A42757:905
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.
If his next reason help him not, surely his sun will go down at noon, He citeth some parallel Texts, which interpret not to eat here, of avoiding them, turning away from and rejecting them, &c. which are no judicial acts of the Presbytery, but moral or prudential acts of particular Christians. Answ. There is a judicial Presbyterial act, (as very many conceive) in some of those parallel Texts cited by him 2 Thess. 3. 14. Tit. 3. 10. and so his proof is no less questionable, then the thing he would prove by it. And here the Apostle intendeth more then a voluntary prudential withdrawing of particular Christians, even a judicial act, in the very next words, What have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? where he gives the reason of what he had said before, that he had written to them not to be mixed with scandalous brethren, permitting them to keep company with Pagans though guilty of the same faults. The reason, because Church censures ⟨p. 429⟩are only for those that are Church-members not for aliens.
If his next reason help him not, surely his sun will go down at noon, He citeth some paralell Texts, which interpret not to eat here, of avoiding them, turning away from and rejecting them, &c. which are no judiciall acts of the Presbytery, but morall or prudentiall acts of particular Christians. Answ. There is a judiciall Presbyteriall act, (as very many conceive) in some of those paralell Texts cited by him 2 Thess. 3. 14. Tit. 3. 10. and so his proof is no lesse questionable, then the thing he would prove by it. And here the Apostle intendeth more then a voluntary prudentiall withdrawing of particular Christians, even a judiciall act, in the very next words, What have I to doe to judge them also that are without? doe not ye judge them that are within? where he gives the reason of what he had said before, that he had written to them not to be mixed with scandalous brethren, permitting them to keep company with Pagans though guity of the same faults. The reason, because Churchcensures ⟨p. 429⟩