An Anti-Diatribe, Part 4
The fourth Section of the Paper.
IT is St. Baſils concluſion extracted from the exordiums of Moſes, The fourth Section of the Paper.and St. John (in the beginning) foreign, to begin at the beginning. In quavis inſtitutione quod primum eſt, & principium, & praecipium. Chriſt Jeſus when he firſt inſtituted this Sacrament, made no previous examination of his Diſciples before he adminiſtred to them: He ſhewed them the nature, uſe, and end thereof, he waſhed their feet; An embleme of that preparative cleanſing by faith and repentance, purifying of the affections; for, Cùm rebus humanis poſte a vivitur ubique terr a calcatur ipſi igitur humani affectus, ſine quibus in hac mortalitate non vivitur, quaſi pedes ſunt, ubi ex humanis rebus afficimur, as St Auguſtine moralizeth it; & quia pedes ultima pars hominis ſunt, & debemus per poenitentiam non ſolùm ſumma quaſi flere peccata, ſed uſque ad ultimas infimaſque conſcientiae noſtrae partes deſcendere, intimas quaſque animi noſtri cogitationes excutere, & purgare, (as St. Cyprian appliesit;) but to enable the diſcharge of this duty, a generall exhortation on the Miniſters part is proportionable, without a particular examination; That Chriſt admitted Judas to the Communion, is not onelyonly the conſonancy of the Fathers, but the very pregnant reſult of the Text, Luke 22. v, 14, & 21. though he might look with a face of Religion towards the Apoſtles, yet Chriſt whoſe eye was upon his heart, beheld him under the notion of an hypocrite, and yet not excluding him from the Sacrament. I ſhould gladly learne by what authority or preſident any that profeſſeth Religion, and is innocent of notorious, and ſcandalous ſins that check with his profeſſion, can be rejected.
SECT. X.
Wherein of the firſt Argument againſt examination, drawn from the firſt inſtitution in John 13th. Chap.
§. 10 Here begins the charge, the firſt Argument is from Chriſts example, and may be thus laid down.
Object. Chriſts example in the firſt inſtitution of this ordinance ought to be our rule; But he made no previous examination then: Ergo none is required.
Anſw. So farre as Jeſus Chriſt may be followed by us, we muſt ſtick to his example. In two things it is impoſſible, and unlawful for us to follow him, viz. in his miraculous works, and in the works of his mediation.
In his inſtitutions we may, and muſt follow the rule and example of Chriſt, his example being part of our rule. In theſe inſtitutions ſomewhat is eſſential, or ſubſtantial, ſomewhat circumſtantial.
In the laſt there is no abſolute neceſſity to adhere: For if neceſſary to adminiſter in all circumſtances, as then the Sacrament muſt be given only at night, or to men only; but in thoſe things we may do ſo, and we may do otherwiſe. Chriſts example muſt be ſtrictly followed in all ſubſtantials;1 Cor. 11.23. and therefore the Apoſtle layes down nothing to the Church, but what he had received from the Lord. For our part, we wiſh men were in this and all Ordinances more devoted to the example of Chriſt, 'tis the right way to pure and true worſhip. Peter Martyr tells of a woman that was her ſelf deformed,Pet. Mart. loc. com. pag. 32. Heb. 1.3. yet conceived very beautiful children, by daily eying ſome exact pictures in her Chamber. Chriſts example (who is the brightneſſe of his Fathers glory) is our faire Image; which the more we look unto, the more perfect and comely will the Ideas and conceptions of our mindes be in divine things. Unto the Minor,
Object. But Chriſt did not examine his Diſciples.
Anſw. How know you that? the Evangeliſt tells you,Joh. 20.30. all that Chriſt did was not written. For our own part, we know not where to finde it, unleſſe on the backſide of Conſtantines Donation, or ſome ſuch place, as you mention. So that this concludes not for you. Argumentum à Scriptura negativè non valet. But you adde:
He ſhewed the nature, uſe, and ends thereof; He waſhes their feet as a preparative cleanſing by faith; but to enable the diſcharge of this duty, a generall exhortation on the Miniſters part is proportionable without a particular examination.
This is ſaid, not proved. It appears not to us, that any ſuch thing was intended by Chriſts action of waſhing, as is affirmed. We are rather ſatisfied on the contrary, that no ſpecial type, or embleme of Sacramental preparation is intended, though it may be ſo applied by thoſe Fathers allegorically and morally. He that builds arguments upon the Fathers allegories and morals on Scripture, will come off weakly in his concluſions.
Not to mention that ſome learned men ſuppoſe this ſet down, John 13th. to be done after the Sacrament. It is therefore too confidently affirmed, that Chriſt ſhewes the nature,See the late Annot. fol. 2. Vol. in loc. To teach love, and the cleanſing by his blood, theſe are his ends. uſe and end of the Sacrament. That which our Saviour eſpecially commends to his Diſciples, is humility, which diſpoſeth to every ordinance, and to the whole life of a Believer, If ye know theſe things, happy are ye if ye do them, that is, theſe things of humility, as from the coherence herence is evident: Hearken but to theſe words, I have given you an example; what of Sacramental preparation? No, But that ye ſhould do as I have done, that is, waſh one anothers feet, namely be humble, loving, condeſcending; the myſterie of this action was to be revealed hereafter, as verſe 7. Therefore not of obvious concernment to their preparation.It was an example of humility, as the plaine words of Chriſt are; although by occaſion of that example, other Doctrine was inferred of our ſpiritual waſhing by Chriſt, once wholly unto regeneration, and daily of our feet for our daily tranſgreſſions. Dr. Fulke on the Rhemiſh Gloſſe, on Joh. 13. p. 164. See more, John 13. v. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Who will believe that theſe words, waſh one anothers feet, ſignifie, Examine your ſelves. Again, you ſay, Chriſts waſhing is anſwered by the Miniſters exhortations, (and why not by their examining as well?) whereas we thinke that a leſſon to examine themſelves, would have ſtood better, if they had been bid to waſh their own feet. The deficiency of ſuch general exhortations we ſhall touch upon anon.
Laſtly, what if Chriſt did not examine his Diſciples? doth it follow that we may not examine ſome, or all in our Aſſemblies? Rather in his adminiſtring only unto Diſciples, he teacheth us to exclude the ignorant and wicked; theſe (admitted) were his choice Diſciples, he had the ſeventy, and ſeveral others beſides; but theſe as more infirme were not called, as a Learned man obſerves. Beſides, we examine none that are taken to be Diſciples; but if we ſhould, reall Diſciples will not refuſe to ſatisfie the Church, and encourage weaker Brethren by a voluntary profeſſion of their ſaith, which is the moſt Diſciples are put unto. In ſhort, Chriſt had communicated before with thoſe Diſciples in the Paſſeover, which was the ſame in ſubſtance with this inſtitution; therefore he needed not examine thoſe that were admitted before.
The moſt zealous Aſſertors of Examination preſſe not any to this after their firſt, or once admiſſion in a due way.
SECT. XI.
Wherein of Judas his receiving the Sacrament, which is the ſecond Argument.
§. 11 The ſecond Argument in the Paper is from the ſuppoſed admiſſion of Judas.
Object. Chriſt admitted Judas to the Communion, therefore what need of ſuch prying?
Anſw. When this is diſputed out to the laſt, nothing is concluded againſt our judgements or practice. The concluſion is, that though Chriſt ſaw Judas to be an hypocrite, yet he admits him. Now what followes? therefore hypocrites may be admitted. Who thinks the contrary? we are of the ſame minde, we ſpeak of excluding profane and ignorant perſons, and we are told that an hypocrite was admitted. It is not in mens power to exclude hypocrites, or ſecret ſinners, but open. This is truly to paint a houſe which hath no foundation. You muſt not expect from us ſuch a preſident as you call for, while it is moſt remote from our thoughts to debarre any from Gods Ordinances, who profeſſing Religion are ſo innocent in their lives, as you ſpeak.
Were we of your opinion, we ſhould manage this Argument (about Iudas) in another ſort, (viz.) Chriſt knew Iudas to be a wicked man, yea, a reprobate, and yet admitted him; therefore Miniſters may not keep back ſuch as they ſee, and know to be wicked ones: Thus Mr. Prinne, and the Eraſtians; and this is plain dealing, and the concluſion is directly againſt us. But here alſo the argument is weak, and will tremble in its arraignment at the barre of Reaſon.
As to the admiſſion of Iudas, we do ingeuouſly confeſſe that it is ſomewhat doubtful to us,See Mr. Bolton of Heaven in his Book. Tit. 4. Laſt Things. p. 144. whether he did receive or not? but we incline ſtrongly to the negative. It is one of the things that we look to have our knowledge perfected in heaven; as whether Iephta ſlew his daughter, or conſecrated her to Virginity? or whether Naaman were a true Convert, or unſound? So whether Iudas received the Sacrament, or not? yet this example of Iudas being thought to go farre in this controverſie, we have ſomewhat heedfully ſearched, and weighed, not only the texts of Scripture, but the authorities objected. And firſt we do not finde the conſonancy ſpoken of to be among the Ancients, but ſee ſome of them denying, others doubting of Iudas his receiving. It muſt be granted that diverſe of the Fathers vote with this Paper; but theſe are balanced by multitudes of the beſt Moderne Lights, who are of another minde; The Fathers might receive this from one another, without due looking into the Text. They are conceived to erre in this point, by taking the ſop to be the Sacrament, as theſe words of Auſtine diſcover*Num enim mala erat bucella quae tradita eſt Judae à Domino? abſit, medicus non daret venenum: Salutem medicus dedit, ſed indignè accipiendo ad perniciem accepit, &c. Auguſtinus in 6. Tract. in Johan.. Was the Sop evil which was given to Iudas by our LORD? farre be it. A Phyſician doth not give poyſon, &c. where he calls the Sacrament the Sop; now the Sop was undoubtedly given to Iudas.
The Ancients denying this conſonancy,Aarons Rod bloſſoming, p. 451. &c. are fully and clearly ſet down by Maſter Gilleſpy, to whom we referre the Reader; but to ſatisfie them that may not come to ſee his Book, we have given a taſte of what is more full in him.
Hilary one of the Fathers ſpeaks thus in Engliſh:Hilarius, can. in Mat. Poſt que Judas proditor judicatur, ſine quo &c. After which words Iudas the Traitour is diſcovered, without whom the feaſt of taking the Cup, and breaking the bread was performed, for he was not worthy of the fellowſhip of the eternal Sacrament; nor could he drink with him here, who was not to drink in Heaven.See Theo. in 26. Ch. of Mat. Fol. 33. In Marke 14. p. 53. quidam dicunt &c. Another of the Fathers is Theophilact: But ſome ſay, ſaith he, that Chriſt gave the Sacrament to his Diſciples when Iudas was gone forth, we have found this in two places of him. That which leſſens his teſtimony is, that it is only Quidam dicunt, ſome ſay; yet note,
1. If ſome (then) ſaid ſo, the conſonancy then falls.
2. Let it be noted, what he inferres in that place of Matthew: Therefore muſt we (ſaith he) do the like, and put off evil men from the Sacrament. Now this ſhews how much Theophilact valued this (Quidam dicunt) whoſoever they were, he judges them worthy of credit, by making Chriſts practice, according to their interpretation, a rule unto Believers. Doubtleſſe therefore theſe (ſome men) were godly and eminent Divines in, or about Theophilacts time; we have conſidered this authority the more, becauſe the Author is in our hands.
Others we have tranſcribed onelyonly upon the forenamed Authors authority, and given his references; Clemens ſaith,Clemens, lib. 5. conſtit. Apoſt. cap. 13. Georg. Pachy in his Comment. upon Dionyſius Ariopag. de Eccleſ. cap. 3. part. 3. Sect. 1. But when he had delivered to us the Antitype, myſteries of his precious body and blood, Judas not being preſent. Chriſt (ſaith another) doth caſt out, ſeparate, or excommunicate moſt juſtly Iudas, who had not holily ſupped with him, (viz. in the common or Paſchal ſupper) for having given to him of a myſticall bread or cup, that is, of the Paſſeover, he gave the myſteries to the Diſciples alone, after he went forth.
It is manifeſt that Iudas went firſt out,Innocent the third, l. 4. de myſt. miſſae, c. 13. before Chriſt adminiſtred the Sacrament (ſaith another). We have examined ſome of theſe by our own books, and finde them truly cited, the others muſt reſt upon the forenamed Authours credit.
As to our latter, and moderne men, the moſt eminent Writers oppoſe the opinion of Iudas his receiving, at leaſt leave it doubtful.
Their opinion ſeems to be certaine, who deny Iudas to be preſent at the holy Supper, ſaith renouned Beza in John 13. It is no doubt to me ſaith Muſculus; We have ſet a full Jury in the Margent of learned men,H. Za… chius. Muſculus. Beza. Danaeus. Piſcator. Diodati. Grotius. Dr. Kellet. Gomarus. Theſe two have written profeſſedly. Rutherford. Gilleſpy. Scharpius. hardly to be matched, who would not erre with ſuch as theſe are? And yet theſe are not all, we could name more, yea, double to this number, beſides learned Papiſts not a few. Now judge what the conſonancy is worth, which is ſpoken of in the Paper: The Reader will ſee we are not behinde for humane authorities. But if the authorities of men faile to determine, yet the Text (he ſaith) is pregnant. What Text? Luk. 22.14. But is this the only Text to be eyed in this controverſie? He that reads John 13.30. ſhall finde a Text more pregnantly proving the direct contrary. Theſe Texts do not contradict one another, (thou that readeſt, beware of that inference.) It is our darkneſſe of minde, which doth hinder our reſolution in theſe matters.
Although we cannot largely diſpute theſe Texts, yet we will ſtudy the help of ſuch as deſire light in this point. That whith makes the point doubtful, we take to be the number of the Suppers, which were about one and the ſame time. Some maketheſe to be three, others but two, viz. the typical, and the euchariſtical. It is probable that there was a third, (viz.) a common Supper. The order of theſe Suppers is alſo controverted. By the grant of all, Judas was preſent at one of theſe. For he ſate down with the twelve, ſome ſay at the common Supper only,Aarons R. p. 461. as learned Gilleſpy; others, at both the common Supper, and at the Paſſeover, but not at the holy Supper. Now Judas might be preſent at one, or both the former,Joh. Randal. B. D. p. 219. and yet ſlinke away, (as the word of a learned Divine is) between the common Supper and the Paſſeover, or between the Paſſeover and the Sacrament.
As to that Text of Luke 22. Divines do note a tranſpoſition, that is, ſetting down that laſt, which was done firſt, or before.
A thing not ſtrange, being found in other places of Scripture. As in Geneſis the ſecond Chapter.Innocent the third, lib. 4. de Miſſ. c. 13. See alſo Beza. Salmeron. Maldonate. in loc. You have ſet down after the ſixth day, what was done before. The reaſons and authorities to be brought for this, are many; That Luke after the Cup, ſpeaks of the Traitour, may be underſtood by recapitulation (ſaith one.) The reaſons are theſe.
1. Becauſe Matthew and Mark put that before the inſtitution, which Luke puts after. See Luke 23. v. 21, 22, 23. compared with Matth. 26 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.26. verſ. and Mark 14.18. ſo that here are two to one.
2. Luke himſelf puts the taking of the Cup before the breaking of the bread, although doubtleſſe it was after.
3. The note of the laſt Tranſlaters of the Bible is alſo conſiderable, who at the 21. v. ſet a note of theirs (¶) ſhewing that there begins another matter, therefore not a continued Hiſtory orderly ſet down.
4. Nor doth Luke ſay, that Chriſt ſpake the words after the Sacrament, but only ſets them down.
Now as to that other Text, John 13. which we alledge; It proves Judas departed before the Sacrament was received. Sanè Johannes quiddam ejuſmodi ſubindicare videtur, ſaith Victor Antiochenus, cited by Mr. Prinne.
Another more fully we may gather from hence,Diodat. in locum. that Iudas did not communicate of our Saviours Sacrament.
The force of this reaſon lies in the word (immediately;) what it ſignifies, every Engliſh-man knowes, that is, inſtantly, forthwith.
Now this being granted, as it is, that the Sop was not given at the holy Supper, but before; how could ſo remarkable an action as receiving the Sacrament intervene, and yet Iudas be ſaid to go forth immediately?
Truly, neither truth, nor good Engliſh will ſuffer this; to ſay that immediately ſignifies a ſhort time, is a miſerable ſhift, and an abuſe of the word. Therefore learned Gerrard upon ſecond and better thoughts retracted that gloſſe,See Gor. Har. c. 171. p. 453. and he is a good preſident for others to follow.
He that deſires more may conſult learned Scharpius and others,Scharpius, in curſ. th. p. 1431. he by foure arguments proves that Iudas was not preſent, and alſo anſwers the Objection from Luke 22. One of his arguments is this:
With whom Chriſt drank in the Sacrament,Atterſol, The New Covenant, p. 486. with them in the Kingdome of his Father: But not with Iudas there; Therefore not in the Supper.
It is alſo conſiderable to obſerve the different manner of Chriſts ſpeaking, ſometime without exception, and ſometime with it. When Iudas was preſent, with exception, Iohn 13. v. 10, 11, 18. afterward without exception, moſt ſweetly,See our Engliſh Divines in their large Annot. in 2. Vol upon the place. and generally, Matth. 26.29. Luk. 22.28, 29, 30. See Iohn 13. After Judas going out, how his ſpeech varies; If Iudas were preſent, then theſe ſpeeches muſt be applied to him, which may not be granted. Ambroſe and Gerrard expound theſe words of Chriſt, (That which thou doeſt, do quickly) as a caſting out of Iudas. As if he had ſaid, Get thee gone from the company of my Apoſtles, and out of my ſight. Now theſe words were ſpoken before the Sacrament.
Laſtly,Evangel. commun. by Ph. Goodwin, p. 118. ſhould it be granted that Iudas did receive, yet much were not gained. Iudas, as one ſayes well, is but a bad porter to let in men to the Sacrament. There was nothing in him diſcernable (by men,) contrary to his profeſſion. There was no viſible cauſe for his excluſion. The Apoſtles thought as well of him as of themſelves, and did not ſo much as ſuſpect him, though he were known to Chriſt as God. But Chriſt in hir Ordinance dealt as man (miniſterially) as a Pattern to us, who are to admit viſible Diſciples, not being able to deſcend into their hearts. When the woman taken in adultery was brought before Chriſt, he dealt as a man, called for her accuſers, and when none came, diſmiſſed her; and yet he knew her (as God) to be guilty, and therefore ſayes, Go, and ſin no more; Unleſſe Chriſt as a Miniſter had known Iudas to be a Reprobate, what reaſon had he to exclude him? Now let the Reader judge, what life is left in this Argument about Iudas his receiving, which is found and proved to be ſo feeble in its conſequence, and antecedent.