A42757:997
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.
CHAP. XI. Whether it he a full discharge of duty to admonish a scandalous person of the danger of unworthy communicating? And whether a Minister in giving him the Sacrament after such admonition, be no way guilty?
Mr. Prynne pag. 28. stateth the seventh point in difference thus, Whether the Minister hath not fully discharged his duty and conscience if he give warning to unworthy communicants of the danger they incur by their unworthy approaches to the Lords Table, and seriously dehort them from coming to it, unless they repent, reform, and come preparedly? But here he much mistakes his mark, or hitteth it not, as may appear thus. First, what if we should affirm it, as he doth? What hath he gained thereby? That the Minister hath not the power of keeping back scandalous persons: which cannot add one dram weight to his cause. The power is seated in the Eldership, of which the Minister is a principal member: even as Aristotle polit. lib. 3. cap. 11. tells us that [Greek or Hebrew] is not the [Greek or Hebrew] but [Greek or Hebrew]. It is not the Senator but the Senate that doth rule. But if Mr Prynne meant to conclude against the suspension of scandalous persons not excommunicated (the thing which all along he opposeth,) he ought to have stated the point thus, Whether the Eldership hath not fully discharged their duty, &c. For every branch of this controversy concerning Suspension (which is an act of jurisdiction and censure) must be fixed upon the Eldership, not upon the Minister. There is a huge difference between the Ministers personal duty, and the censure of suspension: in so much that if the affirmative of this present question (as he stateth it) were yielded to him; it derogateth nothing from the power of the Eldership to suspend from the Sacrament a person not excommunicate. Secondly, in the debating of this point he sometimes argueth against the refusing or withholding of the Sacrament