A42757:983
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
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.
I Have now done with the first part of this Controversy concerning Judas, and have disproved that which Mr Prynne hath said either for Judas his receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, or for his eating of the Passover. In which particulars, though learned and godly Divines who are against the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament, are not all of one opinion, yet all look upon it as a matter of debate, and I know none that ever cried down with scorn and contempt the opinion of Judas his not receiving of the Sacrament, except Mr Prynne whose grounds are ofttimes weakest where his assertions are strongest.
I Have now done with the first part of this Controversie concerning Iudas, and have disproved that which Mr Prynne hath said either for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, or for his eating of the Passeover. In which particulars, though learned and godly Divines who are against the admission of scandalous sinners to the Sacrament, are not all of one opinion, yet all looke upon it as a matter of debate, and I know none that ever cried downe with scorne and contempt the opinion of Iudas his not receiving of the Sacrament, excep• Mr Prynne whose grounds are oftimes weakest where his assertions are strongest.
I proceed to the second answer. Granting that Judas did receive the Sacrament, that can make nothing for the admission of scandalous sinners whose profaneness and ungodly conversation is known, and maketh their name to stink in the Church. For Judas his wickedness was not public nor known before he had got the sop and gone out, and left the company of Christ and the Apostles. And moreover he who argueth from Christs receiving of Judas to the Sacrament, when though his sin was yet secret, yet Christ knew him to be a devil; to prove that the Eldership may and ought to admit one to the Sacrament, whom they know to be a Judas, a Devil: may as well argue from Christs choosing of Judas to be an Apostle when he knew him to be a Devil, to prove the lawfulness of the Elderships choosing of a Minister whom they know to be a devil. But now for that point of the scandal or secrecy of Judas his sin, let us hear Mr Prynnes reply, pag. 26, 27. He gives it four feet to run upon. But the truth