A42757:766
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.
yet the trespass for which the man is to be held as a Heathen and Publican, is a public scandalous sin against the Church or Congregation, namely his neglecting to hear the ⟨p. 557⟩Church vers. 17. for it is not his first trespass, but his contumacy against the Church, which by this Text is to make him esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican.
yet the trespasse for which the man is to be held as a Heathen and Publican, is a publique scandalous sinne against the Church or Congregation, namely his neglecting to heare the ⟨p. 557⟩Church vers. 17. for it is not his first trespasse, but his contumacy against the Church, which by this Text is to make him esteemed as an Heathen and a Publican.
Before I leave this point, I will answer the chief Argument by which Erastus would prove that this Text is meant only of private civill injuries: because (saith he) the trespass here spoken of is no other then what one brother may forgive to another. I answer, both he and Master Prynne do suppose this Text Mat. 15, 16, 17. to be parallel to that in Luk. 17. 3. 4. which they take for granted, without proof or reason. Certainly there is a great difference between the purpose and scope of the one place and of the other. It will be replied that even in this very Chapter Matth. 18. the next thing which follows vers. 21. is concerning personal injuries which one brother can and ought to forgive to another. Then came Peter to him and said, Lord how oft shall my Brother sin against me, and I forgive him? &c. To that I answer. 1. We cannot gather from the Text that Peter did propound this question immediately after or upon occasion of that which went before vers. 15, 16, 17, &c. where nothing is spoken of one Brothers forgiving another. We read