A42757:93
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.
CHAP. IV. A Confutation of Erastus and Bilson their Interpretation of Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. as likewise of Dr. Sutcliffe his Gloss, differing somewhat from theirs.
CHAP. IV. A Confutation of Erastus and Bilson their Interpretation of Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. as likewise of Dr. Sutcliffe his Glosse, differing somewhat from theirs.
The scope of this Scripture wholly spiritual, concerning the gaining of a brother from sin, not civill concerning the prosecuting of a personal injury. Rebuke for sin a common Christian duty. Which is necessary in sins committed against God, rather than in injuries committed against man. That any sin by which thou art scandalized is a trespass ⟨image 24⟩against thee. The Erastian Interpretation of Matth. 18. makes it lawful for one Christian to go to law with another before an unbelieving Judge, and so maketh Paul contrary to Christ. The same Interpretation restricteth the latter part of the Text to those Christians only, who live under an unbelieving Magistrate, while it is confessed that the former part belongeth to all Christians. It is contrary also to the Law of Moses. They contradict themselves concerning the coercive power of the Sanhedrin. The gradation in the Text inconsistent with their sense. The Argument of Erastus to prove that the words as a Publican, are meant of a Publican qua Publican, and so of every Publican, examined. Their exception, Let him be TO THEE, &c. not to the whole Church, answered three ways.