Did Judas Partake of the Lord's Supper?
By George Gillespie

The following text is from: George Gillespie, Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, or the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated, Book 3, Of Excommunication from the Church, and of Suspension from the Lord’s Table, Chapter 8, “Whether Judas Received The Sacrament Of The Lord’s Supper.” (Works, Armoury edition, 1844, pp. 204-216). Originally published, 1646. This edition of the text, Copyright © 2001, Chris Coldwell. See a PDF file of this article in The Blue Banner, v10#1.



[From the introduction to v.10 #1: Our first article this month is by George Gillespie. Gillespie, one of the commissioners from the Kirk of Scotland to the Westminster Assembly, takes on the question of whether Judas partook of the Lord’s Supper. The article is an excerpt from Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, his masterful work devoted to the refutation of the Erastian error. The particular error that Gillespie was combating in this article is the idea that the church and her ministers do not have an intrinsic authority from the Lord to exercise the keys of the kingdom in excommunicating the unrepentant. While the sort of Erastianism that was represented at the Westminster Assembly does not necessarily impact many churches in this country, this particular excerpt is interesting for its study of the distinction that church governors must make between the church and the world.

Web Note: Unless you have the Greek font used in this article, these words will not show up well. See the PDF version if this is a problem.]


Did Judas Partake of the Lord's Supper

George Gillespie

Mr. Prynne has filled up a good part of his Vindication with the case of Judas,[1] as going very far in the deciding of this present controversy. But as Protestant writers answer the Papists in the case of Peter, that it cannot be proved that Peter was ever bishop of Rome, but rather that he was not; and if he had, this cannot prove the Pope’s supremacy; the like I say of this case of Judas: Mr. Prynne shall never be able to prove that Judas did receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; and if he could prove it, yet it shall not at all help that cause which he maintains.

I begin with the matter of fact, Whether Judas received the sacrament of the Lord’s 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 Judas, the use whereof we shall see afterwards: Matthew and Mark tell us Christ’s discourse of the traitor at table, and the discovery of Judas, before the institution of the sacrament; Luke has the same thing after the institution and distribution of the sacrament: so that either Matthew and Mark speak by anticipation, or Luke speaks by a recapitulation; that is, either Matthew and Mark put before what was done after, or Luke puts after what was done before. Now that there is in Luke an [uJsterologiva], a narration of that after the institution which was indeed before the institution of the sacrament, may thus appear: —

1. That very thing which Luke places after the institution and distribution of the sacrament, Luke 22:21-23, “Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined, but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed. And they began to inquire among themselves which of them it was that should do this thing” — the very same thing do Matthew and Mark record before the institution of the sacrament (Matt. 26:21-26; Mark 14:18-22); 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 does not relate the business of the last supper according to that order wherein things were acted or spoken, as is manifest by Luke 22:17, 18, “And he took the cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among yourselves.” 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, ver. 16, so to join the protestation of not drinking again, with that of not eating again the passover with his disciples; therefore Beza,[2] Salmeron,[3] Maldonat,[4] and others, following Augustine and Euthymius, do resolve it is an anticipation, even as Paul mentions the cup before the bread (1 Cor. 10:16). I know some understand the cup mentioned Luke 22:17, to be the paschal cup; others, to be the cup in the ordinary supper; but to me it is plain that it was the eucharistical cup. Yea, Mr. Prynne takes it so (p. 25), because that which Luke says of that cup, that Christ took it, and gave thanks, and gave it to the disciples, that they might all drink of it, and told them he would not drink with them any more of the fruit of the vine till the kingdom of God should come; all this is the very same which Matthew and Mark record of the eucharistical cup. Therefore our non-conformists were wont to argue from that place, that the minister ought not to give the sacramental elements to each communicant out of his own hand, but the communicants ought to divide the elements among themselves, because Christ says in that place, of the cup, “Divide it among yourselves.”

3. Luke says not that after supper, or after they had done with the sacrament, Christ told his disciples that one of them should betray him; only he adds, after the history of the sacrament, what Christ said concerning the traitor. But Matthew and Mark do not only record Christ’s words concerning the traitor before they make narration concerning the sacrament, but they record expressly that that discourse, and the discovery of the traitor, was [ejsqivontwn ajutw`n]: “As they did eat,” Matt. 26:21; Mark 14:18, “Now, when the evening was come, he sat down with the twelve,” and immediately follows, as the first purpose which Christ spoke of, “And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me;” which could not be so, if Luke relate Christ’s words concerning the traitor in that order in which they were first uttered; for Luke having told us, ver. 22, that Christ took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the New Testament,” &c., adds, “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 traitor, as they did eat (which Matthew and Mark do say), but after they had done eating. If it be said that [ejsqivontwn ajutw`n] may suffer this sense, when they had eaten, or having eaten, I answer, The context will not suffer that sense; for they were, indeed, eating in the time of that discourse, Matt. 26:23, “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me;” John 13:26, “He it is to whom I shall give a sop after I have dipped it.”

4. Musculus, in Loc. Com. de Coen. Dom, p. 362,[5] gives this reason out of Rupertus, why Luke’s narration of Christ’s words concerning the traitor, is placed by a recapitulation after the sacrament: because Luke is the only evangelist who writes distinctly of the paschal supper, and what Christ said at that supper; and having once fallen upon that purpose, the connection of the matter did require that he should immediately add the story of the eucharistical supper, without interlacing that of the traitor, which reason will pass for good with such as think Judas did eat of the paschal supper, and that Christ’s words concerning him were spoken at the paschal supper, which I greatly doubt of.

5. Mr. Prynne, p. 18, in effect grants the same thing that I say; for he says, “That Matthew and Mark record, that immediately before the institution of the sacrament, as they sat at meat, Jesus said unto the twelve, Verily one of you shall betray me, whereupon they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him,” &c. He adds, “That Judas was the last man that said, Is it I? immediately before the institution,” as Matthew records. But of Luke he says only thus much, that he “placeth these words of Christ concerning Judas’s betraying him, after the institution and distribution of the sacrament, not before it.” If it be thus, as Mr. Prynne acknowledges, that Matthew and Mark record that Christ had that discourse concerning Judas 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 Mark say. Whence it will necessarily follow that Luke does not mention that discourse concerning Judas in its proper place, and this does not offer the least violence to the text in Luke, because he does not say that Christ spoke these words after the sacrament, only he places these words after the sacrament, as Mr. Prynne says rightly. When Scripture says that such a thing was done at such a time, it must be so believed; but when Scripture mentions one thing after another, that will not prove that the thing last mentioned was last done. More plainly, Mr. Prynne, p. 26-27, tells us that the sacrament was given after Christ had particularly informed his disciples that one of them should betray him, which he proves from John 13:18-28; Matt. 26:20-36; Mark 14:18-22; Luke 22:21-23. Whence it follows inevitably, by his own confession, that Matthew and Mark, recording that discourse about Judas after the sacrament, do place it in the proper order; and that Luke, mentioning that discourse about Judas after the sacrament, does not place it in its own place. This is the first thing which I thought good to premise, which will easily take off the strongest argument which ever I heard alleged for Judas’s receiving of the sacrament, namely this, that Luke, immediately after the institution and distribution of the sacrament, adds, “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 places 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, John 13, from the beginning to ver. 31, concerning the supper at which Christ discoursed of Judas and gave him the sop, after which he went immediately out, was neither in Bethany two days before the Passover, as the Antidote Animadverted tells us,[6] p. 5; nor yet after the institution of the sacrament, as Mr. Prynne tells us, Vindic. p. 25, herein differing either from himself or his friend. That supper in Bethany, the pamphlet says, was two days before the Passover; but some interpreters collect from John 12:1, 2, it was longer before, Christ having come to Bethany six days before, and after that supper, the next day Christ did ride into Jerusalem on a young ass, and the people cried, Hosanna (John 12:12): the very story which we have, Matt. 21. Mark says, that two days before the Passover, the chief priests and scribes sought how to put Christ to death; but he does not say that the supper in Bethany was two days before the passover. But of this I will not contend, whenever it was, it is not much material to the present question; there was nothing at that supper concerning Judas, but a rebuking of him for having indignation at the spending of the alabaster box of ointment, 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 Passover, as is clear, Matt. 26:19-26; Mark 14:16-22; so that the story, John 13:18-30, being the same with that in Matthew and Mark, could not be two days before the Passover; and if, two days before, Christ had discovered to John who should betray him, by giving the sop to Judas, how could every one of the disciples (and so John among the rest) be ignorant of it two days after, which made every one of them to ask, “Is it I?” Finally, That very night in which the Lord Jesus did institute the sacrament, the disciples began to be sorrowful, and began to inquire which of them it was that should betray him, Matt. 26:22; Mark 14:19; Luke 22:23. But if Christ had told them two days before, that one of themselves who did sit at table with him, should betray him, surely, they had, at that time, begun to be sorrowful, and to ask every one, “Is it I?”

That which has been said does also discover that other mistake, that the discourse at table, concerning the traitor and the giving of the sop to Judas, John 13, was after the institution of the sacrament. If it were after, then either that in John is not the same with the discourse concerning the traitor mentioned by Matthew and Mark, or otherwise Matthew and Mark speak by anticipation. But I have proved both that the true order is in Matthew and Mark, and that the discourse concerning the traitor, mentioned by John, must be in the evangelical harmony put together with that in Matthew and Mark, as making one and the same story. And if this in John had been posterior to that in Matthew, then why does Mr. Prynne himself join these together as one (p. 18, 19)?

These things premised, I come to the arguments which prove that Judas did not receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.

The first argument (which was by me touched in that sermon so much quarreled by Mr. Prynne)[7] is this: It is said of Judas (John 13:30), “He then, having received the sop, went immediately out.” But this sop, or morsel, was given him before the sacrament, whilst they were yet eating the other supper, at the end whereof Christ did institute the sacrament; therefore Judas went away before the sacrament. Let us hear Mr. Prynne’s four answers to this argument (p. 24, 25). First, he says, Judas went not out till after supper (John 13:2); “And supper being ended,” &c. Ans. [deivpnou genomevnou] will not prove that the supper was fully ended. The Centurists (cent. 1, lib. 1, cap. 10),[8] explain John 13:2 thus, Magnâ, coenoe 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.[9] Ludovicus de Dieu chooses this sense;[10] Salmeron and others prove it from ver. 4, “He riseth from supper,” with ver. 12, He sat down again to supper, and dipped the sop. Take but two like instances in this same story of the passion, Matt. 26:6, [to`u de; jIhsou` genomevnou ejn Bhqaniva]: “Now when Jesus was in Bethany;” not, After Jesus was in Bethany. Matt. 26:20, [ jOyiva~ de; genomevnh~]: “Now, when the even was come;” not, when the even was ended. His second answer, that all the other three evangelists prove that Judas was present at the sacrament, is but petitio principii.[11] Thirdly, he says, the sacrament was not instituted after supper, but as they sat at supper. Ans. 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 eat of another supper too. And though it be said of the bread, that “as they did eat, Jesus took bread,” yet of the cup Paul and Luke say, that Jesus took it “after supper;” that is, after they had done eating, therefore, certainly, after Judas 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 took the cup during supper, as Mr. Prynne conceives, but finding no strength herein, he adds, that some learned men are of opinion, that Christ had, that night, “first, his paschal supper, at the close whereof he instituted his own supper,” 1 Cor 11:21, 22; 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 Lord’s supper; and this is more than intimated, John 13:2, 12-31) &c., therefore Luke’s after supper, he took the cup, must be meant only after the paschal supper, not the other supper.”[12]

Ans. I verily believe that, beside the paschal and eucharistical suppers,[13] Christ and his disciples had, that night, a common or ordinary supper, and so think Calvin and Beza upon Matt. 26:20; Pareus upon Matt. 26:21; Fulk on 1 Cor. 11:23; Cartwright, Ibid., and in his Harmony, lib. 3, p. 173;[14] Pelargus in John 13, quest. 2; Tossanus in Matt. 26;[15] Tolet and Maldonat upon John 13:2;[16] Jansenius, Conc. Evang., cap. 131;[17] and divers others. I am very glad that Mr. Prynne grants it; and I approve his reason that, in the paschal supper, we read of no sops, nor aught to dip them in. The Jews, indeed, tell us of a sauce in the passover, which they call charoseth; but, I suppose, Christ kept the passover according to the law, and did not tie himself 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 gains Mr. Prynne hereby? Surely he loses much, as shall appear afterwards.

2. Whereas, he thinks the common supper at which Christ did wash his disciple’s feet, and discover Judas, and give him the sop, was after the sacrament, as I know not those learned men that think as he does in this point, so it is more than he can prove. The contrary has been proved from Matthew and Mark, who record that the discourse concerning Judas, was while they were eating that supper which preceded the sacrament; so that the giving of the sop to Judas must be before the sacrament. But after the sacrament, both Matthew and Mark do immediately add, “And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.”

3. As for that of the Corinthians, the very place cited by himself makes against him, 1 Cor. 11:21; for when they came together to eat the Lord’s supper, every one did [prolambavnein] first take his own supper, and that in imitation of Christ, who gave the sacrament after supper; so Aquinas, Lyra,[18] and others, following Augustine. This taking first, or before, has reference to the sacrament; because it is spoken of every one who came to the Lord’s table, “Every one taketh before his own supper,” which made such a disparity, that one was hungry, and another drunken, at the sacrament, the poor having too little, and the rich too much, at their own supper.[19]

4. The example of the ancient Christians will help him as little. I find no such thing in Tertullian’s Apologetic, as the eating of the love feasts immediately after the Lord’s supper. But I find both in the African Canons[20] and in Augustine,[21] and in Walafridus Strabo,[22] that once in the year (and oftener 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 divers to take the sacrament ordinarily after meat, till the African Council discharged it, as Laurentius de la Barre observes in the notes upon Tertullian (p. 339, Paris edit., 1580). Augustine (epist. 118, cap. 5, 6), answers certain queries of Januarius, concerning eating or not eating before the sacrament. He says that Christ did indeed give the sacrament after supper, and that the Corinthians did also take it after supper; but that the Scripture has not tied us to follow these examples, but left us at liberty. And, upon this ground, he defends the church’s custom at that time of taking the sacrament fasting, for greater reverence to the ordinance. But in this he speaks plainly,[23] 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 Augustine’s judgment agrees that epistle of Chrysostom, where, answering an objection which had been made against him, that he had given the sacrament to some that were not fasting, he denies the fact, but adds, if he had done so it had been no sin, because Christ gave the sacrament to the apostles after they had supped. [Kaqelevtwsan ajutoŸn toŸn kuvrion o}~ metav to; deipnh`sai th;n koinwnivan e{dwke]: Let them depose (he says) the Lord himself, 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 meals, as I proved before. And this I also add by the way, that though Paul condemns the Corinthians for eating their love feast in the church, yet he allows them to eat at home before they come to the Lord’s table, as the Centurists (cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 6, p. 384),[24] prove from 1 Cor. 11:34, “And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.” Casaubon (exerc. 16, p. 367, edit. Franco. 1615),[25] thinks it was in imitation of Christ’s example that those Egyptians mentioned by Socrates did take the sacrament at night, after they had liberally supped, [pantoivwn ejdesmavtwn ejmforhqevnte"]: being filled with all sorts of meats.

I conclude, therefore, that when Luke says, “After supper he took the cup,” the meaning is, after both paschal and common supper, and that there was no other eating after the sacrament that night, and so, consequently, the giving of the sop to Judas 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 weak) refuge. The word “immediately (he says), many times, in our common speech, signifies soon after, or not long after, as we usually say we will do this or that immediately, instantly, presently, whereas we mean only speedily, within a short time.” Ans. 1. This is no good report which Mr. Prynne brings upon the English tongue, that men promise to do a thing immediately, when they do not mean to do it immediately. I hope every conscientious man will be loath to say immediately, except when he means immediately (for I know not how to explain immediately, but by immediately); and for an usual form of speaking, which is not according to the rule of the word, it is a very bad commentary to the language of the Holy Ghost. 2. And if that form of speech be usual in making of promises, yet I have never known it usual 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 Judas’s getting of the sop and his going out, did intervene 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 Judas went out immediately after his receiving of the sop? 3. Neither is it likely that Satan would suffer Judas 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. Gerhardus having in his Common Places, given that answer, that the word immediately may suffer this sense, that shortly thereafter Judas went forth, he does professedly recall that answer in his Continuation of the Harmony, cap. 171, p. 453, and that upon this ground, because Judas being mightily irritated and exasperated, both by the sop and by Christ’s answer (for when Judas asked, “Is it I?” Christ answered, “Thou hast said”), would certainly break away abruptly, and very immediately.[26] So much of the first argument.

The second argument (which I also touched in my sermon) was this: As Christ said to the communicants, “Drink ye all of it,” Matt. 26:27; “And they all drank,” Matt. [sic Mark] 14:23; so he says 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 Judas 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, does 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 plural, “This is my body broken for you, &c; my blood shed for you” &c. Mr. Prynne conceives that it might have been said to Judas, being meant by Christ, “only 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,[27] in his book against Meisnerus, p. 803,[28] though he supposes, as Mr. Prynne does, that Judas was present at the giving of the sacrament, yet he holds that it is not to be imagined that Christ would have said to Judas, 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 sin (which the Socinians believe not), admit that Christ meant to comprehend Judas among others, when he said, “This is my body which is broken for you?”

Ministers do indeed offer Christ to all, upon condition of believing, being commanded to preach the gospel to every creature, and not knowing who are reprobates; but that Christ himself (knowing that the son of perdition was now lost, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, John 17:12) would, in the sacrament (which is more applicative than the Word, and particularizes the promises to the receivers), so speak, as that, in any sense, those words might be applied to Judas, that even for him, his body was broken and his blood shed; and that, thereupon, the seals should be given him, to me is not at all credible, and I prove the negative by four arguments (though I might give many more): 1. If Christ did, in reference to Judas, mean 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 son of perdition, whom he knew infallibly to be lost, and that he should be certainly damned and go to hell, and that in eating the sacrament, he would certainly eat and drink judgment to himself (all which Mr. Prynne himself, p. 26, says Christ infallibly knew). But who dare think or say so of Jesus Christ? Suppose a minister knew infallibly that such an one had blasphemed against the Holy Ghost (which sin the Centurists and others think to have been committed by Judas, 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 Lord’s body broken for you; this is the blood of the new covenant shed for you unto remission of sins?” How much less would Christ himself say so, or mean so, in reference to Judas?

2. If Christ would not pray for Judas, but for his elect apostles only, and such as should believe through the word of the gospel, then he meant not so much as conditionally to give his body and blood for Judas (for if he meant any good to Judas, so much as conditionally, he would not have excluded him from having any part at all in his prayers to God). But Christ does exclude Judas from his prayer, John 17, not only as one of the reprobate world, ver. 9, but even by name, ver. 12, giving him over for lost, and one that was not to be prayed for.

3. Love and hatred in God, and in his Son Jesus Christ, being eternal and unchangeable (for actus Dei immanentes sunt aeterni), it follows 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 Judas, whom he knew infallibly to be lost, and since that same conditional meaning or intention could not be without a conditional love of God and of Christ to Judas and his salvation, this love does still continue in God, and in Christ, to save Judas now in hell, upon condition of his believing, which every Christian I think will abominate.

4. That conditional love and conditional intention or meaning, could not have place in the Son of God. For as Spanhemius does rightly argue in his learned exercitations, de Gratia Universali, p. 76,[29] it does not become either the wisdom or goodness of God to will and intend a thing upon such a condition as neither is nor can be. And p. 829, he says, that this conditional destination or intention cannot be conceived, as being incident only to such as do 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 cannot without impiety be thought or said of God. Thus he.

The third argument (which I shall now add) is that whereby Hilarius, can. 30, in Matt., and Innocentius III. lib. 4, de Mysterio Miss. cap. 13, prove that Judas received not the sacrament, neither was present at the receiving of it: because that night while Judas was present, Christ in his gracious and comfortable expressions to his apostles did make an exception, as John 13:10, 11, “Ye are clean, but not all; for he knew who should betray him, therefore said he, Ye are not all clean;” ver. 18, “I speak not of you all, I know whom I have chosen;” so ver. 21, even as before; John 6:70, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil.” 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 says positively of all the apostles to whom he gave the sacrament, “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom,” Matt. 26:29, and this he says unto them all, as it is clear from ver. 27, “Drink ye all of it.” Again, Luke 22:28-30, “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Would not Christ much more have excepted Judas in these expressions, if he had been present, seeing he had so often excepted him before?

As for Mr. Prynne’s reasons from Scripture to prove that Judas did receive the sacrament, they are extremely inconclusive. First, he says that Matthew, Mark and Luke, are all express in terminis, that Christ sat down to eat the passover, and the twelve apostles with him; that Judas was one of those twelve, and present at the table; that as they sat at meat together, Jesus took bread, &c., that he said of the cup, Drink ye all of it; and Mark says they all drank of it.

Ans. 1. The three evangelists are all express in terminis, that when even was come, Christ sat down with the twelve, as likewise that the twelve did eat with him that night; but that the twelve apostles were with him in the eating of the passover, they are not express in terminis, and I have some reasons which move me to think that Judas did not eat so much as of the passover that night; whereof in the proper place.[30] 2. And if he had been at the passover, that proves not he was at the Lord’s supper. When Christ took the cup and said, “Drink ye all of it,” it was after supper, that is, after the paschal supper, as Mr. Prynne himself gives the sense. 3. When Mark says, “They all drank of it,” he means all that were present, but Judas was gone forth. His argument supposes that Judas was present, which being before disproved, there remains no more strength nor life in his argument.

That which he added, p. 18, 19, if it have either strength or good sense, I confess the dullness of my conception. He would prove from Matthew and Mark, 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 Judas, because he was the last man that said “Is it I?” immediately before the institution. And further (he says) Luke places these words of Christ concerning Judas’s betraying of him, after the institution, which manifests that Judas was present at the sacrament. His inference is this, that seeing John avers, chap. 13:2, that all this discourse, and the giving of the sop to Judas, was after supper, and the other three evangelists agreeing that Christ instituted and distributed the sacrament, as they did eat, before supper quite ended, it must follow that Judas did receive the sacrament.

Ans. 1. But how does this hang together: 1. To argue that Judas received the sacrament, because Christ’s discourse concerning Judas and Judas’s question, “Is it I?” were immediately before the institution of the sacrament; and again to prove that Judas did receive the sacrament, because Christ’s discourse about Judas was after supper ended, and after the sacrament, which was instituted before supper ended? the one way of arguing destroys the other. 2. For that in Matthew and Mark, that Christ discoursed of the traitor, and that Judas said “Is it I?” before the institution of the sacrament, I confess; but that it was immediately before the institution of the sacrament the evangelists do not say, neither does he prove it. Judas went out after that discourse and the sop, and how much of the consolatory and valedictory sermon (which begins John 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.[31] And for that, John 13:2, “Supper being ended,” I have answered before.

Shall we, in the next place, have a heap of human testimonies concerning Judas’s receiving of the sacrament? I see so much light from the Scripture to the contrary, that I shall not be easily shaken with the authority of men; yet it shall not be amiss a little to try whether it be altogether so as he would make us believe. He says we go “against all antiquity,” p. 18, and against the most and best of Protestant writers, p. 23; yea, that all ages have received it as an indubitable verity, that Judas received the sacrament, p. 19. No, Sir, soft a little. The truth is, the thing has been very much controverted, both among the fathers, and among Papists, and among Protestant writers. I have found none so unanimous for Judas’s receiving of the sacrament as the Lutherans, endeavoring thereby to prove that the wicked hypocrites and unbelievers do, in the sacrament, eat the true body of Christ, and drink his true blood;[32] 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 Gerhardus, Harm. Evang., cap. 171; Brochmand, tom. 3, p. 2082.[33] Neither do the Lutherans make any such use of Judas’s receiving of the sacrament, as Mr. Prynne does; for they hold that not only excommunicated persons, but scandalous and notorious sinners, not yet excommunicated, ought to be kept back from the Lord’s table; see Gerhardus, Loc. Com., tom. 52 180-182, where he proves distinctly that all these ought to be excluded from the Lord’s supper: 1. Heretics. 2. Notorious scandalous sinners. 3. Excommunicated persons. 4. Possessed persons, furious persons, and idiots. 5. Infamous persons, who use unlawful arts, as magicians, necromancers, &c.; and, for the exclusion of scandalous sinners, he cites the ecclesiastical electoral constitutions. Lucas Osiander (Enchir. contra Anabap., cap. 6, quest. 3,)[34] tells 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 himself. Theophylact, in Matt. 26, says, Quidam autem dicunt quod egresso Juda, tradidit sacramentum aliis, discipulis, proinde et nos sic facere debemus, et malos à sacramentis abarcere. Idem in Mark 14, Quidam dicunt (but who they were appears not, says Mr. Prynne, in any extant work of theirs) Judam non fuisse participem sacramentorum, sed egressum esse priusquam dominus sacramenta traderet. Shall we take this upon Mr. Prynne’s credit, that it does not appear in any extant work of theirs? Nay, let him take better heed what he says, and whereof he affirms. In the next page he himself excepts one, which is Hilarius; but except him only, he says that all the ancients unanimously accord herein, without one dissenting voice. But see, now, whether all is to be believed that Mr. Prynne gives great words for. It is well that he confesses we have Hilarius for us. First, therefore, let the words of Hilarius be observed;[35] next, I will prove what he denies, namely, that others of the ancients were of the same opinion.

Clemens, lib. 5, Constit. Apost., cap. 13, after mention of the paschal or typical supper, adds these words as of the apostles, [paradou'" de; hJmi`n ta" ajntijtupa musthvria tou` timivou swvmato" ajutou` kaiŸ a{imato", jIouvda mhŸ sumparovnto" hJmi`n]: But when he had delivered to us the antitype mysteries (so called in reference to the paschal supper) of his precious body and blood, Judas not being present with us. I do not own these eight books of the apostolical constitutions as written by that Clemens who was Paul’s fellow-laborer, Phil. 4, yet certainly they are ancient, as is universally acknowledged. Dionysius Areopagita (or whosoever he was that anciently wrote under that name), de Ecclestastica Hierarchia, cap. 3, part 3, sect. 1,[36] speaking of the same bread and the same cup, whereof all the communicants are partakers, he says that this teaches them a divine conformity of manners, and withal calls to mind Christ’s supper in the night when he was betrayed, [KaqÆ o} kaiŸ aujtoŸ" oJ tw`n sumbovlwn dhmiourlo", ajpoklhroi` dikaiovtata toŸn oujc oJsivw~ ajutw/` kaiŸ oJmotrovpw~ taŸ iJeraŸ sundeipnhvsanta]. In qua coena: so Ambrose the monk, in his Latin translation;[37] and Judocus Clichtoveus in his Commentary:[38] In which supper (for [KaqÆj] relates to [toŸ dei'pnon], the supper before mentioned, and signifies the time of supper, or after supper was begun; so the Grecians use to say [kataŸ twŸn novson], to signify in the time of sickness) “the author himself of those symbols does 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 those holy things he understands (it should seem) the typical or paschal supper, of which Judas had eaten before, and peradventure that night also, in the opinion of this ancient. Judocus Clichtoveus, in his Commentary, says only that Judas did that night eat together with Christ cibum, meat; he says not sacramentum. This ancient writer is also of opinion, that Christ did excommunicate Judas, or as Clichtoveus expounds him, à coeterorum discipulorum coetu aequissime separavit, discrevit et dispescuit. If you think not this clear enough, hear 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 Constance; he was a chief opposer of the Monothelites, and afterwards a martyr.[39] His scholia upon that place of Dionysius, makes this inference [ }Oti metaŸ toŸ ejxelqei'n toŸn Æiouvdan ijk tou' deivpnon, parevdwken oJ Cri~to" toi' maqhtai' toŸ musthvrion] That after Judas had gone forth from supper, Christ gave the mystery to his disciples. Again, [KaiŸ shmeivwsai, o{ti kaiŸ ajutw` metevdwke tou` mustikou` a{rtou kaiŸ tou` pothrivou, taŸ deŸ musthvria toi`~ maqhtai`~ metaŸ toŸ ejxelqei`n tou` deivpnou toŸn Æiouvdan, wJ~ ajnaxivou touvtwn o[nto~ ajutou`]: Where note, that to him also (that is, to Judas) he (Christ) gave of a mystical bread (meaning the unleavened bread of the Passover) and cup (meaning the cup drunk at the paschal supper), but the mysteries (that is, the eucharistical 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 himself was unworthy of these mysteries.

Add hereunto the testimony of Georgius Pachymeres,[40] who lived in the thirteenth century. In his Paraphrase upon that same place of Dionysius,[41] he says that Christ himself, the author and institutor of this sacrament, [ajpoklhroi` kaiŸ ejpodiastevllei dikaiovtata toŸn oujc oJsivw~ sundeipnhvsanta Æiouvdan, kaiŸ ajutw` gaŸr tou` mustikou` a[rtou kaiŸ tou` pothrivou metadou', taŸ musthvria movnoi~ maqhtai`~, metaŸ toŸ ejcelqei`n ejkei`non ejk tou` deivpnou, parevdwken, wJ~ ajnaxivou touvtwn o[nto~ tou` ÆIouvda]: Christ does cast out and separate, or excommunicate most justly, Judas, who had not holily supped together with him. For having given to him also of a mystical bread and cup, he gave the mysteries to the disciples alone, after he went forth from supper, thereby, as it were, showing that Judas was unworthy of these mysteries.

By the mysteries which Maximus and Pachymeres speak of, and which, they say, Christ gave to his disciples after Judas was gone forth, I can understand nothing but the eucharistical supper, the elements whereof are very frequently called the mysteries by the ancients, as has been said. And if any man shall understand by these mysteries the inward graces or things signified in the Lord’s supper, then what sense can there be in that which Maximus and Pachymeres say? for Christ could as easily keep back from Judas, and give to his other disciples, those graces and operations of his Spirit, when Judas was present among them, as when he was cast out. So that it could not be said that Christ did cast out Judas 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 Judas must first be cast out, before they could receive it; or as if Judas had received the inward grace, if he had not gone out from supper. The sense must therefore be this, that Judas, 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 add Ammonius Alexandrinus, de Quatuor Evangelioram Consonantia, cap. 155,[42] where he has the story of Judas’s receiving of the sop, and his going forth immediately after he had received it; thereafter, cap. 156, he adds the institution and distribution of the Lord’s supper, as being, in order, posterior to Judas’s going forth. So likewise before him, Tacianus makes the history of the institution of the sacrament to follow after the excluding of Judas from the company of Christ and his apostles, which neither of them had done, if they had not believed that Judas was gone before the sacrament. With all these agrees Innocentius III,[43] who holds expressly that the sacrament was not given till Judas had gone forth; and that there is a recapitulation in the narration of Luke. Moreover, as it is evident by the fore-mentioned testimonies of Theophylact, that some of the ancients did hold that Christ gave not the sacrament to Judas; so also the testimony cited by Mr. Prynne out of Victor Antiochenus bears witness to the same thing: Sunt tamen qui Judam ante porrectam eucharistiae sacramentum exivisse existiment: But yet, he says, there are who conceive that Judas went forth before the sacrament of the eucharist was given. And with these words Mr. Prynne closes his citation out of Victor Antiochenus; [44] but I will proceed where he left off. The very next words are these, Sane Johannes quiddam ejusmodi subindicare videtur: Certainly John seems to intimate some such thing. Which is more than half a consenting with those who think that Judas went forth before the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. I shall end with two testimonies of Rupertus Tuitiensis, one upon John 6; [45] another upon John 13.[46] The latter of the two speaks thus, being Englished: “But we must know that, as it has been also said before us, if Judas, after the sop, did go forth immediately, as, a little after, the Evangelist says, without doubt, he was not present with the disciples at that time, when our Lord did distribute unto them the sacrament of his own body and blood.” And a little after: “Therefore, by the Lord’s example, the good ought, indeed, to tolerate the bad in the church, until, by the fan of judgment, the grain be separated from the chaff, or the tares from the wheat; but yet patience must not be so far void of discerning, as that they should give the most sacred mysteries of Christ to unworthy persons, whom they knew to be such.”

As for modern writers, this present question has been debated by Salmeron, tom. 9, tract. 11, and by Dr. Kellet in his Tricoenivm, lib. 2, cap. 14.[47] Both of them hold that Judas did not receive the Lord’s supper. Mariana on Luke 22:21, cites authors for both opinions, and rejects neither;[48] Gerhardus, Harm. Evang., cap. 171, cites for the same opinion, that Judas did not receive the Lord’s supper (beside Salmeron), Turrianus and Barradius;[49] and of ours, Danaeus,[50] Musculus,[51] Kleinwitzius, Piscator,[52] et alii complures, he says, and many others.

Add also Zanchius upon the fourth command.[53] Gomarus (who professedly handles this question), upon John 13.[54] Beza puts it out of question;[55] and Tossanus[56] tells us it is the judgment of many learned men, as well as his own.[57] Musculus, following Rupertus, concludes that certainly Judas was gone forth before Christ gave the sacrament to his apostles;[58] so likewise Diodati and Grotius.[59]

By this time it appears that Mr. Prynne has no such consent of writers of his opinion, or against mine, as he pretends.

As for those ancients cited by Mr. Prynne, some of them (as Origen and Cyril) did go upon this great mistake, that the sop which Christ gave to Judas was the sacrament; which error of theirs is observed by interpreters upon the place. No marvel that they who thought so, were also of opinion that Judas received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; for how could they choose to think otherwise upon that supposition? But now the latter interpreters, yea Mr. Prynne himself, having taken away that which was the ground of their opinion, their testimonies will weigh the less in this particular. Chrysostom thinks indeed that Judas 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 Matt. he both tells us of Judas’s receiving of the sacrament and discourses at large against the admission of scandalous persons. As for Bernard, Mr. Prynne does not cite his words nor quote the place. Oecumenius (in the passage cited by Mr. Prynne) says that the other apostles and Judas did eat together communi mensa, at a common table; but he says not “at the sacrament of the Lord’s supper.” That which Oecumenius in that place argues against, is the contempt of the poor in the church of Corinth, and the secluding of them from the love-feasts of the richer sort. Now, he says, if Christ himself admitted Judas to eat at one and the same table with his other disciples, ought not we much more admit the poor to eat at our tables? Mr. Prynne tells us also that Nazianzen, in his Christus Patiens,[60] agrees that Judas did receive the Lord’s supper together with the other apostles. I answer, first, I find no such thing in that place; next, those verses so entitled are thought to be done by some late author, and not by Nazianzen, as J. Newenklaius, in his censure upon them, notes, and gives reason for it. Cyprian’s sermon de ablutione pedum, as it is doubted of whether it be Cyprian’s, so the words cited by Mr. Prynne do not prove the point in controversy. The other testimony cited out of Cyprian’s sermon de coena Domini, as it is not transcribed according to the original, so if Mr. Prynne had read all which Cyprian says in that sermon against unworthy receivers, peradventure he had not made use of that testimony. The words cited out of Ambrose do not hold forth clearly Judas’s receiving of the eucharistical supper. The words cited out of Augustine, epist. 162, Judas accepit pretium nostrum, are not there to be found, though there be something to that sense. 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 John, I cannot pass them without two animadversions. First, the greatest part of those words which he cites as Augustine’s 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, et tamen cum sanctis discipulis undecim intrabat et exibat. Ad ipsam coenam Dominicam pariter accessit, conversari cum iis potuit, eos inquinare non potuit: De uno pane et Petrus accipit et Judas; et tamen quae pars fideli et infideli? Petrus enim accepit ad vitam, manducat Judas ad mortem: qui enim comederunt indigne judicium sibi manducat et bibit SIBI, NON TIBI, &c. Of which last sentence if Mr. Prynne can make good Latin, let him do it (for I cannot), and when he has done so, he may be pleased to look over his books better to seek those words elsewhere if he can find them, for as yet he has directed us to seek them where they are not.

My next animadversion shall be this. The words of Augustine which Mr. Prynne alleges for Judas’s receiving of the sacrament, are these, tract 6, in John: 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 original, though not so recited by Mr. Prynne; but that I pass, so long as he retains the substance. Yet how will he conclude from these words that Judas received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, unless he make Augustine to contradict himself most grossly; for tract 62, in John (another place whither Mr. Prynne directs us), speaking of Christ’s giving of that buccella or sop to Judas, he says, 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 do think. Which words Beda also in his comment on John 13 has out of Augustine. It is Augustine’s opinion that the sacrament was given before that time, at which Judas was present. That which Mr. Prynne cites out of Algerus[61] (a monk, who in that same book writes expressly for transubstantiation) makes more against him than for him; for Algerus takes the reason of Christ’s giving the sacrament to Judas, to be this, because his perverse conscience, though known to Christ, was not then made manifest, Judas not being accused and condemned, so that he was a secret, not a scandalous sinner.

Thus far we have a taste of Mr. Prynne’s citations of the ancients; peradventure it were not hard to find as great flaws in some other of those citations. But it is not worth the while to stay so long upon it. Among the rest he cites Haymo, bishop of Halberstat,[62] for Judas’s 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 heinous crimes presumes to take the sacrament; but if he had thought it (as Mr. Prynne does) the most effectual ordinance, and readiest means to work conversion and repentance, he could not have said so. That which Mr. Prynne, p. 23, cites out of the two Confessions of Bohemia and Belgia does not assert that for which he cites them; for neither of them say that Judas did receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. The Belgic Confession says an evil man may receive the sacrament unto his own condemnation: “As for example, Judas and Simon Magus both of them did receive the sacramental sign.” I can subscribe to all this; for it is true in respect of the baptism both of Judas and Simon Magus. But I must here put Mr. Prynne in mind, that the thing which he pleads for is extremely different from that which the Belgic churches hold. For Harmonia Synodorum Belgicarum, cap. 13, says thus, Nemo ad Coenam donminican admittatur, nisi qui fidei confessionem, ante reddiderit, et disciplinae ecclesiasticae se subjecerit, et vitae inculpatae testes fideles produxerit: Let no man be admitted to the Lord’s supper, except he who has first made a confession of his faith, and has subjected himself to the church discipline, and has proved himself by faithful witnesses to be of an unblameable life. The other Confession of Bohemia, says that “Judas received the sacrament of the Lord Christ himself, did also execute the function of a preacher, and yet he ceased not to remain a devil, an hypocrite,” &c. This needs not be expounded of the Lord’s supper (which if he had received, how did he still remain an hypocrite? for that very night his wickedness did break forth and was put in execution), but of the passover, received by Judas once and again, if not the third time. That chapter is of sacraments in general, and that which is added, is concerning Ananias and his wife, being baptized of the apostles. However the very same chapter says that ministers must thoroughly look to it, and take diligent heed lest they give holy things to dogs, or cast pearls before swine; which is there applied to the sacraments, and is not understood of preaching and admonishing, only as Mr. Prynne understands it. Also the book entitled Ratio Disciplinae Ordinisque Ecclesiastici in Unitate, Fratrum Bohemorum, cap. 7,[63] appoints not only church discipline in general, but particularly suspension from the Lord’s table of obstinate offenders. Finally, whereas Mr. Prynne cites a passage of the antiquated Common Prayer–book, as it has lost the authority which once it had, so that passage does not by any necessary inference hold forth that Judas received the sacrament, as Dr. Kellet shows at some length in his Tricoenium.

The citation in which Mr. Prynne is most large, is that of Alex. Alensis,[64] part. 4, quest. 11, mem. 2, art. 1, sect. 4 (though not so quoted by him); but for a retribution, I shall tell him three great points in which Alex. Alensis, in that very dispute of the receiving of the eucharist, is utterly against his principles: First, Alex. Alensis is of opinion that the precept, Matt. 7:6, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine,” does extend to the denying of the sacrament to known profane Christians; for both in that section which has been cited, and art. 3, sect. 1, answering objections from that text, he does not say, that it is meant of the word, not of the sacrament; and of infidels, heretics, persecutors, not of profane ones; but he ever supposes, that the ministers are forbidden by that text to consent to give the sacrament to profane scandalous sinners. Secondly, Alex. Alensis holds that Christ’s giving of the sacrament to Judas is no warrant to ministers to give the sacrament to public notorious scandalous sinners, though they do desire it. And thus he resolves, Ibid., art. 3, sect. 1, “If the priest know any man by confession to be in a mortal sin, he ought to admonish him in secret, that he approach not to the table of the Lord; and he ought to deny unto such an one the body of Christ, if he desire it in secret; but if he desire it in public, then either his sin is public or secret, if public he ought to deny it unto him; neither so does he reveal sin because it is public; if private he must give it, lest a worse thing fall out.” Thirdly, Alex. Alensis holds the sacrament of the Lord’s 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 controversy.[65]

-----------------------------------------

[1] [William Prynne (1600-1669) had written an eight page tract addressed to the Westminster Assembly, Foure serious questions of grand importance, … (London, 1645). The Vindication is: A vindication of foure serious qvestions of grand importance … from some misprisions and unjust exceptions lately taken against them; both in the pulpit, by a Reverend Brother of Scotland, in a sermon at Margarets Church in Westminster, before the honourable House of Commons, at a publike fast there held for Scotland, on the 5th of September last : and in the presse, by three new-printed pamphlets, by way of answer to, and censure of them ... (London, 1645).]

[2] [Theodore Beza, Reformer (1519-1605). Probably Annotationes ad Novum Testamentum.]

[3] [Alfonso Salmeron, Jesuit scholar (1515-1585), Commentarii. ]

[4] [Joannes Maldonatus, Spanish Jesuit (1534-1583). Commentarii in quatuor Evangelistas (Lyons, 1615).]

[5] [Wolfgang Musculus, Reformer (1497-1563). Loci communes sacrae theologiae (Basil, 1651).]

[6] [The Antidote Animadverted (London, 1645). Attributed to Prynne and Gillespie assumes this as well (Armoury edition, 3.18. p. 269).]

[7] [This sermon of Gillespie’s was evidently not ordered published.]

[8] [Centuriae Magdeburgenses (Basil, 1559-74).]

[9] [Annotations upon all the books of the Old and New Testament : wherein the text is explained, doubts resolved, Scriptures parallelled and various readings observed / by the joynt-labour of certain learned divines, thereunto appointed, and therein employed, as is expressed in the preface (London: Printed by John Legatt and John Raworth, 1645).]

[10] [Louis de Dieu, Reformed preacher commentator and linguist (1590-1642). Gillespie is probably referring to de Dieu’s Animadversiones sive Comment. In quatuor Evangelia, in quo collatis. See also the collected works edited by Leydecker, Animadversiones in loca quaedam difficiliora V. et N. Testamenti (1693).]

[11] [The logical fallacy of begging the question, i.e. the truth of the conclusion is assumed in the premise.]

[12] Tertullian, Apolog.

[13] [See Gillespie’s comments along this same subject in English Popish Ceremonies (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1993) 436ff). Or Part 4 Chapter 6 Section 4 in earlier editions.]

[14] [David Paraeus, German Reformed Theologian (1548-1586). Works (1647, 3 vols.). William Fulk, Puritan divine (d.1589). Rhemes Translation of the New Testament, and the authorized English Version, with the arguments of books, chapters, and annotations of the Rhemists, and Dr. Fulke’s Confutation of all such arguments, glosses, and annotations (1580; Cambridge, 1843). Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603), Commentaria Practica in totam Historiam Evangelicam (1630, English, 1650).]

[15] [Christopher Pelargus, German Protestant theologian (1565-1633), In sacrosanctam S. Johannis apostoli et evangelistae historiam evangelicam commentarius per quaesita & responsa ex antiquitate orthodoxa magnam partem erutus (Francofurti : Sumtibus Johannis Thymii biblioplae, typis Nicolai Voltzii, 1615). Daniel Tossanus, French Protestant minister & commentator (1541-1602), D. Danielis Tossani in tres evangelistas Matthaeum, Lucam, Iohannem commentarii (Hanoviae: ... Iohannis Aubrii, 1606).]

[16] [Francisco de Tolet (Toledo), Spainish Cardinal (1532-1596) In Joannis Evangelium (Rome, 1588). Maldonat, ibid.]

[17] [Cornelius Jansen, Belgian (Roman Catholic) theologian (1510-1576), Concordia Evangelica et ejusdem Concordiae ratio (Louvain, 1549).]

[18] [Nicholas de Lyra (1270-1340). Postillae perpetuae in universa Biblia (Antw., 1634, 6 vols.)]

[19] Magdeb., cent. 1, lib. 2, cap. 6, 384, edit. 1624. Apud Corinthios invaluerat ille abusus, ut ante coenam Dominicam. inter se concertarent; et alii ibi suas coenas instruerent et benepoti coenam Domini acciperent. [Ibid.]

[20] Cod. Canon. Eccl. Afric., can. 41. – Ut Sacramenta altaris non nisi a jejunis hominibus celebrentur, excepto uno, die anniversario, quo coena dominica, celebratur.

[21] August., epist. 118, cap. 7. – Sed nonnullos probabilis quaedam ratio delectavit, ut uno certo die, per annum quo ipsam coenam Dominus dedit, tanquam ad insigniorem commemorationem, post cibos offerri et accipi liceat corpus et sanguinem Domini, &c., hoc tamen non arbitror institutum, nisi quia plures et prope omnes in plerisque locis eo die coenare consueverunt.

[22] Walafridus Strabo de Reb. Eccl., cap. 19. – Hoc quoque commemorandum videtur, quod ipsa scramenta quidam interdum jejuni, interdum pransi percepisse leguntur. He tells us out of Socrates that the Egyptians, near Alexandria, as likewise those in Thebais, did often take the sacrament after they had eaten liberally. [Walafrid Strabo, 9th century Benedictine abbot, theologian, and poet (808-849). Liber de exordiis et incrementis quarundam in observationibus ecclesiasticis rerum (Cologne, 1568).]

[23]Cum sero factum esset, recumbebat cum duodecim, et manducantibus eis dixit, quoniam unus ex vobis me tradet. Post enim tradidit sacramentum. [The Armoury edition left out the footnote marker; it is placed here as in the first edition.]

[24] [Magd. Centurists, ibid.]

[25] [Issac Casaubon, French classical scholar and theologian (1559-1614). Exercitationes contra Baronium (Frankfort, 1615).

[26] [Johann Gerhard, Lutheran theologian (1582-1637), Loci Communes Theologici (1610-1625, 9 vls). Gillespie is probably referring to Comment. In Harmoniam hist. Evang. De Passione et Resurrectione Christi (1617), which is a continuation of the commentaries of Chemnitz and Lyser.]

[27] [Jonasz Schlichting, Socinian (1592-1661). De SS. Trinitate, de moralibus N. & V. Testamenti praeceptis, item[que] de Sacris, Eucharistiae, & Baptismi ritibus. aduersùs Balthasarem Meisnerum ...1637. Also 1639.]

[28] [Balthazar Meisnerus, German Lutheran theologian (1587-1626).]

[29] [Friedrich Spanhem (1600-1649), Exercitationes de gratia universali (Leyde, Maire, 1646).]

[30] [Gillespie takes up the question of whether Judas partook of the Passover in the next chapter of Aaron’s Rod (216-219).]

[31] [Hugo Grotius, German Reformed theologian (1583-1645), Opera omnia theological (Amstd.,1679), 3 vls.]

[32] Gerhardus, Loc. Com., tom. 5, p. 186,187; Petrus Hinckelmannus de Anabaptismo, disp. 5, cap. 2. [Peter Hinkelmann, (1571-1622). This may be Anabaptismi errores refutati (Rostockii, 1613) or a part of another publication by Hinckelmann, or a separate work. The editor only discovered the 1613 title by publication deadline.]

[33] [Gerhard, ibid. Jesper Rasmussen Brochmand, Bishop of Zealand, Lutheran theologian (1585-1652). Universæ theologiæ systema, : in quo omnes et singuli religionis Christianæ articuli ita pertractantur; ut I. vera sententia afferatur et asseratur: II. controversiæ priscæ & recentes expediantur: III præcipui conscientiæ casus è Verbo Divino decidantur. (4th edition, 1664).]

[34] [Lucas Osiander, theologian and historian (1534-1604), Enchiridion controversiarum, quae Augustanae Confesionis theologies cum Anabaptistis intercedunt (Witeb. 1614).]

[35] Hilarius, can. 30, in Matt. – Post quae Judas proditor indicatur, sine quo pascha accepto calice et fracto pane conficitur: dignus enim aeternorum sacramentorum communione non fuerat, &c. Neque sane bibere cum eo poterat, qui non erat bibeturus in regno.

[36] [The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol 3, 4. This edition includes the scholia of Maximus and Pachymeres.]

[37] [Ambrose, the Camaldule?, French ecclesiastical; writer (1378-1439). If Gillespie is referring to this Ambrose, he may be referring to St. Dionysius the Areopagite on the Celestial Hierarchy. ]

[38] [Josse Clichtove, Catholic reformer (d.1543). Commentator on church fathers. ]

[39] [Maximus, Confessor, Anti-Monothelite champion (580-662) Maximus wrote many works, including commentaries on church fathers, such as Dionysius Areopagita.]

[40] [George Pachymeres (b.1242?, d.1310/1340?). Primary work is Historia Byzantina. ]

[41] [Pseudo — Dionysius, the Areopagite, Georgii Pachymerae paraphrasis in omnia Dionysij Areopagitae, Athenarum episcopi, opera quae extant. (Paris, 1561). Works.]

[42] [Ammononius, third century Christian philosopher. There was a Latin translation made of his Harmony of the Gospels by Victor of Capua. Ammonii, vulgo Tatiani, diatessaron, sive harmoniae in quatuor evangelia (Mayence, 1524).

[43] Lib. 4, de Myster. Missae, cap. 13. – Patet ergo quod Judas prius exiit quam Christus traderet eucharistiam. Quod autem Lucas post calicem commemorat traditerem, per recapitulationem potest intelligi: Quia saepe fit in Scriptura ut quod prius factum fuerat posterius enarretur. That whole chapter is spent in the debating of this question.

[44] [Victor of Antioch, bishop (abt. 400 AD). He wrote a commentary on the Gospel of Mark.]

[45] In John 6, de participatione autem corporis et sanguinis ejus, potest aliquis opinari quod ille (Judas) interfuerit. Sed profecto diligentius evangelistarum narratione, doctorumque considerata diversitate, citius deprehendi, huic quoque sacramento illum nequaquam interfuisse. Nam cum accepisset buccellam, qua traditor designatus est, exivit continuo. [Rupertus Tuitiensis [Rupert of Deutz, 12th century].Commentaria in Evangelium Sancti Johannis. Corpus Christianorum: Continuatio Mediaevalis, 9. Ed. by Rhabanus Maurus Haacke. Turnholti: Typographi Brepols, 1969.]

[46] Rupertus Tuitiensis in John 13. – Sciendum vero est, quia, sicut et ante nos dictum est, si post buccellum continue Judas exivit, sicut paulo post evangelista dicit, procul dubio nequaquam discipulis tunc interfuit, quando Dominus noster sacramentum illis corporis et sanguinis sui distribuit. Et paulo post. – Igitur exemplo Domini, tolerare quidem malos boni debent in ecclesia, donec ventilabro judicii granum a palea, vel a tritico separentur zizania: verumtamen non eo usque indiscreta debet esse patientia, ut indignis, quos noverunt, sacrosancta Christi tradant mysteria.

[47] [Edward Kellett (1583-1641), Tricoenivm Christi in nocte proditionis suae: The threefold supper of Christ in the night that he was betrayed (London, 1641).]

[48] [Juan Mariana, Spanish Jesuit & commentator (1537-1623), Scholia in Vetus et Novum Testamentum.]

[49] [Francisco Torres {Turrianus}, Jesuit, Hellenist and Anti-Protestant polemicist (1509-1584). Sebastião Barradas, Jesuit commentator (1543-1615), Commentariorvm in concordiam, & historiam Euangelicam. ]

[50] [Lambert Daneau, French Calvinist theologian (1530-1596), Lamberti Danaei Opuscula omnia theological (Geneva, 1583).]

[51] [Ibid.]

[52] [Johannes Piscator (Fischer), German Reformed theologian (1546-1625), Commentarii in omnes libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti (Herbornae, 1638-1646, 5 vols in 3).]

[53] [Jerome Zanchius, Reformed Theologian (1516-1590), Operum Theologicorum (Geneva, 1613, 8 volumes bound in 3).]

[54] [Francis Gomar, Calvinist divine (1563-1641), Opera omnia theological (Amsterd, 1664).]

[55] Beza in John 13:30. – Certa videtur esse eorum sententia qui existimant Judam institutioni sacroa coenae non interfuisse.

[56] Tossanus in John 13. – Ita ut Judae quidem laverit pedes Christus, sed postea egressus coenae sacramentali non interfuerit, sicut eruditi multi ex hoc capite colligunt. [Ibid.]

[57] [The Armoury edition has the footnotes in this paragraph slightly out of place, but a check of the first edition did not show that any were actually missing.]

[58] Musculus in Loc. Com. de Coena Dom., p. 352. Mihi sane dubium non est, egressum ad perficiendum traditionis scelus fuisse Judam, priusquam sacramentum hoe a Domino discipulis traderetur. [Ibid.]

[59] Diodati upon John 13:20. – “We may gather from hence that he (Judas) did not communicate of our Savior’s sacrament.” [Jean Diodati, Reformed divine (1576-1649), Annotationes in Biblia (Geneva, 1607).] Grotius, Annot. in Matt. 26:21, 26; Luke 22:21; John 13, holds the supper at which the sop was given to Judas, and from which he went forth, was the common supper, and that it was before the Lord’s supper, and that Luke does not place Christ’s words concerning Judas, Luke 22:21, in the proper place. [Ibid.]

[60] [Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389). The work, Christus Patiens, is attributed to him.]

[61] [Probably Alger Of Liège, Flemish priest (1060-1131), De sacramentis corporis et sanguinis Dominici — “Concerning the Sacraments of the Body and the Blood of the Lord”.

[62] [Haymo, Bishop of Saxony (c.778-853). See Migne, Patrol. Latina, vols., 116, 117, 118.]

[63] [Ratio disciplinae ordinisq[ue] ecclesiatici in unitate Fratrum Bohemorum. Recèns è Bohemico Latina facta. 1633.]

[64] [Alexander Alesius (or de Hales), Scholastic (d. 1245). Summa Theologica (Norimb, 1482, and many times and places thereafter).]

[65] [See Aaron’s Rod Blossoming. 3.13; Armoury edition, p. 245.]