A42757:888
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 6: Of the power of binding and loosing Matth. 18. 18.
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.
Secondly, that Gloss which now I dispute against, doth suppose one of these two things: either that binding and loosing cannot be exercised upon the same object at different times, and that the binding is such as can never be loosed again; or otherwise that one and the same doctrine may be condemned at one time, and approved at another time. Both which are absurd, and contrary to the generality of Divines.
Secondly, that Glosse which now I despute against, doth suppose one of these two things: either that binding and loosing cannot be exercised upon the same object at different times, and that the binding is such as can never be loosed againe; or otherwise that one and the same doctrine may be condemned at one time, and approved at another time. Both which are absurd, and contrary to the generality of Divines.
Thirdly, seeing the Scripture speaketh of binding and loosing in reference to persons, as corporally, so spiritually, which I have before proved. Why then, shall persons be excepted from being the object of binding and loosing Matth. 18?
Fourthly, that of binding and loosing Mat. 18. 18. doth cohere with and is added by occasion of that which went before, as is also before proved. If this concerning the context be acknowledged, it will carry it to persons; for it was an offending brother, not a false Doctrine, which was spoken of in the verses preceding.