A42757:915
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.
1. There was a censure inflicted upon the incestuous man by the Eldership of the Church of Corinth, being assembled together 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. Where read we that ever the Church was intentionally gathered together, to cooperate with an Apostle in the exercise of his miraculous apostolical power? But we do read that this mans punishment or censure was inflicted upon him not by the Apostle alone but by Many, 2 Cor. 2. 6. Erastus pag. 214▪ thinks that [Greek or Hebrew] (in our books rendered punishment, and in the margin censure) was not excommunication, but only sharp objurgation or reproof. To this I have abundantly answered Book 2. chap. 9. and in Male audis pag. 12, 13, 14. And if it should be granted that the man was not then excommunicate but sharply and publicly rebuked (which indeed is the opinion of some) yet the Church of Corinth had proceeded to excommunication, had not written to dissuade them, if the Apostle and take them off with a Sufficit, which he neither needed nor would have done, if they had power to do no more •o the offender then to rebuke him sharply. To conclude this ⟨p. 433⟩point, M Prynne granteth that 1 Cor. 5. 13. proveth excommunication; and why the gathering together, vers. 4. should not be intended for the same work, I cannot imagine? Some question there was of old whether the Apostles meaning vers. 13. were not that the Corinthians should put away every man out of himself the evil of sin. Which Augustine having somewhere left in medio, doth in his Retractations correct, (and Bede upon the place out of him tells us the very same) and expound it of the taking away of the evil man from the Church by Excommunication, because saith he, the Greek can not be rendered hoc malum, but hunc malum.
1. There was a censure inflicted upon the incestuous man by the Eldership of the Church of Corinth, being assembled together 1 Cor. 5. 4, 5. Where read we that ever the Church was intentionally gathered together, to cooperate with an Apostle in the exercise of his miraculous apostolicall power? But we doe read that this mans punishment or censure was inflicted upon him not by the Apostle alone but by Many,