A42757:1192
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.
Secondly, The 61. Canon of Basil to Amphilochius speaketh thus. He that hath stolen, if repenting of his own accord he accuse himself, shall be for a year restrained from the Communion of the holy Mysteries only. But if he be convict, the space of two years shall be divided to him unto substration and consistency: then let him be thought worthy of the Communion. Will any man imagine that a penitent thief accusing himself, was excommunicated? It is more then manifest that here was a suspension of an offender not excommunicated. For as soon as the offence was known by the offenders accusing of himself, he was suspended from the Sacrament alone for a year, and then admitted to the Sacrament. Yea he that was convict of theft, was not by this Canon excommunicated, nor yet put either to the [Greek or Hebrew], or to the [Greek or Hebrew], but only to the third and fourth degrees.
Secondly, The 61. Canon of Basil to Amphilochius speaketh thus. He that hath stolen, if repenting of his own accord he accuse himself, shall be for a year restrained from the Communion of the holy Mysteries onely. But if he be convict, the space of two yeers shall be divided to him unto substration and consistency: then let him be thought worthy of the Communion. Will any man imagine that a penitent theef accusing himself, was excommunicated? It is more then manifest that here was a suspension of an offender not excommunicated. For assoon as the offence was known by the offenders accusing of himself, he was suspended from the Sacrament alone for a year, and then admitted to the Sacrament. Yea he that was convict of theft, was not by this Canon excommunicated, nor yet put either to the 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, or to the 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, but onely to the third and fourth degrees.
Thirdly, By the 13th. Canon of Basil to Amphilochius, he that had killed another though in a lawful war, was (for the greater reverence to the Sacrament) suspended for three years; and by the 55. Canon, he also that killed a Robber was suspended from the Sacrament. I do not justify these Canons, but only I cite them to prove, that by the Ancient Discipline Persons not excommunicated were suspended from the Sacrament: for no man can imagine that a Soldier shedding blood in a lawful