Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. Whether Judas received the Sacrament of the Passeover that night in which our Lord was betrayed.
Mr Prynne (distrusting peradventure the strength of his proofes for Iudas his receiving of the Lords Supper) betakes himselfe to an additionall argument pag. 24. All our Antagonists, saith he, and the Evangelists clearely agree that Jud…s did eate the Passeover with Christ himselfe, as well as the other Apostles: now the Passeover was a type of the Lords Supper, &c. It seems he had not the notes of my Sermon truly (though he endeavour to confute it) for I did then, and I doe still make a very great question of it, whether Iudas did so much as eate the Passeover at that time with Christ and the other Apostles: and I thinke I have very considerable reasons which make it probable that Iudas did not eate the Passeover that night with Christ and the Apostles. The resolution of this question depends upon another, whether Christ and his Apostles did eate the Passeover before that supper at which he did wash his Disciples feet, and gave the sop to Iudas (after the receiving whereof Iudas immediately went out) or whether that supper was before the eating of the Passeover. I finde tGerhard. Har… Evang. cap. 170. Quidam statuunt pedum lotionem ips… etiam legali caenae sive agni pasch…lis esui praemittendam esse.some others as well as my selfe have been of opinion that it was before, not after the Passeover; (yea that the Jewish custome was to eate their common Supper before the Passeover. See M. Weemse his Christian Synagogue pag 120.) I finde also Ammonius Alexandrinus de quatuor Evangeliorum consonantia cap. 154. placeth that supper mentioned Iohn 13. 2, 4, 12, 18. at which Jesus did wash his Disciples feet, and when he had done sate down againe, and told them that he who was eating bread with him should betray him. Then cap. 155. he proceedeth to the story of the Paschall supper, in which he conceiv…th the sop was given to Iudas; but in this particular he did much mistake; for the sop was given at the same supper mentioned Iohn 13. 2, 4, 12, 18. and not at the Paschall Supper (as M Prynne also acknowledgeth,) This is cleare, that Ammonius placeth the common supper at which Christ did wash his Disciples feet, and told them of the Traitor, to have been before the Paschall supper. I will first tell the reasons that incline me this way, and then answer the objections which may seem to be against it. The reasons are these:
1. The orientall custome was to wash before meal, not after they had begun to eate.
2. This Supper (in which the sop was given to Iudas, whereupon he went away) was before the Feast of the Passeover, Joh. 13. 1. foreign, meaning immediately before the feast of the Passeover, it being reckoned from the time of eating the Paschall Lambe, and so before the Feast of the Passeover, hath the same sence as Luke 11. 38. foreign, the Pharisee wondred that Christ had not washed before dinner, that is immediately before dinner. So here I undestand before the Feast of the Passeover, that is immediately before the time of eating the Paschall Lambe, which was the beginning of the Feast of the Passeover. You will say perhaps that Christ did not eate the Passeover upon the same day that the Jewes did, and so those words before the Feast of Passeover, may be understood before the Passeover of the Jewes, not before the Passeover of Christ. I answer, whether Christ and the Jewes kept the Passeover at one time, is much debated among Interpreters. Baronius, Toletus, and divers others hold that Christ did eate the Paschall Lambe upon the same day with the Jewes. Scaliger, Causabon, and others hold the contrary. The question hath been peculiarly debated between Ioh. Cloppenburgius, and Ludovicus Capellus, yet so that Capellus (who followes Scaliger and Casaubon) acknowledgeth that both opinions have considerable reasons, and both are straitned with some inconveniencies. foreign de ultimo Christi paschate pag. 6. & 22. For my part, I shall not contend: but admit the distinction of Christs Passeover and the Jewes Passeover; yet saith Maldonat upon Ioh. 13. 1. I doubt not but Iohn understands Christs Passe-over; for all the Evangelists in the story of the last Supper when they speake of the Passeover, they mean Christs Passeover, and it was the true Passeover according to the Law.
3. That which makes many to thinke that Christ did eate the Passeover before that other Supper in which he gave the sop to Iudas, is a mistake of the Jewish custome, which as they conceive was to eate other meat after, but none before the Paschall Lambe. Now to me the contrary appeareth, namely, that whatsoever the Jewes did eate before the Paschall Supper, in the night of the Passeover, was eaten before the Paschall Supper, and it was among them forbidden to eate any thing after the Paschall Supper. Which may be proved not onelyonly by that Talmudicall Canon (cited by D. Buxtorf in hist. instit. caenae Dom.) which saith, The Passeover is not eaten except after meal: but also more plainly by wNon dimittunt (caetum comedentium) post esum (agni) paschalis cum bellariis (Hoc est non sinunt caetum comedentium post esum agni paschalis comedere secundarum mensatum delitias) Ibid. v…rsus finem. Comedentium caetus sic dimittitur, ut nihil amplius cibi aut bellariorum aut similes secundarum mensarum delitias, quae ad commessationes pertinent, illis comedere aut quicquam bibere permissum sit: non enim in more habent post sacram hanc caenam indulgere commess…tionibus & …, imo ne minimum quidem▪ gustant.Liber rituum paschalium lately translated and published by Rittangelius: and by another Canon cited by xMatth. Martini… lexic. philol. pag. 25 29. Nam sanè Canon paschali… diser…e interdicebat, post poculum la…dationis, aliquid cibi aut p…tus sumere. Interdicitur comedere aliquid post poculum hymni. Hic fuit verus ritus celebrat…nis pascha temporibus Messiae, &c.Martinius.
But there are two arguments which may be brought to prove that Iudas did eate the Passeover with Christ and the Apostles. 1. Because that Supper at which Iudas got the sop, was after the Paschall supper, for it is said Iohn 13. 2. Supper being ended. Which must be meant of the Paschall supper. I answer these words may very well be understood not of the Paschall supper, but of that other supper at which the sop was given to Iudas. And as for foreign: some Greeke copies have foreign and Nonnus foreign: so the sence were as Augustine expounds, Supper being prepared and ready and set on Table. But be it foreign or foreign, the matter is not great; for there is no necessity of expounding foreign, thus, when Supper was done or ended. It may suffer other two sences. One is, that of Augustine, when it was Supper time, or when Supper was set on Table. And this sence is followed by A…binus Fl…us Alcuinus lib. de divinis Officiis, Artic. de Caena Domini. Circa v…speram vero caenâ factâ, id est paratâ, & ad convivantium mensam usque perductâ, non transactâ neque …initâ, surgit Jesus à caenâ & p…it vestimenta, &c. So likewise Mariana upon Ioh. 13. 2. tels us that caenâ factâ, may well be expounded, caenâ paratâ, or ante caenam, or cum caenae tempus adesset, which he cleareth by the like formes of speech in other Scriptures.
Secondly, foreign may very well be translated, when supper was begun, or when they were at Supper, as I have before shewed by like instances in the New Testament, Matth. 26. 6. 20. Things permanent as a house, or the like are said to be factae, when they are ended and compleate. But things which are successive are said to be factae, when they are begun, as dies factus, not when the day is ended, but when it is begun. So here, there can be no more proved from the words, but that supper was begun, or they were at supper. This sence is given by Osiander, Erasmus, …ossanus harm. evang. part 3. cap. 1. beside the Centuri…ts, Salmeron, and Lud. de Dieu before cited.
The other argument may be this. Matthew, Marke and Luke, after they have told of the making ready of the Passeover, adde that Christ sate … with the Twelve.
Ans. 1. It cannot be proved, that this is meant of sitting down to eate the Passeover; nay, it rather appeareth from the Text, that it was to eate that other supper, at which the sop was given to Iudas; The same discourse and questioning concerning the Traytor, which Iohn sets down before Iudas his getting of the sop and going out; is recorded by Ma…thew and Marke, to have been in that first supper, unto which Christ sate down with the twelve when even was come. Therefore Christs sitting down with the twelve Matth. 26. 20, 21. Mark▪ 14. 17, 18. …eing spoken of that supper at which Christ told his Disciples that one of them should betray him, and every one asked Is it I? (which by Mr Prynnes confession was not the Paschall, but the ordinary supper.) It followeth that the sitting down with the twelve is not meant of the Passeover, but of an ordinary supper before the Passeover.
2. The same words of Christs sitting down with the twelve are expounded (though upon other considerations) as spoken in reference not to the Paschall, but the ordinary or common supper, by Lorinus in Psal. 101. 6. following Maldonat, and by Gerhard. Harm. Evang. cap 170. p. 403. Their reason is, because according to the Law, the Passeover was to be eaten standing, not sitting: but that is more then can be proved from the Law which doth not so much as speake of standing at the first Passeover. It is no necessary consequence: they had their stav…s in their hands, ergo they were standing. This by the way.
3. Granting that Christs sitting downe with the twelve were spoken of the Paschall supper, yet the paschall supper being after the other supper, at which Iudas got the sop and went away (which I now suppose for the reasons before-mentioned till I see better reasons to the contrary.) It might be said, after Iudas was gone, that Christ sate down with the twelve, as well as 1 Cor. 15. 5. it is said of Christ risen from the dead, he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve, though he was seen onelyonly of the eleven, and Iudas was gone to his place. Which answers all that can be said from Luke 22. 14, 15.
If I have not said so much, as to put it out of all question that Iudas did not eate of the Passeover with Christ and his Apostles, yet I am sure I have cleared so much as this, that Master Prynne will not be able to prove convincingly that Iudas did eate of the Passeover that …ight with Christ.
I will conclude with the pious observation of Mr Cartwright: that it was not a vaine or idle question, which the Disciples propounded, (being commanded to prepare the Passeover) they aske, where wilt thou that we prepare? Luke 22. 8, 9. for Christ having commanded them, that into whatsoever City they entered, they should enquire who were godly therein, and turne in to such, to lodge and to eate there; They did thereby easily understand, that if in common and ordinary eating together, then much more in this sacred feast, they must turne in to the families of the godly, and avoyd the prophane; especially considering that they who were of that houshold were to eate the Passeover with Christ and his Disciples, according to the Law. From this very example of the Passeover he drawes an argument for keeping off all ungodly and prophane persons from the Sacrament, so farre as is possible. Thus Cartwright Harm. Evang. lib. 3. pag. 162. The like observation Chrysostome hath upon Matth. 26. 18. I will keepe the Passeover at thy house with my Disciples. He bids us marke those words with my Disciples: not with prophane or scandalous ones, but with my Disciples. To the like purpose Titus Bostrorum Episcopus in Luke 22. hath this observation. Non manducat autem hoc pascha cum Judaeis, sed tantum cum Discipulis suis: Siquidem Judaei, propter obstinatam incredulitatem, hoc paschate indigni erant. Yet he eateth not this Passeover with the Jewes, but onelyonly with his own Disciples: for as much as the Jews, because of their obstinate incred…lity, were unworthy of this Passeover.