A42757:758
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
Book 3 › Chapter 2: Whether Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. prove Excommunication.
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. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. prove Excommunication.
The second point of difference is concerning Matth. 18. Mr Prynne in the first of his four questions told us that the words Matth. 18. 17. Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, are meant only of personal private trespasses between man and man, not public scandalous sins against the Congregation: and that tis not said, Let him be to the whole Church, but let him be to Thee, &c. This I did in my Sermon retort. For if to thee, for a personal private trespass; much more to the whole Church, for a public scandalous sin, whereby he trespasseth against the whole Congregation. Yea, it followeth upon his interpretation, that he may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans, if all the members of the Church do him a personal injury, whereupon I left this to be considered by every man of understanding, whether if a private man may account the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans for a personal injury done to himself alone, it will not follow that much more the whole Church may account a man as a Heathen and Publican, for a public scandalous sin against the whole Church. Mr Prynne in his Vindication, pag. 3. glanceth at this objection, but he takes notice only of the half of it, and he is so far from turning off my retortion, that he confirmeth it; for pag. 4. he confesseth that every Christian hath free power by Gods word to esteem not only a particular brother, but all the members of a Congregation, as Heathens and Publicans, if he or they continue impenitent in the case of private injuries, after admonition. ⟨p. 551⟩Now my exception against his Query remains unanswered. If I may esteem the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans, when they do me an injury and continue impenitent therein: may not the whole Church esteem me as an Heathen man and a Publican, when I commit a public and scandalous trespass against the whole Church, and continues impenitent therein? Shall a private man have power to cast off the whole Church as Heathens and Publicans? and shall not the whole Church have power to cast off one man as an Heathen and Publican?