A42757:686
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 10: Some Objections m•de against Ecclesiastical Government a•d Discipline answered.
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.
5. Object. If acts of Government be put in the hands of Church-Officers, there is fear of an ambitious ensnarement, which Mr. Coleman proved by an arguing from his own heart to the hearts of other men. Mr. Gillespie's answer to the matter of ambition saith Mr. Hussey, pag. 10. is only by involving the Civil Magistrate in the same danger of ambition. And here he falleth out into a concertation, professedly with my answer, but really with Mr. Colemans Argument: for the foundation of his ⟨p. 312⟩Argument was universal. Might I measure others by my self, and I know not why I may not (God fashioneth mens hearts alike, and as in ware face answers to face, so the heart of man to man) &c. Hereupon I replied, Is this corruption only in the hearts of Ministers? or is it in the hearts of all other men? I suppose he will say in all mens hearts; and then his Argument will conclude against all Civil Government.
5. Object. If acts of Government be put in the hands of Church-Officers, there is fear of an ambitious ensnarement, which Mr. Coleman proved by an arguing from his owne heart to the hearts of other men. Mr. Gilespies answer to the matter of ambition saith Mr. Hussey, pag. 10. is onely by involving the Civil Magistrate in the same danger of ambition. And here he falleth out into a concertation, professedly with my answer, but really with Mr. Colemans Argument: for the foundation of his ⟨p. 312⟩Argument was universal. Might I measure others by my selfe, and I know not why I may not (God fashioneth mens hearts alike, and as in warer face answers to face, so the heart of man to man) &c. Hereupon I replyed, Is this corruption onely in the hearts of Ministers? or is it in the hearts of all other men? I suppose he will say in all mens hearts; and then his Argument will conclude against all Civil Government.
And now per omnes musas I beseech him, which of us involveth the Magistrate in ambition? Must I be charged with involving the Magistrate because I discovered that Mr. Colemans Argument involveth the Magistrate? He might as truly say he is not the Traitor that commits Treason, but he is the Traitor that […] Treason. And why saith he that my answer was only concerning that involving of the Magistrate? Did I not first show that the two Scriptures on which Mr. Colemans Argument was grounded, did not prove it: though now Mr. Hussey tells us Mr. Coleman did but allude to those Scriptures (I am sure it was all the Scriptural proof which was brought for that Argument upon which so much weight was laid) which I will not trouble my Reader withal saith he: A pretty shift, when a man cannot defend the Argument, then forsooth he will not trouble the Reader. Next, did I not deny that which Mr. Coleman did take for granted; that we may reason from this or that particular corruption in one mans heart, to prove the same particular corruption in all other mens hearts, and that Paul taught us not so?