A42757:842
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.
If it was a shame and foul scandal for Christians to pursue one another for smaller matters pertaining to this life, how much more for crimes and weightier matters? for then the unbelievers might cast the heavier load of reproaches upon the Christian religion. 2. This might have opened a door to elude that which the Apostle so earnestly presseth; for one would be ready to say, this cause of mine is a weighty one, it is an injury and crime that can not be born, therefore I am free to pursue it before unbelievers. Whereas the Apostle saith, Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer your selves to be defrauded? 3. The judging of the smallest matters, and of the things pertaining to this life, is by the Apostle opposed, not to weighty civill injuries, but to the judging of the world and of Angels, as is manifest by the Antithesis in the Text. But he maketh no intimation of the least distinction of civill injuries, as if some might be pursued before unbelieving Judges, some not: he speaketh generally vers. 1. Dare any of you having a matter against another. vers. 4. If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life vers. 7. Why do ye not rather take wrong? 4. If that which Paul saith, be the same with that which Christ saith Tell the Church, and if it was Pauls mind that he who would not hearken to chosen arbitrators among the Saints might be pursued before the unbelieving Judges (as Erastus tells us both here and Thes. 47.) then Tell the Church cannot be meant of telling the Magistrate of the same religion; for Paul sends them to no Christian Magistrate (because ⟨p. 396⟩there was none such then and there) but to arbitrators chosen among the Saints. Tis most strange to me that so acute a disputant could expound the Telling of the Church Matth. 18. by the reference to arbitrators 1. Cor. 6. and yet understand the Church Matth. 18. to be the civill Magistrate. 5. There might be subjection and obedience to the Heathen Magistrates, although the Saints should not go to Law one against another before them 6. Paul did but appeal from Caesars Deputy to Caesar himself. He was drawn by the Jews before the Tribunal of Festus (wherein Paul was a sufferer) and finding Festus unjust and partial, and that he endeavoured to deliver him to the Jews, who had a mind to have him put to death, thereupon he appealeth from Festus to Caesar.