A42757:923
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
Book 3 › Chapter 8: Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.
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.
CHAP. VIII. Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.
Mr. Prynne hath filled up a good part of his Vindication with the case of Judas, as going very far in the deciding of this present controversy. But as Protestant writers answer the Papists in the case of Peter, that it cannot be proved tha• Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, but rather that he was no•; and if he had, this cannot prove the Popes Supremacy: the like I say of this case of Judas. M. Prynne shall never be able to prove that Judas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: and if he could prove it, yet it shall not at all help that cause which he maintaineth.
Mr. Prynne hath filled up a good part of his Vindication with the case of Iudas, as going very farre in the deciding of this present contoversie. But as Protestant writers answer the Papists in the case of Peter, that it cannot be proved tha• Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, but rather that he was no•; and if he had, this cannot prove the Popes Supremacy: the like I say of this case of Iudas. M. Prynne shall never be able to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: and if he could prove it, yet it shall not at all helpe that cause which he maintaineth.
I begin with the matter of fact, whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as well as the other Apostles, which is the question by him stated. For decision whereof, I hold it necessary, first of all that these two things be premised, concerning the harmony of the Evangelists in that matter of Judas, the use whereof we shall see afterwards. Matthew and Mark tell us Christs discourse of the Traitor at Table, and the discovery of Judas, before the institution of the Sacrament. Luke hath the same thing after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament. So that either Matthew and Mark speak by anticipation, or Luke speaketh by a recapitulation; that is, either Matthew and Mark put before what was done after, or