A42757:939
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. The example of the ancient Christians will help him as little. I find no such thing in Tertullians Apologetic, as the eating of the love feasts immediately after the Lords Supper. But I find both in the eAfrican Canons and in fAugustine, and ⟨p. 444⟩in gWalafridus Strabo that once in the year (and oftener by divers) the Sacrament was received after the ordinary meat for a commemoration of that which Christ did in the night wherein he was betrayed. It had been formerly in use among diver• to take the Sacrament ordinarily after meat, till the African Council discharged it, as Laurentius de la barre observeth in the notes upon Tertullian pag. 339. edit. Paris. 1580. Augustine epist. 118. cap. 5. & 6. answereth certain queries of Januarius, concerning eating or not eating before the Sacrament. He saith that Christ did indeed give the Sacrament after supper, and that the Corinthians did also take it after supper: but that the Scripture hath not tied us to follow these examples, but left us at liberty. And upon this ground he defendeth the Churches custom at that time of taking the Sacrament fasting, for greater reverence to the Ordinance. But in this he speaks plainly, hthat when Christ was eating with the Disciples, and telling them that one of them should betray him, he had not then given the Sacrament. With Augustine's judgement agreeth that Epistle of Chrysostom, where answering an objection which had been made against him, that he had given the Sacrament to some that were not fasting, he denieth the fact, but addeth, if he had done so, it had been no sin, because Christ gave the Sacrament to the Apostles after they had supped. [Greek or Hebrew]. Let them depose, saith he, the Lord himself, who gave the communion after supper. In commemoration whereof the ancient Church (even when they received the Sacrament fasting at other times, yet) upon the passion day called Good Friday received it after meals, as I proved before. And this I also add by the way, that though▪ Paul condemneth the Corinthians for eating their love feast in the Church, yet he allows them to eat at home before they come to the Lords Table, as the Centurists, cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 384. prove from