A42757:450
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.
As little there is in making the comparison with Prelacy, the power whereof was indeed arbitrary and impatient of those limitations and rules which Presbyteries and Synods in the Reformed Churches walk by. For 1. The Prelate was but one, yet he claimed the power of ordination and jurisdiction as proper to himself in his own Diocese. We give the power of ordination and Church censures not uni, but unitati, not to one, but to an Assembly gathered into one.
As little there is in making the comparison with Prelacy, the power whereof was indeed arbitrary and impatient of those limitations and rules which Presbyteries and Synods in the Reformed Churches walkby. For 1. The Prelate was but one, yet he claimed the power of ordination and jurisdiction as proper to himself in his owne Diocesse. We give the power of ordination and Church censures not uni, but unitati, not to one, but to an Assembly gathered into one.
2. The Prelate assumed a perpetual precedency and a constant privilege of moderating Synods, Which Presbyterial Government denieth to any one man. 3. The Prelate did not tie himself either to ask or to receive advice from his fellow Presbyters, except when he himself pleased. But there is no Presbyterial nor Synodical sentence, which is not concluded by the major part of voices. 4. The Prelate made himself Pastor to the whole Diocese (consisting it may be of some hundreds of Congregations) holding that the Ministers of particular Congregations did preach the Word and minister the Sacraments, in his name by virtue of authority and order from him, and because he could not act by himself in every Congregation. The Presbyterial Government acknowledgeth no Pastoral charge of preaching the Word and ministering the Sacraments to more Congregations then one; and doth acknowledge the Pastors of particular Churches, being lawfully called, to have power and authority for preaching the Word and ministering the Sacraments in the name of Christ, and not in the name of the Presbytery. 5. The Prelates as they denied the power and authority of Pastors, so they utterly denied the very offices of ruling Elders, and Deacons for taking more especial care of the poor, in particular Congregations. 6. They ⟨p. 179⟩