A42757:762
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 this last he citeth Matth. 18. Now I proceed to Mr Prynnes Reasons. First, saith he, this Text speaks not at all of any public scandalous sin against the Church or Congregation, the proper object of Church censures, but only of private civill trespasses between man and man, as is evident by the words, If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee, &c. Answ. We have ever understood that place of such trespasses, which grow public afterwards by the offenders obstinacy after admonition. Yet the trespass here meant, may be often such as even at first is scandalous to more then one. Such a case falleth under Christs rule here, and is not excluded. Wherein observe Durand upon the fourth Book of the Master of Sentences Dist. 19. Quest. 4. But if, saith he, the sin be not altogether secret, nor altogether known, that is, such as is known to many by whom he may be convict, or be is ill reported of among grave persons, though the public fame be not against him, so the procedure which Christ hath set us in the Gospel, seemeth to have place, to wit, that first he may be secretly admonished, concerning his amendment; which if it profit not, that he may be admonished concerning his amendment before those who know the fact; but if that also do not profit, that then he may be declared to the Church. But if we should grant that no other trespass is meant here, but a private trespass, yet I ask, is there no private trespass but that which is civill? The Schoolmen writing de scandalo will tell him that one brother trespasseth against another when he scandalizeth him by any sinful example, though without any civill injury. Nay its the greatest trespass which is committed against the soul of our neighbour: scandal is soul murder. It is a breach of the Law of love, not only by omission, but by commission. He that is commanded to edify his brother, and then giveth scandal to him, doth he not trespass against his brother? The like answer ⟨p. 554⟩I return to that which he addeth, that Luke relating the same thing without any Dic Ecclesiae, Luk. 17. 3, 4 puts it out of question, if compared with Gen. 52. 31. (there is no such Scripture) 1 Sam. 25. 28. What? out of question.