A42757:964
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.
As for those Ancients cited by Mr Prynne, some of them (as Origen and Cyril) did go upon this great mistake that the sop which Christ gave to Judas, was the Sacrament; which error of theirs is observed by Interpreters upon the place. No marvel that they who thought so, were also of opinion that Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; for how could they choose to think otherwise, upon that supposition? But now the later Interpreters, yea Mr Prynne himself having taken away that which was the ground of their opinion, their Testimonies will weigh the less in this particular. Chrysostom thinks indeed that Judas received the Sacrament, but he takes it to be no warrant at all for the admission of scandalous persons: for in one and the same Homily, Hom. 83. in Matth. he both tells us of Judas his receiving of the Sacrament, and discourseth at large against the admission of scandalous persons. As for Bernard Mr Prynne doth not cite his words nor quote the place. Oecumenius (in the passage cited by Mr Prynne) saith that the other Apostles and Judas did eat together communi mensa, at a common Table; But he saith not at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. That which Oecumenius in that place argueth against, is the contempt of the poor in the Church of Corinth, and the secluding of them from the love feasts of the richer sort. Now, saith he, if Christ himself admitted Judas to eat at one and the same Table, with his other Disciples, ought not we much more admit the poor to eat at our Tables? Mr Prynne tells us also that Nazianzen in his Christus patiens agreeth that Judas did receive the Lords Supper together with the other Apostles. I answer, first I find no such thing in that place. Next, those verses so entitled, are thought to be done by some late author, and not by Nazianzen, as Jo. NeW enklaius in his Censure upon them noteth, and giveth reason for it. Cyprians Sermon de ablutione pedum, as it is doubted of whether it be Cyprian's, so the words cited by Mr Prynne do not prove the point in controversy. The other Testimony cited out of Cyprians Sermon de caena Domini, as it is not transcribed ⟨p. 457⟩according to the original, so if Mr Prynne had read all which Cyprian saith in that Sermon against unworthy receivers, peradventure he had not made […] of that testimony.
As for those Ancients cited by Mr Prynne, some of them (as Origen and Cyrill) did goe upon this great mistake that the sop which Christ gave to Iudas, was the Sacrament; which errour of theirs is observed by Interpreters upon the place. No marvell that they who thought so, were also of opinion that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; for how could they choose to thinke otherwise, upon that supposition? But now the later Interpreters, yea Mr Prynne himselfe having taken away that which was the ground of their opinion, their Testimonies will weigh the lesse in this particular. Chrysostome thinks indeed that Iudas received the Sacrament, but he takes it to be no warrant at all for the admission of scandalous persons: for in one and the same Homily, Hom. 83. in Matth. he both tels us of Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament, and discourseth at large against the admission of scandalous persons. As for Bernard Mr Prynne doth not cite his words nor quote the place. Oecumenius (in the passage cited by Mr Prynne) saith that the other Apostles and Iudas did eate together communi mensa, at a common Table; But he saith not at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. That which Oecumenius in that place argueth against, is the contempt of the poore in the Church of Corinth, and the secluding of them from the love feasts of the richer sort. Now, saith he, if Christ himselfe admitted Iudas to eate at one and the same Table, with his other Disciples, ought not we much more admit the poore to eate at our Tables? Mr Prynne tels us also that Nazianzen in his Christus patiens agreeth that Iudas did receive the Lords Supper together with the other Apostles. I answer, first I finde no such thing in that place. Next, those verses so entituled, are thought to be done by some late author, and not by Nazianzen, as Io. NeW enklaius in his Censure upon them noteth, and giveth reason for it. Cyprians Sermon de ablutione pedum, as it is doubted of whether it be Cyprians, so the words cited by Mr Prynne doe not prove the point in controverfie. The other Testimony cited out of Cyprians Sermon de caena Domini, as it is not transcribed