A42757:502
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.
Answ. Christ as Mediator hath right to the whole earth, and all the kingdoms of the World, not as if all government (even civil) were given to Christ (for in this kind he governeth not so much as any part of the earth as he is Mediator) which was the thing he had to prove: but it is meant only of his spiritual kingdom, which is not of this world, and in this respect alone it is, that Christ as Mediator hath right to the government of all Nations, he hath jus ad rem, though not in re. As for that title King of kings, and Lord of Lords, it may be understood two ways. First, as Christ is the eternal and natural Son of God, the eternal wisdom of God, by whom Kings reign, and Princes decree justice, Prov. 8. 15. 16. which is spoken of Christ, as he was the Fathers delight, and as one brought up with him before the foundation of the World: Ibid. vers. 22. to 30. Neither can the names of Jesus and Christ prove that what is said there must needs be meant of him as Mediator, mark how well grounded Mr. Husseys arguments are. Jesus sate at meat in Simon the Pharisees house. Luke 7. 37. Jesus wept for Lazarus because he loved him. John 11. 35. 36. Must we needs therefore ⟨p. 212⟩say, that as Mediator he sate at meat in the Pharisees house, and as Mediator he wept for Lazarus? Christ is the Son of David, Matth. 22. 42. Must we therefore say that as Mediator he is the Son of David? Christ is God over all, blessed for ever. Rom. 9. 5. Must we therefore say that this is meant of Christ only as Mediator? What is more ordinary then to use the names of Jesus and Christ when the thing which is said is meant in reference to one of the natures? Secondly, Christ is King of kings, and Lord of lords, even as Mediator: not in Mr. Husseys sense, as if Kings had their commission from Christ, and did reign in his stead, as he is Mediator; but in the sense of the Hebraism, Vanity of vanities, that is, most vain; holy of holies, that is, most holy; so King of kings, and Lord of lords, that is, the most excellent glorious King of all others: the excellency, splendour, dignity, and majesty of Kings may be compared without any subordination. Drusius Preterit. lib. 8. upon this very place which Mr. Hussey objecteth, saith that this form of speech, King of kings, and Lord of lords, was taken from the Persians and Assyrians, who called a great King, King of kings, and Lord of lords.