A42757:1199
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.
Dionysius Areopagita (whom I do not take to be that Areopagite converted by Paul▪ Act. 17. But certainly he is an Ancient Writer as is manifest by the Scholia upon him, written by Maximus who flourished about the year 657. He is also cited by the sixth general Council, and by some ancient writers) de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 3. part. 3. Sect. 6. 7. having spoken of the exclusion of the Catechumens, Energumens, and Penitents from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, though all these heard the word read and preached, he addeth that unclean, carnal, profane persons in whom Satan reigneth by sin, are worse, and ought much less to be admitted to the Sacrament, then those who were bodily possessed of the devil. These therefore (unclean and profane persons) as the first, and much rather then those (Energumens) let them be suspended or sequestrate by the judicial or discriminating voice of the Minister: for it is not permitted unto them to partake of any other holy thing, but the Ministry of the Word, by which they may be converted. For if this heavenly celebration of the divine Mysteries, refuse or repel, even penitents themselves (although they were sometime partakers thereof) [Greek or Hebrew], not admitting him who is not altogether most holy, &c. (for that most pure voice doth also restrain those who cannot be joined and knit together with such as do worthily communicate in those divine mysteries) surely the multitude of those in whom vile lusts and passions do reign, is much more profane, and hath much less to do with the fight and communion of ⟨p. 566⟩these holy things. The old Scholiast Maximus upon that place saith thus, Note that he reckoneth together with the Energumens those that continue without repentance in the allurements of bodily pleasures, as fornicators, lovers and frequenters of unlawful plays, such as the divine Apostle having mentioned, doth subjoin with such a one no not to eat. Where Mr. Prynn may also note by the way how anciently 1 Cor. 5. 11. was applied, so as might furnish an argument against the admission of scandalous persons to the Sacrament. Let us also hear the Paraphrast Pachimeres upon the place.
Dionysius Areopagita (whom I do not take to be that Areopagite converted by Paul▪