Part 3

OBJECTION 1. The Scripture calls the Members of the visible Church by the Name of Disciples, Scholars, or Learners; and that suggests to us this Notion of the visible Church, that it is the School of Christ, into which Persons are admitted in order to their learning of Christ, and coming to spiritual Attainments, in the Use of the Means of Teaching, Discipline and Training up, established in the School. Now if this be a right Notion of the visible Church, then Reason shows that no other Qualifications are necessary in order to a being Members of this School, than such a Faith and Disposition of Mind as are requisite to Persons putting themselves under Christ as their Master and Teacher, and subjecting themselves to the Orders of the school. But a common Faith and moral Sincerity are sufficient for this. Therefore the Scripture leads us to suppose the visible Church to be properly constituted of those who have these Qualifications, though they have not saving Faith and true Piety.

ANSWER. I own, the Scripture calls the Members of the visible Church by the Name of Disciples. But I deny, it therefore follows that the Church which they are Members of, is duly and properly constituted of those who have not true Piety. Because, if this Consequence was good, then it would equally follow, that not only the visible, but also the invisible or mystical Church is properly constituted of those who have not unfeigned Faith and true Piety. For the Members of the mystical Church, as such, and to denote the special Character of such, are called Disciples; in Luke 14:26, 27, 33. and in Job 8:31. Chapter 13:35. and Chapter 15:8. This shows, that in the Argument I am answering, there is no Connection between the Premises and the Conclusion. For the Force of the Objection consists in this, that the Members of the visible Church are called Disciples in Scripture: This is the Sum total of the Premises: And if there be any Connection between the Premises and the Conclusion, it must lie in the Truth of this Proposition; The Church whose Members are called by the Name of Disciples, as signifying their State and Quality as Members of that Society, that Church is properly and fitly constituted, not only of Persons truly pious, but of others that have merely a common Faith and Virtue. But this Proposition, we have seen, is not true; and so there is no Connection between the former and latter Part of it, which are the same with the Premises and Conclusion of this Argument.

2. Though I do not deny, that the visible Church of Christ may fitly be represented as a School of Christ, where Persons are trained up in the Use of Means, in order to some spiritual Attainments: Yet it will not hence necessarily follow, that this is in order to all good Attainments; for it will not follow but that certain good Attainments may be prerequisite, in order to a Place in the School. The Church of Christ is a School appointed for the training up Christ's little Children, to greater Degrees of Knowledge, higher Privileges, and greater Serviceableness in this World, and more of a Meetness for the Possession of their eternal Inheritance. But there is no Necessity of supposing, that it is in order to fit them to become Christ's Children, or to be introduced into his Family; any more than there is a Necessity of supposing, because a Prince puts his Children under Tutors, that therefore it must be in order to their attaining to be of the royal Family. If it be necessary, that there should be a Church of Christ appointed as a School of Instruction and Discipline, to bring Persons to all good Attainments whatsoever, then it will follow, that there must be a visible Church constituted of scandalous and profane Persons and Heretics, and all in common that assume the Christian Name, that so Means may be used with them in order to bring them to moral Sincerity, and an Acknowledgement of the Christian Faith.

3. I grant, that no other Qualifications are necessary in order to being Members of that School of Christ which is his visible Church, than such as are requisite in order to their subjecting themselves to Christ as their Master and Teacher, and subjecting themselves to the Laws and Orders of his School: Nevertheless I deny, that a common Faith and moral Sincerity are sufficient for this; Because none do truly subject themselves to Christ as their Master, but such as having their Hearts purified by Faith, are delivered from the reigning Power of Sin: for we cannot subject ourselves to obey two contrary Masters at the same Time. None do submit to Christ as their Teacher, but those who truly receive him as their Prophet, to teach them by his Word and Spirit; giving up themselves to his Teachings, sitting with Mary, as little Children, at Jesus' Feet to hear his Word; and hearkening more to his Dictates, than those of their blind and deceitful Lusts, and relying on his Wisdom more than their own. The Scripture knows nothing of an ecclesiastical School constituted of Enemies of the Cross of Christ, and appointed to bring such to be reconciled to him and submit to him as their Master. Neither have they who are not truly pious Persons, any true Disposition of Heart to submit to the Laws and Orders of Christ's School, the Rules which his Word prescribes to all his Scholars; such as, to love their Master supremely; to love one another as Brethren; and to love their Book, that is their Bible, more than vain Trifles and Amusements, yea, above Gold and Silver; to be faithful to the Interest of the Master and of the School; to depend on his Teachings; to cry to him for Knowledge; above all their Gettings, to get Understanding, etc.

4. Whatever Ways of constituting the Church may to us seem fit, proper and reasonable, the Question is, not what Constitution of Christ's Church seems convenient to human Wisdom but what Constitution is actually established by CHRIST'S infinite Wisdom. Doubtless, if Men should set their Wits to Work, and proceed according to what seems good in their Sight, they would greatly alter Christ's Constitution of his Church, to make it more convenient and beautiful, and would adorn it with a vast Variety of ingenious Inventions; as the Church of Rome has done. The Question is, whether this School of Christ which they talk of, made up very much of those who pretend to no Experiences or Attainments but what consist with their being Enemies of Christ in their Hearts, and who in Reality love the vilest Lust better than him, be that Church of Christ which in the New Testament is denominated his City, his Temple, his Family, his Body, etc. by which Names the visible Church of Christ is there frequently called.

I acknowledge, that Means, of Christ's appointment, are to be used with those who are Christ's Enemies, and do not profess themselves any other, to change their Hearts, and bring them to be Christ's Friends and Disciples. Such Means are to be used with all Sorts of Persons, with Jews, Mahometans, Heathens, with nominal Christians that are Heretical or Vicious, the Profane, the Intemperate, the Unclean, and all other Enemies of Christ; and these Means to be used constantly, and laboriously. Scandalous Persons need to go to School, to learn to be Christians, as much as other Men. And there are many Persons that are not morally Sincere, who from selfish and sinister Views do consent ordinarily to go to Church, and so be in the Way of the Use of Means. And none ought to forbid them thus going to Christ's School, that they may be taught by him, in the Ministry of the Gospel. But yet it will not follow, that such a School is the Church of CHRIST. Human Laws can put Persons, even those who are very Vicious, into the School of Christ, in that Sense; they can oblige them constantly to be present at public Teaching, and attend on the Means of Grace appointed by Christ, and dispensed in his Name: But human Laws cannot join Men to the Church of Christ, and make them Members of his Body.

OBJECTION 2. Visible Saintship in the Scripture-Sense cannot be the same with that which has been supposed and insisted on, namely a being in the Eye of a rational Charity truly pious; because Israel of old were from Time to Time called God's People, when it is certain the greater Part of them were far from having any such visible Holiness as this. Thus the ten Tribes were called God's People, Hosea 4:6. after they had revolted from the true Worship of God, and had obstinately continued in their idolatrous Worship at Bethel and Dan for about two Hundred and fifty Years, and were at that Time, a little before their Captivity especially, in the Height of their Wickedness. So the Jews are called God's People in Ezekiel 36:20. and other Places, at the Time of their Captivity in Babylon; a Time when most of them were abandoned to all Kinds of the most horrid and open Impieties, as the Prophets frequently represent. Now it is certain, that the People at that Time were not called God's People because of any Visibility of true Piety to the Eye of Reason or of a rational Charity, because most of them were grossly Wicked, and declared their Sin as Sodom. And in the same Manner wherein the Jews of old were God's People, are the Members of the visible Christian Gentile Church God's People; for they are spoken of as grafted into the same Olive-Tree, from whence the former were broken off by Unbelief.

ANSWER. The Argument proves too much, and therefore nothing at all. If those whom I oppose in this Controversy, bring this Objection, they will in Effect as much oppose Themselves in it, as me. The Objection, if it has any Force, equally militates against their and my Notion of visible Saintship. For those Jews, which it is alleged to be God's People, and yet were so notoriously openly and grossly Wicked, had neither any Visibility of true Piety, nor yet of that moral Sincerity in the Profession and Duties of the true Religion, which the Opponents themselves suppose to be requisite in order to a proper visible Holiness, and a due Admission to the Privileges and Ordinances of the Church of God. None will pretend, that these obstinate Idolaters and impious Wretches had those Qualifications which are now requisite in order to an Admission to the Christian Sacraments. And therefore to what Purpose can they bring this Objection? Which, if it proves any Thing, overthrows my Scheme and their own both together, and both in an equally effectual Manner; and not only so, but will thoroughly destroy the Schemes of all Protestants through the World, concerning the Qualifications of the Subjects of Christian Ordinances. And therefore the Support of what I have laid down against those whom I oppose in this Controversy, requires no further Answer to this Objection. Nevertheless, for the greater Satisfaction, I would here observe further:—

That such Appellations as God's People, God's Israel, and some other like Phrases, are used and applied in Scripture with considerable Diversity of Intention. Thus, we have a plain Distinction between the House of Israel, and the House of Israel, in Ezekiel 20:38, 39, 40. By the House of Israel in the thirty-ninth Verse is meant literally the Nation or Family of Israel: But by the House of Israel in the fortieth Verse seems to be intended the spiritual House, the Body of God's visible Saints, that should attend the Ordinances of his public Worship in Gospel-Times. So likewise there is a Distinction made between the House of Israel, and God's Disciples who should profess and visibly adhere to his Law and Testimony, in Isaiah 8:14-17. And though the whole Nation of the Jews are often called God's People in those degenerate Times wherein the Prophets were sent to reprove them, yet at the same Time they are charged as falsely calling themselves of the holy City. Isaiah 48:2. And God often tells them, they are rather to be reckoned among Aliens, and to be looked upon as Children of the Ethiopians, or Posterity of the ancient Canaanites, on Account of their grossly wicked and scandalous Behaviour. See Amos 9:7, 8, etc. Ezekiel 16:2, 3, etc. verse 45, 46, etc. Isaiah 1:10.

It is evident that God sometimes, according to the methods of his marvelous mercy and long-suffering towards mankind, has a merciful respect to a degenerate church, that is become exceeding corrupt in regard that it is constituted of members who have not those qualifications which ought to be insisted on. God continues still to have respect to them so far as not utterly to forsake them, or wholly to deny his confirmation of and blessing on their administrations. And not being utterly renounced of God, their administrations are to be looked upon as in some respect valid, and the society as in some sort a people or church of God. Which was the case with the Church of Rome, at least until the Reformation and Council of Trent; for until then we must own their baptisms and ordinations to be valid. The church that the Pope sits in, is called The Temple of God. 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

And with regard to the people of Israel, it is very manifest, that something diverse is oftentimes intended by that nation's being God's People, from their being visible saints, or visibly holy, or having those qualifications which are requisite in order to a due admission to the ecclesiastical privileges of such. That Nation, that Family of Israel according to the Flesh, and with Regard to that external and carnal Qualification, were in some sense adopted by God to be his peculiar People, and his Covenant-People. This is not only evident by what has been already observed, but also indisputably manifest from Romans 9:3, 4, 5. I have great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart; for I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, who are Israelites, to whom pertains the ADOPTION, and the glory, and the COVENANTS, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the PROMISES; whose are the fathers; and of whom, concerning the flesh, Christ came. It is to be noted, that the privileges here mentioned are spoken of as belonging to the Jews, not now as visible saints, not as professors of the true religion, not as members of the visible church of Christ; but only as people of such a Nation, such a blood, such an external and carnal relation to the patriarchs their ancestors, Israelites ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. For the Apostle is speaking here of the unbelieving Jews, professed unbelievers, that were out of the Christian church, and open visible enemies to it, and such as had no right to the external privileges of Christ's people. So in Romans 11:28, 29, this Apostle speaks of the same unbelieving Jews, as in some respect an elect People, and interested in the Calling, Promises and Covenants God formerly gave to their forefathers, and as still beloved for their sakes. As concerning the Gospel, they are enemies for your sake; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes: For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. These things are in these places spoken of, not as privileges belonging to the Jews now as a people of the right religion, or in the true church of visible worshippers of God; but as a people of such a pedigree or blood; and that even after the ceasing of the Mosaic administration. But these were privileges more especially belonging to them under the Old Testament: They were a Family that God had chosen in distinction from all others, to show special favor to above all other Nations. It was manifestly agreeable to God's design to constitute things so under the Old Testament, that the means of grace and spiritual privileges and blessings should be, though not wholly, yet in a great measure confined to a particular Family, much more than those privileges and blessings are confined to any posterity or blood now under the Gospel. God did purposely so order things that that Nation should by these favors be distinguished, not only from those who were not professors of the worship of the true God, but also in a great measure from other Nations, by a wall of separation that he made. This was not merely a wall of separation between professors and non-professors (such a wall of separation as this remains still in the days of the Gospel) but between NATION and NATIONS. God, if he pleases, may by his sovereignty annex his blessing, and in some measure fix it, for his own reasons, to a particular blood, as well as to a particular place or spot of ground, to a certain building, to a particular heap of stones, or altar of brass, to particular garments, and other external things. And it is evident, that he actually did affix his blessing to that particular external family of Jacob, very much as he did to the city Jerusalem, that he chose to place his name there, and to Mount Zion where he commanded the Blessing. God did not so affix his blessing to Jerusalem or Mount Zion, as to limit himself, either by confining the blessing wholly to that place, never to bestow it elsewhere: nor by obliging himself always to bestow it on those that sought him there; nor yet obliging himself never to withdraw his blessing from thence, by forsaking his dwelling place there, and leaving it to be a common or profane place: But he was pleased so to annex his blessing to that place, as to make it the seat of his blessing in a peculiar manner, in great distinction from other places. In like manner did he fix his blessing to that blood or progeny of Jacob. It was a family which he delighted in, and which he blessed in a peculiar manner, and to which he in a great measure confined the blessing; but not so as to limit himself, or so as to oblige himself to bestow it on all of that blood, or not to bestow it on others that were not of that blood. He affixed his blessing to both these, both to the place and nation, by sovereign election. Psalm 132:13, 14, 15. He annexed and fixed his blessing to both by covenant. To that nation he fixed his blessing by his covenant with the patriarchs. Indeed the main thing, the substance and marrow of that covenant which God made with Abraham and the other patriarchs, was the Covenant of Grace, which is continued in these days of the Gospel, and extends to all his spiritual seed, of the Gentiles as well as Jews: But yet that covenant with the patriarchs contained other things that were as it were appendages to that great everlasting covenant of grace, promises of lesser matters, subservient to the grand promise of the future seed, and typical of things appertaining to him. Such were those promises, that annexed the blessing to a particular country, namely the land of Canaan, and a particular Blood, namely the progeny of Isaac and Jacob. Just so it was also as to the covenant God made with David that we have an account of, 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 132. If we consider that covenant with regard to what the soul and marrow of it was, it was the covenant of grace: But there were other promises which were as it were appendages of things subservient to the grand covenant, and typical of its benefits; such were promises of the blessing to the nation of the literal Israel, and of continuing the temporal crown of Israel to David's posterity, and of fixing the blessing to Jerusalem or Mount Zion, as the place that he chose to set his name there. And in this sense it was that the very Family of Jacob were God's People by Covenant, or his Covenant-People, and his chosen People; yea and this even when they were no visible saints, when they were educated and lived in idolatry, and made no profession of the true religion.

On the whole, it is evident that the very Nation of Israel, not as visible saints, but as the Progeny of Jacob according to the Flesh, were in some respect a chosen People, a People of God, a Covenant People, an holy Nation; even as Jerusalem was a chosen City, the City of God, a holy City, and a city that God had engaged by Covenant to dwell in.

Thus a sovereign and all-wise God was pleased to ordain things with respect to the Nation of Israel. Perhaps we may not be able to give all the reasons of such a constitution; but some of them seem to be pretty manifest; as

1. The great and main end of separating one particular nation from all others, as God did the Nation of Israel, was to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah, who was to proceed of that Blood, God's covenant with Abraham and the other patriarchs implied that the Messiah should be of their seed according to the Flesh. And therefore it was requisite that their Progeny according to the Flesh should be fenced in by a wall of separation, and made God's People. If the Messiah had been born of some of the Professors of Abraham's Religion, but of some other nation, that religion being propagated from nation to nation, as it is now under the Gospel, it would not have answered the covenant with Abraham, for the Messiah to have been born of Abraham's seed only in this sense. The Messiah being by covenant so related to Jacob's Progeny according to the Flesh, God was pleased, agreeable to the nature of such a covenant, to show great respect to that people on account of that external carnal relation. Therefore the Apostle mentions it as one great privilege, that of them according to the Flesh Christ came, Romans 9:5. As the introducing the Messiah and his salvation and kingdom was the special design of all God's dealings and peculiar dispensations towards that people, the natural result of this was, that great account should be made of their being of that Nation, in God's covenant dealings with them.

2. That Nation was a typical Nation. There was then literally a Land, that was the dwelling place of God; which was a type of Heaven the true dwelling-place of God, and an external City of God, which was a type of the spiritual City of God; an external Temple of God, which was a type of the spiritual City of God; an external Temple of God, which was a type of his spiritual Temple: So there was an external People and Family of God, by carnal generation, which was a type of his spiritual progeny: And the covenant by which they were made a people of God, was a type of the covenant of grace; and so is sometimes represented as a marriage-covenant. God, agreeable to the nature of that dispensation, showed a great regard to external and carnal things in those days, as types of spiritual things. What a great regard God did show then to external carnal qualifications for privileges and services, appears in this, that there is ten times so much said in the books of Moses about such qualifications in the institutions of the Passover and Tabernacle-Services, as about any moral qualifications whatsoever. And so much were such typical qualifications insisted on, that even by the law of Moses the congregation of the Lord, or public congregation or church (for the word is the same) of visible worshippers of God, and the number of public professors of the true religion, who were visible saints, were not the same: For some were of the latter, that were not of the former; as particularly the Eunuchs, who were excluded the congregation, though never so externally religious, yea truly pious; and so also bastards, etc.

3. It was the sovereign pleasure of God to choose that Family, the posterity of Jacob according to the Flesh, to reserve them for special favors to the end of time. And therefore they are still kept a distinct nation, being still reserved for distinguishing mercy in the latter day, when they shall be restored to the church of God. God is pleased in this way to testify his regard to their holy ancestors, and his regard to their external relation to Christ. Therefore the Apostle still speaks of them as an elect Nation, and beloved for the Fathers' sakes, even after they were broken off from the good olive by unbelief. God's covenant with Abraham is in some sense in force with respect to that people, and reaches them even to this day; and yet surely they are not God's Covenant-People, in the sense that visible Christians are. See Leviticus 26:42.

If it be here said, it was often foretold by the Prophets, that in the days of the Gospel other Nations should be the people of God, as well as the Nation of the Jews: And when Christ sent forth his Apostles, he bid them go and disciple all Nations.

I answer; By a common Figure of Speech the prevailing Part of a Nation are called the Nation, and what is done to them is said to be done to the Nation, and what is done by them is said to be done by that Nation: And it is to be hoped, that the Time is coming when the prevailing Part of many Nations, yea of every Nation under Heaven, will be regularly brought into the visible Church of Christ. And if we by Nations in these Prophecies understand any other than the prevailing Part, and it be insisted on that we must understand it of all the People belonging to those Nations; there never yet has been any Nation in this Sense regularly brought into the visible Church of Christ, even according to the Scheme of those whom I oppose: For there never yet has been an whole Nation that were outwardly moral. And besides, what Mr. Blake says in his Treatise of the Covenant (page 238) may be applied here, and serve as an Answer to this Objection. The Prophecies of the old Testament (says he) of the Glory of the New Testament-Times, are in Old Testament Phrases, by Way of Allusion to the Worship of those Times, set forth to us. In Revelation 21:24 Nations are spoken of, as having an Interest in the New-Jerusalem, which yet is represented as perfectly pure, without the least Degree of Pollution and Defilement. verse 27. And as for the Command to the Apostles, to disciple all Nations, it was a Direction to them as to what they should attempt, or do as much towards as they could; not a Prediction of what they should bring to pass in their Day: for they never brought one half of any one Nation into the visible Christian Church, nor any at all in one half of the Nations in the World, it is very probable.

If it should here be further objected, that it is an Evidence that Gentile Christians are visible Saints, according to the New-Testament-Nation of visible Saintship, in the very same Manner as the whole Jewish Nation were until they were broken off by their obstinate Rejection of the Messiah; and the Gentile Christians represented as being grafted into the same Olive, from whence the Jews were broken off by Unbelief, Romans 11:17 etc.

I would inquire, What any one can intend by this Objection? Whether it be this, namely That we ought to insist on no higher or better Qualifications, in admitting Persons as Members of the Christian Church, and to all its Privileges, than the whole Nation of the Jews, of that Generation which lived in Christ's Time, were possessed of, until they had obstinately persisted in their Rejection of him? If this is not intended, the Objection is nothing to the Purpose: Or, if this be intended, neither then is it to the Purpose of those with whom I have especially to do in this Controversy, who hold Orthodoxy, Knowledge of the Fundamental Doctrines of Religion, moral Sincerity, and a good Conversation, to be Qualifications, which ought to be insisted on, in order to a visible Church-State: For a very great Part of those Jews were destitute of these Qualifications; Many of them were Sadducees, who denied a future State; others of them Herodians, who were occasional Conformists with the Romans in their Idolatries; the prevailing Sect among them were Pharisees, who openly professed the false Doctrine of Justification by the Works of the Law and external Privileges, that Leaven of the Pharisees, which Christ warns his Disciples to beware of: Many of them were scandalously ignorant, for their Teachers had taken away the Key of Knowledge: Multitudes were grossly vicious, for it was a Generation in which all Manner of Sin and Wickedness prevailed.

I think, that Text in Romans 11 can be understood no otherwise, in any Consistence with plain Fact, than that the Gentile Christians succeeded the Jews, who had been, either in themselves or Ancestors, the Children of Abraham, with Respect to a visible Interest in the Covenant of Grace (which, as has been observed, was the Substance & Marrow of the Covenant made with Abraham) until they were broken off from the Church, and ceased any longer to be visible Saints, by their open and obstinate Unbelief; (as indeed either they or their Ancestors had all been thus broken off from the Church of visible Saints; for every Branch or Family of the Stock of Jacob had been in the Church of visible Saints, and each Branch withered and failed through Unbelief.) This was the highest and most important Sense, in which any of the Jews were externally the Children of Abraham, and implied the greatest Privileges. But there was another Sense, in which the whole Nation, including even those of them who were no visible Saints, were his Children, which (as has been shown) implied great Privileges, wherein Christian Gentiles do not succeed them, though they have additional ecclesiastical Privileges, vastly beyond the Jews.

Whether I have succeeded, in rightly explaining these Matters, or no, yet my failing in it is of no great Importance with Regard to the Strength of the Objection, that occasioned my attempting it; which was, that scandalously wicked Men among the Jews are called God's People, etc. The Objection, as I observed, is as much against the Scheme of those whom I oppose, as against my Scheme; and therefore it as much concerns them, to find out some Explanation of the Matter, that shall show something else is intended by it, than their having the Qualifications of visible Saints, as it does me; and a failing in such an Attempt as much affects and hurts their Cause, as it does mine.

OBJECTION 3. Those in Israel, who made no Profession of Piety of Heart, did according to divine Institution partake of the Passover; a Jewish Sacrament, representing the same Things, and a Seal of the very same Covenant of Grace with the Lord's Supper; and particularly, it would be unreasonable to suppose, that all made a Profession of Godliness whom God commanded to keep that first Passover in Egypt, which the whole Congregation were required to keep, and there is no Shadow of any such Thing as their all first making a solemn public Profession of those Things wherein true Piety consists: & so the People in general partook of the Passover, from Generation to Generation; but it would be hard to suppose, that they all professed a supreme Regard to God in their Hearts.

ANSWER 1. The Affair of the Israelites Participation of the Passover, and particularly that first Passover in Egypt, is attended with altogether as much Difficulty in Regard to the Qualifications which the Objectors themselves suppose requisite in Communicants at the Lord's Table, as with Regard to those which I insist upon; and if there be any Argument in the Case, it is fully as strong an Argument against their Scheme, as mine. One Thing they insist upon as a requisite Qualification for the Lord's Supper, is a public Profession of Religion as to the essential Doctrines of it: But there is no more Shadow of a public Profession of this Kind, preceding that Passover in Egypt, than of a Profession of Godliness. Here not to insist on the great Doctrines of the Fall of Man, of our undone State by Nature, of the Trinity, of our Dependence in the free Grace of God for Justification etc. let us take only those two Doctrines of a future State of Rewards and Punishments, and the Doctrine of the Messiah to come, that Messiah who was represented in the Passover: Is there any more Appearance, in sacred Story, of the People's making a public Profession in Egypt of these Doctrines before they partook of the Passover, than of their making Profession of the Love of God? And is there any more Probability of the former, than of the latter? Another Thing which they on the other Side suppose necessary to a due Attendance on the Lord's Supper, is, that when any have openly been guilty of gross Sins, they should before they come to this Sacrament, openly confess and humble themselves for their Faults. Now it is evident by many Scriptures, that a great Part of the Children of Israel in Egypt had been guilty of joining with the Egyptians in worshipping their false gods, and had lived in Idolatry: But the History in Exodus gives us no Account of any public solemn Confession of, or Humiliation for this great Sin, before they came to the Passover. Mr. Stoddard observes (Appeal pages 58, 59) that there was in the Church of Israel a Way appointed by God for the removal of Scandals; Men being required in that Case to offer up their Sacrifices, attended with Confession and visible Signs of Repentance. But where do we read of the People's offering up Sacrifices in Egypt, attended with Confession, for removing the Scandal of that most heinous Sin of Idolatry they had lived in? Or is there any more Probability of their publicly professing their Repentance and Humiliation for their Sin, before their celebrating the Passover, than of their publicly professing to love God above all? Another Thing which they suppose to be requisite in order to Admission to the Lord's Table, and about which they would have a particular Care be taken, is, that every Person admitted give Evidence of a competent Knowledge in the Doctrines of Religion, and none be allowed to partake who are grossly ignorant. Now there is no more Appearance of this with Regard to the Congregation in Egypt, than of a Profession of Godliness; and it is as difficult to suppose it. There is abundant Reason to suppose, that vast Numbers in that Nation, consisting of more than a Million of adult Persons, had been brought up in a great Degree of Ignorance, amidst their Slavery in Egypt, where the People seem to have almost forgotten the true God and the true Religion: And though Pains had been taken by Moses, now for a short Season, to instruct the People better; yet, it must be considered, it is a very great Work, to take a whole Nation under such Degrees of Ignorance and Prejudice, and bring every one of them to a competent Degree of Knowledge in Religion; and a greater Work still for Moses both thus to instruct them, and also by Examination or otherwise, to come to a just Satisfaction, that all had indeed attained to such Knowledge.

Mr. Stoddard insists, that if Grace be requisite in the Lord's Supper, it would have been as much so in the Passover, in as much as the chief Thing the Passover (as well as the Lord's Supper) has Respect to & represents, is Christ's Sufferings. But if on this Account the same Qualifications are requisite in both Ordinances, then it would be as requisite that the Partakers should have Knowledge to discern the Lord's Body (in Mr. Stoddard's Sense of 1 Corinthians 11:29) in the Passover, as in the Lord's Supper. But this certainly is as difficult to suppose, as that they professed Godliness: For how does it appear, that the People in general who partook of the Passover, knew that it signified the Death of the Messiah, and the Way in which he should make Atonement for Sin by his Blood? Does it look very likely that they should know this, when Christ's own Disciples had not Knowledge thus to discern the Lord's Body in the Passover, of which they partook from Year to Year with their Master? Can it be supposed, they actually knew Christ's Death and the Design of it to be thereby signified, when they did not so much as realize the Fact it self, that Christ was to die, at least not until the Year before the last Passover? And besides how unreasonable would it be, to suppose, that the Jews understood what was signified, pertaining to Christ and Salvation by him, in all those many Kinds of Sacrifices, which they attended and partook of, and all the vast variety of Ceremonies belonging to them; all which Sacrifices were Sacramental Representations of Christ's Death, as well as the Sacrifice of the Passover? The Apostle tells us, that all these Things had a Shadow of Good Things to come, the Things concerning Christ; and yet there are many of them, which the Church of Christ to this Day do not understand; though we are under a thousand Times greater Advantage to understand them, than they were; having the New Testament, wherein God uses great plainness of Speech, to guide us, and living in Days wherein the Veil which Moses put over his Face is taken away in Christ, and the Veil of the Temple rent, and have the Substance and Antitype plainly exhibited, and so have Opportunity to compare these with those Shadows.

If it be objected, as a Difficulty that lies against our supposing a Profession of Godliness requisite to a Participation of the Passover, that they who were uncircumcised, were expressly forbidden to partake, and if Conversion was as important and a more important Qualification than Circumcision, why were not the unregenerate as expressly forbidden? I answer, why were not scandalous Sinners as expressly forbidden? And why was not moral Sincerity as expressly required as Circumcision?

If it be objected, that they were all expressly and strictly required to keep the Passover; but if Grace was requisite, and God knew that many of the Partakers would have no Grace, why would he give such universal Orders?

I answer; When God gave those Commands, he knew that the Commands, in all their Strictness, would reach many Persons who in the Time of the Passover would be without so much as moral Sincerity in Religion. Every Man in the Nation, of every Generation, and which should be in Being each Year, from the first Institution until the Death of Christ, were all (excepting such as were ceremonially unclean, or in a Journey) strictly required to keep the Feast of Passover; and yet God knew that Multitudes would be without the Qualification of moral Seriousness in Religion. It would be very unreasonable, to suppose, that every single Person in the Nation was morally serious, even in the very best Time that ever passed over the Nation; or that ever there was such a happy Day with that Nation, or any other Nation under Heaven, wherein all were morally sincere in Religion. How much then was it otherwise many Times with that Nation, which was so prone to Corruption, and so often generally involved in gross Wickedness? But the strict Command of God to keep the Passover reached the morally insincere, as well as others; they are nowhere excepted, any more than the unconverted. And as to any general Commands of God's Word, these no more required Men to turn from a State of moral Insincerity before they came to the Passover, than they required them to turn from a graceless State.

But further, I reply, that God required them all to keep the Passover, no more strictly than he required them all to love the Lord their God with their whole Heart: And if God might strictly command this, He might also strictly command them to keep that Ordinance wherein they were especially to profess it, and seal their Profession of it. That evil Generation were not expressly forbidden to keep the Passover in succeeding Years, for the whole forty Years during which they went on provoking God, very often by gross sinning and open rebelling; but still the express and strict Commands for the whole Congregation to keep the Passover reached them, nor were they released from their Obligation.

If it be said, that we must suppose Multitudes in Israel attended the Passover, from Age to Age, without such a Visibility of Piety as I have insisted on; and yet we do not find their attending this Ordinance charged on them as a Sin, in Scripture: I answer, We must also suppose that Multitudes in Israel from Age to Age attended the Passover, who lived in moral Insincerity, yea and scandalous Wickedness. For the People in general very often notoriously corrupted themselves, and declined to Ways of open and great Transgression; and yet there is Reason to think, that in these Times of Corruption, for the most Part, they upheld Circumcision and the Passover; and we do not find their attending on these Ordinances under such Circumstances, any more expressly charged on them as a Sin, than their coming without Piety of Heart. The Ten Tribes continued constantly in Idolatry for about 250 Years; and there is Ground to suppose, that in the mean Time they ordinarily kept up Circumcision and the Passover: For though they worshipped God by Images, yet they maintained most of the ceremonial Observances of the Law of Moses, called the Manner of the God of the Land, which their Priests taught the Samaritans, who were settled in their Stead, Second Kings 17:26, 27. Nevertheless we do not find Elijah, Elisha, or other Prophets that were sent among them, reproving them for attending these Ordinances without the required moral Qualifications. Indeed there are some Things in the Writings of the Prophets, which may be interpreted as a Reproof of this; but no more as a Reproof of this, than of attending God's Ordinances, without a gracious Sincerity and true Piety of Heart and Life.

How many Seasons were there, wherein the People in general fell into and lived in Idolatry, that Scandal of Scandals, in the Times of the Judges, and in the Times of the Kings both in Judah and Israel? But still amidst all this Wickedness, they continued to attend the Sacrament of Circumcision: We have every whit as much Evidence of it, as that they attended the Passover without a Profession of Godliness: We have no Account of their ever leaving it off at such Seasons, nor any Hint of its being renewed (as a Thing which had ceased) when they came to reform. Though we have so full an Account of the Particulars of Josiah's Reformation, after that long scandalous Reign of Manasseh, there is no Hint of any reviving of Circumcision, or returning to it after a Cessation. And where have we an Account of the People's being once reproved for attending this holy Sacrament while thus involved in scandalous Sin, in all the Old Testament? And where is this once charged on them as a Sin, any more than in the Case of unconverted Persons attending the Sacrament of the Passover.

Answer 2. Whatever was the Case with Respect to the Qualifications for the Sacraments of the Old Testament Dispensation, I humbly conceive it is nothing to the Purpose in the present Argument, nor needful to determine us with Respect to the Qualifications for the Sacraments of the Christian Dispensation, which is a Matter of such plain Fact in the New Testament. Far am I from thinking the Old Testament to be like an old Almanac out of Use; nay, I think it is evident from the New Testament, that some Things which had their first Institution under the Old Testament, are continued under the New; for Instance, particularly, the Acceptance of the Infant Seed of Believers as Children of the Covenant with their Parents; and probably some Things belonging to the Order and Discipline of Christian Churches, had their first Beginning in the Jewish Synagogue. But yet all allow that the Old Testament Dispensation is out of Date, with its Ordinances: And I think, in a Matter pertaining to the Constitution and Order of the New Testament Church, that is a Matter of Fact wherein the New Testament itself is express, full and abundant, in such a Case to have Recourse to the Mosaic Dispensation for Rules or Precedents to determine our Judgment, is quite needless, and out of Reason. There is perhaps no Part of Divinity attended with so much Intricacy, and wherein orthodox Divines do so much differ, as the stating the precise Agreement and Difference between the two Dispensations of Moses and of Christ. And probably the Reason why God has left it so intricate, is, because our understanding the ancient Dispensation and God's Design in it is not of so great Importance, nor does so nearly concern us. Since God uses great Plainness of Speech in the New Testament, which is as it were the Charter and municipal Law of the Christian Church, what Need we run back to the ceremonial and typical Institutions of an antiquated Dispensation, wherein God's declared Design was, to deliver divine Things in comparative Obscurity, hid under a Veil, and involved in Clouds?

We have no more Occasion for going to search among the Types, dark Revelations, and carnal Ordinances of the Old Testament, to find out whether this Matter of Fact concerning the Constitution and Order of the New Testament Church be true, than we have Occasion for going there to find out whether any other Matter of Fact, we have an Account of in the New Testament, be true; as particularly whether there were such Officers in the primitive Church as Bishops and Deacons, whether miraculous Gifts of the Spirit were common in the Apostles' Days, whether the believing Gentiles were received into the primitive Christian Church, and the like.

Answer 3. I think, nothing can be alleged from the holy Scripture, that is sufficient to prove a Profession of Godliness to be not a Qualification requisite in order to a due and regular Participation of the Passover.

Although none of the requisite moral Qualifications for this Jewish Sacrament, either of one Kind or other, are near so clearly made known in the Old Testament, as the Qualifications for the Christian Sacraments are in the New; and although the supposing a Visibility, either of moral Sincerity, or sanctifying Grace to be requisite, is (both respecting the one Case and the other) involved in some Obscurity and Difficulty; yet I would humbly offer what appears to me to be the Truth concerning that Matter, in the Things that follow.

(1.) Although the People in Egypt, before the first Passover, probably made no explicit public profession at all, either of their Humiliation for their former Idolatry, or of present Devotedness of Heart to God; it being before any particular Institution of an express public profession, either of Godliness, or Repentance in Case of Scandal: Yet I think, there was some Sort of public Manifestation, or implicit Profession of both. Probably in Egypt they implicitly professed the same Things, which they afterwards professed more expressly and solemnly in the Wilderness. The Israelites in Egypt had very much to affect their Hearts, before the last Plague, in the great Things that God had done for them; especially in some of the latter Plagues, wherein they were so remarkably distinguished from the Egyptians: They seem now to be brought to a tender Frame, and a Disposition to show much Respect to God (see Exodus 12:27) and were probably now very forward to profess themselves devoted to him, and true Penitents.

(2) After the Institution of an explicit public profession of Devotedness to God, or (which is the same Thing) of true Piety of Heart, this was wont to be required in order to a partaking of the Passover and other Sacrifices and Sacraments that adult Persons were admitted to. Accordingly all the adult Persons that were circumcised at Gilgal, had made this Profession a little before on the Plains of Moab; as has been already observed. Not that all of them were truly Gracious; but seeing they all had a Profession and Visibility, Christ in his Dealings with his Church as to external Things, acted not as the Searcher of Hearts, but as the Head of the visible Church, accommodating himself to the present State of Mankind; and therefore he represents himself in Scripture as trusting his People's Profession; as I formerly observed.

(3.) In degenerate Times in Israel, both Priests and People were very lax with Respect to Covenanting with God, and professing Devotedness to him; and these Professions were used, as public Professions commonly are still in corrupt Times, merely as Matters of Form and Ceremony, at least by great Multitudes.

(4.) Such was the Nature of the Levitical Dispensation, that it had in no Measure so great Tendency to preclude and prevent hypocritical Professions, as the New Testament Dispensation; particularly, on Account of the vastly greater Darkness of it. For the Covenant of Grace was not then so fully revealed, and consequently the Nature of the Conditions of that Covenant not then so well known: There was then a far more obscure Revelation of those great Duties of Repentance towards God and Faith in the Mediator, and of those Things wherein true Holiness consists, and wherein it is distinguished from other Things. Persons then had not equal Advantage to know their own Hearts, while viewing themselves in this comparatively dim Light of Moses' Law, as now they have in the clear Sunshine of the Gospel. In that State of the Minority of the Church, the Nature of true Piety, as consisting in the Spirit of Adoption, or ingenuous filial Love to God, and as distinguished from a Spirit of Bondage, servile Fear, and Self-Love, was not so clearly made known. The Israelites were therefore the more ready to mistake, for true Piety, that moral Seriousness and those warm Affections and Resolutions that resulted from that Spirit of Bondage, which showed itself in Israel remarkably at Mount Sinai; and which throughout all the Old Testament Times, they were especially incident to.

(5.) God was pleased in a great Measure to wink at and suffer (though he did not properly allow) that Laxness there was among the People, with Regard to the Visibility of Holiness, and the moral Qualifications requisite to an Attendance on their Sacraments. As also he did in many other Cases of great Irregularity, under that dark, imperfect, and comparatively carnal Dispensation; such as Polygamy, putting away their Wives at Pleasure, the Revenger of Blood killing the Manslayer, etc. And as he winked at the worshipping in High Places in Solomon's Time (First Kings 3:4, 5) and at the Neglect of keeping the Feast of Tabernacles according to the Law, from Joshua's Time until after the Captivity (Nehemiah 8:17). And as he winked at the Neglect of the Synagogue Worship, or the public Service of God in particular Congregations, until after the Captivity, though the Light of Nature, together with the general Rules of the Law of Moses, did sufficiently teach and require it.

(6.) It seems to be from time to time foretold in the prophecies of the Old Testament, that there would be a great Alteration in this respect, in the days of the Gospel, that under the new dispensation there should be far greater Purity in the church. Thus, in the forementioned place in Ezekiel it is foretold, that those who are [visibly] uncircumcised in heart, should NO MORE enter into God's sanctuary. Again Ezekiel 20:37, 38. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and will bring you into the bond of the covenant; and I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me. It seems to be a prophecy of the greater purity of those who are visibly in Covenant with God. Isaiah 4:3. And it shall come to pass that he that is left in Zion, and he that remains in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living [that is, has a name to live, or is enrolled among the saints] in Jerusalem. Isaiah 52:1. Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; from henceforth there shall NO MORE come to you the uncircumcised and the unclean. Zechariah 14:21. And in that day, there shall be NO MORE the Canaanite in the house of the Lord.

(7.) This is just such an alteration as might reasonably be expected from what we are taught of the whole Nature of the two Dispensations. As, the one had carnal ordinances (so they are called Hebrews 9:10) the other a spiritual service (John 4:24.) The one an earthly Canaan, the other a heavenly; the one an external Jerusalem, the other a spiritual; the one an earthly high priest, the other a heavenly; the one a Worldly sanctuary, the other a spiritual; the one a bodily and temporal redemption (which is all that they generally discerned or understood in the Passover) the other a spiritual and eternal. And, agreeably to these things, it was so ordered in Providence, that Israel, the congregation that should enter this worldly sanctuary, and attend these carnal ordinances, should be much more a worldly, carnal congregation, than the New Testament congregation. One reason why it was ordered in Providence that there should be such a difference, seems to be this, namely That the Messiah might have the honor of introducing a state of greater purity and spiritual glory. Hence God is said to find Fault with that ancient dispensation of the covenant, Hebrews 8:7, 8. And the time of introducing the new dispensation is called the time of Reformation, Hebrews 9:10. And one thing, wherein the amendment of what God found fault with in the former dispensation should consist, the Apostle intimates, is the greater Purity and Spirituality of the church. Hebrews 8:7, 8, 11.

OBJECTION 4. It is not reasonable, to suppose, that the multitudes which John the Baptist baptized, made a Profession of saving grace, or had any such Visibility of true piety, as has been insisted on.

ANSWER. Those whom John baptized, came to him confessing their sins, making a profession of some kind of Repentance; and it is not reasonable to suppose, the repentance they professed, was specifically or in kind diverse from that which he had instructed them in and called them to, which is called Repentance for the remission of sins; and that is saving repentance. John's baptism is called the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins: I know not how such a phrase can be reasonably understood any otherwise, than so as to imply, that his Baptism was some exhibition of that Repentance, and a seal of the profession of it. Baptism is a seal of some sort of religious profession, in adult persons: But the very name of John's baptism shows, that it was a seal of a profession of Repentance for the remission of sins. It is said, Luke 3:3. John PREACHED the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. What can be understood by this, but his preaching that men should now speedily turn to God, by true Repentance and Faith in the promised Savior, and come and confess their sins, and openly declare this repentance towards God, and faith in the Lamb of God, and that they should confirm and seal this their profession by Baptism, as well as therein receive the seal of God's willingness to remit the sins of such as had this faith and repentance. Accordingly, we are told, the People came and were baptized of him, confessing their sins, manifesting and professing that sort of Repentance and Faith which he preached. They had no notion of any other sort of repentance put into their heads, that they could suppose John called them to profess in Baptism, but this accompanied with Faith in the Lamb whom he called them to behold; for he preached no other to them. The people that John baptized, professed both Repentance for the remission of sins, and also Faith in the Messiah; as is evident by Acts 19:4, 5. John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on CHRIST JESUS: When they heard this [John's preaching] they were baptized in the name of the Lord JESUS.

If it be objected here, that we are told Matthew 3:5, 6. There went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins; and that it is not to be imagined, all these made any credible profession of saving repentance and faith! I answer, No more is to be understood by these expressions, according to the phraseology of the Scripture, than that there was a very general resort of people from these places to John. Nor is any more to be understood by the like term of universality in John 3:26. They came to John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with you beyond Jordan, to whom you bear witness, behold, the same baptizes, and ALL MEN come to him. That is, there was a great resort to him from all quarters. It is in no wise unreasonable, to suppose, there was indeed a very great number of people that came to John from the places mentioned, who being exceedingly moved by his preaching, in that time of extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit, made profession of the faith and repentance which John preached. Doubtless there were many more professors, than real converts: But still in the great resort to John, there were many of the latter character; as we may infer from the prophecy: as appears by Luke 1:16, 17. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. And from that account of fact in Matthew 11:12. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. And in Luke 16:16. The law and the prophets were until John: Since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and EVERY MAN presses into it. Here the expression is no less universal, than that which is objected in Matthew 3:5, 6. As to those wicked Pharisees, that so much opposed Christ, some of them I suppose had been baptized by John, and then had a great show of repentance and faith; but they afterwards apostatized, and were much worse than ever before: Therefore Christ speaks of them as being like a House from which the unclean spirit is visibly turned out for a while, and is left empty, swept and garnished, but afterward is repossessed, and has many devils instead of one. Luke 11:24, etc. Yet as to the greater part of these Pharisees, they were not baptized by John, as appears by Luke 7:29, 30.

If it be further objected, that John in baptizing such multitudes could not have Time to be sufficiently informed of those he baptized, whether their profession of godliness was credible, or no. I answer, That we are not particularly informed of the circumstances of his teaching, and of the assistance he was favored with, and the means he had of information concerning those whom he baptized: But we may be sure of one thing, namely He had as much opportunity to inquire into the credibility of their profession, as he had to inquire into their doctrinal knowledge and moral character; which my opponents suppose to be necessary, as well as I: And this is enough to silence the present objection.

OBJECTION 5. Christ says, Matthew 20:16. and again Chapter 22:14. that many are called, but few are chosen. By which it is evident, that there are many, who belong to the visible Church, and yet but few real and true Saints; and that it is ordinarily thus, even under the New Testament, and in days of Gospel light: and therefore that Visibility of Saintship, whereby persons are visible saints in a Scripture sense, cannot imply an apparent probability of their being real saints, or truly gracious persons.

ANSWER. In these texts, by those that are called, are not meant those who are visible Saints, and have the requisite qualifications for Christian sacraments; but all such as have the external call of the word of God, and have its offers and invitations made to them. And it is undoubtedly true, and has been matter of fact, for the most part, that of those called in this sense, many have been but only called, and never truly obedient to the call, few have been true saints. So it was in the Jewish nation, which the parable in the 20th of Matthew has a special respect to; they in general had the external call of God's word, and in general attended many religious duties, in hopes of God's favor and reward, which is called laboring in God's vineyard; and yet but few of them eventually obtained salvation; nay, great multitudes of those who were called in this sense, were scandalous persons, and gross hypocrites. The Pharisees and Sadducees were called, and they labored in the vineyard, in the sense of the parable; for which they expected great rewards, above the Gentile converts or proselytes; wherefore their eye was evil towards them, and they could not bear that they should be made equal to them: But still these Pharisees and Sadducees had not generally the intellectual and moral qualifications, that my opponents suppose requisite for Christian sacraments; being generally scandalous persons, denying some fundamental principles of religion, and explaining away some of its most important precepts. Thus, many in Christendom are called, by the outward call of God's word, and yet few of them are in a state of salvation: But not all these that sit under the sound of the gospel, and hear its invitations, are fit to come to Sacraments.

That by those who are called, in this Saying of our Saviour, is meant those that have the Gospel offer, and not those who belong to the Society of visible Saints, is evident beyond all Dispute, in Matthew 22:14. By the many that are called, are plainly intended the many that are invited to the Wedding. In the foregoing Parable, we have an Account of those that from Time to Time were bidden, or CALLED, for the Word is the same in the original verse 3. And sent forth his Servants to CALL them that were CALLED and they would not come. This has Respect to the Jews, who refused not only savingly to come to Christ, but refused so much as to come into the visible Church of Christ. Verse 4. Again he sent forth other Servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden or CALLED Behold, I have prepared my Dinner, etcetera. Verse 8. They which were bidden or CALLED were not worthy, Verse 9. Go ye therefore to the high Ways, and as many as ye shall find, bid or CALL to the Marriage, or nuptial Banquet; representing the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles; who upon it came into the King's House. That is, the visible Church, and among them one that had not a Wedding-Garment, who was bound Hand and Foot, and cast out, when the King came: And then, at the Conclusion, Christ adds this Remark, Verse 14. For many are CALLED or bidden but few are chosen; which must have Reference, not only to the Man last mentioned, who came into the Wedding-House, the Christian visible Church, without a Wedding-Garment, but to those also mentioned before, who were called, but would not so much as come into the King's House, or join to the visible Christian Church. To suppose this Saying to have Reference only to that one Man who came without a Wedding Garment (representing one that comes into the visible Church, but is not a true Saint) would be to make the Introduction of this Aphorism, and its Connection with what went before, very strange and unintelligible; because then it would be as much as to say thus, Multitudes came into the King's House, who were called, and the House was full of Guests; but among them was found one Man who was not chosen; for many are called, but few are chosen.

OBJECTION 6. When the Servants of the Householder, in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares (Matthew 13) unexpectedly found Tares among the wheat, they said to their Master, Wilt thou that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay, lest while ye gather up the Tares, ye root up also the Wheat with them; let both grow together until the Harvest. Which shows the Mind of Christ that we ought not to go about to make a Distinction between true Saints and apparent in this World, or aim at any such Thing as admitting true Saints only into the visible Church, but ought to let both be together in the Church until the Day of Judgment.

ANSWER 1. These Things in this Parable have no manner of Reference to Introduction into the Field, or Admission into the visible Church, as though no Care nor Measures should be taken to prevent Tares being sown; or as though the Servants who had the Charge of the Field, would have done well to have taken Tares, appearing to be such, and planted them in the Field amongst the Wheat: No, instead of this, the Parable plainly implies the Contrary. But the Words cited have wholly Respect to a CASTING OUT and purging the Field, after the Tares had been introduced unawares, and contrary to Design, through Men's Infirmity and Satan's Procurement. Concerning purging Tares out of the Field, or casting Men out of the Church, there is no Difference between me and those whom I oppose in the present Controversy: And therefore it is impossible, there should be any Objection from that which Christ says here concerning this Master, against Me, but what is as much of an Objection against Them; for we both hold the same Thing. It is agreed on all Hands, that adult Persons, actually admitted to Communion of the visible Church, however they may behave themselves so as to bring their spiritual State into Suspicion, yet ought not to be cast out, unless they are obstinate in Heresy or Scandal; lest, while we go about to root out the Tares, we should root out the Wheat also. And it is also agreed on all Hands, that when those represented under the Name of Tares bring forth such evil Fruit, such scandalous and obstinate Wickedness, as is plainly and visibly inconsistent with the Being of true Grace, they ought to be cast out. And therefore it is impossible, that this Objection should be any Thing to the Purpose.

ANSWER 2. I think, This parable, instead of being a just Objection against the Doctrine I maintain, is on the contrary a clear Evidence for it.

For (1) The Parable shows plainly, that if any are introduced into the Field of the Householder, or Church of Christ, who prove to be not Wheat (that is not true Saints) they are brought in unawares, or contrary to Design; and that they are what do not properly belong there. If Tares are as properly to be sown in the Field, as is the Wheat, which must be the Case if the Lord's Supper be a converting Ordinance; then surely no Care ought to be taken to introduce Wheat only, and no Respect ought to be had more to the Qualities of Wheat in sowing the Field, than the Qualities of Tares; nor is there any more Impropriety in the Tares having a Place there, than the Wheat: But this surely is altogether inconsistent with the Scope of the Parable.

(2) This Parable plainly shows, that those who are in the visible Church, have all of them at first a Visibility, or Appearance to human Sight, of true Grace, or of the Nature of true Saints. For it is observed, Tares have this Property, that when they first appear, and until the Products of the Field arrive to some Maturity, they have such a Resemblance of Wheat, that it is next to impossible to distinguish them.

OBJECTION 7. CHRIST Himself administered the Lord's Supper to Judas, whom he knew at the same Time to be graceless; which is a full Evidence, that Grace is not in itself a requisite qualification in order to coming to the Lord's Supper; and if it is not requisite in itself, a Profession of it cannot be requisite.

ANSWER 1. It is to me apparent, that Judas was not present at the Administration of the Lord's Supper. It is true, he was present at the Passover, and dipped with Christ in the Paschal Dish. The three former Evangelists do differ in the Order of the Account they give of this dipping in the Dish. Luke gives an Account of it after his Account of the Lord's Supper, Luke 22:21. But Matthew and Mark both give an Account of it before. (Matthew 26:23. Mark 14:20.) And the like might be shown in abundance of Instances of these three Evangelists differing one from another in the Order of their Narratives; one places those Things in his History after others, which another places first; these sacred Historians not undertaking to declare precisely the Date of every Incident, but regarding more the Truth of Facts, than the Order of Time. However, in the present Case, the Nature of the Thing speaks for itself, and shows, that Judas's dipping with Christ in the Dish, or his Hand being with Christ on the Table, or receiving a Sop dipped in the Dish, must be in that Order wherein Matthew and Mark place it in their History, namely at the Passover, antecedent to the Lord's Supper: For there is no such Thing in the Lord's Supper as dipping of Sops and dipping together in the Dish; but there was such a Thing in the Passover, where all had their Hand together in the Dish, and dipped their Sops in the bitter Sauce. None of these three Evangelists give us any Account of the Time when Judas went out: But John, who is vastly more particular as to what passed that Night, and is every where more exact as to the Order of Time than the other Evangelists, gives us an Account, and is very precise as to the Time, namely that Jesus when he gave him the Sop, at the same Time sent him away, bidding him do quickly what he intended to do; and accordingly when he had received the Sop, he went immediately out. John 13:27-30. Now this Sop being at the Passover, it is evident he was not present at the Lord's Supper which followed. Many of the best Expositors are of this Opinion, such as Van Mastricht, Doctor Doddridge, and others.

ANSWER 2. If Judas was there, I deny the Consequence. As I have observed once and again concerning the Lord's Dealings with his People under the old Testament, so under the New the same Observation takes Place: Christ did not come to judge the Secrets of Man, nor did ordinarily act, in his external Dealings with his Disciples, and in Administration of Ordinances, as the Searcher of Hearts; but rather as the Head of the visible Church, proceeding according to what was exhibited in Profession and Visibility; herein setting an Example to his Ministers, who should stand in his Place when he was gone, and act in his Name in the Administration of Ordinances. Judas had made the same Profession of Regard to his Master, and of forsaking all for him, as the other Disciples: And therefore Christ did not openly renounce him until he himself had destroyed his Profession and Visibility of Saintship, by public scandalous Apostacy. Supposing then the Presence of Judas at the Lord's Supper, this affords no Consequence in Favour of what I oppose.

ANSWER 3. If they with whom I have to do in the Controversy, are not contented with the Answers already given, and think there is a remaining Difficulty in this Matter lying against my Scheme, I will venture to tell them, that the Difficulty lies full as hard against their own Scheme; and if there be any Strength at all in the Argument, it is to all Intents of the same Strength against the Need of those Qualifications which they themselves suppose to be necessary in order to an Approach to the Lord's Table, as against those which I think so. For although they do not think renewing saving Grace necessary, yet they suppose moral Seriousness or (as they variously speak) moral Sincerity in Religion to be necessary: They suppose it to be requisite, that Persons should have some Kind of serious Principle and View in coming to the Lord's Table; some Sort of Intention of subjecting themselves to Christ, and of seeking and serving him, in general; and in particular some religious End in coming to the Sacramental Supper, some religious Respect to Christ in it. But now did not Christ at that Time perfectly know, that Judas had none of these Things? He knew he had nothing of Sincerity in the Christian Religion, or of Regard to Christ in that Ordinance, of any Sort whatsoever; he knew, that Satan had entered into him and filled his Heart, and that he was then cherishing in himself a malignant malicious Spirit against his Master, excited by the Reproof Christ had lately given him. (Compare John 12:8 with Matthew 26:8-16 and Mark 14:4-11) and that he had already formed a traitorous murderous Design against him, and was now in the Prosecution of that bloody Design, having actually just before been to the chief Priests, and agreed with them to betray him for thirty Pieces of Silver. (See Matthew 26:14, 15, 16. Mark 14:10, 11. Luke 22:3-6 and John 13:2.) Christ knew these Things, and knew that Judas was utterly unqualified for the holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; though it had not yet been made known to the Church, or the Disciples. Therefore it concerns those on the contrary Part in this Controversy, to find out some Solution of this Difficulty, as much as it does me; and they will find they have as much Need to take Refuge in the Solution already given, in one or other of the two preceding Answers to this Objection.

By the Way I would observe, that Christ's not excluding Judas from the Passover, under these Circumstances, knowing him to be thus unqualified without so much as moral Sincerity, et cetera is another Thing that effectually enervates all the Strength of the Objection against me, from the Passover: For Judas did not only in common with others fall under God's strict Command, in the Law of Moses, to keep this Feast, without any Exception of his Case there to be found; but Christ himself with his own Hand gave him the Sop, a Part of the Paschal Feast; even although at the same Instant he had in View the Man's secret Wickedness and Hypocrisy, the traiterous Design which was then in his Heart, and the horrid Conspiracy with the chief Priests, which he had already entered into, and was now in Prosecution of: This was then in Christ's Mind, and he intimated it to him, at the same Moment when he gave him the Sop, saying, What you do, do quickly. This demonstrates, that the Objection from the Passover is no stronger Argument against my Scheme, than the Scheme of those whom I oppose; because it is no stronger against the Necessity of sanctifying Grace, the Qualification for Christian Sacraments, which I insist upon, than it is against the Necessity of moral Seriousness or Sincerity, the Qualification which they insist upon.

Objection 8. If sanctifying Grace be a requisite Qualification in order to Persons due Access to Christian Sacraments, God would have given some certain Rule, whereby those who are to admit them, might know whether they have such Grace, or not.

This Objection was obviated in my starting the Question. However, I will say something further to it in this Place; and would here observe, that if there be any Strength in this Objection, it lies in the Truth of this Proposition, namely, That whatever Qualifications are requisite in order to Persons due Access to Christian Sacraments, God has given some certain Rule, whereby those who admit them, may know whether they have those Qualifications, or not. If this Proposition is not true, then there is no Force at all in the Argument. But I dare say, there is not a Divine, nor Christian of common Sense, on the Face of the Earth, that will assert and stand to it, that this Proposition is true: For there is none will deny, that some Sort of Belief of the Being of a God, some Sort of Belief that the Scriptures are the Word of God, that there is a future State of Rewards and Punishments, and that Jesus is the Messiah, are Qualifications requisite in order to Persons due Access to Christian Sacraments; and yet God has given those who are to admit Persons no certain Rule, whereby they may know whether they believe any one of these Things. Neither has he given his Ministers or Churches any certain Rule, whereby they may know whether any Person that offers himself for Admission to the Sacrament, has any Degree of moral Sincerity, moral Seriousness of Spirit, or any inward moral Qualification whatsoever. These Things have all their Existence in the Soul, which is out of our Neighbour's View. Not therefore a Certainty, but a Profession and Visibility of these Things, must be the Rule of the Church's Proceeding; and it is as good and as reasonable a Rule of Judgment concerning saving Grace, as it is concerning any other internal invisible Qualifications, which cannot be certainly known by any but the Subject himself.

Objection 9. If sanctifying Grace be requisite to a due Approach to the Lord's Table, then no Man may come but he that knows he has such Grace. A Man must not only think he has a Right to the Lord's Supper, in order to his lawful partaking of it; but he must know he has a Right. If nothing but Sanctification gives him a real Right to the Lord's Supper, then nothing short of the Knowledge of Sanctification gives him a known Right to it: Only an Opinion and probable Hopes of a Right will not warrant his coming.

Answer 1. I desire those who insist on this as an invincible Argument, to consider calmly whether they themselves ever did, or ever will stand to it. For here these two Things are to be observed,

(1) If no Man may warrantably come to the Lord's Supper but such as know they have a Right, then no unconverted Persons may come unless they not only think, but know it is the Mind of God, that unconverted Persons should come, and know that he does not require Grace in order to their coming. For unless they know that Men may come without Grace, they cannot know that they themselves have a Right to come being without Grace. And will any one assert and stand to it, that of Necessity all adult Persons, of every Age, Rank and Condition of Life, must be so versed in this Controversy, as to have a Certainty in this Matter, in order to their coming to the Lord's Supper? It would be most absurd for any to assert it a Point of easy Proof, the Evidence of which is so clear and obvious to every one of every Capacity, as to supersede all Occasion for their being studied in Divinity, in Order to a Certainty of its Truth, That Persons may come to the sacred Table of the Lord, notwithstanding they know themselves to be unconverted! Especially considering, it seems a Matter of plain Fact, that the Contrary to this Opinion has been in general the Judgment of Protestant Divines and Churches, from the Reformation to this Day; and that the bigger Part of the greatest Divines that have ever appeared in the World, who have spent their Lives in the diligent prayerful study of Divinity, have been fixed in the Reverse of that Opinion. This is sufficient at least to show, that this Opinion is not so plain as not to be a disputable Point; and that the Evidence of it is not so obvious to Persons of the lowest Capacity and little Inquiry, as that all may come to a Certainty in the Matter, without Difficulty and without Study. I would humbly ask here. What has been the Case in Fact in our Churches, who have practised for so many Years on this Principle? Can it be pretended, or was it ever supposed, that the Communicants in general, even Persons of mean Intellectuals and low Education, not excepting the very Boys and Girls of sixteen Years old, that have been taken into the Church, had so studied Divinity, as not only to think, but know, that our pious Forefathers, and almost all the Protestant and Christian Divines in the World have been in an Error in this Matter? And have People ever been taught the Necessity of this previous Knowlege? Has it ever been insisted upon, that before Persons come to the Lord's Supper they must look so far into the Case of a Right to the Lord's Supper, as to come not only to a full settled Opinion, but even Certainty in this Point? And has any one Minister or Church in their Admissions ever proceeded on the Supposition, that all whom they took into Communion were so versed in this Controversy, as this comes to? Has it ever been the Manner in examining them as to the Sufficiency of their Knowledge, to examine them as to their thorough Acquaintance with this particular Controversy? Has it been the Manner to put by those who had only an Opinion and not a Certainty; even as the Priests who could not find their Register, were put by, until the Matter could be determined by Urim and Thummim? And I dare appeal to every Minister, and every Member of a Church that has been concerned in admitting Communicants, whether they ever imagined, or it ever entered into their Thought, concerning each One whose Admission they have consented to, that they had looked so much into this Matter, as not only to have settled their Opinion, but to be arrived to a proper Certainty?

(2) I desire it may be remembered, the venerable Author of the Appeal to the Learned, did in his Ministry ever teach such Doctrine from whence it will unavoidably follow, that no one unconverted Man in the World can know he has Warrant to come to the Lord's Supper. For if any unconverted Man has Warrant to worship his Maker in this Way, it must be because God has given him Warrant by the Revelation of his Mind in the holy Scriptures. And therefore if any unconverted Man, not only think, but knows, he has Warrant from God, he must of Consequence, not only think, but know, that the Scriptures are the Word of God. But I believe all that survive of the stated Hearers of that eminent Divine, and all who were acquainted with him, well remember it to be a Doctrine which he often taught and much insisted on, that no natural Man knows the Scripture to be the Word of God; that although such may think so, yet they do not know it; and that at best they have but a doubtful Opinion: And he often would express himself thus; No natural Man is thoroughly, convinced, that the Scriptures are the Word of God; if they were convinced, they would be gained. Now, if so, it is impossible any natural Man in the World should ever know, it is his Right, in his present Condition, to come to the Lord's Supper. True, he may think it is his Right, he may have that Opinion: but he cannot know it; and so must not come, according to this Argument. For it is only the Word of God in the holy Scriptures, that gives a Man a Right to worship the supreme Being in this Sacramental Manner, and to come to him in this Way, or any other, as one in Covenant with him. The Lord's Supper being no Branch of natural Worship, Reason without Institution is no Ground of Duty or Right in this Affair. And hence it is plainly impossible for those that do not so much as know the Scriptures are the Word of God, to know they have any good Ground of Duty or Right in this Matter. Therefore, supposing unconverted Men have a real Right, yet since they have no known Right, they have no Warrant (according to the Argument before us) to take and use their Right; and what Good then can their Right do them? Or how can they excuse themselves from Presumption, in claiming a Right, which they do not know belongs to them? It is said, A probable Hope that Persons are regenerate, will not warrant them to come; if they come, they take a Liberty to do that which they do not know God gives them Leave to do, which is horrible Presumption in them. But if this be good arguing, I may as well say, a probable Opinion that unregenerate Men may communicate, will not warrant such to do it. They must have certain Knowledge of this: else, their Right being uncertain, they run a dreadful Venture in coming.

ANSWER 2. Men are liable to doubt concerning their moral Sincerity, as well as saving Grace. If an unconverted Man, sensible of his being under the reigning Power of Sin, was about to appear solemnly to own the Covenant (as it is commonly called) and to profess to give up himself to the Service of God in an universal and persevering Obedience; and at the same time knew, that if he did this, and sealed this Profession at the Lord's Supper, without moral Sincerity (supposing him to understand the meaning of that Phrase) he should eat and drink Judgment to himself; and if accordingly, his Conscience being awakened, he was afraid of God's Judgment; in this Case, I believe, the Man would be every whit as liable to Doubts about his moral Sincerity, as godly Men are about their gracious Sincerity. And if it be not Matter of Fact, that natural Men are so often exercised and troubled with Doubts about their moral Sincerity, as godly Men are about their Regeneration, I suppose it to be owing only to this Cause, namely that godly Men being of more tender Consciences than those under the Dominion of Sin, are more afraid of God's Judgments, and more ready to tremble at his Word. The Divines on the other Side of the Question, suppose it to be requisite, that Communicants should believe the Fundamental Doctrines of Religion with all their Heart (in the Sense of Acts 8:37.) the Doctrine of three Persons and one God, in particular: But I think, there can be no reasonable Doubt, that natural Men, who have so weak and poor a Kind of Faith in these Mysteries, if they were indeed as much afraid of terrible Consequences of their being deceived in this Matter, or being not morally sincere in their Profession of the Truth, as truly gracious Men are wont to be of Delusion concerning their Experience of a Work of Grace, or whether they are evangelically sincere in choosing God for their Portion; the former would be as frequently exercised with Doubts in the one Case, as the latter in the other. And I very much question, whether any Divine on the other Side of the Controversy would think it necessary, that natural Men in professing those Things should mean that they know they are morally sincere, or intend any more than that they trust they have that Sincerity, so far as they know their own Hearts. If a Man should come to them, proposing to join with the Church, and tell them, though indeed he was something afraid whether he believed the Doctrine of the Trinity with all his Heart, (meaning in a moral Sense) yet that he had often examined himself as to that Matter with the utmost Impartiality and Strictness he was capable of, and on the whole he found Reasons of probable Hope, and his preponderating Thought of himself was, that he was sincere in it; would they think such an one ought to be rejected, or would they advise him not to come to the Sacrament, because he did not certainly know he had this Sincerity, but only thought he had it!

ANSWER 3. If we suppose sanctifying Grace to be requisite in order to a being properly qualified, according to God's Word, for an Attendance on the Lord's Supper; yet it will not follow, that a Man must know he has this Qualification, in order to his being capable of conscientiously attending it. If he judges, that he has it, according to the best Light he can obtain, on the most careful Examination, with the Improvement of such Helps as he can get, the Advice of his Pastor, etcetera he may be bound in Conscience to attend. And the Reason in this; Christians partaking of the Lord's Supper is not a Matter of mere Claim, or Right and Privilege, but a Matter of Duty and Obligation; being an Affair wherein another (even God) has a Claim and Demand on us. And as we ought to be careful, on the one Hand, that we proceed on good Grounds in taking to ourselves a Privilege, lest we take what we have no good Claim to; so we should be equally careful, on the other Hand, to proceed on good Grounds in what we withhold from another, lest we do not withhold that from him which is his Due, and which he justly challenges from us. Therefore in a Case of this complex Nature, where a Thing is both a Matter of Right or Privilege to us, and also a Matter of Obligation to another, or a Right of his from us, the Danger of proceeding without Right and Truth is equal both Ways; and consequently, if we cannot be absolutely sure either Way, here the best Judgment we can form, after all proper Endeavours to know the Truth, must govern and determine us; otherwise we shall designedly do that whereby, according to our own Judgment, we run the greatest Risk; which is certainly contrary to Reason. If the Question were only what a Man has a Right to, he might forbear until he were sure: But the Question is, not only whether he has Right to attend the Supper, but whether God also has not a Right to his Attendance there? Supposing it were merely a Privilege, which I am allowed in a certain specified Case, and there were no Command to take the Lord's Supper even in that Case, but yet at the same Time there was a Command not to take unless that be the Case in Fact, then, supposing I am uncertain whether that be the Case with me or no, it will be safest to abstain: But supposing I am not only forbidden to take it, unless that be the Case with me, but positively commanded and required to take it, if that be the Case in Fact, then it is equally dangerous to neglect on Uncertainties, as to take on Uncertainties. In such a critical Situation, a Man must act according to the best of his Judgment on his Case; otherwise he wilfully runs into that which he thinks the greatest Danger of the two.

Thus it is in innumerable Cases in human Life. I shall give one plain Instance: A Man ought not to take upon him the Work of the Ministry, unless called to it in the Providence of God; For a Man has no Right to take this Honour to himself, unless called of God. Now let us suppose a young Man, of a liberal Education and well accomplished, to be at a Loss whether it is the Will of God that he should follow the Work of the Ministry; and he examines himself, and examines his Circumstances, with great Seriousness and solemn Prayer, and well considers and weighs the Appearances in divine Providence: And yet when he has done all, he is not come to a proper Certainty, that God calls him to this Work; but however, it looks so to him, according to the best Light he can obtain and the most careful Judgment he can form: now such a one appears obliged in Conscience to give himself to this Work. He must by no Means neglect it under a Notion that he must not take this Honour to himself, until he knows he has a Right to it; because, though it be indeed a Privilege, yet it is not a Matter of mere Privilege, but a Matter of Duty too; and if he neglects it under these Circumstances, he neglects what according to his own best Judgment, he thinks God requires of him, and calls him to; which is to sin against his Conscience.

As to the Case of the Priests, that could not find their Register (Ezra 2) alleged in the Appeal to the Learned (page 64.) it appears to me of no Force in this Argument; for if those Priests had had never so great Assurance in themselves of their Pedigree being good, or of their being descended from Priests, and should have professed such Assurance; yet it would not have availed, nor did they abstain from the Priesthood, because they wanted Satisfaction themselves, but they were subject to the Judgment of the Sanhedrin; whose Rule to judge of the Qualification spoken of, God had never made any Profession of the Parties themselves, but the Visibility of the Thing and Evidence of the Fact to their own Eyes: this Matter of Pedigree being an external Object, ordinarily within the View of Man; and not any Qualification of Heart. But this is not the Case with Regard to requisite Qualifications for the Lord's Supper, which being many of them internal invisible Things, seated in the Mind and Heart, such as the Belief of a supreme Being, etcetera God has made a credible Profession of these Things the Rule to direct in Admission of Persons to the Ordinance: Who in making this Profession are determined and governed by their own Judgment of themselves, and not by any Thing within the View of the Church.

OBJECTION 10. The natural Consequence of the Doctrine which has been maintained, is the bringing Multitudes of Persons of a tender Conscience and true Piety into great Perplexities; who being at a Loss about the State of their Souls, must needs be as much in Suspense about their Duty: And it is not reasonable, to suppose, that God would order Things so in the Revelations of his Will, as to bring his own People into such Perplexities.

ANSWER 1. It is for Want of the like Tenderness of Conscience which the Godly have, that the other Doctrine which insists on moral Sincerity, does not naturally bring those who are received to Communion on those Principles, into the same Perplexities, through their doubting of their moral Sincerity, of their believing Mysteries with all their Heart, etcetera as has been already observed. And a being free from Perplexity, only through Stupidity and Hardness of Heart, is worse than being in the greatest Perplexity through Tenderness of Conscience.

ANSWER 2. Supposing the Doctrine which I have maintained, be indeed the Doctrine of God's Word, yet it will not follow, that the Perplexities true Saints are in through doubting of their State, are Effects owing to the Revelations of God's Word. Perplexity and Distress of Mind, not only on Occasion of the Lord's Supper, but innumerable other Occasions, is the natural and unavoidable Consequence of true Christians doubting of their State. But shall we therefore say, that all these Perplexities are owing to the Word of God? No, it is not owing to God, nor to any of his Revelations, that true Saints ever doubt of their State; his Revelations are plain and clear, and his Rules sufficient for Men to determine their own Condition by: But, for the most Part, it is owing to their own Sloth, and giving Way to their sinful Dispositions. Must God's Institutions and Revelations be answerable for all the Perplexities Men bring on themselves, through their own Negligence and Unwatchfulness? It is wisely ordered it should be so, that the Saints should escape Perplexity in no other Way than that of great Strictness, Diligence, and maintaining the lively, laborious and self-denying Exercises of Religion.

It might as well be said, that it is unreasonable to suppose, God should order Things so as to bring his own People into such Perplexities, as doubting Saints are wont to be exercised with in the sensible Approaches of Death; when their Doubts tend to vastly greater Perplexity, than in their Approaches to the Lord's Table. If Christians would more thoroughly exercise themselves unto Godliness, labouring always to keep a Conscience void of Offence both towards God and towards Man, it would be the Way to have the Comfort and taste the Sweetness of Religion. If they would so run, not as uncertainly; so fight, not as they that beat the Air; it would be the Way for them to escape Perplexity, both in Ordinances and Providences, and to rejoice and enjoy God in both.— Not but that doubting of their State sometimes arises from other Causes, besides want of Watchfulness; it may arise from Melancholy, and some other peculiar Disadvantages. But however, it is not owing to God's Revelations nor Institutions; which, whatsoever we may suppose them to be, will not prevent the Perplexities of such Persons.

Answer 3. It appears to me reasonable, to suppose, that the Doctrine I maintain, if universally embraced by God's People, however it might be an accidental Occasion of Perplexity in many Instances, through their own Infirmity and Sin; yet, on the whole, would be a happy Occasion of much more Comfort to the Saints, than Trouble, as it would have a Tendency on every Return of the Lord's Supper, to put them on the strictest Examination and Trial of the State of their Souls, agreeable to that Rule of the Apostle 1 Corinthians 11:28. The Neglect of which great Duty of frequent and thorough Self-Examination, seems to be one main Cause of the Darkness and Perplexity of the Saints, and the Reason why they have so little Comfort in Ordinances, and so little Comfort in general. Mister Stoddard often taught his People, that Assurance is attainable, and that those who are true Saints might know it, if they would; that is if they would use proper Means and Endeavours in order to it. And if so, then certainly it is not just, to charge those Perplexities on God's Institutions, which arise through Men's Negligence; nor would it be just on the Supposition of God's Institutions being such as I suppose them to be.

Objection 11. You may as well say, that unsanctified Persons may not attend any Duty of divine Worship whatsoever, as that they may not attend the Lord's Supper; for all Duties of Worship are holy, and require Holiness in order to an acceptable Performance of them, as well as that.

Answer. If this Argument has any Foundation at all, it has its Foundation in the supposed Truth of the following Propositions, namely Whosoever is qualified for Admission to one Duty of divine Worship, is qualified for Admission to all; and he that is unqualified for one, and may be forbidden one, is unqualified for all, and ought to be allowed to attend none. But certainly these Propositions are not true. There are many who are qualified for some Duties of Worship, and may be allowed, and are by no Means to be forbidden to attend them, who yet are not qualified for some others, nor by any Means to be admitted to them. As every Body grants, the Unbaptised, the Excommunicated, Heretics, scandalous Livers, et cetera may be admitted to hear the Word preached; nevertheless they are not to be allowed to come to the Lord's Supper. Even excommunicated Persons remain still under the Law of the Sabbath, and are not to be forbidden to observe the Lord's Day. Ignorant Persons, such as have not Knowledge sufficient for an Approach to the Lord's Table, yet are not excused from the Duty of Prayer: They may pray to God to instruct them, and assist them in obtaining Knowledge. They who have been educated in Arianism and Socinianism, and are not yet brought off from these fundamental Errors, and so are by no Means to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, yet may pray to God to assist them in their Studies, and guide them into the Truth, and for all other Mercies which they need. Socrates, that great Gentile Philosopher, who worshipped the true God, as he was led by the Light of Nature, might pray to God, and he attended his Duty when he did so; although he knew not the Revelation, which God had made of himself in his Word. That great Philosopher that was contemporary with the Apostle Paul, I mean Seneca, who held one supreme Being, and had in many Respects right Notions of the divine Perfections and Providence, though he did not embrace the Gospel, which at that Day was preached in the World; yet might pray to that supreme Being whom he acknowledged. And if his Brother Gallio at Corinth, when Paul preached there, had prayed to this supreme Being to guide him into the Truth, that he might know whether the Doctrine Paul preached was true, he therein would have acted very becoming a reasonable Creature, and any one would have acted unreasonably in forbidding him: but yet surely neither of these Men was qualified for the Christian Sacraments. So that it is apparent, there is and ought to be a Distinction made between Duties of Worship, with Respect to Qualifications for them: and that which is a sufficient Qualification for Admission to one Duty, is not so for all. And therefore the Position is not true, which is the Foundation whereon the whole Weight of this Argument rests. To say, that although it be true there ought to be Distinction made, in Admission to Duties of Worship, with Regard to some Qualifications, yet sanctifying Grace is not one of those Qualifications that make the Difference; would be but a giving up the Argument, and a perfect begging the Question.

It is said, There can be no Reason assigned, why unsanctified Persons may attend other Duties of Worship, and not the Lord's Supper. But I humbly conceive, this must be an Inadvertence. For there is a Reason very obvious from that necessary and very notable Distinction among Duties of Worship, which follows:

1. There are some Duties of Worship, that imply a Profession of God's Covenant: whose very Nature and Design is an Exhibition of those vital active Principles and inward Exercises, wherein consists the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, or that Union of Soul to God, which is the Union between Christ and his Spouse, entered into by an inward hearty consenting to that Covenant. Such are the Christian Sacraments, whose very Design is to make and confirm a Profession of Compliance with that Covenant, and whose very Nature is to exhibit or express the uniting Acts of the Soul: those Sacramental Duties therefore cannot, by any whose Hearts do not really consent to that Covenant, and whose Souls do not truly close with Christ, be attended, without either their being self-deceived, or else wilfully making a false Profession, and lying in a very aggravated Manner.

2. There are other Duties, which are not in their own Nature an Exhibition of a Covenant-Union with God, or of any Compliance with the Condition of the Covenant of Grace; but are the Expression of general Virtues, or Virtues in their largest Extent, including both special and common. Thus Prayer, or asking Mercy of God, is in its own Nature no Profession of a Compliance with the Covenant of Grace: It is an Expression of some Belief of the Being of a God, an Expression of some Sense of our Wants, some Sense of our need of Help, and some Sense of a need of God's Help, some Sense of our Dependence, et cetera but not only such a Sense of these Things as is spiritual and saving. Indeed there are some Prayers proper to be made by Saints, and many Things proper to be expressed by them In Prayer, which imply the Profession of a spiritual Union of Heart to God through Christ, but such as no Heathen, no Heretic, nor natural Man whatever, can or ought to make. Prayer in general, and asking Mercy and Help from God, is no more a Profession of Consent to the Covenant of Grace, than Reading the Scriptures, or Meditation; or performing any Duty of Morality and natural Religion. A Mahometan may as well ask Mercy, as hear Instruction: And any natural Man may as well express his Desires to God, as hear when God declares his Will to him. It is true, when an unconverted Man prays, the Manner of his doing it is sinful. But when a natural Man, knowing himself to be so, comes to the Lord's Supper, the very Matter of what he does, in respect of the Profession he there makes, and his Pretension to lay Hold of God's Covenant, is a Lie, and a Lie told in the most solemn Manner.

In a Word, the venerable Mister Stoddard himself, in his Doctrine of instituted Churches, has taught us to distinguish between Instituted and natural Acts of Religion. The Word and Prayer he places under the Head of moral Duty, and considers as common to all; but the Sacraments, according to what he says there, being instituted, are of special Administration, and must be limited agreeable to the Institution.

Objection 12. The Lord's Supper has a proper Tendency to promote Men's Conversion being an affecting Representation of the greatest and most important Things of God's Word: It has a proper Tendency to awaken and humble Sinners; here being a Discovery of the terrible Anger of God for Sin, by the Infliction of the Curse upon Christ, when Sin was imputed to him; and the Representation here made of the dying Love of Christ has a Tendency to draw the Hearts of Sinners from Sin to God, et cetera

Answer. Unless it be an evident Truth, that what the Lord's Supper may have Tendency to promote, the same it was appointed to promote, nothing follows from this Argument. If the Argument affords any Consequence, the Consequence is built on the Tendency of the Lord's Supper. And if the Consequence be good and strong on this Foundation, as drawn from such Premises, then wherever the Premises hold, the Consequence holds; otherwise it must appear, that the Premises and Consequence are not connected. And now let us see how it is in Fact. Do not scandalous Persons need to have these very Effects wrought in their Hearts, which have been mentioned? Yes surely, They need them in a special Manner: They need to be awakened; they need to have an affecting Discovery of that terrible Wrath of God against Sin, which was manifested in a peculiar Manner by the terrible Effects of God's Wrath in the Sufferings of his own incarnate Son: Gross Sinners need this in some Respect more than others: They need to have their Hearts broken by an affecting View of the great and important Things of God's Word: They need especially to fly to Christ for Refuge, and therefore need to have their Hearts drawn. And seeing the Lord's Supper has so great a Tendency to promote these Things, if the Consequence from the Tendency of the Lord's Supper as inferring the End of its Appointment, be good, then it must be a Consequence also well inferred, that the Lord's Supper was appointed for the reclaiming and bringing to Repentance scandalous Persons.

Here, for any to go to turn this off by saying, Scandalous Persons are expressly forbid, is but a giving up the Argument, and a begging the Question. It is a giving up the Argument; since it allows the Consequence not to be good. For it allows, that notwithstanding the proper Tendency of the Lord's Supper to promote a Design, yet it may be so that the Lord's Supper was not appointed with a View to promote that End. And it is a begging the Question; since it supposes, that unconverted Men are not evidently forbidden, as well as scandalous Persons; which is the Thing in Controversy. If they be evidently forbid, that is as much to reasonable Creatures (who need nothing but good Evidence) as if they were expressly forbidden. To say here, that the Lord's Supper is a converting Ordinance only to orderly Members, and that there is another Ordinance appointed for bringing scandalous Persons to Repentance, this is no Solution of the Difficulty; but is only another Instance of yielding up the Argument and begging the Question: For it plainly concedes, that the Tendency of an Ordinance does not prove it appointed to all the Ends, which it seems to have a Tendency to promote; and also supposes, that there is not any other Ordinance, appointed for the Converting of Sinners that are moral and orderly in their Lives, exclusive of this, which is the Thing in Question.

It is at best but very precarious arguing, from the seeming Tendency of Things, to the divine Appointment, or God's Will and Disposition with Respect to the Use of those Things. It looks as though it would have had a great Tendency to convince the Scribes and Pharisees, and to promote their Conversion, if they had been admitted into the Mount when Christ was transfigured: But yet it was not the Will of Christ, that they should be admitted there, or any other but Peter, James and John. It seems as though it would have had a very great Tendency to convince and bring to Repentance the unbelieving Jews, if they had been allowed to see and converse freely with Christ after his Resurrection, and see him ascend into Heaven; But yet it was the Will of God, that none but Disciples should be admitted to these Privileges. So it seems as though it might have had a good Tendency, if all that were sincere Followers of Christ, Women as well as Men, had been allowed to be present at the Institution of the Lord's Supper: But yet it is commonly thought, none were admitted beside the Apostles.

Indeed the ever honoured Author of the Appeal to the Learned has supplied me with the true and proper Answer to this Objection, in the following Words, page 27, 28. The Efficacy of the Lord's Supper does depend upon the Blessing of God. Whatever TENDENCY Ordinances have in their OWN NATURE to be serviceable to Men, yet they will not prevail any further than God does bless them. The Weapons of our Warfare are mighty through God, 2 Corinthians 10:4. It is God that teaches Men to profit, and makes them profitable and serviceable to Men's Souls. There is Reason to hope for a divine Blessing on the Lord's Supper, when it is administered to those that it ought to be administered to; God's Blessing is to be expected in God's Way. If Men act according to their own Humors and Fancies, and do not keep in the Way of Obedience, it is Presumption to expect God's Blessing. Matthew 15:9 In vain do they Worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. But when they are admitted to the Lord's Supper that God would have to be admitted, there is Ground to hope that he will make it profitable.

OBJECTION 13. All that are Members of the visible Church and in the external Covenant, and neither ignorant nor scandalous, are commanded to perform all external Covenant-Duties; and particularly they are commanded to attend the Lord's Supper, in those Words of Christ, This do in Remembrance of me

ANSWER. This Argument is of no Force, without first taking for granted the very Thing in Question. For this is plainly supposed in it, that however these Commands are given to such as are in the external Covenant, yet they are not given indefinitely, but with Exceptions and Reserves, and do not immediately reach all such; they do not reach those who are unqualified, though they be in the external Covenant. Now the Question is, who are these that are unqualified? The Objection supposes, that only ignorant and scandalous Persons are so. But why are they only supposed unqualified; and not unconverted Persons too? Because it is taken for granted, that these are not unqualified. And thus the grand Point in Question is supposed, instead of being proved. Why are these Limitations only singled out, neither Ignorant nor Scandalous; and not others as well? The Answer must be, because these are all the Limitations which the Scripture makes: But this now is the very Thing in Question. Whereas, the Business of an Argument is to prove, and not to suppose, or take for granted, the very Thing which is to be proved.

If it be here said, It is with good Reason that those who are Ignorant or Scandalous alone are supposed to be excepted in God's Command, and Obligations of the Covenant; for the Covenant spoken of in the Objection, is the external Covenant, and this requires only external Duties; which alone are what lie within the Reach of Man's natural Power, and so in the Reach of his legal Power: God does not command or require what Men have no natural Power to perform, and which cannot be performed before something else, some antecedent Duty, is performed, which antecedent Duty is not in their natural Power.

I reply, Still Things are but supposed, which should be proved, and which want Confirmation.

(1) It is supposed, that those who have externally (that is, by oral Profession and Promise) entered into God's Covenant, are thereby obliged to no more than the external Duties of that Covenant: which is not proved, and, I humbly conceive, is certainly not the true State of the Case. They who have externally entered into God's Covenant, are by external Profession and Engagements entered into that one only Covenant of Grace, which the Scripture informs us of; and therefore are obliged to fulfill the Duties of that Covenant, which are chiefly internal. The Children of Israel, when they externally entered into Covenant with God at Mount Sinai, promised to perform all the Duties of the Covenant, to obey all the ten Commandments spoken by God in their Hearing, and written in Tables of Stone, which were therefore called the Tables of the Covenant; the Sum of which ten Commands was, to LOVE the Lord their God with all their HEART, and with all their SOUL, and to LOVE their Neighbour as themselves; which principally at least are internal Duties. In particular, they promised not to Covet; which is an internal Duty. They promised to have no other God before the Lord; which implied, that they would in their Hearts regard no other Being or Object whatever above God, or in Equality with him, but would give Him their supreme Respect.

(2) It is supposed, that God does not require Impossibilities of Men, in this Sense, that he does not require those Things of them which are out of their natural Power, and particularly that he does not require them to be converted. But this is not proved; nor can I reconcile it with the Tenor of the Scripture-Revelation: And the chief Advocates for the Doctrine I oppose, have themselves abundantly asserted the contrary. The venerable Author forementioned, as every Body knows, that knew him, always taught, that God justly requires Men to be converted, to repent of their Sins, and turn to the Lord, to close with Christ, and savingly to believe in him; and that in refusing to accept of Christ and turn to God, they disobeyed the divine Commands, and were guilty of the most heinous Sin; and that their moral Inability was no Excuse.

(3) It is supposed, that God does not command Men to do those Things which are not to be done until something else is done, that is not within the Reach of Men's natural Ability. This also is not proved; nor do I see how it can be true, even according to the Principles of those who insist on this Objection. The fore-mentioned memorable Divine ever taught, that God commands natural Men without Delay to believe in Christ; and yet he always held, that it was impossible for them to believe until they had by a preceding Act submitted to the Sovereignty of God; which yet, he held, Men never could do of Themselves, nor until humbled and bowed by powerful Convictions of God's Spirit. Again, He taught, that God commands natural Men to love Him with all their Heart: and yet he held, that this could not be until Men had first believed in Christ; the Exercise of Love being a Fruit of Faith: and believing in Christ, he supposed not to be within the Reach of Man's natural Ability. Further, he held, that God requires of all Men holy spiritual and acceptable Obedience; and yet that such Obedience is not within the Reach of their natural Ability; and not only so, but that there must first be Love to God, before there could be new Obedience, and that this Love to God is not within the Reach of Men's natural Ability: nor yet only so, but that before this Love there must be Faith, which Faith is not within the Reach of Man's natural Power: and still not only so, but that before Faith there must be the Knowledge of God, which Knowledge is not in natural Men's Reach: and once more, not only so, but that even before the Knowledge of God there must be a thorough Humiliation, which Humiliation Men could not work in themselves by any natural Power of their own. Now, must it needs be thought, notwithstanding all these Things, unreasonable to suppose, that God should command those whom he has nourished and brought up, to honor him by giving an open Testimony of Love to Him; only because wicked Men cannot testify Love until they have Love, and Love is not in their natural Power! And is it any good Excuse in the Sight of God, for one who is under the highest Obligations to Him, and yet refuses Him suitable Honor by openly testifying his Love of Him, to plead that He has no Love to testify; but on the contrary, has an infinitely unreasonable Hatred? God may most reasonably require a proper Testimony and Profession of Love to Him; and yet it may also be reasonable to suppose, at the same Time, He forbids Men to lie; or to declare that they have Love, when they have none: Because, though it be supposed, that God requires Men to testify Love to Him, yet he requires them to do it in a right Way, and in the true Order, namely first loving Him, and then testifying their Love.

(4) I do not see how it can be true, that a Man, as he is naturally, has not a legal Power to be converted, accept of Christ, love God, etc. By a legal Power to do a Thing, is plainly meant such Power as brings a Person properly within the Reach of a legal Obligation, or the Obligation of a Law or Command to do that Thing: But he that has such natural Faculties, as render him a proper Subject of moral Government, and as speak it a fit and proper Thing for him to love God, etc. and as given him a natural Capacity herefor; such a one may properly be [reconstructed: commanded] and put under the Obligation of a Law to do Things so reasonable; notwithstanding any native Aversion and moral Inability in him to do his Duty, arising from the Power of Sin. This also, I must observe, was a known Doctrine of Mr. Stoddard's, and what he ever taught.

OBJECTION 14. Either unsanctified Persons may lawfully come to the Lord's Supper, or it is unlawful for them to carry themselves as Saints; but it is not unlawful for them to carry themselves as Saints.

ANSWER. It is the Duty of unconverted Men both to become Saints, and to behave as Saints. The Scripture Rule is, Make the Tree good, that the Fruit may be good. Mr. Stoddard himself never supposed, that the Fruit of Saints was to be expected from Men, or could possibly be brought forth by them in Truth, until they were Saints.

And I see not how it is true, that unconverted Men ought, in every Respect, to do those external Things, which it is the Duty of a godly Man to do. It is the Duty of a godly Man, conscious of his having given his Heart unto the Lord, to profess his Love to God and his Esteem of him above all, his unfeigned Faith in Christ, etc. and in his Closet-Devotions to thank God for these Graces as the Fruit of the Spirit in him: But it is not the Duty of another that really has no Faith, nor Love to God, to do thus. Neither any more is it a natural Man's Duty to profess these Things in the Lord's Supper. Mr. Stoddard taught it to be the Duty of Converts, on many Occasions, to profess their Faith and Love and other Graces before Men, by relating their Experiences in Conversation: But it would be great Wickedness, for such as know themselves to be not Saints, thus to do because they would speak falsely, and utter Lies in so doing. Now, for the like Reason, it would be very sinful, for Men to profess and seal their Consent to the Covenant of Grace in the Lord's Supper, when they know at the same Time that they do not consent to it, nor have their Hearts at all in the Affair.

OBJECTION 15. This Scheme will keep out of the Church some true Saints; for there are some such who determine against themselves, and their prevailing Judgment is, that they are not Saints: and we had better let in several Hypocrites, than exclude one true Child of God.

ANSWER. I think, it is much better to insist on some Visibility to Reason, of true Saintship, in admitting Members, even although this through Men's Infirmity and Darkness, and Satan's Temptations, be an Occasion of some true Saints abstaining; than by express Liberty given, to open the Door to as many as please, of those who have no Visibility of real Saintship, and make no Profession of it, nor Pretension to it; and that because this Method tends to the Ruin and great Reproach of the Christian Church, and also to the Ruin of the Persons admitted.

1. It tends to the Reproach and Ruin of the Christian Church. For by the Rule which God has given for Admissions, if it be carefully attended (it is said) MORE Unconverted, than Converted Persons, will be admitted. It is then confessedly the Way to have the greater Part of the Members of the Christian Church ungodly Men; yea, so much greater, that the godly shall be but few in Comparison of the Ungodly; agreeable to their Interpretation of that Saying of Christ, Many are called, but few are chosen. Now, if this be an exact State of the Case, it will demonstrably follow, on Scripture Principles, that the opening the Door so wide has a direct Tendency to bring Things to that Pass, that the far bigger Part of the Members of Christian Churches shall not be Persons of so much as a serious conscientious Character, but such as are without even moral Sincerity, and do not make Religion at all their Business, neglecting and casting off secret Prayer and other Duties, and living a Life of Carnality and Vanity, so far as they can, consistently with avoiding Church-Censures; which possibly may be sometimes to a great Degree. Ungodly Men may be morally sober, serious and conscientious, and may have what is called moral Sincerity, for a while; may have these Things in a considerable Measure, when they first come into the Church: But if their Hearts are not changed, there is no Probability at all of these Things continuing long. The Scripture has told us, that this their Goodness is apt to vanish like the Morning Cloud and Early Dew. How can it be expected but that the Religion should in a little Time wither away, which has no Root? How can it be expected, that the Lamp should burn long, without Oil in the Vessel to feed it? If Lust be unmortified, and left in reigning Power in the Heart, it will sooner or later prevail; and at Length sweep away common Grace and moral Sincerity, however excited and maintained for a while by Conviction and temporary Affections. It will happen to them according to the true Proverb, The Dog it returned to his Vomit; and the Swine that was washed, to his wallowing in the Mire It is said of the Hypocrite, Will he delight himself in the Almighty? Will he always call upon God? —And thus our Churches will be likely to be such Congregations as the Psalmist said he hated, and would not sit with. Psalm 26:4, 5. I have not sat with vain Persons, nor will I go in with Dissemblers; I have hated the Congregation of Evil Doers, nor will I sit with the Wicked. This will be the Way to have the Lord's Table ordinarily furnished with such Guests as allow themselves to live in known Sin, and so such as meet together from Time to Time only to crucify Christ afresh, instead of commemorating his Crucifixion with the Repentance, Faith, Gratitude and Love of Friends. And this is the Way to have the governing Part of the Church such as are not even conscientious Men, and are careless about the Honor and Interest of Religion. And the direct Tendency of that is, in process of Time, to introduce a prevailing Negligence in Discipline, and carelessness in seeking Ministers of a pious and worthy Character. And the next Step will be the Churches being filled with Persons openly vicious in Manners, or else scandalously erroneous in Opinions: It is well if this be not already the Case in Fact with some Churches that have long professed and practiced on the Principles I oppose. And if these Principles should be professed and proceeded on by Christian Churches everywhere, the natural Tendency of it would be, to have the bigger Part of what is called the Church of Christ, through the World, made up of vicious and erroneous Persons. And how greatly would this be to the Reproach of the Christian Church, and of the holy Name and Religion of Jesus Christ in the Sight of all Nations?

And now is it not better, to have a few real living Christians kept back through Darkness and Scruples, than to open a Door for the letting in such universal Ruin as this? To illustrate it by a familiar Comparison; Is it not better, when England is at War with France, to keep out of the British Realm a few loyal Englishmen, than to give Leave for as many treacherous Frenchmen to come in as please?

2. This Way tends to the eternal Ruin of the Parties admitted: For it lets in such yea it persuades such to come in, as know themselves to be impenitent and unbelieving, in a dreadful Manner to take God's Name in vain; in vain to worship him, and abuse sacred Things, by solemnly performing those external Acts and Rites in the Name of God, which are instituted for declarative Signs and Professions of Repentance toward God, Faith in Christ, and Love to Him, at the same Time that they know themselves destitute of those Things which they profess to have. And is it not better, that some true Saints, through their own Weakness and Misunderstanding, should be kept away from the Lord's Table, which will not keep such out of Heaven; than voluntarily to bring in Multitudes of false Professors to partake unworthily, and in Effect to seal their own Condemnation?

OBJECT. 16. You cannot keep out Hypocrites, when all is said and done; but as many graceless Persons will be likely to get into the Church in the Way of a Profession of Godliness, as if nothing were insisted on but a Freedom from public Scandal.

ANSW. It may possibly be so in some Places, through the Misconduct of Ministers and People, by Remissness in their Inquiries, Carelessness as to the proper Matter of a Profession, or setting up some mistaken Rules of Judgment; neglecting those Things which the Scripture insists upon as the most essential Articles in the Character of a real Saint; and substituting others in the Room of them; such as Impressions on the Imagination, instead of renewing Influences on the Heart; Pangs of Affection, instead of the habitual Temper of the Mind; a certain Method and Order of Impressions and Suggestions, instead of the Nature of Things experienced etc. But to say, that in Churches where the Nature, the Notes and Evidences of true Christianity, as described in the Scriptures, are well understood, taught and observed, there as many Hypocrites are likely to get in; or to suppose, that there as many of those Persons of an honest Character, who are well instructed in these Rules, and well conducted by them, and judging of themselves by these Rules, do think themselves true Saints, and accordingly make Profession of Godliness, and are admitted as Saints in a Judgment of rational Charity; (to suppose, I say) as many of these are likely to be carnal unconverted Men, as of those who make no such Pretense and have no such Hope, nor exhibit any such Evidences to the Eye of a judicious Charity, is not so much an Objection against the Doctrine I am defending, as a Reflection upon the Scripture itself, with Regard to the Rules it gives, either for Persons to judge of their own State, or for others to form a charitable Judgment by, as if they were of little or no Service at all. We are in miserable Circumstances indeed, if the Rules of God's holy Word in Things of such infinite Importance, are so ambiguous and uncertain, like the heathen Oracles. And it would be very strange, if in these Days of the Gospel, when God's Mind is revealed with such great Plainness of Speech, and the Canon of Scripture is completed, it should ordinarily be the Case in Fact, that those who having a right doctrinal understanding of the Scripture, and judging themselves by its Rules, do probably conclude or seriously hope of themselves, that they are real Saints, are as many of them in a State of Sin and Condemnation, as others who have no such rational Hope concerning their good Estate, nor pretend to any special Experiences in Religion.

OBJECT. 17. If a Profession of Godliness be a Thing required in order to Admission into the Church, there being some true Saints who doubt of their State, and from a tender Conscience will not dare to make such a Profession; and there being Others, that have no Grace, nor much Tenderness of Conscience, but great Presumption and Forwardness, who will boldly make the highest Profession of Religion, and so will get Admittance: it will hence come to pass, that the very Thing, which will in Effect procure for the latter an Admission, rather than the former, will be their Presumption and Wickedness.

ANSW. 1. It is no sufficient Objection against the Wholesomeness of a Rule established for the regulating the civil State of Mankind, that in some Instances Men's Wickedness may take Advantage by that Rule, so that even their Wickedness shall be the very Thing, which, by an Abuse of that Rule, procures them temporal Honors and Privileges. For such is the present State of Man in this evil World, that good Rules, in many Instances, are liable to be thus abused and perverted. As for Instance, there are many human Laws or Rules, accounted wholesome and necessary, by which an accused or suspected Person's own solemn Profession of Innocence, his asserting it upon Oath, shall be the Condition of Acquittance and Impunity; and the Want of such a Protestation or Profession shall expose him to the Punishment: And yet by an Abuse of these Rules, in some Instances, nothing but the horrid Sin of Perjury, or that most presumptuous Wickedness of false Swearing, shall be the very Thing that acquits a Man: while another of a more tender Conscience, who fears an Oath, must suffer the Penalty of the Law.

2. Those Rules, by all wise Lawgivers, are accounted wholesome, which prove of general good Tendency, notwithstanding any bad Consequences arising in some particular Instances. And as to the ecclesiastical Rule now in Question, of Admission to Sacraments on a Profession of Godliness, when attended with requisite Circumstances; although this Rule in particular Instances may be an Occasion of some tender-hearted Christians abstaining, and some presumptuous Sinners being admitted, yet that does not hinder but that a proper Visibility of Holiness to the Eye of Reason, or a Probability of it in a Judgment of rational Christian Charity, may this Way be maintained, as the proper Qualification of Candidates for Admission: nor does it hinder but that it may be reasonable and wholesome for Mankind, in their outward Conduct, to regulate themselves by such Probability; and that this should be a reasonable and good Rule for the Church to regulate themselves by in their Admissions; notwithstanding it is so happening in particular Instances, that Things are really diverse from, yea the very Reverse of, what they are visibly. Such a Profession as has been insisted on, when attended with requisite Circumstances, carries in it a rational Credibility in the Judgment of Christian Charity: For it ought to be attended with an honest and sober Character, and with Evidences of good doctrinal Knowledge, and with all proper, careful and diligent Instructions of a prudent Pastor: And though the Pastor is not to act as a Searcher of the Heart, or a Lord of Conscience in this Affair, yet that hinders not but that he may and ought to enquire particularly into the Experiences of the Souls committed to his Care and Charge, that he may be under the best Advantages to instruct and advise them, to apply the Teachings and Rules of God's Word unto them, for their Self-Examination, to be Helpers of their Joy, and Promoters of their Salvation. However, finally, not any pretended extraordinary Skill of his in discerning the Heart, but the Person's own serious Profession concerning what he finds in his own Soul, after he has been well instructed, must regulate the public Conduct with Respect to him, where there is no other external visible Thing to contradict and overrule it: And a serious Profession of Godliness, under these Circumstances, carries in it a Visibility to the Eye of the Church's rational and Christian Judgment.

3. If it be still insisted on, that a Rule of Admission into the Church can't be good, which is liable to such a Kind of Abuse as that fore-mentioned, I must observe, This will overthrow the Rules that the Objections themselves go by in their Admissions. For they insist upon it, that a Man must not only have Knowledge and be free of Scandal, but must appear orthodox and profess the common Faith. Now presumptuous Lying, for the Sake of the Honor of being in the Church, having Children baptized, and voting in ecclesiastical Affairs, may possibly be the very Thing that brings some Men into Church by this Rule; while greater Tenderness of Conscience may be the very Thing that keeps others out. For Instance, a Man who secretly in his Mind gives no Credit to the commonly received Doctrine of the Trinity, yet may, by pretending an assent to it, and in Hypocrisy making a public Profession of it, get into the Church; when at the same Time another that equally disbelieves it, but has a more tender Conscience than to allow himself in solemnly telling a Lie, may by that very Means be kept off from the Communion, and lie out of the Church.

OBJECTION 18. It seems hardly reasonable to suppose, that the only wise God has made Men's Opinion of themselves, and a Profession of it, the Term of their Admission to Church Privileges; when we know, that very often the worst Men have the highest Opinion of themselves.

ANSWER 1. It must be granted me, that in Fact this is the Case, if any proper Profession at all is expected and required, whether it be of sanctifying Grace, or of moral Sincerity, or any Thing else that is good: And to be sure, nothing is required to be professed, or is worthy to be professed, any further than it is good.

ANSWER 2. If some Things, by the Confession of all, must be professed for that very Reason, because they are good, and of great Importance; then certainly it must be owned very unreasonable, to say, that those Things wherein true Holiness consists are not to be professed, or that a Profession of them should not be required, for that same Reason, because they are good, even in the highest Degree, and infinitely the most important and most necessary Things of any in the World: And it is unreasonable to say, that it is the less to be expected we should profess sincere Friendship to Christ, because Friendship to Christ is the most excellent Qualification of any whatsoever, and the Contrary the most odious. How absurd is it to say this, merely under a Notion that for a Man to profess what is so good and so reasonable, is to profess a high Opinion of himself!

ANSWER 3. Though some of the worst Men are apt to entertain the highest Opinion of themselves, yet their Self Conceit is no Rule to the Church: But the apparent Credibility of Men's Profession is to be Ground of ecclesiastical Proceedings.

OBJECTION 19. If it be necessary that adult Persons should make a Profession of Godliness, in order to their own Admission to Baptism, then undoubtedly it is necessary in order to their Children's being baptized on their Account. For Parents can't convey to their Children a Right to this Sacrament, by virtue of any Qualifications lower than those requisite in order to their own Right: Children being admitted to Baptism, only as being as it were Parts and Members of their Parents. And besides, the Act of Parents in offering up their Children in a Sacrament, which is a Seal of the Covenant of Grace, is in them a solemn attending that Sacrament as Persons interested in the Covenant, and a public Manifestation of their approving and consenting to it, as truly as if they then offered up themselves to God in that Ordinance. Indeed it implies a renewed offering up themselves with their Children, and devoting both jointly to God in Covenant; Themselves, with their Children, as Parts of Themselves. But now what fearful Work will such Doctrine make amongst us! We shall have Multitudes unbaptized, who will go about without the external Badge of Christianity, and so in that Respect will be like Heathen. And this is the Way to have the Land full of Persons who are destitute of that which is spoken of in Scripture as ordinarily requisite to Men's Salvation; and it will bring a Reproach on vast Multitudes, with the Families they belong to: And not only so, but will tend to make them profane and heathenish; for by thus treating our Children, as though they had no Part in the Lord, we shall cause them to cease from fearing the Lord; agreeable to Joshua 22:24, 25.

ANSWER 1. As to Children's being destitute of that which is spoken of in Scripture as one Thing ordinarily requisite to Salvation; I would observe, that Baptism can do their Souls no Good any otherwise than through God's Blessing attending it: But we have no Reason to expect his Blessing with Baptism, if administered to those that it does not belong to by his Institution.

ANSWER 2. As to the Reproach, which will be brought on Parents and Children, by Children's going without Baptism, through the Parents neglecting a Profession of Godliness, and so visibly remaining among the Unconverted; if any insist on this Objection, I think it will savor of much Unreasonableness and even Stupidity.

It will savor of an unreasonable Spirit. Is it not enough, if God freely offers Men to own their Children and to give them the Honor of Baptism, in Case the Parents will turn from Sin and relinquish their Enmity against him, heartily give up themselves and their Children to him, and take upon them the Profession of Godliness? If Men are truly excusable, in not turning to God through Christ, in not believing with the Heart, and in not confessing with the Mouth, why do not we openly plead that they are so? And why do not we teach Sinners, that they are not to blame for continuing among the Enemies of Christ, and neglecting and despising his great Salvation? If they are not at all excusable in this, and it be wholly owing to their own indulged Lusts, that they refuse sincerely to give up themselves and their Children to God, then how unreasonable is it for them to complain that their Children are denied the Honor of having God's Mark set upon them as some of his? If Parents are angry at this, such a Temper shows them to be very senseless of their own vile Treatment of the blessed God. Should a Prince send to a Traitor in Prison, and upon opening the Prison-Doors, make him the Offer, that if he would come forth and submit himself to him, he should not only be pardoned himself, but both he and his Children should have such and such Badges of Honor conferred upon them: yet if the Rebel's Enmity and Stoutness of Spirit against his Prince is such, that he could not find it in his Heart to comply with the gracious Offer, will he have any Cause to be angry, that his Children have not those Badges of Honor given them? And besides it is very much owing to Parents, that there are so many young People who can make no Profession of Godliness: they have themselves therefore to blame, if the Case be so, that proceeding on the Principles which have been maintained, there is like to rise a Generation of unbaptized Persons. If Ancestors had thoroughly done their Duty to their Posterity in instructing, praying for, and governing their Children, and setting them good Examples, there is Reason to think, the Case would have been far otherwise.

The insisting on this Objection would savor of much Stupidity. For the Objection seems to suppose the Country to be full of those that are Unconverted, and so exposed every Moment to eternal Damnation; yet it seems we do not hear such great and general Complaints and lamentable Outcries concerning this. Now why is it looked upon so dreadful, to have great Numbers going without the Name and honorable Badge of Christianity, that there should be loud and general Exclamations concerning such a Calamity; when at the same Time it is no more resented and laid to Heart, that such Multitudes go without the Thing, which is infinitely more dreadful? Why are we so silent about this? What is the Name good for, without the Thing? Can Parents bear to have their Children go about the World in the most odious and dangerous State of Soul, in Reality the Children of the Devil, and condemned to eternal Burnings; when at the same Time they can't bear to have them disgraced by going without the Honor of being baptized! An high Honor and Privilege this is; yet how can Parents be contented with the Sign, exclusive of the Thing signified! Why should they covet the external Honor for their Children, while they are so careless about the spiritual Blessing! Does not this argue a Senselessness of their own Misery, as well as of their Children's, in being in a Christless State? If a Man and his Child were both together bitten by a Viper, dreadfully swollen, and like to die, would it not argue Stupidity in the Parent, to be anxiously concerned only about his Child's having on a dirty Garment in such Circumstances, and angry at others for not putting some outward Ornament upon it? But the Difference in this present Case is infinitely greater and more important. Let Parents pity their poor Children, because they are without Baptism; and pity themselves, who are in Danger of everlasting Misery, while they have no Interest in the Covenant of Grace, and so have no Right to Covenant-Favors or Honors, for themselves nor Children. No religious Honors, to be obtained in any other Way than by real Religion, are much worth contending for. And in Truth, it is no Honor at all to a Man, to have merely the outward Badges of a Christian, without being a Christian indeed; any more than it would be an Honor to a Man that has no Learning, but is a mere Dunce, to have a Degree at College; or than it is for a Man who has no Valor, but is a grand Coward, to have an honorable Commission in an Army; which only serves, by the lifting him up, to expose him to the deeper Reproach, and sets him forth as the more notable Object of Contempt.

ANSWER 3. Concerning the Tendency of this Way of confining Baptism to Professors of Godliness and their Children, to promote Irreligion and Profaneness; I would observe, First, That CHRIST is best able to judge of the Tendency of his own Institutions. Secondly, I am bold to say, that the supposing this Principle and Practice to have such a Tendency, is a great Mistake, contrary to Scripture and plain Reason and Experience. Indeed such a Tendency it would have, to shut Men out from having any Part in the Lord (in the Sense of the two Tribes and Half, Joshua 22:25.) or to fence them out by such a Partition-Wall as formerly was between Jews and Gentiles; and so to shut them out as to tell them, if they were never so much disposed to serve God, He was not ready to accept them; according to that Notion the Jews seem to have had of the uncircumcised Gentiles. But only to forbear giving Men Honors they have no Title to, and not to Compliment them with the Name and Badge of God's People and Children, while they pretend to nothing but what is consistent with their being his Enemies, this has no such Tendency: But rather the contrary has very much this Tendency. For is it not found by constant Experience through all Ages, that blind corrupt Mankind, in Matters of Religion, are strongly disposed to rest in a Name, instead of the Thing; in the Shadow, instead of the Substance; and to make themselves easy with the former, in the Neglect of the latter? This over-valuing of common Grace, and moral Sincerity, as it is called; this building so much upon them, making them the Conditions of enjoying the Seals of God's Covenant, and the appointed Privileges, and honorable and sacred Badges of God's Children; this, I can't but think, naturally tends to soothe and flatter the Pride of vain Man, while it tends to aggrandize those Things in Men's Eyes, which they, of themselves, are strongly disposed to magnify and trust in, without such Encouragements, to prompt them to it, yea, against all Discouragements and Dissuasives that can possibly be used with them.

This Way of Proceeding greatly tends to establish the Negligence of Parents, and to confirm the Stupidity and Security of wicked Children. If Baptism were denied to all Children, whose Parents did not profess Godliness, and in a Judgment of rational Charity appear real Saints, it would tend to excite pious Heads of Families to more thorough Care and Pains in the religious Education of their Children, and to more fervent Prayer for them, that they might be converted in Youth, before they enter into a married State; and so if they have Children, the Entail of the Covenant be secured. And it would tend to awaken young People themselves, as yet unconverted, especially when about to settle in the World. Their having no Right to Christian Privileges for their Children, in Case they should become Parents, would tend to lead them at such a Time seriously to reflect on their own awful State; which, if they do not get out of it, must lay a Foundation for so much Calamity and Reproach to their Families. And if after their becoming Parents, they still remain unconverted, the melancholy Thought of their Children's going about without so much as the external Mark of Christians, would have a continual Tendency to put them in Mind of, and affect them with their own Sin and Folly in neglecting to turn to God, by which they bring such visible Calamity and Disgrace on themselves and Families; They would have this additional Motive continually to stir them up to seek Grace for themselves and their Children: Whereas, the contrary Practice has a natural Tendency to quiet the Minds of Persons, both in their own and their Children's Unregeneracy. Yea, may it not be suspected, that the Way of baptizing the Children of such as never make any proper Profession of Godliness, is an Expedient originally invented for that very End, to give Ease to Ancestors with Respect to their Posterity, in Times of general Declension and Degeneracy?

This Way of Proceeding greatly tends to establish the Stupidity and Irreligion of Children, as well as Negligence of Parents. It is certain, that unconverted Parents do never truly give up their Children to God; since they do not truly give up themselves to him. And if neither of the Parents appear truly pious, in the Judgment of rational Charity, there is not in this Case any Ground to expect that the Children will be brought up in the Nurture and Admonition of the Lord, or that they will have any Thing worthy the Name of a Christian Education, how solemnly soever the Parents may promise it. The Faithfulness of Abraham was such as might be trusted in this Matter. See Genesis 18:19. But Men that are not so much as visibly godly, upon what Grounds are they to be trusted? How can it be reasonably expected, that they should faithfully bring up their Children for GOD, who were never sincerely willing that their Children or Themselves should be his? And it will be but Presumption, to expect that those Children who are never given up to God, nor brought up for him, should prove religious, and be God's Children. There is no Manner of Reason to expect any other than that such Children ordinarily will grow up in Irreligion, whether they are baptized or not. And for Persons to go about with the Name and visible Seal of God, and the sacred Badge of Christianity upon them, having had their Bodies, by a holy Ordinance, consecrated to God as his Temples, yet living in Irreligion and Ways of Wickedness, this serves to tend exceedingly to harden them, and establish in them an habitual Contempt of sacred Things. Such Persons, above all Men, are like to be the most hardened and abandoned, and most difficultly reclaimed: As it was with the wicked Jews, who were much more confirmed in their Wickedness, than those heathen Cities of Tyre and Sidon. To give that which is holy to those who are profane, or that we have no Manner of Reason from the Circumstances of Parentage and Education, to expect will be otherwise, is not the Way to make them better, but worse: It is the Way to have them habitually trample holy Things under their Feet, and increase in Contempt of them, yea, even to turn again and rend us, and be more mischievous and hurtful Enemies of that which is Good, than otherwise they would be.

Objection 20. Some Ministers have been greatly blessed in the other Way of Proceeding, and some Men have been converted at the Lord's Supper.

Answer. Though we are to eye the Providence of God, and not disregard his Works, yet to interpret them to a Sense or apply them to a Use inconsistent with the Scope of the Word of God, is a Misconstruction and Misapplication of them. God has not given us his Providence, but his Word to be our governing Rule. God is sovereign in his Dispensations of Providence; he bestowed the Blessing on Jacob, even when he had a Lie in his Mouth; he was pleased to meet with Solomon, and make known himself to him, and bless him in an extraordinary Manner, while he was worshipping in an high Place; he met with Saul, when in a Course of violent Opposition to him, and out of the Way of his Duty to the highest Degree, going to Damascus to persecute Christ; and even then bestowed the greatest Blessing upon him, that perhaps ever was bestowed on a mere Man. The Conduct of divine Providence, with its Reasons, is too little understood by us, to be improved as our Rule. God has his Way in the Sea, his Path in the mighty Waters, and his Footsteps are not known: And he gives none Account of any of his Matters. But God has given us his Word to this very End that it might be our Rule; and therefore has fitted it to be so; has so ordered it that it may be understood by us. And strictly speaking, this is our only Rule. If we join any Thing else to it, as making it our Rule, we do that which we have no Warrant for, yea, that which God himself has forbidden. See Deuteronomy 4:2. Proverbs 30:6. And with Regard to God's blessing and succeeding of Ministers, have not some had remarkable Experience of it in the Way which I plead for, as well as some who have been for the Way I oppose? However, we cannot conclude, that God sees nothing at all amiss in Ministers, because he blesses them. In general, he may see those Things in them which are very right and excellent; these he approves and regards, while he overlooks and pardons their Mistakes in Opinion or Practice, and notwithstanding these is pleased to crown their Labours with his Blessing.

As to the two last Arguments in the Appeal to the Learned, concerning the Subjects of the Christian Sacraments, their being Members of the visible Church, and not the invisible; the Force of those Arguments depends entirely on the Resolution of that Question, Who are visible Saints? or what adult Persons are regularly admitted to the Privileges of Members of the visible Church? which Question has already been largely considered: and I think, it has been demonstrated that they are those who exhibit a credible Profession and Visibility of Gospel-Holiness or vital Piety, and not merely of moral Sincerity. So that there is no Need of further debating the Point in this Place.

I might here mention many Things not yet taken Notice of, which some object as Inconveniencies attending the Scheme I have maintained: And if Men should set up their own Wit and Wisdom in Opposition to God's revealed Will, there is no End of the Objections of this Kind, which might be raised against any of God's Institutions. Some have found great Fault even with the Creation of the World, as being very inconveniently done, and have imagined that they could tell how it might be mended in a great many Respects. But however God's Altar may appear homely to us, yet if we lift up our Tool upon it to mend it, we shall pollute it. Laws and Institutions are given for the general Good, and not to avoid every particular Inconvenience. And however it may so happen, that sometimes Inconveniencies (real to imaginary) may attend the Scheme I have maintained; yet I think, they are in no Measure equal to the manifest Conveniencies and happy Tendencies of it, or to the palpable Inconveniencies and pernicious Consequences of the other. —I have already mentioned some Things of this Aspect, and would here briefly observe some other.

Thus, the Way of making such a Difference between outward Duties of Morality and Worship, and those great inward Duties of the Love of God and Acceptance of Christ, that the former must be visible, but that there need to be no Exhibition nor Pretence of the latter, in order to Persons being admitted into the visible Family of God; and that under a Notion of the latter being Impossibilities, but the other being within Men's Power; this, I think, has a direct Tendency to confirm in Men an Insensibility of the Heinousness of those Heart-Sins of Unbelief and Enmity against God our Saviour, which are the Source and Sum of all Wickedness; and tends to prevent their coming under a humbling Conviction of the Greatness and utter Inexcusableness of these Sins, which Men must be brought to if ever they obtain Salvation. Indeed it is a Way that not only has this Tendency, but has actually and apparently this Effect, and that to a great Degree.

The Effect of this Method of Proceeding in the Churches in New-England, which have fallen into it, is actually this. There are some that are received into these Churches under the Notion of their being in the Judgment of rational-Charity visible Saints or professing Saints, who yet at the same Time are actually open Professors of heinous Wickedness; I mean, the Wickedness of living in known Impenitence and Unbelief, the Wickedness of living in Enmity against God, and in the Rejection of Christ under the Gospel: Or, which is the same Thing, they are such as freely and frequently acknowledge, that they do not profess to be as yet born again, but look on themselves as really unconverted, as having never unfeignedly accepted of Christ; and they do either explicitly or implicitly number themselves among those that love not the Lord Jesus Christ; of whom the Apostle says, let such be Anathema, Maran-atha! And accordingly it is known, all over the Town where they live, that they make no Pretensions to any sanctifying Grace already obtained; nor of Consequence are they commonly looked upon at any other than unconverted Persons. Now, can this be judged the comely Order of the Gospel! or shall God be supposed the Author of such Confusion!

In this Way of Church proceeding, God's own Children and the true Disciples of Christ are obliged to receive those as their Brethren, admit them to the Communion of Saints, and embrace them in the highest Acts of Christian Society, even in their great Feast of Love, where they feed together on the Body and Blood of Christ, whom yet they have no Reason to look upon otherwise than as Enemies of the Cross of Christ, and Haters of their heavenly Father and dear Redeemer, they making no Pretension to any Thing at all inconsistent with those Characters; yet, in many Places, as I said before, freely professing this to be actually the Case with them.

Christ often forbids visible Christians, judging one another: But in this Way of ecclesiastical Proceeding, it is done continually, and looked upon as no Hurt; a great Part of those admitted into the Church are by others of the same Communion judged unconverted graceless Persons; and it is impossible to avoid it, while we stretch not beyond the Bounds of a rational Charity.

This Method of Proceeding must inevitably have one of these two Consequences: Either there must be no public Notice at all given of it when so signal a Work of Grace is wrought, as a Sinner's being brought to repent and turn to God, and hopefully becomes the Subject of saving Conversion; or else this Notice must be given in the Way of Conversation, by the Persons themselves, frequently, freely, and in all Companies, declaring their own Experiences. But surely, either of these Consequences must be very unhappy. —The former is so, namely the forbidding and preventing any public Notice being given on Earth of the Repentance of a Sinner, an Event so much to the Honour of God, and so much taken Notice of in Heaven, causing Joy in the Presence of the Angels of God, and tending so much to the Advancement of Religion in the World. For it is found by Experience, that scarce any one Thing has so great an Influence to awaken Sinners, and engage them to seek Salvation, and to quicken and animate Saints, as the Tidings of a Sinner's Repentance, or hopeful Conversion: God evidently makes use of it as an eminent Means of advancing Religion in a Time of remarkable Revival of Religion. And to take a Course effectually to prevent such an Event's being notified on Earth, appears to me a counter-acting of God, in that which he ever makes use of as a chief Means of the Propagation of true Piety and which we have Reason to think he will make use of as one principal Means of the Conversion of the World in the glorious latter Day. —But now as to the other Way, the Way of giving Notice to the Public of this Event, by particular Persons themselves publishing their own Experiences from Time to Time and from Place to Place, on all Occasions and before all Companies, I must confess, this is a Practice that appears to me attended with many Inconveniences, yea, big with Mischiefs. The abundant Trial of this Method lately made, and the large Experience we have had of the evil Consequences of it, is enough to put all sober and judicious People for ever out of Conceit of it. I shall not pretend to enumerate all the Mischiefs attending it, which would be very tedious; but shall now only mention two Things. One is, the bad Effect it has upon the Persons themselves that practise it, in the great Tendency it has to spiritual Pride; insensibly begetting and establishing an evil Habit of Mind in that Respect, by the frequent Return of the Temptation, and this many Times when they are not guarded against it, and have no Time, by Consideration and Prayer to fortify their Minds. And then it has a very bad Effect on the Minds of others that hear their Communication, and so on the State of Religion in general, in this Way: It being thus the Custom for Persons of all Sorts, Young and Old, Wise and Unwise, Superiors and inferiors, freely to tell their own Experiences before all Companies, it is commonly done very injudiciously, often very rashly and foolishly, out of Season, and in Circumstances tending to defeat any good End. Even sincere Christians too frequently in their Conversation insist mainly on those Things that are no Part of their true spiritual Experience; such as Impressions on their Fancy or Imagination, Suggestions of Facts by Passages of Scripture etc. in which Case Children and weak Persons that hear, are apt to form their Notions of Religion and true Piety by such experimental Communications, and much more than they do by the most solid and judicious Instructions out of the Word, they hear from the Pulpit: which is found to be one of the Devices whereby Satan has an inexpressible Advantage to ruin the Souls of Men, and utterly to confound the Interest Of Religion. —This Matter of making a public Profession of Godliness or Piety of Heart, is certainly a very important Affair, and ought to be under some public Regulation, and under the Direction of skilful Guides, and not left to the Management of every Man, Woman and Child, according to their Humour or Fancy: And when it is done, it should be done with great Seriousness, Preparation and Prayer, as a solemn Act of public Respect and Honour to God, in his House and in the Presence of his People, Not that I condemn but greatly approve of Persons speaking sometimes of their religious Experiences in private Conversation, to proper Persons and on proper Occasions, with Modesty and Discretion, when the Glory of God and the Benefit or just Satisfaction of others require it of them.

In a Word, the Practice of promiscuous Admission, or that Way of taking all into the Church indifferently, as visible Saints, who are not either ignorant or scandalous, and at the same Time that Custom's taking Place of Persons publishing their own Conversion in common Conversation; where these two Things meet together, they unavoidably make two distinct Kinds of visible Churches, or different Bodies of professing Saints, one within another, openly distinguished one from another, as it were by a visible dividing Line. One Company consisting of those who are visibly gracious Christians, and open Professors of Godliness; another consisting of those who are visibly moral Livers, and only profess common Virtues, without pretending to any special and spiritual Experiences in their Hearts, and who therefore are not reputed to be Converts. I may appeal to those acquainted with the State of the Churches, whether this be not actually the Case in some, where this Method of Proceeding has been long established. But I leave the judicious Reader to make his own Remarks on this Case, and to determine, whether there be a just Foundation in Scripture or Reason for any such State of Things; which to me, I confess, carries the Face of glaring Absurdity.

And now I commit this whole Discourse (under God's Blessing) to the Reader's candid Reflection and impartial Judgment. I am sensible, it will be very difficult for many to be truly impartial in this Affair; their prejudices being very great against the Doctrine which I have maintained. And I believe, I myself am the Person, who, above all other upon the Face of the Earth, have had most in my Circumstances to prejudice me against this Doctrine, and to make me unwilling to receive Conviction of the Truth of it. However, the clear Evidence of God's Mind in his Word, as Things appear to me, has constrained me to think and act as I have now done. I dare not go contrary to such Texts as those. Leviticus 10. 10. Jeremiah 15. 19. Ezekiel 22. 26. and Chapter 44. 6, 7, 8. And having been fully persuaded in my own Mind, what is the Scripture Rule in this Matter, after a most careful, painful, and long Search, I am willing, in the faithful Prosecution of what appears to me of such Importance and so plainly the Mind and Will of God, to resign to his Providence, and leave the Event in his Hand.

It may not be improper to add here, as I have often had suggested to me the Probability of my being answered from the Press: If any one shall see Cause to undertake this, I have these reasonable Requests to make to him, namely That he would avoid the ungenerous and unmanly Artifices used by too many Polemic Writers, while they turn aside to vain Jangling in carping at incidental Passages, and displaying their Wit upon some minute Particulars, or less material Things in the Author they oppose, with much Exclamation, if possible, to excite the ignorant and unwary Reader's Disrelish of the Author, and to make him appear contemptible, and so to get the Victory that Way; perhaps dwelling upon and glorying in some pretended Inconsistencies in some Parts of the Discourse, without ever entering thoroughly into the Merits of the Cause, or closely encountering any of the main Arguments. If any one opposes me from the Press, I desire he would attend to the true State of the Question, and endeavour fairly to take off the Force of each Argument, by answering the same directly, and distinctly, with calm and close Reasoning: avoiding (as much as may be) both dogmatical Assertion and passionate Reflection. Sure I am, I shall not envy him the Applause of a Victory over me, however signal and complete, if only gained by superior Light and convincing Evidence. —I would also request him to set his Name to his Performance, that I may in that Respect stand on even Ground with him before the World, in a Debate wherein the Public is to judge between us. This will be the more reasonable, in Case he should mingle any Thing of Accusation with his Arguing: It was the Manner even of the heathen Romans, and reputed by them but just and equal, to have Accusers Face to Face.

May the GOD of all Grace and Peace unite us more in Judgment, Affection and Practice, that with one Heart and one Mouth we may glorify his Name through JESUS CHRIST. AMEN.

OBJECTION 1. Scripture calls the members of the visible church by the name of disciples, students, or learners. This suggests the following idea of the visible church: it is the school of Christ, where people are admitted in order to learn from Christ and reach spiritual growth through the means of teaching, discipline, and training established in the school. Now if this is a correct view of the visible church, then reason shows that no qualifications are needed for membership in this school other than the kind of faith and attitude required for people to place themselves under Christ as their Master and Teacher and to submit to the rules of the school. But a common faith and moral sincerity are enough for this. Therefore, Scripture leads us to suppose that the visible church is properly made up of those who have these qualifications, even though they do not have saving faith and true godliness.

ANSWER. I grant that Scripture calls the members of the visible church by the name of disciples. But I deny that it follows from this that the church they belong to is properly made up of people who do not have true godliness. If this conclusion were valid, it would equally follow that not only the visible church but also the invisible or mystical church is properly made up of people who lack sincere faith and true godliness. For the members of the mystical church as such, and to describe their special character, are called disciples -- in Luke 14:26-27, 33 and in John 8:31. Also John 13:35 and John 15:8. This shows that in the argument I am answering, there is no connection between the premises and the conclusion. The force of the objection rests entirely on this: that the members of the visible church are called disciples in Scripture. This is the sum total of the premises. And if there is any connection between the premises and the conclusion, it must depend on the truth of this proposition: The church whose members are called disciples -- as a description of their state and quality as members of that society -- is properly made up not only of truly godly people but also of others who merely have common faith and virtue. But this proposition, as we have seen, is not true. So there is no connection between its first and second parts, which are the same as the premises and conclusion of this argument.

2. Although I do not deny that the visible church of Christ may fittingly be pictured as a school of Christ, where people are trained through the use of means toward some spiritual growth, it does not necessarily follow that this training is aimed at all good attainments. It may well be that certain good attainments are prerequisites for having a place in the school. The church of Christ is a school established for training up Christ's little children to greater degrees of knowledge, higher privileges, greater usefulness in this world, and greater readiness to possess their eternal inheritance. But we do not need to suppose that its purpose is to make them fit to become Christ's children or to be brought into His family. That would be like saying that because a prince puts his children under tutors, the tutoring must be designed to make them members of the royal family. If it were necessary to have a church of Christ established as a school of instruction and discipline to bring people to all good attainments whatsoever, then it would follow that there must be a visible church made up of scandalous and ungodly people and heretics, and all in general who claim the Christian name. This would allow means to be used with them to bring them to moral sincerity and an acknowledgment of the Christian faith.

3. I grant that no other qualifications are needed for membership in the school of Christ that is His visible church than those required for submitting to Christ as their Master and Teacher and submitting to the laws and rules of His school. Nevertheless, I deny that a common faith and moral sincerity are enough for this. No one truly submits to Christ as their Master except those whose hearts have been purified by faith and who are delivered from the ruling power of sin. We cannot submit to obey two opposing masters at the same time. No one truly submits to Christ as their Teacher except those who genuinely receive Him as their Prophet, to teach them by His Word and Spirit. They give themselves up to His teaching, sitting with Mary as little children at Jesus' feet to hear His word. They listen to His instruction more than to their blind and deceitful desires, and they rely on His wisdom more than their own. Scripture knows nothing of a church school made up of enemies of the cross of Christ, established to bring such people to be reconciled to Him and submit to Him as their Master. Nor do those who are not truly godly have any genuine willingness of heart to submit to the laws and rules of Christ's school -- the standards His Word prescribes for all His students. These include: to love their Master above all else; to love one another as brothers; and to love their Book (that is, their Bible) more than worthless distractions and amusements, yes, more than gold and silver; to be faithful to the interests of the Master and of the school; to depend on His teaching; to cry out to Him for knowledge; and above all their efforts, to gain understanding, and so on.

4. Whatever ways of organizing the church may seem fitting, proper, and reasonable to us, the question is not what structure of Christ's church seems convenient to human wisdom, but what structure has actually been established by Christ's infinite wisdom. No doubt, if people were to rely on their own ingenuity and proceed according to what seems good to them, they would greatly alter Christ's design for His church to make it more convenient and attractive. They would adorn it with a vast variety of clever inventions, just as the church of Rome has done. The question is whether this school of Christ they talk about -- made up largely of those who claim no experiences or attainments beyond what is consistent with being enemies of Christ in their hearts, and who in reality love the vilest sin more than Him -- is truly the church of Christ that in the New Testament is called His city, His temple, His family, His body, and so on, names by which the visible church of Christ is frequently described there.

I acknowledge that means appointed by Christ are to be used with those who are Christ's enemies and do not claim to be anything else, in order to change their hearts and bring them to be Christ's friends and disciples. Such means are to be used with all kinds of people -- with Jews, Muslims, pagans, with nominal Christians who are heretical or immoral, the profane, the intemperate, the impure, and all other enemies of Christ -- and these means should be used constantly and diligently. Scandalous persons need to go to school to learn to be Christians as much as anyone else. And there are many people who are not morally sincere but who, from selfish and ulterior motives, regularly agree to go to church and so place themselves in the path of the means of grace. No one should forbid them from going to Christ's school so they may be taught by Him through the ministry of the Gospel. But it still does not follow that such a school is the church of Christ. Human laws can place people, even very immoral ones, into the school of Christ in that sense. Laws can require them to be constantly present at public teaching and to attend the means of grace appointed by Christ and administered in His name. But human laws cannot join people to the church of Christ and make them members of His body.

OBJECTION 2. Visible sainthood in the scriptural sense cannot be the same as what has been supposed and insisted on -- namely, being regarded by rational charity as truly godly -- because Israel in ancient times was repeatedly called God's people when it is certain that the majority of them were far from having any such visible holiness. For example, the ten tribes were called God's people in Hosea 4:6, after they had revolted from the true worship of God and had stubbornly continued in their idolatrous worship at Bethel and Dan for about two hundred and fifty years. At that time, especially just before their captivity, they were at the height of their wickedness. Likewise, the Jews are called God's people in Ezekiel 36:20 and other places during the time of their captivity in Babylon -- a time when most of them had abandoned themselves to all kinds of the most terrible and open sins, as the prophets frequently describe. Now it is certain that the people at that time were not called God's people because of any visible evidence of true godliness to the eye of reason or rational charity, since most of them were grossly wicked and declared their sin like Sodom. And the members of the visible Christian Gentile church are God's people in the same way the Jews of old were God's people. For they are described as grafted into the same olive tree from which the former were broken off by unbelief.

ANSWER. This argument proves too much and therefore proves nothing at all. If those I oppose in this controversy bring this objection, they will in effect oppose themselves as much as they oppose me. The objection, if it has any force, works equally against their view of visible sainthood and mine. For those Jews who are alleged to be God's people, yet were so notoriously, openly, and grossly wicked, had neither any visible evidence of true godliness nor of the moral sincerity in the profession and duties of true religion that my opponents themselves consider necessary for proper visible holiness and rightful admission to the privileges and ordinances of the church of God. No one will claim that these stubborn idolaters and wicked people had the qualifications now required for admission to the Christian sacraments. So what is the point of bringing this objection? If it proves anything, it overthrows my position and theirs together, and both equally effectively. Not only that, but it would thoroughly destroy the views of all Protestants throughout the world concerning the qualifications of those who may receive Christian ordinances. Therefore, defending what I have laid down against those I oppose in this controversy requires no further answer to this objection. Nevertheless, for greater satisfaction, I would observe the following.

Terms like God's people, God's Israel, and other similar phrases are used and applied in Scripture with considerable variety of meaning. For example, we have a clear distinction between the house of Israel and the house of Israel in Ezekiel 20:38-40. By the house of Israel in verse 39, the literal nation or family of Israel is meant. But by the house of Israel in verse 40, the spiritual house seems to be intended -- the body of God's visible saints who would attend the ordinances of His public worship in Gospel times. Similarly, a distinction is made between the house of Israel and God's disciples who would profess and visibly hold to His law and testimony in Isaiah 8:14-17. And although the whole nation of the Jews is often called God's people during those corrupt periods when the prophets were sent to reprove them, at the same time they are charged with falsely calling themselves of the holy city. Isaiah 48:2. And God often tells them they should rather be counted among foreigners and viewed as children of the Ethiopians or descendants of the ancient Canaanites, on account of their grossly wicked and scandalous behavior. See Amos 9:7-8, and so on. Ezekiel 16:2-3, and so on; verse 45-46, and so on. Isaiah 1:10.

It is evident that God sometimes, in keeping with His marvelous mercy and patience toward mankind, shows merciful regard to a degenerate church that has become extremely corrupt because it is made up of members who lack the qualifications that ought to be required. God continues to show regard for them to the extent that He does not utterly abandon them or entirely withhold His confirmation of and blessing on their ministrations. And since God has not completely rejected them, their ministrations are to be considered in some respect valid, and the society is in some sense a people or church of God. This was the case with the church of Rome, at least until the Reformation and the Council of Trent. For until then we must acknowledge their baptisms and ordinations as valid. The church in which the Pope sits is called the temple of God. 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

With regard to the people of Israel, it is very clear that something different is often meant by that nation's being called God's people than their being visible saints or visibly holy, or having the qualifications needed for proper admission to the ecclesiastical privileges of such. That nation, that family of Israel according to the flesh and with regard to that external and physical qualification, were in some sense adopted by God to be His special people and His covenant people. This is not only evident from what has already been observed, but is also unmistakably clear from Romans 9:3-5. I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh. Note that the privileges mentioned here are spoken of as belonging to the Jews not as visible saints, not as professors of the true religion, not as members of the visible church of Christ -- but only as a people of such a nation, such a bloodline, such an external and physical relationship to their ancestor patriarchs, Israelites according to the flesh. For the apostle is speaking here of the unbelieving Jews -- professed unbelievers who were outside the Christian church and open, visible enemies of it, people who had no right to the external privileges of Christ's people. So in Romans 11:28-29, this apostle speaks of the same unbelieving Jews as in some respect an elect people, with a share in the calling, promises, and covenants God formerly gave to their forefathers, and as still beloved for their sakes. From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. These things are spoken of in these passages not as privileges belonging to the Jews as a people of the right religion or in the true church of visible worshippers of God, but as a people of a certain ancestry or bloodline -- and this even after the end of the Mosaic administration. But these were privileges that especially belonged to them under the Old Testament. They were a family God had chosen, set apart from all others, to show special favor to above all other nations. It was clearly in keeping with God's design to arrange things under the Old Testament so that the means of grace and spiritual privileges and blessings would be -- though not entirely, yet in large measure -- confined to a particular family, much more so than those privileges and blessings are confined to any ancestry or bloodline now under the Gospel. God deliberately arranged things so that that nation would be distinguished by these favors not only from those who did not profess the worship of the true God, but also in large measure from other nations by a wall of separation that He built. This was not merely a wall of separation between professors and non-professors (that kind of wall of separation still exists in the days of the Gospel) but between nation and nations. God, if He pleases, may in His sovereignty attach His blessing and in some measure fix it, for His own reasons, to a particular bloodline, just as He may attach it to a particular place or piece of ground, to a certain building, to a particular pile of stones or altar of bronze, to particular garments, and other external things. And it is evident that He actually did attach His blessing to that particular external family of Jacob in much the same way He did to the city of Jerusalem -- which He chose to place His name there -- and to Mount Zion, where He commanded the blessing. God did not attach His blessing to Jerusalem or Mount Zion in a way that limited Himself -- either by confining the blessing entirely to that place, never bestowing it elsewhere; or by obligating Himself to always bestow it on those who sought Him there; or by obligating Himself never to withdraw His blessing from there, by forsaking His dwelling place and leaving it to become a common or ordinary place. But He was pleased to attach His blessing to that place so as to make it the seat of His blessing in a special way, in great distinction from other places. He attached His blessing to the bloodline and descendants of Jacob in the same way. It was a family in which He delighted and which He blessed in a special way, and to which He largely confined the blessing. But He did not limit Himself -- He was not obligated to bestow it on everyone of that bloodline, or to withhold it from others who were not of that bloodline. He attached His blessing to both of these -- both to the place and to the nation -- by sovereign election. Psalm 132:13-15. He fixed His blessing to both by covenant. To that nation He fixed His blessing by His covenant with the patriarchs. Indeed the main thing, the substance and heart of the covenant God made with Abraham and the other patriarchs, was the covenant of grace, which continues in these Gospel days and extends to all His spiritual descendants among the Gentiles as well as the Jews. But the covenant with the patriarchs also contained other things that were like attachments to that great everlasting covenant of grace -- promises of lesser matters that served the grand promise of the future seed and were symbolic of things relating to Him. Such were the promises that attached the blessing to a particular country, namely the land of Canaan, and a particular bloodline, namely the descendants of Isaac and Jacob. It was the same with the covenant God made with David, which we read about in 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 132. If we consider that covenant in terms of what its soul and heart was, it was the covenant of grace. But there were other promises that were like attachments of things serving the grand covenant and symbolic of its benefits -- such as promises of blessing to the nation of the literal Israel, of continuing the earthly crown of Israel to David's descendants, and of fixing the blessing to Jerusalem or Mount Zion as the place He chose to set His name. And it was in this sense that the very family of Jacob were God's people by covenant, or His covenant people and His chosen people -- yes, even when they were not visible saints, when they were raised in and lived in idolatry, and made no profession of the true religion.

On the whole, it is evident that the very nation of Israel -- not as visible saints, but as the descendants of Jacob according to the flesh -- were in some respect a chosen people, a people of God, a covenant people, a holy nation. This is just as Jerusalem was a chosen city, the city of God, a holy city, and a city where God had pledged by covenant to dwell.

This is how a sovereign and all-wise God was pleased to arrange things with respect to the nation of Israel. We may not be able to give all the reasons for such an arrangement, but some of them seem fairly clear, such as the following.

1. The great and primary purpose of separating one particular nation from all others, as God did with the nation of Israel, was to prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah, who was to come from that bloodline. God's covenant with Abraham and the other patriarchs implied that the Messiah would be of their seed according to the flesh. Therefore it was necessary that their descendants according to the flesh should be enclosed by a wall of separation and made God's people. If the Messiah had been born from some of the professors of Abraham's religion but from some other nation -- that religion having spread from nation to nation as it does now under the Gospel -- it would not have fulfilled the covenant with Abraham for the Messiah to have been born of Abraham's seed only in that sense. Since the Messiah was by covenant so connected to Jacob's descendants according to the flesh, God was pleased, in keeping with the nature of such a covenant, to show great regard to that people on account of that external, physical relationship. The apostle therefore mentions it as one great privilege that from them according to the flesh Christ came. Romans 9:5. Since introducing the Messiah and His salvation and kingdom was the special design of all God's dealings and unique arrangements toward that people, the natural result was that great importance should be placed on their being of that nation in God's covenant dealings with them.

2. That nation was a typical nation -- a nation that served as a symbol. There was then literally a land that was the dwelling place of God, which was a type of heaven, the true dwelling place of God. There was an external city of God, which was a type of the spiritual city of God. There was an external temple of God, which was a type of His spiritual temple. So too there was an external people and family of God by physical descent, which was a type of His spiritual descendants. The covenant by which they were made a people of God was a type of the covenant of grace, and so is sometimes portrayed as a marriage covenant. In keeping with the nature of that dispensation, God showed great regard for external and physical things in those days as types of spiritual things. How much regard God showed then for external, physical qualifications for privileges and services is seen in this: there is ten times as much said in the books of Moses about such qualifications in the institutions of the Passover and tabernacle services as about any moral qualifications whatsoever. And so much were such symbolic qualifications insisted upon that even under the law of Moses, the congregation of the Lord -- the public congregation or church (for the word is the same) of visible worshippers of God -- and the number of public professors of the true religion who were visible saints were not the same. Some belonged to the latter but not the former -- particularly the eunuchs, who were excluded from the congregation no matter how outwardly religious or even truly godly they were. The same applied to those born out of wedlock, and so on.

3. It was the sovereign pleasure of God to choose that family, the descendants of Jacob according to the flesh, and to reserve them for special favors until the end of time. This is why they are still kept as a distinct nation, being still reserved for distinguishing mercy in the latter days when they will be restored to the church of God. God is pleased in this way to show His regard for their holy ancestors and His regard for their external relationship to Christ. The apostle therefore still speaks of them as an elect nation and beloved for the fathers' sakes, even after they were broken off from the good olive tree by unbelief. God's covenant with Abraham is in some sense still in force with respect to that people and reaches them even to this day. Yet surely they are not God's covenant people in the same sense that visible Christians are. See Leviticus 26:42.

If it is said here that it was often foretold by the prophets that in the days of the Gospel, other nations would be the people of God as well as the nation of the Jews -- and that when Christ sent out His apostles, He told them to go and make disciples of all nations --

I answer: By a common figure of speech, the prevailing part of a nation is called the nation. What is done to them is said to be done to the nation, and what is done by them is said to be done by the nation. And it is to be hoped that the time is coming when the prevailing part of many nations -- yes, of every nation under heaven -- will be properly brought into the visible church of Christ. And if by nations in these prophecies we understand anything other than the prevailing part, and if it is insisted that we must understand it as meaning all the people belonging to those nations, then there has never yet been any nation in this sense properly brought into the visible church of Christ -- even according to the position of those I oppose. For there has never yet been a whole nation that was outwardly moral. Besides, what Mr. Blake says in his Treatise of the Covenant (page 238) may be applied here and serve as an answer to this objection. The prophecies of the Old Testament (he says) about the glory of the New Testament era are expressed in Old Testament phrases, by way of allusion to the worship of those times. In Revelation 21:24, nations are spoken of as having a share in the New Jerusalem, which yet is described as perfectly pure, without the least degree of pollution or defilement. Verse 27. As for the command to the apostles to make disciples of all nations, it was a direction about what they should attempt or do as much toward as they could -- not a prediction of what they would accomplish in their day. For they never brought even half of any single nation into the visible Christian church, nor any people at all in half the nations of the world, in all probability.

If it is further objected that Gentile Christians are visible saints according to the New Testament understanding of visible sainthood in the very same way that the whole Jewish nation was until they were broken off by their stubborn rejection of the Messiah -- and that the Gentile Christians are described as being grafted into the same olive tree from which the Jews were broken off by unbelief (Romans 11:17, and so on) --

I would ask: What could anyone mean by this objection? Is it this -- that we should require no higher or better qualifications for admitting people as members of the Christian church and to all its privileges than what the whole nation of the Jews in the generation that lived in Christ's time possessed, until they had stubbornly persisted in rejecting Him? If this is not the intended meaning, the objection is beside the point. And if this is the intended meaning, it is still beside the point for those with whom I am chiefly dealing in this controversy. They hold that orthodoxy, knowledge of the fundamental doctrines of religion, moral sincerity, and a good way of life are qualifications that should be required for visible church membership. But a very large part of those Jews lacked these qualifications. Many of them were Sadducees who denied a future state. Others were Herodians who occasionally conformed with the Romans in their idolatries. The dominant sect among them was the Pharisees, who openly professed the false doctrine of justification by works of the law and external privileges -- that leaven of the Pharisees that Christ warns His disciples to beware of. Many of them were scandalously ignorant, for their teachers had taken away the key of knowledge. Multitudes were grossly immoral, for it was a generation in which every kind of sin and wickedness prevailed.

I believe that text in Romans 11 can be understood no other way, in any consistency with plain fact, than this: the Gentile Christians succeeded the Jews -- who had been, either in themselves or through their ancestors, the children of Abraham -- with respect to a visible share in the covenant of grace (which, as has been observed, was the substance and heart of the covenant made with Abraham). This lasted until they were broken off from the church and ceased to be visible saints by their open and stubborn unbelief. (Indeed, either they or their ancestors had all been broken off from the church of visible saints in this way, for every branch or family of the stock of Jacob had been in the church of visible saints, and each branch withered and failed through unbelief.) This was the highest and most important sense in which any of the Jews were externally the children of Abraham, and it carried the greatest privileges. But there was another sense in which the whole nation -- including even those who were not visible saints -- were his children. This (as has been shown) carried great privileges, but in this respect Christian Gentiles do not succeed them, even though they have additional ecclesiastical privileges vastly beyond those of the Jews.

Whether I have succeeded in correctly explaining these matters or not, my failing in the attempt is of no great importance with respect to the strength of the objection that prompted it -- which was that scandalously wicked men among the Jews are called God's people, and so on. As I observed, the objection works as much against the position of those I oppose as against my own. Therefore it is just as much their responsibility to find an explanation showing that something other than having the qualifications of visible saints is meant by it, as it is mine. And a failure in such an attempt hurts their cause as much as it does mine.

OBJECTION 3. Those in Israel who made no profession of heartfelt godliness did, according to divine institution, partake of the Passover -- a Jewish sacrament representing the same things and sealing the very same covenant of grace as the Lord's Supper. In particular, it would be unreasonable to suppose that everyone who participated made a profession of godliness when God commanded the whole congregation to keep the first Passover in Egypt. There is no hint of their all first making a solemn public profession of the things in which true godliness consists. And so the people in general partook of the Passover from generation to generation. But it would be hard to suppose they all professed a supreme regard for God in their hearts.

ANSWER 1. The matter of the Israelites' participation in the Passover -- and particularly the first Passover in Egypt -- presents just as much difficulty regarding the qualifications that my opponents themselves consider necessary for communicants at the Lord's table as it does regarding the qualifications I insist upon. If there is any argument in this case, it is fully as strong an argument against their position as against mine. One thing they insist on as a required qualification for the Lord's Supper is a public profession of religion regarding its essential doctrines. But there is no more hint of a public profession of this kind preceding the Passover in Egypt than there is of a profession of godliness. Without even pressing the great doctrines of the fall of man, our ruined condition by nature, the Trinity, or our dependence on the free grace of God for justification, and so on -- let us take just two doctrines: a future state of rewards and punishments and the doctrine of the Messiah to come, the Messiah who was represented in the Passover. Is there any more evidence in the sacred record of the people making a public profession in Egypt of these doctrines before they partook of the Passover than there is of their professing love for God? And is there any more probability of the former than of the latter? Another thing that those on the other side consider necessary for proper attendance at the Lord's Supper is that when anyone has openly been guilty of serious sins, they should, before coming to this sacrament, openly confess and humble themselves for their faults. Now it is evident from many Scriptures that a large part of the children of Israel in Egypt had been guilty of joining the Egyptians in worshipping their false gods and had lived in idolatry. But the account in Exodus gives us no record of any public, solemn confession of, or humiliation for, this great sin before they came to the Passover. Mr. Stoddard observes (Appeal, pages 58-59) that in the church of Israel there was a way appointed by God for the removal of scandals: men were required in such cases to offer up their sacrifices attended with confession and visible signs of repentance. But where do we read of the people offering up sacrifices in Egypt attended with confession, to remove the scandal of the most serious sin of idolatry they had been living in? Or is there any more probability that they publicly professed their repentance and humiliation for their sin before celebrating the Passover than that they publicly professed loving God above all? Another thing they consider necessary for admission to the Lord's table, and about which they would have particular care taken, is that every person admitted give evidence of adequate knowledge of the doctrines of religion, and that no one be allowed to partake who is grossly ignorant. Now there is no more evidence of this regarding the congregation in Egypt than of a profession of godliness, and it is just as difficult to suppose. There is abundant reason to suppose that vast numbers in that nation -- consisting of more than a million adults -- had been raised in a great degree of ignorance during their slavery in Egypt, where the people seem to have almost forgotten the true God and the true religion. And though Moses had made efforts for a short time to instruct the people better, we must consider that it is a very great task to take a whole nation under such degrees of ignorance and prejudice and bring every one of them to an adequate knowledge of religion. It is an even greater task for Moses both to instruct them in this way and also, by examination or other means, to arrive at a fair confidence that all had indeed attained such knowledge.

Mr. Stoddard insists that if grace is required for the Lord's Supper, it would have been equally required for the Passover, since the chief thing the Passover (like the Lord's Supper) relates to and represents is Christ's sufferings. But if the same qualifications are therefore required for both ordinances, then it would be just as necessary for the participants to have knowledge to discern the Lord's body (in Mr. Stoddard's sense of 1 Corinthians 11:29) in the Passover as in the Lord's Supper. But this is certainly as hard to suppose as that they professed godliness. For how does it appear that the people in general who partook of the Passover knew it signified the death of the Messiah and the way He would make atonement for sin by His blood? Does it seem very likely that they would know this, when Christ's own disciples did not have knowledge to discern the Lord's body in the Passover, which they shared year after year with their Master? Can we suppose they actually knew that Christ's death and its purpose were signified by it, when they did not even realize the fact itself -- that Christ was to die -- at least not until the year before the last Passover? And besides, how unreasonable would it be to suppose that the Jews understood what was signified concerning Christ and salvation through Him in all the many kinds of sacrifices they attended and partook of, and all the vast variety of ceremonies belonging to them? All these sacrifices were sacramental representations of Christ's death, just as the sacrifice of the Passover was. The apostle tells us that all these things had a shadow of the good things to come -- the things concerning Christ. Yet there are many of them that the church of Christ to this day does not understand, even though we have a thousand times greater advantage to understand them than they did. We have the New Testament, in which God uses great plainness of speech to guide us. We live in days when the veil that Moses put over his face has been taken away in Christ and the veil of the temple has been torn. We have the substance and fulfillment clearly displayed and so have the opportunity to compare these with those shadows.

If it is objected that a difficulty lies against our supposing a profession of godliness was required for participating in the Passover -- namely, that the uncircumcised were expressly forbidden to partake, and if conversion was an equally important or more important qualification than circumcision, why were the unregenerate not just as expressly forbidden? I answer: Why were not scandalous sinners just as expressly forbidden? And why was not moral sincerity as expressly required as circumcision?

If it is objected that all were expressly and strictly required to keep the Passover, but that if grace was necessary and God knew many of the participants would have no grace, why would He give such universal commands?

I answer: When God gave those commands, He knew that the commands in all their strictness would apply to many people who, at the time of the Passover, would lack even moral sincerity in religion. Every man in the nation, of every generation, who would be alive each year from the first institution until the death of Christ, was (except those who were ceremonially unclean or on a journey) strictly required to keep the feast of Passover. Yet God knew that multitudes would lack the qualification of moral seriousness in religion. It would be very unreasonable to suppose that every single person in the nation was morally serious, even in the very best time the nation ever experienced -- or that there was ever such a happy day for that nation, or any other nation under heaven, when all were morally sincere in religion. How much more was this otherwise during the many periods when that nation, so prone to corruption, was generally involved in gross wickedness? But the strict command of God to keep the Passover applied to the morally insincere as well as to others. They are nowhere exempted, any more than the unconverted are. And as for any general commands of God's Word, these no more required people to turn from a state of moral insincerity before coming to the Passover than they required them to turn from a graceless state.

But further, I reply that God required them all to keep the Passover no more strictly than He required them all to love the Lord their God with their whole heart. If God could strictly command this, He could also strictly command them to keep the ordinance in which they were especially to profess and seal their profession of it. That evil generation was not expressly forbidden from keeping the Passover in the following years, throughout the whole forty years during which they went on provoking God, very often by gross sinning and open rebellion. Yet the express and strict commands for the whole congregation to keep the Passover still applied to them, and they were not released from their obligation.

If it is said that we must suppose multitudes in Israel attended the Passover from age to age without the kind of visible evidence of godliness I have insisted on, and yet we do not find their attendance at this ordinance charged against them as a sin in Scripture -- I answer: We must also suppose that multitudes in Israel from age to age attended the Passover while living in moral insincerity, and even scandalous wickedness. For the people in general very often notoriously corrupted themselves and turned to ways of open and great transgression. Yet there is reason to think that during these times of corruption, they mostly continued to practice circumcision and the Passover. We do not find their attendance at these ordinances under such circumstances any more expressly charged against them as a sin than their attendance without heartfelt godliness. The ten tribes continued constantly in idolatry for about 250 years, and there are grounds to suppose that during this time they ordinarily kept up circumcision and the Passover. For although they worshipped God through images, they maintained most of the ceremonial observances of the law of Moses -- called the customs of the God of the land -- which their priests taught the Samaritans who were settled in their place. 2 Kings 17:26-27. Nevertheless, we do not find Elijah, Elisha, or other prophets who were sent among them reproving them for attending these ordinances without the required moral qualifications. Indeed there are some things in the writings of the prophets that might be interpreted as a reproof of this. But they are no more a reproof of this than of attending God's ordinances without a gracious sincerity and true godliness of heart and life.

How many periods were there when the people in general fell into and lived in idolatry -- that scandal of scandals -- during the times of the judges, and during the times of the kings in both Judah and Israel? But throughout all this wickedness, they continued to practice the sacrament of circumcision. We have every bit as much evidence of this as that they attended the Passover without a profession of godliness. We have no account of their ever discontinuing it during such periods, nor any hint of its being renewed (as something that had ceased) when they undertook reforms. Though we have such a detailed account of the particulars of Josiah's reformation after the long, scandalous reign of Manasseh, there is no hint of any revival of circumcision or return to it after a period of disuse. And where do we have an account of the people being even once reproved for attending this holy sacrament while involved in scandalous sin, anywhere in the Old Testament? Where is this even once charged against them as a sin, any more than in the case of unconverted persons attending the sacrament of the Passover?

Answer 2. Whatever the case may have been regarding qualifications for the sacraments of the Old Testament dispensation, I humbly suggest it has no bearing on the present argument and is not needed to settle the question of qualifications for the sacraments of the Christian dispensation, which is a matter of such plain fact in the New Testament. I am far from thinking the Old Testament is like an old almanac that is no longer useful. Indeed, I think the New Testament makes clear that some things first instituted under the Old Testament continue under the New. For example, the acceptance of the infant children of believers as children of the covenant along with their parents. And probably some things belonging to the order and discipline of Christian churches had their beginning in the Jewish synagogue. But everyone agrees that the Old Testament dispensation has passed away along with its ordinances. And I think that in a matter related to the organization and order of the New Testament church -- a matter of fact on which the New Testament itself is clear, full, and abundant -- to go back to the Mosaic dispensation for rules or precedents to guide our judgment is entirely unnecessary and unreasonable. There is perhaps no area of theology that involves so much complexity, and in which orthodox theologians differ so much, as defining the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and of Christ. And probably the reason God has left it so complex is that our understanding the ancient dispensation and God's design in it is not of such great importance and does not concern us as closely. Since God uses great plainness of speech in the New Testament -- which is the charter and governing law of the Christian church -- what need is there to go back to the ceremonial and symbolic institutions of an outdated dispensation, in which God's declared design was to present divine things in comparative obscurity, hidden under a veil and wrapped in clouds?

We have no more reason to search among the types, obscure revelations, and physical ordinances of the Old Testament to find out whether this matter of fact concerning the structure and order of the New Testament church is true, than we have to go there to verify any other matter of fact that the New Testament records. For instance, whether there were such officers in the early church as bishops and deacons, whether miraculous gifts of the Spirit were common in the apostles' day, whether the believing Gentiles were received into the early Christian church, and the like.

Answer 3. I believe nothing can be cited from holy Scripture that is sufficient to prove a profession of godliness is not a qualification required for a proper and regular participation in the Passover.

Although none of the required moral qualifications for this Jewish sacrament, of either kind, are nearly as clearly stated in the Old Testament as the qualifications for the Christian sacraments are in the New -- and although the supposition that visible evidence of either moral sincerity or sanctifying grace was required involves some obscurity and difficulty in both cases -- yet I would humbly offer what appears to me to be the truth about this matter in the points that follow.

(1.) Although the people in Egypt, before the first Passover, probably made no explicit public profession at all -- either of their humiliation for their former idolatry or of their present devotion of heart to God -- since this was before any specific institution of an express public profession, either of godliness or of repentance in cases of scandal: Yet I think there was some kind of public display or implicit profession of both. They probably professed implicitly in Egypt the same things they later professed more expressly and solemnly in the wilderness. The Israelites in Egypt had much to stir their hearts before the last plague, through the great things God had done for them -- especially in some of the later plagues, where they were so remarkably set apart from the Egyptians. They seem to have been brought to a tender frame of mind and a readiness to show much respect to God (see Exodus 12:27), and they were probably now very willing to declare themselves devoted to Him and truly repentant.

(2) After the institution of an explicit public profession of devotion to God -- or (which is the same thing) of true godliness of heart -- this was customarily required in order to participate in the Passover and other sacrifices and sacraments that adult persons were admitted to. Accordingly, all the adult persons who were circumcised at Gilgal had made this profession a little earlier on the plains of Moab, as has already been observed. Not that all of them were truly gracious; but since they all had a profession and visible appearance, Christ in His dealings with His church regarding external matters did not act as the searcher of hearts but as the head of the visible church, accommodating Himself to the present state of mankind. This is why He represents Himself in Scripture as trusting His people's profession, as I formerly observed.

(3.) In degenerate times in Israel, both priests and people were very lax about covenanting with God and professing devotion to Him. These professions were used, as public professions commonly still are in corrupt times, merely as matters of form and ceremony -- at least by great multitudes.

(4.) The nature of the Levitical dispensation was such that it had nowhere near as great a tendency to prevent hypocritical professions as the New Testament dispensation does -- particularly because of its vastly greater darkness. For the covenant of grace was not yet so fully revealed, and consequently the nature of the conditions of that covenant was not so well known. There was then a far more obscure revelation of the great duties of repentance toward God and faith in the Mediator, and of the things in which true holiness consists and by which it is distinguished from other things. People then did not have equal opportunity to know their own hearts, since they were viewing themselves in the comparatively dim light of Moses' law rather than in the clear sunshine of the Gospel. In that stage of the church's infancy, the nature of true godliness -- as consisting in the spirit of adoption, or genuine, childlike love for God, and as distinguished from a spirit of bondage, slavish fear, and self-love -- was not so clearly revealed. The Israelites were therefore more likely to mistake for true godliness that moral seriousness and those warm emotions and resolutions that resulted from the spirit of bondage -- which showed itself remarkably in Israel at Mount Sinai and which they were especially prone to throughout all the Old Testament era.

(5.) God was pleased in large measure to overlook and tolerate (though He did not properly approve) the laxness among the people regarding the visible evidence of holiness and the moral qualifications required for attending their sacraments. He did the same in many other cases of great irregularity under that dark, imperfect, and comparatively earthly dispensation -- such as polygamy, divorcing their wives at will, the avenger of blood killing the manslayer, and so on. He overlooked the worshipping at high places in Solomon's time (1 Kings 3:4-5) and the neglect of keeping the Feast of Tabernacles according to the law, from Joshua's time until after the captivity (Nehemiah 8:17). He also overlooked the neglect of synagogue worship, or the public service of God in particular congregations, until after the captivity -- even though the light of nature, together with the general rules of the law of Moses, sufficiently taught and required it.

(6.) It seems to be repeatedly foretold in the prophecies of the Old Testament that there would be a great change in this respect in the days of the Gospel -- that under the new dispensation there would be far greater purity in the church. In the previously mentioned passage in Ezekiel, it is foretold that those who are visibly uncircumcised in heart should no more enter into God's sanctuary. Again, Ezekiel 20:37-38. And I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant; and I will purge from among you the rebels and those who transgress against Me. This seems to be a prophecy of the greater purity of those who are visibly in covenant with God. Isaiah 4:3. It will come about that he who is left in Zion and remains in Jerusalem will be called holy -- everyone who is recorded for life in Jerusalem. Isaiah 52:1. Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for the uncircumcised and the unclean will no more come into you. Zechariah 14:21. And in that day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of the Lord.

(7.) This is exactly the kind of change that would reasonably be expected from what we are taught about the whole nature of the two dispensations. The one had physical ordinances (as they are called in Hebrews 9:10), the other a spiritual service (John 4:24). The one had an earthly Canaan, the other a heavenly; the one an external Jerusalem, the other a spiritual; the one an earthly high priest, the other a heavenly; the one a worldly sanctuary, the other a spiritual; the one a bodily and temporal redemption (which is all that they generally recognized or understood in the Passover), the other a spiritual and eternal. And in keeping with these things, it was so ordered in God's providence that Israel -- the congregation that entered this worldly sanctuary and attended these physical ordinances -- would be a much more worldly, earthly congregation than the New Testament congregation. One reason why God's providence ordered such a difference seems to be this: so that the Messiah might have the honor of introducing a state of greater purity and spiritual glory. This is why God is said to find fault with that ancient dispensation of the covenant. Hebrews 8:7-8. And the time of introducing the new dispensation is called the time of reformation. Hebrews 9:10. One thing in which the improvement over what God found fault with in the former dispensation would consist, the apostle indicates, is the greater purity and spirituality of the church. Hebrews 8:7-8, 11.

OBJECTION 4. It is not reasonable to suppose that the multitudes whom John the Baptist baptized made a profession of saving grace, or had any such visible evidence of true godliness as has been insisted on.

ANSWER. Those whom John baptized came to him confessing their sins, making a profession of some kind of repentance. It is not reasonable to suppose that the repentance they professed was specifically or essentially different from what he had taught them and called them to, which is called repentance for the forgiveness of sins -- and that is saving repentance. John's baptism is called the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. I do not know how such a phrase can reasonably be understood in any other way than as implying that his baptism was a display of that repentance and a seal of the profession of it. Baptism is a seal of some kind of religious profession in adult persons. But the very name of John's baptism shows that it was a seal of a profession of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. It is said in Luke 3:3: John preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. What can be understood by this except that he preached that people should quickly turn to God through true repentance and faith in the promised Savior, come and confess their sins, openly declare this repentance toward God and faith in the Lamb of God, and confirm and seal this profession through baptism? In baptism they would also receive the seal of God's willingness to forgive the sins of those who had this faith and repentance. Accordingly, we are told that the people came and were baptized by him, confessing their sins -- displaying and professing the kind of repentance and faith that he preached. They had no idea of any other kind of repentance that they could suppose John called them to profess in baptism besides this, accompanied by faith in the Lamb whom he called them to look to. For he preached no other kind to them. The people that John baptized professed both repentance for the forgiveness of sins and faith in the Messiah, as is evident from Acts 19:4-5. John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Christ Jesus. When they heard this (John's preaching), they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

If it is objected here that we are told in Matthew 3:5-6: Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins -- and that it is not to be imagined that all these made any credible profession of saving repentance and faith! I answer: No more is to be understood by these expressions, according to the way Scripture uses language, than that there was a very large turnout of people from these places to John. Nor is any more to be understood by the similar universal term in John 3:26: They came to John and said to him, 'Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified, behold, He is baptizing and all are coming to Him.' That is, there was a great turnout from all directions. It is not at all unreasonable to suppose that there was indeed a very large number of people who came to John from the places mentioned. Being deeply moved by his preaching during that time of extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit, they made profession of the faith and repentance that John preached. No doubt there were many more professors than genuine converts. But still, in the great crowds coming to John, there were many of the latter kind, as we may gather from the prophecy. This is clear from Luke 1:16-17: And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God. And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. And from the factual account in Matthew 11:12: From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. And in Luke 16:16: The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. Here the expression is no less universal than the one cited in Matthew 3:5-6. As for those wicked Pharisees who so strongly opposed Christ, some of them I suppose had been baptized by John and at the time made a great show of repentance and faith. But they afterward fell away and became much worse than before. This is why Christ speaks of them as being like a house from which the unclean spirit has visibly been driven out for a while and is left empty, swept, and put in order, but is afterward repossessed and has many demons instead of one. Luke 11:24, and so on. Yet the greater part of these Pharisees were not baptized by John, as is clear from Luke 7:29-30.

If it is further objected that John, in baptizing such multitudes, could not have had time to be adequately informed about those he baptized -- whether their profession of godliness was credible or not -- I answer that we are not specifically informed about the circumstances of his teaching, the assistance he was blessed with, or the means he had of learning about those he baptized. But we can be certain of one thing: he had as much opportunity to inquire into the credibility of their profession as he had to inquire into their doctrinal knowledge and moral character, which my opponents consider just as necessary as I do. And this is enough to silence the present objection.

OBJECTION 5. Christ says in Matthew 20:16, and again in Matthew 22:14, that many are called, but few are chosen. By this it is evident that there are many who belong to the visible church and yet only few real and true saints. This is ordinarily the case even under the New Testament and in days of Gospel light. Therefore, the visible evidence of sainthood by which people are visible saints in the scriptural sense cannot imply an apparent probability of their being real saints or truly gracious persons.

ANSWER. In these texts, by those who are called is not meant those who are visible saints and have the required qualifications for Christian sacraments, but all who receive the external call of the word of God and have its offers and invitations made to them. It is undoubtedly true, and has been the case for the most part, that among those called in this sense, many have been merely called and never truly obedient to the call, while few have been true saints. So it was in the Jewish nation, which the parable in Matthew 20 especially relates to. They generally had the external call of God's word and generally observed many religious duties in hopes of God's favor and reward -- which is called laboring in God's vineyard. Yet only few of them ultimately obtained salvation. Indeed, great multitudes of those who were called in this sense were scandalous persons and outright hypocrites. The Pharisees and Sadducees were called, and they labored in the vineyard in the sense of the parable -- for which they expected great rewards above the Gentile converts or proselytes. This is why they looked with an evil eye on them and could not stand that they should be made equal to them. But still, these Pharisees and Sadducees generally did not have the intellectual and moral qualifications that my opponents consider necessary for Christian sacraments, since they were generally scandalous persons who denied some fundamental principles of religion and explained away some of its most important commands. In the same way, many in Christendom are called by the outward call of God's word, and yet few of them are in a state of salvation. But not all who sit under the sound of the Gospel and hear its invitations are fit to come to the sacraments.

That by those who are called in this saying of our Savior is meant those who receive the Gospel offer, and not those who belong to the society of visible saints, is evident beyond all dispute in Matthew 22:14. By the many that are called is plainly meant the many who are invited to the wedding. In the preceding parable, we have an account of those who from time to time were invited or called -- for the word is the same in the original. Verse 3: And he sent out his servants to call those who had been invited; and they were unwilling to come. This refers to the Jews, who refused not only to come savingly to Christ but refused even to enter the visible church of Christ. Verse 4: Again he sent out other servants saying, 'Tell those who have been invited, behold, I have prepared my dinner,' and so on. Verse 8: Those who had been invited were not worthy. Verse 9: Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast. This represents the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles, who upon hearing it came into the king's house -- that is, the visible church. Among them was one who did not have on wedding clothes, who was bound hand and foot and cast out when the king came. Then at the conclusion, Christ adds this remark, verse 14: For many are called, but few are chosen. This must refer not only to the man just mentioned who came into the wedding hall -- the Christian visible church -- without wedding clothes, but also to those mentioned before who were called but were unwilling even to come into the king's house or join the visible Christian church. To suppose this saying refers only to the one man who came without wedding clothes (representing someone who enters the visible church but is not a true saint) would make the introduction of this saying and its connection with what preceded it very strange and unintelligible. For then it would amount to saying: Multitudes came into the king's house who were called, and the house was full of guests. But among them was found one man who was not chosen; for many are called, but few are chosen.

OBJECTION 6. When the servants of the householder in the parable of the wheat and tares (Matthew 13) unexpectedly found tares among the wheat, they said to their master, Do you want us to go and gather them up? But he said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest.' This shows Christ's intent that we should not try to make a distinction between true saints and mere professors in this world, or aim at anything like admitting true saints only into the visible church. Instead, we should let both remain together in the church until the day of judgment.

ANSWER 1. Nothing in this parable has any reference to introduction into the field or admission into the visible church, as though no care or measures should be taken to prevent tares from being sown. Nor does it suggest that the servants in charge of the field would have done well to have taken tares, appearing to be such, and planted them in the field among the wheat. No, the parable plainly implies the opposite. Rather, the words cited refer entirely to casting out and purging the field after the tares had been introduced unknowingly and contrary to the design, through human weakness and Satan's scheming. On the matter of purging tares from the field, or casting people out of the church, there is no disagreement between me and those I oppose in this controversy. Therefore it is impossible that anything Christ says here about this master could be an objection against me that is not equally an objection against them, since we both hold the same thing. It is agreed on all sides that adult persons actually admitted to communion in the visible church, however their behavior may cast suspicion on their spiritual state, should not be cast out unless they are obstinate in heresy or scandal -- lest while we try to root out the tares, we root out the wheat as well. It is also agreed on all sides that when those represented as tares produce such evil fruit -- such scandalous and persistent wickedness as is plainly and visibly incompatible with the existence of true grace -- they should be cast out. Therefore it is impossible that this objection could serve any purpose.

ANSWER 2. I believe this parable, instead of being a valid objection against the doctrine I maintain, is on the contrary clear evidence for it.

(1) The parable plainly shows that if any are introduced into the householder's field, or church of Christ, who prove not to be wheat (that is, not true saints), they are brought in unknowingly or contrary to the design -- and they are what do not properly belong there. If tares are just as properly to be sown in the field as wheat -- which would have to be the case if the Lord's Supper were a converting ordinance -- then surely no care should be taken to introduce wheat only, and no more regard should be given to the qualities of wheat in sowing the field than to the qualities of tares. There would be no more impropriety in the tares being there than in the wheat. But this is surely altogether inconsistent with the thrust of the parable.

(2) This parable plainly shows that those who are in the visible church all have at first a visible appearance, to human sight, of true grace or of the nature of true saints. For it is noted that tares have this property: when they first appear, and until the plants in the field reach some maturity, they so closely resemble wheat that it is nearly impossible to distinguish them.

OBJECTION 7. Christ Himself administered the Lord's Supper to Judas, whom He knew at the time to be graceless. This is full evidence that grace is not in itself a required qualification for coming to the Lord's Supper. And if it is not required in itself, a profession of it cannot be required.

ANSWER 1. It appears to me that Judas was not present at the administration of the Lord's Supper. It is true he was present at the Passover and dipped with Christ in the Passover dish. The first three Evangelists differ in the order of their accounts of this dipping in the dish. Luke gives an account of it after his account of the Lord's Supper. Luke 22:21. But Matthew and Mark both give an account of it before. (Matthew 26:23; Mark 14:20.) Similar things can be shown in many instances of these three Evangelists differing from one another in the order of their narratives. One places events in his account after others that another places first. These sacred historians did not undertake to state precisely the date of every incident but paid more attention to the truth of the facts than to the order of time. However, in the present case, the nature of the thing speaks for itself and shows that Judas's dipping with Christ in the dish, or his hand being with Christ on the table, or receiving a morsel dipped in the dish, must have occurred in the order in which Matthew and Mark place it in their accounts -- namely, at the Passover, before the Lord's Supper. For there is no such thing in the Lord's Supper as dipping morsels and dipping together in the dish. But there was such a thing at the Passover, where all put their hands together in the dish and dipped their morsels in the bitter sauce. None of these three Evangelists give us any account of the time when Judas went out. But John, who is vastly more detailed about what happened that night and is everywhere more precise about the order of time than the other Evangelists, gives us an account and is very specific about the timing -- namely, that Jesus, when He gave him the morsel, at the same time sent him away, telling him to do quickly what he intended to do. Accordingly, when he had received the morsel, he went out immediately. John 13:27-30. Now since this morsel was at the Passover, it is evident that he was not present at the Lord's Supper that followed. Many of the best commentators hold this view, such as Van Mastricht, Dr. Doddridge, and others.

ANSWER 2. Even if Judas was present, I deny the conclusion. As I have observed repeatedly concerning the Lord's dealings with His people under the Old Testament, so under the New the same principle applies: Christ did not come to judge the secrets of man, nor did He ordinarily act in His external dealings with His disciples and in the administration of ordinances as the searcher of hearts. Rather, He acted as the head of the visible church, proceeding according to what was exhibited in profession and visible appearance -- setting an example for His ministers who would stand in His place after He was gone and act in His name in the administration of ordinances. Judas had made the same profession of loyalty to his Master and of forsaking all for Him as the other disciples. Therefore Christ did not openly reject him until he himself had destroyed his profession and visible evidence of sainthood through public, scandalous apostasy. Even assuming Judas was present at the Lord's Supper, this provides no support for the position I oppose.

ANSWER 3. If those with whom I am dealing in this controversy are not satisfied with the answers already given and think there is a remaining difficulty in this matter that weighs against my position, I will venture to tell them that the difficulty weighs just as heavily against their own position. If there is any strength at all in the argument, it works in every respect with the same force against the need for the qualifications they themselves consider necessary for approaching the Lord's table as against those I believe are necessary. For although they do not think renewing saving grace is necessary, they do consider moral seriousness or (as they variously put it) moral sincerity in religion to be necessary. They consider it essential that people should have some kind of serious principle and purpose in coming to the Lord's table -- some sort of intention to submit to Christ and to seek and serve Him in general -- and in particular some religious purpose in coming to the sacramental supper, some religious regard for Christ in it. But did not Christ at that time know perfectly well that Judas had none of these things? He knew he had nothing of sincerity in the Christian religion or of regard for Christ in that ordinance of any kind whatsoever. He knew that Satan had entered into him and filled his heart, and that he was then cherishing a spiteful, hateful spirit against his Master, stirred up by the reproof Christ had recently given him. (Compare John 12:8 with Matthew 26:8-16 and Mark 14:4-11.) He knew Judas had already formed a treacherous, murderous plan against Him and was now carrying out that bloody scheme, having actually just before gone to the chief priests and agreed with them to betray Him for thirty pieces of silver. (See Matthew 26:14-16; Mark 14:10-11; Luke 22:3-6; and John 13:2.) Christ knew these things and knew that Judas was utterly unqualified for the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper -- though this had not yet been made known to the church or the disciples. Therefore it is just as much the responsibility of those on the other side of this controversy to find some solution to this difficulty as it is mine. They will find they have as much need to take refuge in the solution already given in one or the other of the two preceding answers to this objection.

By the way, I would observe that Christ's not excluding Judas from the Passover under these circumstances -- knowing him to be thus unqualified, without even moral sincerity, and so on -- is another thing that completely undermines all the force of the objection from the Passover against my position. For Judas not only fell under God's strict command in the law of Moses to keep this feast, just like everyone else and without any exception of his case to be found there. Christ Himself with His own hand gave him the morsel, a part of the Passover feast, even though at that very moment He had in view the man's secret wickedness and hypocrisy, the treacherous plan then in his heart, and the terrible conspiracy with the chief priests that he had already entered into and was now carrying out. This was on Christ's mind at the time, and He indicated it to him at the very moment He gave him the morsel, saying, What you do, do quickly. This demonstrates that the objection from the Passover is no stronger an argument against my position than against the position of those I oppose. It is no stronger against the necessity of sanctifying grace -- the qualification for Christian sacraments that I insist on -- than it is against the necessity of moral seriousness or sincerity -- the qualification they insist on.

OBJECTION 8. If sanctifying grace is a required qualification for people's proper access to Christian sacraments, God would have given some certain rule by which those who admit them could know whether they have such grace or not.

This objection was dealt with when I first posed the question. However, I will say something further about it here. I would observe that if there is any strength in this objection, it rests on the truth of this proposition: Whatever qualifications are required for people's proper access to Christian sacraments, God has given some certain rule by which those who admit them can know whether they have those qualifications or not. If this proposition is not true, then there is no force at all in the argument. But I am confident there is not a theologian or a Christian of common sense anywhere on earth who will assert and maintain that this proposition is true. For no one will deny that some kind of belief in the existence of God, some kind of belief that the Scriptures are the Word of God, that there is a future state of rewards and punishments, and that Jesus is the Messiah, are qualifications required for people's proper access to Christian sacraments. Yet God has given those who admit people no certain rule by which they can know whether they believe any one of these things. Nor has He given His ministers or churches any certain rule by which they can know whether any person who presents himself for admission to the sacrament has any degree of moral sincerity, moral seriousness of spirit, or any inward moral qualification whatsoever. All these things exist within the soul, which is beyond our neighbor's view. Therefore, not certainty but a profession and visible evidence of these things must be the rule the church follows. And it is just as good and reasonable a rule of judgment concerning saving grace as it is concerning any other internal, invisible qualification that no one can certainly know except the person himself.

OBJECTION 9. If sanctifying grace is required for a proper approach to the Lord's table, then no one may come unless he knows he has such grace. A person must not merely think he has a right to the Lord's Supper in order to partake of it lawfully; he must know he has a right. If nothing but sanctification gives him a real right to the Lord's Supper, then nothing less than knowledge of sanctification gives him a known right to it. A mere opinion and probable hope of a right will not justify his coming.

Answer 1. I urge those who insist on this as an unanswerable argument to consider calmly whether they themselves ever did or ever will maintain it. For here two things are to be observed.

(1) If no one may justifiably come to the Lord's Supper unless he knows he has a right, then no unconverted person may come unless he not only thinks but knows it is the mind of God that unconverted persons should come, and knows that He does not require grace as a condition for their coming. For unless they know that people may come without grace, they cannot know that they themselves have a right to come while being without grace. Will anyone assert and stand by the claim that every adult person, of every age, rank, and condition of life, must necessarily be so versed in this controversy as to have certainty on this matter before coming to the Lord's Supper? It would be utterly absurd to claim this is a point so easily proven, with evidence so clear and obvious to everyone of every ability, that there is no need for them to study theology in order to be certain of its truth -- that people may come to the sacred table of the Lord even though they know themselves to be unconverted! This is especially so considering that it appears to be a matter of plain fact that the opposite of this opinion has generally been the judgment of Protestant theologians and churches from the Reformation to this day, and that the greater part of the greatest theologians who have ever lived -- men who spent their lives in diligent, prayerful study of theology -- have been firmly committed to the reverse of that opinion. This is enough at least to show that this opinion is not so plain as to be beyond dispute, and that its evidence is not so obvious to persons of the lowest ability and little inquiry that all can arrive at certainty on the matter without difficulty and without study. I would humbly ask here: What has been the actual case in our churches, which have operated on this principle for so many years? Can it be claimed, or was it ever supposed, that the communicants in general -- even persons of limited intellect and little education, not excepting the very boys and girls of sixteen years old who have been taken into the church -- had so studied theology as not only to think but to know that our godly forefathers and almost all the Protestant and Christian theologians in the world had been in error on this matter? And have people ever been taught the necessity of this prior knowledge? Has it ever been insisted that before coming to the Lord's Supper, people must look so far into the question of a right to the Lord's Supper as to arrive not only at a fully settled opinion but even certainty on this point? And has any minister or church in their admissions ever proceeded on the assumption that everyone they received into communion was this well versed in the controversy? Has it ever been the practice, when examining them for the adequacy of their knowledge, to examine them on their thorough familiarity with this particular controversy? Has it been the practice to turn away those who had only an opinion and not certainty -- just as the priests who could not find their genealogical record were set aside until the matter could be determined by Urim and Thummim? And I dare appeal to every minister and every church member who has been involved in admitting communicants: did they ever imagine, or did it ever enter their minds, that each person whose admission they approved had looked so deeply into this matter as to have arrived not merely at a settled opinion but at genuine certainty?

(2) I would like it remembered that the respected author of the Appeal to the Learned taught in his ministry a doctrine from which it unavoidably follows that no unconverted man in the world can know he has warrant to come to the Lord's Supper. For if any unconverted man has warrant to worship his Maker in this way, it must be because God has given him warrant through the revelation of His will in the holy Scriptures. Therefore, if any unconverted man not only thinks but knows he has warrant from God, he must not only think but know that the Scriptures are the Word of God. But I believe all who survive as regular hearers of that eminent minister, and all who were acquainted with him, well remember that it was a doctrine he often taught and strongly insisted on -- that no natural man knows the Scripture to be the Word of God; that although such a person may think so, he does not know it; and that at best he has only a doubtful opinion. He would often express himself this way: No natural man is thoroughly convinced that the Scriptures are the Word of God; if they were convinced, they would be won over. Now if this is true, it is impossible for any natural man in the world ever to know that it is his right, in his present condition, to come to the Lord's Supper. True, he may think it is his right; he may have that opinion. But he cannot know it -- and so he must not come, according to this argument. For it is only the Word of God in the holy Scriptures that gives a person a right to worship the supreme Being in this sacramental manner and to approach Him in this way, or any other way, as one in covenant with Him. The Lord's Supper is not a form of natural worship. Reason without divine institution provides no basis for duty or right in this matter. It is therefore plainly impossible for those who do not even know the Scriptures are the Word of God to know they have any valid ground of duty or right in this matter. Therefore, even supposing unconverted men have a real right, since they have no known right, they have no warrant (according to the argument before us) to claim and use their right. What good then can their right do them? Or how can they excuse themselves from presumption in claiming a right that they do not know belongs to them? It is said that a probable hope that a person is regenerate will not justify him in coming -- that if he comes, he is taking the liberty to do something he does not know God gives him permission to do, which is terrible presumption. But if this is good reasoning, I may just as well say: a probable opinion that unregenerate men may take communion will not justify them in doing it. They must have certain knowledge of this; otherwise, since their right is uncertain, they take a dreadful risk in coming.

ANSWER 2. People are just as liable to doubt their moral sincerity as they are to doubt saving grace. If an unconverted man, aware that he is under the ruling power of sin, were about to solemnly own the covenant (as it is commonly called) and profess to give himself entirely and permanently to the service of God -- and if he knew at the same time that doing this and sealing this profession at the Lord's Supper without moral sincerity (assuming he understood the meaning of that phrase) would cause him to eat and drink judgment on himself -- and if, accordingly, his conscience were awakened and he became afraid of God's judgment -- in that case, I believe, the man would be every bit as liable to doubts about his moral sincerity as godly people are about their gracious sincerity. If it is not actually the case that natural men are as often troubled with doubts about their moral sincerity as godly men are about their regeneration, I believe it is only because godly men, having more tender consciences than those under the dominion of sin, are more afraid of God's judgments and more ready to tremble at His Word. The theologians on the other side of the question suppose that communicants should believe the fundamental doctrines of religion with all their heart (in the sense of Acts 8:37), the doctrine of three Persons and one God in particular. But I think there can be no reasonable doubt that natural men -- who have such a weak and poor kind of faith in these mysteries -- would, if they were indeed as afraid of the terrible consequences of being deceived in this matter, or of not being morally sincere in their profession of the truth, as truly gracious men tend to be of delusion concerning their experience of a work of grace or whether they are genuinely sincere in choosing God as their portion -- the former would be troubled with doubts in the one case just as frequently as the latter in the other. I very much question whether any theologian on the other side of the controversy would think it necessary for natural men, when professing these things, to mean that they know they are morally sincere, or to intend anything more than that they trust they have that sincerity as far as they know their own hearts. If a man came to them proposing to join the church and told them that although he was somewhat afraid about whether he believed the doctrine of the Trinity with all his heart (meaning in a moral sense), yet he had often examined himself on the matter with the utmost impartiality and strictness he was capable of, and on the whole he found reasons for probable hope, and his predominant assessment of himself was that he was sincere in it -- would they think such a person should be rejected? Or would they advise him not to come to the sacrament because he did not certainly know he had this sincerity, but only thought he had it?

ANSWER 3. If we suppose sanctifying grace to be required in order to be properly qualified, according to God's Word, for attending the Lord's Supper, it still does not follow that a person must know he has this qualification in order to conscientiously attend. If he judges that he has it, according to the best light he can obtain, after the most careful examination, with the use of whatever helps he can get -- the advice of his pastor, and so on -- he may be obligated in conscience to attend. The reason is this: Christians partaking of the Lord's Supper is not merely a matter of claim or right and privilege, but a matter of duty and obligation -- an affair in which another (namely God) has a claim and demand on us. Just as we should be careful on the one hand to proceed on good grounds when claiming a privilege, lest we take what we have no good claim to, so we should be equally careful on the other hand to proceed on good grounds in what we withhold from another, lest we withhold from Him what is His due and what He rightfully demands from us. Therefore, in a case of this complex nature -- where something is both a matter of right or privilege for us, and also a matter of obligation to another, or a right of His from us -- the danger of proceeding without right and truth is equal both ways. Consequently, if we cannot be absolutely sure either way, our best judgment, formed after all proper efforts to know the truth, must govern and determine us. Otherwise we would deliberately do the thing that, according to our own judgment, carries the greatest risk -- which is certainly contrary to reason. If the question were only what a person has a right to, he could refrain until he was certain. But the question is not only whether he has a right to attend the Supper, but whether God also has a right to his attendance there. Suppose it were merely a privilege allowed in a certain specified case, and there were no command to take the Lord's Supper even in that case, but at the same time there was a command not to take it unless that be the case in fact. Then, if I am uncertain whether that is my case or not, it will be safest to abstain. But suppose I am not only forbidden to take it unless that is my case, but also positively commanded and required to take it if that is my case in fact. Then it is equally dangerous to neglect on uncertainties as to take on uncertainties. In such a critical situation, a person must act according to the best of his judgment about his case. Otherwise he willfully runs into what he himself thinks is the greater danger of the two.

This is true in countless areas of human life. I will give one clear example. A man should not take up the work of the ministry unless called to it in the providence of God. A person has no right to take this honor upon himself unless called by God. Now suppose a young man of good education and strong abilities is uncertain whether it is the will of God that he should pursue the work of the ministry. He examines himself and his circumstances with great seriousness and solemn prayer, and carefully considers and weighs the indications in divine providence. Yet when he has done everything, he has not arrived at proper certainty that God is calling him to this work. However, it does look that way to him, according to the best light he can obtain and the most careful judgment he can form. Now such a person appears obligated in conscience to give himself to this work. He must by no means neglect it on the notion that he must not take this honor upon himself until he knows he has a right to it. For although it is indeed a privilege, it is not a matter of mere privilege but a matter of duty as well. If he neglects it under these circumstances, he is neglecting what, according to his own best judgment, he believes God requires of him and calls him to -- which is to sin against his conscience.

As for the case of the priests who could not find their genealogical record (Ezra 2), cited in the Appeal to the Learned (page 64), it seems to me to carry no weight in this argument. For even if those priests had the greatest personal assurance that their ancestry was legitimate and that they were descended from priests, and had professed such assurance, it still would not have been accepted. They did not refrain from the priesthood because they themselves lacked confidence, but because they were subject to the judgment of the Sanhedrin. The rule by which the Sanhedrin judged the qualification in question was not based on any profession by the individuals themselves, but on the visible evidence of the fact as seen with their own eyes -- the matter of ancestry being an external reality, ordinarily within human view, and not a qualification of the heart. But this is not the case with the qualifications required for the Lord's Supper. Since many of these are internal, invisible things located in the mind and heart -- such as belief in a supreme Being, and so on -- God has made a credible profession of these things the rule to guide admission to the ordinance. In making this profession, people are governed by their own judgment of themselves, not by anything within the church's view.

OBJECTION 10. The natural consequence of the doctrine that has been maintained is to bring multitudes of people with a tender conscience and true godliness into great perplexity. Being uncertain about the state of their souls, they must inevitably be just as uncertain about their duty. It is not reasonable to suppose that God would arrange things in the revelations of His will so as to bring His own people into such perplexities.

ANSWER 1. It is only for lack of the same tenderness of conscience that the godly have, that the other doctrine -- the one insisting on moral sincerity -- does not naturally bring those who are received into communion on those principles into the same perplexities through their doubting of their moral sincerity, their believing mysteries with all their heart, and so on, as has already been observed. Being free from perplexity only through numbness and hardness of heart is worse than being in the greatest perplexity through tenderness of conscience.

ANSWER 2. Suppose the doctrine I have maintained is indeed the doctrine of God's Word. It still does not follow that the perplexities true saints experience through doubting their spiritual state are caused by the revelations of God's Word. Perplexity and distress of mind -- not only regarding the Lord's Supper but on countless other occasions -- is the natural and unavoidable consequence of true Christians doubting their spiritual state. But shall we therefore say that all these perplexities are caused by the Word of God? No. It is not owing to God, nor to any of His revelations, that true saints ever doubt their state. His revelations are plain and clear, and His rules are sufficient for people to determine their own condition by. For the most part, it is owing to their own laziness and giving way to their sinful tendencies. Must God's institutions and revelations be held accountable for all the perplexities people bring on themselves through their own negligence and lack of watchfulness? It is wisely ordered that the saints should escape perplexity in no other way than through great strictness, diligence, and maintaining the lively, hard-working, and self-denying exercises of religion.

It might as well be said that it is unreasonable to suppose God should arrange things so as to bring His own people into such perplexities as doubting saints commonly experience when death visibly approaches. In that case their doubts tend to produce vastly greater perplexity than when they approach the Lord's table. If Christians would more thoroughly discipline themselves for godliness and always labor to keep a conscience free from offense both toward God and toward man, it would be the way to have comfort and taste the sweetness of religion. If they would run in such a way as not uncertainly, and fight in such a way as not beating the air, it would be the way for them to escape perplexity in both ordinances and providences, and to rejoice and enjoy God in both. Not that doubting their spiritual state sometimes arises only from lack of watchfulness. It may arise from depression and some other particular disadvantages. But however, it is not owing to God's revelations or institutions. Whatever we may suppose those institutions to be, they will not prevent the perplexities of such persons.

Answer 3. It seems reasonable to me to suppose that the doctrine I maintain, if universally embraced by God's people, would -- even though it might on occasion cause perplexity in many cases through their own weakness and sin -- on the whole bring far more comfort to the saints than trouble. It would have a tendency, at every return of the Lord's Supper, to prompt them to the strictest examination and testing of the state of their souls, in keeping with the apostle's rule in 1 Corinthians 11:28. The neglect of this great duty of frequent and thorough self-examination seems to be one main cause of the darkness and perplexity of the saints, and the reason they have so little comfort in ordinances and so little comfort in general. Mr. Stoddard often taught his people that assurance is attainable and that those who are true saints could know it if they would -- that is, if they would use proper means and efforts to reach it. If so, then certainly it is not fair to blame God's institutions for perplexities that arise from people's negligence. Nor would it be fair even on the supposition that God's institutions are such as I suppose them to be.

OBJECTION 11. You might as well say that unsanctified persons may not attend any duty of divine worship whatsoever as say they may not attend the Lord's Supper. For all duties of worship are holy and require holiness for acceptable performance, just as the Lord's Supper does.

Answer. If this argument has any foundation at all, it rests on the supposed truth of the following proposition: Whoever is qualified for admission to one duty of divine worship is qualified for admission to all; and whoever is unqualified for one and may be forbidden from one is unqualified for all and should not be allowed to attend any. But these propositions are certainly not true. There are many who are qualified for some duties of worship and may be allowed -- and should by no means be forbidden -- to attend them, yet who are not qualified for some others and should by no means be admitted to them. As everyone grants, the unbaptized, the excommunicated, heretics, scandalous sinners, and so on may be admitted to hear the Word preached. Nevertheless, they are not to be allowed to come to the Lord's Supper. Even excommunicated persons remain under the law of the Sabbath and are not to be forbidden from observing the Lord's Day. Ignorant persons who do not have enough knowledge for an approach to the Lord's table are still not excused from the duty of prayer. They may pray to God to instruct them and assist them in obtaining knowledge. Those who have been raised in Arianism and Socinianism and have not yet been brought away from these fundamental errors -- and so are by no means to be admitted to the Lord's Supper -- may still pray to God to assist them in their studies, guide them into the truth, and grant them all other mercies they need. Socrates, that great Gentile philosopher who worshipped the true God as he was led by the light of nature, was able to pray to God, and he was doing his duty when he did so -- even though he did not know the revelation God had made of Himself in His Word. That great philosopher who was a contemporary of the apostle Paul -- I mean Seneca -- who held that there was one supreme Being and had in many respects correct ideas about the divine perfections and providence, even though he did not embrace the Gospel that was being preached in the world at that time, could still pray to the supreme Being he acknowledged. And if his brother Gallio at Corinth, when Paul preached there, had prayed to this supreme Being to guide him into the truth so he might know whether the doctrine Paul preached was true, he would have been acting in a way very fitting for a reasonable creature, and anyone would have been unreasonable to forbid him. But surely neither of these men was qualified for the Christian sacraments. So it is clear that there is and ought to be a distinction made between duties of worship with respect to qualifications for them. What is a sufficient qualification for admission to one duty is not sufficient for all. Therefore, the proposition that is the entire foundation on which this argument rests is not true. To say that although a distinction should indeed be made in admission to duties of worship regarding some qualifications, yet sanctifying grace is not one of the qualifications that makes the difference -- this would be simply giving up the argument and perfectly begging the question.

It is said that no reason can be given why unsanctified persons may attend other duties of worship but not the Lord's Supper. But I humbly suggest this must be an oversight. For there is a very obvious reason, found in a necessary and very notable distinction among duties of worship, which is as follows.

1. There are some duties of worship that imply a profession of God's covenant. Their very nature and purpose is an exhibition of those vital, active principles and inward exercises that make up the condition of the covenant of grace -- that union of the soul to God which is the union between Christ and His bride, entered into by an inward, heartfelt consent to that covenant. Such are the Christian sacraments, whose very purpose is to make and confirm a profession of agreement with that covenant, and whose very nature is to express the uniting acts of the soul. Therefore, these sacramental duties cannot be attended by anyone whose heart does not truly consent to that covenant and whose soul does not truly embrace Christ, without their either being self-deceived or else willfully making a false profession and lying in a very serious manner.

2. There are other duties that are not in their own nature an exhibition of a covenant union with God or of any compliance with the condition of the covenant of grace. Instead, they are the expression of general virtues -- virtues in their broadest sense, including both special and common. For example, prayer, or asking mercy from God, is in its own nature not a profession of compliance with the covenant of grace. It is an expression of some belief in the existence of God, some sense of our needs, some sense of our need for help and for God's help in particular, some sense of our dependence, and so on -- but not necessarily a saving or spiritual sense of these things. Indeed, there are some prayers that are proper only for saints to make, and many things proper for them to express in prayer, which imply the profession of a spiritual union of heart to God through Christ -- prayers that no pagan, no heretic, and no natural man can or should make. But prayer in general, and asking mercy and help from God, is no more a profession of consent to the covenant of grace than reading the Scriptures, or meditation, or performing any duty of morality and natural religion. A Muslim may ask for mercy just as well as he may listen to instruction. And any natural man may express his desires to God just as well as he may listen when God declares His will to him. It is true that when an unconverted man prays, the manner of his doing it is sinful. But when a natural man, knowing himself to be such, comes to the Lord's Supper, the very substance of what he does -- in terms of the profession he makes there and his claim to take hold of God's covenant -- is a lie, and a lie told in the most solemn manner.

In a word, the respected Mr. Stoddard himself, in his Doctrine of Instituted Churches, has taught us to distinguish between instituted and natural acts of religion. The Word and prayer he places under the heading of moral duty and considers common to all. But the sacraments, according to what he says there, being instituted, are of special administration and must be limited in accordance with the institution.

OBJECTION 12. The Lord's Supper has a natural tendency to promote people's conversion, being a moving representation of the greatest and most important things of God's Word. It has a natural tendency to awaken and humble sinners, since it reveals the terrible anger of God against sin through the infliction of the curse upon Christ when sin was charged to Him. And the representation made here of the dying love of Christ has a tendency to draw the hearts of sinners from sin to God, and so on.

Answer. Unless it is an obvious truth that whatever the Lord's Supper may have a tendency to promote, that is what it was appointed to promote, nothing follows from this argument. If the argument proves anything, its conclusion is built on the tendency of the Lord's Supper. If the conclusion is sound and strong on this foundation, drawn from such premises, then wherever the premises hold, the conclusion holds. Otherwise it must be shown that the premises and conclusion are not connected. Now let us see how it works in fact. Do not scandalous persons need to have these very effects produced in their hearts that have been mentioned? Yes, certainly. They need them in a special way. They need to be awakened. They need a stirring disclosure of that terrible wrath of God against sin that was displayed in a unique way through the terrible effects of God's wrath in the sufferings of His own incarnate Son. Gross sinners need this in some respects more than others. They need to have their hearts broken by a moving view of the great and important things of God's Word. They especially need to flee to Christ for refuge and therefore need to have their hearts drawn. Since the Lord's Supper has such a great tendency to promote these things, if the reasoning from the tendency of the Lord's Supper to the purpose of its appointment is valid, then it must also be a valid conclusion that the Lord's Supper was appointed for reclaiming and bringing to repentance scandalous persons.

For anyone to dismiss this by saying, Scandalous persons are expressly forbidden, is simply giving up the argument and begging the question. It gives up the argument because it admits the conclusion is not valid -- since it concedes that despite the Lord's Supper's natural tendency to promote a particular end, it may still be the case that the Lord's Supper was not appointed with a view to promoting that end. And it begs the question because it assumes that unconverted men are not clearly forbidden, just as scandalous persons are -- which is the very thing under debate. If they are clearly forbidden, that is as good to reasonable people (who need nothing but good evidence) as if they were expressly forbidden. To say here that the Lord's Supper is a converting ordinance only for orderly members and that there is another ordinance appointed for bringing scandalous persons to repentance -- this is no solution to the difficulty. It is only another instance of giving up the argument and begging the question. For it plainly concedes that the tendency of an ordinance does not prove it was appointed for all the ends it seems to have a tendency to promote. And it also assumes that there is no other ordinance appointed for the conversion of sinners who are moral and orderly in their lives, apart from this one -- which is the very thing in question.

It is at best very shaky reasoning to argue from the apparent tendency of things to the divine appointment, or God's will and intention regarding the use of those things. It looks as though it would have had a great tendency to convince the scribes and Pharisees and to promote their conversion, if they had been admitted to the mountain when Christ was transfigured. But it was not the will of Christ that they should be admitted there, or anyone else but Peter, James, and John. It seems as though it would have had a very great tendency to convince and bring to repentance the unbelieving Jews if they had been allowed to see and freely interact with Christ after His resurrection and to see Him ascend into heaven. But it was the will of God that no one but disciples should be admitted to these privileges. Similarly, it seems as though it might have had a good tendency if all sincere followers of Christ -- women as well as men -- had been allowed to be present at the institution of the Lord's Supper. But it is commonly believed that no one was admitted besides the apostles.

Indeed the ever-honored author of the Appeal to the Learned has provided me with the true and proper answer to this objection in the following words, pages 27-28. The effectiveness of the Lord's Supper depends on the blessing of God. Whatever tendency ordinances have in their own nature to be useful to people, they will not accomplish anything beyond what God blesses them to accomplish. The weapons of our warfare are mighty through God. 2 Corinthians 10:4. It is God who teaches people to profit, and who makes ordinances profitable and useful to people's souls. There is reason to hope for a divine blessing on the Lord's Supper when it is administered to those it ought to be administered to. God's blessing is to be expected in God's way. If people act according to their own whims and fancies, and do not keep in the way of obedience, it is presumption to expect God's blessing. Matthew 15:9: But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. But when those are admitted to the Lord's Supper whom God intends to be admitted, there is ground to hope that He will make it profitable.

OBJECTION 13. All who are members of the visible church and in the external covenant, and who are neither ignorant nor scandalous, are commanded to perform all external covenant duties. In particular, they are commanded to attend the Lord's Supper by those words of Christ: This do in remembrance of Me.

ANSWER. This argument carries no weight without first taking for granted the very thing in question. For what is plainly assumed in it is this: although these commands are given to those in the external covenant, yet they are not given without qualification. They come with exceptions and limitations, and do not directly apply to all such people. They do not apply to those who are unqualified, even though they are in the external covenant. Now the question is: who are these unqualified people? The objection assumes that only ignorant and scandalous persons are unqualified. But why are they alone supposed to be unqualified, and not unconverted persons too? Because it is taken for granted that unconverted persons are not unqualified. And so the very point at issue is assumed instead of being proven. Why are these limitations alone singled out -- neither ignorant nor scandalous -- and not others as well? The answer must be: because these are all the limitations Scripture makes. But this is the very thing under debate. The purpose of an argument, however, is to prove, not to assume or take for granted, the very thing that needs to be proven.

If it is said here that it is with good reason that only the ignorant or scandalous are supposed to be excepted from God's command and the obligations of the covenant -- because the covenant spoken of in the objection is the external covenant, and this requires only external duties, which alone are within the reach of man's natural ability and so within the reach of his legal obligation -- since God does not command or require what men have no natural power to perform, and which cannot be performed before something else, some prior duty, is performed, which prior duty is itself not within their natural power --

I reply: Things are still only assumed that should be proven and that need confirmation.

(1) It is assumed that those who have externally (that is, by verbal profession and promise) entered into God's covenant are thereby obligated to nothing more than the external duties of that covenant. This is not proven, and I humbly suggest it is certainly not the true state of the case. Those who have externally entered into God's covenant have, by external profession and commitment, entered into that one and only covenant of grace that Scripture tells us about. Therefore they are obligated to fulfill the duties of that covenant, which are mainly internal. The children of Israel, when they externally entered into covenant with God at Mount Sinai, promised to perform all the duties of the covenant -- to obey all the Ten Commandments spoken by God in their hearing and written on tablets of stone, which were therefore called the tablets of the covenant. The sum of these ten commands was to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul, and to love their neighbor as themselves -- which are primarily, at the very least, internal duties. In particular, they promised not to covet -- which is an internal duty. They promised to have no other gods before the Lord -- which implied that they would in their hearts regard no other being or object above God or as equal with Him, but would give Him their supreme devotion.

(2) It is assumed that God does not require impossibilities of people -- in the sense that He does not require things that are beyond their natural ability, and in particular that He does not require them to be converted. But this is not proven, nor can I reconcile it with the tenor of Scripture's revelation. The chief advocates for the doctrine I oppose have themselves abundantly asserted the contrary. The respected author previously mentioned, as everyone who knew him well knows, always taught that God justly requires people to be converted, to repent of their sins and turn to the Lord, to embrace Christ and savingly believe in Him. He taught that in refusing to accept Christ and turn to God, they disobeyed the divine commands and were guilty of the most serious sin, and that their moral inability was no excuse.

(3) It is assumed that God does not command people to do things that cannot be done until something else is done first that is not within the reach of man's natural ability. This also is not proven, nor do I see how it can be true, even according to the principles of those who press this objection. The previously mentioned distinguished minister always taught that God commands natural men to believe in Christ without delay. Yet he always held that it was impossible for them to believe until they had by a preceding act submitted to the sovereignty of God -- which, he held, people could never do on their own, not until they were humbled and broken by powerful convictions from God's Spirit. Again, he taught that God commands natural men to love Him with all their heart. Yet he held that this could not happen until people had first believed in Christ, since the exercise of love is a fruit of faith. And he supposed that believing in Christ was not within the reach of man's natural ability. Further, he held that God requires of all people holy, spiritual, and acceptable obedience. Yet he said such obedience was not within the reach of their natural ability. Not only that, but there must first be love for God before there could be new obedience, and this love for God was not within the reach of man's natural ability. Nor was that all -- before this love there must be faith, which was not within the reach of man's natural power. And still further, before faith there must be the knowledge of God, which was not within natural man's reach. And yet again, even before the knowledge of God there must be thorough humiliation, which people could not produce in themselves by any natural power of their own. Now, must it really be thought, notwithstanding all these things, unreasonable to suppose that God should command those whom He has nourished and brought up to honor Him by giving an open testimony of love for Him -- only because wicked men cannot testify to love until they have love, and love is not within their natural power? Is it any good excuse in the sight of God for someone who is under the highest obligations to Him, yet refuses to give Him suitable honor by openly testifying to love for Him, to plead that he has no love to testify -- but on the contrary, has an infinitely unreasonable hatred? God may most reasonably require a proper testimony and profession of love for Him. And yet it may also be reasonable to suppose, at the same time, that He forbids people to lie -- or to declare they have love when they have none. For although we suppose God requires people to testify their love for Him, He requires them to do it in the right way and in the right order -- namely, first loving Him, and then testifying to their love.

(4) I do not see how it can be true that a man, as he naturally is, does not have a legal power to be converted, accept Christ, love God, and so on. By legal power to do a thing is plainly meant such power as brings a person properly within the reach of a legal obligation -- the obligation of a law or command to do that thing. But someone who has natural faculties that make him a proper subject of moral government, and that make it fitting and proper for him to love God, and that give him a natural capacity for it -- such a person may properly be placed under the obligation of a law to do things so reasonable. This is true regardless of any native aversion and moral inability to do his duty arising from the power of sin. This also, I must note, was a well-known doctrine of Mr. Stoddard's and something he always taught.

OBJECTION 14. Either unsanctified persons may lawfully come to the Lord's Supper, or it is unlawful for them to conduct themselves as saints. But it is not unlawful for them to conduct themselves as saints.

ANSWER. It is the duty of unconverted people both to become saints and to behave as saints. The Scripture rule is: Make the tree good, so that its fruit may be good. Mr. Stoddard himself never supposed that the fruit of saints was to be expected from people, or could possibly be genuinely produced by them, until they actually were saints.

And I do not see how it is true that unconverted people ought, in every respect, to do those external things that it is the duty of a godly person to do. It is the duty of a godly person, conscious of having given his heart to the Lord, to profess his love for God and his esteem of Him above all, his sincere faith in Christ, and so on -- and in his private devotions to thank God for these graces as the fruit of the Spirit in him. But it is not the duty of another person who genuinely has no faith or love for God to do this. Nor is it any more a natural man's duty to profess these things in the Lord's Supper. Mr. Stoddard taught that it was the duty of converts on many occasions to profess their faith and love and other graces before others by relating their experiences in conversation. But it would be great wickedness for those who know themselves not to be saints to do this, because they would be speaking falsely and uttering lies in doing so. For the same reason, it would be very sinful for people to profess and seal their consent to the covenant of grace in the Lord's Supper when they know at the same time that they do not consent to it and their hearts are not at all in the matter.

OBJECTION 15. This approach will keep out of the church some true saints, for there are some such who judge against themselves, and their prevailing opinion is that they are not saints. It is better to let in several hypocrites than to exclude one true child of God.

ANSWER. I believe it is much better to insist on some reasonable visible evidence of true sainthood in admitting members -- even if this, through people's weakness and spiritual darkness and Satan's temptations, causes some true saints to hold back -- than to throw open the door by express permission to as many as please of those who have no visible evidence of real sainthood, make no profession of it, and lay no claim to it. The reason is that this open approach tends to the ruin and great disgrace of the Christian church, and also to the ruin of the persons admitted.

1. It tends to the disgrace and ruin of the Christian church. For by the rule God has given for admissions, if carefully followed (it is said), more unconverted than converted persons will be admitted. So it is admittedly the way to have the greater part of the members of the Christian church be ungodly people -- yes, so much the greater part that the godly will be only few in comparison with the ungodly, in keeping with their interpretation of Christ's saying, Many are called, but few are chosen. Now if this is an accurate description of the situation, it can be demonstrated on scriptural principles that opening the door so wide has a direct tendency to bring things to the point where the far greater part of the members of Christian churches will not even be persons of a serious, conscientious character, but people without even moral sincerity who do not make religion their concern at all. They will neglect and abandon private prayer and other duties, living a life of worldliness and vanity as far as they can while avoiding church discipline -- which may sometimes be to a great degree. Ungodly people may be morally sober, serious, and conscientious, and may have what is called moral sincerity for a while. They may have these things in considerable measure when they first come into the church. But if their hearts are not changed, there is no probability at all of these things lasting long. Scripture has told us that their goodness tends to vanish like the morning cloud and the early dew. How can it be expected that religion should last long when it has no root? How can it be expected that the lamp should burn long without oil in the vessel to feed it? If sin is left unchecked and in ruling power in the heart, it will sooner or later prevail. Eventually it will sweep away common grace and moral sincerity, however much these were stirred up and maintained for a while by conviction and passing emotions. What will happen to them is described in the true proverb: The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire. It is said of the hypocrite: Will he take delight in the Almighty? Will he always call upon God? And so our churches will likely become such congregations as the psalmist said he hated and refused to sit with. Psalm 26:4-5. I do not sit with deceitful men, nor will I go with pretenders; I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked. This will be the way to have the Lord's table ordinarily furnished with such guests as permit themselves to live in known sin, coming together time after time only to crucify Christ afresh instead of commemorating His crucifixion with the repentance, faith, gratitude, and love of friends. And this is the way to have the governing part of the church be people who are not even conscientious and are careless about the honor and welfare of religion. The direct tendency of that, over time, is to introduce a prevailing negligence in discipline and carelessness in seeking ministers of godly and worthy character. The next step will be the churches being filled with persons openly immoral in conduct or scandalously wrong in their beliefs. It would be surprising if this is not already the case in fact with some churches that have long professed and practiced the principles I oppose. And if these principles were professed and acted on by Christian churches everywhere, the natural tendency would be for the greater part of what is called the church of Christ throughout the world to be made up of immoral and doctrinally corrupt persons. How greatly this would disgrace the Christian church and the holy name and religion of Jesus Christ in the sight of all nations!

Now is it not better to have a few genuine living Christians held back through spiritual darkness and scruples, than to open a door for such universal ruin as this? To illustrate with a familiar comparison: is it not better, when England is at war with France, to keep out of the British realm a few loyal Englishmen than to grant permission for as many treacherous Frenchmen to come in as please?

2. This approach tends to the eternal ruin of the persons admitted. For it lets in -- yes, it persuades -- people who know themselves to be unrepentant and unbelieving to take God's name in vain in a dreadful manner, to worship Him in vain and abuse sacred things by solemnly performing external acts and rites in the name of God that are instituted as declarative signs and professions of repentance toward God, faith in Christ, and love for Him -- at the same time that they know themselves to be without the things they profess to have. Is it not better that some true saints, through their own weakness and misunderstanding, should be kept away from the Lord's table -- which will not keep them out of heaven -- than to voluntarily bring in multitudes of false professors to partake unworthily and in effect to seal their own condemnation?

OBJECTION 16. You cannot keep out hypocrites when all is said and done. Just as many graceless persons will likely get into the church through a profession of godliness as would if nothing were required except freedom from public scandal.

ANSWER. This may possibly be the case in some places through the poor conduct of ministers and people -- by carelessness in their inquiries, inattention to the proper content of a profession, or the adoption of mistaken standards of judgment. They may neglect the things that Scripture emphasizes as the most essential marks in the character of a real saint and substitute other things in their place -- such as impressions on the imagination instead of renewing influences on the heart, sudden surges of emotion instead of the habitual disposition of the mind, a certain pattern and order of impressions and ideas instead of the nature of the things actually experienced, and so on. But to say that in churches where the nature, marks, and evidences of true Christianity as described in the Scriptures are well understood, taught, and observed, just as many hypocrites are likely to get in -- or to suppose that just as many of those honest persons who are well instructed in these rules, well guided by them, and judging themselves by these rules do think themselves true saints and accordingly make a profession of godliness and are admitted as saints in a judgment of rational charity -- to suppose, I say, that as many of these are likely to be unregenerate, unconverted people as those who make no such claim, have no such hope, and display no such evidence to the eye of a discerning charity -- this is not so much an objection against the doctrine I am defending as a reflection on Scripture itself, with regard to the rules it gives either for people to judge their own spiritual state or for others to form a charitable judgment by, as if those rules were of little or no use at all. We are in miserable circumstances indeed if the rules of God's holy Word on matters of such infinite importance are so vague and uncertain, like the pagan oracles. It would be very strange if in these days of the Gospel -- when God's mind is revealed with such great plainness of speech and the canon of Scripture is complete -- it should ordinarily be the case that those who have a correct doctrinal understanding of Scripture and judge themselves by its rules, and who probably conclude or seriously hope that they are real saints, are just as many of them in a state of sin and condemnation as others who have no such rational hope about their spiritual condition and claim no special religious experiences.

OBJECTION 17. If a profession of godliness is required for admission to the church, then since there are some true saints who doubt their spiritual state and from a tender conscience will not dare to make such a profession -- while there are others who have no grace and not much tenderness of conscience, but great presumption and boldness, who will confidently make the highest profession of religion and so gain admission -- the result will be that the very thing that in effect secures admission for the latter rather than the former will be their presumption and wickedness.

ANSWER 1. It is not a sufficient objection against the soundness of a rule established for regulating the civil affairs of mankind that in some cases people's wickedness may take advantage of that rule, so that their very wickedness becomes the thing that, by an abuse of that rule, gains them earthly honors and privileges. For such is the present state of mankind in this evil world that good rules in many cases are liable to be abused and corrupted in this way. For example, there are many human laws or rules considered sound and necessary, by which an accused or suspected person's own solemn profession of innocence -- his asserting it under oath -- is the condition of acquittal and freedom from punishment. The lack of such an assertion or profession exposes him to the penalty. And yet by an abuse of these rules, in some cases, nothing but the terrible sin of perjury, or that most presumptuous wickedness of false swearing, is the very thing that acquits a person -- while another of a more tender conscience, who fears an oath, must suffer the penalty of the law.

2. Those rules are considered sound by all wise lawmakers that prove to have a generally good tendency, regardless of any bad consequences arising in some particular cases. As for the ecclesiastical rule now in question -- admission to the sacraments on a profession of godliness, when accompanied by the proper circumstances -- although this rule in particular cases may cause some tender-hearted Christians to hold back and some presumptuous sinners to be admitted, yet this does not prevent a proper visible evidence of holiness to the eye of reason, or a probability of it in a judgment of rational Christian charity, from being maintained as the proper qualification of candidates for admission. Nor does it prevent it from being reasonable and wholesome for people in their outward conduct to regulate themselves by such probability, and for this to be a reasonable and good rule for the church to follow in their admissions -- even though it happens in particular cases that things are actually different from, and even the very reverse of, what they appear to be. Such a profession as has been insisted on, when accompanied by proper circumstances, carries rational credibility in the judgment of Christian charity. For it should be accompanied by an honest and sober character, by evidence of good doctrinal knowledge, and by all proper, careful, and diligent instruction from a wise pastor. And though the pastor is not to act as a searcher of hearts or a lord of conscience in this matter, this does not prevent him from inquiring in detail into the spiritual experiences of the souls committed to his care and charge. This way he can be in the best position to instruct and advise them, to apply the teachings and rules of God's Word to them for their self-examination, to be a helper of their joy, and a promoter of their salvation. However, in the end, it is not any supposed special skill of his in discerning the heart, but the person's own serious profession concerning what he finds in his own soul -- after he has been well instructed -- that must govern public conduct toward him, when there is no other external visible thing to contradict and overrule it. And a serious profession of godliness under these circumstances carries visible evidence to the eye of the church's rational and Christian judgment.

3. If it is still insisted that a rule of admission to the church cannot be good if it is liable to such a kind of abuse as that described above, I must point out that this will overthrow the rules that the objectors themselves follow in their admissions. For they insist that a person must not only have knowledge and be free of scandal, but must appear orthodox and profess the common faith. Now presumptuous lying, for the sake of the honor of being in the church, having children baptized, and voting in church affairs, may well be the very thing that brings some people into the church by this rule -- while greater tenderness of conscience may be the very thing that keeps others out. For example, a man who secretly in his mind gives no credit to the commonly received doctrine of the Trinity may, by pretending to agree with it and hypocritically making a public profession of it, get into the church. Meanwhile, another man who equally disbelieves it but has a more tender conscience that will not allow him to tell a solemn lie may by that very means be kept out of communion and remain outside the church.

OBJECTION 18. It seems hardly reasonable to suppose that the all-wise God has made people's opinion of themselves and a profession of it the basis for their admission to church privileges, when we know that very often the worst people have the highest opinion of themselves.

ANSWER 1. It must be granted that this is in fact the case if any proper profession at all is expected and required, whether it be of sanctifying grace or of moral sincerity or of anything else that is good. And certainly, nothing is required to be professed, or is worthy of being professed, any further than it is good.

ANSWER 2. If some things, by everyone's admission, must be professed precisely because they are good and of great importance, then it must certainly be acknowledged as very unreasonable to say that the things in which true holiness consists are not to be professed, or that a profession of them should not be required. The same reason applies: because they are good -- indeed, good in the highest degree, and infinitely the most important and most necessary things in all the world. It is unreasonable to say that we should be less expected to profess sincere friendship with Christ because friendship with Christ is the most excellent qualification of all, and the opposite is the most hateful. How absurd it is to say this merely on the basis that for a person to profess what is so good and so reasonable is to profess a high opinion of himself!

ANSWER 3. Though some of the worst people tend to have the highest opinion of themselves, yet their self-conceit is no rule for the church. Rather, the apparent credibility of people's profession is to be the basis of the church's actions.

OBJECTION 19. If it is necessary for adult persons to make a profession of godliness in order to be admitted to baptism themselves, then it is undoubtedly necessary for their children to be baptized on their account. For parents cannot convey to their children a right to this sacrament by virtue of any qualifications lower than those required for their own right, since children are admitted to baptism only as being, as it were, parts and members of their parents. Besides, the act of parents in offering up their children in a sacrament that is a seal of the covenant of grace is itself a solemn participation in that sacrament as persons who have an interest in the covenant. It is a public display of their approval and consent to it, just as truly as if they were then offering up themselves to God in that ordinance. Indeed, it implies a renewed offering up of themselves along with their children, devoting both jointly to God in covenant -- themselves together with their children as parts of themselves. But now what terrible consequences will such a doctrine create among us! We will have multitudes unbaptized, going about without the external badge of Christianity, and in that respect will be like pagans. This is the way to have the land full of people who lack what Scripture speaks of as ordinarily necessary for people's salvation. It will bring disgrace on vast multitudes along with the families they belong to. Not only that, but it will tend to make them ungodly and pagan. For by treating our children as though they had no share in the Lord, we will cause them to stop fearing the Lord, in keeping with Joshua 22:24-25.

ANSWER 1. As for children being deprived of what Scripture speaks of as one thing ordinarily necessary for salvation, I would observe that baptism can do their souls no good in any way other than through God's blessing attending it. But we have no reason to expect His blessing on baptism if it is administered to those it does not belong to according to His institution.

ANSWER 2. As for the disgrace that will be brought on parents and children by children going without baptism because the parents neglect a profession of godliness and so visibly remain among the unconverted -- if anyone insists on this objection, I think it will show a great deal of unreasonableness and even foolishness.

It will show an unreasonable spirit. Is it not enough that God freely offers to claim people's children and give them the honor of baptism, provided the parents will turn from sin, give up their hostility toward Him, sincerely hand over themselves and their children to Him, and take on the profession of godliness? If people are truly excusable in not turning to God through Christ, in not believing with the heart, and in not confessing with the mouth, why do we not openly argue that they are? And why do we not teach sinners that they are not to blame for remaining among the enemies of Christ and neglecting and despising His great salvation? If they are not at all excusable in this, and it is entirely due to their own indulged sinful desires that they refuse to sincerely give up themselves and their children to God, then how unreasonable is it for them to complain that their children are denied the honor of having God's mark placed on them as some of His own? If parents are angry about this, such an attitude shows them to be very unaware of their own terrible treatment of the blessed God. Suppose a prince sent word to a traitor in prison, and upon opening the prison doors made him the offer that if he would come out and submit to him, he would not only be pardoned himself, but both he and his children would have certain badges of honor bestowed on them. Yet if the rebel's hostility and stubbornness of spirit against his prince is such that he cannot find it in his heart to accept the gracious offer, will he have any right to be angry that his children do not receive those badges of honor? Besides, it is very much the fault of parents that there are so many young people who can make no profession of godliness. They have themselves to blame, then, if -- proceeding on the principles I have maintained -- there is likely to arise a generation of unbaptized persons. If previous generations had thoroughly done their duty to their descendants in instructing, praying for, and governing their children and setting them good examples, there is reason to think the situation would have been far different.

Insisting on this objection would also show much foolishness. For the objection seems to assume that the country is full of people who are unconverted and therefore exposed every moment to eternal damnation. Yet we apparently do not hear great and widespread complaints and sorrowful outcries about this. Now why is it considered so dreadful to have great numbers going without the name and honorable badge of Christianity, prompting loud and widespread protests about such a calamity -- when at the same time it is no more resented or taken to heart that such multitudes go without the reality, which is infinitely more dreadful? Why are we so silent about this? What is the name good for without the reality? Can parents bear to have their children go about the world in the most hateful and dangerous state of soul, in reality children of the devil and condemned to eternal punishment -- while at the same time they cannot bear to have them disgraced by going without the honor of being baptized? A high honor and privilege this certainly is. Yet how can parents be content with the sign while excluding the reality signified? Why should they desire the outward honor for their children while being so careless about the spiritual blessing? Does not this reveal an insensitivity to their own misery, as well as their children's, in being in a Christless state? If a man and his child were both bitten by a poisonous snake, dreadfully swollen and likely to die, would it not show foolishness in the parent to be anxiously concerned only about his child wearing a dirty garment in such circumstances, and angry at others for not putting some outward ornament on it? But the difference in the present case is infinitely greater and more important. Let parents pity their poor children because they are without baptism, and pity themselves, who are in danger of everlasting misery while they have no interest in the covenant of grace and so have no right to covenant favors or honors for themselves or their children. No religious honors obtained in any other way than through genuine religion are worth much contending for. And in truth, it is no honor at all to a person to have merely the outward badges of a Christian without actually being a Christian. This is no more an honor than it would be for a man who has no learning but is completely ignorant to have a college degree, or for a man who has no courage but is a great coward to have an honorable military commission -- which only serves, by raising him up, to expose him to deeper disgrace and make him a more conspicuous object of contempt.

ANSWER 3. Concerning the tendency of confining baptism to professors of godliness and their children to promote irreligion and ungodliness, I would observe: First, Christ is best able to judge the tendency of His own institutions. Second, I am bold to say that the supposition that this principle and practice has such a tendency is a great mistake, contrary to Scripture, plain reason, and experience. Indeed it would have such a tendency to shut people out from having any share in the Lord (in the sense of the two and a half tribes in Joshua 22:25), or to fence them out by a dividing wall like the one formerly between Jews and Gentiles, and so to shut them out by telling them that no matter how much they wanted to serve God, He was not ready to accept them -- according to the view the Jews seem to have had of the uncircumcised Gentiles. But merely refraining from giving people honors they have no right to, and not flattering them with the name and badge of God's people and children while they claim nothing inconsistent with being His enemies -- this has no such tendency. Rather, the opposite practice very much has this tendency. For is it not found by constant experience throughout all ages that blind, corrupt humanity, in matters of religion, is strongly disposed to settle for a name instead of the reality, for the shadow instead of the substance, and to make themselves comfortable with the former while neglecting the latter? This overvaluing of common grace and so-called moral sincerity -- building so much upon them, making them the conditions for enjoying the seals of God's covenant and the appointed privileges and honorable, sacred badges of God's children -- this, I cannot help but think, naturally tends to soothe and flatter the pride of vain humanity. It tends to magnify in people's eyes the very things they are already strongly inclined to magnify and trust in without such encouragement to prompt them -- indeed, against all the discouragements and warnings that can possibly be given them.

This way of proceeding strongly tends to establish the negligence of parents and to confirm the insensitivity and false security of wicked children. If baptism were denied to all children whose parents did not profess godliness and appear in the judgment of rational charity to be real saints, it would tend to motivate godly heads of families to take more thorough care and effort in the religious education of their children, and to pray more fervently for them -- that they might be converted in youth, before they enter a married state, so that if they have children the line of the covenant would be secured. It would also tend to awaken young people themselves who are still unconverted, especially when they are about to establish themselves in the world. Their having no right to Christian privileges for their children, should they become parents, would tend to lead them at such a time to seriously reflect on their own terrible spiritual condition. If they do not get out of it, it must lay the foundation for so much hardship and disgrace for their families. If after becoming parents they still remain unconverted, the sad thought of their children going about without so much as the external mark of Christians would continually tend to remind them of, and affect them with, their own sin and foolishness in neglecting to turn to God -- by which they bring such visible hardship and disgrace on themselves and their families. They would have this additional motivation to continually stir them up to seek grace for themselves and their children. The contrary practice, on the other hand, naturally tends to quiet people's minds about both their own and their children's unregenerate state. Indeed, may it not be suspected that the practice of baptizing the children of those who never make any proper profession of godliness is an arrangement originally invented for the very purpose of giving comfort to previous generations regarding their descendants in times of general decline and spiritual decay?

This way of proceeding strongly tends to establish the insensitivity and irreligion of children as well as the negligence of parents. It is certain that unconverted parents never truly give up their children to God, since they have not truly given up themselves to Him. If neither parent appears truly godly in the judgment of rational charity, there is in that case no ground to expect the children will be brought up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord, or that they will receive anything worthy of the name of a Christian education, however solemnly the parents may promise it. The faithfulness of Abraham was such that he could be trusted in this matter. See Genesis 18:19. But people who are not even visibly godly -- on what grounds can they be trusted? How can it reasonably be expected that those who were never sincerely willing that their children or themselves should be God's would faithfully raise their children for God? It will be mere presumption to expect that children who are never given up to God and never raised for Him should turn out religious and become God's children. There is absolutely no reason to expect anything other than that such children will ordinarily grow up in irreligion, whether they are baptized or not. For people to go about with the name and visible seal of God and the sacred badge of Christianity on them -- having had their bodies consecrated to God as His temples by a holy ordinance -- yet living in irreligion and ways of wickedness, this exceedingly tends to harden them and establish in them a habitual contempt for sacred things. Such persons, above all others, are likely to be the most hardened and abandoned and the hardest to reclaim -- just as the wicked Jews were far more confirmed in their wickedness than those pagan cities of Tyre and Sidon. To give what is holy to those who are profane, or whom we have no reason from the circumstances of parentage and education to expect will be otherwise, is not the way to make them better, but worse. It is the way to have them habitually trample holy things under their feet, to increase in contempt for them, and even to turn and tear us and be more harmful enemies of what is good than they would otherwise have been.

OBJECTION 20. Some ministers have been greatly blessed in the other way of proceeding, and some people have been converted at the Lord's Supper.

Answer. Though we should pay attention to the providence of God and not disregard His works, yet to interpret them in a way or apply them to a purpose inconsistent with the direction of the Word of God is to misread and misuse them. God has not given us His providence but His Word to be our governing rule. God is sovereign in His dealings of providence. He bestowed the blessing on Jacob even when he had a lie in his mouth. He was pleased to meet with Solomon and make Himself known to him and bless him in an extraordinary way while he was worshipping at a high place. He met with Saul while he was in a course of violent opposition to Him and as far from his duty as possible, going to Damascus to persecute Christ -- and even then bestowed on him the greatest blessing that has perhaps ever been given to a mere man. The ways of divine providence, with their reasons, are too little understood by us to serve as our rule. God has His way in the sea, His path in the mighty waters, and His footsteps are not known. And He gives no account of any of His matters. But God has given us His Word for this very purpose: that it might be our rule. He has therefore designed it to serve that purpose and arranged it so that we can understand it. Strictly speaking, this is our only rule. If we add anything else to it as our rule, we do something we have no warrant for -- indeed, something God Himself has forbidden. See Deuteronomy 4:2. Proverbs 30:6. And regarding God's blessing and prospering of ministers, have not some had remarkable experience of it in the way I am arguing for, as well as some who have supported the way I oppose? However, we cannot conclude that God sees nothing at all wrong in ministers just because He blesses them. In general, He may see things in them that are very right and excellent. These He approves and regards, while He overlooks and pardons their mistakes in opinion or practice, and despite these is pleased to crown their labors with His blessing.

As for the last two arguments in the Appeal to the Learned -- concerning the subjects of the Christian sacraments being members of the visible church and not the invisible -- the force of those arguments depends entirely on the resolution of this question: Who are visible saints? Or what adult persons are properly admitted to the privileges of members of the visible church? This question has already been extensively considered, and I believe it has been demonstrated that they are those who present a credible profession and visible evidence of Gospel holiness or vital godliness, and not merely of moral sincerity. So there is no need for further debate on the point here.

I could mention here many things not yet addressed that some raise as disadvantages of the position I have maintained. If people were to set up their own cleverness and wisdom in opposition to God's revealed will, there would be no end to the objections of this kind that might be raised against any of God's institutions. Some have even found great fault with the creation of the world, considering it poorly done, and have imagined they could tell how it might be improved in a great many ways. But however plain God's altar may appear to us, if we lift our tool upon it to improve it, we will only defile it. Laws and institutions are given for the general good and not to avoid every particular disadvantage. However it may happen that disadvantages (real or imagined) sometimes accompany the position I have maintained, I believe they are not nearly equal to the clear benefits and happy tendencies of it, or to the obvious disadvantages and harmful consequences of the other. I have already mentioned some things along these lines, and here I would briefly note some others.

The practice of making such a difference between outward duties of morality and worship on the one hand, and those great inward duties of the love of God and acceptance of Christ on the other -- so that the former must be visible, but there need be no display or claim of the latter for people to be admitted into the visible family of God; and this under the notion that the latter are impossibilities but the other is within people's ability -- this, I believe, has a direct tendency to confirm in people an insensitivity to the seriousness of those sins of the heart: unbelief and hostility toward God our Savior, which are the source and sum of all wickedness. It tends to prevent their coming under a humbling conviction of the greatness and utter inexcusability of these sins, which people must be brought to see if they are ever to obtain salvation. Indeed this is an approach that not only has this tendency, but actually and visibly produces this effect, and to a great degree.

The effect of this method of proceeding in the churches of New England that have adopted it is actually this. There are some who are received into these churches under the notion that in the judgment of rational charity they are visible saints or professing saints, who at the same time are actually open professors of serious wickedness -- I mean the wickedness of living in known impenitence and unbelief, the wickedness of living in hostility toward God and in the rejection of Christ under the Gospel. Or, which is the same thing, they are people who freely and frequently acknowledge that they do not claim to be born again yet, but regard themselves as truly unconverted, as having never sincerely accepted Christ. They either explicitly or implicitly count themselves among those who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ -- of whom the apostle says, let such be accursed! And accordingly, it is known throughout the whole town where they live that they make no claim to any sanctifying grace already received. Consequently, they are commonly regarded as nothing other than unconverted persons. Now can this be judged the proper order of the Gospel? Or shall God be supposed the author of such confusion?

In this way of conducting church affairs, God's own children and the true disciples of Christ are required to receive as their brethren, admit to the communion of saints, and embrace in the highest acts of Christian fellowship -- even in their great feast of love, where they feed together on the body and blood of Christ -- people they have no reason to regard as anything other than enemies of the cross of Christ and haters of their heavenly Father and dear Redeemer. These people make no claim to anything at all inconsistent with those descriptions. Indeed, in many places, as I said before, they freely acknowledge this to be their actual condition.

Christ often forbids visible Christians to judge one another. But in this way of conducting church affairs, it is done continually and considered harmless. A large portion of those admitted into the church are judged by others in the same communion to be unconverted, graceless persons. And it is impossible to avoid this while remaining within the bounds of a rational charity.

This method of proceeding must inevitably have one of two consequences. Either there must be no public notice at all given when such a significant work of grace takes place as a sinner being brought to repentance, turning to God, and hopefully becoming the subject of saving conversion. Or else this notice must be given through conversation, by the persons themselves frequently, freely, and in all company declaring their own experiences. But surely either of these consequences must be very unfortunate. The first is unfortunate -- namely, the forbidding and preventing of any public notice being given on earth of the repentance of a sinner, an event so much to the honor of God and so much noted in heaven, causing joy in the presence of the angels of God, and tending so much to the advancement of religion in the world. For it is found from experience that hardly anything has as great an influence to awaken sinners and motivate them to seek salvation, and to encourage and energize saints, as the news of a sinner's repentance or hopeful conversion. God clearly uses it as an outstanding means of advancing religion in a time of remarkable revival. To take a course that effectively prevents such an event from being publicly known on earth appears to me to be working against God in the very thing He consistently uses as a chief means for spreading true godliness, and which we have reason to believe He will use as one of the principal means for the conversion of the world in the glorious latter days. But as for the other approach -- giving public notice of this event through particular persons themselves publishing their own experiences from time to time and place to place, on all occasions and before all audiences -- I must confess that this practice appears to me to come with many problems, indeed to be filled with harmful effects. The extensive trial of this method recently made, and the large experience we have had of its harmful consequences, is enough to put all sober and thoughtful people permanently out of favor with it. I will not attempt to list all the harmful effects of it, which would be very tedious. I will mention only two things. One is the bad effect it has on the persons themselves who practice it, in its strong tendency toward spiritual pride -- gradually fostering and establishing a harmful habit of mind in that respect through the frequent return of the temptation, often when they are not on guard against it and have no time to fortify their minds through reflection and prayer. Then it has a very bad effect on the minds of others who hear their accounts, and so on the state of religion in general, in this way: Since it is thus the custom for persons of all kinds -- young and old, wise and unwise, superiors and inferiors -- to freely tell their own experiences before all audiences, it is commonly done very unwisely, often very rashly and foolishly, at the wrong time, and in circumstances that tend to defeat any good purpose. Even sincere Christians too frequently focus in their conversation mainly on things that are no part of their true spiritual experience -- such as impressions on their imagination, suggestions of facts through passages of Scripture, and so on. In such cases, young people and weak persons who hear are inclined to form their ideas of religion and true godliness from such experiential accounts, and much more than from the most solid and careful instruction from the Word that they hear from the pulpit. This is found to be one of the strategies by which Satan gains an inexpressible advantage to ruin people's souls and utterly confound the cause of religion. This matter of making a public profession of godliness or heartfelt piety is certainly a very important affair and ought to be under some public regulation and the direction of skilled guides, not left to the management of every man, woman, and child according to their mood or fancy. When it is done, it should be done with great seriousness, preparation, and prayer, as a solemn act of public respect and honor to God, in His house and in the presence of His people. Not that I condemn -- but rather greatly approve of -- persons sometimes speaking of their religious experiences in private conversation, to appropriate persons and on appropriate occasions, with modesty and discretion, when the glory of God and the benefit or just satisfaction of others require it of them.

In a word, the practice of indiscriminate admission -- that approach of taking everyone into the church without distinction as visible saints who are not either ignorant or scandalous -- combined with the custom of persons publishing their own conversion in ordinary conversation -- where these two things come together, they unavoidably create two distinct kinds of visible churches, or different bodies of professing saints, one within the other, openly distinguished from each other as if by a visible dividing line. One group consists of those who are visibly gracious Christians and open professors of godliness. The other consists of those who are visibly moral people who only profess common virtues without claiming any special and spiritual experiences in their hearts, and who are therefore not regarded as converts. I may appeal to those acquainted with the state of the churches as to whether this is not actually the case in some churches where this method of proceeding has long been established. But I leave the thoughtful reader to make his own observations about this situation and to determine whether there is a proper foundation in Scripture or reason for any such state of affairs -- which to me, I confess, has the appearance of glaring absurdity.

And now I commit this entire discussion (under God's blessing) to the reader's fair reflection and impartial judgment. I am aware it will be very difficult for many to be truly impartial in this matter, since their prejudices against the doctrine I have maintained are very strong. I believe I myself am the person who, above all others on the face of the earth, has had the most in his circumstances to prejudice him against this doctrine and make him unwilling to be convinced of its truth. However, the clear evidence of God's mind in His Word, as things appear to me, has compelled me to think and act as I have now done. I dare not go against such texts as these: Leviticus 10:10. Jeremiah 15:19. Ezekiel 22:26 and Ezekiel 44:6-8. Having been fully persuaded in my own mind of what the scriptural rule is in this matter, after a most careful, painstaking, and lengthy search, I am willing, in the faithful pursuit of what appears to me to be of such importance and so plainly the mind and will of God, to submit to His providence and leave the outcome in His hand.

It may not be out of place to add here -- since the probability of my being answered in print has often been suggested to me -- that if anyone should see reason to undertake this, I have these reasonable requests to make of him. I ask that he avoid the ungenerous and unworthy tactics used by too many writers of controversy, who turn aside to pointless wrangling by criticizing incidental passages and displaying their cleverness on minor details or less important points in the author they oppose, with much exclamation if possible, to stir up the uninformed and unwary reader's dislike of the author and make him appear contemptible, so as to win the victory that way. Perhaps they dwell on and take pride in some supposed inconsistencies in some parts of the discussion, without ever thoroughly entering into the merits of the case or closely engaging any of the main arguments. If anyone opposes me in print, I ask that he attend to the true state of the question and make a fair attempt to disarm each argument by answering it directly and distinctly, with calm and close reasoning, avoiding (as much as possible) both dogmatic assertions and emotional attacks. I am certain I will not begrudge him the applause of a victory over me, however decisive and complete, if it is only won by superior understanding and convincing evidence. I would also request him to put his name to his work, so that I may stand on equal ground with him before the world in a debate where the public must judge between us. This will be all the more reasonable should he mix any accusation with his arguments. It was the custom even of the pagan Romans, and considered by them only fair and right, to bring accusers face to face.

May the God of all grace and peace unite us more in judgment, affection, and practice, that with one heart and one mouth we may glorify His name through Jesus Christ. AMEN.