A42757:991
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.
6. Beside that of the French Catechism, which saith the impiety of Judas was concealed, and not broken forth into the light and knowledge of men when the Sacrament was given: take these other Testimonies, Martyr. in 1 Cor. 5. Et quod attinet ad Judam, peccatum ejus non erat cognitum atque perspectum, nec ullo judicio convictum. Gerhard. Harm. Evang. cap. 171. pag. 453, Judae scelus nondum erat in lucem productum, sed anim• suo illud ad•c ela•sum tenebat. The same he hath in his common ⟨p. 471⟩places Tom. 5. pag. 181. where he showeth that Judas receiving of the Sacrament maketh nothing for the admission of scandalous persons; because although Judas had gone to the chief Priests and agreed with them, this was known to none of the Disciples, at that time, but to Christ himself only. Nay the Testimony cited by Mr Prynne himself out of Algerus de Sacram. maketh strongly against him in this particular: Quia enim saith Algerus) Judas accusatus & damnatus non fuerat, ideo Christus conscientiam ejus perversam, quamvis sibi notam damnare noluit. For because Judas was not accused & condemned, therefore Christ would not condemn (openly) his perverse conscience, though known to himself. Innocentius 3. in the place above cited De myst. Missae lib. 4. cap. 13. after he hath asserted that Judas did not receive the Lords Supper, he addeth, that if it should be granted that Judas did receive it, this only will follow at most, that Ministers are to admit to the Sacrament such as are not known to the Church, to be impious or wicked, as Judas his wickedness was not at that time known to the Disciples. Likewise both Chrysostom and Theophylact upon John 13. are clear in this, that Judas hypocrisy was not detected to the Apostles till Christ did separate him, and he went forth. Moreover I shall mind Mr Prynne how he himself doth apply this example of Judas in his Independency examined, pag. 8, 9. he argueth thus: Whether Independents refusal to admit such Christians who are not notoriously scandalous in their lives, nor grossly ignorant in the principles of Religion, to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, &c.
6. Beside that of the French Catechisme, which saith the impiety of Iudas was concealed, and not broken forth into the light and knowledge of men when the Sacrament was given: take these other Testimonies, Martyr. in