An Appeal to the Learned, Book 1
The Firſt BOOK. The Queſtion Stated, and Mr. Mather's Arguments anſwered.
THE Laws of diſputation do require a fair & exact Stating of the controverſy, that nothing be made matter of diſpute, that is not plainly affirmed, or by genuine conſequence deduced from the Aſſertions of the adverſary: when men do otherwiſe, they are guilty of caſting unjuſt imputations, on thoſe whom they oppoſe, they labour in vain, abuſe their Readers, and manifeſt an affectation of vain glory, from a victory, where there was no conteſt. Mr. Mather has greatly failed in this particular. He ſays, p. 3. The Queſtion is whether God requires Unſanctified Perſons, while ſuch, to come to his Table, and conſequently whether the Church may admit into their holy Communion in ſpecial Ordinance ſuch as are not in the judgment of rational Charity true Believers.
The firſt of theſe Queſtions is not fairly laid down, my Poſition is, That Sanctifying Grace is not neceſſary to the lawful attending the Ordinance of the Lords Supper. He ſays the Queſtion is, Whether God requires Unſanctifyed Perſons, while ſuch, to come to his Table. Inſinuating as if I did affirm, that God required all Unſanctifyed Perſons to come to his Table. We uſe to ſay in diſputations, Adde Signum. He ſhould have added the ſign, and either ſaid ſome unſanctifyed perſons, which I own, or all unſanctifyed perſons which (as he knows) I utterly deny.
He adds, that conſequently, the Queſtion is, whether the Church may admit to their holy Communion in ſpecial Ordinances, ſuch as are net in the judgment of rational Charity true Believers. But I have no controverſy with him upon that account. My buſineſs was to anſwer a caſe of Conſcience, and direct thoſe that might have Scruples about Participation of the Lords-Supper, becauſe they had not a work of Saving Converſion, not at all to direct the Churches, to admit any that were not to rational Charity true Believers; ſo that he blots a great deal of Paper to no Purpoſe, beats the air, and fights againſt a ſhadow of his own making.
Mr. Mather's firſt Argument.
ASſertions that are contrary to many Scriptures, ought not to be received by the Churches; but the impleaded Aſſertions are contrary to many Scriptures.
The firſt Scripture alledged is Matt. 22.11, 12. And when the King come in to ſee the Gueſt, he ſaw there a man that had not on a wedding Garment; & he ſaith unto him, friend, how cameſt thou in hither, not having a wedding Garment? And he was ſpeechleſs. He ſays upon it, That it is evident, that they who come to the Lords Table without a Wedding Garment are Gueſts more hold than welcome.
Anſw. The thing to be enquired into is. What is this Feaſt that the gueſts were invited to? Mr. M. ſuppoſes it to be the Lords Supper: that is eaſier a great deal then to prove it. It is abundantly manifeſt that Chriſt Jeſus, and Pardon & Salvation are the Feaſt, that they were invited to, & not the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: the Meſſengers of God are ſent to invite men to this Feaſt: and I think he will not ſay, that the great errand of the Miniſtry is to invite men to the Lords Supper: beſides this is a Feaſt that the Jews were invited to from Generation to Generation, long before the Lords-Supper was Inſtituted. The Jews were thoſe that were bidden: v. 3. He ſent forth his Servants to thoſe that were bidden, to the Wedding, and they would not come: One ſet of Servants after another were ſent unto them: v. 4. Again he ſent other Servants: Firſt he ſent the Prophets and then the Apoſtles, after this the Gentiles were invited to the ſame Feaſt, v. 9. Go ye into the high ways, & as many as ye ſhall find, bid unto the Marriage. Beſides this man that had not the Wedding Garment was not ſuffered to partake of this Feaſt, but ſuch perſons are ſuffered to partake of the Lords Supper; beſides this perſon that was objected againſt for not having a Wedding Garment, was a Reprobate, v. 14. Many are called, but few are choſen: but Mr. M. dont think that every one that ventures to partake of the Lords Supper without Grace, is a Reprobate. By this it does appear that here is a repreſentation of the Day of Judgment, and that ſuch Perſons as come for Salvation without a Wedding Garment ſhall be rejected in that day. So that here being nothing ſpoken about the Lords Supper, all arguing from this Scripture falls to the ground. See Pools Anot. in Locum.
Another Scripture that he urges is, 1 Cor. 11.27, 29. Whoſoever ſhall, eat this bread & drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, ſhall be guilty of the body & blood of the Lord. He that eats & drinks unworthily eats & drinks Damnation, (or Judgment) to himſelf: Hence he argues, That if the unworthineſs of a particular act in reſpect of the manner of doing it, may make a man guilty: how much more the unworthineſs of his perſon. This is as if he ſhould argue that an unworthy manner of Hearing, makes a man guilty, therefore much more the unworthineſs of his perſon, & therefore graceleſs perſons ſhould refrain from hearing.
But this Scripture being a ſtumbling-block to many, it is meet it ſhould be more fully conſidered. Mind therefore.
1. It doth not follow that if they eat & drink Judgment to themſelves that they ſhould forbear. Natural men Sin when they Pray, when they Hear, ſo they did of old when they offered Sacrifice; and they expoſe themſelves to the Judgment of God; but it dont follow that they muſt forbear.
2. That true Believers may eat & drink unworthily. The Apoſtle doth not ſpeak of unworthy Communicants, but unworty Communicating. He ſuppoſes the Church of Corinth to conſiſt of ſuch as were Believers, yet he ſuppoſeth that ſome of them did eat & drink unworthily: v. 30. He ſays, For this cauſe many among you are weak & ſickly: yet it doth not follow that they muſt forbear.
3. Natural men may eat & drink without that unworthineſs or unmeetneſs that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of (1) Becauſe the Apoſtle doth expreſs this unworthineſs to lye in not diſcerning the Lords body. v. 29. He that eateth & drinketh unworthily, eateth & drinketh Damnation to himſelf: not …ſcerning the Lords body. That is, not diſferencing that bread from common bread. (1) Becauſe the worthineſs or unworthineſs here intended is that which may be known before hand. Therefore he adviſes them, to Examine themſelves, v. 28. But no man can tell by any previous Examination whether he ſhall eat & drink in ſaith or not. A Godly man if he find the Exerciſe of faith the night before, or that Morning, may yet in his attending on the Lords-Supper be left unto a Spirit of unbelief; and a Natural man if he finds the Night before that he never had faith, may yet partake in faith. I knew one recommended to our Communion from another Church, as an eminent Saint, who was afterwards fully convinced of being in a State of Nature, and at the Sacrament wought on, & enabled to believe in Chriſt. (3) Becauſe the Apoſtle ſpeaks theſe words, not to reſtrain any of the Church of Corinth from coming to the Lords-Supper, but to direct them to come in a right manner, not in that rude & unchriſtian way that they were wont to come: which he had told them of; v. 20, 21.
The Reverend Author adds, that the Apoſtles words, 1 Cor. 11.28. Let a man Examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of that bread, & drink of that cup: are contrary to my new doctrine. Two things he inſiſts upon from this Scripture: the firſt is, that the Examination here required is, whether he has grace in his Soul; and would prove it thus. Saith he, Doth not the Apoſtle himſelf plainly tell us, what he means by this ſelf-Examination: 2 Cor. 13.5. Examine your ſelves whether you be in the faith, prove your own ſelves, know you not your own ſelves, how that Chriſt is in you, except you be reprobates; that is perſons nor approved. But what force is there in this Argument, doth it follow, becauſe by ſelf Examination, in one place he intends their Examining whether they be in a State of grace, that therefore when ever he ſpeaks of Self Examination, the thing to be Examined is the truth of grace: it is granted on all hands, that the truth of grace is to be Examined, but this doth not prove that that is the thing called for and intended, in 1 Cor. 11.28. Yea it is moſt evident, that this is not the Examination that they are ſtirred up unto: if we look to the foregoing verſes where he blames them for Communicating in a rude manner, or if we look to the ſubſequent words, where he finds fault with thoſe that don't diſcern the Lords body, it plainly appears that the Examination he called for is, whether they underſtood the nature of the Ordinance, that ſo they may ſolemly conſider what they have to do when they wait upon God in it. The thing to be Examined is not the worthineſs of their perſons, but the worthineſs of their participation. A ſecond thing that he inſiſts upon, tho' not in this Book, yet in another that he put forth ſome years ſince, upon the like occaſion, is, that the Greek word rendred Examine, does import an Examination to Approbation: ſurely he is too critical therein, for though the Word does ſometimes import ſo, yet not always: the ſame word is uſed, 2 Cor. 13.5. & rendred Prove: where the Apoſtle ſaid Prove your own ſelves. For that was not the duty of all of them to prove themſelves to Approbation. It was in the Church of Corinth as in other Churches, ſome were ſincere, and ſome were hypocrites, and it is as much the duty of hypocrites to diſcover their hypocriſy, as of Saints to diſcover their Sincerity: it is their duty to Exaamine themſelves to diſapprobation. Beſides if Communicants muſt Examine their ſaith to approbation, I would inquire whether by that approbation, he means Aſſurance or a probable hope. If he intends Aſſurance, then none but thoſe that have Aſſurance may come to the LordsTable. If he intends a probable hope: then ſuch perſons may come as are not ſincere, and then Sanctifying grace is not neceſſary in order to a lawful attending the Lords-Supper.
A third Scripture that he brings to make good his Argument is, Ezek. 44.7, 9. You have brought into my Sanctuary ſtrangers, uncircumciſed in heart, & uncircumciſed in fleſh, to be in my Sanctuary to pallute it, even my houſe: when you offer my Bread, the Fat, and the Blood, and they have broken my Covenant. — Thus ſaith the Lord, no ſtranger uncircumciſed in beart, ſhall enter into my Sanctuary.
I Anſwer, 1. That this Scripture has no particular reference to the Lords-Supper. If he had blamed them for ſuffering ſuch perſons as were uncircumciſed in heart and fleſh to come to the Paſsover, which was a Sacrament of confirmation as the Lords Supper is, he might have pleaded that it had a particular reference to the Lords Supper, but the fault was that they brought ſtrangers into the Sanctuary: but the Paſsover was eaten in their own houſes.
2. The fault is charged on the Prieſts, that they brought in ſuch as were uncircumciſed in fleſh & in heart: therefore it muſt neceſſarily be underſtood of ſuch as were viſibly uncircumciſed in heart; for the Prieſts were not to blame for letting in ſuch as were viſibly circumciſed in heart, though not really ſo: for they were bound by Gods Ordinance to do it. Yea Mr. M. goes a great deal further than I dare go, for he ſays, That Adulterers, Thieves, Liars, Slanderers & Perjured Perſons might celebrate the Paſsover, p. 75, 76. How to reconcile ſuch practices with heart circumciſion is quite beyond me.
Here our Reverend Author informs us, That the Jewiſh Maſters tell us, that their Fathers were very ſtrict in admitting of Proſelytes, they ſay they admitted no Proſelytes in Davids time, leaſt they ſhould join themſelves to his People out of fear; nor in Solomons time, leaſt they ſhould come becauſe of the great Proſperity that Iſrael then had.
To which I may Anſwer in the Apoſtles words, 1 Tim. 1.4. Neither give beed to fables. If it were really ſo it was utterly croſs to the inſtitution of God: Exod. 12.47, 48. but undoubtedly the thing is utterly falſe: David mentions the Proſelytes in his time, as a great body of People: Pſal. 115.12, 13. He will bleſs the houſe of Iſrael, he will bleſs the houſe of Aaron, be will bleſs them that fear the Lord. By them that fear the Lord, we are to underſtand the Proſelytes. So Pſal. 135.19, 20. Bleſs the Lord O houſe of Iſrael, bleſs the Lord O houſe of Aaron, bleſs the Lord O houſe of Levi: Ye that fear the Lord, bleſs the Lord. Proſelytes in the Old Teſtament are called Fearers of God, in the New-Teſtament, they are called Worſhippers of God: Act. 16.14. And Solomon in his Prayer, 1 King. 8.41, 42. Saith, That the ſtranger ſhall come from afar Country, for Gods Name ſake, hearing of his Great Name, and his Strong Hand.
The next Scripture that he urges is, Lev. 7.20. The ſoul that eats of the fleſh of the Sacrifice of Peace-offerings that partain unto the Lord, having his uncleanneſs upon him, that ſoul ſhall be cut off from his People. To which he adds, That ſuch as were unclean might not eat the Paſsover: and ſaith, Doth not this typifie, that they who are unclean, either in courſe of Life, or in State ſhould not come to … Lords Supper. He doth not ask me, for he knows that I affirm, that the Ordinances of the Old Teſtament, were not Types of the Ordinances of the New Teſtament.
Anſw. I ſtand to my former Anſwer: notwithſtanding any thing he ſaith to the contrary: he brings Dr. Whitaker & Dr. Goodwin againſt my Aſſertion; but indeed there has been ſuch variety of Opinions in the World, that men may bring humane authority, yea the Teſtimony of deſerving men for almoſt any miſtake. The word foreign is equivocal: so Adam is ſaid to be a Figure or Type, the word is, of him that was to come. So we read, Act. 7.43. They took up the Tabernacle of Moloch, and the Star of your God Remphan, figures or types which you made. So 1 Cor. 10, 11. All things are ſaid to happen to them for Enſamples or Types: but a Type properly is ſome inſtituted reſemblance of ſome Goſpel Truth; and the Ordinances of the Jewiſh Church were not inſtituted to be reſemblances of the Ordinances of the New-Teſtament: they did not inſtruct the Church of the Jews in Goſpel Ordinances. Was Circumciſion inſtituted to inſtruct the Church of the Jews for above two thouſand years, that Baptiſm ſhould be appointed in the Chriſtian Church, and that it muſt be adminiſtred with ſuch and ſuch circumſtances? The like I may ſay of the Paſsover and the Sacrifices, &c. neither were they inſtituted to teach us Goſpel Ordinances; we may receive ſome Edification from them: but we are under better Ordinances, & a more glorious diſpenſation. Thoſe Ordinances were appointed of old to teach the Ancient Church, the way of Salvation by Chriſt. Col. 2.17. They were a ſhadow of good things to come, but the body is of Chriſt.
Baptiſmus ſacceſſit circumciſioni, caena Dominica Paſchati. Non tamen ſucceſſerunt ut corpus umbra, ſignatum ſigno, ſed ut ritas novi, ritibus veteribus, ut figurae clariores, de re praeterita, figuris obſcurioribus de eadem adbut futura, Ali…quin Sacramenta V. Teſt. non foederis, ſed Sacramentorum N.T. ſigilla fuiſſent: Et Sacramenta N. Teſt. foreign duplicem ſuſtinerent, alteram ſigni ad Chriſtum, alteram ſignati ad Veteris Teſt. Sacramenta: quod eſt contra Scripturam. Gen. 17.11. 1 Cor. 5.7. 1 Cor. 10.16. Alting Loc. Com. Pars 1. Pag. 96.
The Rd. Author ſaith, That I pretend that unclean perſons were not allowed to come to the Paſsover, to ſignifie that thoſe who are ſpiritually unclean ſhall be excluded out of heaven. But he objects, That Eraſtus the moſt corrupt writer about Church diſcipline ſaid ſo long before me. But what then, E'raſtus did not always lye. Mr. Gilleſpy, one of his Oracles, owns the thing, when he ſaith, That ſhutting out of Heaven is not the only thing thereby ſignifyed, tho' the reaſon that he gives to ſhew that it is not the only thing ſignifyed thereby is very frivolous, for ſimilitudes are not wont to run on all four.
He concludes this Chapter with telling us, That the light of nature dictates, that unholy Perſons ſhould not meddle with holy things. Then it ſeems to be contrary to the light of nature that Unregenerate men ſhould be Circumciſed, come to the Paſsover, Sacrifice, Pray, &c.
Mr. Mather's Second Argument.
THey that are not duly qualifyed to be Members of particular Goſpel Churche, are not fit to be admitted to the Lords Supper, but Unſanctifyed perſons are not fit to be admitted Members in particular Churches.
The major is granted. There is no need to take notice of his diſcourſe upon it, becauſe it is a digreſſion, and concerns not the matter in controverſy.
But the minor is utterly denyed: Some Unſanctifyed perſons are fit to be admitted Members in particular Churches, they that are fit matter for Church Memberſhip, are to be admitted: but viſible Saints tho' they are hypocrites, are fit matter for Church Memberſhip: they that are to be admitted according to the Ordinance of God are fit to be admitted. Such as muſt be admitted or elſe God will be greatly offended, are fit to be admitted: Such as being admitted may not be caſt out, are fit to be admitted. But thus it is with viſible Saints: though they have not a thorow work of Converſion; ſuch perſons as God himſelf did admit into the Church of Iſrael, are fit to be admitted into Goſpel Churches: ſuch perſons as the Apoſtles did admit into Goſpel Churches are fit to be admitted into them, but they admitted many that had not a thorow work of Regeneration. Indeed by the rule that God has given for admiſſions, if it be carefully attended, more Unconverted perſons will be admitted than Converted. Mr. Cotton ſaith, let Miniſters uſe as much diligence & vigilancy as well they may, yet ſuch is the dimneſs of diſcerning in humane frailty, and ſuch is the ſubtilty of many hypocrites, that it may be Ninety nine hypocrites may creep into the Church to one ſimple ſheep of Chriſt. Hol. of Ch. M. p. 67. and Preached it in Boſton, That it would be well if at the day of judgment ten men in a Church were ſaved.
Mr. Mather that he may ſtrengthen his Opinion heaps up many Scriptures to ſhow, that Church Members ſhould be viſible Saints; he has no need to trouble himſelf to prove that which I never deny'd, all the titles that are given them don't make them more, and I never deſired to make them leſs than viſible Saints, the members of the Chriſtian Church are viſible Saints, & the members of the Jewiſh Church were viſible Saints, as they are called, Dan. 12.7. So Deut. 33.3. Yea he loved the people, all his Saint's are in thy hand. It was needleſs for him to prove it, & unfair by taking ſo much pains to prove it, to leave a jealouſy upon ſome ignorant people, as if I did deny it.
He ſaith, Hypocrites were brought in unawars, and that they crept in unawares: but neither of theſe places that he refers to do intimate that all hypocrites do come in unaware: that Gal. 2.4. Speaks of ſome Jews that pretended themſelves to be Chriſtians but were not, but came in upon a wicked deſign. Surely he does not think ſo hardly of all that fall ſhort of a work of Regeneration. Thoſe words Jude 4. are ſpoken of heretical perſons: if they did take any in, that they feared had not Saving Faith, yet ſurely none that they judged to be Heriticks. He contends with me for ſaying, that Saints by Calling are to be accepted of the Church, whether they be Converted or no: ſpeaks of it as a Strange expreſſion and a contradiction in adjecto: but what need is there of ſo much anger. Viſible Saints are Saints by Calling. The Members of the Church of Corinth, were called to be Saints, 1 Cor. 1.2. There is an external Call and an external Anſwer, as well as an internal Call and an internal Anſwer: If viſible Saints may be Saints by Calling, and viſible Saints may be Unconverted, then ſome that are Saints by Calling may be Unconverted.
He ſaith, That when their hypocriſy is diſcovered by any fundamental Error in judgment, or ſcandal, or in Converſation, they ought to be caſt out of the Church. But he miſtakes the matter very much: the diſcovery of their hypocriſy is not the reaſon of their being caſt out: When men are caſt out of the Church we don't know that they are hypocrites or not: the reaſon of their rejection is becauſe they are obſtinate in Scandal. And Godly men are to be rejected in that caſe, as well as hypocrites.
He ſaith, That Mr. Cotton argues, that ſuch as are deſtructive to the State of the Church, are not fit Materials for the building of the Church. And adds, That this is true of hypocrites. Mr. Cottons poſition is good, but Mr. Mather's addition will not ſtand: For hypocrites ſo long as they carry well, are not deſtructive to the State of the Church: but on the contrary do great Service to the Church, they help to maintain the Church and Ordinances of God, they do deſend the Church, they do incourage the Church, they are Serviceable by their gifts, by their authority, by their prudence & zeal, by their Eſtates; and it would be exceeding difficult for the Church to ſubſiſt without them. When he ſaith that they are deſtructive to the State of the Church, does it not reflect on the Wiſdom of God in binding and commanding his Church to admit ſuch Members? That conſtitution of the Church that God has appointed, is ſuch as makes for the ſafety and well being of the Church: and God has appointed that viſible Saints ſhall be accepted as Members of the Church, though they be not Regenerate; and the Apoſtles themſelves accepted ſuch.
Mr. Mather's Third Argument.
IF men meddle with that which they have no right unto, they have not a divine allowance for their doing ſo: But when Unſanctifyed Perſons come, they meddle with that, which they have no right unto.
Anſw. The minor is denyed. In the proſecution of it there is a great deal of confuſedneſs and obſcurity: Sometimes he ſpeaks of them that are Unregenerate and have no right before God, though they have before men: ſometimes he ſpeaks of them to whom we cannot in charitable judgment ſay. The blood of Chriſt has obtained for you the remiſſion of your Sins: and of giving the Sacrament to thoſe who are not ſo far as men can judge in a Regenerate Eſtate: and he ſaith, that this is to ſet the Lords Seal to a blank. But I will labour to anſwer the intent of this argument, ſo far as I am able to reach it.
That which I am to ſhew is, That ſome Unſanctifyed men have a right before God to the Lords Supper. Surely the Children of Iſrael had a right before God to the Paſsover; when God commanded them to celebrate it; and they had a right to Circumciſion, when God commanded Joſhua to circumciſe them. And thoſe that are the Covenant People of God have a right to keep the Covenant; we are commanded to teach ſuch as are baptiſed to obſerve all things that Chriſt hath commanded, Mat. 28.19, 20. The ſecond Command requires men to obſerve and keep pure & intire all ſuch Religious Worſhip & Ordinances as God requireth in his word.
If I may gather up what he aims at, I would reduce it to theſe two heads.
1. That Unregenerate men are not in Covenant with God. This is a great miſtake, tho' Unregenerate men are not in the internal, they have not performed any act of Saving Faith, which is the condition of the Covenant, and God is not bound to give Saving Bleſſings of the Covenant to them: yet they are in the external Covenant. Moſes ſaith, the Lord our God made a Covenant with us in Horeb, Deut. 5.2. And when he renews his Covenant, he is ſaid to betroth them to himſelf, Hoſ. 2.19, 20. And therefore the Adoption is ſaid to belong to them, Rom. 9.4. They are his People, his Sons & Daughters, his Spouſe, and he becomes their God, he makes promiſes unto them upon condition of Obedience, and they promiſe Obedience unto him. Hence they become capable of breaking Covenant; they have broken the everlaſting Covenant, Iſai. 24.5. Neither were they ſtedfaſt in his Covenant, Pſal. 78.37.
2. That becauſe they have no right to the bleſſings of the New Covenant, therefore they have no right to the Seal. That the Sacrament may not be given to them becauſe their Sins are not pardoned: they have no right to Salvation, therefore not to the Seal of Salvation, if the Seal be given to them, it is the ſetting of the Lords Seal to a blank: Sealing a Pardon to thoſe whom the Lord hath not pardoned.
Anſw. To this I make anſwer in three particulars,
1. That tho' Unregenerate men have no right to pardon of Sin & Salvation, yet they may have a right before God unto the Seals of the Covenant; they had a right to Circumciſion: Joſh. 5.2. yet that was a Seal of the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, Rom. 4.11. So they had right to the Paſsover, and ſo they have to Baptiſm. It is unreaſonable to think that all Baptiſed Children are Regenerate: and ſo they may have a right to the Lords Supper.
2. That Unregenerate men may have in conjunction with other, a right to ſome of the bleſſings of the Covenant. The Sacraments are Seals of the whole Covenant, not only thoſe promiſes that are made to particular Believers, but the promiſes of outward proſperity that are made to the viſible Church: & men that are Unregenerate in Conjunction with others, have a right as part of the body Corporate to thoſe bleſſings, and may receive the Seal thereof.
3. That the Sacraments do not Seal up Pardon and Salvation to all that receive them, but they are Seals to the truth of the Covenant. It doth not Seal mens having of faith, neither doth it Seal the Salvation of the Communicants; they miſerably deceive themſelves, if they underſtand it ſo: but it is a Seal to the Covenant. God offers Pardon and Salvation through faith in Chriſt, men are ready to doubt of the truth of this; but God Seals this Covenant in the Sacraments. This is that which is intended when it is ſaid, That Circumciſion was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of Faith, Rom. 4.11. Whether we underſtand by the righteouſneſs of faith, Faith it ſelf, which is our Evangelical righteouſneſs, or the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, which is Faith apprehended by Chriſt, it comes to one & the ſame: and circumciſion Seals the efficacy of this unto Salvation; that the promiſe that he has made ſhall in this way be fulfilled: and this is a great incouragement to draw forth the Exerciſe of Faith.
Mr. Mather's Fourth Argument.
IF the Sacrament were a Converting Ordinance, and that therefore Unregenerate Perſons ſhould come to it in order to their being Converted, there would doubtleſs be ſome promiſe or ſome example recorded in the Scripture of perſon… ſo Converted for the encouragement of others. But there is neither Promiſe nor Example.
Anſw. Both parts of this argument are to be denyed. And there is very little ſaid for the proof of either.
1. I deny the Conſequence. It may be a Converting Ordinance, though there be neither promiſe nor example. I may argue as well, that if there be no promiſe in the word of the Edification of Saints annexed to it, nor any Example of Saints edifyed thereby, then it is no Ordinance for the Edification of Saints. Yea I may as well argue that there is no promiſe of converting Grace, annexed to circumciſion, nor any Example of Perſons Converted by it, therefore that was no Ordinance for Converſion. But there be other things that do ſhew it to be a converting Ordinance, as the command given to the Church, which doth conſiſt partly of men Converted, partly of men Unconverted, to attend this Ordinance. 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. This do in remembrance of me, &c.
2. I deny the Minor alſo. There be general promiſes that do reach the caſe: Prov. 8.34. Bleſſed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the poſts of my doors: This being one of the ways of Gods appointment, this promiſe is an encouragement to wait upon God in this way. Mat. 28.20. Teaching them to obſerve all things that I have commanded, & lo I am with you alway even to the end of the world; this is one of Chriſt commands. Rom. 10.14. Faith comes by hearing. In this Ordinance the Goſpel is proclamed; and Pardon is offered to Sinners by Jeſus Chriſt: Pſal. 19.7. The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the Soul. This is one of Gods laws.
This Ordinance has a proper tendency in its own nature to Convert men. Herein men may learn the neceſſity & ſufficiency of the Death of Chriſt in order to Pardon. Here is an affecting offer of Chriſt crucifyed; here is a Sealing of the Covenant, that if men come to Chriſt, they ſhall be Saved, which is a great means to convince of ſafety in coming to Chriſt.
All Ordinances are for the Saving good of thoſe that they are to be adminiſtred unto. This Ordinance is according to Inſtitution to be applyed to viſible Saints, though Unconverted, therefore it is for their Saving good, and conſequently for their Converſion.
Mr. Mather's Fifth Argument.
THis Argument is thus preſaced, That it is a clear confutation of what Mr. S. affirms: we will ſee it. If the Lords Supper be a converting Ordinance than prophane Perſons ought to be admitted to partake of it: but ſuch are not to be admitted to the Lords Supper. He ſaith Mr. S. himſelf confeſſeth thus much. And it is very true, I wiſh I could ſay, that Mr. Mather did confeſs, that prophane Perſons might not be admitted to the Paſsover.
I utterly deny his Conſequence. His reaſon for it is, That we may not withold from the prophaneſt perſon in the world, that which is appointed to be the means of his Converſion. But his conſequence is as ſtrong as a rope of Sand: May we not as well argue that if Baptiſm be a Converting Ordinance, we ſhould Baptize the Indians, and other Heathens, as John Hircanus did compel the Edomites to be circumciſed.
My anſwer was and is, that the Lords Supper is a Converting Ordinance, only for Church Members and not for other men. He hath three objections againſt my anſwer. One is, that it is an odd one. I hope it is not criminal to give an odd anſwer, and if ſo, let it go for an odd one. The ſecond is, that it is new of mine own invention. It is no ſufficient ground to reject his notions becauſe they are other mens, or to reject mine becauſe they are my own: it is for God to reveal his mind to any whom he pleaſes: but the main objection is, That I do not prove it.
I ſhall now further vindicate that anſwer, that it is for the Converſion of orderly Church Members, by laying down three Propoſitions, which Mr. M. himſelf will own.
1. The efficacy of the Lords Supper does depend upon the bleſſing of God. What ever tendency Ordinances have in their own nature to be Serviceable to men, yet they will not prevail any further than God doth bleſs them. The weapons of our warfare are mighty through God, 2 Cor. 10.4. It is God that teaches men to profit, and makes them profitable and ſerviceable to mens Souls.
2. There is reaſon to hope for adivine bleſſing on the Lords Supper, when it is adminiſtred to thoſe that it ought to be adminiſtred unto. Gods bleſſing is to be expected in Gods way: if men act according to their own humours & phanſies, and don't keep in a way of Obedience, it is preſumption to expect Gods bleſſing. Mat. 15.9. In vain do they worſhip me teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men: but when they are admitted to the Lords Supper that God would have to be admitted, there is ground to hope that he will make it profitable.
3. That it is Gods will that ſuch as are in the judgment of rational Charity Believers, be admitted to the Lords Supper, tho' they be Unregenerate: God allows his Church to accept of ſuch Unregenerate men as carry themſelves ſo, that there is reaſon to look upon them to be Saints, he would not have his Church to admit thoſe that are prophane, that would be a great offence to him; but the Apoſtles did receive thoſe that were to Charity Believers, and Churches now ought to receive ſuch, what-ever they be in reality. From theſe things it is moſt apparent that the Lords Supper may be looked on a Converting Ordinance, for Church Members that carry orderly, yet not for prophane Perſons.
Mr Mather argues that if the Lords Supper be a converting Ordinance, then it ſhould be adminiſtred to prophane. Perſons, may he not with as good reaſon argue, that if it be an Ordinance for the ſtrengthning of Grace, it ſhould be adminiſtred to ſuch Godly men as have fallen into Scandalous tranſgreſſions, for they need to have their Grace ſtrengthened.
I had ſaid in my Sermon, that the Lords Supper was a converting Ordinance, only to ſuch Church Members as walked orderly, when any carry ſcandalouſly there are other Ordinances, viz. Cenſures for their Converſion, in caſe they be Unconverted. Mr. M. in anſwer to this ſaith, Diſputatur non conceſſis, he takes it for granted that the perſon is not Converted: & ſo runs out into a long diſcourſe that the inceſtuous Corinthian might be a godly man.
Anſw. I take it for granted that ſome Perſons cenſured may be Unconverted, not that all of them are, nor that the Corinthian was: and his diſcourſe is wholly impertinent, and altho' he glories in the concluſion of the Chapter, that my new deviſed diſtinction is neither Solid nor Scriptural, yet his anſwer has nothing of an anſwer in it, as equal judges when they compare things together will readily determine.
Mr. Mather's Sixth Argument.
THat Opinion which is contrary to the Prefeſſion and Practice of the Churches in the Primitive & Pureſt times of Chriſtianity, and to the judgment of the moſt eminent Reformers in theſe latter Ages, and which agress with Papiſts, and a looſer ſort of Proteſtants; ought not to be received among the Churches in New-England. But all this is true of Mr. Stoddard's Opinion now impleaded.
Anſ. Though this Argument be a three ſold cord; yet it is eaſily broken to pieces. He don't count it a demonſtration. It conſiſts of three parts: I ſhall conſider them ſeverally.
1. He faith that this Opinion is contrary to the Profeſſion & Practice of the Primitive Churches. This he labours to prove from Juſtin Martyr, Origin, Tertullian, Cyprian: and he faith, That for about four or five hundred years of the Chriſtian Aera, there was great ſtrictneſs in admitting to Sacraments. The like is aſſerted by him in an Epiſtle to Mr Quick; and he grants that there was too much rigidity among them. And here he faith, That Chamior, Chemnitius, & Gerhard, commend the ſtrictneſs of the Primitive times.
I Anſwer, Here is a great deal of ſhadow and little ſubſtance. The practice in the Primitive Church about the time of Auſtin, was full of Vanity & Superſtition. They took in their Members at Eaſter time, or Pentecoſt, they required Suſceptores or god fathers, though the perſons were men grown, they uſed to Exorciſe them, they made them to renounce the Devil as if he were preſent. When they entered into the Portel of the houſe of Baptiſm, they were ordered ſtanding toward the Weſt, with their hand ſtretched out as if Satan were preſent, to renounce him, ſaying, I renounce thee Satan and all thy works, and all thy pomps: ſometimes they added, and his Worſhip and his Angels, and his Inventions, and all under him. And after-ward they made a Profeſſion, reciting the Creed by heart; which is called a pronouncing of the true Faith, Praeclara f…ducia, or elſe anſwering to Queſtions. It was their manner alſo to uſe the ſign of the Croſs, as is evident from Chamier in his 15. & 16. ch. de Baptiſmo. This practice of theirs is ſuch a piece of Pageantry, as is more fit for the Church of Rome to imitate, than theſe Churches. I admire we ſhould be directed to follow the pattern of theſe ancient Churches under a notion of ſtrictneſs and purity.
In his other Book made upon the like occaſion againſt me, viz. his Epiſtle to Mr. Quick, Alcuinus is brought in ſaying, Fiunt ſcutinia, ut ſaepius explorentur, an poſt renunciationem Satanae, Sacra verba datae fidei, radicibus corde defixerint. Scrutinies were made, that they might be often Examined, to ſee whether the Sacred words of the Faith, which they profeſſed, were throughly fixed in their hearts. A New-England man reading this, would be ready to think, that our practice were but the reviving of the practice of the Primitive Church, but if we ſearch what this Scrutiny was, we may gather it partly from the words of Auſtin, ipſis diebus, quibus catechezantur, exorcizantur, ſcrutantur: and the words of Leo both reported by Chamier in the ſame place, In Baptizandis electis, qui ſecundum Apoſtolicam regulam, & exorciſmis ſcrutandi, & jejuniis Sanctificandi, & frequentibus ſunt praedicationibus imbuendi. By this it appears that this Scrutiny was made by Exorciſms, not by inquiring into the works of Gods Spirit on their hearts, but by adjuring of them to Speak true; tho' there was another way of Exorciſing in uſe at this time, viz. an adjuring of the Devil to forſake them, by this Examination, it may eaſily be perceived, how we may be led into notable miſtakes by the quotations of ancient Authors.
2. He faith this Opinion is contrary to the judgment of the moſt eminent Reformers in theſe latter Ages. Some are mentioned by him.
A. 1. That the generality of the Reformed Churches are larger than I deſire to be, in their practices, and the practice of the Church of Scotland is every whit as large.
2. As to the judgment of particular Divines: I ſay,
1. That ſome of them intend no more, than that thoſe who are admitted to the Lords Supper, be to the judgment of Charity Believers; as is obvious to thoſe that are converſant in their Books; and I am of the ſame judgment with them.
2. Some of theſe Divines have been guilty of great miſtakes in other things, and it is not piacular to ſuſpect them in this. If they be out of the way in this particular, that adds but one error more to thoſe which they have publiſhed.
3. Many Divines have abundance of work before them, and have not opportunity to ſearch narrowly into the points of controverſy; but take ſome things for granted, from their Education, and are zealous in them without accurate and impartial Examination.
4. Many Divines both ancient & modern are ſtrangly to ſeek about the Doctrine of Regeneration, which might eaſily lead them into this miſtake.
Dr. Davenant, & Dr. Ward, in vind. gr. Sacramentalis, teach, 1. That Sacraments do always give Grace as moral inſtrumental canſes to thoſe that don't put a bar in the way. 2. Conſequently that by Baptiſm, Grace or Regeneration is conveyed to all Infants Elected or not Elected, which Regeneration they call Baptiſmal, and the firſt Grace. 3. The firſt Effect of this Grace is the Remiſſion of Original Sin, by the ſprinkling of the blood of Chriſt: upon which depends the inhabitation of the HolyGhoſt; the firſt Regeneration, Juſtification, Adoption. 4. By this Grace is beſtowed upon Infants a State of Salvation while they are in the condition of Infancy, but not when Adult. 5. That this firſt Grace and Baptiſmal Regeneration, has not an infallible connexion with Salvation, becauſe in their Adult age a bar may be put to the ſecond Regeneration.
Dr. Burges de Bapt. Regeneratione Elect. Infant: diſtinguiſhes Regeneration into initial, which he calls Seminal & Potential, which conſiſts in a participation of the Spirit of Chriſt, which is the principle of Spiritual life; and actual Regeneration, which conſiſts in a ſpiritual Eſſence, produced in a Chriſtian by the renewing Spirit, that initial Regeneration he makes to be after Baptiſm, and binds it up to that as the cauſe, ſine qua non, or moral inſtrument, upon which it follows; to prove this he brings not only the Fathers, and the authority of the Church of England, but alſo Calvin, Chamier, Buc…r, Muſculus, Junius, Zanchy, Voſſius, Jewel, Whitaker, Ames and Davenant.
Many Reformed Divines hold the Eſſicacy of Baptiſm to conſiſt in Sealing Regeneration, which was produced before Baptiſm.
Voetius faith, That Elect Infants that have foederal Holineſs, have at the ſame time the internal Grace of Regeneration; and inſtances in Paul, Manaſſeh, and the Thief on the Croſs, who, he faith, were Regenerate from their Infancy. This Regeneration in Infancy is a ſpiritual quality or faculty in the mind & will, out of which as out of a certain Seed and material power, actual diſpoſitions & habits by the impreſſion & infuſion of the Holy Ghoſt are in time raiſed. Deſt. Elect.
Some Divines don't diſtinguiſh between Regenerate men, and Profeſſours of good Converſation. Whereas it is evident that men may be very conſcientious, & have conſiderable operations of the Spirit of God upon their hearts, that are not Savingly Converted. Indeed the World has had but little diſtinct underſtanding about the work of Converſion, until ſome latter Divines at Boſton: Norton, Hooker, Shephard, & ſome others have held forth light; there was great darkneſs about the way of Converſion. By this diſcourſe it may appear how little dependance, we can have on the judgments of Learned and good men; and in our reading muſt carefully diſtinguiſh between the chaff & the wheat.
5. Many Divines are of the ſame opinion with my ſelf. I mentioned Wendeline in my Sermon; and whereas Mr. Mather faith, there is one Calviniſt of my mind, he may ſee if he have the Book by him, that Wendeline doth not only affirm, That the Sacraments of confirmation may organically begin Faith: but adds, That this is the Orthodox Opinion, he Means, the Opinion of the Calviniſts. Exer. 81. pag. 1311. & 12. Mr. Blake has written at large alſo for this, and has anſwered Mr. Gilleſpy's twenty arguments. Mr. John Humphry Miniſter of Froome, has written three Books in defence of this Opinion. Mr. John Timſon alſo: he was no Miniſter, but his Book gave good ſatisfaction to many Miniſters in Gloceſterſhire, as Mr. Humphry reports. Beza D. Presh. & Excom. p. 23. lays down theſe two rules. 1. That the Supper is inſtituted for Diſciples. 2. That all ſuch as profeſs Chriſt tho' hypocrites are diſciples. So Mr. Th. Hooker in his Survey. p. 41, 42.
6. I was informed by a Miniſter of good account in theſe Churches, that Mr. Mather told him, That if a Church Member ſhould be convinced that be bad not a Saving work of Converſion, be would adviſe him to come to the Lords-Supper. It is none of my buſineſs to reconcile thoſe expreſſions, with what he has written.
3. He ſaith, This Opinien agrees with Papiſts and a looſer ſort of Proteſtants.
Anſw. He would have argued better if he had ſaid that my Opinion was worſe than the opinion of the Papiſts: for according to his principles that would have been true: but as he frames his argument, it is a great miſtake, tho' he is to be ſomewhat excuſed, becauſe I think he hath received this notion by an implicite Faith from Mr. Gilleſpy. But to make good his opinion, he ſaith, That Eſtius declares that the Catholicks maintain, that Sacraments work Grace in thoſe that do not Obicem ponere, or withſtand their operation. And he ſaith, that Brockmond, a bitter Lutheran, mentions it as a Calvinian error, that Sacraments are not inſtituted to be means of conferring Grace. But what of all this, doth it follow from hence, that they hold that the Lords Supper is a converting Ordinance. They never teach that the firſt Grace is communicated by the Lords Supper, but ſuppoſe that to be wrought by Baptiſm, before ever Perſons partake of the Lords Supper. The Council of Trent does require a proving of themſelves before they come to the Lords Supper; and they curſe thoſe that ſay, That Faith alone is ſufficient preparation for the Lords Supper. Hiſt. Conc. Tri. p. 274, 275. And I challenge Mr M. to bring one Popiſh Author, that doth aſſert the Sacrament of the Lords Supper to be a converting Ordinance: nay himſelf doth mention two Popiſh Authors, Albaſtineus & Duravdus, p. 40. to ſhew that thoſe who were not holy ſhould not come to the Table of the Lord. Such arguing is a great abuſe.
Mr. Mather's Seventh Argument.
IF it be impoſſible for Unregenerate Perſons whilſt ſuch, to be worthy Communicints at the Lords Table, then they have no command or allowance from God to be there whilſt in their Sins. But it is impoſſible for them to be worthy Communicants.
Anſw. I deny the minor.
1. If we take communicating worthily in the Apoſtles ſenſe, 1 Cor. 11.29. For diſcerning the Lords body, it is not impoſſible for them to communicate worthily; they may underſtand the nature of the Ordinance very well, and be able to inſtruct others in it.
2. If we take communicating worthily in his ſenſe, for exerciſing Faith & other Graces, at the time of participation, it is not impoſſible for thoſe that came to the Ordinance in an Unregenerate condition to partake worthily. God may give them Grace at that time. Mr. Timſon who was bred up under Mr. Robert Bolton, and wrote two Books judiciouſly upon this Subject, to the good acceptance of many Godly and Learned men, received the firſt impreſſion of Gods Grace at this Ordinance. As Mr. John Humphry gives the Account. And indeed all men when they come to the Lords Supper, depend upon the help of God for communicating in Faith; if God don't aſſiſt Godly men, it is impoſſible for them to do it; and if God do not change the hearts of natural men, it is impoſſible for them to do it. But one and the other muſt ly in Gods way and ſo wait upon him for his Grace.
Mr. Mather blames me for ſaying, That it is not to be imagined, that all that were Baptized by John were Regenerate; or judged by him to be ſo: and ſaith, I do not confirm my Aſſertion with any reaſon. p. 65. I ſhall give him a reaſon now: that they were not all Regenerate appears from, Joh. 5.35. John was a burning and a ſhining light, and ye were willing for a ſeaſon to rejoyce in his light. That John did not think them to be ſo, appears becauſe, he knew that many were called and few were choſen: and that the Kingdom of God is like a net, that was caſt into the Sea and gathered of every kind, as Chriſt teaches us, Math. 13.47.
He takes notice, that I ſay, If Unregenerate perſons might not be Baptized, the Phariſees would not have been blamed for neglecting Baptiſm. And ſaith, that Mr. S. implies that John would have Baptized them, but that they refuſed to be Baptized by him. Whereas the truth is other-wiſe, they would have been Baptized but John refuſed to Baptize them. And he brings ſeveral Authors to confirm it. p. 66, 67.
Anſw. What they ſay is no ways contradictory to what I ſay. It is very proper to ſay, that John would have Baptized them, if he were willing to do it upon ſuch conditions as they were able to perform: he required of them to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, Mat. 3.8. that is to behave themſelves as Saints; this they might have done, tho' Unregenerate. And it is very proper to ſay, that they refuſed to be Baptized, becauſe they did refuſe it upon thoſe terms that John propoſed. He that has a mind to a Commodity, but will not go to the price of it, doth refuſe it. If they had renounced their Errors and Superſtitions and reformed their lives, John would not have refuſed them, tho' there had been no Saving change in their hearts, but their neglecting thoſe things, was a refuſing of Baptiſm.