A42757:837
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.
Now he that can neither be reduced by more private reprehensions nor by public Ecclesiastical conviction, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, saith Christ, let him be esteemed as one that hath no part in the communion of the Saints, in Church-Membership, in the holy things, in the commonwealth of Israel, in the Covenants of promise, more then an Heathen man. Which is a spiritual, not a civill separation, according to that Gal. 2. 15. We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.
Now he that can neither be reduced by more private reprehensions nor by publike Ecclesiasticall conviction, Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, saith Christ, let him be esteemed as one that hath no part in the communion of the Saints, in Church-Membership, in the holy things, in the commonwealth of Israel, in the Covenants of promise, more then an Heathen man. Which is a spirituall, not a civill separation, according to that Gal. 2. 15. We who are Jewes by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles.
My second Argument shall be this. That which Christ saith generally of any sin whereby one Brother scandalizeth another Brother, the Erastians restrict to private or personal injuries. And whereas Christs rule tendeth to the rescuing and saving of a sinner, their Gloss runs upon a mans particular interest in the resarclating of a private injury. If thy Brother trespass against thee, that is, Cum quis coram aliquo peccaverit, saith Munsterus, when any brother sinneth in the presence of some other. Are we not obliged to rebuke an offending Brother in Christian love; and to endeavour to bring him to repentance and to save his soul; whether he hath done to us any particular injury or not: May we suffer sin upon his soul, because that sin is ⟨p. 393⟩not an injury to us? Let it be well observed, the thing here aimed at, is the salvation of the offending Brother, and his turning from sin, as Grotius rightly noteth from the word [Greek or Hebrew], (which