A42757:760
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.
I know he understands those words, Let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican, in another sense then either the reformed Churches do, or the ancient Churches did, and takes the meaning to be of avoiding fellowship and familiarity with him, before any sentence of Excommunication passed against the offender. But however my argument from proportion will hold. If civill fellowship must be refused, because of obstinacy in a civill injury, why shall not spiritual or Church-fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spiritual injury or trespass against the Church? If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury, why shall not public fellowship in eating and drinking with the Church at the Lords Table be denied unto him that will not repent of a public scandal given to the Congregation? Are the rules of Church fellowship looser and wider than the rules of civill fellowship? or are they straiter? Is the way of communion of Saints broader than the way of civill communion? or is it narrower? Peradventure he will say, that the whole Church, that is, all the members of the Church, have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother, that is, to have no fraternal converse or private Christian fellowship with him. Well then: If thus far he be as a Heathen and a Publican to the whole Church distributively, how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole Church collectively; If all the members of the Church severally withdraw fellowship from him even before he be excommunicated, how shall the whole Church together be bound to keep fellowship with him till he be excommunicated? Instead of loosing such knots, Mr Prynne undertakes to prove another thing, that this Text ⟨p. 552⟩of Matthew is not mean of Excommunication or Church censures, and that the Church in this Text was not any Ecclesiastical Consistory (here he citeth Josephus, as if he had spoken of that Text) but only the Sanhedrin or Court of civill Justice. But though all this were true which he saith, yet there may be a good argument drawn by necessary consequence from this Text to prove Excommunication. Which Grotius did well perceive:
I know he understands those words, Let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican, in another sence then either the reformed Churches doe, or the ancient Churches did, and takes the meaning to be of avoyding fellowship and familiarity with him, before any sentence of Excommunication passed against the offender. But however my argument from proportion will hold. If civill fellowship must be refused, because of obstinacy in a civill injury, why shall not spirituall or Church-fellowship be refused to him that hath committed a spirituall injury or trespasse against the Church? If private fellowship ought to be denied unto him that will not repent of a private injury, why shall not publique fellowship in eating and drinking with the Church at the Lords Table be denied unto him that will not repent of a publique scandall given to the Congregation? Are the rules of Church fellowship looser and wider than the rules of civill fellowship? or are they straiter? Is the way of communion of Saints broader than the way of civill communion? or is it narrower? Peradventure he will say, that the whole Church, that is, all the members of the Church, have power to withdraw from an obstinate scandalous brother, that is, to have no fraternall converse or private Christian fellowship with him. Well then: If thus farre he be as a Heathen and a Publican to the whole Church distributively, how shall he be as a Christian brother to the whole Church collectively; If all the members of the Church severally withdraw fellowship from him even before he be excommunicated, how shall the whole Church together be bound to keepe fellowship with him till he be excommunicated? Instead of loosing such knots, Mr Prynne undertakes to prove another thing, that this Text