A42757:551
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
Book 2 › Chapter 7: Arguments for the Negative of that Question formerly propounded.
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 for preaching, Mr. Hussey saith, it is out of question that we preach in the name of Christ. Well: then let him show such another thing of the Magistrate, as is without controversy done by him in the name of Christ.
As for preaching, Mr. Hussey saith, it is out of question that we preach in the name of Christ. Well: then let him shew such another thing of the Magistrate, as is without controversie done by him in the name of Christ.
But where I added, that in the name of Jesus Christ we ⟨p. 237⟩baptize, though I said no more then the Scripture saith, yet he is pleased to object against me. These places he citeth saith he, to prove that we baptize in the Name of Jesus, as exclusively to Father and holy Ghost, (leaving out the words of the commission: Matth. 28. Baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost) for so the state of his question doth require; for he distinguisheth acutely and accurately between Christ as Mediator and second person (he should have said as second Person) in Trinity, in all this Argument. And so he concludes that which I had said to be contrary to the words of the Commission and the practice of all Churches. What doth he drive at? I cited plain Texts to prove that baptism is administered in the name of Christ: Either Mr. Hussey denieth that this is done in the name of Christ as Mediator: or he denieth it not. If he deny it, let him speak it out, and he shall not want an answer. Mean while let him remember that himself pag. 25. saith, that Christ as Mediator did give that commission to the Apostles, Go Preach and baptize. If he deny it not, then let him give the like instance for Magistracy and civil Government, to prove it to be managed in the name of Jesus Christ as Mediator, else he must not plead that Magistracy is of the same tenure from Christ as the Ministry. Again, either he admitteth a distinction between Christ as Mediator, and as second person in Trinity, or not. If he do not, he will infallibly wind himself into a gross heresy; as namely these two. 1. He must deny that principle which according to the Word of God, all Orthodox Divines hold against the Arians and Antitrinitarians, that