A42757:932
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.
That which hath been said doth also discover that other mistake that the discourse at Table concerning the Traitor, and the giving of the sop to Judas Joh. 13. was after the institution of the Sacrament. If it were after, then either that in John is not the same with the discourse concerning the Traitor mentioned by Matthew and Mark; or otherwise Matthew and Mark speak by anticipation. But I have proved both that the true order is in Matthew and Mark, and that the discourse concerning the Traitor mentioned by John must be in the Evangelical harmony put together with that in Matthew and Mark, as making one and the same story. And if this in John had been posterior to that in Matthew, then why doth Mr Prynne himself join these together as one, pag. 18, 19.
That which hath been said doth also discover that other mistake that the discourse at Table concerning the Traytor, and the giving of the sop to Iudas Ioh. 13. was after the institution of the Sacrament. If it were after, then either that in Iohn is not the same with the discourse concerning the Traytor mentioned by Matthew and Marke; or otherwise Matthew and Marke speake by anticipation. But I have proved both that the true order is in Matthew and Marke, and that the discourse concerning the Traytor mentioned by Iohn must be in the Evangelicall harmony put together with that in Matthew and Marke, as making one and the same story. And if this in Iohn had been posterior to that in Matthew, then why doth Mr Prynne himselfe joyn these together as one, pag. 18, 19.
These things premised, I come to the arguments which prove that Judas did not receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.
These things premised, I come to the arguments which prove that Iudas did not receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.