Part 1
The main Question I would consider, and for the Negative of which, I would offer some Arguments in the following Discourse, is This; Whether, according to the Rules of Christ, any ought to be admitted to the Communion and Privileges of Members of the visible Church of Christ in complete Standing, but such as are in Profession, and in the Eye of the Church's Christian Judgment, godly or gracious Persons?
When I speak of Members of the visible Church of Christ, in complete Standing, I would be understood of those who are received as the proper immediate Subjects of all the external Privileges, Christ has appointed for the ordinary Members of his Church. I say ordinary Members, in Distinction from any peculiar Privileges and Honours of Church Officers and Rulers. All allow, there are some that are in some Respect in the Church of God, who are not Members in complete Standing, in the Sense that has been explained: All that acknowledge Infant-Baptism, allow Infants, who are the proper Subjects of Baptism, and are baptized, to be in some Sort Members of the Christian Church; yet none suppose them to be Members in such Standing as to be the proper immediate Subjects of all ecclesiastical Ordinances and Privileges: But that some further Qualifications are requisite in order to this, to be obtained, either in a Course of Nature, or by Education, or by divine Grace. And some who were baptized in Infancy, even after they come to be adult, may yet remain for a Season short of such a Standing as has been spoken of; being destitute of sufficient Knowledge, and perhaps some other Qualifications, through the Neglect of Parents, or their own Negligence, or otherwise; or because they carelessly neglect to qualify themselves for ecclesiastical Privileges by making a public Profession of the Christian Faith, or owning the Christian Covenant, or forbear to offer themselves as Candidates for these Privileges; and yet not be cast out of the Church, or cease to be in any Respect its Members: This, I suppose, will also be generally allowed.
One Thing mainly intended in the foregoing Question is, Whether any adult Persons but such as are in Profession and Appearance endowed with Christian Grace or Piety, ought to be admitted to the Christian Sacraments: Particularly whether they ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper; and, if they are such as were not baptized in Infancy, ought to be admitted to Baptism. Adult Persons having those Qualifications that oblige others to receive them as the proper immediate Subjects of the Christian Sacraments, is a main Thing intended in the Question, by being such as ought to be admitted to the Communion and Privileges of Members of the visible Church, in complete Standing. There are many adult Persons that by the Allowance of all are in some Respect within the Church of God, who are not Members in good Standing, in this Respect. There are many, for Instance, that have not at present the Qualifications proper to recommend them to Admission to the Lord's Supper: There are many scandalous Persons, who are under Suspension. The late venerable Mister Stoddard and many other great Divines suppose, that even excommunicated Persons are still Members of the Church of God: and some suppose, the Worshippers of Baal in Israel, even those who were bred up such from their Infancy, remained still Members of the Church of God: And very many Protestant Divines suppose, that the Members of the Church of Rome, though they are brought up and live continually in gross idolatry, and innumerable Errors and Superstitions that tend utterly to make void the Gospel of Christ, still are in the visible Church of Christ: yet, I suppose, no orthodox Divines would hold these to be properly and regularly qualified for the Lord's Supper. It was therefore requisite, in the Question before us, that a Distinction should be made between Members of the visible Church in general, and Members in complete Standing.
It was also requisite, that such a Distinction should be made in the Question, to avoid a lengthening out this Discourse exceedingly with needless Questions and Debates concerning the State of baptized Infants; that is, needless as to my present Purpose. Though I have no Doubts about the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism; yet God's Manner of Dealing with such Infants as are regularly dedicated to Him in Baptism, is a Matter liable to great Disputes and many Controversies, and would require a large Dissertation by it self to clear it up; which, as it would extend this Discourse beyond all Bounds, so it appears not necessary in order to a clear Determination of the present Question. The Revelation of God's Word is much plainer and more express concerning adult Persons, that act for themselves in religious Matters, than concerning Infants. The Scriptures were written for the Sake of adult Persons, or those that are capable of knowing what is written: It is to such the Apostles speak in their Epistles, and to such only does God speak throughout his Word: And the Scriptures especially speak for the Sake of those, and about those to whom they speak. And therefore if the Word of God affords us Light enough concerning those spoken of in the Question, as I have stated it, clearly to determine the Matter with Respect to them, we need not wait until we see all Doubts and Controversies about baptized Infants cleared and settled, before we pass a Judgment with Respect to the Point in Hand. The Denominations, Characters and Descriptions, which we find given in Scripture to visible Christians, and to the visible Church, are principally with an Eye to the Church of Christ in its adult State and proper Standing. If any one was about to describe that Kind of Birds called Doves, it would be most proper to describe grown Doves, and not young Ones in the Egg or Nest, without Wings or Feathers: so if any one should describe a Palm-Tree or Olive-Tree by their visible Form and Appearance, it would be presumed that they described those of these Kinds of Trees in their mature and proper State; and not as just peeping from the Ground, or as Thunder-struck or blown down. And therefore I would here give Notice, once for all, that when in the ensuing Discourse I use such-like Phrases as visible Saints, Members of the visible Church et cetera I, for the most Part, mean Persons that are adult and in good Standing.
The Question is not, whether Christ has made converting Grace or Piety itself the Condition or Rule of his People's admitting any to the Privileges of Members in full Communion with them: There is no one Qualification of Mind, whatsoever, that Christ has properly made the Term of this; not so much as a common Belief that Jesus is the Messiah, or a Belief of the Being of a God. It is the credible Profession and Visibility of these Things, that is the Church's Rule in this Case. Christian Piety or Godliness may be a Qualification requisite to Communion in the Christian Sacraments, just in the same Manner as a Belief that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Scriptures the Word of God, are requisite Qualifications, and in the same Manner as some Kind of Repentance is a Qualification requisite in one that has been suspended for being grossly Scandalous, in order to his coming again to the Lord's Supper; and yet Godliness itself not be properly the Rule of the Church's Proceeding, in like Manner as such a Belief and Repentance, as I have mentioned, are not their Rule. It is a Visibility to the Eye of a Christian Judgment, that is the Rule of the Church's Proceeding in each of these Cases.
There are two Distinctions must be here observed. As, 1. We must distinguish between such Qualifications as are requisite to give a Person a Right to ecclesiastical Privileges in Foro Ecclesiae, or a Right to be, admitted by the Church to those Privileges, and those Qualifications that are a proper and good Foundation for a Man's own Conduct in coming and offering himself as a Candidate for immediate Admission to these Privileges: There is a Difference between these. Thus, for Instance, a Profession of the Belief of a future State and of revealed Religion, and some other Things that are internal and out of Sight, and a Visibility of these Things to the Eye of a Christian Judgment, is all, relating to these Things, that is requisite to give a Man a Right in Foro Ecclesiae, or before the Church; but it is the real Existence of these Things that is what lays a proper and good Foundation for his making this Profession, and so demanding these Privileges. None will suppose, that he has good and proper Ground for such a Conduct, who do not believe another World, nor believe the Bible to be the Word of God. And then,
2. We must distinguish between that which nextly brings an Obligation on a Man's Conscience to seek Admission to a Christian Ordinance, and that which is a good Foundation for the Dictate of an enlightened well-informed Conscience, and so is properly a solid Foundation of a Right in Him to act thus. Certainly this Distinction does really take Place among Mankind in innumerable Cases. The Dictates of Men's Consciences are what do bring them under a next or most immediate Obligation to act: But it is that which is a good Foundation for such a Dictate of an enlightened Conscience, that alone is a solid Foundation of a Right in Him so to act. A believing the Doctrine of the Trinity with all the Heart, in some Sense (let us suppose a moral Sense) is one Thing requisite in order to a Person's having a solid Foundation of a Right in Him to go and demand Baptism in the Name of the Trinity: But his best Judgment or Dictate of his Conscience, concerning his believing this Doctrine with this Sincerity, or with all his Heart, may be sufficient to bring an Obligation on his Conscience. Again, when a Delinquent has been convicted of Scandal, it is Repentance in some Respect sincere (suppose a moral Sincerity) that is the proper Foundation of a Right in Him to offer Himself for Forgiveness and Restoration: But it is the Dictate of his Conscience or his best Judgment concerning his Sincerity, that is the Thing which immediately obliges him to offer himself. It is Repentance itself, that is the proper Qualification fundamental of his Right, and what he cannot have a proper Right without; For though he may be deceived, and think he has real Repentance when he has not, yet he has not properly a Right to be deceived; and perhaps Deceit in such Cases is always owing to something blameable, or the Influence of some corrupt Principle: But yet his best Judgment brings him under Obligation. In the same Manner, and no otherwise, I suppose that Christian Grace it self is a Qualification requisite in order to a proper solid Ground of a Right in a Person to come to the Christian Sacraments. But of this I may say something more when I come to answer Objections.
When I speak, in the Question, of a being godly or gracious in the Eye of a Christian Judgment, by Christian Judgment I intend something further than a Kind of mere negative Charity, implying that we forbear to censure and condemn a Man, because we do not know but that he may be godly, and therefore forbear to proceed on the Foot of such a Censure or Judgment in our Treatment of him: As we would kindly entertain a Stranger, not knowing but in so doing we entertain an Angel or precious Saint of God. But I mean a positive Judgment, founded on some positive Appearance, or Visibility, some outward Manifestations that ordinarily render the Thing probable. There is a Difference between suspending our Judgment, or forbearing to condemn, or having some Hope that possibly the Thing may be so, and so hoping the best; and a positive Judgment in Favour of a Person. For an having some Hope, only implies that a Man is not in utter despair of a Thing, though his prevailing Opinion may be otherwise, or he may suspend his Opinion. Though we cannot know a Man believes that Jesus is the Messiah, yet we expect some positive Manifestation or Visibility of it, to be a Ground of our charitable Judgment: so I suppose the Case is here.
When I speak of Christian Judgment, I mean a Judgment wherein Men do properly exercise Reason, and have their Reason under the due Influence of Love and other Christian Principles; which do not blind Reason, but regulate its Exercises; being not contrary to Reason, though they be very contrary to Censoriousness or unreasonable Niceness and Rigidness.
I say in the Eye of the Church's Christian Judgment, because it is properly a Visibility to the Eye of the public Charity, and not of a private Judgment, that gives a Person a Right to be received as a visible Saint by the Public. If any are known to be Persons of an honest Character, and appear to be of good Understanding in the Doctrines of Christianity, and particularly those Doctrines that teach the grand Condition of Salvation, and the Nature of true saving Religion, and publicly and seriously profess the great and main Things wherein the Essence of true Religion or Godliness consists, and their Conversation is agreeable; this justly recommends them to the good Opinion of the Public, whatever Suspicions and Fears any particular Person, either the Minister, or some other, may entertain, from what he in particular has observed, perhaps from the Manner of his expressing himself in giving an Account of his Experiences, or an Obscurity in the Order and Method of his Experiences etcetera. The Minister, in receiving him to the Communion of the Church is to act as a public Officer, and in Behalf of the public Society, and not merely for himself, and therefore is to be governed, in acting, by a proper Visibility of Godliness in the Eye of the Public.
It is not my Design, in holding the Negative of the foregoing Question, to affirm, that all who are regularly admitted as Members of the visible Church in complete Standing, ought to be believed to be godly or gracious Persons, when taken collectively, or considered in the Gross, by the Judgment of any Person or Society. This may not be, and yet each Person taken singly may visibly be a gracious Person to the Eye of the Judgment of Christians in general. These two are not the same Thing, but vastly diverse; and the latter may be, and yet not the former. If we should know so much of a Thousand Persons one after another, and from what we observed in them should have a prevailing Opinion concerning each one of them, singly taken, that they were indeed pious, and think the Judgment we passed, when we consider each Judgment apart, to be right; it will not follow, when we consider the whole Company collectively, that we shall have so high an Opinion of our own Judgment, as to think it probable, there was not one erroneous Judgment in the whole Thousand. We all have innumerable Judgments about one Thing or other, concerning religious, moral, secular, and philosophical Affairs, concerning past, present and future Matters, Reports, Facts, Persons, Things etcetera etcetera. And concerning all the many thousand Dictates of Judgment that we have, we think them every one right, taken singly; for if there was any one that we thought wrong, it would not be our Judgment; and yet there is no Man, unless he is stupidly foolish, who when he considers all in the Gross, will say he thinks that every Opinion he is of, concerning all Persons and Things whatsoever, important and trifling, is right, without the least Error. But the more clearly to illustrate this Matter, as it relates to Visibility, or probable Appearances of Holiness in Professors: Supposing it had been found by Experience concerning precious Stones, that such and such external Marks were probable Signs of a Diamond, and it is made evident, by putting together a great Number of Experiments, that the Probability is as Ten to one, and no more nor less that is That, take one Time with another, there is one in Ten of the Stones that have these Marks (and no visible Signs to the contrary) proves a true Diamond, and no more; then it will follow, that when I find a particular Stone with these Marks, and nothing to the contrary, there is a Probability of ten to one, concerning that Stone, that it is a Diamond; and so concerning each Stone that I find with these Marks: But if we take ten of these together, it is as probable as not, that some one of the Ten is spurious; because, if it were not as likely as not, that one in Ten is false, or if taking one Ten with another, there were not one in Ten that was false, then the Probability of those, that have these Marks, being true Diamonds, would be more than ten to one, contrary to the Supposition; because that is what we mean by a Probability of Ten to one, that they are not false, namely that take one Ten with another there will be one false Stone among them, and no more. Hence if we take an Hundred such Stones together, the Probability will be just ten to one, that there is one false among them; and as likely as not that there are ten false ones in the whole Hundred: and the Probability of the Individuals must be much greater than ten to one, even a Probability of more than a Hundred to one, in order to its making it probable that every one is true. It is an easy Mathematical Demonstration. Hence the Negative of the foregoing Question by no Means implies a Presence of any Scheme, that shall be effectual to keep all Hypocrites out of the Church, and for the establishing in that Sense a pure Church.
When it is said, those who are admitted etcetera ought to be by Profession godly or gracious Persons, it is not meant, they should merely profess or say that they are converted or are gracious Persons, that they know so, or think so; but that they profess the great Things wherein Christian Piety consists, namely a supreme Respect to God, Faith in Christ etcetera. Indeed it is necessary, as Men would keep a good Conscience, that they should think that these Things are in them, which they profess to be in them; otherwise they are guilty of the horrid Wickedness of wilfully making a lying Profession. Hence it is supposed to be necessary, in order to Men's regularly and with a good Conscience coming into Communion with the Church of Christ in the Christian Sacraments, that they themselves should suppose the essential Things, belonging to Christian Piety, to be in them.
It does not belong to the present Question, to consider and determine what the Nature of Christian Piety is, or wherein it consists. This Question may be properly determined, and the Determination demonstrated, without entering into any Controversies about the Nature of Conversion etcetera. Nor does an asserting the Negative of the Question determine any Thing how particular the Profession of Godliness ought to be, but only that the more essential Things, which belong to it, ought to be professed. Nor is it determined, but that the public Professions made on Occasion of Persons Admission to the Lord's Supper, in some of our Churches, who yet go upon that Principle, that Persons need not esteem themselves truly gracious in order to a coming conscientiously and properly to the Lord's Supper; I say, it is not determined but that some of these Professions are sufficient, if those that made them were taught to use the Words, and others to understand them, in no other than their proper Meaning, and Principle and Custom had not established a Meaning very diverse from it, or perhaps an Use of the Words without any distinct and clear determinate Meaning.
The main question I want to consider, and for which I will argue the negative in the following discourse, is this: According to the rules of Christ, should anyone be admitted to the communion and privileges of full membership in the visible church of Christ except those who, by their profession and in the eyes of the church's Christian judgment, are godly or gracious persons?
When I speak of members of the visible church of Christ in complete standing, I mean those who are accepted as the proper and direct recipients of all the external privileges Christ has appointed for the ordinary members of His church. I say ordinary members to distinguish them from any special privileges and honors belonging to church officers and leaders. Everyone agrees that there are some people who are in some sense part of the church of God but who are not members in complete standing as I have just described. All who accept infant baptism agree that infants who are proper subjects of baptism, and who are baptized, are in some sense members of the Christian church. Yet no one considers them to be members in a standing that makes them proper and direct recipients of all church ordinances and privileges. Rather, some further qualifications are needed for that -- qualifications gained either through the natural course of growing up, through education, or through divine grace. And some who were baptized as infants, even after they reach adulthood, may still remain for a time short of the standing I have described. They may lack sufficient knowledge, and perhaps other qualifications, due to the neglect of their parents, their own negligence, or other reasons. Or they may carelessly fail to qualify themselves for church privileges by making a public profession of the Christian faith, or by affirming the Christian covenant, or they may simply neglect to present themselves as candidates for these privileges. Yet they are not expelled from the church or cease to be its members in every sense. I believe this too will be generally accepted.
One main point of the question above is whether any adult persons -- other than those who profess and appear to possess Christian grace or piety -- should be admitted to the Christian sacraments. Specifically, should they be admitted to the Lord's Supper? And if they were not baptized in infancy, should they be admitted to baptism? The main thing intended by the question -- when I speak of those who ought to be admitted to the communion and privileges of members of the visible church in complete standing -- is that adult persons have those qualifications that require others to receive them as proper and direct subjects of the Christian sacraments. There are many adult persons who, by everyone's agreement, are in some sense within the church of God but who are not members in good standing in this sense. For instance, there are many who do not currently have the proper qualifications to recommend them for admission to the Lord's Supper. There are many scandalous persons who are under suspension. The late respected Mr. Stoddard and many other great theologians hold that even excommunicated persons are still members of the church of God. Some hold that the worshippers of Baal in Israel, even those raised in that worship from infancy, still remained members of the church of God. And very many Protestant theologians hold that members of the Church of Rome, though they are raised and live continually in gross idolatry and countless errors and superstitions that tend to completely undermine the Gospel of Christ, are still in the visible church of Christ. Yet I believe no orthodox theologians would consider these people to be properly and regularly qualified for the Lord's Supper. It was therefore necessary, in the question before us, to make a distinction between members of the visible church in general and members in complete standing.
It was also necessary to make this distinction in the question to avoid dragging out this discourse with needless questions and debates about the status of baptized infants -- needless, that is, for my present purpose. Though I have no doubts about the doctrine of infant baptism, God's manner of dealing with infants who are properly dedicated to Him in baptism is a matter open to great disputes and many controversies. It would require a lengthy discussion on its own to settle it. This would extend this discourse beyond all reasonable limits, and it does not appear necessary for a clear answer to the present question. God's Word is much plainer and more direct concerning adult persons who act for themselves in religious matters than concerning infants. The Scriptures were written for adult persons, or those capable of understanding what is written. The apostles address such people in their epistles, and God speaks to such people throughout His Word. The Scriptures especially speak for the sake of those to whom they are addressed and about those to whom they speak. Therefore, if the Word of God gives us enough light concerning the people described in my question to clearly settle the matter regarding them, we do not need to wait until all doubts and controversies about baptized infants are resolved before making a judgment on the point at hand. The names, descriptions, and characteristics that Scripture gives to visible Christians and to the visible church primarily refer to the church of Christ in its adult state and proper standing. If someone were to describe the kind of birds called doves, it would be most appropriate to describe full-grown doves, not young ones still in the egg or nest without wings or feathers. Similarly, if someone were to describe a palm tree or an olive tree by its visible form and appearance, it would be assumed that they were describing those trees in their mature and proper state -- not as just sprouting from the ground, or as struck by lightning or blown down. Therefore I want to note here, once and for all, that when I use phrases like visible saints, members of the visible church, and so on in the following discourse, I generally mean persons who are adult and in good standing.
The question is not whether Christ has made converting grace or piety itself the condition or rule by which His people admit anyone to the privileges of full communion. No single qualification of the mind, whatever it may be, has Christ properly made the requirement for this -- not even a common belief that Jesus is the Messiah, or a belief in the existence of God. It is the credible profession and visibility of these things that serves as the church's rule in this case. Christian piety or godliness may be a qualification required for communion in the Christian sacraments in exactly the same way that a belief that Jesus is the Messiah and that the Scriptures are the Word of God are required qualifications. It is required in the same way that some kind of repentance is a required qualification for someone who has been suspended for gross scandal before he can return to the Lord's Supper. Yet godliness itself is not properly the church's rule for proceeding, just as such belief and repentance as I have mentioned are not the church's rule. A visibility to the eye of Christian judgment is the rule the church follows in each of these cases.
There are two distinctions that must be observed here. First, we must distinguish between qualifications that give a person a right to church privileges in foro ecclesiae (that is, a right to be admitted by the church to those privileges) and qualifications that provide a proper and good foundation for a person's own decision to come forward and present himself as a candidate for immediate admission to these privileges. There is a difference between these. For example, a profession of belief in a future life and in revealed religion, along with some other things that are internal and out of sight, and a visibility of these things to the eye of Christian judgment -- this is all that is needed, regarding these things, to give a person a right in foro ecclesiae, or before the church. But it is the real existence of these things that provides the proper and good foundation for him to make this profession and thus claim these privileges. No one would say that a person has proper grounds for such action if he does not believe in the afterlife or does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God. And then:
Second, we must distinguish between what directly brings an obligation on a person's conscience to seek admission to a Christian ordinance and what provides a good foundation for the judgment of an enlightened, well-informed conscience -- and so is properly a solid foundation for a right to act in this way. This distinction certainly applies among people in countless cases. The judgments of people's consciences are what place them under the most direct and immediate obligation to act. But it is what provides a good foundation for such a judgment of an enlightened conscience that alone is a solid foundation for a right to act that way. Believing the doctrine of the Trinity with all the heart, in some sense (let us say a moral sense) is one thing required in order for a person to have a solid foundation for a right to go and request baptism in the name of the Trinity. But his best judgment or the verdict of his conscience concerning whether he believes this doctrine with this sincerity, or with all his heart, may be enough to place an obligation on his conscience. Again, when an offender has been convicted of scandal, it is repentance that is in some sense sincere (let us say morally sincere) that is the proper foundation for a right to present himself for forgiveness and restoration. But it is the verdict of his conscience, or his best judgment about his sincerity, that is the thing that immediately obliges him to present himself. It is repentance itself that is the proper qualification underlying his right, and without which he cannot have a proper right. For though he may be deceived and think he has real repentance when he does not, he does not properly have a right to be deceived. Perhaps such deception is always caused by something blameworthy, or the influence of some corrupt principle. But still, his best judgment places him under obligation. In the same way, and no other, I hold that Christian grace itself is a qualification required in order for a person to have a proper, solid foundation for a right to come to the Christian sacraments. But I may say more about this when I come to answering objections.
When I speak in the question of being godly or gracious in the eye of Christian judgment, by Christian judgment I mean something more than a merely negative kind of charity. By negative charity I mean simply refraining from criticizing and condemning a person because we do not know that he is not godly, and therefore we hold back from treating him on the basis of such criticism or judgment -- just as we would kindly receive a stranger, not knowing whether by doing so we might be welcoming an angel or a precious saint of God. Instead I mean a positive judgment, based on some positive appearance or visibility -- some outward evidence that ordinarily makes the thing probable. There is a difference between withholding judgment, refraining from condemnation, or having some hope that something might be the case and thus hoping for the best on the one hand, and making a positive judgment in a person's favor on the other. Simply having some hope only means that a person is not in complete despair about something, even though his prevailing opinion may be otherwise, or he may withhold his opinion entirely. Though we cannot know that a person believes Jesus is the Messiah, we still expect some positive evidence or visibility of it as a basis for our charitable judgment. I believe the same is true here.
When I speak of Christian judgment, I mean a judgment in which people properly exercise reason and have their reason under the appropriate influence of love and other Christian principles. These principles do not blind reason but regulate how it is exercised. They are not contrary to reason, even though they are very contrary to a judgmental spirit or unreasonable strictness and rigidity.
I say in the eye of the church's Christian judgment because it is properly a visibility to the eye of public charity, and not of private judgment, that gives a person a right to be received as a visible saint by the public. If someone is known to be a person of honest character and appears to have a good understanding of the doctrines of Christianity -- particularly those doctrines that teach the great condition of salvation and the nature of true saving religion -- and publicly and seriously professes the great and essential things in which true religion or godliness consists, and his conduct matches this profession, then this rightly recommends him to the good opinion of the public. This is so regardless of whatever suspicions and fears any particular person, whether the minister or someone else, might have based on what he personally has observed -- perhaps from the way the person expressed himself in giving an account of his experiences, or from some lack of clarity in the order and manner of his experiences, and so on. The minister, in receiving someone into the communion of the church, is to act as a public officer and on behalf of the public body, not merely for himself. Therefore he is to be guided in his actions by a proper visibility of godliness in the eye of the public.
In holding the negative of the preceding question, it is not my intention to claim that all who are regularly admitted as members of the visible church in complete standing should be believed to be godly or gracious persons when taken collectively, or considered as a whole, by the judgment of any person or group. This may not be the case, and yet each person taken individually may visibly be a gracious person to the eye of Christian judgment in general. These two things are not the same but are vastly different. The latter may be true without the former being true. If we came to know a thousand people one after another, and from what we observed in each one we formed a prevailing opinion that they were indeed devout, and we thought the judgment we passed on each one, when considered separately, was correct -- it would not follow that, when we considered the whole company together, we would be confident enough in our own judgment to say it was probable that not a single one of our thousand judgments was wrong. We all make countless judgments about one thing or another -- concerning religious, moral, secular, and philosophical matters, concerning past, present, and future events, reports, facts, persons, things, and so on. Concerning every one of the many thousands of judgments we hold, we believe each one is right when taken individually. If we thought any one of them was wrong, it would no longer be our judgment. Yet there is no one, unless he is foolishly overconfident, who would say when considering all his opinions together that he thinks every single opinion he holds about all persons and things -- both important and trivial -- is correct without the slightest error. But to illustrate this point more clearly as it relates to visibility, or probable appearances of holiness in those who profess faith: Suppose experience had shown that certain external marks were probable signs of a diamond. Suppose it was demonstrated, by compiling a large number of tests, that the probability was exactly ten to one and no more or less -- meaning that, on average, one in ten of the stones with these marks (and no visible signs to the contrary) turns out not to be a true diamond. Then it follows that when I find a particular stone with these marks and nothing to the contrary, there is a probability of ten to one that it is a diamond -- and likewise for each stone I find with these marks. But if we take ten of these together, it is just as probable as not that some one of the ten is fake. This is because if it were not equally likely that one in ten is false, or if on average there were not one in ten that was false, then the probability of stones with these marks being true diamonds would be more than ten to one, which contradicts our assumption. For what we mean by a probability of ten to one that they are not false is precisely that, on average, there will be one false stone among every ten, and no more. So if we take a hundred such stones together, the probability is exactly ten to one that there is one false stone among them. And it is just as likely as not that there are ten false ones in the whole hundred. The probability for each individual stone would have to be much greater than ten to one -- even a probability of more than a hundred to one -- in order to make it probable that every single one is genuine. This is a simple mathematical demonstration. Therefore, the negative of the preceding question by no means implies any claim to a system that will be effective in keeping all hypocrites out of the church, or in establishing, in that sense, a pure church.
When I say that those who are admitted should by profession be godly or gracious persons, I do not mean they should merely state or claim that they are converted or gracious, that they know this or think this. Rather, I mean they should profess the great things in which Christian piety consists -- namely, a supreme regard for God, faith in Christ, and so on. Indeed, if people want to maintain a good conscience, they must believe that the things they profess to have are actually in them. Otherwise they are guilty of the terrible wickedness of deliberately making a false profession. Therefore it is assumed to be necessary, in order for people to regularly and with a good conscience come into communion with the church of Christ in the Christian sacraments, that they themselves believe the essential things belonging to Christian piety are present in them.
It is not part of the present question to consider and determine what the nature of Christian piety is or what it consists of. This question can be properly settled and the conclusion demonstrated without entering into any controversies about the nature of conversion and so on. Nor does affirming the negative of the question determine how detailed the profession of godliness ought to be -- only that the more essential things belonging to it should be professed. Nor does it rule out the possibility that the public professions made when people are admitted to the Lord's Supper in some of our churches -- churches that operate on the principle that people need not consider themselves truly gracious in order to properly come to the Lord's Supper -- might be sufficient. I say it is not ruled out that some of these professions might be adequate, if those who made them were taught to use the words, and others to understand them, in their proper meaning alone, and if established custom and practice had not given them a meaning very different from the proper one, or perhaps a use of the words with no clear or definite meaning at all.
