A42757:797
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.
Secondly, observe Peter addeth immediately: but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean: meaning, so as not to keep company with him because of his Gentilism or uncircumcision, or because of his eating of meats which were unclean by the ceremonial Law, as Ludovicus de Dieu doth rightly give the meaning, understanding, not moral, but only ceremonial uncleanness to be there spoken of; for many men under the Gospel are still to be looked upon and avoided as morally unclean. But God had taught Peter by abrogating the ceremonial differences of meats in the vision, that the ceremonial Law which was the partition wall between Jews and Gentiles, was now to be taken away: so that the Gentiles should be no longer called dogs, as Matth. 15. 26. neither were the Disciples to be forbidden any longer to go into the way of the Gentiles, Matth. 10. 5. Henc forth no man should be called holy because of his circumcision, no man unclean because of his uncircumcision.
Secondly, observe Peter addeth immediately: but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or uncleane: meaning, so as not to keepe company with him because of his Gentilisme or uncircumcision, or because of his eating of meats which were uncleane by the ceremoniall Law, as Ludovicus de Dieu doth rightly give the meaning, understanding, not morall, but onely ceremoniall uncleannesse to be there spoken of; for many men under the Gospell are still to be looked upon and avoyded as morally uncleane. But God had taught Peter by abrogating the ceremoniall differences of meats in the vision, that the ceremoniall Law which was the partition wall between Jewes and Gentiles, was now to be taken away: so that the Gentiles should be no longer called dogs, as Matth. 15. 26. neither were the Disciples to be forbidden any longer to goe into the way of the Gentiles, Matth. 10. 5. Henc forth no man should be called holy because of his circumcision, no man uncleane because of his uncircumcision.