A42757:763
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.
Doth he not find scandalous sins in the two verses immediately preceding in Luke, and thereupon its immediately added, Take heed to your selves, if thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him. Can not a Christian rebuke his brother who scandalizeth him, and if he repent forgive him? Luke needed not add Dic Ecclesiae, because he speaks of a repenting brother, not of an impenitent brother, after private admonition. And that scandalous trespasses are understood Matth. 18. 19. (as Augustine, Tostatus, and many others have observed) may thus appear. 1. Scandals are the greatest and worst trespasses, as hath been said, and woe unto the world because of offences. Surely Jesus Christ did intend to provide a remedy against the greatest evils, rather than against the lesser. 2. Christ would not be Judge of civill injuries, Luke 12. 14. How can it be then supposed that he giveth here Laws concerning civill rather then spiritual injuries? 3. Christ saith, If be shall hear (not repair) thee, thou hast gained (not thy goods or thy good name, or the like, but) thy brother. Intimating, that its not a mans own interest, but the rescuing of his brothers soul from sin and scandal, which is here sought. Mr Prynne himself confirmeth it not a little, for he takes the meaning to be of avoiding a brothers company, in the case of a civill or private injury, if he continue impenitent after admonition. Now what if he that hath done the injury make full reparation, and all real satisfaction to the brother injured, and yet continue impenitent showing no symptom at all of repentance, must he not by Mr Prynnes exposition be esteemed as an heathen man and a Publican, because of his visible and scandalous impenitency? How often hath it been seen that a man was compelled by Law, or persuaded by friends to make a real restitution and full satisfaction for a civill or personal injury; and yet hath given very great scandal by his impenitency, not so much as confessing, but still defending and justifying his sinful act, in his discourses? 4. The dependency upon the preceding parts of that Chapter confirmeth it: from the beginning of ⟨p. 555⟩the Chapter to this very Text, vers. 15. Christ hath been upon the doctrine of scandals, warning us not to offend so much as one of his little ones, which he presseth by divers arguments. 5.