A42757:901
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.
4 To say that all who were visible members of the Church of Corinth were admitted, and none excluded, and to say it with a certainly is to make too bold with Scripture. And the contrary will sooner be proved from 1 Cor. 10. 21. ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils. So much for his first exception.
4 To say that all who were visible members of the Church of Corinth were admitted, and none excluded, and to say it with a certainly is to make too bold with Scripture. And the contrary will sooner be proved from 1 Cor. 10. 21. ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devills: ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devills. So much for his first exception.
His second is concerning persons (but not to the purpose) that if we look upon the catalogue of those with whom we are forbidden to eat, not only shall most of the Anabaptisticall and Independent Congregations, but too many Presbyterian ministers and Elders, who are most forward to excommunicate others for Idolatry, Fornication, Drunkenness, must first be excommunicated themselves for their own covetousness. Answ. Let it light where it may, Ministers do not stand nor fall to his Judgement▪ but where just proof can fasten either covetousness or any other scandalous sin upon them, its all the reason ⟨p. 427⟩in the world they be censured with the first. If I had fallen upon this passage of his book without knowing the author, I had presently imagined it to be a piece from Oxford, it calls to my thoughts so many expressions in Pamphlets from thence, aspersing London and Westminster, as more full of covetousness, lying, hypocrisy, then Oxford of bloody Oaths, Masses and the like.