A Rejoinder to Mr Drake, Part 1 · Section 2
Sect. 2 PAge 5. He comes to my Text. Mr Humphrey's ſubject is Free-Admiſſion, his ground is Mat. 26.27. with Mark 14.23. Chriſts precept, Drink you all of it; and example, in admitting Judas.
Anſ. Sir, I acknowledge it, this is my ground, and it is holy ground, while I ſee the prints, and kiſſe the footſteps of my Saviour in it. Againſt this, he firſt lays down reaſons, that Iudas did not receive, and then ſuppoſing he did, that it is not a ſufficient ground for my admiſſion. I will anſwer both; his Reaſons are five that he did not receive.
1. Becauſe Chriſt knew him to be an hypocrite, reprobate, &c.
Anſ. Compare this with p. 9. and It was not fit, ſayes he, Chriſt acting as a Miniſter, nay, he could not p. 11. be both judge and witneſs, &c. Note it, and put them together; in one place, Chriſt cannot give Iudas the Sacrament, and in the other, he cannot deny it him.
2. Becauſe Chriſts blood was ſhad for remiſſion of their ſinnes that received.
Anſ. And not for our ſins only, ſayes one of the Receivers, 1 Jo. 2, 3. but for the ſins of the whole World, and ſo for Iudas. Both theſe come under the point of Univerſal redemption, which we may ſafely hold, as to the viſible Church, ſo far as reaches to the tenour and tender of the Conditional Covenant, though not of the Abſolute, or Election.
3. Becauſe Chriſt promiſed to drink Wine in his Fathers Kingdom with thoſe that received.
Anſ. But it is not ſaid with All of them. This reaſon is as good as Didimus's Chriſt did not appear to his Diſciples, becauſe he alſo was not with them. Who knows not that a thing may be predicated of a company in general, which yet is not applicable to every individual, as in 2 Theſſ. 1.3, 4. with 2 Theſſ. 3.11-1 Cor. 1.5.7. with 1 Cor. 3.3. &c? which likewiſe reaches the ſecond reaſon.
4. Becauſe Iudas Went out, Jo. 13.30.
Anſ. The Margin of your Bibles upon the firſt verſe, points you to Mat. 26.2. that this Supper was two dayes before the Paſſeover, which I have ſtood upon; yet will not be the more confident, becauſe he is ſo ingenuous not to diſprove it. I ſhall here only take notice (that no juſt offence may be taken if I ſay, ſome men bear a good will to this opinion) how for the excluſion of Iudas, the moſt make a Dimiſſory Supper, after the Paſſeover, wheras ſome can find in their hearts (whom he approves) to have a Common Supper before, to do it for them. But how unlikely is it, ſayes our Godwin, when they had a whole Lamb to eat between twelve of them, that they ſhould have beſides, one, or two other Suppers?
5. Becauſe all Chriſts gracious expreſſions were allayed with exceptions while Iudas was preſent.
Anſ. What, All? Did Chriſt never ſpeak graciouſly to Iudas amongſt the reſt? Pray ſee at leiſure; and as for thoſe Texts of Io. 6.10. Io. 13.10. he compares with the paſſages at this Supper, I ſhall ſay as Ioſeph, It is not in me, God ſhall give an anſwer to theſe texts in peace. In the firſt, Chriſt tells them, Iudas was a devil, yet ſayes he, I have choſen him. In the other, he ſays, All of them were not clean; he ſpake it of Iudas, yet he waſhes his feet. So here he tels them he will betray him, yet communicates with them: See how ſweetly my adverſary makes for us. So gracious is the temper Jeſus Chriſt, he refuſes none ſo far as they come into him, in reality, or in profeſſion.
And thus having anſwered Mr. Drakes five reaſons, which, p. 5. he tels us ſeem to him very weighty and convincing; Now you ſhall have Mr. D. himſelf anſwer them, p. 97. Iudas being 1. An Eminent Profeſſor,2. A very knowing perſon,3. Not legally convinced of ſcandal, I do not ſee how he could be denied the Sacrament. If he ſee no reaſon why he ſhould be denied it, his firſt reaſon then, Chriſt knew him to be a Hipocrite, (depending only on this ground, that he might not be admitted becauſe ſuch) is no reaſon; and his other four no reaſons; but in effect he does as good as tel us thus. There are reaſons indeed brought to prove that Judas received not the Sacrament, but for his part he can ſee no reaſon in them.
Pag. 7. He reckons up many Authors (quoting Gelaſpi) for this opinion; to which I Anſwer, as the Philoſopher being perſwaded to believe in the God Neptune, by one ſhewing him thoſe many votive tablets were hung up to him in memorial of thoſe that had eſcaped Ship-wrack, anſwered, but where are the relicks of all thoſe that were drowned? So ſay I, the Reverend Gelaspi reckons up here theſe Authors that were of opinion, Iudas received not the Sacrament, but what are theſe to all them, that were of opinion he did receive it? I reverence Mr. Gelaspi, I reſpect Mr Drake, I much more reverence thoſe many Authors, but I do not value them at the rate of Saint Mark, or that one text, They all drank of it.
But All he ſays, p. ibid. is put for all preſent, and twelve for eleven, quoting for it 1 Cor. 15.5. where it is ſaid, he was ſeen of all the twelve, by Roundneſs of number.
Anſ. If All be put for all preſent, then it is put for the whole twelve, for the twelve ſate down with him. But that twelve ſhould be put for eleven, I think there is none that can but tell twenty, will believe him. His argument is this, becauſe twelve is put for eleven, when there was but eleven, therefore twelve muſt be put for eleven, when there was twelve.
Page 8. He cannot but acknowledge the force of Saint Luke 22.21. where you may ſee how eaſily one text can confute ye, his five Arguments, and ſix and twenty Authors. Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me, is at the Table. He Anſwers, 1. Iudas might be preſent, and yet not receive, but this he Won't ſtand upon. Alas! what pity tis, which would ſtand him in ſo much ſtead and he cann't make it good,2. He is very peremptory, that S. Luke Writes per foreign who was not preſent as Matthew was, &c.
Anſ. Though Luke was not preſent, yet was he guided I believe by the ſame holy Spirit, that knew what he wrote. And pray look on Matthew and Mark, both, we find this ſtory brought in with the Copulative And, And as they were eating, And as they did eat, which manifeſtly conjoyns theſe two things together, to wit the giving the Sacrament, and telling of Iudas treaſon, at the ſame Supper. Matthew and Mark may be true, whether Luke write foreign, or no; but Luke can never be made true, unleſs Iudas hand was at Table, what Table? the Lords Table, the Supper, where was the Lords Supper, in the foregoing verſes. Although the Scripture ſometimes puts a whole ſtory after another, which in order of time was before it, yet where ſhall we find ſuch an Hyſterologie, as takes a peice of a former ſtory, and joyns it to another, as a part of it, to which if it be taken to belong, it becomes a manifeſt falſhood? we will not abate one jot or tittle of the truth of St. Lukes Goſpel.
P. 9. But ſuppoſe Iudas was preſent, and received, 1. The Apostles ſcarce ever ſuspected him, though diſcovered.
Anſ. What then? It is manifeſt by this, that Chriſt and his Diſciples did not judge it neceſſary, to look into Iudas, to find out whether he lived in any known ſin. They examine themſelves, and ſay, Is it I? Now how will Mr. Dake's trial, that is a means to vex hypocrites (as he words it) by prying into others, and uncaſing them, p. 49. & 117. be ſutable to this humble temper of the Diſciples, and practiſe of Chriſt?
2. Iudas had not yet actually betrayed Chriſt, and it is abſurd to puniſh any for a future ſin.
Anſ. Compare this with p. 102. where he tels us the rule he goes by, and keeps men away (he ſays) to prevent ſcandal, alſo the ſin of the unworthy receiver, who would elſe murder Chriſt, &c. Mark it, Chriſt may not keep away Iudas, becauſe he had not actually betraid him, but Mr. Drake muſt needs keep men away for fear they ſhould betray him. It is abſurd to ſuſpend any for a future ſin, and yet he ſuſpends all, to prevent the ſinne they have not committed. Nay, this ſuppoſal only of a future ſinne, is the very ground of his Excommunication, when he debars them nothing but actual receiving in any ordinance.
3. Christ acting as a Miniſter, It was not fit, It would have been an ill preſident, &c.
Anſ. I am ſorry to ſee, that prejudice, and intereſt of opinion, ſhould ever raiſe men to this high degree of imagination, That it was not fit for Jeſus Chriſt, the great Maſter of Diſcipline, to take ſo much power over his Diſciples, as the Presbytery over their Congregations: This is a ſad paſſage, to ſee what a fluce this man has opened to let in the ſtreams of contempt come in upon them.
It is far otherwiſe with us, ſeeing none are ſuspended, but 1. ſuch as ſuſpend themſelves, by refuſing due trial.
Anſ. I will ask him, Suppoſe a religious man, nay, ſuppoſe twenty, upon grounds of conſcience, or prudence, will not ſubmit to his Trial, yet offer themſelves at the Sacrament, Dare he refuſe to adminiſter it to them, and knows nothing elſe by them? If I ſhould do ſo, ſeeing I am call'd to ſpeak my conſcience, I ſhould fear it were a ſin. Alas Sir! Will you not let men ſerve God, and ſave their Souls?
2. Such as upon trial are found unworthy, &c.
Anſ. But I pray, have you any thing firſt to allege againſt them? If you have not, how will you bring them to trial? If they come willingly, and you find them unfit, and ſo ſuſpend them; then you go about to puniſh them again for a future ſin. The truth is, if you are really ſo tender in this buſines, you may repair to your people in that humble way of admoniſhing them with tears, and from houſe to houſe, Acts 20.20. I ſay not you are bound to this, de jure, that you neceſſarily ſin elſe; but de facto, I think it might be done with more profit (if that be all you intend) and good will, as unto them. I would rather allow you twenty Elders to watch over, and inſtruct men for the Sacrament, than two only to turn away any from it.
P. 10. He argues Contra; None of the Apoſtles were ignorant or ſcandalous; therefore Iudas and their receiving cannot warrant any ſuch others.
Anſ. This is not true; for indeed we ſhall find both ignorance in the Apoſtles, and ſcandal in Judas. Here the Lion and the Calf are down together, and a little Child may lead them.
For the diſciples ignorance, it is manifeſt; The true ſaving knowledge of remiſſion of ſin, lies in Chriſts reſurrection, Ro. 4.25. 1 Cor. 15.17. but they were ſo wholly ignorant even of this grand point, that they knew not the Scripture that he muſt riſe again, Io. 20.9. Nay, what think you, if they underſtood not the point of his death neither? Judge impartially, what knowledge could they have, at, and of this ordinance, if they conceiv'd him not as crucified, 1 Cor. 11.26? Now I pray compare Mark 9.31.32. Lu. 9.44.45. with Lu. 24.7, 8. and it is ſaid plainly, They underſtood not the things Chriſt taught them about his death, and remembred them not till he was riſen. Adde hereunto, we find no mention of the Sacrament, or forewarning of Chriſt, before the inſtitution; ſo that whatſoever they did underſtand of the nature and uſe hereof, it was only what the preſent words did afford them. From whence we may reſolve, that though people are but little knowing even in ſome fundamentals, and have but a rude implicit faith (I mean the word orthodoxly) and good affections, they may be admitted to this Supper; and I think moreover, that our preparation Sermons, and preſent Exhortations (which ſhould be about the main) with our prayers and ſolemnity, may clear our own ſouls in this pattern of Chriſt, as to the ſufficiency of their inſtruction, for edification; though where prudence directs to more, if without bondage, I humbly commend it.
For Iudas ſcandal be pleas'd to look in Mat. 26.2.14, 15, 16. Mar. 14. 1—12. …nd you find it apparent, that Iudas made his bargain with the high Prieſts about betraying Chriſt, two nights before the Paſſeover, ſo that, that line of his where he ſayes, Judas had not yet betrayed Christ, any more than Peter had denyed him, is a very untruth; And as for the knowledge or divulging of it, Chriſt himſelf did (I think more than once) reveal it. But now, if there had been any Examination requiſite, as Mr. Drake pretends, about their viſible worthineſſe, to ſearch whether any of them liv'd in a known ſin, would not Chriſt have been as exact in doing his Miniſterial duty, as this Man? Could not he have ſent but two of his diſciples unto the Prieſts to find him out, and witneſſe againſt him, and might not Iohn and Peter (who call themſelves ſo) ſerve for Elders? And I pray now, is it viſible worthineſs upon trial, or viſible memberſhip, that Chriſt went by in his admiſſion? You may even pity the lamentable caſe he here has brought himſelf, that he has nothing to help it, but confeſs, Tis true, Judas had betrayed Chriſt in purpoſe, and compact already, but Chriſt charges him not with that, but foresels his actual treachery; that is, Iudas indeed was actually a ſcandalous perſon, but Chriſt did not charge it on him as as bar to his admiſſion. He did not, that were enough, therefore it is not neceſſary. Yet farther, I pray take notice of the words in Matt. 26.24. Lu. 22.22. and they are ſpoken in the preſent tenſe, we muſt not yield a jot of the truth and purport of Chriſts words, when Chriſt ſayes, One of you ſhall betray me, and Verily the Son of man is betrayed, they are both true and about the ſame treachery; Shall, as to the apprehenſion, and Is betrayed, as to his fact paſt in his agreement, which is ſaid therefore (while Chriſt will yield to it) to be in effect done. What is here wanting now, but an opening this, and proceeding againſt him? and yet in the very nick he leaves it, Is not our cauſe plain? Beſides, what man will not judge, that Iudas treaſon (which Chriſt tels them of) conſiſted in his contrivance, bargain, taking money, and ſelling Chriſt, as actually, as his comming with the Officers into the garden? So that it will be in vain to ſtrive againſt the truth: If Chriſts example herein be a ſufficient rule for our walking, we muſt be content, and willingly embrace the humble peaceable way of Free-admiſſion.
P. 11. He only repeats the queſtion, Whether Judas ought to be ſuſpended? (for as for St. Peter, he wrongs him much, to joyn him with Iudas, ones ſinne being by deſign, and already on foot; the others, un-imagined before, and meerly out of preſent infirmity,) and he anſwers, No. 1. Becauſe his ſinne was not committed. Anſ. I ſay that is not true, unleſſe Iudas ſelling Chriſt, be no ſin with him.2. Becauſe Christ could not be both witneſſe, Iudge, and Executioner, &c. which we had before, and again more fully, p. 90. Christ as a Miniſter had no juridical power, to turn him, or any away, &c. Nor any, it is bravely ſpoken; you may read forwards, and the ſum is this; The Lord Ieſus could not turn away Iudas from the Sacrament, becauſe the Presbytery was not ſetled. Selah!
He that at the great day ſhall be Iudge and Party, and tels us Io. Though I bear witneſſe of my ſelf, my witneſſe is true, that is, is both Witneſſe and Party, may, I hope, be both Iudge and Witneſſe, without abſurdity.
As for the queſtion, Whether he acted as a Miniſter, or Mediator? it is vain; for he acted as both. He could not inſtitute an Ordinance for his Church, but as he was Head and Mediator, nor could he adminiſter it, but as a Miniſter; the ſame numerical actions were both the inſtitution, and the adminiſtration. So that, let us but look theſe paſſages full in the face, and fix wiſtly on them, they are quite out of countenance, and I ſhall need no more to put this man to a mild rebuke, than the gracious words of our Saviour Chriſt; The ſervant is not above his Maſter, nor the diſciple above his Lord; It is enough, that the ſervant be as his Maſter, and the diſciple as his Lord.
As for Chriſts temporal refuſing to condemn the Adultereſſe, it is impertinent as to this his Eccleſiaſtical command, inſtitution, and example. And for his adminiſtring only to Miniſters in an upper room, it proves we may ſo adminiſters; too, if need be; as his admitting Iudas, proves we may admit of our Chruch-members; but if he argues therefore we muſt do no otherwiſe, here is a clear negative from an affirmative, which is no conſequence.
Whereas therfore he tels us in the iſſue, State the caſe aright, (when he plainly ſtates it wrong as to Iudas fact) Mr. Humphreys has made a wide and wild inference, and intreats him to take a more pertinent Text, or elſe he ſhall ſcarce prove himſelf, as he is ſtiled, a Maſter of Arts. I do appeal to mens hearts, whether as they are inclinable to Iudas receiving, they find them not generally, ſtanding or wavering to this Free-admiſſion. I ſhall quote onelyonly our learned Hammond, Prac. Cat. mihi. p. 334. where asking the queſtion, What we gather from this circumſtance of Chriſts admitting Iudas? anſwers, That thoſe that are Chriſtian profeſſors, may be lawfully admitted, though their hearts are full of Villanie. They indeed, he ſays, are to repent before they come, but it ſhall be no ſin to the Miniſter, or Communicants. So that, for the ſufficiency of my ground, you have not only (pardoning ſuch dulneſſe) the opinion of a Maſter of Arts, but a Doctor of Divinity; and if you look into Mr. Prynne (that worthy Gentleman) a bunch of Fathers, They All drank of it.