A Double Reply, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. VVherein a fifth Argument is brought whereby is proved, that hitherto none bath brought any Scripture precept or preſident, ſufficient to warrant promiſcuous adminiſtration of the Lords Supper.
I proceed to a fifth ARGVMENT.
What the Officers of the Church have neither any precept obliging them to doe, nor preſident to justifie them in doeing, that in the worſhip of God is ſinfull and unlawfull for them to do.
THE propoſition ſtandeth upon this bottome, That nothing is lawfull in the worſhip of God, but what we have precept or preſident for. Which, whoſo denies, opens a door to all Idolatry and ſuperſtition, and will-worſhip in the world. Beſides the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, being a piece of inſtituted worſhip, we are in the Adminiſtration of it, to be guided according to the precepts, given upon the inſtitution and for the Adminiſtration of it, and according to the example of the Lord Ieſus Chriſt and his Apostles. The example of Chriſt who firſt inſtituted it, and gave us an example for the perpetuall celebration of it, and of the Apoſtles, who being the firſt who celebrated it, queſtionleſſe did it in the pureſt Order, and moſt conformely to the will of Chriſt, with which they were beſt acquainted. Now I aſſume;
But for the Officers of the Church, to give the Sacrament to ſuch as are viſibly ſcandalous, (though they be not excommunicated, is for them to doe that in the worſhip of God, which neither any precept nor example of Chriſt, or his Apoſtles, will juſtify them in doing—Ergo.
It is enough for us to affirme the minor, till our oppoſites produce ſome precept or example of Chriſt or his Apoſtles, juſtifying them in this practice. In regard ſome are pretended; I ſhall turn aſide a little to examine the precepts or examples offered in the cauſe.
1. Some think, that our Saviours words, Mark 14.23. Drink you all of it, containes a command given by our Saviour to all, to drink of the Sacramentall cup, and ſo vertually a command to his Miniſters to give it out promiſcuouſly. But let us before we grant this, examine who thoſe All were. The twelve ſaith (Mr Humfry) (we will examine that more ſtrictly anon.) By all there, out of all queſtion are meant no more then all preſent, and theſe were no more then the twelve, (if all of them) which wants proofe too. But ſuppoſe all the twelve were there, yet not one of them was diſcovered to be a ſcandalous ſinner, but even Iudas himſelfe was both in the Diſciples eyes, and in Chriſts eyes, (acting not as an omniſcient God, but as a Miniſter of the Goſpell) a viſible Saint. Which was the anſwer as I remember of Bonaventure, I am ſure of Halenſis and Salmeron, long ſince, and is the generall anſwer of our Divines to that cavill. Nor hath Mr Humfry in his Rejoinder, ſaid any thing to prove Iudas then ſcandalous, for though (as Eraſtus noted before him) he had then treaſon in his heart, and ſuppoſing that to be true, which Eraſtus and Mr Humfry ſo much plead, (but I ſearce beleeve) that he had before covenanted with the High Prieſts, yet all this was ſecret, and he was not diſcovered, till upon Chriſt giving him the ſop, he asking, is it I? Chriſt ſaid, thou ſaieſt it; and that reply of Chriſt was before as ſome think. Grotius well obſerves, that Chriſt did but whiſper it to him, for it is plaine, from Iohn 13. that the Diſciples knew it not till then, and he then having received the ſop, went out foreign (ſaith Iohn) which by the way, as I ſhall prove more anon) was both before the eating of the Paſchall Lambe, and before the inſtitution of the Lords Supper too.
It is worth our obſerving, that Chriſt did not ſo much as call up thoſe of the ſame houſe, which it is more then probable, that he would have done, if he had intended it for a converting Ordinance, or for all promiſcuouſly. Nay ſurely Chriſt had more diſciples then the twelve, but the twelve onelyonly (if all of them) were preſent.
2. Some think that they have a precept for promiſcuous adminiſtring this Ordinance, from Mat. 28.19, 20. where we have our commiſſion in theſe words; Goe teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Senne and the Holy Ghoſt.
1. To that I anſwer.
1. There is nothing expreſt concerning the adminiſtration of the Lords Supper, and our oppoſites who are ſo nimble at every turn to call for foreign, ſhould remember, that by it they oblige themſelves to doe the like.
But ſecondly, admit that there is an implicit precept likewiſe for the adminiſtration of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, yet ſurely by the ſame rule that the Apoſtles (notwithſtanding that precept) did not think themſelves obliged to baptize any, but ſuch as beleeved, and confeſſed their ſins; we may alſo expound the included part of the precept, and muſt adminiſter this Ordinance to none but ſuch as are able to examine themſelves, and to diſcerne the Lord Body. So that this will not ſerve their turne.
Thirdly, Eraſtus, and Mr Humfry, and Mr Boatman, make a great ſtir with the wedding Supper, Mat. 22. to which all were invited, &c. But,
1. They ſhould remember that old and true rule, Theologia parabolica non eſt argumentativa. No argument can be fetcht from Parables, but from the generall ſcope of them. v Mr Humfrie's rejoinder. p. 52.53.54.Now he that runs may read, that our Saviours main ſcope in that Parable, was not to ſhew who might, or might not come to the Lords Table, but to ſhew how angry God was with the Jewes, for not comming to Chriſt, by which unbeliefe of theirs, they procured deſtruction to themſelves, and God would now call in the Heathens, and thoſe who before were not his people, to be his people, and to fill up his Feaſt.
2. If Mr Humfry or Mr Beatman thinke they may argue, from any of the foure feet of that parable, as to this cauſe, they may prove it to be their duty, not onelyonly to ſtand in a Pulpit, and invite all the Lords Table, but to goe into high waies and hedges too, and bring in all they meet with, yea and to compell them to come in. Now it will prove too, that they ought to fetch in Pagans (who are chiefly meant in the latter part of the Parable) And thus they ſhall not need to want company at the Lords Table.
3. Doctor Drake anſwered Mr Humfry well I think, when he told him, that Chriſt is the Feaſt meant in that Parable, and although all be invited to the Feaſt [Chriſt] yet the queſtion is, whether all be invited to eat of that diſh in the Feaſt, viz. Dr Drakes B… to free admiſſion. p. 30. Mr Humfries rejoinder. p. 54.the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as wel as they are invited to hear the Goſpel. Here now M. Humfry hath a mind more to ſhew his wit then his honeſty, thus he anſwers him p. 54. This is ſomething ingenuous, but whoreas he applies this, that a man may be invited to a Feaſt, yet not to the diſh in the Feaſt; it is very fine, &c. then he tels us a tale of the two egs, and concludes, let us have the diſhes of the Feaſt, and what will become of Mr Drakes Feaſt.
How falſly hath he abuſed Dr Drake, let the Reader judge; Dr Drake doth not ſay they are not invited to any diſh, but they are not invited to every diſh, and if the diſh of the Sacrament be removed, there will a Feaſt ſtill remaine. But the truth is, it was propereſt for Mr Humfry to abuſe his Adverſary, when he could not anſwer him. If this, and other paſsages of the ſame nature in that unworthy book, be not enough to make it ſtink in the noſtrils of conſcientious Chriſtians, let them but read his language, p. 269. and the application of Scripture, to ſerve his naſtie intentions, and they may help a little towards it.
4. I never heard of any more Scripture precepts pretended, onelyonly that, 1 Cor. 11.24. where I deſire the Reader to conſider.
1. That the Apoſtle doth but repeat the words of our Saviour, which were ſpoke to none but viſible Saints.
2. The Apoſtle delivers the ſame words to them, he bids them, Doe that, &c.
Which (by the way) is not a command to their Paſtors to adminiſter it, but to the Church to receive the Sacrament, and ſurely doth not concerne thoſe who in that Chapter are commanded to examine themſelves, &c. and are not able to doe it.
The queſtion is, whether the Apoſtle v. 24. doth command them to receive the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, who could not examine themſelves according his rule v. 28. nor diſcern the Lords body; or who if they did partake muſt neceſsarily eat and drink their owne damnation, and make themſelves guilty of the body and blood of Chriſt: Surely this was very abſurd to ſay; If not this precept is nothing to the purpoſe, ſounding no more then this; you that are fit to doe this, doe this.
We are now come to examine if they have any examples. I never heard but of three pretended, indeed they are great ones, and enough, if they be made appeare for their purpoſe.
The firſt, that of Chriſt, who admitted Iudas as ſome think.
The ſecond Mr Humfry mentions. Acts 2.41.42.
The third is of the Church of Corinth.
I will ſpeak of the latter two firſt.
The firſt then is Acts 2.41, 42. in the 41 verſe, 3000 ſoules were added to the Church; verſe 42. it is ſaid they continued ſtedfaſtly in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowſhip, and breaking of bread, and prayers.
To this I anſwer.
1. I ſhould put our oppoſites hand to it, to prove that the breaking of bread here ſpoke of, was the Sacramentall action. I could tell them of many who are of another mind. A phraſe like this Luke 24.30. he took bread and bleſſed, and brake it, &c. is uſed to expreſs common eating at our own Tables.
2. But I confeſs, I encline to to think it was Sacramentall breaking of bread, and ſo the Syriack verſion reads it. So the phraſe is uſed. 1 Cor. 10.16. But who were thoſe that brake berad together? ſuch as verſe 37. were prickt at the heart, and had cryed out, v. Mr Palmer… anſwer to Humfry. p. 51.Men and Brethren, what ſhall we doe? ſuch as continued ſtedfaſtly in the Apoſtles Doctrine, and fellowſhip and prayers, ſuch as durſt owne Chriſt in thoſe firſt and furious times. Whats this to prove that all ignorant ſcandalous ſinners, of but baptized, and not excommunicated, ought to be admitted to the Lords Table?
2. In the next place, the example of the Church of Corinth is produced, where we are told, there were ſome came drunk to the Sacrament, or were drunk at the Sacrament; Fornicators, Covetous, Extortioners, Idolaters, yet all were admitted.
1. I have before ſhewed, that there is no colour to ſay that any drunkards were in the Church of Corinth, ſuch at leaſt as came drunk to the Table, and if they were ſo there, it muſt be proved that they did not repent, and yet came againe the next time, or elſe nothing is ſaid, Rejoinder p. 48.but inſtead of this it cannot be proved (as I have ſhewn) they were drunk there, and Mr Humfry doth not diſapprove it.
2 The Apoſtle plainly ſaith, that ſome of this Church were Foruicators, I dolaters, Adulterers, 1 Cor. 6.9, 10, 11.effeminate, abuſers of themſelves with man-kind, Theevs, Covetous, Drunkards, revilers, extortioners; but now they were waſhed, juſtified, ſanctified, with what face we can ſay they were ſo after, let any judge.
3. There was an inceſtuous perſon, but they are bid to purge him out, not to eat, not to keep company with him: how this proves he was admitted, I cannot tell.
4. Suppoſing ſuch were admitted, the Argument comes to nothing, for though the Apoſtles example binds us, yet every Churches example doth not in all things, eſpecially when the Apoſtle writes to them, and tels them, they could not partake of the cup of the Lord, and of the cup of Devils. If they did admit Drunkards, ibid. p. 48.Mr Humfry himſelfe will acknowledge they did amiſſe, for he tels us, that he holds the Drunkard unintelligent, and fit to be turned away from all Ordinances, at leaſt for the preſent.
3. Eraſt, theſis 28.But the greateſt example is that of Chriſt, who they ſay, admitted Judas a reprobate, one whom he knew to be the ſonne of perdition, &c. This Eraſtus tels us of, and Mr Humfry, iterum at que iterum.
Here are two things to be proved.
1: That Iudas was a ſcandalous ſinner.
2. That he was admitted to the Lords Supper.
Wee ſhall fulle of the firſt prooſe, Beza de …reſb. & excom. p 26. Gilleſpies Aaronsrad, l 3. c. 10which was Beza's anſwer to Eraſtus long ſince; and learned Gilleſpies anſwer to Mr Prin, viz. That Iudas was no ſcandalous ſinner, nor was his compact with the High Prieſt, knowne to the Diſciples, and as for Chriſts knowledge, (ſuppoſing he had not gone out) he acted as a Miniſter, Martyr in 1 Cor. 5. Gerard. loc. comd. 5. p. 181. Algerus de Saeram. Halenſis ſum. th…ol. p. 4.9.11. art. 1. ſect 4. Dr Drakes Bar, &c. p. 9. Mr. H…mfries rejomd. p. 1516.and not as an omniſcient God, and thoſe who peruſe that Chapter in Mr Gilleſpies book, will find that this was the opinion of Peter Martyr, Gerard, Algerus, Durantus, Alexander Halenſis, Ioannes Baptiſta de Rubeis, &c. The ſame anſwer Dr Drake gives Mr Humfry, all that his Adverſary ſaith, is but the ſame over and over againe. He had compacted with the High Prieſt, (but this was ſecretly) Chriſt he ſaith, had revealed it. But thats falſe as to a particular diſcovery, for it is plaine, that till he gave the ſop to him they ſuſpected themſelves rather then him. The buſineſſe is this.
Jeſus Chriſt there, as Arch Biſhop and firſt Biſhop of his Church, at once both inſtitutes the Ordinance, and intends to ſet us a rule for the celebration, he therefore takes none but his diſciples with him, whether Indas was there or no, all the time of the action, is uncertaine, (ſuppoſing he was) this we ſay, though Chriſt knew his ſecret compact with the Phariſees, yet it was not knowne to the Diſciples, but to him as omniſcient, and to teach us that we muſt not judge hearts, but actions, he turnes him not away.
And Mr Gilleſpy ſaith well, Gil. l. 3. cap. 10.that if it could be proved that Iudas was preſent, yet it would no more prove that we ought to admit all ſeandalous ſinners to the Ordinance, becauſe Chriſt admitted Iudas, (as is ſuppoſed) then it would prove that we ought to admit any notorious Drunkard, Whoremonger, or other ſinner, who is openly knowne to us to be ſuch to the Office of the Miniſtry, becauſe Chriſt admitted Iudas to the Apoſtleſhip, who he knew was a Devill, which may ſtop Erastus and Mr Humfries mouth, for the time to come, as to this Argument, except theſe can prove Iudas was ſo ſcandalous, as Jeſus Chriſt, (meerly as man) might have diſcovered it.
But ſecondly, it can never be proved that Iudas was there at the Supper. I queſtion whether at the eating of the Lambe or no, and I will anon ſhew you ſome ground for it. Beza tels us, Beza de Presb. page 27. Eraſt. theſes th. 28. Mr Prins vind. 4 ſer. queſt. p. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.that he aſſents to thoſe that think he was not there. Eraſtus himſelfe diſcovers no great confidence in this Article of the new Creed. Mr Prin quotes many Authors in the affirmative. Origen, Cyprian, Ambroſe, Chryſoſtome, Nazianzen, Cyrill, Auguſtine, Victor Antiochenus, Theodoret, Remigius, Rathertus, Oecumenius, Algerus, Theophylact, Bernard, beſides Canoniſts, Schoolmen, and Proteſtant writers.
Mr Gilleſpy ſhewes him his miſtake in many of the quotations, Aarons rod. p. 456, 457. p. 451 452, 453, 454.and the ground of ſome of the Ancients miſtake in this (taking the ſop for the Supper. And further tels him, that Gerard and Brockman, and Theophylact, all confeſſe it a diſputable buſineſſe, and with all gives him account of diverſe who were of another mind; and that Chryſoſtome and Theophylact, &c. jointly agree, that ſcandalous perſons were to be excluded. But let us examine Scripture and reaſon in the caſe. Mr Gilleſpy gives theſe reaſons in the negative.
1. Gilleſpy ibid. Dr Drakes Bar, &c. page 6. Mr Prins vind. p. 24. Gil. p. 441, &c. Rejoinder p. 9. p 446, 447.Saint Iohn ſaith, Iohn 13.30. That he having received the ſop, went immediately out. This is likewiſe Doctor Drakes fourth reaſon. To this Mr Prin excepts, but is ſufficiently anſwered by Mr Gilleſpy. Mr Humfry like wiſe excepts, that the Supper, Iohn 13. was not that, at which the Lord inſtituted the Sacrament, but two dayes before, (though the beſt authority he hath for it, be a marginall quotation which ſurely was not wrote there, by the infallible finger of God.) It is a materiall exception, we will ſcan it anon.
2. Mr Gilleſpies ſecond Argument was, becauſe it was not probable Chriſt would have ſaid to Iudas, this is my body which is broken for thee. This Argument he vindicates from Mr Prins exceptions.
3. Dr Drake. p. 6. ibid. ibid.A third Argument he uſeth (which is Dr Drakes fifth Arg.) is, becauſe all thoſe comfortable expreſſions Chriſt uſed while Iudas was there, were with exceptions, Iohn 13.10, 11. You are clean, but not all. So ver. 18. ver. 21. which were left out at the Supper. To theſe Mr Humfry replies, what all, did Chriſt never ſpeake graciouſly to Judas amongſt the reſt? Rejoind. p. 9, 10.Pray ſee at leiſure. Wee may look long enough, where after this time, he ſpake comfortably to him, wee deſire Mr Humfry to ſhew us. But as for Iohn 13.10, 11, 18, 21. he ſaies it is not in him (to anſwer them I ſuppoſe hee meanes) God ſhall give an anſwer rf peace.
But he tels us, Chriſt ſaith he is a Devill, but I have choſen him, to what? to be an Apoſtle; he was not apparently ſo, when he choſe him. He ſaies that Chriſt ſaies Iudas was not clean, yet he waſhes his feet; but the Text ſaies it not. 2. Suppoſe he did, this was but to teach him humility and charity, not to entitle him to the Lords Supper.
4. Dr Drake adds. Becauſe Chriſt knew him to be a reproba…e. To this Mr Humfry onelyonly endeavours (to little purpoſe) to faſten a contradiction on the Dr, becauſe the Doctor had ſaid before, ſuppoſing he had knowne him to be ſo, yet Chriſt as a Miniſter (probably) would not exclude him. Let the Doctor ſpeak for himſelfe.
5. Dr Drake adds a fifth. Becauſe Chriſts blood was ſhed for the remiſſion of thoſe who received.
Mr Humfry anſwers, 1 Iohn 2.2. And not for ours onelyonly, but for the ſins of the whole world, that is, the Pagans as well as the Jewes, viz. ſuch of them as being fore ordained to life, ſhould beleeve; but what is this to the purpoſe? What Mr Humfry meanes by holding univerſall redemption as to the viſible Church, ſo far as reacheth to the tenour and tender of the conditionall Covenant, though not of the abſolute, is too profound for me to fathome. Univerſall redemption; Conditionall Covenant. Two Convenants, one abſolute, another conditionall, are notions in Divinity I doe not underſtand, and think them hardly reconcilable to truth, (if to ſenſe) they are the canting language of thoſe that would ſupply Franciſcus de Sancta Clara's place, as to reconciling us and Arminians, and are no better then Arminianiſme minced for the better digeſtion.
Dr Drake alſo hath another Argument, (which Mr Gilleſpy alſo hints) becauſe Chriſt promiſed to drinke new wine in his Fathers Kingdome, with thoſe who received.
To this Mr Humfry anſwereth. But he doth not ſay with all. Let him remember that, and ſhew us where it is ſaid, that all the twelve were preſent at the inſtitution of the Supper.
There is thus much ſpoken, all which poſſibly will not compell, but ſurely in good natured people it will induce ſome little perſwaſion of a probability that Judas was not there.
Let us now heare what is pleaded on the Traitours ſide.
1. Mat. 26.20. It is ſaid he ſate down with the twelve, Mar. 14.17. He came with the twelve, Luke 22.14. He ſate down, and the twelve Apoſtles with him. Here's three Evangeliſts aſſerting it they cry.
But what doe they aſſert? that at their firſt ſitting downe the twelve were all there, who denies it? the queſtion is not whether they ſate downe together, but whether they roſe up together, whether they are the Sacrament together? Iohn telling us that Judas went out aſſoone as he had eaten the ſop, John 13.30.
But Luke tels us, that after the inſtitution of the Supper, Chriſt ſaid, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the Table, and Lukes Goſpell is true.
Dr Drake anſwers, that there is foreign. Luke puts a piece of the ſtory behind, which ſhould have been before. Mr Humfry, out of his pretended zeale for Saint Luke who (he ſaies) could not elſe ſpeake truth, ſaith, that though the Scripture ſometimes puts a whole ſtory after another, which in order of time was before it, yet where ſhall we find ſuch an hiſterology, as to take a piece of a former ſtory, and joine it to another as a part of it, Mr Humfries rejoind. p. 12, 13.to which …f it be taken as belonging, it becomes a manifeſt f…lſhood, and ſaies we will not abate a jot or tittle of the truth of Saint Lukes Goſpell.
That thoſe words of Saint Luke ſhould have been placed before, is plaine.
1. From St Luke himſelfe, for their hands were now all off the Table the Supper done, and the laſt cup drunke; beſides he adds ver. 23. that the Diſciples all wondred who ſhould doe the thing; now ſurely they knew before this time, or elſe Iudas (as Mr Humfry would have him) could not be ſcandalous at this time, his fact not known to his Diſciples.
2. St Ma…thew plainly placeth them before the Adminiſtration of the Supper. Mat. 26.20, 21, 22, 23, 24. So doth Marke ch. 14 18, 19, 20, 21. So Saint Iohn, Io, 13.21, 22. which plainly proves it an hiſterology in Luke.
3. Nor is it as Mr Humfry would inſinuate, a taking a piece of one ſtory, and joining it to another, which would make it falſe, but onelyonly a miſplacing of a piece of the ſame ſtory, which is no unuſuall thing amongſt the Evangeliſts.
4. Nor will it amount to ſo much, as an invalidating the truth of Lukes Goſpell, (which we deſire to be as tender of as Mr Humfry) any more then the order he pleades for, would invalidate the truth of the other three. Lukes being dictated by an infallible ſpirit, doth not oblige us to beleeve every punctilio of order, to have been as he deſcribes it, contrary to the teſtimony of the other three.—Beſides, Iohn ſaith plainly he went out.
But he tels us, we are miſtaken in Iohn 13. for that was a Supper (I know not when nor where) two dayes before the Paſſcover, and for this he cites a marginall quotation in our Bibles, pointing him to Mat. 26.2. which he bids us look.
1. I muſt confeſſe this well proved would be ſomething to his purpoſe, it would plainly prove that the ſop was eaten by Judas two dayes before the Paſſeover was celebrated, or the Lords Supper inſtituted, and that Judas two dayes before was diſcovered ſcandalous to all the Diſciples, and that two dayes before, he deſerted Chriſt and the other Diſciples; onelyonly if Mr Humfry could prove this, it would ſtand him in hand to prove his coming back well, to eat the the Paſſeover or the Supper.
2. But we will yield him nothing, he bids us look the margent of our Bibles, the place we inſiſt upon, is, Io. 13.30. where our ordinary Bibles have nothing in the margent, ſo that in obedience to him, we muſt tell him we have enquired, but non eſt inventum in Bibl…is noſtris. Indeed to the firſt verſe of that chap. is affixed in marg. Mat. 26.2.
But thirdly, he dreames that the Supper ſpoken of, where Iudas had the ſop, was a Feaſt two dayes before the Paſſeover. Indeed we read Mat. 26.1, 2. Mar. 14.1. of ſome conſultation of the Chiefe Prieſts, two daies before the Paſſeover, to take Chriſt. But that there was any ſupper beſides this at the Paſſeover, will poſe Mr Humfry to prove.