A42757:513
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.
But if your meaning be no more then this, that Christ considered [Greek or Hebrew] in respect of the very nature and essence of the God-head, is [Greek or Hebrew], not God of God, but God of himself, and that so nothing can be ⟨p. 217⟩said to be given to him: then why have you dealt so uncharitably as to suppose me to be herein opposite unto you; when I plainly spake of the eternal Son of God [Greek or Hebrew] in respect of the personality or relation of filiation, or as he is the eternal Son of God, in which sense I yet aver confidently, that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Jesus Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God by eternal generation.
But if your meaning be no more then this, that Christ considered 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 in respect of the very nature and essence of the God-head, is 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, not God of God, but God of himself, and that so nothing can be ⟨p. 217⟩said to be given to him: then why have you dealt so uncharitably as to suppose me to be herein opposite unto you; when I plainly spake of the eternal Son of God 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 in respect of the personality or relation of filiation, or as he is the eternall Son of God, in which sence I yet averre confidently, that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Jesus Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God by eternal generation.
I added, that all power in heaven and earth may be said to be given to Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, in another respect, namely in respect of the declaration thereof at his resurrection. To this Mr. Hussey replieth, that to hold any thing should be given him that should concern his God-head at the time of his resurrection, is more monstrous. Then hath Gomarus and others given a monstrous answer to the Ubiquitaries, yet they clear it by Augustine's rule, aliquid dicitur fieri quando incipit patesieri. Is it any more strange then to say that Christ was begotten that day when he was raised from the dead