A42757:606
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.
CHAP. IX. That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government beside Magistracy •r Civil Goveram•nt, •amely an Ecclesiastical Government (properly so called) in the hands of Church-officers.
CHAP. IX. That by the Word of God there ought to be another Government beside Magistracy •r Civil Goveram•nt, •amely an Ecclesiastical Government (properly so call•d) in the hands of Church-offic•rs.
This Question hath arisen from Mr. Colemans third and fourth rule which he offered to the Parliament, excluding all Government of Church-officers, Ministers and Elders; that is, as he expounds himself all corrective government, leaving them no power except what is merely doctrinal, and appropriating all government properly so called to the Magistrate only. Mr. Hussey following him falls in the same ditch with him. The Question is not whether Church-officers ought to have any share in the Civil Government? Nor whether Church-officers may have any Lordly government or imperious domination over the Lords heritage? Nor whether Church-Officers may exercise an arbitrary irregular Government, and rule as themselves list? God forbid. But the Question plainly is, Whether there may not, yea ought not to be in the Church a Ministerial or Ecclesiastical Government properly so called, beside the civil Government or Magistracy. Mr. Coleman did, and Mr. Hussey doth hold there ought not. I ⟨p. 268⟩hold there ought: and I shall propound for the affirmative these Arguments.
THis Question hath arisen from Mr. Colemans third and fourth rule which he offered to the Parliament, excluding all Government of Church-officers, Ministers and Elders; that is, as he expounds himself all corrective government, leaving them no power except what is meerly doctrinal, and appropriating all government properly so called to the Magistrate onely. Mr. Hussey following him falls in the same ditch with him. The Question is not whether Church-officers ought to have any share in the Civil Government? Nor whether Church-officers may have any Lordly government or imperious domination over the Lords heritage? Nor whether Church-Officers may exercise an arbitrary irregular Government, and rule as themselves list? God forbid. But the Question plainly is, Whether there may not, yea ought not to be in the Church a Ministeriall or Ecclesiastical Government properly so called, beside the civil Government or Magistracy. Mr. Coleman did, and Mr. Hussey doth hold there ought not. I