A42757:553
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.
But if he do admit the distinction as Mediator, and as second person in Trinity, then why doth he so often quarrel it? And in this ⟨p. 238⟩very place his Argument must drive against that distinction, or against nothing. But how doth the baptizing in the name of Christ as Mediator, agree with the commission to baptize in the name of the Father▪ Son, and holy Ghost? Though this belong not to my Argument, yet I will by the way speak to it. First I say, the Question is of things or actions, not of words. Mr. Hussey (it seems) did apprehend my meaning, as if I had intended an expression to be made in the act of baptizing, thus, I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ. But I spake of the action, not of the expression, even as in the other instance I gave; our assembling together is in the name of Christ, though we do not say in terminis, We are now assembled in the name of Christ. In baptism Christ doth not command us to say, either these words, I baptize thee in the Name of Christ; or these words, I baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: but we are commanded to do the thing, both in the name of Christ as Mediator, and in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost: But in different respects. A minister of Christ doth both preach and baptize in the name of Christ as Mediator, that is vice Christi▪ in Christs stead, and having authority for that effect from Christ as Mediator; for Christ as Mediator gave us our commission to preach and baptize by Mr. Husseys confession. So that to preach and baptize [Greek or Hebrew] (which we find both of preaching, Luk. 24 47. and of baptizing, Act. 2. 38.) comprehendeth a formal commission, power and authority given and derived from Christ, I say not that it comprehendeth no more, but this it doth comprehend. But when Christ biddeth us baptise [Greek or Hebrew] unto, or into, or in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, Mat. 28. 19. this doth relate to the end and effect of baptism, or the good of the baptized (if we understand the words properly) not the authority of the baptizer, as if a formal commission were there given him from the Father, Son, and holy Ghost.