A42757:790
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.
1. If a private man shall thus at his own hand withdraw and separate from an offending brother, as from an Heathen man and a Publican, nwhat order, peace, or good government can there be either in Church or State? And all the odium cast upon Excommunication (as contrary to the spiritual privileges of Christians) will fall more heavy upon his own way, which brings any man (be he Prince, Parliament-man, Pastor, or whoever he be) under so much slavery to the lust of any private person, that he may be by that person (and by ten thousand persons more, in case of so many civill injuries, not amended after complaint to the Magistrate) esteemed, avoided, and abhorred, as an Heathen man and a Publican. So that in the issue it may fall out, that any man how eminent or deserving soever he be in Church or State, may be looked upon as a Heathen and a Publican by ten thousand of the people, before ever he be so judged by any Judicature. For instance, put case ⟨p. 368⟩that a Minister be judicially convict to have wronged his parishioners in the matter of small tithes, and they conceive him to persevere in the same injury, must or may each of them flee from him as from an Heathen and a Publican? Put case a whole company think themselves wronged in pay or otherwise by their Captain, or a whole Regiment by their Colonel, and after complaint made find themselves not repaired, are they therefore free to avoid all civill company with the Captain or Colonel, and to flee from them as from Heathens and Publicans? And what if both the Lord Major of London and many godly Ministers who have eat at his Table, should accuse Mr. Prynne of a calumny, because of that passage in his Book, pag. 12. where he saith of Anabaptists, Separatists, Independents, Presbyters or Divines, Neither of which make any conscience of not repairing to the Lord Majors, or any other public City feast, where they are sure of good fare, because they were certain there to meet and eat with some covetous or other scandalous persons, with whom St. Paul prohibits them, no not to eat? If, I say, the Lord Major should accuse Mr Prynne for slandering him and his house with the company of scandalous persons: and if many godly conscientious Ministers should accuse him for aspersing them, as having more love to good fare, then conscience of avoiding to eat with scandalous persons:
1. If a private man shall thus at his owne hand withdraw and separate from an offending brother, as from an Heathen man and a Publican,