A42757:746
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, the Author of those questions maketh a parallel between that power of censures now desired to be settled in Presbyteries, and the Prelatical tyranny, as if this were the very power which heretofore was declaimed against in, denied to, and quite taken away from the Prelates. Yea in the close he makes this power now desired to be settled in Presbyteries, to be such as our very Lordly Prelates never durst to claim. Yet Ecclesiae Anglicanae politeia in tabulas digesta authore Richardo Cousin Tab. 5. tells me that the Episcopal Jurisdiction did exercise it self in these censures, which were common both to Lay-men and Clergy-men (as they were called.) 1. Interdictio divinorum. 2. Monitio. 3. Suspensio vel ab ingressu Ecclesiae, vel a perceptione Sacramentorum. 4. Excommunicatio. 5. Anathematisinius, &c. Nevertheless there is a truth too in that which Mr Prynne saith. I confess the Prelates never durst desire that which this learned and pious Assembly hath desired in this particular. He hath said it. The Prelates never durst indeed take upon them to suspend all scandalous persons from the Sacrament; for if they had, it had been said unto most of them, Physician cure thy self, besides the losing of many of their party. And moreover the very Lordly Prelates never durst make themselves to be but members of Presbyteries, nor to be subject to the admonitions and censures of their brethren, which every Minister now must do. The Lordly Prelate did (contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ) make himself Pastor of many Congregations, even of his whole Diocese, and did assume sole and whole power of ⟨p. 542⟩Government and Church censures to himself, and his underling officers which were to execute the same in his name. And as the appropriating of Jurisdiction to the Lordly Prelate, so the manner and kind of his Government, and his proceedings in Ecclesiastical censures, came neither from Christ nor from the purest antiquity, but from the Popes Canon Law. What then hath Presbytery to do with Prelacy? as much as light with darkness, or righteousness with unrighteousness. He that would see more of the differences between Presbyterial and prelatical Government, let him read a Book Printed in the Prelates times, entitled The Pastor and the Prelate. And the clear Antithesis between Presbytery and Prelacy Printed at London anno. 1644.
Sixthly, the Author of those questions maketh a parallel between that power of censures now desired to be setled in Presbyteries, and the Prelaticall tyranny, as if this were the very power which heretofore was declaimed against in, denied to, and quite taken away from the Prelates. Yea in the close he makes this power now desired to be setled in Presbyteries, to be such as our very Lordly Prelates never durst to claime. Yet Ecclesiae Anglicanae politeia in tabulas digesta authore Richardo Cousin Tab. 5. tels me that the Episcopall Jurisdiction did exercise it selfe in these censures, which were common both to Lay-men and Clergy-men (as they were called.) 1. Interdictio divinorum. 2. Monitio. 3. Suspensio vel ab ingressu Ecclesiae, vel a perceptione Sacramentorum. 4. Excommunicatio. 5. Anathematisinius, &c. Neverthelesse there is a truth too in that which Mr Prynne saith. I confesse the Prelates never durst desire that which this learned and pious Assembly hath desired in this particular. He hath said it. The Prelats never durst indeed take upon them to suspend all scandalous persons from the Sacrament; for if they had, it had been said unto most of them, Physitian cure thy selfe, besides the losing of many of their party. And moreover the very Lordly Prelates never durst make themselves to be but members of Presbyteries, nor to be subject to the admonitions and censures of their brethren, which every Minister now must doe. The Lordly Prelate did (contrary to the institution of Jesus Christ) make himselfe Pastor of many Congregations, even of his whole Diocesse, and did assume sole and whole power of