A42757:841
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.
Thirdly, that exposition which now I argue against, tendeth to make one Scripture contradict another, and to make that lawful by one Scripture, which another Scripture makes unlawful even some of themselves being Judges. They so expound Matth. 1 S. that they make it lawful (and as such allowed by Christ himself) for a Christian to pursue his Brother for a civill injury before Infidel or Heathnish Judges, even as he would pursue an Heathen or Infidel, if such an one had done him the in ury. rErast, saith freely (yet foully) that if a Congregation of the faithful be under the Turk or the Pope, one of them may pursue another for an injury (when the offender will not hearken to his own Assembly) before those Judges who are aliens, and Enemies to the true Religion. His exposition of Matth. 18. doth plainly lead hereunto. So saith Bishop Bilson (a great follower of Erastus) in this debate upon Matth. 18. in the place before cited, let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a publican, that is pursue him in those courts, where thou wouldest a Pagan and Publican that should do thee wrong. But how doth this agree with 1 Cor. 6. (the place which Erastus thes. 41. conceiveth to be a Commentary upon Matth. 18.) doth not the Apostle expressly condemn it, as being utterly a fault that one brother went to Law with another for the things of this life or civill causes, before the unjust and unbelievers? Nay, let us hear Bishop Bilson himself in that very place. Paul saith he by no means permitted them to pursue their Brethren at the Tribunals of Infidels. What then? will they set Paul against Christ? or will ⟨p. 395⟩they make 1 Cor. 6. contrary to Matth. 18. As for that whereby Erastus would reconcile this difference, it is as good as nothing. He saith pag. 183. that Paul requireth them to refer to arbitrators within the Church it self, only the smallest matters and things pertaining to this life, but not crimes or weighty matters which he would reserve to the Magistrates, otherwise he had detracted much from those to whom he every where commandeth to give obedience. And so (saith he) that which Paul saith is nothing but what Christ saith, Tell the Church. Besides Paul himself appealed to Cesar. let all men judge (saith he) whether the Apostle would make it unlawful to other wronged persons, which he thought lawful for himself? I answer, 1.