A42757:909
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.
His third condition (let it be remembered he saith, if either of these three conditions fail, the argument is inconsequent) is, that it must be within the compass of the same power. If it be so, how shall that hold universally true? H•w much better is it to get wisdom then Gold? and to get understanding rather to be chosen then Silver? By Mr Prynnes rule it must only hold true in this case, when it falls within the compass of the same power to get both Wisdom and Gold? However if he had apprehended out argument aright, he had perceived that the Jesser thing, and the greater thing are both within the compass of the same power. The Church of Corinth ought not to eat with such a one at common Tables: therefore not at the Lords Table. For this refusing to eat with such a one at common Tables, was by virtue of a judicial Ecclesiastical sentence passed against the scandalous person. So that when Mr Prynne saith We have free power not to eat Bread with those at our own Tables, with whom we have no power or liberty left us by Christ, to refuse to eat with them at the Lords Table, and thereupon supposeth that our argumentation from that Text is one principal cause and prop of Independency, yea of separation, not only from Sacraments, but from Churches: he doth altogether misapprehend the business. For 1. Separation from Churches is properly a renouncing of membership as unlawful: our argument concerneth the unlawfulness of a particular act, not of a membership in such a Church. 2. The causes and motives of separation suppose either an unlawful constitution of Churches, or an unlawful government of Churches, or both, so far, that they who separate hold it unlawful to continue their membership in Churches so constituted and governed, or so much as to communicate and partake in the Sacrament with such Churches, though they know no scandalous person admitted to the Sacrament. 3. The great mistake lieth in this, that our present controversy is apprehended to be whether every particular Christian hath power or liberty from Christ to withdraw from the Sacrament, because of the admission of a scandalous person. Whereas our ⟨p. 431⟩Question is only of the Churches power to suspend a scandalous person from the Sacrament, and when the Apostle vers. 9. 10, 11.
His third condition (let it be remembred he saith, if either of these three conditions faile, the argument is inconseqent) is, that it must be within the compasse of the same power. If it be so, how shall that hold universally true? Hw much better is it to get wisdome then Gold? and to get understanding rather to be chosen then Silver? By Mr Prynnes rule it must onely hold true in this case, when it fals within the compasse of the same power to get both Wisdome and Gold? However if he had apprehended out argument aright, he had perceived that the Iesser thing, and the greater thing are both within the compasse of the same power. The Church of Corinth ought not to eate with such a one at common Tables: therefore not at the Lords Table. For this refusing to eate with such a one at common Tables, was by vertue of a judiciall Ecclesiasticall sentence passed against the scandalous person. So that when Mr Prynne saith We have free power not to eate Bread with those at our own Tables, with whom we have no power or liberty left us by Christ, to refuse to eate with them at the Lords Table, and thereupon supposeth that our argumentation from that Text is one principall cause and prop of Independency, yea of separation, not onely from Sacraments, but from Churches: he doth altogether misapprehend the businesse. For 1. Separation from Churches is properly a renouncing of membership as unlawfull: our argument concerneth the unlawfulnesse of a particular act, not of a membership in such a Church. 2. The causes and motives of separation suppose either an unlawfull constitution of Churches, or an unlawfull government of Churches, or both, so farre, that they who separate hold it unlawfnll to continue their membership in Churches so constituted and governed, or so much as to communicate and partake in the Sacrament with such Churches, though they know no scandalous person admitted to the Sacrament. 3. The great mistake lieth in this, that our present controversie is apprehended to be whether every particular Christian hath power or liberty from Christ to withdraw from the Sacrament, because of the admission of a scandalous person. Whereas our