A42757:557
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.
My fourth Argument against the Magistrates holding of his office of, and under, and for Christ, that is, in Christs room and stead as Mediator, shall be that which was drawn from Luk. 12. 14. The Jews were of the same opinion, which Mr. Coleman and Mr. Hussey have followed, namely, that civil government should be put in the hands of Christ, which they collected from Jer. 23. 5. He shall execute justice and judgement in the earth; and such other Prophecies by them mis-understood. And hence it was that one said to Christ, Master, Speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. Our Lords answer was, Man who made me a Judge or a divider over you. Whatsoever act of authority is done by a Deputy or Vicegerent, as representing his Master and Sovereign, may be done by the King himself when personally present: If therefore the Magistrate judge civil causes, and divide inheritances, ⟨p. 241⟩as the Vicegerent of Christ, and of Christ as Mediator, then Christ himself, when present in the days of his flesh, had power as Mediator to judge such causes. But this Christ himself plainly denieth. Let us hear Mr. Husseys answer, pag. 24. (It is the very same with that which Azorius Instit. mor. part. 2. lib. 4. cap. 19. (pleading for the Popes Temporal Dominion) answereth concerning the point now in hand) It doth not follow that because Christ was not a Judge actu exercito, therefore the original right of Government was not in him: And this Objection may be answered thus, Christ doth not say he was not a Judge, but who made me a Judge? how dost thou know that I am a Judge? And thus Christ in the time of his humiliation did often hide the manifestation of his power. xWhat greater violence could be offered to the Text? For the Verb [Greek or Hebrew] constituit is purposely used to deny the power or right, as well as the exercise; and proveth that he was not a Judge actu signato, having no such power nor authority given him, it is the same phrase which is used Act. 7. 35. [Greek or Hebrew], Who made thee a Ruler and a Judge? Moses was then beginning to do the part of a Ruler and a Judge, actu exercito; but they refuse him as having no warrant, power, nor authority,