by Gods Spirit (though they can not certainly judge of their present spiritual conditions infallibly known to God alone) be not a very uncharitable arrogant, yea unchristian practice, contrary to our Saviours own immediate example, who at the first institution of this Sacrament admitted Judas to his last Supper, as well as his Disciples, though he certainly knew him to be both a Traitor and a Devil. In which argumentation he himself supposeth that Judas was not notoriously scandalous, nor known to the Disciples, (but to God and Christ alone) to be a Traitor and Devil. For otherwise he ⟨p. 472⟩could not in any reason argue thus against the Independents: because if this supposition be not laid down that Judas was an unregenerate yet not a scandalous person: then the Independents had this obvious answer, that if his Argument prove any thing, it doth conclude the admission not only of unregenerated and unsanctified, but of scandalous persons, to the Sacrament; whereas he brings it to prove against them, that persons not scandalous, though unregenerate, ought not to be refused the Sacrament. And now he brings the same thing against us to prove that scandalous persons ought to be admitted, if not excommunicated, and desirous to receive the Sacrament. He tells us by the way of Judas his thievish, covetous, as well as traitorous disposition John 12. 6. both which did make him scandalous. But he might have observed, that the holy Ghost showeth plainly that in that act Judas was not a scandalous sinner in the esteem of the other Disciples; for his thievish covetous disposition was not known to the Disciples; yea the pretext of his care for the poor was so plausible to them (though abominable to Christ who knew his heart) that it is said, not only of Judas, but of the Disciples (by his instigation) they had indignation at the wasting of that which might have been sold for much and given to the poor, Matth. 26. 8.
onely upon this suspition or apprehension, that they are but carnall men, not truly regenerated or sanctified by Gods Spirit (though they can not certainly judge of their present spirituall conditions infallibly known to God alone) be not a very uncharitable arrogant, yea unchristian practice, contrary to our Saviours owne immediate example, who at the first institution of this Sacrament admitted Iudas to his last Supper, as well as his Disciples, though he certainly knew him to be both a Traytor and a Divell. In which argumentation he himself supposeth that Iudas was not notoriously scandalous, nor knowne to the Disciples, (but to God and Christ alone) to be a Traytor and Divell. For otherwise he