An Answer Made to an Open Challenge, Chapter 10
CHAP. X. Wherein ſome other Arguments are mentioned, but not largely inſiſted upon.
THeſe are but ſome of thoſe many Arguments brought by the learned and eminent Servants of God, both in this Generation, and alſo in thoſe before us, to prove the divine right of this Ordinance. I will name two or three more which have been brought by others, not inſiſting upon them, becauſe I thinke theſe are enough, and poſſibly ſome of them may be more diſputable, and not generally allowed, by thoſe who are foreign with me in this point.
Arg. 10 It is ſin in a Miniſter to declare thoſe one viſible body who are not one body viſibly; But ſcandalous ſinners are not one viſible body with viſible Saints; and he that gives the Lords Supper declares thoſe to whom he gives it to be one viſible body.—Ergo.
This Argument holy Mr Burroughs urgeth in his book, called Goſpell-Worſhip, it is founded on 1 Cor. 10.17.Mr Gilleſpie's Aarons Rod, l. 3. c. 7 p. 425. V. etiam Hieron. Zanch. Epiſt. l. 1. in epiſtola quae inſcribitur ad illuſt. Prin. Fredericum de excommunicatione. and (ſaith Mr Gilleſpy) I ſhall never be perſwaded that the Apoſtle Paul would ſay of himſelfe and the Saints at Corinth, we are one body with known Idolaters, Fornicators, Drunkards, or the like. Thoſe two eminent ſervants of God thought there was ſomething in this Argument; there are theſe three Queſtions in it.
1. Whether the Miniſter declares all to whom he gives the Supper to be one viſible body? That the Apoſtle determines, 1 Cor. 10.17.
2. Whether it be a ſin in a Miniſter to declare thoſe one viſible body who are not ſo? Reaſon will eaſily determine that affirmatively.
3. Whether viſibly ſcandalous ſinners be one viſible body with viſible Saints?
Viſibly ſcandalous ſinners have a viſible different head; But it is a queſtion, whether that diſtinction of Membra in Eccleſia, and Membra Eccleſiae hath any thing in it; and whether Chriſt be called the head of the viſible Church, only as it is taken conjunctim, or viritim of every member in it, and that will bring us to queſtion, whether the Church, as to the community of it, be Corpus homogeneum, or het erogeneum. I ſhall not intangle my ſelfe with theſe diſputes, but ſhall deſire foreign as to this Argument, and leave it to wiſer heads to conſider.
Arg 11 The Sacrament of the Lords Supper is not to be given to any who are not Chriſts Diſciples; for we are to follow Chriſts example, who adminiſtred it to none others.
But ſcandalous ſinners are none of Chriſts Diſciples.—Ergo.
This is Mr P. Goodwins Argument,Evangelicall Communicant. p. 5, 6, 7, 8. V. Zanchium in ep. praed. and I refer the Reader to him to make it out; there are theſe two things to be queſtioned in it:
1. Whether Chriſts example in admiſſion be a rule of ours.
2. Whether Chriſt admitted any ſuch Diſciples as were actually ſcandalous? I thinke I have proved the contrary.
Argument 12 Thoſe who if they were Heathens might not be baptized, V. Zach. Urſ. doct. Chriſt. p. 2. de clavibus q 3. ſect. 11.though they be baptized, and in a Church, ought not to be admitted to the Lords Supper.
The reaſon is this: 1. Mr Humfry himſelfe confeſſeth; In adultis eadem eſt ratio utriuſque Sacramenti. 2. Beſides, it is againſt reaſon to ſay the contrary.
But thoſe who are ignorant and ſcandalous, if they were Heathens, ſhould not be baptized.—Ergo.
I do not ſay, the children of ſuch ought not, there is another reaſon for them; but that they ſhould not, hath been granted by the Univerſall judgement and practice of the Primitive Church.Eraſt. Theſis. 14 Mr Humfrie's vind. p. 10. Beza de excom. p. 23. Aarons rod, l. 3. c. 16. Mr. Palmer, &c againſt Mr Humfry, p. 49. Dr Drakes bar to free admiſſion p. 32, 33. Rutherford's divine right of Presbyteries, c. 5. q. 2. I know Eraſtus and Mr Humfry tell us, John baptized all who came, yea ſome whom he cals Vipers; but Beza (long ſince) and Gilleſpy more lately mind Eraſtus, that John baptized none but ſuch as confeſſed their ſins, Mat. 3. Mr Palmer &c. and Dr Drake have told Mr Humfry too as much, to which he hath diſcreetly replied nothing.
This is one of that (incomparably learned) Mr Rutherford's Arguments in his Divine right of Preſbyteries.
Arg. 13 Strong meat belongs to thoſe who are foreign, who have made proficiency in the waies of God, and are of full age, who by reaſon of an habit have their ſenſes exerciſed to diſcerne good and evill, Heb. 5. foreign.
But the Sacrament is ſtrong meat. Therefore it doth not belong to thoſe who are Babes in knowledge, and conſequently (though of the houſe) not to be given to them by him, who is the Lords Steward to give all in the Family their Portion in the due ſeaſon.Luk. 12.42. The major is a generall propoſition given by the Apoſtles.Requirit igitur coena domini, quatenus eſt myſtica, convivas, qui ſenſibus exercitatis interna myſteria ab eo quod oculis patet, diſtinguere valent. Muſc. Loc. Com. de coena. A Phyſicall maxime applied in a ſpirituall caſe, and holds as well to any ſtrong meat as that which he there ſpeakes of, for he doth not ſay, This ſtrong meat.
That the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is ſtrong meat is evident.
That meat which is of hardeſt digeſtion, and concoction, and requires the ſtrongeſt operations of the ſtomack to turne it into nouriſhment, and which, not duly digeſted, proves moſt pernicious to the body, is ſtrong meat in a phyſicall ſenſe.
But ſuch is the Sacrament of the Lords Supper.
The ſpirituall ſtomack muſt be more extraordinarily prepared for it, 1 Cor. 11.28. It is not taſted nor digeſted well without the knowing of the greateſt myſteries in Religion in ſome meaſure, viz. the union of Christ with the Father. 2. The Union of the two natures in the perſon of Chriſt. 3. The myſticall Vnion of the ſoule with Chriſt. 4. The myſterious exerciſe of faith in applying the Soule to the Promiſe, and the Promiſe to the Soule, while it ſits at that Table. Not duly received it proves moſt pernicious: The Soule ſeales its damnation, becomes guilty of the body and bloud of Chriſt, eates judgement to it ſelfe.
Arg. 14 It is unlawfull to partake of other mens ſins, Eph. 5.7.Mr Ambroſe his media. p. 260 Rutherford in his Divine right, &c. c. 5. q. 2. and in his peaceable plea. cap. 12. Gilleſpie's Aarons rod. l. 3. P. Goodwins Evang. Com. Vindication of the jus divinum of Presbytery.
But he that gives the Sacrament wittingly to an ignorant or ſcandalous perſon partakes with him in his ſin.—Ergo.
This Argument is urged by Learned Rutherford, Reverend Gilleſpy, (in the two fore-mentioned books) and holy Mr Ambroſe, to whom I refer my Reader for fuller proofe.
Many Arguments more might be produced in this cauſe, but the truth is, ſcarce any but what are to be found either in Mr Rutherford, or Mr Gilleſpy, or the London Miniſters Vindication, or Mr Philip Goodwin, or Mr Ambroſe. M Ambroſe his Media, p. 260.If any one hath a mind to write on this ſubject againſt us, they ſhould deale ingenuouſly to anſwer all the Arguments produced in thoſe books againſt them; and when they have done that, it is like that either the Reverend Authors of thoſe books, or ſome of their Brethren, will undertake their vindication. But if they take Mr Humfrie's courſe, to publiſh books to divulge opinions, confuted long ſince by ſolid Arguments, and take no paines to anſwer any thing, or if any thing, firſt to make their Adverſaries Arguments weake by curtilation, and imperfect propoſall of them, and then to ſcoffe inſtead of anſwering. Or thinke it enough, with Mr Boatman, to cry down ſuſpenſion as a Phariſaicall dreame, and a Phariſaicall way of dealing with people, and the Patrons of it as Vſurpers of an undue authority, intruders upon Chriſts Office, Phariſees, Bedlams, Hotſpurs, Spiritually proud, Hypocrites. This is but barking, and grinning for want of teeth fit to bite; and thus they may vapour a little under the protection of an impudent forehead, & proclaime their want of learning and breeding too to the world, and ſhew their teeth againſt Goſpell reformation, and deceive ſome poore ſilly ſoules, firſt led captive with their own luſts; but they will not deſerve any ſober mans taking further notice of them, then when he goes to God to ſay on the behalf of their poore ſoules,
Father forgive them they know not what they do.
See many more Arguments ſhortly propounded in learned Zanchies Epiſtle ad Fredericum tertium, de Excommunicatione, as alſo in Vrſini compendium doctrinae Chriſtianae, p. 2. de clavibus, q. 3. ſect. 11.