A42757:689
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 10: Some Objections m•de against Ecclesiastical Government a•d Discipline answered.
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.
7. Object. But Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? if the power of Government and censures be in the hands of Church-officers, how shall they be censurable and punishable for their own offences? ⟨p. 314⟩How shall the Censurers themselves be censured? This objection I find in the eight Epistle of Dionysius Areopagita (or who ever he was that wrote under that name) It was made by one D•mophilus, What then say you, must not the profane Priests, or such as are convicted to have done somewhat amiss be corrected? and shall it be lawful to them alone, while they glory in the Law, to dishonour God by breaking of the Law? A little after, this direct answer is made to the objection. But if perhaps any among these err from that which it becometh him to do, [Greek or Hebrew], let him be corrected by the Saints of his own order, and so order shall not be intermixed with order, but each one shall be exercised in his own order and administration. As the faults of Church-officers deserve the greatest censures, so in all the Reformed Churches, where the free exercise and administration of Church-discipline is received, there is greatest severity of Church-discipline against Church-officers, and especially against Ministers of the Word, when any such are upon just proof convict of scandal. It is too much diffidence (and groundless, I dare say) to apprehend that Ministers who have taken upon them the bond of such a Covenant, and joined in such a Reformation, will yet be ready to connive at any scandalous person of their own coat. And if a Classis should happen to commit such an error, yet there can be no such fear in this particular from a Provincial or National Assembly, which in a well Reformed Church, (as they are constituted of choice, able, and godly, both Ministers and others assembled from diverse quarters, so) use to correct (not to confirm) the maladministration in inferior Ecclesiastical Courts. I speak here of the Ecclesiastical offences of Church-officers: their other offences belonging wholly to the Civil cognizance and Jurisdiction.
7. Object. But Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? if the power of Government and censures be in the hands of Church-officers, how shall they be censurable and punishable for their owne offences? ⟨p. 314⟩How shall the Censurers themselves be censured? This objection I find in the eight Epistle of Dionysius Areopagita (or who ever he was that wrote under that name) It was made by one Dmophilus, What then say you, must not the prophane Priests, or such as are convicted to have done somewhat amisse be corrected? and shall it be lawful to them alone, while they glory in the Law, to dishonour God by breaking of the Law? A little after, this direct answer is made to the objection. But if perhaps any among these erre from that which it becommeth him to do, , let him be corrected by the Saints of his owne order, and so order shall not be intermixed with order, but each one shall be exercised in his owne order and administration. As the faults of Church-officers deserve the greatest censures, so in all the Reformed Churches, where the free exercise and administration of Church-discipline is received, there is greatest severity of Church-discipline against Church-officers, and especially against Ministers of the Word, when any such are upon just proof convict of scandal. It is too much diffidence (and groundlesse, I dare say) to apprehend that Ministers who have taken upon them the bond of such a Covenant, and joyned in such a Reformation, will yet be ready to connive at any scandalous person of their owne coat. And if a Classis should happen to commit such an error, yet there can be no such fear in this particular from a Provinciall or National Assembly, which in a well Reformed Church, (as they are constituted of choice, able, and godly, both Ministers and others assembled from diverse quarters, so) use to correct (not to confirme) the maladministration in inferior Ecclesiastical Courts. I speak here of the Ecclesiastical offences of Church-officers: their other offences belonging wholy to the Civil cognizance and Jurisdiction.