A42757:948
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 third argument (which I shall now add) is that whereby Hilarius Can. 30. in Matth. and Innocentius the third lib. 4. de mysterio miss. cap. 13. prove that Judas received not the Sacrament, neither was present at the receiving of it. Because that night while Judas was present, Christ in his gracious and comfortable expressions to his Apostles did make an exception, as John 13. 10, 11. Ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him, therefore said he, ye are not all clean, vers. 18. I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen. So vers. 21. even as before Joh. 6. 70. Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil. But at the Sacrament all his sweet and gracious speeches are without any such exception, This is my body which is given for you, &c. Yea he saith positively of all the Apostles to whom he gave the Sacrament, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom, Matth. 26. 29. and this he saith nnto them all, as it is clear from vers. 27. Drink ye all of it. Again, Luke 22. 28, 29, 30. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a Kingdom as my Father hath appointed unto me. That ye may eat and drink at my Table in my Kingdom, and sit on Thrones judging the twelve Tribes ⟨p. 449⟩of Israel. Would not Christ much more have excepted Judas in these expressions, if he had been present, seeing he had so often excepted him before?
The third argument (which I shall now adde) is that whereby Hilarius Can. 30. in Matth. and Innocentius the third lib. 4. de mysterio miss. cap. 13. prove that Iudas received not the Sacrament, neither was present at the receiving of it. Because that night while Iudas was present, Christ in his gracious and comfortable expressions to his Apostles did make an exception, as Iohn 13. 10, 11. Ye are cleane, but not all. For he knew who should betray him, therefore said he, ye are not all cleane, vers. 18. I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen. So vers. 21. even as before