A42757:690
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.
8. Object. But let the Scripture speak expressly, and Institutions appear Institutions, and all must bow. It is asked why we must not prove a must be, as well as a may be: and whether do our proofs amount to an Institution and a Jus divinum. For satisfaction in this point also. I answer the Question which for the present I speak to, is not whether Christ hath in his Word limited and determined us to any one particular form of Church-government, so as no other form can be admitted ⟨p. 315⟩as lawful or agreeable to the Word: Much less do I now enquire what is that particular form or kind of Government which Christ hath instituted. But the present controversy with the Erastians is, whether Christ have not appointed and instituted a Government in his Church in the hands of Church officers, distinct from Civil government: As it is one thing to enquire whether it be the will of God, that there be a civil Government or Magistracy, that is, that there be not an Anarchy in a N•tion, but some rule and government. Another thing, to enquire whether God hath in his Word limited a nation to any one particular kind of Civil Government, and if any, what it is? So it is one thing to enquire whether it be the will of Christ, that there be an Ecclesiastical Government, or an intrinsical power of ruling in the hands of Church-officers, distinct from the civil Government? Another thing to ask whether the Word determineth any one kind of Church-Government as necessary, and which it is? The former, not the latter is our present controversy. Yea in very truth the Erastians do oppose not only the institution, but the lawfulness and agreeableness to the Word of God, of a Church-Government distinct from the civil; For their principles and Arguments tend to the investing of the civil Magistrate with the whole and sole power of Church-Government; as that which belongeth to him only, and that Jure divino: So that if their Principles hold good, it shall be unlawful and contrary to the Word of God, for Church-officers to claim, or assume, or exercise any Government or power of censures. Though (I say) the clearing and vindicating of the lawfulness of a distinct Church-Government, doth overthrow the Erastian Principles: yet that I may deal the more clearly and fully, for the satisfaction of all such as may be satisfied, this I avouch and aver:
8. Object. But let the Scripture speak expressely, and Institutions appear Institutions, and all must bow. It is asked why we must not prove a must be, as well as a may be: and whether do our proofes amount to an Institution and a Ius divinum. For satisfaction in this point also. I answer the Question which for the present I speak to, is not whether Christ hath in his Word limited and determined us to any one particular forme of Church-government, so as no other forme can be admitted