A42757:320
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.
Among Erastus khis arguments against Excommunication, three of them, namely, the first, the seventh, and the sixteenth, are all one for the substance, the strength of them lying in this supposition, that the Scripture doth not restrain, nor keep off any from the Sacrifices nor any other Sacraments (as he speaketh) of the old Testament, because of a wicked or scandalous conversation: but contrariwise commandeth that all the males both Jews and foreigners, being circumcised, and not being legally unclean, nor in a journey, should compear thrice in the year before the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the three solemn feasts, of the Passover, Weeks, and Tabernacles. Now (saith he) Christ hath not in this thing destroyed nor altered the Law of Moses, nor hath he made the rule straiter now then it was then: but as then all circumcised, so now all baptized persons must be acknowledged for Church members, having a right to partake of Church privileges: and as then there was no discipline or punishment for the flagitious and wicked, except by the hand of the Magistrate; so ought it to be in like manner in the Christian Church. This argument he trusteth very much unto. And because it is the common opinion, that the excluding and separating of the unclean under the Law, did signify the excluding of scandalous sinners from communion with the Church, he spendeth la long chapter against that opinion, and laboureth to make it appear that the legal uncleanness did signify the corruption of our nature and unbelief; that exclusion from the Temple did signify exclusion from the heavenly Paradise; and that the cleansing and reception into the Temple, did typify the cleansing of our souls, and the turning of us to God by the blood of Jesus Christ.
AMong Erastus khis arguments against Excommunication, three of them, namely, the first, the seventh, and the sixteenth, are all one for the substance, the strength of them lying in this supposition, that the Scripture doth not restraine, nor keep off any from the Sacrifices nor any other Sacraments (as he speaketh) of the old Testament, because of a wicked or scandalous conversation: but contrariwise commandeth that all the males both Jewes and forreiners, being circumcised, and not being legally uncleane, nor in a journey, should compear thrice in the yeere before the Lord at Ierusalem, to keepe the three solemn feasts, of the Passeover, Weeks, and Tabernacles. Now (saith he) Christ hath not in this thing destroyed nor altered the Law of Moses, nor hath he made the rule straiter now then it was then: but as then all circumcised, so now all baptized persons must be acknowledged for Church members, having a right to partake of Church priviledges: and as then there was no discipline or punishment for the flagitious and wicked, except by the hand of the Magistrate; so ought it to be in like manner in the Christian Church. This argument he trusteth very much unto. And because it is the common opinion, that the excluding and separating of the uncleane under the Law, did signifie the excluding of scandalous sinners from communion with the Church, he spendeth