A42757:483
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.
The Arguments to prove that distinction of the twofold Kingdom of Christ, are these:
First, Those Kingdoms of which the one is accessory and adventitious to the Son of God, and which, if it were not, the want of it could not prove him not to be God: the other necessarily floweth from his Godhead, so that without it he were not God; are most different and distinct Kingdoms. But the Kingdom of Christ as Mediator, and the Kingdom of Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, are such. Ergo: If the Son of God had never received the Office of Mediator, and so should not have reigned as Mediator, yet he had been the natural Son of God; for this could not be a necessary consequence, He is the natural Son of God, Therefore he is Mediator; for he had been the natural Son of God, though he had not been Mediator, and though man had not been redeemed. But if you suppose that the Son of God reigns not as God with the Father and the holy Ghost, from everlasting to everlasting, then you must needs suppose that he is not the natural and eternal Son of God. Secondly, Those Kingdoms of which the one is proper and personal to Jesus Christ God-man; the other is not proper and ⟨p. 197⟩personal, but common to the Father and the holy Ghost, are most different and distinct Kingdoms. But the Kingdom of Jesus Christ as Mediator, and his Kingdom as he is the eternal Son of God, are such. Ergo: That Kingdom which Christ hath as Mediator, by special dispensation of God committed to him, is his alone properly and personally: for we cannot say that the Father reigns as Mediator, or that the holy Ghost reigns as Mediator. But that Kingdom which Christ hath, as he is the eternal Son of God, is the very same consubstantially with that Kingdom whereby God the Father and God the holy Ghost do reign. Thirdly, He that hath a Kingdom which shall be continued and exercised for ever, and a Kingdom which shall not be continued and exercised for ever, hath two distinct Kingdoms. But Jesus Christ hath a Kingdom which shall be continued and exercised for ever, namely, the Kingdom which he hath as the eternal Son of God; and another Kingdom which shall not be continued and exercised for ever, namely, the Kingdom which he hath as Mediator. Ergo: The eternity of the one Kingdom is not doubted of: But that the other Kingdom shall not be for ever exercised, that is,