A42757:751
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.
9. The Question is not whether all scandalous persons are to ⟨p. 545⟩be excommunicated and wholly cast out off the Church. The Assemblies Petition was not concerning excommunicating, but concerning suspending from the Sacrament all scandalous Persons. Yet the current of Master Prynnes Argumentation both in his Queries, and in his Vindication thereof, for the most part, runneth along against Excommunication and Suspension from the Sacrament, as the Tittles likewise do promise. Which is a fallacy d conjunctis ad divisa. And when he debateth so much concerning excommunication and suspension, his and is either copulative or exegetical. If copulative, he opposeth no body that I know so much as himself; for I know none that would have all scandalous sinners suspended, to be excommunicated also, except himself. If exegetical, even so he is contrary to himself, who confesseth that one may be suspended from the Sacrament before he be excommunicated. vindic. p. 50. 51. And whereas in the latter part of his first Quaere, he would drive us to this hard choice, that either a scandalous person must be excommunicated, or not suspended from the Sacrament; He saith it is evident by Tertullians Apology cap. 39. & lib. de poenit. that scandalous persons were ever excommunicate and wholly cast out of the Church, not barely sequestered from the Sacrament. Whence saith he all the Canonists and Schoolmen determine that an excommunicate person is excluded from the Church and all public Ordinances. Let the prudent reader observe, that in stead of proving that scandalous persons were wholly cast out of the Church, he tells us out of the Canonists and Schoolmen, that excommunicate persons were wholly cast out of the Church, that is, that those who were cast out of the Church, were cast out of the Church. And for his antiquity, he hath given here no small wound to the Reputation of his skill in Antiquities. Which will more fully appear Chap. 17. Mean while, how can any that hath read Tertullian or Cyprian, not know, that some failings and falls in time of persecution, and other smaller offences, were not punished by excommunication, but by suspension from the Sacrament, till after public Declaration of Repentance and confession of the offence, the offender was admitted to the Sacrament.
9. The Question is not whether all scandalous persons are to ⟨p. 545⟩