A42757:944
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.
Ministers do indeed offer Christ to all upon condition of believing, being commanded to preach the Gospel to every creature, and not knowing who are reprobates: but that Christ himself (knowing that the son of perdition was now lost, that the Scripture might be fulfilled John 17. 12.) would in the Sacrament (which is more applicative then the word, and particularizeth the promises to the receivers) so speak, as that in any sense those words might be applied to Judas, that even for ⟨p. 447⟩him his body was broken and his blood shed; and that thereupon the seals should be given him, to me is not at all credible; and I prove the negative by four arguments: (though I might give many more) 1. If Christ did in reference to Judas mean conditionally that his body was broken, and his blood shed for him, if he would believe (as Mr Prynne holds) then he meant conditionally to save the son of perdition whom he knew infallibly to be lost, and that he should be certainly damned and go to Hell, and that in eating the Sacrament he would certainly eat and drink judgement to himself (all which Mr Prynne himself pag. 26. saith Christ infallibly knew) But who dare think or say so of Jesus Christ? Suppose a Minister knew infallibly that such a one hath blasphemed against the holy Ghost, (which sin the Centurists and others think to have been committed by Judas, which could not be hid from Christ) and is irrecoverably lost, and will be most certainly damned, durst that Minister admit that person to the Sacrament, and make those words applicable to him so much as conditionally; This is the Lords body broken for you: This is the blood of the new Covenant shed for you unto remission of sin? How much less would Christ himself say so, or mean so in reference to Judas?
Ministers doe indeed offer Christ to all upon condition of believing, being commanded to preach the Gospell to every creature, and not knowing who are reprobates: but that Christ himselfe (knowing that the sonne of perdition was now lost, that the Scripture might be fulfilled Iohn 17. 12.) would in the Sacrament (which is more applicative then the word, and particularizeth the promises to the receivers) so speake, as that in any sence those words might be applied to Iudas, that even for ⟨p. 447⟩