Matthew Poole and continuators on John 13:30

30 He then having received the sop, went immediately out : And it was night u.

From hence appeareth, 1. That it is impossible to prove that Iudas was with our Saviour, when he Instituted and Celebrated the Supper; tho if he were, it proveth nothing of a liberty for ignorant and scandalous persons to be there; (for Iudas was not such a one) nor yet of a lawfulness for Ministers of the Gospel, knowing any to be such, to give the Lords Supper to them. For altho Christ knew Iudas his heart, yet he acted not according to his Omniscience▪ but as the first and prime Minister of the Gospel, setting us an example, not to judge of secret things, but of things open onely. 2. It also appeareth from hence, that it is not probable, that this was any other Supper than the Passover Supper; for if it were not, the Passover Supper must be after this, and this same Supper preceding it. Our famous Dr. Lightfoot thinks it was a Supper in Bethany, at two miles distance (or near so much) from Ierusalem But then it must follow, 1. That Iohn speaks nothing of the Paschal Supper, or the Lords Supper; and 2. it doth by no means appear probable to me, that Iudas after such a discovery of him, should come again to eat the Passover with Christ and his Disciples. These things, together with what I noted before, that here is no mention made of more guests than the twelve; that the posture used (especially as to leaning) was peculiar to the Paschal Supper. That the discourse mentioned by this Evangelist, as had at this Supper about the discovery of the Traytor, is the same in substance, (tho not in terms) with what Matthew and Luke report, as passed at the Passover. All these things confirm me, that it is the Paschal Supper that Iohn speaketh of; whether Iudas was at the Lords Supper, which we know followed the Passover immediately, depends upon the sense of the particle [non-Latin text not transcribed], which we translate immed[illegible: 1 letter]tely; but doth not signifie necessarily such a present departure; but the action of the Lords Supper might be first over, tho in reason it seemeth to me more prob[illegible: 1 letter]b[illegible: 1 letter]e, because of those words, having received the sop, he immediately went out: that it should be here Interpreted strictly, and that shame and horror should not suffer him to stay so long, as till the action of the Supper was over: tho whether he were at the Lords Supper (as I said before) sigfieth nothing at all to the questions about mixt Communion, either as to the part of the Minister administring, or the peoples Communicating.