A42757:710
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.
So that such principles do tend directly to involve the Parliament in the Prelatical guiltiness, which our Principles do avoid. Was it not another Argument used against the Prelates, that they could not manage both Civil and Church-government, and that an Ecclesiastical Administration could not consist with civil power and places in the Parliament or with offices of State, any one of these administrations (either the civil or the Ecclesiastical) requiring the whole man.
So that such principles do tend directly to involve the Parliament in the Prelatical guiltinesse, which our Principles do avoid. Was it not another Argument used against the Prelats, that they could not manage both Civil and Church-government, and that an Ecclesiastical Administration could not consist with civil power and places in the Parliament or with offices of State, any one of these administrations (either the civil or the Ecclesiastical) requiring the whole man.
Do not the Erastians endeavour to draw the Parliament into the very same absurdity with which the Prelates were pressed? For if any of these two administrations require the whole man, how can the civil Magistrate (though Christian) take upon him the burden of Church-Government, more then Church-Officers can take upon them the burden of civil-government? Philo the Jew gives this reason why Moses did make a partition of the charge between Joshua and Aaron, committing to the one the civil, to the other the Ecclesiastical administration. He considered that it was impossible rightly to take care both of the supreme civil power, and of the Priesthood, since the one professeth to care for things pertaining to God, the other for men. Philo de charitate.
Do not the Erastians endeavour to draw the Parliament into the very same absurdity with which the Prelats were pressed? For if any of these two administrations require the whole man, how can the civil Magistrate (though Christian) take upon him the burthen of Church-Government, more then Church-Officers can take upon them the burthen of civil-government? Philo the Jew gives this reason why Moses did make a partition of the charge between Ioshua and Aaron, committing to the one the civil, to the other the Ecclesiastical administration. He considered that it was impossible rightly to take care both of the supreme civil power, and of the Priesthood, since the one professeth to care for things pertaining to God, the other for men. Philo de charitate.