Tricoenivm Christi in nocte proditionis suæ The threefold svpper of Christ in the night that he vvas betrayed / explained by Edvvard Kellett.

About this Item

Title
Tricoenivm Christi in nocte proditionis suæ The threefold svpper of Christ in the night that he vvas betrayed / explained by Edvvard Kellett.
Author
Kellett, Edward, 1583-1641.
Publication
London :: Printed by Thomas Cotes for Andrew Crooke ...,
1641.
Rights/Permissions

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at eebotcp-info@umich.edu for further information or permissions.

Subject terms
Last Supper.
Lord's Supper.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A47202.0001.001
Cite this Item
"Tricoenivm Christi in nocte proditionis suæ The threefold svpper of Christ in the night that he vvas betrayed / explained by Edvvard Kellett." In the digital collection Early English Books Online 2. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A47202.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 13, 2024.

Pages

Page 627

PAR. 6.

THe next part of our Saviours words, is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eate.

That Christ gave Judas a Sop, is cleare, a dipped Sop, Joh. 14.26. that Iudas received it, I hold as cleare, Iohn 14.30. He then having received the Sop, went immediately out.

That Iudas did eate it, is not expressed, nor so cleare. He might possibly Take it, and not Eate it, but let it lie on his trencher. Besides, the Sop beeing given for a Manifesto, that Iudas was the onely Traytor, perhaps he was not willing to swallow the Disgust, as he accompted it, and the Sop also. But it may be well answered; Iudas was so surprized with the unexpected Offer; his rea∣son, wit, and senses so clouded: his soule amazed with such arisings, and fumes of his treasonable plot: in one word, so given over to Satan, that what ano∣ther man, yea what he himselfe would have done at another Time, either not Receive, or not Eate, he certainly received, and in likelihood swallowed.

If the words of Scripture be closer followed, and more forcibly urged, That Iudas having received the Sop, went out immediately: and therefore he did receive it onely, but not Eate it. I answer: The end of his Receiving, was onely to Eate it: and there was no great distance of time betweene the Recei∣ving and Eating of the Sop: but he might put his hand to his mouth even al∣most in an instant, or in tempore penè imperceptibili, in the twinckling of an eye, and swallow, without chewing, a moystned, soft, little glibbery Sop, that his going out immediately excludeth not his Eating. Besides, the word Receive, may extend, not onely to his Taking of it with his hand, but to the Eating of it also. For there is a receiving into Ones mouth: and it is not possible to be proved, that Iudas did not So receive it, nor Eate it.

And it may be well beleeved, because so many holy Fathers have declared themselves to think, He did Eate the Sop. I know but few that deny it; but many affirme it. Some indeed say, He carried away the Sop, and shewed it to the High Priests, and thence framed a forged accusation against Christ: or an excuse for his own treachery; as if without cause he would not have betrayed him. A man having his hidden sinnes revealed, groweth worse, and more madd in sinning: Per scelera semper sceleribus tutum est iter, said One.

The safest way to commit sinne; Is by new sinnes still to beginne.

Lucas Brugensis on Matth. 26. saith; That after the word Eate, the reason was given. And the word (Enim) is to be understood: Indeed it may well be understood, because at the delivery of the Cup, it is expressed, Matth. 26.28. For this is my blood of the new Testament: And yet the sense seemeth to me as full, Take, Eate, This is my Body: as if it had beene written, Take, Eate; For this is my Body. I would not willingly adde any new sense to Scripture, no more than I would diminish a letter from it: especially, if, as it is, the sense may be well accepted.

Carolostadius (and never any before him, that I have read of) fancieth; That when Christ said these words, This is my Body; he put his finger to his breast, shewed himselfe, and meaned thus: Here sitteth my Body which shall be given for you. This Sleidan reporteth in the Fift booke of his Commentaries. And this may seeme to favour him; Jesus said to the Iewes, Destroy This Temple, and in three dayes I will rayse it up, Joh. 2.19. And the holy Apostle expoundeth it; Christ spake of the temple of his body, verse 21. Tolet in his Commentary on the place, saith; It is certaine, that when Christ said, This temple, he did by his Gesture, and the motion of his hands, demonstrate Himselfe, and pointed not at the materiall Temple built of stone; so might he here doe.

Page 628

Tolet his Collection is but probable. For Christ might point at either, at neither, but leave them in suspence. Many times did Christ use verball aequivo∣cations, as I have proved in my Miscellanies; that is, he so spake, that his words might have a double Construction; though he adhorred mentall Reservation.

Concerning Carolostadius, I must needs say, he was one of them, who in those precipitious and whirling times, did strive to rayse his owne name, by inventing most new devices: And this was one of them, which is not seconded by any o∣ther Christian Divines, which I have seene; but disliked by many: For when Christ said, This is my Body, which shall be given for you; (as Carolostadius hath it) is as if he pointed at, and did meane his naturall passiive body. What did they eate? They did eate none of That body, nor was it Broken, till, after the Celebration of the holy Eucharist, he did suffer. But the holy Scripture hath it in the Present tense, Luk. 22.19. This is my Body which Is given for you: And vers. 20. This Cup Is the new Testament in my Blood, which Is shed for you. Can you think (O Carolostadius) that when he gave them the Cup, he touched his breast, and pointed at, and meaned the blood in the veynes, lanes, and hidden al∣leys of his mortall body? So, 1 Corinth. 11.24. This is my body, which Is bro∣ken for you. And, this Cup Is the new Testament in my blood, vers. 25. Likewise Matth. 26.28. This is my Blood which Is shed: and so Mark. 14.24. For though it be a truth most certaine, that Christ his naturall body and naturall blood was broken, given, and shed afterwards in his Passion: yet Carolostadius was too blame, to change the Tense, to invent an imagined gesture of Christ, which is impossible to be proved.

Lastly, to broach a new opinion contrary to all Divines; from which reful∣teth, That they did eate onely bare Bread, but no way the Body of the Lord: and dranke onely the fruit of the Grape; but no way dranke the Blood of the Lord. Indeed the Vulgate hath it, Frangêtur, in the Future tense; is Shall be broken for you: But it starteth aside from the Originall. Nor standeth it with sense, reason, or example, that the Future is taken for the Present tense: since it is a retrograde course against nature. But the Present tense is often used for the Future, foreshewing the infallible certainty of what will, or shall come: both in Propheticall, and Evangelicall Writings. Esay 60.1. The glory of the Lord Is risen upon thee: And yet he speaketh of Christ, and his comming. And Re∣vel. 22.12. Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me: And Yet he com∣meth not, though it were said above fifteene hundred yeares passed. But most undoubtedly He Shall come quickly: Celeritate motus, though not celeritate tem∣poris, when he beginneth to come, he shall come speedily; though he shall not quickly begin to come.

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.