A42757:927
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.
3. Luke saith not that after Supper, or after they had done with the Sacrament, Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him; only he addeth, after the History of the Sacrament, what Christ said concerning the Traitor. But Matthew and Mark do not only record Christs words concerning the Traitor before they make narration concerning the Sacrament, but they record expressly that that discourse and the discovery of the Traitor was [Greek or Hebrew], as they did eat, Matth. 26. 21. Mark 14. 18. Now when the evening was come he sate down with the twelve, and immediately followeth, as the first purpose which Christ spake of, and as they did eat, he said, verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Which could not be so, if Luke relate Christs words concerning the Traitor in that order in which they were first uttered; for Luke having told us verse 22. that Christ took the cup after Supper and said, This cup is the new Testament, &c. addeth, But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table. So that if this were the true order, Christ did not tell his Disciples concerning the Traitor, as they did eat (which Matthew and Mark do say) but after they had done eating. If it be said that [Greek or Hebrew] may suffer this sense, when they had eaten, or having eaten. I answer, the context will not suffer that sense; for they were indeed eating in the time of that discourse, Matth. 26. 23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish the same shall betray me, Jos. 13. 26. He it is to whom I shall give a sop after I have dipped it.
3. Luke saith not that after Supper, or after they had done with the Sacrament, Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him; onely he addeth, after the History of the Sacrament, what Chrst said concerning the Traytor. But Matthew and Marke doe not onely record Christs words concerning the Traytor before they make narration concerning the Sacrament, but they record expresly that that discourse and the discovery of the Traytor was 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, as they did eate,