Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X. That if it could be proved that Judas received the Lords Supper, it maketh nothing against the Suspension of known wicked persons from the Sacrament.
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 Iud…s did receive the Sacrament, that can make nothing for the admission of scandalons sinners whose prophannesse and ungodly conversation is knowne, and maketh their name to stinke in the Church. For Iudas his wickednesse was not publique nor knowne 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 Iudas to the Sacrament, when though his sinne was yet secret, yet Christ knew him to be a divell; to prove that the Eldership may and ought to admit one to the Sacrament, whom they know to be a Iudas, a Divell: may as well argue from Christs choosing of Iudas to be an Apostle when he knew him to be a Divell, to prove the lawfulnesse of the Elderships choosing of a Minister whom they know to be a divell. But now for that point of the scandall or secresie of Iudas his sinne, let us heare Mr Prynnes reply, pag. 26, 27. He gives it foure feet to runne upon. But the truth is, it hath but two (the same things being twice told) and those how foundered you shall see by and by.
First he saith, that at the time when Christ instituted the Sacrament he foretold the Disciples that Iudas should betray him Iohn 13. 18. to 28. Matth. 26. 20. to 26. Marke 14. 18. to 22. Luk… 22. 21, 22, 23. More plainly pag. 27. he saith, Christ did admit Iudas, to eate the Passeover and Sacrament with his other Disciples, and they made not any s…ruple of conscience to communicate with him in both, no not after Christ had particularly informed them, and Iudas himselfe, that he should betray him, Matth. 26. 21. to 36.
Answ. 1. It was but just now that Mr Prynne told us, (to manifest that Iud…s was at the Sacrament) that Luke placeth Christs words concerning Iud…s, after the Sacrament, not before it. And more expressely he told us out of Iohn that Christs discourse about Iudas, and his informing of the Disciples that one of them should betray him, and his giving the sop to Iudas, was after the Sacrament, because it was after supper end…d, the Sacrament being instituted and distributed before supper ended Vindic. pag. 18, 19. & 25. The same thing which before he made to be after the Sacrament, to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament, the very same he now makes to be before the Sacrament, that he may prove Iudas a scandalous …inner and a known Traitor, even before his receiving of the Sacrament. And shall he thus abuse not onelyonly his Reader, but the Word of God it selfe with palpable and grosse contradictions? I shall beseech him in the feare of God to looke to it, and never more to take this liberty to put contrary sences upon the holy Scripture, so as may seeme to serve most for his present advantage. Surely such lucubrations are not onelyonly subitane but sinfull.
2. His answer which now he gives us doth clearely yeeld these two things: 1. That the Discourse about the Traytor, and the giving of the sop, I…hn 13. 8. to vers. 28. was before the Sacrament; Now Iudas having gone out immediately after the sop, hereby Master Prynne strengthneth my argument which I brought to prove that Iudas did not receive the Sacrament; which argument in this very particular he formerly opposed. 2. He hath here also yeelded that these words Luke 22. 21, 22, 23. But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table, &c. though mentioned after the Sacrament (which is the most colourable argument for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament) yet were spoken before the Sacrament, and that the order of time is not to be gathered from Luke but from Matthew and Marke who record that discourse about Iudas before the Sacrament. And in yeelding this, he takes off his own strongest argument, and confirmes what I have before taken pains to prove.
3. Those Divines that hold Iudas did receive the Sacrament, doe conceive that those words, But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me, &c. were indeed spoken after the Sacrament, and that Luke placeth them in their proper place. And so holding that the discourse about the Traytor was after the Sacrament, they doe thereby intimate that Iudas was not knowne to be the Traytor, till after the Sacrament. Wherefore either a man must quit the most considerable argument for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament, or else acknowledge that Iudas was not knowne by the Disciples to be the Traytor till after the Sacrament.
4. When after the giving of the sop Christ said to Iudas, That thou dost, doe quickly, No man at the Table knew for what intent he spake this unto him, John 13. 28. But if Christ had particularly informed them that Iudas was the Traytor, how is it that they could have been so altogether ignorant of Christs intent, as to thinke that he was still trusting Iudas with the buying of what they had need of against the Feast, or with giving to the poore? Hence Lud. Capellus Spicileg. in Joh. 13. collecteth that when Iohn asked of Christ, who it was, and when Christ said, He it is unto whom I shall give the sop, this was but a secret conference, and the rest of the Disciples did not heare it: else they could not have been so ignorant of it.
5. The places cited by Mr Prynne doe not prove that Christ did particularly tell and informe his Disciples that Iudas (but that one of them) should betray him. Christ made it known to Iohn alone by the signe of giving the sop, Ioh. 13. 26. Yea Theophylact. upon Ioh. 13. thinkes, that as the other Apostles heard not what Christ said to Iohn concerning the Traytor, so Iohn himselfe even at that instant could hardly imagine that Iudas would commit so great wickednesse. Nullus ergo cog…vit, saith he, no man did know it, which he gathers from the words of John himselfe, vers. 28, 29. Bucerus in Matth. 26. 23. holdeth the same. I know some thinke it was made knowne to all the Disciples by that Math. 26. 25 Then Jud…s which betrayed him answered and said, Master Is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said. But others answer that it is not certaine that Christ said this to Iudas in the hearing of all the Disciples: also that these words Thou hast said, are not a cleare affirmation of the thing. Lud. Capellus Spicileg. in Matth. 26. admitteth these words Thou hast said, to be affirmative of that which had been said. But he moves this doubt: when Iudas had said Is it I? he did not affirme the thing, but doubted of it. How then did Christ returne such an answer as agreeth to that which Iudas had said, as if it had been a positive truth. He gives this solution, that Christ as searcher of the heart did speake it to Iudas, who was in his conscience convinced that he was the man, and so assenteth to the truth of that testimony of his Conscience. Now this could not be certainly known to the other Apostles. For my part I shall not need to contend much about that: for granting it to be a cleare information to all the Disciples that Iud…s was the Traytor, yet (by their principles who hold Iudas did receive the Sacrament) this was after, not before the Sacrament, for they make the anticipation to be in Matthew and Marke, and the true order to be in Luke.
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 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, Iudae scelus nondum erat in lucem productum, sed anim… suo illud ad…c ela…sum tenebat. The same he hath in his common places Tom. 5. pag. 181. where he sheweth that Iudas receiving of the Sacrament maketh nothing for the admission of scandalous persons; because although Iudas had gone to the chiefe Priests and agreed with them, this was knowne to none of the Disciples, at that time, but to Christ himselfe onelyonly. Nay the Testimony cited by Mr Prynne himselfe 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 condemne (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 Iudas did not receive the Lords Supper, he addeth, that if it should be granted that Iudas did receive it, this onelyonly 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 Iudas his wickednesse was not at that time knowne to the Disciples. Likewise both Chrysostome and Theophylact upon Iohn 13. are cleare in this, that Iudas hypocrisie was not detected to the Apostles till Christ did separate him, and he went forth. Moreover I shall minde Mr Prynne how he himselfe doth apply this example of Iudas in his Independency examined, pag. 8, 9. he argueth thus: Whether Independents refus…ll to admit such Christians who are not notoriously scandalous in their lives, nor grossely ignorant in the principles of Religion, to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, &c. onelyonly upon this suspition or apprehension, that they are but carnall men, not truly regenerated or sanctified by Gods Spirit (though they can not certainly judge of their present spirituall conditions infallibly known to God alone) be not a very uncharitable arrogant, yea unchristian practice, contrary to our Saviours owne immediate example, who at the first institution of this Sacrament admitted Iudas to his last Supper, as well as his Disciples, though he certainly knew him to be both a Traytor and a Divell. In which argumentation he himself supposeth that Iudas was not notoriously scandalous, nor knowne to the Disciples, (but to God and Christ alone) to be a Traytor and Divell. For otherwise he could not in any reason argue thus against the Independents: because if this supposition be not laid downe that Iudas was an unregenerate yet not a scandalous person: then the Independents had this obvious answer, that if his Argument prove any thing, it doth conclude the admission not onelyonly of unregenerated and unsanctified, but of scandalous persons, to the Sacrament; whereas he brings it to prove against them, that persons not scandalous, though unregenerate, ought not to be refused the Sacrament. And now he brings the same thing against us to prove that scandalous persons ought to be admitted, if not excommunicated, and desirous to receive the Sacrament. He tels us by the way of Iudas his theevish, covetous, as well as traiterous disposition Iohn 12. 6. both which did make him scandalous. But he might have observed, that the holy Ghost sheweth plainly that in that act Iudas was not a scandalous sinner in the esteeme of the other Disciples; for his theevish covetous disposition was not known to the Disciples; yea the pretext of his care for the poore was so plausible to them (though abominable to Christ who knew his heart) that it is said, not onelyonly of Iudas, but of the Disciples (by his instigation) they had indignation at the wasting of that which might have been sold for much and given to the poore, Matth. 26. 8.
Let us now heare Mr Prynnes other answer Vindic. pag. 26, 27. he tels us that though perchance the other Disciples did not know that Iudas was a Traytor and a Divell, yet Christ himselfe did infallibly know all this of Iudas, and did notwithstanding admit him to the Sacrament. Whereupon he beseecheth all Ministers not to make themselves wiser, holier, rigider in this point then Christ himselfe.
Answ. 1. If Ministers did take upon them to suspend men from the Sacrament upon their owne private knowledge of some secret sinnes whereof those men are guilty: his argument might say somewhat. But the question being of suspension by the Eldership upon the notoreity or proofe of the offence, and consis…oriall formall conviction of the offender, he saith here nothing to that point.
2. What a Minister should do when he certainly knows one of the Congregation (not convict nor notoriously scandalous) to be a Iudas, a Traytor, a Divell, I will not now dispute. But surely Mr Prynnes reason why the minister ought to admit such a one, is not rightly applied, *Durantus de ritibus lib. 2. cap. 38. num. 16. Ipsi tamen (Judae) corpus & sanguinem suum dedit, ne occultum peccatorem sine accusatore & evidenti probatione, ab aliorum communione separarot. Et insra num. 17. Nam etsi Christo nota crat Judae iniquitas, sicut Deo: non tamen ei cognita crat co modo, quo hominibus innotescit.for Christ did then know Iudas to be a Traytor and a Divel, but how? not as man, by sight, information, or the like, but as God and as omniscient, that is, he knew Iudas by that same knowledge whereby he knows close hypocrites in whom no eye of man hath seen any thing scandalous, but rather good and promising signes; some of this kind no doubt are admitted to the Sacrament both among Presbyterians and Independents, whom Christ knowes to be Iudasses, because he knows what is in man. But now for a Minister to know (not the heart and the reines as Christ doth, but) foreign some foule act which a man hath done, and some wicked profession which a man hath made, though in private, and not yet known to the world; this is a very different case from the other, and if Christ had admitted Iudas to the Sacrament, knowing him by his divine knowledge to be a Traytor, this could not prove, that a Minister ought to admit a Traytor, whom by his humane knowledge he knows to be such.
3. And if that which Christ did in this particular ought to be a president to Ministers what to doe in like cases: Then as Christ had a most sad and moving discourse about the Traytor, till Iudas himselfe was made to understand, that Christ knew his traiterous purpose, and then he said to him, That thou dost doe quickly, which xGerhard. Har. Evang cap. 172. Christus his verbis Judam quasi excommunicat, & ex Apostolorum coll…gio disc…dere jubet, cum se totum Diabolo tradidisset. Quod facis fac citius, id est, cum ali… Magistro te addixeris, & me audire pertinaciter renuas, abi ex meo & apostolorum meorum conspectu, &c. Ambros. lib. 2. de Cain & Abel cap. 4. Quod facis fac cele…ius, quid illud? ut quia introie…at in illum Satanas, ipse abiret à Christo. Ejicitur itaque & excluditur, …o quod jam cum Domino Jesu esse non posset, qui caeperat es…e cum diabolo. Estius in lib. 4. Sent. dist. 19. sect. 9. Qui… & ipse Christus hanc potestatem qua traduntur homines Sathanae, exercuisse videtur, quando Iudam à suo consortio removit, atque abire jussit dicendo, Quod facis, fac citius. Chrysostome Hom. 71. in Joh. (according to the Greek Hom. 72.) making a Transition unto that Text, That thou dost, doe quickly, he useth these words, to expresse what Christ was at that instant doing to Iudas foreign and againe, foreign, Christ did separate him from the rest of the Apostles, and cast him out. Theophy lact. upon the same place: illum divisit Domin…s & separavit ab alils discipulis.diverse doe rightly conceive to be as much, as if Christ had said to him, Get you gone, I have no more to doe with you: He spake it, ut a consortio suo recederet, that he might be gone out of his company, as Ambrose takes it: and thus did by the Sword of his mouth chase away and as it were excommunicate Iudas before the Sacrament. So should a Minister (if he see one in the Congregation whom he certainly knows to be a Iudas, and to be living in some abominable wickednesse, even whiles he comes with a professed desire to receive the Sacrament) tell the Congregation, that he knows and sees one amongst them whom he certainly knows to be guilty of such a particular secret horrible sinne, and (if it be possible) make the sinner himselfe to know by such or such a signe, that he is the man whom he speakes of, and not to leave off powerfull checks, sharpe rebukes, terrible comminations, till by the blessing of God and the power of the word, he get such a one terrified and chased away.
4. It shall not be in vaine to observe here that Gamachaeus in tertiam partem Thomae Quaest. 64. c. 4. though he hold that Christ gave the Sacrament to Iudas (whence he argueth that the Sacraments doe infallibly worke ex opere operato, where no barre is put, though there be no faith nor devotion exercised in the receiver) yet he doth immediately move this objection, It is unlawfull to give the Sacraments to the unworthy, and to such as live in mortall sinne. Whereunto yRespondemus id nobis revera esse illicitum, & peccare Ministros qui dant Sacramenta indignis, quando fine scandalo denegare possunt, attamen Deum his legibus non teneri, cum sit supremus Dominus, qui suis donis utitur, prout voluerit, quemadmodum etiam Deus non peccat permittendo hominum peccata, imò & ad peccati substantiam concurrendo; nobis verò, nec concurrere licet nec permittere aliquod peccatum, quando sufficienter & moraliter id impedire possumus.he answereth, that it is indeed unlawfull to Ministers to give the Sacrament to the unworthy, when they can refuse them without scandall (a restriction which I suppose Mr Prynne dare not owne; for if the lawfulnesse or unlawfulnesse of the thing must be determined by the scandall, they goe upon a very slippery ground.) He addeth that it is unlawfull to us to follow Gods example in giving holy things to the unworthy, as it is unlawfull to follow his example in the permitting of sinne when we can hinder it. The like I finde in Alexander Alensis, Summa Theol. part. 4. Quaest. 11. membr. 2. art. 1. sect. 4. where he moves this objection in the question, whether Christ gave the Sacrament to Iudas. Christ himselfe hath commanded, Give not that which is holy to dogs, &c. and it seems he would not doe the contrary of that which himselfe commandeth. Unto this objection his answer is, that this prohibition lieth indeed upon the Ministers, Dispencers of the Sacraments, but bindeth not Christ himselfe the Law-maker. As long therefore as we are able to prove from Scripture, that scandalous persons ought to be keep back from the Sacrament, and that it is unlawfull for Church▪ officers to admit such; the Erastians doe but weakly helpe themselves by arguing from Christs giving the Sacrament to Iudas. Which I have said by way of concession: for my opinion is, that Christ did upon the matter excommunicate Iudas, and that his practice in this very particular is a patterne to us, which I hope I have made evident.
Finally, it is observed by Io. Baptista de Rubeis in his Novum rationale divinorum officiorum lib. 1. cap. 24. that this cause of Iudas doth not concerne publique and known scandalous persons, but secret and lurking wicked persons, when they publikely desire to receive the Sacrament; who yet (saith he) ought to be admonished and dehorted by the Minister, that they come not to the Sacrament: and if such a one make his desire to receive the Sacrament secretly known to the Minister, the Minister ought to refuse him, though his sinne be yet secret, and not publiquely known. *Si verò peccatum est manif…stum, tun… verò sive in occulto sive in manifesto petat, debot ei denegare.But if the sinne be open or manifest, then whether the sinner do secretly or openly desire to receive the Sacrament, the Minister ought to refuse him.