A42757:637
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.
The Proposition is proved thus. There can be no reason given for an Ecclesiastical government among the Jews, distinct from the Civil, which will not hold as well and as strongly for an Ecclesiastical government among Christians, distinct from ⟨p. 285⟩the Civil: for we speak not now of the particulars (a high Priest, or the like) which were typical and proper to that time, but we speak of a Church government distinct from the Civil, look upon it under that notion, and then see if any reason can be given for it among them, which will not conclude the like among us: yea much more among us, for if the Priests had a great influence and interest into the Civil Government of the Jews, and yet there was a Church-government distinct from the Civil; how much more now when Ministers have not, neither ought to have any share in the Civil government? The assumption hath been abundantly proved before in the first book. I will not repeat, but here note these Scriptures: Jer. 5. 31. The Prophets bear rule: It was their office to bear rule, It was their sin to support themselves in their ruling by the false Prophets. 1 Chron. 9 11. Azariah, the Ruler of the House of God. 2 Chron. 31. 13. And Azariah the Ruler of the House of God. […]. 11. 11. Serajah the Ruler of the House of God. All the chief Priests or heads of the several Classes or Orders of Priests were called Principes Sanctuarii saith Matthias Martinius Lexic. Philol. pag. 3268. So 2. Chron. 35. 8. Hilkiah and Zachariah, and Jehiel, Rulers of the House of God. Act. 23. 5. Then said Paul, I wist not brethren that he was the high Priest, for it is written thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people. Finally, Deut. 31. 28. where we find schoterim, that is Officers, Rulers, or such as were set over the charge; the 70. read [Greek or Hebrew], Hierome, Doctores. More plainly