A42757:798
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.
This being the meaning, it followeth that the unlawfulness of eating and companying with an Heathen mentioned Act. 10. 28. must not be so understood, as if bare civill fellowship had been unlawful; but it must be understood, first, in reference to the moral Law, that is for avoiding the danger of Idolatry in eating or drinking that which Idolatrous Heathens had sacrificed to Idols, as hath been just now cleared. Secondly, in reference to the Ceremonial Law, or of such fellowship as was contrary to the ceremonial Law, in eating together with Heathens of meats legally unclean, such as were represented to Peter in the vision, and he commanded to eat what was formerly unclean to him. Otherwise when the Gentiles did not eat any thing which the Jews were forbidden to eat, it was lawful for the Jews to eat with the Gentiles saith Tostatus in 2. Paral. 6. Quest. 21. So likewise Grotius de Jure Belli ac pacis lib. 2. cap. 15. Sect. 9. where he referreth the Jews their not eating with the Heathens, to the Law of meats or the peculiaris ⟨p. 373⟩victus which was prescribed to the Jews. But otherwise the Law did not make it unlawful for them to eat with any of another Nation: which he thinks is proved by Christs own example who took a drink of water from the woman of Samaria, being yet most observant of the Law. That the unlawfulness of eating with the Heathens was understood in reference to the ceremonial Law, I prove, from Gal. 2. 12. 14. Peter having before eaten with the Gentiles, to avoid the scandal of some Jews that came from James, did withdraw and separate himself from the believing Gentiles: What? to keep no more any civill company with them. I hope no man will imagine that. But the Text expounds it self vers. 14. If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? This was Peters fault, that having formerly lived as the Gentiles, that is, eating with them all sorts of meats freely, thinking himself liberate from the Yoke of the ceremonial Law, afterward he withdrew and separated himself from that manner of fellowship with the Centiles, and bound up himself to live as do the Jews, and to observe the distinction of meats according to the Law.