Church Discipline (Part 7)

I have come across a book on the web entitled "Manual of Church Discipline" by a Reverend Eleazer Savage. I'm not sure how the book will turn out, but I found some interesting observations just in the first chapter. (If you would like to read the book it can be found here.)

Corrective Church Discipline is "the right treatment of offending members." That is, the application of right principles, in a right spirit, to their wrong conduct. An offending member is one, who has transgressed some law of Christ's kingdom; for, "where there is no law, there is no transgression" no "offence." Offences, as to their magnitude, are to be estimated by the importance of the law violated. Hence, as there are different laws of Christ's kingdom; laws having different degrees of value and importance, just as there are different laws in a State; so there are different kinds of offences; offences of various magnitude; and, of course, requiring different treatment.

Wow! I think that was the same conclusion that I came to in my own independent study of the scriptures. Discipline should only be conducted where there is clear transgression of the law. Without the law there cannot be transgression.
He goes on to discuss 5 varying degrees of transgression. They are as follows:

1. Minor - namely small offences
2. Private - offences that cannot be proven
3. Personal - when one brother injures another brother and there is proof of the injury
4. Public - an offence that injures the entire community equally
5. Insufferable - an offence of such enormity that it requires the immediate removal of the member from the body in order to maintain the honor of the Kingdom

My initial thoughts are that his classification is just and trustworthy. However, as I jumped ahead to Chapter 6, where he deals with insufferable offenses, I had to pause and reflect.
He gives examples of insufferable offenses ranging from civil to criminal offenses. He explains that there is no room for not removing the transgressor from the local body, as the very act they have committed is insufferable. He says that it is for the sake of God's good name.
He cites 1 Corinthians 5:13:

"Put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

and claims that Paul's

"rule for such high offences, is, exclude, without the ceremony of labor, upon the simple and certain ascertainment of the facts."

The offender is not to be tolerated for even an hour.

Even strong manifestations of remorse or sorrow for the crime, must not shield from the stroke of separation.

He goes onto state that although this act seems uncompromising and unforgiving, it follows the "genius of the gospel." He argues that the most atrocious of transgressions should not be excluded from the body even in the event of genuine repentance.
Huh? Am I reading this right? That there are certain sins that are simply insufferable? That there are certain sins to which the directives in Matthew 18 do not even apply?
In the case of 1 Corinthians 5, Paul's directive comes as a result of the fact that the brother is unrepentant. It seems as though the transgressor's sin is common knowledge among the church, even Paul has heard of it! His sin was not insufferable? He was living in sin, and unwilling to repent.
The chapter concludes with the following statement:

And, hence, the position that every offender, in case of real penitence for his sin, should be retained in the Church, as well as forgiven, is as impracticable, in point of fact, as it is inconsistent with the universal sense of right.

What? Am I reading this correctly? I guess he never read Jesus' words about forgiveness? Apparently, God is not as full of grace and mercy as His word proclaims Him to be? Apparently hell will have varying degrees of torture for those who have committed atrocious transgressions!