A42757:761
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.
for in his annotations upon the place, after he hath told his opinion that excommunication is not meant in this Text, he addeth, that he hath elsewhere spoken of the antiquity and necessity of Excommunication: quanquam ad eam ex hoc etiam loco non absurde argumentum duci p•sse, non negaverim: though I will not deny, saith he, that even from this place, the argument may be drawn to excommunication without any absurdity. My argument afore-mentioned will hold good even from Master Prynnes own exposition. Thus far I have gone upon a confession: now to the confutation. Before I come to his reasons, I observe in his margin a double mistake of the testimony of Scapula. First, he sends us to Scapula to learn that [Greek or Hebrew] signifieth any civill assembly or council, as well as an Ecclesiastical Presbytery. Yes: Scapula tells us, it hath in Heathen writers a general signification, to express any Assembly called forth. But he addeth immediately, that in the writing of Christians it signifieth the assembly of such as are called to eternal life and do profess Christian Religion. Since therefore it hath not the same signification in Heathen writings, and in the New Testament, he should have showed us where the word [Greek or Hebrew] in the new Testament doth signify a civill Court of Justice. I hope the holy Ghost did speak so in this place as he might be understood, and to take the word Church here, in that sense which it hath nowhere else in the new Testament, doth not agree with that received maxim, That Scripture is to be expounded by Scripture. I find indeed the word [Greek or Hebrew] used for a Civill assembly, Acts 19. 39, 41. But as that is an Heathen assembly, so it is not the Evangelist Luke his expression otherwise then recitative: that is, he mentioneth an Heathen assembly under that name by which Heathens themselves called it. His other mistake of Scapula, is, the citing of him for that assertion, ⟨p. 553⟩that the Church in this Text is not an Ecclesiastical Con sistory. Whereas Scapula doth expound the Church Matth. 18. to be meant of the Presbytery or College of Elders, (as gStephani Thesaurus doth also) and having told that the word signifieth the whole Christian Church: also particular Congregations: he addeth two more restricted significations: sometimes it signifieth a Christian family: sometimes the Presbytery;