A42757:928
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.
4. Musculus in loc. com. de caen. dom. pag. 362. gives this reason out of Rupertus, why Lukes narration of Christs words concerning the Traitor, is placed by a recapitulation after the Sacrament: because Luke is the only Evangelist who writeth distinctly of the Paschal Supper, and what Christ said at that Supper: and having once fallen upon that purpose, the connection of the matter did require that he should immediately add the story of the Eucharistical Supper, without interlacing that of the Traitor. Which reason will pass for good ⟨p. 439⟩with such as think Judas did eat of the Paschal Supper, and that Christs words concerning him were spoken at the Paschal Supper, which I greatly doubt of.
4. Musculus in loc. com. de caen. dom. pag. 362. gives this reason out of Rupertus, why Lukes narration of Christs words concerning the Traytor, is placed by a recapitulation after the Sacrament: because Luke is the onely Evangelist who writeth distinctly of the Paschall Supper, and what Christ said at that Supper: and having once fallen upon that purpose, the connexion of the matter did require that he should immediately adde the story of the E•charisticall Supper, without interlacing that of the Traytor. Which reason will passe for good ⟨p. 439⟩with such as think Iudas did eate of the Paschalll Supper, and that Christs words concerning him were spoken at the Paschall Supper, which I greatly doubt of.
5. Mr Prynne pag. 18. doth in effect grant the same thing that I say; for he saith, that Matthew and Mark record that immediately before the institution of the Sacrament, as they sate at meat Jesus said unto the twelve, Verily one of you shall betray me, whereupon they began to be sorrowful and to say unto him, &c. He addeth, that Judas was the last man that said, Is it I? immediately before the institution, as Matthew records. But of Luke he saith only thus much, that he placeth these words of Christ concerning Judas his betraying him, after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament, not before it. If it be thus as Mr Prynne acknowledgeth, that Matthew and Mark record, that Christ had that discourse concerning Judas before the institution of the Sacrament, then most certainly it was before the institution of the Sacrament, because it must needs be true which Matthew and Mark say. Whence t will necessarily follow that Luke doth not mention that discourse concerning Judas in its proper place, and this doth not offer the least violence to the Text in Luke, because he doth not say that Christ spake these words after the Sacrament, only he placeth these words after the Sacrament, as Mr Prynne saith rightly. When Scripture saith that such a thing was done at such a time, it must be so believed. But when Scripture mentioneth one thing after another, that will not prove that the thing last mentioned was last done. More plainly Master Prynne pag. 26, 27. tells us that the Sacrament was given after Christ had particularly informed his Disciples that one of them should betray him, which he proves from