A42757:633
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.
Tenthly, The Apostle mentioneth Ecclesiastical Rulers, Rom. 12. 8. [Greek or Hebrew] praefectus, or qui praeest, he that ruleth, that is, the ruling Elder. He is making an enumeration of Ecclesiastical offices and administrations, and no other: So Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Martyr, Tossanus, Diodati, all upon the place, and Junius Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 1. do conceive, and the whole context and the allusion to the several offices of several members in the same body proveth it, and if all the rest be Ecclesiastical, why not kthe office of ruling also, which is there mentioned? for how should civil ruling come in among the Ecclesiastical administrations, especially in those days when Magistrates were not Christian? Musculus takes the Rulers here to be Elders. Gualther and Bullinger, though they make this Text applicable to civil Rulers, yet they do not exclude Church-officers from ruling, but expressly mention Church-Governors distinct from civil Governors, to be there comprehended under [Greek or Hebrew]. Mr. Hussey pag. 19. answering this argument, can neither deny what I said of Gualther and Bullinger, nor yet doth affirm that civil Rulers are there meant, only his reply is that my argument is drawn from the interpretation of the place, but the Disputant may not interpret saith he, that is the answerers part: This calls to mind the Anabaptistical error, Concionatores non retinent verba Textus, sed interpretantur ea, id quod non ferendum. For which see Petrus ⟨p. 284⟩Hi•kolmannus de Anabaptism•, Disp. 9. cap. 1. My Argument was drawn from the Text, for the Text rightly understood and interpreted; is the Text. But see now what strange rules you may expect when Mr. Hussey comes to School-disputes, the disputant may not interpret, he must keep close to terms, if the thing be not in terminis in the Text, its no Argument, by which rule he will at one dash overthrow not only the disputations of Protestants against Papists; of the ancient Fathers against the Heretics of their times (for how is Justification by Faith ONLY, the number of the Sacraments, the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and many other most material points proved, but by Scripture rightly opened, cleared, and interpreted?) but also the disputations of the Apostles, and of Jesus Christ himself against the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jews;