A42757:489
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.
1. 16. 17. against the Socinians and Photinians, to prove the eternal God-head of Jesus Christ, because by him all things were created, and he is before all things. See Stegmanni Photinianismus disp. 5. Quaest. 12. Becmanus Exercit. 4. and Exerc. 8. Where you may see, that the Adversaries contend (as Mr. Hussey doth) that the Apostle vers. 15. 16. 17. doth not speak of the person of Jesus Christ, proving him to be true God; but that he speaks of Christ as Mediator or in respect of his Office, and of that dominion which Christ hath as Mediator (So Jonas Schlichtingius contra Meisner. pag. 469.) and that vers. 15. 16. 17. ascribeth no more to Christ, ⟨p. 202⟩than vers. 18. But Becmanus answering Julius, distinguisheth the Text as I do: for which Analysis I did formerly cite Beza, Zanchius, Gualther, Bullinger, Tossanus, M. Bath, beside diverse others. But I have found none that understands the Text as Mr. Hussey doth, except the Socinians and Photinians, who do not acknowledge that Christ hath such an universal dominion and Lordship over all things, as God the Father, but only that he ruleth over all things, as Mediator. Now for answer to that which Mr. Hussey pag. 26. 27. allegeth, to prove that Christ as Mediator reigneth over all things, First, he tells us out of Diodati that Christ is head of the Church, and King of the Universe, and out of Calvin, that the Kingdom of Christ is over all, and filleth heaven and earth: But who denieth this? That which he had to prove, is, that Christ as Mediator, is King of the Universe, and as Mediator his Kingdom is spread over all: and when he hath proved that, he hath another thing to prove, that the universality of Christs Kingdom as he is Mediator, is to be understood not only in an Ecclesiastical notion, that is, so far as all Nations are or shall be brought under the obedience of the Gospel; but also in the notion of Civil Government, that is, that Christ reigns as Mediator over all creatures, whether under or without the Gospel: and that all Civil Power, Principality, and Government whatsoever in this World, is put in Christs hand as Mediator. If therefore he will argue, let him argue so, as to conclude the point. The next objection he maketh, is from Heb. 1. 2. Christ as Mediator is made Heir of all things. But I answer, Christ is Heir of all things. 1.
1. 16. 17. against the Socinians and Photinians, to prove the eternal God-head of Iesus Christ, because by him all things were created, and he is before all things. See Stegmanni Photinianismus disp. 5. Quaest. 12. Becmanus Exercit. 4. and Exerc. 8. Where you may see, that the Adversaries contend (as Mr. Hussey doth) that the Apostle vers. 15. 16. 17. doth not speak of the person of Iesus Christ, proving him to be true God; but that he speaks of Christ as Mediator or in respect of his Office, and of that dominion which Christ hath as Mediator (So Ionas Schlichtingius contra Meisner. pag. 469.) and that vers. 15. 16. 17. ascribeth no more to Christ,