A42757:903
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.
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;