A42757:904
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.
(there being less latitude, & the rule much stricter in this Communion than in private civill fellowship,) & if we be forbidden to do so much as to eat with such a one at a common meal, quanto magis convictu sacro saith Pareus upon the place, how much more is the Church forbidden to receive him to the Lords Table? for if the end of avoiding private company with such a one be to make him ashamed, as the Erastians themselves do confess from 2 Thes. 3. 14. were it not contrary to that end to countenance and embolden him by receiving him to public Church communion at the Lords Table? Surely the refusing of the private could not so much put him to shame, as the admission to the public should put respects upon him. Wherefore 1 Cor. 5. 11. as it is interpreted by Master Prynne proveth by a necessary consequence the Suspension from the Sacrament of a scandalous Church-Member not excommunicated.
(there being lesse latitude, & the rule much stricter in this Communion than in private civill fellowship,) & if we be forbidden to do so much as to eat with such a one at a common meal, quanto magis convictu sacro saith Pareus upon the place, how much more is the Church forbidden to receive him to the Lords Table? for if the end of avoiding private company with such a one be to make him ashamed, as the Erastians themselves doe confesse from 2 Thes. 3. 14. were it not contrary to that end to countenance and embolden him by receiving him to publike Church communion at the Lords Table? Surely the refusing of the private could not so much put him to shame, as the admission to the publike should put respects upon him. Wherefore 1 Cor. 5. 11. as it is interpreted by Master Prynne proveth by a necessary consequence the Suspension from the Sacrament of a scandalous Church-Member not excommunicated.