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 [email protected] for further information or permissions.
1. Authorites, that Judas did not receive the blessed Eucharist. Hilarius, Rupertus, Innocentius, 3. Theophylact, Tatianus, Alexandrinus, Gregorius Pachymeres, Turrian, Maximus, Ludolphus, Barradius, Beza.
The ground of S. Augustines, and many other famous mens errours concerning this point.
Reasons to proove that Judas did receive the blessed Eucharist.
2. The 1. Reason.
3. The 2. Reason.
4. The 3. Reason.
5. The 4. Reason.
6. The 5. Reason. Christ never shewed any extraordinary favour to Judas. S. Augustine reports strange courtesies of Christ to Judas. Judas borne at Marmotis, as saith S. Bernard. Much holinesse required to the participation of the body and blood of Christ, Notorious wicked men not to be admitted to the Communion.
7. The 6. Reason, when the Devill first entred into Judas. The prime intentions of the Compilers of our Liturgie concerning those words—Lest the Devill enter into you, as he did into Iudas, &c. Satanentred into Judas at severall times.
AUthorities that Iudas did not receive the Sacred Eucharist are many. Clemens Apostolicarum Constitutionum. 5.13. Mysteria pretiosi corporis, ac sanguinis sui nobis tradidit, absente Iuda. He gave unto us the Mysteries of his precious body and blood, in the absence of Judas. Hilarius. Canone. 3. in Matth. Sine Iudā, Pascha (spirituali) accepto Calice, & fracto pane conficitur: dignus enim aeternorum Sacramentorum Communione non erat: The (spirituall Passeover was instituted by the taking of the Cup, and the breaking of the bread without Iudas, for he was unworthy to be partaker of the everlasting Sacraments.
Rupertus in Iohan. Cap. 6 Diligentius Evangelistarum narratione, doctorumque confideratâ diversitate, citius deprehendi potest, Iudam huic Sacramento (Corporis & Sanguinis Christi) nequaquam interfuisse. If we will diligently consider, the Hi∣story of the Evangelists; and diversitie (of the opinions) of divers Doctors, we may easily perceive, that Iudas was not at all at this Sacrament, of the body and blood of Christ; Innocentius tertius; patet quod prius exiit Iudas, quam Christus tra∣deret Eucharistiam. It is plaine to be seene, that Iudas went forth, before Christ de∣livered the (blessed) Eucharist.
Theophylact. on Mat. 26. citeth others for this opinion; with a good reason an∣nexed. Quidam dicunt quod, egresso Iuda tradidit Dominus Sacramentum aliis Disci∣pulis. Proinde & nos sic facere debemus; & males arcere à Sacramentis. Some say that when Iudas was gone forth, the Lord delivered the (blessed) Sacrament to his o∣ther Disciples. And therefore we also ought to doe the like, and to put backe the wicked from the Sacraments.
Tatianus Alexandrinus, placeth Iudas his Egresse, before the Sacred Mystery was consecrated.
Gregorius Pachymeres, the Scholiast of Dyonisous Areopagita, Excludit Dominus, & segregat justissimè Iudam, qui non sanctè Convivio interfuit. The Lord doth exclude and separate Iudas, and that most justly, because he was not present at the banquet, so holily, and religiously, as he ought to have beene. Indeede hee imagineth that Christ gave panem, & Vinum mysticum Iudae & post discessum ejus, Eucharistiam praebuisse Apostolis. Mysticall Bread and Wine to Iudas, and that after his going forth, he gave the (blessed) Eucharist to his Apostles. If he meane the dipped sop, which had in it a Mysterie; all this may be granted: and yet our Conclusion is con∣stant from him, that Iudas partaked not of the Eucharist.
Turrian proveth from Dyonisius Areopagita, that Iudas are not the blessed Sa∣crament.
Maximus an old Greeke interpreter of Dionysius Areopagita, expoundeth him, as denying that Iudas tooke the Eucharist. But suppose I grant that Dionysius his owne words be dubious, yet Pachymeres, Turrian, and Maximus say, Judas was ex∣cluded.
Ludolphus the Carihusion, Cap. 55. placeth the separation of Iudas, before the ad∣ministring of the Sacrament: and Cap. 57. Post egressum Iudae, after Iudas, was gone forth, when the cleane remained with their cleanser; Christ comforted his Disci∣ples, and made a Sermon unto them full of sweetnesse, and love: honied with heavenly honey, enlightned with light from God. Corruptus ille uter, foras mis∣sus
fuerat; Iudas that corrupt vessell, was sent forth, whom Christ knew to be un∣worthy, &c.
Barradius is expresse, that Iudas was excluded from the Sacred Body, and Blood of Christ.
The worthy Hierome Zanchius, whose Authority may passe for many. Tom. 2. in quartum praeceptum: Lib. 1. pag, 762. truely opineth, that Iudas his receiving of the holy Eucharist, apertè pugnat cum historia Johannis Evangelii, is cleane contrary to S. Iohns Gospell, and saith expressely, Lucam fecisse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his narration that Iudas his hand was with him on the board.
Beza on Iohn 13.30. from the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, presently went forth, gathe∣reth a good argument, that Iudas was not at the sacred Supper. Quum igitur non nisi Mensis secundis sublatis, Dominus Sacrosancta sua Mysteria instituerit, Luke 22.20. Since Christ began not his Sacred Supper, till the two former suppers were ended, and since Iohn saith, after the sop, Iudas went out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, continuò, statim: im∣mediately; they have the more certaine opinion, who thinke Iudas not present at the Eucharist: why S. Luke saith, as if after Eucharist, Christ sayd, Luke 22.21. Behold the hand of him, who betrayeth me, is on the board with me: wee must explaine by the other Evangelists: from whom it is apparent, that this speech was made, before the Eucharist, which was the last close of this feast.
The same Beza on Luke 22.21. on the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or caeterum But; Apparet om∣ninò ex aliis Evangelistis, it is very plaine by the other Evanglists, that the words, But behold, &c. were spoken in Secundis mensis coenae Legalis, at the second course of the Paschall Supper; which being taken away, and Supper being ended, as S. Luke saith in the precedent verse; Christ administred the sacred Supper. Let this authority be noted; for upon the mistaking of those words as spoken after the holy Supper, grew the erronious opinion of S. Augustine, and many other famous men, That Judas received the Eucharist.
REasons proving Judas to have eaten the holiest Mysteries are these, First, after the blessed Sacrament, Christ saith: Ecce manus tradentis me est in mensa: Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is on the table, Luke 22.21. There∣fore Judas was present also after the institution, and so received it; for none present at it were excluded. This was the great stumbling-blocke, at which the Divine S. Augustine, and many others both stumbled, and fell. Barradius answereth that S. Luke used a recapitulation. So Innocentius expoundeth it, S. Luke diverse times, tyed not himselfe to the order of things done: Apparebit (saith Maldonate) on Matth. 12.43.) non Lucam, sed Matthaeum rerum gestarum ordinem tenuisse. It is ap∣parent that not S. Luke but S. Matthew, followed the order of things as they were done, so is it also in this place.
I say, S. Matthew, and S. Marke, have the words in effect before the Consecra∣tion. Secondly, take the words as they lye in terminis, and in the History according to the letter; there followeth this notable inconvenience; that after the third Sup∣per the most blessed Eucharist, or Lords Supper; Judas was eating with Christ still at the same Table: which upon mature consideration, no Christian will admit.
IƲdas sate downe with the twelve, and did eate, of the Cup it is sayd, Biberunt ex eo omnes, Mark. 14.23, And it was the Eucharisticall Cup, as is apparent. If none be excepted, and if we must not limit things, where Scripture doth not, then Judas received the Divine Eucharist. I answere, S. John relateth that Judas went out immediately after, after the sop. But that sop was not the Sacrament, but given before the Sacrament: as followeth, ex ordine gestorum & verhorum Christi,
according to the order and deedes of Christ, saith Barradius. Againe, the word Omnes, All, must necessarily be restrained ad omnes qui aderant, to all that were present. For shall we thinke the absent did receive? Then must the 70. Disciples: and all in the house be included, and sayd to receive it, which is false. Therefore, Omnes, All, involveth onely Omnes praesentes. All present.
THirdly, Psal. 109.8. Let another take his office, charge, or Bishopricke. But hee was made Priest, and Bishop at this Supper; therefore was he present: there∣fore he received it. I answere, this Prophecie was fulfilled in due time, when Iudas was dead, and not before. Againe, Iudas was made an Apostle, long before this, Matthew 10.4. He is reckoned as one though the last of the Apostles. And the Apostle-ship comprized within it selfe, (as being the chiefest and greatest power) all inferiour authority. And S. Matthias was not chosen in his roome, as he was Priest onely, or Bishop onely, (the Apostleship being set aside.) But hee was cho∣sen the twelfth Apostle, with all its Rites, priviledges, and authorities.
FOurthly, none of the Disciples, knew the secret sinne of Iudas, so he was not deprived of the sacred Eucharist, for this cause. I answere, when the sop was given, and taken, all the Disciples knew him to be the Traytor. If not, yet Christ knew him to be uncleane, Ioh. 13.10. and 11. vers. and knew him to be a Devill. Ioh. 6.70. and 71. vers. Therefore though Christ admitted Iudas into his company; and to the dying transient Passeover, and to the second Supper, though he washed and wiped his feete; yet it standeth with no likelihood, that our holy Saviour, would admit so sinfull a soule, to so heavenly a banquet. If in defence of the Prime part of this objection it be sayd, that no man at the table knew for what intent Christ sayd unto him, That thou doest doe quickely, Iohn 13.28. Till I come pur∣posely to handle the point, let this answere serve; All the Apostles might both know the traytour expresly, and yet be ignorant, what was the meaning of those words of Christ, for they little imagined, that Iudas would have betrayed Christ so soone, even that night, and they did then little imagine, that then Christ gave the Devill full power over him.
FIfthly, Christ admitted Iudas to the Paschall, and to the Common Supper; then why was he not admitted to the Holy Eucharist? I answere, favour hath its latitude: even among us, we admit some, and not others, into our companie; and among them, some into our friendship, others into familiarity: to some wee shew curresies ina meane degree, to other in an higher degree. Iudas was chosen as well as the rest to be an Apostle. I know whom I have chosen, saith Christ, Iohn 13.18. But he is named in the last place, Matth. 10.4. And though he carried the bagge, and kept the money, Iohn 13.29. I account that was no favour unto him. It was not in it selfe, but to his courtuous soule as a snare, and stumbling-block. Nor doe you ever finde any steps of extraordinary favour of Christ unto him. He sin∣gled out sometimes two, and sometimes three, unto especiall Services, and to bee personall beholders, of his more secret, and Divine affaires. Peter, and Iohn were sent by Christ to prepare the Passeover, Luke 22.8. Peter and Iohn waited on him, John 21.20. He tooke Peter, Iames, and Iohn, as witnesses of his transfiguration, Mat. 17.1. He suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, Iames, and Iohn. Mat. 5.37. When they came to Gethsemani, Christ sayd to his Disciples, sit ye here while I shall pray; and he taketh with him Peter, Iames, and John, Mark. 14.32. and 33. verses He never shewed Iudas any such token of familiarity, so farre as Scripture recor∣deth
but kept him at a distance. Yet I confesse I have reade in S. Augustine Serm. 28. Tom. 10. folio. 276. strange curtesies (if truely undoubted) of Christ to Judas: he delivered him often from death: for Iudas his sake, he healed his father of Le∣prosie; his Mother (with whom Judas had beene incestuous) of the Palsie: hee found him often stealing, and alwayes pardoned him: he most an end honoured Iudas next to Peter: he gave him his holy body, he kneeled before him; he washed his feete, he kissed him. From whence S. Augustine had all this, he revealeth not: nor is it de fide: any Article of our Christian faith. I come to my old businesse. S. Bema••d in Serm. 1. de Coenâ Domini, pag. 1347. saith, Judas was borne in a Vil∣lage called Marmotis, sive malamors. Evill death.
Besides, the partaking of the Common Supper, yea and of the Paschall also, re∣quired not so sanctified thoughts, so devout a Soule, so pure a spirit, as the recei∣ving of the blessed Eucharist doth; therefore was he admitted to them, but not to this, by reason of his uncleannesse. Both the Godly, and the wicked were to eate the Passeover, and after it, the second Common Supper: and many thousand wic∣ked men did eate the Passeover that yeare; even they, who crucified Christ; and the worser sort of the Iewes: therefore Iudas might well bee partaker of such a feast, where sinners were frequently participants. The old Passeover was kept, (saith Theophylact on Luke 22.) for their deliverie from AEgypt, and the blood of the Lamb for the preserving of their first borne. The new Passeover for the Remission of sinnes, and Sanctified thoughts. But because the betrayer of Christ, was not cleane, Iohn 13.11. as being the true hypocrite, washed onely outwardly, not inwardly: onely bodily not spiritually; and because much holinesse is required to the recei∣ving of the Body, and blood of Christ; therefore was he justly excluded from per∣taking of the substance, though he fed on the type, as other wicked men did also.
Any one might come into the Temple; but into the Sanctum Sanctorum or holiest of all, none but the High Priest, nor he without blood, which he offered for him∣selfe, and for the errours of the people, Heb. 9.7.
The gifts, and Sacrifices (whereof the Paschall was one, and that a prime Sacri∣fice) could not make him, that did the Sacrifice, perfect, as pertaining to the Con∣science, which carnall Ceremonies were imposed on the Iewes, untill the time of reformation, Heb. 9.10.11. verses. But Jesus was made a surety of a better Testa∣ment, Heb. 7.22. And our high-priest is holy, harmelesse, undefiled, separate from sin∣ners, vers. 26. Therefore did Christ most justly, when before the most holy Com∣munion, he separated Judas the defiled, from himselfe, and from his other Sancti∣fied Apostles. Augustine saith excellently, de Civitate 18.49. Christus habuit Judam inter Apostolos; quo malo utens bene—Ecclesiae tolerandorum malorum praebebat ex∣emplum. Christ had Iudas amongst his Apostles; whom being ill, he using well, hath left an example to his Church, to suffer evill men among them. Let me subsume; but before he came to administer the blessed Sacrament, he removed that sinner of sinners; to give us also an example, not to admit wicked men, (notoriously so knowne) unto the same.
SIxthly, in our English Liturgie, there is a specious Objection for Iudas his re∣ceiving the blessed Eucharist, in these words, If any of you be a blasphemer of God, an hinderer or slanderer of his word; an adulterer; or be in malice, or envie, or any other grievous crime; bewayle your sinnes, and come not to this holy Table, lest after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the Devill enter into you, as he entered into Iudas, and fill you full of all iniquity, and bring you to destruction both of body and soule.
Whence the inference seemes faire, Therefore the Devill entred into Iudas after the partaking of the holy Sacrament. Therefore he tooke it.
Dr. Mocket translating the words, addeth one word too much, viz. simul, To∣gether,
Ne post acceptum illud salutare Sacramentum, simul, intret in eum Satanas, si∣cut in Iudam. Lest after the receiving of that saving Sacrament, the Devill To∣gether, enter into him, as he did into Iudas. But how can it be Together and yet af∣ter the Sacrament: neither is the word Together, in the Liturgie, and therefore he did ill to put in the word simul; by which his opinion is discerned, that he thought Iudas received the blessed Eucharist, and with it the Devill.
I answere, the words, As he entredinto Iudas, make not, and evince not a perfect similitude in every particular, extending to the very circumstances of time, or de∣signing our, at what Supper, this was sayd, or done, or when the Devill first entred into Iudas. For the holy compilers of our Liturgie, could not be ignorant, both that Iudas entertained, and hugg'd the pretended treason, before he came to Supper; Mark. 14.10. & 11. vers. And S. Iohn speaketh as of a thing passed, even before or at the beginning of the second Supper, Iob. 13.2. The Devill having now put in∣to the heart of Iudas Iscariot to betray Christ; which word (now) is not to be taken exclusively, as if it were not in his heart before, or else after, for even before the Passeover, Satan entred into Iudas, compare Luke 22.3. and 7. And before men re∣ceive the consecrated bread and wine: the Devill entreth into sinfull men, who have no touch of Repentance. Let others say or thinke what they will, I will not lay an aspersion of nesciencie, in so high a degree, as to say or thinke; that those holy fathers and framers of our Liturgie, did imagine, that the Sop was the Sacrament, or that Satan entred not into Iudas till he had taken the Sop, and did enter after hee had received the blessed Sacrament, which points may seeme to result from the Lyturgie, if the words bee throughly stretched and tentred.
Againe, I suppose that the Liturgicall exhortation, is to be taken in sensu diviso, non in sensu composito; attingens rem ipsam, non expresse signans, aut comparans moment•• temporum. In a divided not in a compounded sense; touching onely the matter it selfe; not expressely signing out, or comparing the minutes of times. I explaine my selfe thus;
The prime intentions of those blessed moderate Saints the makers of our Lytur∣gie, were these.
But in my opinion, the Lyturgie never intended to define the time, when the De∣vill entred into Judas, (which was more than once, as I proved before) and nei∣ther expressed nor meant, that the time of the Devills entring into Iudas: and the time of his threatned entring into hardned Christians, were just, and exactly the same time, namely, after the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. For the Sop was not the Sacrament, and immediately after it, the devill went in, and Iudas went out.
Heinsius, pag, 465. Veteres notant Dominum hac offâ: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: hoc est, ab scidisse, separasse, divisisse, a Sacro choro, tra∣duxisse
quoque Iudam in potestatem Diaboli: the Ancients doe note, that the Lord by that sop, did cut off, separate, and divide Iudas, from the holy Quire (of the Apostles) and did deliver him over into the power of the devill. This proveth, that Iudas went out, before the holy Sacrament was administred. And how could he then partake of the Eucharist?
Moreover the words (As he entred into Iudas) may be as a parenthesis, having an entire sense of it selfe, though the word of similitude reacheth not to identifie the times; but onely compareth the entrances themselves: and the words are full of Divine sense, though they were reade; Come not to this holy Table, lest after the taking of that holy Sacrament, the Devill enter into you; and fill you full of all iniquities.
Moreover the Lyturgie may truely be sayd, to compare the sinnes, and following punishments; though it compared not the times; who offend like Iudas, shall be pu∣nished like Iudas, though the Devill entred into Iudas, even before the Paschall Supper: and doth enter into Christians, after they have received: the punishment shall be all one, though inflicted at severall times.
Before the Passeover Iudas sought how he might conveniently betray him: Mark. 14.11. And before the Passeover Iudas sought opportunity to betray him, Mat. 26.16. Yea before he trafficked for blood; and before he communed with the chiefe Priests, and Captaines, Satan entred into Iudas, Luk. 22.3. For he had resolved for the sinne before, and then Satan entred. He entred also into him after hee had received the sop: and this was at the second Supper. Which of those two ex∣treames did the Lyturgie intimate?
Againe, when Satan entred into Iudas, is no matter of faith: or of any great consequence; nor is so propounded to us in the Lyturgie.
Last of all, the Lyturgie doth not say, that Iudas received the Divine food, of the most Sacred Eucharist, nor can the sense of those words be deduced thence. But it saith at the utmost extension, that the devill entred into Iudas, after he had recei∣ved the holy Sacrament. Which holy Sacrament may very well be understood of the Passeover; which was an holy Sacrament of the Iewes: and which Iudas que∣stionlesse did take; and after which he tooke the Sop, at the second Supper, and then the devill entred into him. And yet for all this, Iudas did not partake of the body and blood of our Lord, which he was justly separated from, because he had sinned, and betrayed the innocent blood, as himselfe confessed of himselfe, Mat. 27.4. And this I hold to be the most satisfactory answere, to that specious obje∣ction, from the Lyturgie: the word Sacrament being applyable both to the Jewish and Christian Sacrament: Judas taking the former, the other Disciples taking both.
OEternall God, in Wisedome great, in greatnesse powerfull, in power infinite in judgement most just, and yet such a gracious God, whose mercy is over all thy workes, and therefore much more over all our workes; have mercy upon us, deliver us from being the sonnes of perdition: keepe Satan from entring into our hearts: but rather tread him under our feete, and lift us up to thee, and fixe our scules on thee, for Christ his sake. Amen.