A42757:687
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.
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? Phil. 2. 3. Did I not also answer in his own words, that his Brethren's wisdom and humility may safely be trusted with as large a share of Government as themselves desire? Did I not lastly answer, that if his whole Argument were granted, it cannot prove that there ought to be no Church-Government, for where the thing is necessary, abuses must be corrected and amended, but must not take away the thing it self? Unto which exceptions nothing hath been replied, nor offered to vindicate or make good that Argument which was publicly offered to the Parliament. If such men were fit to put the reverend Assembly and all the Ministry of England to school again, to learn to dispute, let every pious and wise man judg. And so I am led on to another Objection.
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 Traytor that commits Treason, but he is the Traytor that 〈…〉 Treason. And why saith he that my answer was onely concerning that involving of the Magistrate? Did I not first shew 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 Scripturall proof which was brought for that Argument upon which so much weight was laid) which I will not trouble my Reader withall 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?