Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.
Mr. Prynne hath filled up a good part of his Vindication with the case of Iudas, as going very farre in the deciding of this present contoversie. But as Protestant writers answer the Papists in the case of Peter, that it cannot be proved tha… Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, but rather that he was no…; and if he had, this cannot prove the Popes Supremacy: the like I say of this case of Iudas. M. Prynne shall never be able to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: and if he could prove it, yet it shall not at all helpe that cause which he maintaineth.
I begin with the matter of fact, whether Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as well as the other Apostles, which is the question by him stated. For decision whereof, I hold it necessary, first of all that these two things be premised, concerning the harmony of the Evangelists in that matter of Iudas, the use whereof we shall see afterwards. Matthew and Marke tell us Christs discourse of the Traytor at Table, and the discovery of Iudas, before the institution of the Sacrament. Luke hath the same thing after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament. So that either Matthew and Marke speak by anticipation, or Luke speaketh by a recapitulation; that is, either Matthew and Marke put before what was done after, or Luke puts after what was done before. Now that there is in Luke an foreign, a narration of that after the institution which was indeed before the institution of the Sacrament, may thus appeare. 1. That very thing which Luke placeth after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament, Luk. 22. 21, 22, 23. Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table. And truly the sonne of man goeth as it was determined, but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed. And they began to enquire among themselves which of them it was that should doe this thing. The very same thing doe Matthew and Marke record before the institution of the Sacrament, Matth. 26. 21. to 26. Marke 14. 18. to 22. and it is more credible that one of the Evangelists is to be reduced to the order of two, rather than two to the order of one.
2. Especially considering that Luke doth not relate the businesse of the last supper according to that order wherein things were acted or spoken, as is manifest by Luke 22. 17. 18. And he tooke the cup and gave thanks and said, Take this and divide it among your selves. This though related before the taking and breaking of the bread, yet it is but by an anticipation or preoccupation, occasioned by that which had preceded vers. 16. so to joyne the protestation of not drinking againe, with that of not eating againe the Passeover with his Disciples: therefore Beza, Salmeron, Maldonat, and others following Augustine and Euthymius doe resolve it is an anticipation, even as Paul mentioneth the cup before the bread, 1 Cor. 10. 16. I know some understand the cup mentioned Luke 22. 17. to be the Paschall cup; others, to be the cup in the ordinary supper; but to me its plaine that it was the Eucharisticall cup; yea Mr Prynne takes it so pag. 25. because that which Luke saith of that cup, that Christ tooke it, and gave thankes, and gave it to the Disciples, that they might all drinke of it, and told them he would not drinke with them any more of the fruit of the Vine till the Kingdome of God should come; all this is the very same which Matthew and Marke record of the Eucharisticall cup. Therefore our Non-conformists were wont to argue from that place, that the Minister ought not to give the Sacramentall elements to each communicant out of his owne hand, but that the communicant… ought to divide the elements among themselves, because Christ saith in that place, of the cup, Divide it among your selves.
3. Luke saith not that after Supper, or after they had done with the Sacrament, Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him; onelyonly he addeth, after the History of the Sacrament, what Chrst said concerning the Traytor. But Matthew and Marke doe not onelyonly record Christs words concerning the Traytor before they make narration concerning the Sacrament, but they record expresly that that discourse and the discovery of the Traytor was foreign, as they did eate, Matth. 26. 21. Marke 14. 18. Now when the evening was come he sate down with the twelve, and immediately followeth, as the first purpose which Christ spake of, and as they did eate, he said, verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Which could not be so, if Luke relate Christs words concerning the Traytor in that order in which they were first uttered; for Luke having told us verse 22. that Christ tooke the cup after Supper and said, This cup is the new Testament, &c. addeth, But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table. So that if this were the true order, Christ did not tell his Disciples concerning the Traytor, as they did eate (which Matthew and Marke doe say) but after they had done eating. If it be said that foreign may suffer this sence, when they had eaten, or having eaten. I answer, the context will not suffer that sence; for they were indeed eating in the time of that discourse, Matth. 26. 23. He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish the same shall betray me, Jos. 13. 26. He it is to whom I shall give a sop after I have dipped it.
4. Musculus in loc. com. de caen. dom. pag. 362. gives this reason out of Rupertus, why Lukes narration of Christs words concerning the Traytor, is placed by a recapitulation after the Sacrament: because Luke is the onelyonly Evangelist who writeth distinctly of the Paschall Supper, and what Christ said at that Supper: and having once fallen upon that purpose, the connexion of the matter did require that he should immediately adde the story of the E…charisticall Supper, without interlacing that of the Traytor. Which reason will passe for good with such as think Iudas did eate of the Paschalll Supper, and that Christs words concerning him were spoken at the Paschall Supper, which I greatly doubt of.
5. Mr Prynne pag. 18. doth in effect grant the same thing that I say; for he saith, that Matthew and Marke record that immediatly before the institution of the Sacrament, as they sate at meat Jesus said unto the twelve, Verily one of you shall betray me, whereupon they began to be sorrowfull and to say unto him, &c. He addeth, that Iudas was the last man that said, Is it I? immediately before the institution, as Matthew records. But of Luke he saith onelyonly thus much, that he placeth these words of Christ concerning Judas his betraying him, after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament, not before it. If it be thus as Mr Prynne acknowledgeth, that Matthew and Marke record, that Christ had that discourse concerning Iudas before the institution of the Sacrament, then most certainly it was before the institution of the Sacrament, because it must needs be true which Matthew and Marke say. Whence …t will necessarily follow that Luke doth not mention that discourse concerning Iudas in its proper place, and this doth not offer the least violence to the Text in Luke, because he doth not say that Christ spake these words after the Sacrament, onelyonly he placeth these words after the Sacrament, as Mr Prynne saith rightly. When Scripture saith that such a thing was done at such a time, it must be so believed. But when Scripture mentioneth one thing after another, that will not prove that the thing last mentioned was last done. More plainly Master Prynne pag. 26, 27. tels us that the Sacrament was given after Christ had particularly informed his Disciples that one of them should betray him, which he proves from Ioh. 13. 18. to 28. Matth. 26. 20. to 36. Marke 14. 18. to 22. Luke 22. 21, 22, 23. Whence it follows inevitably by his owne confession, that Matthew and Marke recording that discourse about Iudas after the Sacrament, doe place it in the proper order; and that Luke mentioning that discourse about Iudas after the Sacrament, doth not place it in its owne place. This is the first thing which I thought good to premise, which will easily take off the strongest argument which ever I heard alledged for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament, namely this, that Luke immediately after the institution and distribution of the Sacrament addeth, But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me at the Table. If these words were not uttered by Christ in that order wherein Luke placeth them (which I have proved) then the argument is not conclusive.
The second thing to be premised, is this: that the story which we have Ioh 13. from the beginning to verse 31. concerning the Supper at which Christ discoursed of Iudas and gave him the sop, after which he went immediately out, was neither in Bethany two daies before the Passeover, as the Antidote Animadverted tels us pag 5. nor yet after the institution of the Sacrament, as Mr Prynne tels us, Vindic. pag. 25. herein differing either from himselfe or his friend. That Supper in Bethany, the Pamphlet saith, was two daies before the Passeover; but some Interpreters collect from Iohn 12. 1, 2. it was longer before; Christ having come to Bethany six daies before, and after that Supper the next day Christ did ride into Ierusalem on a young Asse, and the people cried Hosanna, Joh. 12. 12. the very story which we have Matth. 21. Marke saith that two daies before the Passeover the chiefe Priests and Scribes sought how to put Christ to death, but he doth not say that the Supper in Bethany was two daies before the Passeover. But of this I will not contend, whenever it was, it is not much materiall to the present question, there was nothing at that Supper concerning Iudas, but a rebuking of him for having indignation at the spending of the Alabaster box of Oyntment, and from that he sought opportunity to betray Christ: But the discourse between Christ and his Apostles concerning one of them that should betray him, and their asking him one by one Is it I? was in the very night of the Passeover, as is cleare Matth. 26. 19, 20, to 26. Marke 14. 16, to 22. So that the story Ioh. 13. 18. to 30. being the same with that in Matthew and Marke, could not be two daies before the Passeover. And if two daies before Christ had discovered to Iohn who should betray him, by giving the sop to Iudas, how could every one of the Disciples (and so Iohn among the rest) be ignorant of it two daies after, which made every one of them to aske Is it I? Finally, that very night in which the Lord Jesus did institue the Sacrament, the Disciples began to be sorrowfull, and began to enquire which of them it was that should betray him, Matth. 26. 22. Marke 14. 19. Luke 22. 23. But if Christ had told them two daies before that one of themselves who did sit at Table with him should betray him, surely they had at that time begun to be sorrowfull and to aske every one Is it I?
That which hath been said doth also discover that other mistake that the discourse at Table concerning the Traytor, and the giving of the sop to Iudas Ioh. 13. was after the institution of the Sacrament. If it were after, then either that in Iohn is not the same with the discourse concerning the Traytor mentioned by Matthew and Marke; or otherwise Matthew and Marke speake by anticipation. But I have proved both that the true order is in Matthew and Marke, and that the discourse concerning the Traytor mentioned by Iohn must be in the Evangelicall harmony put together with that in Matthew and Marke, as making one and the same story. And if this in Iohn had been posterior to that in Matthew, then why doth Mr Prynne himselfe joyn these together as one, pag. 18, 19.
These things premised, I come to the arguments which prove that Iudas did not receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.
The first argument (which was by me touched in that Sermon so much quarrelled by Mr Prynne) is this. It is said of Iudas, Ioh. 13. 30. He then having received the sop went immediatly out. But this sop or morsell was given him before the Sacrament, whiles they were yet eating the other Supper, at the end whereof Christ did institute the Sacrament. Therefore Iudas went away before the Sacrament. Let us heare Mr Prynnes four answers to this argument, pag. 24, 25. First, saith he, Iudas went not out till after Supper, Iohn 13. 2. and Supper being ended, &c. Answ. foreign will not prove that the Supper was fully ended. The Centurists Gent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10. explaine Iohn 13. 2. thus, Magnâ caenae hujus parte peractâ, A great part of this Supper being done; yea the Greek may be as well turned thus, When they were at Supper, as the late English Annotations have it. Ludovicus de Dieu chooseth this sence. Salmeron and others proue it from verse 4. He riseth from Supper, with vers. 12▪ he sate down againe to Supper, and dipped the sop. Take but two like instances in this same story of the passion, Matth. 26. 6. foreign Now when Jesus was in Bethany, not, after Jesus was in Bethany. Matth. 26. 20. foreign Now when the even was come, not, when the even was ended. His second answer, that all the other three Evangelists prove that Iudas was present at the Sacrament, is but petitio principii. Thirdly (saith he) the Sacrament was not instituted after Supper, but as they sat at Supper. Answ. It was indeed instituted while they were sitting at supper, or before they rose from supper, so that they were still continuing in a Table gesture; yet the actions must needs be distinguished, for they did not at the same instant receive the Sacrament, and eate of another supper too. And though it be said of the bread, that as they did eate, Jesus tooke bread, yet of the cup Paul and Luke say, that Jesus tooke it after Supper, that is, after they had done eating; therefore certainly after Iudas got the sop and went away, at which instant they had not done eating. Neither is there any ground at all Luke 22. 17. to prove that he tooke the cup during supper, as Mr Prynne conceiveth. But finding no strength herein, he addeth: that some learned men are of opinion that1 Cor. 11. 21, 22. Ter…ul. apolog. Christ had that night first his paschall supper, at the close whereof he instituted his own Supper. Secondly, an ordinary supper which succeeded the institution of his own, in imitation whereof the Corinthians and Primitive Christians had their love feasts, which they did eat immediately after the Lords Supper: and this is more then intimated John 13. v. 2, 12, to 31, &c. therefore Lukes after Supper he tooke the cup, must be meant onelyonly after the Paschall supper, not th… other Supper.
Answ. I verily believe that beside the Paschall and Eucharisticall suppers, Christ and his Disciples had that night a common or ordinary supper, and so think Calvin and Beza upon Matth. 26. 20. Pareus upon Matth. 26. 21. Fulk on 1. Cor. 11. 23. Cartwright ibid. and in his Harmony lib. 3. pag. 173. Pelargus in Ioh. 13. quaest. 2. Tossanu… in Matth. 26. Tolet and Maldon… upon Iohn 13. 2. Iansenius cone. evang. cap. 131. and divers others. I am very glad that Mr Prynn… grants it; and I approve his reason, that in the Paschall supper we read of no sops, nor ought to dip them in. The Jewes indeed tell us of a sauce in the Passeover which they call Chareseth: but I suppose Christ kept the Passeover according to the Law, and did not tie himselfe to rites which had come in by tradition. I could bring other reasons to prove an ordinary supper, if it were here necessary. But what gaineth Mr Prynne hereby? surely he loseth much, a… shall appeare afterwards.
2. Whereas he thinks the common supper at which Christ did wash his Disciples feet, and discover Iudas, and give him the sop, was after the Sacrament, as I know not those learned men that thinke as he doth in this point, so …t is more than he can prove. The contrary hath been proved from Matthew and Marke who record that the discourse concerning Iudas was while they were eating that supper which preceded the Sacrament; so that the giving of the sop to Iudas must be before the Sacrament. But after the Sacrament both Matthew and Marke doe immediately adde, and when they had sung a hymne they went out into the mount of Olives.
3. As for that of the Corinthians, the very place cited by himselfe maketh against him, 1 Cor. 11. 21. for when they came together to eate the Lords Supper, every one did foreign first take his owne supper, and that in imitation of Christ who gave the Sacrament after supper. So Aquinas, Lyra, and others following Augustine. This taking first or before, d…. ce…. 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. cap. 384. edit. 1624. apud Corinthios invalu…rat …lle abusus, ut an…e caenam Dominicam inter se concertarent; & alii ibi suas coenas instruerent & benepoti caenam Domini acciperen….hath reference to the Sacrament; because it is spoken of every one who came to the Lords Table, every one taketh before his owne supper, which made such a disparity that one was hungry and another drunken at the Sacrament, the poore having too little, and the rich too much at their owne supper.
4. The example of the ancient Christians will helpe him as little. I finde no such thing in Tertullians Apologetik, as the eating of the love feasts immediately after the Lords Supper. But I finde both in the e…od. c…non. eccl. Afri…. can. 41. Ut Sacramenta altaris … ni…i à jejunis hominibus celebrentur, excepto uno die anniversario, quo caena dominica celebratur.African Canons and in fAugust. epist. 118. cap. 7. Sed nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio delectavit, ut uno certo die per annum quo ipsam caenam Dominus dedit, …anquam ad insigniorem commemorationem, post cibos offerti & accipi liceat corpus & s…nguinem Domini &c. hoc tamen non arbitror institu…um, nisi quia plures & propè omnes in plerisque locis eo die caenare consueverunt.Augustine, and in gWalafridus Strabo de reb. eccl. cap. 19. Hoc qu…que commemorandum videtur, quod ipsa Sacrament… quidam interdum jejuni, interdum pransi perc…pisse leguntur. He tels us out of Socrates that the Egyptians ne…re Alexandria, as likewise those in Thebais did often take the S…crament after they had eaten lib…rally.Walafridus Strabo that once in the yeere (and oftner by divers) the Sacrament was received after the ordinary meat for a commemoration of that which Christ did in the night wherein he was betrayed. It had been formerly in use among diver… to take the Sacrament ordinarily after meat, till the African Councell discharged it, as Laurentius de la barre observeth in the notes upon Tertullian pag. 339. edit. Paris. 1580. Augustine epist. 118. cap. 5. & 6. answereth certaine quaeries of Ianuarius, concerning eating or not eating before the Sacrament. He saith that Christ did indeed give the Sacrament after supper, and that the Corinthians did also take it after supper: but that the Scripture hath not tied us to follow these examples, but left us at liberty. And upon this ground he defendeth the Churches custome at that time of taking the Sacrament fasting, for greater reverence to the Ordinance. But in this he speakes plainly, hCum sero factum esset, recumbebat cum duodecim, & manducantibus ois dixit▪ Quoniam unus ex vobis me tradet. Post enim tradidit Sacramentum.that when Christ was eating with the Disciples, and telling them that one of them should betray him, he had not then given the Sacrament. With Augustines judgement agreeth that Epistle of Chrysostome, where answering an objection which had been made against him, that he had given the Sacrament to some that were not fasting, he denieth the fact, but addeth, if he had done so, it had been no sinne, because Christ gave the Sacrament to the Apostles after they had supped. foreign. Let them depose, saith he, the Lord himselfe, who gave the communion after supper. In commemoration whereof the ancient Church (even when they received the Sacrament fasting at other times, yet) upon the passion day called Good Friday received it after meales, as I proved before. And this I also adde by the way, that though▪ Paul condemneth the Corinthians for eating their love feast in the Church, yet he allowes them to eate at home before they come to the Lords Table, as the Centurists, cent. 1. lib. 2. cap. 6. pag. 384. prove from 1 Cor. 11. 34. And if any man hunger let him eate at home, that ye come not altogether unto condemnation. Casaubon Exerc. 16. pag. 367. edit. Francof. 1615. thinks it was in imitation of Christs example that those Egyptians mentioned by Socrates did take the Sacrament at night after they had liberally supped foreign, being filled with all sorts of meats.
I conclude therefore that when Luke saith after supper he took the cup, the meaning is, after both paschall and common supper, and that there was no other eating after the Sacrament that night, and so consequently the giving of the sop to Iudas must needs be before the Sacrament; and his going out immediately after the sop proves that he did not receive the Sacrament.
But Mr Prynne gives us a fourth answer, which is the last (but a very weake) refuge. The word immediately, saith he, many times in our common speech signifieth soon after, or not long after, as we usually say we will doe this or that immediately, instantly, presently, whenas we mean onelyonly speedily, within a short time. Answ. 1. This is no good report which Mr Prynne brings upon the English tongue, that men promise to doe a thing immediately, when they do not mean to doe it immediately. I hope every conscientious man will be loath to say immediately, except when he meanes immediately, (for I know not how to explaine immediately, but by immediately) and for an usuall forme of speaking, which is not according to the rule of the word, its a very bad commentary to the language of the holy Ghost. 2. And if that forme of speech be usuall in making of promises, yet I have never known it usuall in writing of Histories, to say that such a thing was done immediately after such a thing, and yet divers other things intervened between them. If between Iudas his getting of the sop and his going out did interveene the instituting of the Sacrament, the taking, blessing, breaking, distributing, and eating of the bread, also the taking and giving of the cup, and their dividing it among themselves, and drinking all of it; how can it then be a true narration that Iudas went out immediately after his receiving of the sop. 3. Neither is it likely that Satan would suffer Iudas to stay any space after he was once discovered, lest the company▪ and conference of Christ and his Apostles should take him off from his wicked purpose. 4. Gerard having in his common places given that answer, that the word immediately may suffer this sence, that shortly thereafter Iudas went forth; he doth professedly recall that answer in his Cotinuation of the Harmony cap. 171. p. 453. and that upon this ground, because Iudas being mightily irritated and exasperated▪ both by the sop, and by Christs answer, (for when Iudas asked Is it I? Christ answered Thou hast said) would certainly breake away abruptly and very immediately. So much of the first argument.
The second argument (which I also touched in my Sermon) was this. As Christ said to the Communicants, Drinke ye all of it, Matth. 26. 27. and they all dranke, Matth. 14. 23. so he saith to them all, This is my Body which is broken for you, This is the cup of the new covenant in my Blood, which is shed for you, Luke 22. 19. 20. But if Iudas had been one of the communicants, it is not credible that Christ would have said so in reference to him, as well as to the other Apostles. This argument Mr Prynne p. 25. doth quite mistake, as if the strength of it lay in a supposed particular application of the words of the institution to each communicant, which I never meant, but dislike it as much as he: The words were directed to all, in the plurall. This is my Body broken for you, &c. my Blood shed for you, &c. Mr Prynne conceives that it might have been said to Iudas, being meant by Christ, onelyonly conditionally, that his Body was broken, and his Blood was shed for him, if he would really receive them by faith. Jonas Schlichtingius a Socinian in his booke against Meisnerus pag. 803. though he supposeth as Mr Prynne doth that Iudas was present at the giving of the Sacrament, yet he holds that it is not to be imagined, that Christ would have said to Iudas, that his body was broken for him. And shall we then who believe that the death of Jesus Christ was a satisfaction to the justice of God for sinne (which the Socini… believe not) admit that Christ meant to comprehend Iudas …mong others, when he said this is my body which is broken for you?
Ministers doe indeed offer Christ to all upon condition of believing, being commanded to preach the Gospell to every creature, and not knowing who are reprobates: but that Christ himselfe (knowing that the sonne of perdition was now lost, that the Scripture might be fulfilled Iohn 17. 12.) would in the Sacrament (which is more applicative then the word, and particularizeth the promises to the receivers) so speake, as that in any sence those words might be applied to Iudas, that even for him his body was broken and his blood shed; and that thereupon the seales should be given him, to me is not at all credible; and I prove the negative by foure arguments: (though I might give many more) 1. If Christ did in reference to Iudas meane conditionally that his body was broken, and his blood shed for him, if he would believe (as Mr Prynne holds) then he meant conditionally to save the sonne of perdition whom he knew infallibly to be lost, and that he should be certainly damned and goe to Hell, and that in eating the Sacrament he would certainly eate and drinke judgement to himselfe (all which Mr Prynne himselfe pag. 26. saith Christ infallibly knew) But who dare thinke or say so of Jesus Christ? Suppose a Minister knew infallibly that such a one hath blasphemed against the holy Ghost, (which sinne the Centurists and others thinke to have been committed by Iudas, which could not be hid from Christ) and is irrecoverably lost, and will be most certainly damned, durst that Minister admit that person to the Sacrament, and make those words applicable to him so much as conditionally; This is the Lords body broken for you: This is the blood of the new Covenant shed for you unto remission of sinne? How much lesse would Christ himselfe say so, or mean so in reference to Iudas?
2. If Christ would not pray for Iudas, but for his elect Apostles onelyonly, and such as should believe through the word of the Gospell, then he meant not so much as conditionally to give his body and blood for Iudas. (for if he meant any good to Iudas, so much as conditionally, he would not have excluded him from having any part at all in his prayers to God.) But Christ doth exclude Iudas from his prayer, Iohn 17. not onelyonly as one of the reprobate world vers. 9. but even by name vers. 12. giving him over for lost, and one that was not to be prayed for.
3. Love and hatred in God and in his sonne Jesus Christ, being eternall and unchangeable, (for actus Dei immanentes sunt aeterni) it followeth that if there was such a decree of God, or any such meaning or intention in Christ, as to give his body and blood for Iudas, whom he knew infallibly to be lost: and since that same conditionall meaning or intention could not be without a conditionall love of God and of Christ to Iudas and his salvation: this love doth still continue in God, and in Christ, to save Iudas now in Hell upon condition of his believing, which every Christian I thinke will abominate.
4. That conditionall love and conditionall intention or meaning, could not have place in the Sonne of God. For as Spanhemius doth rightly argue in his late learned Exercitations de gratia universali pag. 746. it doth not become either the wisdome or goodnesse of God to will and intend a thing upon such a condition as neither is nor can be. And pag. 829. he saith, that this conditionall destination or intention cannot be conceived, as being incident onelyonly to such as doe neither foreknow nor direct and order the event, and in whose hand it is not to give the faculty and will of performing the thing. Which can not without impiety be thought or said of God. Thus he.
The third argument (which I shall now adde) is that whereby Hilarius Can. 30. in Matth. and Innocentius the third lib. 4. de mysterio miss. cap. 13. prove that Iudas received not the Sacrament, neither was present at the receiving of it. Because that night while Iudas was present, Christ in his gracious and comfortable expressions to his Apostles did make an exception, as Iohn 13. 10, 11. Ye are cleane, but not all. For he knew who should betray him, therefore said he, ye are not all cleane, vers. 18. I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen. So vers. 21. even as before Joh. 6. 70. Have not I chosen you twelue, and one of you is a divell. But at the Sacrament all his sweet and gracious speeches are without any such exception, This is my body which is given for you, &c. Yea he saith positively of all the Apostles to whom he gave the Sacrament, I will not drinke henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, untill that day when I drinke it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome, Matth. 26. 29. and this he saith nnto them all, as it is cleare from vers. 27. Drinke ye all of it. Againe, Luke 22. 28, 29, 30. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptatoons. And I appoint unto you a Kingdome as my Father hath appointed unto me. That ye may eate and drinke at my Table in my Kingdome, and sit on Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. Would not Christ much more have excepted Iudas in these expressions, if he had been present, seeing he had so often excepted him before?
As for Mr Prynnes reasons from Scripture to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament, they are extreamely inconcludent. First, he saith, that Matthew, Marke, and Luke, are all expresse in terminis, that Christ sate down to eate the Passeover, and the twelve Apostles with him; that Iudas was one of those twelv…, and present at the Table; that as they sate at meat together, Jesus tooke Bread, &c. that he said of the cup, drinke ye all of it; and Marke saith they all dranke of it.
Answ. 1. The three Evangelists are all expresse in terminis, that when Even was come, Christ sate down with the twelve; as likewise that the twelve did eate with him that night; but that the twelve Apostles were with him in the eating of the Passeover, they are not expresse in terminis, and I have some reasons which move me to thinke that Iudas did not eate so much as of the Passeover that night▪ whereof in the proper place. 2. And if he had been at the Passeover, that proves not he was at the Lords Supper. When Christ tooke the cup and said, Drink ye all of it, it was after supper, that is, after the Paschall supper, as Mr Prynne himselfe gives the sence. 3. When Marke saith, They all dranke of it, he means all that were present, but Iudas was gone forth. His argument supposeth that Iudas was present, which being before disproved, there remaines no more strength nor life in his argument.
That which he addeth pag. 18, 19. if it have either strength or good sence, I confesse the dulnesse of my conception. He would prove from Matthew and Marke that immediately before the institution of the Sacrament, Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him, and they all asked Is it I? and that therefore certainly the Sacrament was given to Iudas, because he was the last man that said Is it I? immediately before the institution. And further (saith he) Luke placeth these words of Christ concerning Iudas his betraying of him, after the institution, which manifesteth that Iudas was present at the Sacrament. His inference is this, that seeing Iohn averreth, Chap. 13. v. 2. that all this discourse, and the giving of the sop to Iudas was after supper, and the other three Evangelists agreeing that Christ instituted and distributed the Sacrament, as they did eate, before supper quite ended, it must follow that Iudas did receive the Sacrament.
Answ. 1. But how doth this hang together, first to argue that Iudas received the Sacrament, because Christs discourse concerning Iudas, and Iudas his question Is it I? were immediately before the institution of the Sacrament: and againe to prove that Iudas did receive the Sacrament, because Christs discourse about Iudas was after supper ended, and after the Sacrament which was instituted before supper ended? the one way of arguing destroyeth the other. 2. For that in Matthew and Marke, that Christ discoursed of the Traytor, and that Iudas said Is it I? before the institution of the Sacrament, I confesse; but that it was immediately before the institution of the Sacrament the Evangelists doe not say, neither doth he prove it. Iudas went out after that discourse and the sop, and how much of the consolatory and valedictory Sermon (which beginneth Iohn 13. 31.) was spent before the distribution of the Sacrament, who is so wise as to know? 3. For that in Luke, I have proved that though he sets down the things, yet not in that order wherein they were done: which is also the opinion of Grotius upon that place. And for that Iohn 13. 2. Supper being ended, I have answered before.
Shall we in the next place have a heape of humane testimonies concerning Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament? I see so much light from Scripture to the contrary, that I shall not be easily shaken with the authority of men: yet it shall not be amisse a little to trie whether it be altogether so as he would make us believe. He saith we goe against all antiquity, pag. 18. and against the most and best of Protestant writers, pag. 23. yea, that all ages have received it as an indubitable verity that Iudis received the Sacrament, pag. 19. No Sir, soft a little. The truth is the thing hath been very much controverted both among the Fathers, and among Papists, and among Protestant writers. I have found none so unanimous for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament as the Lutherans, iGerhard. loc. com. tom. 5. pag. 186, 187. Petrus Hinckelmannus de Anabaptismo. disp. 5. cap. 2.endeavouring thereby to prove that the wicked hypocrites and unbelievers doe in the Sacrament eate the true body of Christ, and drinke his true blood, yet (as hot as they are upon it) they acknowledge it is no indubitable verity, they cite authorities against it as well as for it. See Gerhard Harm. evang. cap. 171. Brachmand Tom. 3. pag. 2082. Neither doe the Lutherans make any such use of Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament as Master Prynne doth: for they hold that not onelyonly excommunicated persons, but scandalous and notorious sinners, not yet excommunicated, ought to be kept backe from the Lords Table: See Gerhard loc. com. Tom. 5. 180, 181, 182. where he proves distinctly that all these ought to be excluded from the Lords Supper. 1. Hereticks. 2. Notorious scandalous sinners. 3. Excommunicated persons. 4. Possessed persons, furious persons, and idiots. 5. Infamous persons, who use unlawfull arts, as Magitians, Negromancers, &c. and for the exclusion of scandalous sinners he citeth the Ecclesiasticall Electorall Constitutions. L. Osiander Enchir. contra Anabap. cap. 6. quaest. 3. tels us that the Lutheran Churches exclude all known scandalous persons from the Sacrament. But it is strangest to me that Mr Prynne will not give credit to some of the Testimonies cited by himselfe. Theophylact. enar in Matth. 26. saith Quidam autem dicunt quod egresso Juda, tradidit Sacramentum aliis Discipulis, proinde & nos sic facere debemus, & malos à Sacramentis abarcere. Idem enar. in Marc. 14. Quidam dicun… (but who they were appeares not saith Mr Prynne, in any extant worke of theirs) Iudam non fuisse participem Sacramentorum, sed egressum esse priusquam dominus Sacramenta traderet. Shall we take this upon Mr Prynnes credit, that it doth not appeare in any extant worke of theirs? Nay, let him take better heed what he saith, and whereof he affirmeth. In the next page he himselfe excepteth one, which is Hilary; but except him onelyonly, he saith that all the Ancients unanimously accord herein, without one dissenting voyce. But see now whether all is to be believed that Mr Prynne gives great words for. Tis well that he confesseth we have Hilary for us. First therfore let bHilarius Can. 30. in Matth: Post quae Judas proditor indicatur, sine quo pascha accepto calice & fracto pane conficitur: dignus enim aeternerum sacramentorum communione non f…erat &c. Neque sanè bibere cum eo poterat, qui non erat bibeturus in regno.the words of Hilary be observed. Next I will prove what he denieth, namely that others of the Ancients were of the same opinion.
Clemens lib. 5. constit. Apost. cap. 13. after mention of the Paschall or typicall supper, addeth these words, as of the Apostles, foreign. But when he had delivered to us the antitype mysteries (so called in reference to the Paschall supper) of his precious body and blood, Judas not being present with us. I doe not owne these eight bookes of the Apostolicall constitutions, as written by that Clemens who was Pauls fellow-labourer, Phil. 4. yet certainly they are ancient as is universally acknowledged. Dionysius Areopagita (or whosoever he was that anciently wrote under that name) de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia cap. 3. part. 3. sect. 1. speaking of the same bread, and the same cup, whereof all the communicants are partakers, he saith that this teacheth them a Divine conformity of manners, and withall cals to mind Christs supper in the night when he was betrayed foreign. In quo caena: so Ambrose the Monke in his Latine translation, and Iudoeus Clichtoveus in his Commentary, In which supper (for foreign relates to foreign the supper before mentioned, and signifieth the time of supper, or after supper was begun.; so the Graecians use to say foreign to signifie in the time of sicknesse) the authour himselfe of those Symbols doth most justly deprive or cast out him (Judas) who had not holily and with agreement of mind supped together with him, upon holy things. By these holy things he understands (it should seem) the Typicall or Paschall supper, of which Iudas had eaten before, and peradventure that night also, in the opinion of this Ancient. Iudocus Clichteveus in his Commentary saith onelyonly, that Iudas did that night eate together with Christ cibum, meate, he saith not Sacramentum. This ancient writer is also of opinion that Christ did excommunicate Iudas, or as Clichtoveus expounds him, à caeterorum discipulorum caetu aequissime separavit, discrevit & dispescuit. If you thinke not this cleare enough, heare the ancient Scholiast Maximus to whom the Centurists give the Testimony of a most learned and most holy man: He flourished in the seventh Century, under Constans, he was a chiefe opposer of the Monothelites, and afterwards a martyr. His Scholia upon that place of Dionysius, maketh this inference foreign foreign, that after Judas had gone forth from supper, Christ gave the mystery to his Disciples. Againe, foreign. Where note, that to him also, (that is, to Iudas) he (Christ) gave of a mysticall bread (meaning the unleavened bread of the Passeover) and cup (meaning the cup drunke at the Paschall supper) but the mysteries (that is, the Eucharisticall bread and cup, commonly called the mysteries by ancient writers) he gave to his Disciples after Judas went forth from supper, as it were because Judas himselfe was unworthy of these mysteries.
Adde hereunto the Testimony of Georgius Pachymeres, who lived in the thirteenth Century: in his Paraphrase upon that same place of Dionysius, he saith that Christ himselfe the author and institutor of this Sacrament, foreign. Christ doth cast out and separate or excommunicate most justly Judas, who bad not holily supped together with him. For having given to him also of a mysticall bread and cup, he gave the mysteries to the Disciples alone, after be went forth from Supper, thereby as it were shewing that Judas was unworthy of these mysteries.
By the mysteries which Maximus and Pachimeres speake of, and which they say Christ gave to his Disciples, after Iudas was gone forth., I can understand nothing, but the Eucharisticall supper, the Elements whereof are very frequently called the mysteries by the ancients, as hath been said. And if any man shall understand by these mysteries the inward graces or things signified in the Lords Supper, then what senoe can there be in that which Maximus and Pachimeres say? for Christ could as easily keepe backe from Iudas, and give to his other Disciples, those graces and operations of his Spirit, when Iudas was present among them, as when he was cast out. So that it could not be said that Christ did cast out Iudas in order to the restraining from him, and giving to the other Disciples, the invisible inward grace signified in the Sacrament, as if the other Apostles had not received that grace at the receiving of the Sacrament, but that Iud…s must first be cast out, before they could receive it; or as if Iudas had received the inward grace, if he had not gone out from supper. The sence must therefore be this, that Iudas as an unworthy person was cast out by Christ, before he thought fit to give the Sacrament of his Supper unto his other Apostles.
Unto all these Testimonies adde Ammonius Alexandrinus de quatuor Evangeliorum consonantia, cap. 155. where he hath the story of Iud…s his receiving of the sop, and his going forth immediately after he had received it: thereafter cap. 156. he addeth the institution and distribution of the Lords Supper, as being in order posterior to Iudas his going forth. So likewise before him Tacianus doth make the History of the institution of the Sacrament to follow after the excluding of Iudas from the company of Christ and his Apostles: which neither of them had done, if they had not believed that Iudas was gone before the Sacrament. With all these agreeth lLib. 4. de myster. Misse cap. 13. Patet ergo quod Judas prius exiit quàm Christus traderet Eucharistiam. Quod autem Lucas post calicem commemorat traditc…em, per recapitualtionem potost intelligi: Quia saepe …it in Scriptura ut 'quod prius sactum sserat posterius enarretur. That whole Chapter is sp…nt in the debating of this questio….Innocentius the third, who holdeth expresly that the Sacrament was not given till Iudas had gone forth: and that there is a recapitulation in the narration of Luke. Moreover as it is evident by the forementioned Testimonies of Theophylact that some of the Ancients did hold that Christ gave not the Sacrament to Iudas: so also the Testimony cited by Mr Prynne out of Victor Antiochenus beareth witnesse to the same thing: sunt tamen qui Judam ante porrectam Eucharistiae Sacamentum exivisse existiment. But yet (saith he) there are who conceive that Judas went forth before the Sacrament of the Eucharist was given. And with these words Mr Prynne closeth his citation out of Victor Antiochenus. But I will proceed where he left off. The very next words are these, Sane Johannes quiddam ejusmodi subindicare videtur. Certainly I…hn seemeth to intimate some such thing. Which is more then halfe a consenting with those who thinke that Iudas went forth before the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. I shall end with two Testimonies of Rupertus Tuitiensis, mIn I…h 6. de participatione autem co…po r…s & sanguinis ejus, potest aliquis opinari quod ille (Judas) intersuerit. Sed profecto diligentius Evangelistarum natratione, doctorumque …nsiderata diversitate, citius deprehendi, huic quoque Sacramento illum nequaquam inter… Nam cum accepis…et buccellam, qua traditor designatus est, exivit continuo.one upon the sixth: nIdem in Io. 13. Sciendum … ò est, quia, sicut & ante nos dictum est, si post bucellam continuo Judas …xivit, sicut paulò post Evangelista dicit, procul…ubio nequaquam Discipulis tunc interfuit, quando Domirus noster Sacramentum illis corporis & sanguinis sui distribuit. Et paulo post. Igitur exemplo Domini, tolerate quidem malos boni debent in Ecclesia, don…c ventilabro Judicii granum à palea, vel à tritico separentur zizan…a: … e… non …o usque indis… eta debet esse patientia, ut indig…is, quos noverunt, Sacrosancta Christi tradant mysteria.another upon the thirteenth of Iohn. The latter of the two speaketh thus, being Englished. But we must know, that, as it hath been also said before us, if Judas after the sop did goe forth immediately, as a little after the Evangelist saith, without doubt, he was not present with the Disciples at that time when our Lord did distribute unto them the Sacrament of his owne body and blood. And a little after, Therefore by the Lords example the good ought indeed to tolerate the bad in the Church, untill by the fanne of judgement the graine be separated from the chaffe, or the tares from the wheate: but yet patience must not be so farre void of discerning, as that they should give the most sacred mysteries of Christ, to unworthy persons whom they know to be such.
As for moderne writers, this present question hath been debated by Salmeron Tom. 9. Tract. 11. and by Dr Kellet in his Tricaenium lib. 2. cap. 14. both of them hold that Iudas did not receive the Lords Supper. Mariana on Luke 22. 21. citeth authors for both opinions, and rejecteth neither. Gerhard Harm. Evang. cap. 171, citeth for the same opinion, that Iudas did not receive the Lords Supper, (beside Salmeron) Turrianus and Barradius: and of ours Danaeus, Musculus, Kleinwitzius, Piscator, & alii complures, saith he, and many others.
Adde also Zanchius upon the fourth Command. Gomarus (who professedly handleth this question upon Iohn 13.) oBeza i… Jo. 13. 30. certa videtur esse corum sententia …ui existimant Judam institutioni sacrae caenae non interfuisse.Beza puts it out of question, and pTessanus in Joh. 13. ita ut Judae qu…dem laverit pedes Christus, sed postea egres…us caenae Sacramentali non interfuerit, sicut …ruditi multi ex hoc capite colligunt.Tossanns tels us it is the judgement of many learned men, as well as his owne. qMusculus in loc. com. de can… Dom. p. 352. M…hi sanè dubium non est, egressum ad perficiendum traditionis scelus fuisse Judam, priusquam Sacramentum hoc à Domino Disscipul is traderetu….Musculus following Rupertus, concludeth that certainly Iudas was gone forth, before Christ gave the Sacrament to his Apostles. So likewise rDiodati upon Ioh 13. 30. We may gather from hence that he (Judas) did not communicate of our Saviours Sacrament.Diodati and sGrotius annot. in Mat. 26. 21, 26. Luk 22. 21. …ch. 13. holds that the Supper at which the sop was given to Iudas, and from which he went forth, was the common supper, and that it was before the Lords Supper, and that Luke doth not place Christs words concerning Iudas Luke 22. 21. in the proper place.Grotius.
By this time it appeareth that Mr Prynne hath no such consent of writers of his opinion, or against mine, as he pretendeth.
As for those Ancients cited by Mr Prynne, some of them (as Origen and Cyrill) did goe upon this great mistake that the sop which Christ gave to Iudas, was the Sacrament; which errour of theirs is observed by Interpreters upon the place. No marvell that they who thought so, were also of opinion that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; for how could they choose to thinke otherwise, upon that supposition? But now the later Interpreters, yea Mr Prynne himselfe having taken away that which was the ground of their opinion, their Testimonies will weigh the lesse in this particular. Chrysostome thinks indeed that Iudas received the Sacrament, but he takes it to be no warrant at all for the admission of scandalous persons: for in one and the same Homily, Hom. 83. in Matth. he both tels us of Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament, and discourseth at large against the admission of scandalous persons. As for Bernard Mr Prynne doth not cite his words nor quote the place. Oecumenius (in the passage cited by Mr Prynne) saith that the other Apostles and Iudas did eate together communi mensa, at a common Table; But he saith not at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. That which Oecumenius in that place argueth against, is the contempt of the poore in the Church of Corinth, and the secluding of them from the love feasts of the richer sort. Now, saith he, if Christ himselfe admitted Iudas to eate at one and the same Table, with his other Disciples, ought not we much more admit the poore to eate at our Tables? Mr Prynne tels us also that Nazianzen in his Christus patiens agreeth that Iudas did receive the Lords Supper together with the other Apostles. I answer, first I finde no such thing in that place. Next, those verses so entituled, are thought to be done by some late author, and not by Nazianzen, as Io. NeW enklaius in his Censure upon them noteth, and giveth reason for it. Cyprians Sermon de ablutione pedum, as it is doubted of whether it be Cyprians, so the words cited by Mr Prynne doe not prove the point in controverfie. The other Testimony cited out of Cyprians Sermon de caena Domini, as it is not transcribed according to the originall, so if Mr Prynne had read all which Cyprian saith in that Sermon against unworthy receivers, peradventure he had not made … of that testimony. The words cited out of Ambrose doe not hold forth clearely Iudas his receiving of the Eucharisticall Supper. The words cited out of Augustine epist. 162. Iudas accepit pretium nostrum, are not there to be found, though there be something to that sence. It is no safe way of citations to change the words of Authors. This by the way. As for his other three citations out of Augustine Tract. 6. 26. & 62. in Ioh. I can not passe them without two Animadversions. First, the greatest part of those words, which he citeth as Augustines words, and also as recited by Beda in his Commentary on 1 Cor. 11. is not to be found either in Augustine or Beda in the places by him cited; viz. these words: Talis erat Judas, & tamen cum sanctis Discipulis undecin… intrabat & exibat. Ad ipsam caenam Dominicam pariter accessit, conversari cum iis potuit, eos inquinare non potuit: De uno p…ne & Petrus accipit & Judas; & tamen quae pars fideli & infideli? Petrus enim accepit ad vitam, manducat Judas ad mortem: Qui enim comederunt indigne judicium sibi manducat & bibit SIBI, NON TIBI, &c. Of which last sentence if Mr Prynne can make good Latine, let him doe it, (for I can not) and when he hath done so, he may be pleased to looke over his Bookes better to seeke those words elsewhere, if he can finde them, for as yet he hath directed us to seeke them where they are not. My next Animadversion shall be this. The words of Augustine, which Mr Prynne alledgeth for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament, are these, Tract. 6. in Joh. Num enim mala erat buccella quae tradita est Judae à Domino? Absit. Medicus non daret venenum: salutem medicus dedit, sed indigne accipiendo ad perniciem accepit, quia non pacatus accepit. Thus the originall, though not so recited by Mr Prynne: but that I passe, so long as he retaines the substance. Yet how will he conclude from these words that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, unlesse he make Augustine to contradict himselfe most grossely: for Tract. 62. in Joh. (another place whether Mr Prynne directeth us,) speaking of Christs giving of that buccella or sop to Iudas, he saith, Non autem ut putant quidam negligenter legentes, tunc Judas Christi corpus accepit: but Judas did not at that time receive the body of Christ, as some negligently reading doe thinke. Which words Beda also in his Comment on Ioh. 13. hath out of Augustine. It is Augustines opinion that the Sacrament was given before that time, at which Iudas was present. That which Mr Prynne citeth out of Algerus (a Monke, who in that same booke writeth expresly for Transubstantiation) maketh more against him then for him. For Algerus takes the …eason of Christs giving the Sacrament to Iudas, to be this, because his perverse conscience though knowne to Christ was not then made manifest, Iudas not being accused and condemned: so that he was a secret, not a scandalous sinner. Thus farre we have a taste of Mr Prynnes citations of the Ancients. Peradventure it were not hard to finde as great flaws in some other of those citations. But it is not worth the while to stay so long upon it. Among the re… he citeth Haymo Bishop of Halberstat for Iudas his receiving of the Sacrament. But he may also be pleased to take notice that Haymo would have no notorious scandalous sinner to receive the Sacrament, and holds that a man eats and drinks unworthily qui gravioribus criminibus commaculatus praesumit illud (sacramentum) sumere; that is, who being defiled with haynous crimes presumeth to take the Sacrament; but if he had thought it (as Master Prynne doth) the most effectuall ordinance, and readiest meanes to worke conversion and repentance, he could not have said so. That which Mr Prynne pag. 23. citeth out of the two confessions of Bohemia and Belgia, doth not assert that for which he citeth them. For neither of them saith that Iudas did receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. The Belgik confession saith an evill man may receive the Sacrament unto his own condemnation. As for example, Judas and Simon Magus both of them did receive the Sacramentall signe. I can subscribe to all this; for it is true in respect of the baptisme both of Iudas and Simon Magus. But I must here put Mr Prynne in minde, that the thing which he pleads for, is extreamly different from that which the Belgick Churches hold. For Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum cap. 13. saith thus, Nemo ad Caenam dominicam admittatur, nisi qui fidei Confessionem ante reddiderit, & Disciplinae Ecclesiasticae se subjecerit, & vitae inculpatae testes fideles produxerit. Let no man be admitted to the Lords Supper, except he who hath first made a confession of his faith, and hath subjected himselfe to the Church Discipline, and hath proved himselfe by faithfull witnesses to be of an unblameable life. The other confession of Bohemia saith that Iudas received the Sacrament of the Lord Christ himselfe, did also execute the function of a Preacher, and yet he ceased not to remaine a divell, an hypocrite, &c. This needeth not be expounded of the Lords Supper (which if he had received, how did he still remaine an hypocrite? for that very night his wickednesse did breake forth and was put in execution) but of the Passeover received by Iudas once and againe, if not the third time. That Chapter is of Sacraments in generall, and that which is added, is concerning Ananias and his wife, their being baptised of the Apostles. However the very same Chapter saith that Ministers must throughly looke to it, and take diligent heed lest they give holy things to dogs, or cast Pearles before swine. Which is there applied to the Sacraments, and is not understood of preaching and admonishing onelyonly as Mr Prynne understands it. Also the Booke entituled Ratio Disciplinae ordinisque Eccles…astici in unitate fratrum Bohemorum cap. 7. appointeth not onelyonly Church-discipline in generall, but particularly suspension from the Lords Table of obstinate offenders. Finally, whereas M. Prynne citeth a passage of the antiquated Common prayer Booke, as it hath lost the authority which once it had, so that passage doth not by any necessary inference hold forth that Iudas received the Sacrament, as D. Kellet sheweth at some length in his Tricaenium.
The citation in which M. Prynne is most large, is that of Alexander Alensis part. 4. Quaest. 11. membr. 2. art. 1. sect. 4. (though not so quoted by him) But for a retribution, I shall tell him three great points, in which Alexander Alensis in that very dispute of the receiving of the Eucharist, is utterly against his principles. First, Alexander Alensis is of opinion that the precept Matth. 7. 6. Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye Pearles before swine, doth extend to the denying the Sacrament to known prophane Christians; for both in that Section which hath been cited, and art. 3. sect. 1. answering objections from that Text, he doth not say, that it is meant of the word, not of the Sacrament, and of Infidels, Hereticks, Persecutors, not of prophane ones: but he ever supposeth, that the Ministers are forbidden by that Text, to consent to give the Sacrament to prophane scandalous sinners. Secondly, Alexander Alensis holds, that Christs giving of the Sacrament to Iudas, is no warrant to Ministers to give the Sacrament to publique notorious scandalous sinners, though they doe desire it. And thus he resolveth Ib. art. 3. sect. 1. If the Priest know any man by confession to be in a mortall sinne; he ought to admonish him in secret, that he approach not to the Table of the Lord: and he ought to deny unto such a one the body of Christ, if he desire it in secret. But if he desire it in publique, then either his sinne is publique or secret. I… publique, he ought to deny it unto him; neither so doth he reveale sinne because it is publique: If private, he must give it, lest a worse thing fall out. Thirdly, Alexander Alensis holds the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, not to be a converting, but a confirming and conserving Ordinance Ibid. art. 2. sect. 2. His words I shall cite in the debating of that controversie.