A42757:554
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
Book 2 › Chapter 7: Arguments for the Negative of that Question formerly propounded.
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.
So that to baptize one in or unto the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, is properly meant both of sealing the parties right and title to the enjoyment of God himself, as their God by covenant, and their interest in the love of God, the grace of Christ, and the communion of the holy Ghost; and of dedicating ⟨p. 239⟩the party to the knowledge, profession, saith, love, and obedience of God, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost.
I return, The next branch of my Argument was that we excommunicate in the name of Christ 1 Cor. 5 5. Mr. Hussey pag. 22. saith I make great hast here, deliver to Satan saith he is not to excommunicate, &c. But grant that it were excommunication, &c. the decree was Pauls, and not the Corinthians. What is meant by delivering to Satan, belongs to another debate. Call it an Apostolical act, or call it an Ecclesiastical act, or both, yet it was done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; the like whereof we find not in Scripture of any act of the civil Magistrate. Why doth he not attend to the drift of the Argument? And as to his exceptions uthey are no other then Prelates, Papists, and Socinians have made before him, and which are answered long ago. That the Apostle commandeth to excommunicate the incestuous man, is acknowledged by Mr. Prynne. That he who is excommunicated may be truly said to be delivered to Satan, is undeniable; for he that is cast out of the Church, whose sins are retained, on whom the Kingdom of heaven is shut and locked, whom neither Christ nor his Church doth own, is delivered to Satan, who reigns without the Church. That this censure or punishment of excommunication was a Church act, and not an Apostolical act only, may thus appear. 1. The Apostle blameth the Corinthians, that it was not sooner done; he would not have blamed them, that a miracle was not wrought. 2. He writeth to them, to do it when they were gathered together, not to declare or witness what the Apostle had done, but to join with him in the authoritative doing of it, vers. 4. 5. again he saith to them vers. 7. Purge out therefore the old leaven. vers. 12. Do not ye judge them that are within? vers. 13. Put away from among your selves that wicked person. 3. It was a censure inflicted by many,