A42757:844
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.
Fourthly, this Erastian exposition makes these words, but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican, to be applicable only to such Christians as live under unbelieving Magistrates, and not to all Christians. This consequence Erastus foresaw, that it would needs follow from his Interpretation, therefore he plainly owneth it Thes. 47. He ⟨p. 397⟩confesseth that the former part concerning rebuking and seeking to gain the offending Brother, belongs to all Christians; What a boldness is here to rent asunder this passage of Scripture, which was uttered as it were with one breath? And why doth not the latter part also belong unto all Christians? Must Christians that live under an Infidel Magistrate have more effectual means and ways to use towards an offending Brother, and may they go a step further in putting him to shame or in humbling him, then those Christians can do who live under a Christian Magistrate? How well doth this hang together? I should have thought the balance must rather fall to this hand. But to make the condition of those, who live under a Christian Magistrate to be more privative, and the condition of those who live under an Infidel Magistrate to be more cumulative, is too great a paradox for me.
Fourthly, this Erastian exposition makes these words, but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a publican, to be applicable onely to such Christians as live under unbelieving Magistrates, and not to all Christians. This consequence Erastus foresaw, that it would needs follow from his Interpretation, therefore he plainly owneth it Thes. 47. He ⟨p. 397⟩confesseth that the former part concerning rebuking and seeking to gaine the offending Brother, belongs to all Christians; What a boldnesse is here to rent asunder this passage of Scripture, which was uttered as it were with one breath? And why doth not the latter part also belong unto all Christians? Must Christians that live under an Infidell Magistrate have more effectuall meanes and wayes to use towards an offending Brother, and may they go a step further in putting him to shame or in humbling him, then those Christians can doe who live under a Christian Magistrate? How well doth this hang together? I should have thought the ballance must rather fall to this hand. But to make the condition of those, who live under a Christian Magistrate to be more privative, and the condition of those who live under an Infidell Magistrate to be more cumulative, is too great a paradoxe for me.