A42757:576
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.
Sixthly, I shall shut up this Argumentation with a convincing dilemma. The Assemblies of Church-officers being to exercise discipline, and censure offences (which is supposed and must be granted in regard of the Ordinances of Parliament) either they have power to do this Jure proprio, and virtute officii: or only Jure devoluto, and virtute delegationis, such authority being derived from the magistrate; If the former; I have what I would; If the latter, then it followeth, 1. That ⟨p. 251⟩where Presbyteries and Synods do exercise spiritual Jurisdiction, not by any power derived from, or dependant upon the civil Magistrate, but in the name and authority of Jesus Christ, and by the power received from him, as in Scotland, France, the Low-Countries, &c. there all Ecclesiastical censures, such as deposition of Ministers, and Excommunication of scandalous and obstinate persons. have been, are, and shall be void, null, and of no effect. Even as when the Prelatical party did hold, that the power of ordination and jurisdiction pertaineth only to Prelates, or such as are delegate with commission and authority from them: thereupon they were so put to it by the Arguments of the Anti-Episcopal party, that they were forced to say, that Presbyters ordained by Presbyters in other Reformed Churches, are no Presbyters, and their excommunication was no excommunication. 2. It will follow, that the Magistrate himself may excommunicate, for nemo potest aliis delegare plus juris quam ipse habet; No man can give from him by delegation or deputation to another, that right or power which he himself hath not. 3. If the power of excommunication come by delegation from the Magistrate, either the Magistrate must in conscience give this power to Church-officers only, or he is free and may without sin give this power to others; If the former, what can bind up the Magistrates conscience, or astrict the thing to Church-Officers, except it be Gods ordinance that they only do it?
Sixthly, I shall shut up this Argumentation with a convincing dilemma. The Assemblies of Church-officers being to exercise discipline, and censure offences (which is supposed and must be granted in regard of the Ordinances of Parliament) either they have power to do this Iure proprio, and virtute officii: or onely Iure devoluto, and virtute delegationis, such authority being derived from the magistrate; If the former; I have what I would; If the latter, then it followeth, 1. That ⟨p. 251⟩