The previous post provided an exposition of 1 Corinthians 10:1-5. Here we will address various false inferences that paedobaptists make from the passage. The basic argument is expressed succinctly by Berkhof.
E. The Old and New Testament Sacraments Compared.
- Their Essential Unity… [T]here is no essential difference between the sacraments of the Old, and those of the New Testament. This is proved by the following considerations: (a) in 1 Cor. 10:1-4 Paul ascribes to the Old Testament Church that which is essential in the New Testament Sacraments.
This idea found expression in the Westminster Confession.
27.5. The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.*
*1 Cor. 10:1-4
It is also found as a reference for 7.5 (“which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah”) and WLC 174 & 175 (instructions about the Lord’s Supper).
The OPC also added the passage as a reference text for WCF 7.6 (“There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.”); 8.6; 20.1 (“All which were common also to believers under the law”); 29.7; WLC 61, (“Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church? A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible”).
The basic thrust is that Israel and the Church are one and the same. Their situation was identical to ours. In his commentary, Calvin argues
As, however, on examples being adduced, any point of difference destroys the force of the comparison, Paul premises, that there is no such dissimilarity between us and the Israelites, as to make our condition different from theirs… For they were favored with the same benefits as we at this day enjoy; there was a Church of God among them, as there is at this day among us; they had the same sacraments, to be tokens to them of the grace of God; but, on their abusing their privileges, they did not escape the judgment of God. Be afraid, therefore; for the same thing is impending over you…
[There is] both in the spiritual substance and in the visible sign a most striking correspondence between the baptism of the Jews, and ours…
“The manna,” says he, “and the water that flowed forth from the rock, served not merely for the food of the body, but also for the spiritual nourishment of souls.”…
Calvin’s argument (and those who followed him) hinges upon what Paul means by “the same.”
Farther, when he says that the fathers ate the same spiritual meat, he shows, first, what is the virtue and efficacy of the Sacraments, and, secondly, he declares, that the ancient Sacraments of the Law had the same virtue as ours have at this day. For, if the manna was spiritual food, it follows, that it is not bare emblems that are presented to us in the Sacraments, but that the thing represented is at the same time truly imparted, for God is not a deceiver to feed us with empty fancies.
As we saw in the exposition, that is not Paul’s point. Nowhere does Paul make a direct connection between the manna and the Lord’s Supper being “the same.” Paul’s point is that all the Israelites experienced the same benefits, yet only some lived. Calvin attempts to address this point.
Some explain it to mean, that they ate the same meat together among themselves, and do not wish us to understand that there is a comparison between us and them; but these do not consider Paul’s object. For what does he mean to say here, but that the ancient people of God were honored with the same benefits with us, and were partakers of the same sacraments, that we might not, from confiding in any peculiar privilege, imagine that we would be exempted from the punishment which they endured? At the same time, I should not be prepared to contest the point with any one; I merely state my own opinion.
Recall what Lange said
[W]e cannot admit the referring of the το αὐτό to the believers of the N. T, as if it meant, ‘the same with ourselves,’ nor allow the identification of these objects with the elements in the Lord’s Supper, as Calvin does. The expression ‘the same’ is rather to be joined with the word ‘all,’ which accordingly holds the emphatic place, and is five times repeated.
The text does not say the manna was the same as the Lord’s Supper. But if that is the case, then Calvin’s (and Westminster’s) entire premise fails. Paul’s point is not that the Israelites were “favored with the same benefits as we.” Perhaps that is why Calvin stubbornly refused to accept this interpretation (though he didn’t want to argue it). Calvin’s misreading of “the same” is directly tied to his misreading of “that rock was Christ.”
Some absurdly pervert these words of Paul, as if he had said, that Christ was the spiritual rock, and as if he were not speaking of that rock which was a visible sign, for we see that he is expressly treating of outward signs. The objection that they make — that the rock is spoken of as spiritual, is a frivolous one, inasmuch as that epithet is applied to it simply that we may know that it was a token of a spiritual mystery. In the mean time, there is no doubt, that he compares our sacraments with the ancient ones…
It is abundantly manifest, that something is here expressed that was peculiar to the fathers. Away, then, with that foolish fancy by which contentious men choose rather to show their impudence, than admit that they are sacramental forms of expression!
I have, however, already stated, that the reality of the things signified was exhibited in connection with the ancient sacraments. As, therefore, they were emblems of Christ, it follows, that Christ was connected with them, not locally, nor by a natural or substantial union, but sacramentally. On this principle the Apostle says, that the rock was Christ, for nothing is more common than metonymy in speaking of sacraments.
Because they ate the same spiritual food as the Lord’s Supper, Christ was the rock sacramentally. If Paul did not say they ate the same spiritual food as us, then Christ was not the rock sacramentally. Paul did not say they ate the same spiritual food as us, therefore Christ was not the rock sacramentally. Therefore Westminster’s appeal to this passage is mistaken. It does not prove that members of the Old Covenant participated in the same sacraments as the New Covenant. It does not prove that the Old Covenant is the New Covenant (contrary to Calvin’s argument in Institutes 2.10.5). It does not prove that Israel was the Church. Very simple.
Others give the word here its very common sense, pertaining to the spirit; as, in the preceding chapter, “carnal things” are things pertaining to the body, and “spiritual things” are things pertaining to the soul. The manna, according to this interpretation, was designed not only for the body, but for the soul. It was spiritual food; food intended for the spirit, because attended by the Holy Spirit and made the means of spiritual nourishment. This is a very commonly received interpretation. Calvin assumes it to be the only possible meaning of the passage, and founds on it an argument for his favorite doctrine, that the sacraments of the Old Testament had the same efficacy as those of the New. But this exalts the manna into a sacrament, which it was not. It was designed for ordinary food; as Nehemiah (9:15) says, “Thou gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth for them water out of the rock for their thirst.” And our Lord represents it in the same light, when he said, “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead.” John 6:49. He contrasts himself, as the true bread from heaven which gives life to the soul, with the manna which had no spiritual efficacy.
To understand what the passage does mean, make sure to read the previous post.
Let’s take a look at the inconsistencies involved in applying Calvin’s mistaken interpretation.
Modern reformed denominations have been arguing over the practice of paedocommunion. One of the arguments brought forward by proponents of the practice is 1 Corinthians 10:1-5. They point out that all the Israelites, children and adults, partook of the manna and water sacrament. Since it was the same sacrament as the Lord’s Supper, why are children now excluded? Matthew W. Mason argues
[F]or our purposes, it is important to note who was baptised and ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink. Five times, Paul emphasises that it was all the Israelites. Although Daunton-Fear rightly observes that Paul’s primary intention at this point is not to discuss whether or not children are included in the Supper, the repeated ‘all’ does, by implication, including the infants and children of Israel. They too passed through the sea and were baptised into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. As we noted above, manna was to be gathered according to the number of mouths to be fed, including children. It was the only food available, just as the only drink available was water from the Rock, which was Christ. Thus, it seems fair to conclude that the children of Israel also fed spiritually on the manna, and drank spiritually of Christ. Paul certianly makes no move to exclude them at this point, and this in a letter where he stresses that the children of believers are holy (7:14). Moreover, we should note the contrast in verse 5, where Paul says that ‘with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.’ Who was excepted from God’s wrath? Joshua, Caleb, and anyone under the age of 20 at the time of the rebellion. The children of Israel are not entirely absent from these verses. Therefore, given the parallel between the manna and Rock and the Lord’s Supper, it seems fair to infer that children can still eat and drink spiritually of Christ, when they receive bread and wine…
The Old Testament evidence thus points strongly to the fact that covenant children had access to all of the Old Covenant meals to which their parents had access, including the Passover meal, the peace offering, and the wilderness manna. These meals are all typologically related to the Lord’s Supper, such that, under the New Covenant, the Supper fulfills and replaces them. Therefore, given that the covenant status of children is the same under both Old Covenant and New Covenant, the evidence that covenant children should have access to the Lord’s Supper is overhwelming.
What is the response?
Since such eating [the manna] was not sacramental and since the purpose of the passage is to teach the need for persevering in faith and obedience toward Christ, we reject this…
Brian Schwertley, Paedocommunion: A Biblical Examination fn. 12
The response is to reject Calvin and Westminster’s interpretation of the passage. The water and manna were not sacramental and that was not Paul’s point. Paedocommunion proponent Mark Horne summarizes a response from an appendix on manna in Rev. Richard Bacon’s “What Mean Ye by This Service.”
Rev. Bacon makes it quite clear he believes not only that manna was not a sacrament, but that paedocommunionists are desperately grasping at straws to claim that manna was a sacrament. He says, “the paedocommunionist has an uphill battle to prove that eating manna and drinking water (not wine) points to the New Testament sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. . .” Indeed, he asks rhetorically of manna and water from the Rock: “Why then do paedocommunionists want to bring it into the debate?” Furthermore, he claims the argument from manna is evidence of paedocommunionist desperation: “The fact that the argument has shifted from a sacramental meal to a non-sacramental meal gives the impression that it is the practice of the paedocommunion that is being defended rather than a covenantal hermeneutic.”
That last claim is made near the end of the paper and I repeat it because I want readers to remember it as they read my response: “The fact that the argument has shifted from a sacramental meal to a non-sacramental meal gives the impression that it is the practice of the paedocommunion that is being defended rather than a covenantal hermeneutic.”
Rev. Bacon claims that 1 Corinthians 10.1-4 does not correspond to Baptism or the Lord’s Supper. He claims that the baptism in this passage and in 1 Corinthians 12.13 corresponds to Pentecost. Furthermore, he asserts that John 6.49, 54 prove that manna was not a sacrament. My plan is simply to show that Rev. Bacon is making up things that are at odds with the entire history of Reformed Theology, while pretending that paedocommunionists are the ones breaking with the tradition.
The PCA report on paedocommunion avoids explicitly rejecting the idea that the manna was a sacrament, but instead argues that there is a great difference between it and the Lord’s Supper, which is “a new sacrament.”
Since children ate of manna (there was nothing else to eat), and drank the water from the rock (there was nothing else to drink), and since their food and drink symbolized the life that Christ gives, they may now come to the table where the bread and the cup offer the same symbolism.
The symbolism of the manna and of the water from the rock cannot be denied or minimized. Indeed, Israel should have received both with thanksgiving and faith; they should have perceived the symbolism. There is a sense in which we in the New
Covenant should find the symbols of life in Christ in our daily bread. Yet the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is not simply an aspect of our family meals, or a simple community meal together. It is specifically instituted by Christ, and given a meaning by him that is repeated by the Apostle Paul in charging the Corinthians. Jesus did not simply give new meaning to the Passover. The new wine of the kingdom required fresh wineskins. Jesus instituted a new sacrament.
Thus the Israelites did not eat “the same spiritual food.” Recall Calvin “any point of difference destroys the force of the comparison… they had the same sacraments.”
The OPC study committee said “it became readily apparent that these questions would not produce a unanimous consensus” and that “a majority of the Committee favors the admission of weaned covenant children to the Lord’s table… [and has a] desire to develop a full length defense of paedocommunion.” A minority report authored by Leonard J. Coppes argued
The main thesis of the committee’s position is not established by Scripture. The New Testament (NT) does not equate the Passover and the LS, nor does it teach the Passover as determinative for the LS. The committee’s position argues that the terms of admission to the Passover decide the question of who should be admitted to the LS: since children were admitted to the Passover, they should be admitted to the LS… Therefore, since the nature of the Passover and LS are different, so are their designs—they do not admit the same candidates… The LS is distinct in nature [from all OT meals]… Conclusion: since what the LS depicts and seals (its nature) is distinct from all OT meals, how it is to be observed and who it is to admit (its design) is distinct from all the OT meals… The nature of the LS requires that which a child must, but cannot, provide: personal appropriation of Christ, personal examination (active sanctification), and personal understanding of the word of God.
What the Lord’s Supper signs and seals (its nature) is different from the water and manna in the wilderness. Thus it was not “the same spiritual food.”
Dr. Peter A. Lillback wrote a second minority report that tries to be more nuanced, but still winds up rejecting Calvin’s view.
II. Theological and Biblical Arguments Against Paedocommunion…
D. The Continuity and Discontinuity of the Covenant…
2. It is clear from Jer. 31 that the New Covenant has a far more inward and spiritual character than that of the Old…
3. It is argued that I Cor. 10:1ff. shows that Christ was eaten and drunk by the Old Testament fathers and their families, so why should now the covenantal children be excluded? The answer to this is found in a careful comparison of Jesus’ teaching upon the manna in John 6 and Paul’s discussion of it in I Cor. 10. Paul elevates the experience, while Christ diminishes it. Why so? This is because Paul’s point is to establish that the Corinthians were liable for judgment just as the Israelites were when there is spiritual rebellion. Both groups had a true fellowship in Christ. So if the first could be judged, so could the second. Jesus’ purpose is to show that the bare external eating of manna did not, however, produce life. The fathers ate and died. Jesus’ food of his body will give life. This life is for his elect and called people who eat with faith in his Word produced by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 6:37, 44, 63–65). Now it is nearly impossible to evade the sacramental implications of John 6. Should this be granted, it is clear from Jesus’ exposition of the fathers’ eating that those who eat the new manna are to be believers, even though many in the wilderness congregation ate as unbelievers.
In other words, the Israelites did not eat the “same spiritual food” because the Lord’s Supper is a “new manna” that is “more inward and spiritual” than the manna, and therefore only for believers. The question of believers vs unbelievers is an interesting argument because it is not directly about children. Rather, what he is arguing is that in order for someone to partake of the Lord’s Supper, a credible profession of saving faith is required (which not all children have done). The only way this is relevant to the question of children eating manna is if no profession of saving faith was required in order to eat the manna. He is trying to argue there is a difference in the administration of the sacrament in the New Covenant, thus he must mean it was administered to those who had made no profession of saving faith in the Old Covenant.
But why must those who partake of the Supper be “worthy” (WLC 168, 170)? Because they are partaking of the body of Christ, which is really, truly spiritually present in the Supper. Thus it may not be given to anyone without a credible profession of faith, less the body of Christ be profaned. But Calvin’s entire argument was that Christ’s body was just as spiritually present in the manna as it is in the Supper. Thus there is no reason why the qualifications for “worthy” participation would be different between the two. To partake of the manna in an unworthy manner would profane the body of Christ just as much as to partake of the Supper in an unworthy manner.
Fencing the Table
This leads us directly to the next inconsistency. Why didn’t Moses fence the table? WLC 173 says “Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.”
This was a matter of great controversy in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those with a more “Erastian” view of church and state (the idea that the civil magistrate is the head of the visible church and may govern it) argued for open communion to all members of the commonwealth/church. Presbyterians tended to argue that ministers must “fence the table” by prohibiting unworthy participation in the Supper by those who were immoral.
In 1657, a member of English Parliament named William Morice wrote The Common Right to the Lord’s Supper Asserted in response to Humphrey Saunders’ An Anti-Diatribe or the Apologie of Some Ministers and godly people asserting the lawfulnesse of their administering the Lord’s Supper in a select company. Various citizens had been brought before the magistrate for refusal to pay their tithes. In their defense, they said they were withholding their tithe because their parish pastors were not being pastors to them. They were not allowing them to take the Lord’s Supper. Morice said that made perfect sense to him, so he told them he would remedy the situation. Hence the book.
Morice argues that closed or select communion was influenced by the Anabaptists (which he calls wolves in sheeps clothing). In one section, he argues from 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, quoting from all the Protestant arguments following Calvin that manna and the Lord’s Supper are the same sacrament, therefore we cannot place greater restrictions on partaking of the Lord’s Supper than Israelites did of the manna.
Lastly, I may not deny that (though an accidental abuse which may not prejudice things good in themselves) wicked men may be facil to flatter and indulge themselves with a good conceit of their condition, though sinful, or an hope of their impunity in their evils, because of their participation of the Sacraments. It seems by what St. Paul delivers (1 Cor. 10), the Corinthians are an exemplary instance hereof, being guilty of the like presumption and security, But what way of cure doth the Apostle use to prevent or remedy the malady? Truly not Empyrick-like, straight way to take the knife in hand and fall to cutting off, (for he doth not tell them that therefore all ought to be suspended beside manifest saints) but he proceeds dogmatically, and to expel and correct the roar of the Corinthians (which also lets out the vital blood and spirits of this Paradox of the Apologists) he better doth instruct and principle them, shewing that the Sacraments which were common to good and evil men, could give no privilege to sin, nor protection from punishment. For “Even as thou dost hate the body of Christ, so did they Manna, and after what manner thou drinkest his blood so did they water out of the rock,” saith Chrysostom (Chrysostom. Homie. 18. in 2 Cor. August. expos. in Evangel. Johan. tract, 26 c. 6. tom. 9. p. 74. Calvin Instit I.2.C10.Sect. 5. p. 148. Dutch Annot.) The Fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink; the same “In signification of spiritual virtual not in the visible species,” saith Augustine “not in the symbols or figures, but in signification or the thing signified,” as Piscatory and the Dutch Annotations “by the same signed and tokens he made his grace well known amongst them,” the same with us, not only the same among themselves inter se, as the Papists would have it, for that would take off the energy of the Apostles argument, whose scope being “To shew, that as it profited not them to have obtained so great a gift, so neither would it those that they were partakers of baptism, and had received other spiritual mysteries, unless they shewed a life worthy of that grace,” in the words of S. Chrysostom, wherein not only all Protestants concur but even many Pontificians themselves, therefore “that the comparison might be apt, it behoved them to show there was not inequality between us and them, in those good things herein he forbad them falsely to glory, and therefore he makes us equal in Sacraments, and leaves us no prerogative above them,” saith Calvin “and therefore in that comparison the same thing signified is the ground of comparing – and there had been no consequence therein, if things unequal an unlike had been compared – for if the things had differed, the exception would have been ready at hand that the Israelites perished as not being partakers of those benefits whereof we have the Sacraments or signs” adds Chamier: and the drift of the Apostle here is to compare those Sacramental Types in the old Law with the two Sacraments in the new, and that in two respects:
First, for the same nature or substance of mysteries in both; and secondly for the same condition of the receivers, if either they abuse them, or walk unworthy of them, saith a late judicious Writer. They were therefore the same spiritual meat and drink, “in the thing not the manner thereof, their Sacraments prefigurative, ours rememorative, and ours having more abundant grace through the ampler revelation,” as Calvin “not in the visible species, but spiritual virtue – the same faith under divers signed,” as Augustine, and out of him Anselm, there being “a difference or disparity in the signes, an agreement in the thing signified,” as Paraus, theirs being antitypes of ours, signed of the same things… “in as much as they were Sacraments” adds Piscator, “and the manna an extraordinary signe of the flesh of Christ,” as the Dutch Annotations. So then however these were “extraordinary, transitory and temporary Sacraments,” yet being the same with ours (or else Christ is not ours, for that Rock was Christ, as the bread and win in the Lord’s Supper are called the body and blood of Christ, as the Dutch Annotations) the same with ours in use, end, and effect, and operating, saith Ames, “in the same kind, not same degree of efficacy,” and agreeing with ours “in all principal points which are of the essence of a Sacrament,” as Chamier; and therefore the Fathers receiving the Sacramental Communication of the body and blood of Christ indeed (as not only Fulk and Willet, but the whole Protestant Host of the living God do contend) yet many of them God was not well pleased with, some whereof were idolaters, fornicators, murmurers, did lust, did tempt Christ, yet the same spiritual meat and drink was received by all Sacramentally, though effectually only by believers, the spiritual thing by the good alone, the Elements which were spiritual in their signification, by evil men also. And thereupon likewise I hope it will seem evident to unprejudiced and unbiased men, that the Sacraments are not only communicable to such as have given positive signs and demonstrations of Holiness.
There are such answers given to the Argument drawn from this Scripture, as smack of some willingness to correct the Text, rather than their Models, and to set their spurs in the Apostles side, rather than to loose the reins in their hands,
Some tell us; First, “that those were extraordinary Sacraments”; but what then? “Extraordinary Sacraments have whatsoever is of the nature of the ordinary, except only the circumstance of order which is the same with that of time,” saith Chamier. Secondly, “But these had no special promise annexed”: But if so, then they had nothing beyond the corporal use, and the Apostle was mistaken when he calls them spiritual meat and drink, and saith the Rock was Christ, in signification; though yet being extraordinary Sacraments; Ames thinks that “Therefore it was not requisite they should have a spiritual promise distinct from the ordinary, but it was enough that they represented in a singular manner the benefits of those promises.” Thirdly, “that those might be common to all persons that were also common to beasts, which passed through the red Sea, drank of the waters of the rocks, and eat of the Manna.”
…Fourthly, “That upon the score of this Argument, both infants, and all flagitious persons, such as were these idolaters, fornicators, etc, may be also admitted to the Lord’s Supper”: But one knot is not untwisted by trying on another, incommodum non solvit argumentum, neither can they make their own way the more smooth and easy, only by casting galtrops in ours, which will as much also incumber their walk…
[Discussing church history and concludes there is nothing wrong with paedocommunion]
But waving all this, and granting the postulatum; that infants are not to communicate the Eucharist, yet the argument collected from thence will lay no other rub in our way, then such as we may easily remove or stride over, for we do here from this place of 1 Cor. 10 only argue that Sacraments formally as such are not proper privileges of real saints or absolutely incommunicable to any but such as have given satisfaction of their holiness (which is their hypothesis, against which we are here disputing) and so much I think is fully and clearly evinced by this instance;
Morice says the most common reply to his argument is that it would necessarily include infants as well. To which Morice says, “Yeah, so what?”
Rutherford responded to the same argument from Erastus.
Erastus his Arg. 13. 1 Cor. 10. God spared not idolaters and murmurers; yet they eat, we, and they of the same spirituall meat, and drinke the same spirituall drinke, and so had the same Sacraments (otherwise the Argument of the Apostle were nothing; if ours and their Sacraments were not all one) if then, those that were idolators, fornicators, were admitted to their Sacraments; then also to ours under the New Testament.
Ans. Beza answereth well to that. Manna and the water ouf of the Rock, as they had a spirituall Relation to Christ, were holy things and types of Christ, just as our Sacraments are signes of Christ already come in the flesh, and so agreed in the kinde of holy signes with our Sacraments: yet Manna, and the water out of the Rock, were also ordained to be bodily food, for the famishing and thirsty people, good or bad, holy or unholy, these two, Manna and water out of the Rock were given by the Commandment of God and the Priests, to the people, both as Gods people in Covenant with God, and to them, as men starving in the wildernesse, and dying for thirst; for they had not plowing, earing, harvest, bread, vineyards, wine, fountains in the wildernesse, and therefore no marvell then such holy things being; also beside that they were holy things, such as were necessary to keep them from starving and bodily death, as the shewbread, which was also a type of the word of life revealed to the Ministers of God, was given to keep David and his men from starving: No marvell (I say) then these bodily helps (though in another higher signification they were Sacramentalls) were by Gods command bestowed on many wicked men, who often partake both of outward Ordinances and temporall deliverance from death and famishing, because they are mixt with the people of God. But Erastus, if he would prove any thing against us, should have proved that circumcision, the Passover, and other holy things of God, ordained for the visible Saints to shew forth our spirituall Communion with Christ, and which were never ordained for necessary helps to sustain the naturall life, were to be administred to those that were openly prophane and wicked; and therefore we deny this connexion: Manna signified the very same thing; to wit, Christ our food of life, which bread and wine signifies; Ergo, As Manna was given both as a holy signe to figure out Christ our life, and to feed the bodies of openly holy, or openly prophane, to sustain their bodily life, so also baptisme and the Lords Supper, which serve for no bodily use, should be administred to those that are openly prophane.
Erastus is put to a poor shift with this solid Answer of that Reverend, Learned, and holy Divine, Theod. Beza, he saith, “Vis dicam quod sentio? Tui ubique similises: The sea and the cloud, saith he, were not necessary to feed the body.”
…Erastus may know the dividing of the Sea, was necessary to preserve the life of the most wicked and unclean (God being pleased for his Churches cause, to bestow Temporall deliverances on wicked men, mingled with the godly) from being drowned with the Egyptians, and that God, who will have mercy, and not sacrifice, may well by a positive Law appoint that holy and unholy, clean and unclean, shall have the use of such holy things, as are not meerly holy, but mixt, being both means of Divine institution, and also necessary Subsidies for mans life, but it followeth not therefore holy things, that are purely holy, should be prostitute to holy and unholy, the clean and unclean.
In other words, the nature of manna and the Lord’s Supper are different. They are not the same sacrament. The manna was a common holy meal – that is, it was a contradiction. The very idea of the Lord’s Supper is that not every supper is the Lord’s Supper. Recall Morice’s quote from Chamier “and therefore in that comparison the same thing signified is the ground of comparing – and there had been no consequence therein, if things unequal an unlike had been compared” and our original quote from Calvin “any point of difference destroys the force of the comparison… they had the same sacraments.” And again, if one must be worthy to participate in the Lord’s Supper because it is the body of Christ, then the same applies to the manna, regardless of whether or not it also served for physical sustenance.
It should be quite clear by now that half of Beza/Rutherford’s defense is true: the manna and water were provided by God for Israel’s physical sustenance. It was a common meal they ate three times a day. Crossing the Red Sea was a miraculous act of God “necessary to preserve the life of the most wicked and unclean.” The manna and water were miraculous provisions from God “for the famishing and thirsty people, good or bad, holy or unholy” for “men starving in the wildernesse, and dying for thirst.” Paul’s point is simply that Christ, the pre-existent second person of the Trinity, was the source of that provision – not that Christ crucified was spiritually present in the meal as a sacrament. God miraculously provided for them and bestowed his favor upon them, yet they still perished. Paul does not say the manna and water was a sacrament of Christ’s spiritual presence equivalent to the Lord’s Supper. (See the Exposition for more explanation)
See also: Calvin v 1689 Federalism on Old v New