Right to Sacraments, Postscript 2
The second Postscript.
SInce the foregoing Disputations were Printed off, I had occasion to observe, how much some lay the stress of their cause on the supposition of Judas his receiving the Lords Supper; And thereupon apprehended, that such would think my foregoing answer to the Objection to be too short. I have thought meet therefore to add these few words for the enlargement of it.
The example of Judas is urged to several ends: 1. Some urge it to prove that such as Judas, yea known wicked men may not be kept away from the Sacrament. 2. Some urge it to prove that such may not be excommunicate. 3. Also it may be urged, to prove that it is not as a sign of the thing professed, that we are to require profession, but simply for it self: because Christ know that Judas was an hypocrite. 4 And it will be urged by others to prove that such as Judas have a Right coram Deo to the Sacrament which may warrant their demanding and receiving it.
I shall first prove that if Judas had received the Sacrament, it would not warrant any one of these conclusions, and then I shall prove that Judas did not receive the Sacrament: or at least, that it is a thing that no man can prove, and that the contrary is much more probable.
1. And (to begin with the last) that it proveth not Iudas right I prove thus. 1. If Iudas had such a right to the Sacrament, then Christ could not have denyed it him, or excluded him: For he may not deny him his right: But that Christ might nor haved denyed it him or excluded him, I have met with none that do affirm.
2. If Iudas his right be hence proved, either it is from Christs delivering the Sacrament to him, or from his permitting him to take it; but from neither of these: therefore.
Not from Christs delivery: 1. Because he only offered it, and that in its true Sacramental Nature, and to its proper ends, and propoundeth both internal and external duties to be performed in their order: He offereth himself to the soul, by the representation and under the signs of bread and wine. He offereth not bread and wine alone to any without himself as signified and represented by him. If he say to Judas [take me as thy Saviour and a sacrifice for sin, and in token thereof, take, eat and drink this.] He doth not hereby give him any true right before God, to take the bread and wine without taking Christ. For Christ is first to be taken by believing, and this duty is first in the command, and the bread and wine is not to be taken but in signification, that thus we take Christ, and if we do not so, our taking the bread and wine is a lye. Now if Christ offer himself first, and the elements as signs, and require Iudas to take himself first and the elements but as signs; then if Iudas will separate what God hath conjoyned, and will take the sign and not the thing signified, and will by this taking the sign profess that he taketh the thing signified when he doth not; this giveth him no right before God to the sign alone, no more than it warranteth him to make a lying profession: nor is there any shew of such a thing. An offer is but a Conditionall Gift, and not an Actuall; and therefore giveth no actuall right till the Condition be performed: The Condition is Acceptance. The Acceptance must be according to the offer. 1. Of the whole gift, (Christ and the signs) and not of the shell only 2. Of the thing signified first, and of the sign but consequentially. He therefore that takes the sign alone, takes that which this offer giveth him no right to.
2. Moreover, Christ did not offer it to Iudas particularly; but to the Disciples in general; not applying it to each one, but leaving it to themselves to make the application, as is granted and past doubt.
3. And as Christs offer proved not Iudas right, so neither did his Permission of his Reception. For Permission gives no Title. All the sins of the world are permitted physically, which makes them not to be no sin. And for a Morall permission, Iudas had none. To permit, is non impedire, not to hinder. Hinderance is morall by Prohibition. Thus Iudas was hindered: For God had a standing Law against lying and dissembling. 2. Or it is Physical, by Natural means: And thus Iudas was not hindred, either from Receiving what he received, or from betraying his Master: but it justified neither.
Ob. But at least, Iudas had right to that standing in the Church, by which he was numbered with those to whom the Sacrament was to be offered.
Answ. It will not prove that he had any proper right (by promise or grant which might warrant his claim) to Church-membership, or Apostleship it self.
Object. Christ chose him, and called him, and sent him.
Answ. Christs Choosing him, was no more but his Calling him out of many that were passed by. His Calling him was not either to Preach, 1. Only. 2. Or in the first place. But it was first to Believe in him and so to preach that which he did believe. If he had answered Christs call, he had done both: But if he will preach what he believeth not, he doth no more answer Christs call, than if he should speak a lye, or dissemble.
Object. But when Christ knew that he believed not, yet he sent him to preach.
Answ. Never to preach before or without believing. Though Christ knew that he did not actually believe, yet he knew withall that he lay under the Command and Obligation to believe, and that in order before preaching.
2. And for the next Conclusion, it cannot be proved by the Example of Iudas that we must take a Profession simply for it self, and not respectively as a sign of the thing Professed; and so that we must admit a man upon a Profession which is known to us to be false. For, if you argue from Christs example and say, [Christ did so, therefore we must do so] I deny both the Antecedent and the Consequence. 1. As to the Antecedent: Christ Commanded and Required Iudas his Profession as a sign of his mind and so of the thing professed; that is, as True▪ And he neither Required nor Accepted any other profession: But only he Permitted him to remain in his famil…, though his profession was false, and not such as he required. 2. As to the Consequence: No man therefore can hence argue, that we may Require or Accept a profession which is not a sign (apparent) of the thing professed; for that Christ did not; nor yet that we must permit a known false professor because Christ did. But this will be proved under the next points to which it leads us. The other two depending on the same grounds may be dispatcht together. And so I conclude, that it cannot be gathered from the example of Judas, that we must not excommunicate, or keep from the Lords Table, such as we can prove to the Church to be unregenerate, or to be such as Judas was. For 1. There may be Reasons to suspend the performance of that which ordinarily is to be done. And so Christ had special Reasons to forbear the excommunicating of Judas, till the last, because he was to be the Instrument of his suffering, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. When we are sure that we have as good a Reason to suspend an act of discipline, yet that will not be an excuse for our ordinary suspense, or a Rule for our ordinary practice. 2. The Lord Jesus would have Ministers lye under a double obligation, for their safe proceeding: The one is, to take seeming Believers and Penitent persons into the Church and to the Sacraments: The other is to take a Credible Profession for the Evidence of that Faith and Repentance. And accordingly he would teach us no more by his example. And therefore no wonder if he did not excommunicate Judas or keep him from the Sacrament: for it was by his Divine heart-searching power, and omniscience that Christ knew Judas to be an hypocrite: while he made a Profession that was Probable or Credible to a meer man. All therefore that can hence be gathered is, that if by heart-searching omniscience we knew a man to be an Hypocrite, we might not keep him back or excommunicate him: and yet that will not be proved from the Text neither; till you can prove that Christ might not have cast out Judas, as well as that he did not; for, as is said, he might forbear him for some special Cause; Though I grant that on other grounds it may possibly be proved, that we might not do it, because we cannot communicate our evidence to the Church. But there is no place for this arguing, till men are omniscient. Christ is our pattern as he acteth as a man, and not when he exerciseth Divine omniscience.
3. Christ knew what was in man, and need not that any man should tell him, John 2.25. And yet he questioned with men in humane Language; he asketh some whether they believed, and Peter, whether he loved him? Did he expect an answer from men, for the bare words sake? or as a sign of their mind? Did he oblige them to a true answer, or to a false? The case is not doubtfull. And if by his omniscience he knew that many of these answers were lyes, (and yet he silently permitted the answerer to seem a Disciple) it will not hence follow, that we must accept a profession simply for it self, and when it is not credible, that is, that we must believe a known lye, or that we must use those that we have no cause to believe as if we did believe them.
4. And if their Argument were of any strength, it would not only prove that we must keep in the Church, and admit to the Sacrament those that we know to have the Devil in them, and to be Traytors to Christ, contriving the destruction of his Church (as Judas did of his person) and to be Thieves and Deceivers (as Christ knew Judas to be,) and so overthrow all Church Discipline, contrary to the Scripture Laws; but also that it is not Lawfull for a Master to put a known Thief and Traytor out of his Family, or to prohibit him familiarity with him at his Table, and dipping his morsels with him in the same dish. For Christ did this by Judas as well as the other. But it is contrary to Psalm 15. and 101. and Mat. 18.17. and 1 Cor. 5.11. and many other Texts that we should hold such familarity with such men. But that we may not lawfully do otherwise, is a Doctrine that I hope no wise Christian Ruler of a Family will believe.
5. The state of Christs Church being then but in gathering and ordering, was not so ripe for the execution of excommunication as after his Resurrection, and the ordering of the Churches.
But though I have said all this on the supposition that Christ did give the Sacrament to Judas; yet I shall now proceed to shew, that [it is either certain that Judas did not receive it, or not probable that he did.]
My evidence is this, 1. There is the Concurrent Testimony of three Evangelists, that may assure us that Judas went out before the Sacrament. Matthew dispatcheth Christs speeches to Judas before the Sacrament, and to those that remained and did partake of it, he saith, 1. That he will drink of the fruit of the Vine with them new in the Kingdom of his Father; which he neither did after his Resurrection, nor will do with Judas. 2. Its said, they went into the Mount of Olives: but so did not Judas. 3. He saith, all ye shall be offended because of me this night: But Judas was none of those All.
And Mark doth punctually agree with Matthew.
And Joh. 13. doth clear both the other. For ver. 30. he saith that Judas having received the Sop, went immediately out. Now it is utterly improbable that this Sop was after the Sacrament. Though it be controverted whether the meat which they then eat besides the Paschal Lamb, were before it, or after it, yet there's evidence enough that it was before the Sacrament.
I know a Reverend Divine of ours in his Harmony of the Evangelists, thinks that the Supper Ioh. 13. was not the same with that Mat. 26. and Mar. 14. When the Sacrament was instituted. But his Reasons seem not cogent to me, but may well be answered; and there seems to be much evidence of the contrary in the Text, (to say nothing of the singularity of this exposition.) And as for the coincident controversies, whether Christ did eat a Supper without the Paschal Lamb, at the Institution of his Sacrament, as Grotius thought, or whether he did eat the Paschal Lamb a day before the Jews, as Causabone, Scaliger, Capellus, &c. think, Or on the same day with the Jews, as Baronius, Tolet, Clopenburgius, and the said Reverend Doctor think, I shall not need on this occasion to enquire; especially so much being written on it already. See Paul Burgens. in Lyr. and what Iansenius comment. hath ex Euthymio and other Greeks on that side: and the Testimony of Philo in Cappellus, and his Reasons are considerable.
The ancient Doctors were disagreed among themselves upon the Question whether Iudas did partake of the Sacrament. Its commonly known that Hilary was for the Negative. And (saith Estius in differ. loc. in Ioh. 13.) Clemens in constit. Apostol. and Dionysius Arcopag. are of the same mind with others: And whoever were the Authors of those writings, the antiquity in this case is considerable. And of the many Doctors that are thought to be on the other side, some speak only de participatione Coenae; and shew not that they mean the Sacrament, and some ground their opinion on a palpable error, viz. that the Sop given to Iudas was the Sacramental Bread: And Pellargus (in Mat. 26.) saith that Theophylact mentioneth a Tradition, that Iudas took the Bread with him to the Priests, and said [see here, my Master saith, this is his body] and Innocent the Third is express against Iudas Receiving, and Ammonius, Alexander, and Tacianus in their Harmonies seem to be against it; and Theophylact saith, divers were of that mind. Rupertus Tuitiensis is plain and large on it, as you may see in the Author in Ioh. 13. or in Musculus Loc. commun. pag. (mihi) 829. de Coen. where his words are cited at large.
The Papists and Lutherans indeed are most on the other side: but yet they are divided, especially the Papist: Many Learned Protestants of the Reformed party have written large discourses to prove that Iudas received not the Sacrament: we have divers common in English: and the beyond sea Divines are many of this mind. Beza, Grotius, Piscator, Musculus, Deodat, (five of the most judicious commentators, I think, that ever wrote on the sacred Scriptures,) are against Iudas participation, (and Calvin thinks it uncertain:) besides Zanchius, Danaeus, Gomarus, Tossanus, and many more that are against it: Though I know that on the other side divers are for it.
And what is there now on the other side to move us to think it probable that Iudas did Receive the Sacrament? The slight conjecture of a late learned Annotator I think not fit to trouble you with. I know but one Argument worth the mentioning or much regarding that is brought: and that is from the order of Lukes words, who after the mention of the Sacrament saith, [But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the Table.] But to this I must say that I confess it moveth me not to doubt of the matter, considering, 1. that as Grotius & other expositors truly note, it is so usual with Luke to disregard the Order of things spoken, and to repeat sayings together as one continued speech which were spoken at great distance; and to put that before which was spoken after, and that after which was spoken before: Not by mistake, but because it was the Matter and not the Order that he there purposed to deliver. 2. And because it is certain that he doth thus even in the matter in hand, for saith Grotius in ver. 21. Diversos Christi s…rmones nullâ ordinis habita ratione connectit Lucas. Nam illud de proditore, in Coenâ justâ contigit: admonitio de vitanda ambitione planè ut credibile est, in lotione inter coenam paschalem & coenam justam. Ita foreign saepe Luce est foreign. And as Calvin concludes, we cannot from this order in Luke gather that Iudas Received. And saith Beza, Apparet omnino ex aliis evangelistis ac praesertim, Ioh. 13.26. hunc sermonem habitum fuisse in secundis mensis Caenae legalis, quibus demum sublatis suam sacram Coenam instituit Dominus, ut ipse Lucas ver. praeced. expressit.] 3. And the reason of Luke's mentioning this after all, seems to be, because having begun to speak of Christs communicatory Action in the feast, he thought it meet to connex his communication of his Sacrament and so dispatch the history of those communicatory acts together; and then to mention the matter of Iudas altogether, though the words were not then spoken. 4. And the reason that Rupertus Tuitiensis gives, is considerable, which you may read at large in Musculus ubi sup. its too long to transcribe. See also what Sharpius Symphon. pag. 335. saith ex Augustino & aliis. See also what that Learned judicious man Frid. Wendeline saith against Iudas Receiving, exercit. 114 §. 1.8. &. Christ. Theolog. li. 1. c. 23. p. 544. And it seems there are many of the same mind in the Low Countries now, or else Maresius would not have so complained of their indignation against him for the contrary. See Piscator at large in Mat. 26. schol. And Beza in Ioh. 13 30. Quum igitur non nisi mensis secundis sublatis Dominus sacrosanctâ suâ mysteriâ instituerit, ut disertè ait, Luk. 22.20. & Iohannes non contentus dixisse Judam accepta offula exiisse, disertè etiam addat adverbium foreign; certa videtur esse eorum sententia, qui existimant Judam institutioni sacrae coenae non inter fuisse; & quod sic narrat Luk. 22.21. quasi demum peracta coenae, &c. esse ex aliis evangelistis explicandum; ex quibus liquet habitum fuisse hunc sermonem ante coenae sacrae institutionem. &c.]
When I had gone thus far, I remembered that Mr. Gilespio hath said somewhat of this subject, and perusing him I find much of that which I have here spoken, and much more, so that I shall stop here, and desire the Reader to read his Chap. 8, 9, 10. of lib. 3. Aarons Rod.
And as to the main controversie about unsanctified mens Right to Sacraments. See Vrsin. Catech. pag. 2. qu. 8. and 82. with the explic. throughout: and Beza epist. 20. ad Qu. propositas à studioso Silesio. Tract. Theol. vol. 3. pag. 227, 228, &c. to whom we might add a multitude of Consenters.
FINIS.
End of the text · Richard Baxter, Right to Sacraments (1658)