Thirdly, saith he, it is as clear as the noon day sun, that, no not to e•t, in this Text is no more, then not to keep company, or hold civill familiarity with such. What? as clear as the noon day sun? let us open our eyes then to see this meridian light; first saith he, no not to eat, is interpreted in the Text it self by not to keep company, which we find twice in the preceding words, eating together being one of the highest expressions of outward friendship and familiarity. Had the Apostle said simply, not to eat▪ this Argument had been the more colourable, but after he had twice said, not to keep company, to add no not to eat, bdoth plainly intimate that the Apostle argueth from the less to the greater▪ and that there is some other fellowship and company with such a one, which is more than eating together and so much less permitted: and what is that? (eating together being as Master Prynne saith one of the highest expressions of outward friendship and familiarity.) Must it not be communion in the holy things, and especially the receiving such a one to the Lords Table? as if he had said, If scandalous brethren be spots in your common, how much more in your sacred Feasts? for which cause the mixture of scandalous persons in Church fellowship is extremely blamed 2 Pet. 2. 13. Jude v. 12. Put case that a Parliament man or a Divine of the Assembly were known (as God forbid) to be an Incendiary, an active malignant, a traitor, a blasphemer, so that no raher Parliament man or Member of the Assembly would eat or company with him, were it not strange, if for all that such a one should be permitted to sit in Parliament or in Assembly? Is it not as strange if the whole Church distributively shall not so much as eat with a scandalous person, and yet the whole Church Collectively shall eat with him, in that very action which is a symbol of the communion of Saints? So that if I should now admit that sense, that these ⟨p. 428⟩words no not to eat, amount to no more then not to keep company, or hold civill familiarity with such, (as Mr. Prynne expresseth it) yet the Argument will stand firm and strong in regard of this necessary consequence. If a private Christian ought not to hold so much as civill fellowship with a scandalous brother not excommunicated, much less ought the Church to admit him to Church communion in all public Ordinances;
Thirdly, saith he, it is as clear as the noone day sunne, that, no not to e•t, in this Text is no more, then not to keep company, or hold civill familiarity with such. What? as cleare as the noon day sun? let us open our eyes then to see this meridian light; first saith he, no not to eat, is interpreted in the Text it self by not to keep company, which we find twice in the preceding words, eating together being one of the highest expressions of outward friendship and familiarity. Had the Apostle said simply, not to eat▪ this Argument had been the more colourable, but after he had twice said, not to keep company, to adde no not to eat, bdoth plainly intimate that the Apostle argueth from the lesse to the greater▪ and that there is some other fellowship and company with such a one, which is more than eating together and so much lesse permitted: and what is that? (eating together being as Master Prynne saith one of the highest expressions of outward friendship and familiarity.) Must it not be communion in the holy things, and especially the receiving such a one to the Lords Table? as if he had said, If scandalous brethren be spots in your common, how much more in your sacred Feasts? for which cause the mixture of scandalous persons in Church fellowship is extreamly blamed 2 Pet. 2. 13. Iude v. 12. Put case that a Parliament man or a Divine of the Assembly were known (as God forbid) to be an Incendiary, an active malignant, a traytor, a blasphemer, so that no raher Parliament man or Member of the Assembly would eat or company with him, were it not strange, if for all that such a one should be permitted to sit in Parliament or in Assembly? Is it not as strange if the whole Church distributively shall not so much as eat with a scandalous person, and yet the whole Church Collectively shall eat with him, in that very action which is a symbole of the communion of Saints? So that if I should now admit that sence, that these ⟨p. 428⟩words no not to eat, amount to no more then not to keep company, or hold civill familiarity with such, (as Mr. Prynne expresseth it) yet the Argument will stand firme and strong in regard of this necessary consequence. If a private Christian ought not to hold so much as civill fellowship with a scandalous brother not excommunicated, much lesse ought the Church to admit him to Church communion in all publike Ordinances;
- bM•gdeb. Cent. 1 lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 275. edit. 1624 giving the sense of this very place, they say. Atque ita excludantur a communione Ecclesiae, ut non modo arceantur ab usu sacramen: orum, sed etiam à commerció, ne cibus quidem cum iis capiatur. Novarivus upon the place expreseth the Apostles meaning in these words of Ambrose. Cum fraire in quo vi•ia haec reperiuntur, non solùm Sacramenta non edenda, sed nec communem escam docet, ut erubescat quum vitatur & see currigat.M•gdeb. Cent. 1 lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 275. edit. 1624 giving the sence of this very place, they say. Atque ita excludantur a communione Ecclesiae, ut non modo arceantur ab usu sacramen: orum, sed etiam à commerció, ne cibus quidem cum iis capiatur. Novariuus upon the place expreseth the Apostles meaning in these words of Ambrose. Cum fraire in quo vi•ia haec reperiuntur, non solùm Sacramenta non edenda, sed nec communem escam docet, ut erubescat quum vitatur & se currigat.
