A42757:895
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.
I come therefore to the next, which he calls the fourth difference, whether 1 Cor. 5. 11. with such an one no not to eat, be properly meant of excommunication or suspension from the Sacrament. But (whatsoever be properly meant by that phrase) that which his debate driveth at, is, that this verse doth neither prove excommunication nor suspension from the Sacrament so much as by necessary consequence.
But let us see whether his reasons can weaken the proof of Suspension from vers. 11. first he saith there is not one syllable of receiving or eating of the Lords Supper in this Chapter. I answer, the question is neither of syllables nor words but of things, and how will he prove that vers. 8. Let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, &c. is not applicable to the Lords Supper, I say not to it only, yet surely it cannot be excluded, but must needs be comprehended as one part, yea, a principal part of the meaning, the better to answer the Analogy of the passover, (there much insisted upon.) He may be pleased also to remember that he himself pag. 24. proving the passover and the Lords Supper to be the same for the substance, for proof hereof citeth 1 Cor. 5. 7. and that Aretius Theol probl. loc. 80. expoundeth our Feast of the Passover 1 Cor. 5. to be meant of the Lords Supper.
But let us see whether his reasons can weaken the proof of Suspension from vers. 11. first he saith there is not one syllable of receiving or eating of the Lords Supper in this Chapter. I answer, the question is neither of syllables nor words but of things, and how will he prove that vers. 8. Let us keep the feast, not with old leavon, &c. is not applicable to the Lords Supper, I say not to it onely, yet surely it cannot be excluded, but must needs becomprehended as one part, yea, a principall part of the meaning, the better to answer the Analogy of the passeover, (there much insisted upon.) He may be pleased also to remember that he himself pag. 24. proving the passeover and the Lords Supper to be the same for the substance, for proof hereof citeth