A42757:1003
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 what may be the reason why Mr Prynne is so large upon this point from pag. 28. to 35? I take not upon me to judge de intentione operantis. But the intentio operis is to yield somewhat in lieu of suspension from the Sacrament, which yet shall be no Church censure nor act of jurisdiction, and so to make the discipline of Suspension (yea and Excommunication too) to be of no necessary use in the Church. For if it be sufficient and a full discharge of duty, to admonish unworthy scandalous persons, not to come to the Lords Table, unless they repent and reform, this cuts off the necessity of Censure, whether Suspension or Excommunication. As for that admonition or warning to be given, it is no Church censure, nor act of Jurisdiction, especially when given by the Minister alone; for no Ecclesiastical jurisdiction can be exercised, or Censure inflicted by any one man, how eminent soever in the Church. Yea when it is a Consistorial or Presbyterial Admonition, it is not properly a Censure, but a Degree to Censure. 1. Because Admonition doth not exclude a person from any Church privilege nor from communion in any Ordinance. And how can one be said to be under Church censure, who still enjoyeth all Church privileges? 2. If Consistorial admonition be a binding, where is the loosing of that bond? Every censure consistorially inflicted, must be also consistorially taken ⟨p. 479⟩off, upon repentance appearing in the party. These things I do but touch, that I might make it appear how Mr Prynnes doctrine tendeth to strip Elderships out of all jurisdiction or power of Censures. Now come we to the particulars, wherein I do not find any great matter to insist long upon.
But what may be the reason why Mr Prynne is so large upon this point from pag. 28. to 35? I take not upon me to judge de intentione operantis. But the intentio operis is to yeeld somewhat in lieu of suspension from the Sacrament, which yet shall be no Church censure nor act of jurisdiction, and so to make the discipline of Suspension (yea and Excommunication too) to be of no necessary use in the Church. For if it be sufficient and a full discharge of duty, to admonish unworthy scandalous persons, not to come to the Lords Table, unlesse they repent and reforme, this cuts off the necessity of Censure, whether Suspension or Excommunication. As for that admonition or warning to be given, it is no Church censure, nor act of Jurisdiction, especially when given by the Minister alone; for no Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction can be excercised, or Censure inflicted by any one man, how eminent soever in the Church. Yea when it is a Consistoriall or Presbyteriall Admonition, it is not properly a Censure, but a Degree to Censure. 1. Because Admonition doth not exclude a person from any Church priviledge nor from communion in any Ordinance. And how can one be said to be under Church censure, who still enjoyeth all Church priviledges? 2. If Consistoriall admonition be a binding, where is the loosing of that bond? Every censure consistorially inflicted, must be also consistorially taken