A42757:814
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.
From all which I conclude, that Christs words, relating to the Jewish custom, Let him be to thee as a Heathen man, cannot be meant (as Mr Prynne would have them) of avoiding mere civill company and fellowship; for as much as it was not held unlawful among the Jews to have civill company and commerce with Heathens. Sure the Jews of our age are far from holding such a thing unlawful.
From all which I conclude, that Christs words, relating to the Jewish custome, Let him be to thee as a Heathen man, cannot be meant (as Mr Prynne would have them) of avoyding meere civill company and fellowship; for as much as it was not held unlawfull among the Jewes to have civill company and commerce with Heathens. Sure the Jewes of our age are farre from holding such a thing unlawfull.
Yea so far I am unsatisfied with Mr Prynnes interpretation, that I verily believe (and so do some others) a part of the intendment of these words, Let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican, is to hold forth the lawfulness, yea the obligation of performing all natural (and in diverse cases moral) duties to a person Excommunicated: I mean that the Text doth intimate thus much. As upon the one hand the contumacious offender who will not hear the Church, is to be used no better than an Heathen or a profane Publican, and is not to be admitted to any Ordinance, except such as Heathens and profane Publicans are and may be admitted unto; So upon the other hand, let him have no worse usage and entertainment, then those very Heathens and Publicans, unto whom all natural and some moral duties are performed, notwithstanding they be Heathens and Publicans. For the Apostle commandeth Christians to be subject even to Heathen Magistrates, servants to honour and be subject to heathen and ungodly ⟨p. 383⟩Masters, the wife not to depart from the husband because he believeth not. So that this rule of Christ, Matth. 18. 17. is so full and perfect, as to teach us, as well what fellowship is lawful with such a one, as what fellowship is not lawful to be kept with him. I do not deny but that (according to the ordinary rule) fellowship with an excommunicate person in meat, drink, familiarity, and salutations, is unlawful, as well as in the Sacrament and prayer, according to the received rule: