A42757:89
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
THE CONTENTS. › 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.
CHAP. II. Whether Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. prove Excommunication.
The Erastians cannot avoid an argument ex consequenti from this Text for Excommunication, although we should grant that the literal sense and direct intendment of the words, is not concerning Excommunication. Of the word [Greek or Hebrew]. That the trespass meant vers. 15. is sometime known to more then one at first. That the meaning is not of a civill personal injury, but of a scandalous sin, whether there be materially a personal injury in it or not. ⟨image 23⟩This confirmed by six reasons. That if it were granted these words, If thy brother trespass against thee, are understood of a personal injury, this could be no advantage to the Erastian cause, in six respects. Erastus his Argument, that the trespass here meant is such as one brother may forgive to another, answered. That the Law of two or three witnesses belongeth to Ecclesiastical, as well as to civill Courts. That Tell the Church here can not be, Tell the civill Sanhedrin or Court of justice among the Jews. Of the meaning of these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican. M. Prynnes Argument retorted. That the Heathens might not enter into the Temple, to wit, into the Court of Israel, but into the Intermurale they might come and worship. That there is not the like reason for excluding Excommunicate persons wholly from our Churches. Of Solomons porch. That M. Prynne confoundeth the devout penitent Publican with the profane unjust Publicans. The Objection from the Publicans going up to the Temple to pray, examined. Publicans commonly named as the worst and wickedest of men. Another objection, Let him be to thee, (not to the whole Church) as an Heathen, &c. discussed.