A42757:965
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 words cited out of Ambrose do not hold forth clearly Judas his receiving of the Eucharistical Supper. The words cited out of Augustine epist. 162. Judas accepit pretium nostrum, are not there to be found, though there be something to that sense. It is no safe way of citations to change the words of Authors. This by the way. As for his other three citations out of Augustine Tract. 6. 26. & 62. in Joh. I can not pass them without two Animadversions. First, the greatest part of those words, which he citeth as Augustine's words, and also as recited by Bede in his Commentary on 1 Cor. 11. is not to be found either in Augustine or Bede in the places by him cited; viz. these words: Talis erat Judas, & tamen cum sanctis Discipulis undecin• intrabat & exibat. Ad ipsam caenam Dominicam pariter accessit, conversari cum iis potuit, eos inquinare non potuit: De uno p•ne & Petrus accipit & Judas; & tamen quae pars fideli & infideli? Petrus enim accepit ad vitam, manducat Judas ad mortem: Qui enim comederunt indigne judicium sibi manducat & bibit SIBI, NON TIBI, &c. Of which last sentence if Mr Prynne can make good Latin, let him do it, (for I can not) and when he hath done so, he may be pleased to look over his Books better to seek those words elsewhere, if he can find them, for as yet he hath directed us to seek them where they are not. My next Animadversion shall be this. The words of Augustine, which Mr Prynne allegeth for Judas his receiving of the Sacrament, are these, Tract. 6. in Joh. Num enim mala erat buccella quae tradita est Judae à Domino? Absit. Medicus non daret venenum: salutem medicus dedit, sed indigne accipiendo ad perniciem accepit, quia non pacatus accepit. Thus the original, though not so recited by Mr Prynne: but that I pass, so long as he retains the substance. Yet how will he conclude from these words that Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, unless he make Augustine to contradict himself most grossly: for Tract. 62. in Joh. (another place whether Mr Prynne directeth us,) speaking of Christs giving of that buccella or sop to Judas, he saith, ⟨p. 458⟩Non autem ut putant quidam negligenter legentes, tunc Judas Christi corpus accepit: but Judas did not at that time receive the body of Christ, as some negligently reading do think. Which words Bede also in his Comment on