A42757:843
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 if Erastus had made the parallel right, all that he could conclude from Pauls example, had been this, that when a Christian is drawn and compelled by his accusers and Enemies (not being Christians) before the Tribunal of an inferior Heathen Judge, if he there find himself in danger of his life, he may appeal in his just defence to an higher Heathen Judge. Wherefore I yet conclude that by the Erastian principles Christ and Paul cannot be reconciled▪ These three Arguments do militate not only against Erastus and Bilson, but likewise against Sutlivius de Presb. Cap. 9. where he gives this sense of Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. that we ought to take heed we give no scandal in the pursuing of injuries, and for that end ought to give admonition first privately, then before witnesses, and in case of obstinacy in the brother that hath done the injury, to tell the Rulers of the Church (meaning the Prelates) and if he will not hear them, then to go to Law with that Brother, as with an Heathen or Publican. The other Arguments which are to follow, (the last excepted) strike not at his Interpretation, but at those other Glosses, of Erastus, Bilson, and Master Prynne.
So that if Erastus had made the paralell right, all that he could conclude from Pauls example, had been this, that when a Christian is drawne and compelled by his accusers and Enemies (not being Christians) before the Tribunall of an inferiour Heathen Judge, if he there find himself in danger of his life, he may appeale in his just defence to an higher Heathen Judge. Wherefore I yet conclude that by the Erastian principles Christ and Paul cannot be reconciled▪ These three Arguments doe militate not onely against Erastus and Bilson, but likewise against Sutlivius de Presb. Cap. 9. where he gives this sence of Matth. 18. 15, 16, 17. that we ought to take heed we give no scandall in the pursuing of injuries, and for that end ought to give admonition first privately, then before witnesses, and in case of obstinacy in the brother that hath done the injury, to tell the Rulers of the Church (meaning the Prelates) and if he will not hear them, then to go to Law with that Brother, as with an Heathen or Publican. The other Arguments which are to follow, (the last excepted) strike not at his Interpretation, but at those other Glosses, of Erastus, Bilson, and Master Prynne.