A42757:767
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.
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 Luk. 8. 19. Then came to him his Mother and his Brethren, &c. yet the meaning is not that his Mother and his Brethren came to him immediately after his speaking of the words before mentioned by Luke in that place; for that it was not after these, but after other words, is plain from the Harmony of the other Evangelists Matthew and Mark. So here these words Then came Peter, may very well relate to a new business and to another time. 2. Or if it was the same time, it might be said, Then came Peter, that is, Peter being absent, and not having heard that which Christ had been before speaking, he came immediately after, & did propound a new Question. 3. Suppose also that Peter was present and heard all which had been before spoken, yet it is much doubted among Interpreters, whence Peter had the rise and occasion of that Question. Some think it was upon his calling to mind those words in the rule of Prayer, even as we forgive those who trespass against us. Others conceive the occasion of his Question was that which was said vers. 19. Again I say unto you if two of you shall agree on earth, supposing that agreement (and ⟨p. 558⟩