A42757:943
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.
The second argument (which I also touched in my Sermon) was this. As Christ said to the Communicants, Drink ye all of it, Matth. 26. 27. and they all drank, Matth. 14. 23. so he saith to them all, This is my Body which is broken for you, This is the cup of the new covenant in my Blood, which is shed for you, Luke 22. 19. 20. But if Judas had been one of the communicants, it is not credible that Christ would have said so in reference to him, as well as to the other Apostles. This argument Mr Prynne p. 25. doth quite mistake, as if the strength of it lay in a supposed particular application of the words of the institution to each communicant, which I never meant, but dislike it as much as he: The words were directed to all, in the plural. This is my Body broken for you, &c. my Blood shed for you, &c. Mr Prynne conceives that it might have been said to Judas, being meant by Christ, only conditionally, that his Body was broken, and his Blood was shed for him, if he would really receive them by faith. Jonas Schlichtingius a Socinian in his book against Meisnerus pag. 803. though he supposeth as Mr Prynne doth that Judas was present at the giving of the Sacrament, yet he holds that it is not to be imagined, that Christ would have said to Judas, that his body was broken for him. And shall we then who believe that the death of Jesus Christ was a satisfaction to the justice of God for sin (which the Socini• believe not) admit that Christ meant to comprehend Judas •mong others, when he said this is my body which is broken for you?
The second argument (which I also touched in my Sermon) was this. As Christ said to the Communicants, Drinke ye all of it, Matth. 26. 27. and they all dranke, Matth. 14. 23. so he saith to them all, This is my Body which is broken for you, This is the cup of the new covenant in my Blood, which is shed for you, Luke 22. 19. 20. But if Iudas had been one of the communicants, it is not credible that Christ would have said so in reference to him, as well as to the other Apostles. This argument Mr Prynne p. 25. doth quite mistake, as if the strength of it lay in a supposed particular application of the words of the institution to each communicant, which I never meant, but dislike it as much as he: The words were directed to all, in the plurall. This is my Body broken for you, &c. my Blood shed for you, &c. Mr Prynne conceives that it might have been said to Iudas, being meant by Christ, onely conditionally, that his Body was broken, and his Blood was shed for him, if he would really receive them by faith. Jonas Schlichtingius a Socinian in his booke against Meisnerus pag. 803. though he supposeth as Mr Prynne doth that Iudas was present at the giving of the Sacrament, yet he holds that it is not to be imagined, that Christ would have said to Iudas, that his body was broken for him. And shall we then who believe that the death of Jesus Christ was a satisfaction to the justice of God for sinne (which the Socini believe not) admit that Christ meant to comprehend Iudas mong others, when he said this is my body which is broken for you?