An Appeal to the Learned, Book 3

An Appeal to the Learned · Book 3

p. 50The Third BOOK. Arguments to prove that Sanctifying Grace is not neceſſary, in order to a lawful partaking of the Lords Supper, with a Vindication of them from the Exceptions of Mr. Mather.

1. ARgument. If Unſanctifyed Perſons might lawfully come to the Paſsover, then they may lawfully partake of the Lords Supper: But they might lawfully come to the Paſsover.

p. 51This is evident, becauſe the whole Congregation of Iſrael were to keep it, and ſuch Strangers among them as did ſubject themſelves to Circumciſion, Exod. 12.47, 48. And God threatens ſuch Perſons as neglect it, except they were Unclean or in a Journey. The man that is clean and not in a journey, & forbeareth to keep the Paſsover, even the ſame Soul ſhall be cut off from his People, Numb. 19.13. The want of Sanctification never was alledged by any man, as a reaſon for forbearing the Paſsover. Unſanctifyed Jews did ſin when they attended the Paſsover, becauſe they did it not in a gracious manner: ſo they did when they attended any other duty of Worſhip, but the attending of this Ordinance was no Sin, nor ever charged on them as Sin in the Scripture: it would have been a great tranſgreſſion if they had neglected it. There were many times, when there were very few godly men among them. Pſal. 12.1. Help Lord for the godly man ceaſeth, the faithful fail, from among the children of men. Iſai 53.1. Who birth believed our report & to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed. Yet the Paſsover was to be attended by the whole Congregation of Iſrael: there was no reſtriction laid upon them in Hezekiah's p. 52time, or Joſiah's time, and their practice is ſpoken of as matter of commendation.

The conſequence is likewiſe good. If the want of Sanctification, did not make it unlawful for men to come to the Paſsover: Then it don't make it unlawful for men to come to the Lords Supper. The Paſsover is a Sacrament as well as the Lords Supper, therefore Chriſt is called our Paſsover, 1 Cor. 5.7. Chriſt our Paſsover is Sacrificed or us. In the Paſsover Chriſt is repreſented, and it is as well as Circumciſion a Seal of the righteouſneſs of faith. If it be unlawful for Unſanctifyed perſons to partake of the Lords Supper, becauſe that is a ſign of Chriſt Crucifyed, it would on the ſame account have been unlawful to have partook of the Paſsover, for that likewiſe was a ſign of Chriſt Crucifyed. If it were unlawful, becauſe it is an holy Ordinance; then they might not have come to the Paſsover, for that was an holy Ordinance alſo. If it be unlawful becauſe therein Saints have communion with Chriſt, it would upon the ſame account have been unlawful to have come to the Paſsover; for Saints therein had communion with Chriſt. If it were unlawful, becauſe the Sacrament of the Lords Supper p. 53is a Sacrament of confirmation, then it would have been unlawful to have pertook of the Paſsover, on the ſame account: the Paſsover & the Lords Supper are like figures, one of Chriſt to come, the other of Chriſt already come: and when Chriſt aboliſhed one, he inſtituted the other in the room thereof. It ſeems to me that many Perſons do make an idol of the Lords Supper; crying it up above all Ordinances both of the Old & New Teſtament, as if it were as peculiar to Saints as heavenly glory, and to be attended with more reverence than all other Ordinances. It may be this is ſome of the relicks of Popiſh Idolatry, in making the Bread & Wine to be the natural Body & Blood of Chriſt. They do by the Lords Supper as ſome men do by the Name of Jeſus, they bow to that, but not to the Name of Chriſt, or God, or the Holy Ghoſt. So theſe Perſons have a greater reverence for this than any other holy Ordinance. It concerns them to ſee that there be no Superſtition in it.

Mr. Mather makes three exceptions againſt this Argument.

1. Exception. That the Church of the Jews was National: & the Church now is Congregational: p. 54and he depends on Dr. Goodwin to make it good.

Anſ. There is no oppoſition between the Churches being National & yet Congregational. The whole Nation may be a National Church, and the ſeveral Congregations may be Congregational Churches, as the ſeveral Synagogues of the Jews were.

The reaſon why we have no account of any National Church among the Gentiles, is becauſe there was no Nation Converted to the Chriſtian ſaith, during that time; which we have the Hiſtory of, in the New Teſtament: there were a few in one City and a few in another that did receive the Chriſtian faith: but the bulk of the ſeveral Nations lay in their heatheniſm.

At the Jews were a National Church of old, ſo when they return, they will be a National Church again, and as they will be a National Church, ſo Gentile Nations that profeſs the true Religion, are National Churches. His objection that then there muſt be an High Prieſt is frivolous. If he had argued that then there muſt be a National Church Government, he had argued right; becauſe Iſrael was a National Church they had an Eccleſiaſtical Sane…rim, but they had an High-Prieſt on another p. 55account, viz to typify Chriſt as the High-Prieſt of our Profeſſion.

A Nation that is in Covenant with God is a National Church, a Nation that are in Covenant with God are the People of God, bound jointly and ſeverally to keep Covenant with him. God is one party in the Covenant, and they are the other, and being bound together to keep Covenant, the whole muſt have power over the parts, to rectify all Mal-adminiſtrations, and to ſee the Covenant kept: it need not ſeem ſtrange to any to hear of a National Church in the time of the New-Teſtament, conſidering how it was foretold by Iſaiah: Iſai. 19.24, 25. In that day Iſrael ſhall be the third with Egypt, and with Aſſyria, whom the, Lord of hoſts ſhall bleſs, ſaying, bleſſed be Egypt my People, Aſſyria the work of my hands, and Iſrael my inheritance. And how it was foretold by Chriſt: Matt. 13.33. The kingdom of Heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three meaſures of Meal till the whole was leavened. Though few entertain the Goſpel at firſt, yet the whole Country in a while are brought to entertain it. What is a National Church but a Profeſſing Nation jointly bound to keep Covenant with God.

p. 562. Exception. Though Goſpel myſteries were typifyed by the Poſsover, yet it was inſtituted in ſpecial, to be a commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, and ſo the whole Nation were to partake of it.

Anſw. If when he ſaith, it was in ſpecial to be a commemoration of the deliverance out of Egypt, he intends no more. 1. Then this, that beſide its typifying Goſpel myſteries, it had a particular reſpect to the deliverance out of Egypt; there is no force at all in the exception, if it had ſome reſpect to that, that hindred not the Sacredneſs of the Ordinance, neither could it be a reaſon why Unſanctifyed perſons ſhould come to that Ordinance, more than to any now in the time of the New-Teſtament; the reſpect is had to the deliverance out of Egypt, does not deſtroy the reſpect it had to the Redemption by Chriſt: its being a Memorial of the deliverance from Egypt, don't hinder it from being a Seal of the righteouſneſs of faith, nor make it fit to be attended by ſuch as may not attend the Lords Supper. 2. If when he ſaith, it was in ſpecial to be a commemoration of the deliverance from Egypt, he means that it was eſpecially, or principally inſtituted for that end, to be a Memorial p. 57of that deliverance from Egypt; ſurely he did not Write thoſe words in cold blood: the deliverance out of Egypt was a great Mercy, but ſmall in compariſon of the deliverance by Chriſt: if the great thing was to be a Memorial of the deliverance from Egypt, why was there not ſuch another Ordinance inſtituted, when they were delivered from Babylon; if that were the great thing why was it aboliſhed after Chriſts ſuffering? can it enter into any mans heart, to think that the typifying the Redemption by Chriſt was only a thing by the by in this inſtitution? is that deliverance from Egpyt the principal thing intended in the preface to the ten Commandments? Exod. 20.2.

3. Exception. That Scandalous Perſons might come to the Paſsover but not to the Lords Supper. He ſaith, Adulterers, Thieves, Liars, Slanderers, Perjured perſons, might come to the Paſsover, and I muſt admit ſuch Scandalous perſons to the Lords Supper, or let go my argument from the Paſsover.

And he teaches me what to anſwer, viz. That more poſitive fruits of Regeneration are required in the Church Members of the New Teſtament than the Old. But I dare not give that anſwer, becauſe of the abſurdity of it: p. 58for the perſons, that he ſpeaks of wanted the Negative fruits of Regeneration, and were not able to ſay, as the Phariſee: Luk. 18.11. God I thank thee I am not as other men are Extortioners, Unjuſt, Adulterers, or even as this Publican.

But this I anſwer, that he does greatly reproach the Church of Iſrael: he pretends to endeavour the purity of Goſpel Churches, but obtrudes that upon us which is crude and indigeſted, as if all ſorts of vile perſons might according to divine Inſtitution, live in communion with the Jewiſh Church: as if the Church of Iſrael were like Babylon a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. I know there were great corruptions many times among them, but ſurely viſible Saints were always de jure, the matter of Church Members: So Iſrael are often called: Deut. 33.3. All his Saints are in his hands: So David calls them: Pſal. 111.1. I will praiſe thee in the Aſſembly of the Upright and in the Congregation. And he teaches us, That holineſs becomes Gods Houſe for ever, Pſal. 93.5. And not only as Mr. Mather ſaith, in the time of the New Teſtament.

God appointed in the Church of Iſrael a way for the removal of Scandals. For,

p. 591. Men were required in caſe of Sin to offer up their Sacrifices: as is abundantly evident from the Law of Moſes. Lev. 6.6, 7. He ſhall bring his treſpaſs offering unto the Lord, and the Prieſt ſhall make attonement for him before the Lord, and it ſhall be forgiven him. This offering of Sacrifice was to be attended with confeſſion. Lev. 5.5. He ſhall confeſs that he hath ſinned in that thing, & he ſhall bring his treſpaſs-offering unto the Lord for his ſin. Numb. 5.6, 7. When a man or woman commit any ſin, that men commit, then they ſhall confeſs their ſin that they have done. Hereby the Scandal was removed: there were to be viſible ſigns of Repentance, as now are required among us.

2. In caſe of obſtinacy they had their way to purge the Church: they had their Eccleſiaſtical cenſures, according to divine Inſtitution. Which as Dr. Owen calls them, were an authoritative Excluſion of them, from the Society of the Church and the Members of it. The Jews do diſtinguiſh theſe cenſures into three degree, the firſt they call Niddui, the ſecond Cherem, the third Shammatha. The Jews in Chriſts time did agree, that if any confeſſed Chriſt, they would put him out of the Synagogue, Joh. 9.22. This was executed on the blind man, p. 60v 24. And it is very probable that when it is ſaid in the Old Teſtament, that obſtinate offenders ſhall be cut off from among their People, that this is at leaſt ſometimes intended by it.

3. When Perſons were under the ſecond cenſure, which they call Cherem, they were not to eat the Paſsover, they did allow them that were under the firſt to come into the Temple, though at a diſtinct gate, which they called the gate of Mourners, but in the ſecond they were excluded: they agreed in Ezra's time, That thoſe that did not aſſemble within three days, ſhould be ſeparated from the Congregation, Ezra 10.8. Then they were looked on as Heathens, according to that, Math. 18.17. If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a Publican: which was no new rule appropriated to the Goſpel Church, which was not in being, when Chriſt ſpake theſe words, but Chriſt did herein revive an old rule that had been always in force.

2. Argument. If no Unſanctifyed Perſon may come to the Lords Supper, than no man may come, but be that knows himſelf to be Sanctifyed: But perſons may come, that do not know themſelves to be Sanctifyed.

p. 61The minor is granted. Mr. M. grants that there is no neceſſity of Aſſurance: and that if Perſons ſearch and have a probable hope that they are Converted, they may come. p. 84.

The conſequence is plain: becauſe upon that ſuppoſition, That Sanctifyed perſons only muſt come; he that don't know his Sanctification, doth not know that he hath any right to come: and ſo he cannot eat in faith, and therefore Sins in coming. Thus the Apoſtle determines the caſe about eating of fleſh: that thoſe that doubted whether God allowed them to do it and yet did it, were guilty: Rom. 14.23. He that doubteth is damned if he eat: becauſe he eateth not of faith, for whatſoever is not of faith is ſin. He that doth not know that he is Sanctifyed, doth not by that doctrine know that he hath any right to come: he is ignorant that he hath any warrant to come: if he comes, he comes upon his peril of eating and drinking damnation to himſelf: if he comes he takes a liberty to do that, that he doth not know, that God gives him a liberty to do: it is horrible preſumption for him to come; if all unſanctifyed perſons are forbidden, then he doth not know but that it is forbidden p. 62fruit to him, and that he rebels in coming: he that doth that, which he doth not know he may lawfully do, will not be accepted in it: Conſcience may ſay to him, What right have you to it, Who gave you leave, What Warrant have you to do it? If Churches are to cenſure only Scandalous perſons, then they muſt know they are Scandalous before they do cenſure them; it is not enough for them to ſay they don't know but that they are, or they think that they are. If a man has a liberty to Sell only his own Horſe, and not another mans, then he muſt know it to be his own and not another mans; and it is not enough for him to ſay, He did not know but it was his own, or he thought it was his own. If a Miniſter has a liberty to Preach nothing but the truth, then he muſt know it to be the truth before he Preaches it; it is not enough for him to ſay, he did not know but it was, or that he hoped it was. Thus it is in this caſe. If only Sanctification gives him a real right to the Lords Supper, then nothing ſhort of the knowledge of Sanctification can give him a known right to it: until he knows his Sanctification he is ignorant of his right: if Sanctification only gives him a p. 63right, then if he doth not know his Sanctification, he doth not know, that he hath a right. Probable hopes wont Warrant him to come: for they don't give him a right, it is only Sanctification doth that, neither do they evidence that he hath a right.

But though the truth of this Argument be as evident as the light of the Sun at Noon day, yet it would be ſtrange if Mr. Mather ſhould have no anſwer to give. He tells us if after ſerious Examination, be cannot but hope there is a good work begun in his Soul, be ought to come, though his hopes be not Aſſurance.

But I ſay, he ought not to come unleſs he has a right to come; ought he to come if he have this hope, whether he be Regenerate or not? he may have theſe hopes, and yet be unſanctifyed, then it is not Sanctification that gives him the right but the hopes of it: he ought to come, Mr. M. ſaith: yet he ought to ſtay away becauſe he is unſanctifyed: he is charged to come becauſe of his hopes, and condemned for coming becauſe he is unſanctifyed.

But Mr. Mather labours to give relief to Wounded Conſciences by a compariſon, he tells, If a Jew after he had ſearched for p. 64leaven in the houſe, found none, be was to eat the Paſsover; ſo if Chriſtians after ſelf Examination, cannot find that they are in a ſtate of Hypocriſy, which is leaven, they ought to come to the Lords Table. Here is a ſhadow without ſubſtance, a compariſon without a ſimilitude. The Jew ſearches for leaven, he finds bread and is at a loſs whether it be leavened or no; may he eat the Paſsover without removing that bread; ſo the Chriſtian ſearches his heart, and finds a great deal of hypocriſy, but is at a loſs whether it be reigning hypocriſy or no: ought he in this caſe to run the venture and come to the Lords Table?

The caſe with theſe men that don't know their Saint-ſhip, is like the caſe of the Prieſts that could not find their Regiſter, Ezra 2.62, 63. They were put from the Prieſt-bood as Polluted, that they ſhould not eat of the holy things, till there ſtood up a Prieſt with Urim and Thummim. So theſe that cannot find their Saint-ſhip muſt forbear eating at the Lords Table, till they can make it out, if it be Sanctification that gives a right to the Lords Supper.

There is a ſtrange inconſiſtency in his doctrine, ſometimes he teaches that Regeneration gives the right to come, and p. 65that unſanctifyed perſons may not come; ſometimes that if they hope after Examination that they are godly, then they may come. But if it be grace only that gives them a right, then preponderating hopes of Grace will not give them a right; beſides if an hope that they are godly gives them a right, then that which is very ſinful will give them a right: for ſuch are the hopes of many men, founded in Pride and Ignorance: There is a Generation that are pure in their own eyes, yet are not cleanſed from their filthineſs, Prov. 30.12. Again, if a probable hope gives men a right, then when ever they have a preponderating fear that they are not godly, they muſt forbear, and ſo neglect the means of their conſolation. Again, if a preponderating hope gives them a right: then ſome have a right to the Lords Supper, that are worſe than ſome that know themſelves to be Unconverted: ſome conceited ſenceleſs men nouriſh ſuch an hope: and ſome that are very near to the Kingdom of God, being humbled and prepared for Chriſt know themſelves to the Unconverted.

3. Argument. Thoſe that are Members of the Church and neither ignorant nor ſcandalous may lawfully come to the Lords Supper, but ſome p. 66Unſanctifred perſons are Members of the Church and neither ignorant nor ſcandalous.

The major doth appear, from the inſtitution of Chriſt, this is his command to his Church. When Chriſt inſtituted the Supper, he appointed it to be an Ordinance for Diſciples to the end of the World, when he ſaid, This do in remembrance of me, Luk. 22.19. It doth not only intend the duty of the Apoſtles at that time, but that they and their ſucceſſours ſhould attend that Service in all Generations. Therefore this command is inforced on the Church of Corinth by the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 11.24, 25. This is one ſpecial way wherein the Church doth give a teſtimony unto Chriſt, celebrate the Memory of his death, and ſhew it forth: As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye ſhew forth the Lords death till he come.

This is alſo evident from the practice of the Apoſtles, and primitive Church, thoſe that were added to the Church continued in this practice. Acts 2.42. So the Diſciples came together on the Lords day to break bread, Acts 20.7. This was the manner alſo of the Church of Corinth: there were not a Number of them that neglected, becauſe unſanctifyed, but they all partook. p. 671 Cor. 10 17. We being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread: 1 Cor. 12.13. For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The minor is alſo evident. That ſome Unſanctifyed men are Members of the Church. The fooliſh Virgins did belong unto the Kingdom of God, as well as the wiſe, Mat. 25.1, 2. The Kingdom of heaven ſhall be likened to ten Virgins which took their Lamps and went forth to meet the bridegroom, and five of them were wiſe, and five were fooliſh. Multitudes that are in fellowſhip with Churches are deſtitute of Saving Grace. Among the many that are called ſew are choſen, Math. 20.16. Our Reverend Author does acknowledge this, but he faith, They are not duly qualifyed to be Members of Churches. But this is utterly inconſiſtent with what he faith in other places. For he doth again & again acknowledge that the Churches ought to admit thoſe that are Saints to rational Charity, though they be Unregenerate; and likewiſe he doth acknowledge, that if after … Examination, a perſon cannot but … that there is a good Work begun in p. 68his Soul, he ought to come. And by theſe two rules many that are deſtitute of Grace ought to be admitted into Churches, God does appoint them to come and God does appoint Churches to accept of them; ſo that according to divine inſtitution they are Members of Churches, and qualifyed according to Gods Ordinance for it.

For the further clearing that ſome Unſanctifyed perſons are Members of the Church. Let it be conſidered, that many of theſe perſons were born in the Church, and therefore Baptized in their Infancy, and have been all their days bred up in the Church, and never gave any juſt occaſion to be caſt out of the Church: ſo that they have their ſtanding there, and are regular Members of the Church.

I foreſee that Mr. Mather will object againſt this, from his digreſſion, p. 20, 21. viz. That theſe perſons do belong to the viſible Catholick, but not to any particular inſtituted Church, and he has Dr. Owen for his voucher.

But this will not bear Examination; it is as if he ſhould ſay, That the Children of the Town, were Members of Mankind, and Members of the Common Wealth, but not Members of the Town where they p. 69dwell: Is it agreable to reaſon to think that the Church ſtands in relation to them, and is bound to ſee to their Education, and that they ſtand in no relation to the Church? How unreaſonable is it to think, that a Multitude of men ſhould be reckoned of the Common Wealth of Iſrael, and have ſome Priviledges for themſelves and Children, and yet be under no Eccleſiaſtical Government? is not this quite contrary to the practice of theſe Churches, who have been wont to call many to account for their Miſdemenours, who were the Children of the Church?

What do theſe men want to make them Members of particular Churches? he will ſay, They want to be in Covenant with particular Churches; but there is neither Precept nor PRecedent for it in the Scripture. He faith in another Book, That I call the Church a body corporate; but there is no forming of a body corporate without a Covenant; but therein he lies under a great miſtake; bodies corporate may be made by Law, and they may be made by Charter.

There is a covenant indeed between God and every profeſſing Nation. God brought his people of old into a Church p. 70Eſtate by making a covenant with them, which covenant was ſeveral times renewed, Deut. 29.10-13. And all Proſelytes among the Jews were to take hold of this covenant: Iſai. 56.4. But there is no neceſſity of any covenant between the Members of a particular Congregation among themſelves, though God makes Promiſes to a National Church, it does not follow, that the Members of a Congregation muſt make Promiſes among themſelves. There was a covenant between God and the Church of Iſrael: but the Members of each Synagogue did not make a covenant between themſelves: Particular Churches may be bounded either by civil Authority, or Eccleſiaſtical, or by Argument: and it is ordinarily the duty of every one that is a Member of the Catholick Church, to carry on the Worſhip of God in conjunction with the particular Church where he dwells: and he is bound by his profeſſion of Religion ſo to do, and the Church likewiſe doth ſtand bound to accept of him, if he carries well.

4. Argument If the Lords Supper be inſtituted for Converſion of Sinners as well as for the Edification of Saints, then Sanctifying Grace is not neceſſary to mens attending of it: But it as Inſtituted for the Converſion of Sinners: not p. 71for the Converſion of Heathens to the Chriſtian Religion, but for the Saving Converſion of Profeſſing men.

The minor which is only in queſtion, may be confirmed by theſe conſiderations.

1. This Ordinance has a proper tendency to promote mens Converſion. Converſion taken largly, as it comprehends preparatory Work, conſiſts of three parts, & this Ordinance is ſerviceable to them all.

1. Conviction. Men muſt be convinced of the anger of God becauſe of their Sins, and the neceſſity of being at Peace with him: and this Ordinance is a means to ſettle this conviction on the heart: for here is a diſcovery of the terrible anger of God for ſin, by the inflicting of the curſe upon Chriſt, when ſin was but imputed unto him; a man may well reaſon thus, If this be done to the green tree, what ſhall be done to the dry?

2. Humiliation. Or the bringing of the Sinner off from his own Righteouſneſs: for in this Ordinance God teaches men, the neceſſity of Chriſts righteouſneſs, that their own is but husks, and will not nouriſh them up unto eternal Life.

3. Faith. Chriſt is here offered to men, and the call makes way for the anſwer of p. 72the Soul; here is an affecting repreſentation of the dying love of Chriſt, which ſerves to remove many diſcouragements, and of the accurſed death of Chriſt, wherein the Sinner may ſee Satisfaction made for ſin. In this Ordinance the truth of the covenant is Sealed, which is a great means to beget in the Soul a perſwaſion of the cruth of it. And if the man be but convinced of theſe things he is gained: thoſe that underſtand any thing of the working of Gods Spirit on the heart, muſt be ſenſible that it hath a great tendency to advance Converſion; & why has God given it ſuch a tendency to promote Converſion, if it were not appointed for that end.

2. Some that are Unſanctifyed ought to offer themſelves to communion in the Lords Supper, and that on a double account; 1ſt. Becauſe they are in covenant with God, and therefore being neither ignorant nor of bad converſation, the Seal of the covenant doth belong to them. Many of them were born in covenant and have actually renewed the covenant, and therefore ought to tender themſelves to communion, they ought to receive Gods confirmation of his covenant, and to uſe p. 73the means to ſtir them up to keep covenant. 2ly. Becauſe it is a ſcandal if they do not, and the Church may call them to an account for their neglect. It is a viſible contempt caſt upon the Ordinance, it is a denyal of the Goſpel, and a refuſal to ſhew forth the death of Chriſt.

3. The Church by the Ordinance of God is bound to admit many Unconverted perſons to the Lords-Supper, they are Eccleſiaſtically qualifyed having knowledge and a good converſation; they are Saints to a judgment of Charity, walking orderly; and therefore the Church is to accept them into their communion; the Church is to act upon what is viſible, ſo that according to the Ordinance of God they are to be received to communion.

4. The Lords Supper is for the Spiritual good of all that are regularly to be admitted thereunto. All Ordinances attended according to inſtitution, are for that end, that the Spirit may be Saved in the day of the Lord Jeſus, and ſo this Ordinance. This is the Work of the Miniſtry in all their adminiſtrations, by all means to ſave ſome. This Ordinance may have a contrary effect, & be an occaſion of the ruin of ſoftie: but the direct end of it is Salvation, and p. 74ſo the direct end of it is Converſion, when the Subject that it is adminiſtred unto ſtands in need of Converſion: there is no reaſon to confine the benefit of it unto Saints.

Mr. Mather argues, That Faith comes by Hearing, Rom. 14. Why does he not argue that the Subſequent acts of faith come by hearing as well as the firſt, and that therefore the Lords Supper is not for the ſtrengthning of Faith. Put indeed there is Hearing, as well as Seeing, and Touching and Smelling and Taſting, in the Sacrament of the Supper, there is a gracious offer of Chriſt, and all his benefits, which has a proper tendency to beget faith.

5. Argument. If the Lords Supper be only for Converted men, then God would have given ſome certain rule in the attending of which it might be reſtrained to Converted men: but he hath given no ſuch rule in attending of which it may be reſtrained to Converted men.

The major is evident, becauſe if it be appointed only for Converted men, and no rule given whereby it may be reſtrained to them, then his Law would be impracticable. The law would be a meer ſnare, and men would be under a neceſſity to prophane his Ordinance: it is a reflection p. 75on the Wiſdom and Holineſs of God to impute ſuch a thing to him. God don't bind his Church to impoſſibilities, if he had made any ſuch Ordinance, he would give gifts to his Church to diſtinguiſh Sincere men from Hypocrites, whereby the Ordinance might have been attended.

The minor is alſo evident: He has given no ſuch rule to his Church, whereby it may be reſtrained to converted Men. This appears becauſe by the rule, that they are to go by, they are allowed to give the Lords Supper to many Unconverted men: for all viſible Signs are common to men converted and unconverted. If they go by profeſſion of the truth, that is common to both; if by a good Converſation, that is common to both; if by zeal in Religion, that is common to both; if by ſuffering in the cauſe of God, that is common to both; if by knowledge, that is common to both; if by a relation of Experiences, that is common to both.

Obj There is a certain rule given whereby godly men may knew their godlineſs, & that they are Warranted to come to the Lords Supper.

Anſw. Mr. Mather will not ſtand by that rule: for he ſaith, That if after ſerious ſelf Examination, a man cannot but hope that p. 76he is a godly man, he may come though be hath not Aſſurance: And if he goes by Mr. Mather's rule, that will not reſtrain the Sacrament to converted men. Mr. Mather pretends to give a ſolution of this argument, by propounding another Objection for me to anſwer. He ſaith, That I maintain that only Orthodox Chriſtians may come to the Lords Supper; and then there muſt be a certain rule to know the inward Sentiments of mens hearts: but he miſtakes the matter very much; I only hold that men muſt be Orthodox in their Profeſſion. Churches are to judge concerning viſible Saint-ſhip, when they go higher they go beyond their Sphere.

He ſaith, why ſhould we not believe that men that give us an account of their Converſion, and whoſe Converſations are outwardly blameleſs and holy, are really according as they ſeem to be. I will give him a reaſon, and that is becauſe it may be falſe; Many perſons that have given a fair account and carried well in the eye of the World for ſeveral years, have not proved well at laſt: and God obliges no man to believe that which may be falſe.

p. 776. Argument. If Unſanctifyed men may attend all other Ordinances or Duties of Worſhip, then they may lawfully attend the Lords Supper: But they may attend all other Ordinances or Duties of Worſhip.

The minor will be generally acknowledged: And indeed there was not any duty of Worſhip required ſince the foundation of the World, that they might not attend. But Mr. Mather doth object: he grants that an Unconverted man may Preach: for he may have great gifts which he may and ought to improve to the glory of God, and the good of men. But he thinks he may not adminiſter the Lords Supper; he ſaith, The argument from Natural to Inſtituted Worſhip will not hold. But he ſtrangly forgets himſelf; might not the Prieſts of old though unregenerate attend other duties of their Office as well as Preach the word; Sacrificing was Inſtituted Worſhip as well as adminiſtring the Lords Supper, ſo was offering of Incenſe: but where were they forbidden to do thoſe Services, in caſe they were Unregenerate? the bleſſing of adminiſtrations in the houſe of God doth not depend upon the Piety of the Miniſter. The Officiating p. 78as Prieſts of old did depend upon Natural Generation, and not upon Regeneration: Unregeneracy did not give them a diſcharge from the work of their Office.

The conſequence may be made evident from hence, becauſe there can be no reaſon aſſigned, why Unſanctifyed perſons may attend all other duties of Worſhip and not the Lords Supper. If there be the like reaſon for them to forbear other duties of Worſhip as to forbear this, and the like reaſon to attend this act of Worſhip as others, then the lawfulneſs of attending them, ſhews the lawfulneſs of attending this: if it were made out to be Gods pleaſure that it ſhould be ſo that is reaſon enough: but there is no reaſon can be aſſigned for ſuch a diſference.

Particularly: It can be no reaſon for Unregenerate men to forbear the Lords Supper becauſe it is an holy Ordinance: For all the Ordinances of God are holy. Circumciſion was ſo, and the Paſsover, ſo is Baptiſm: theſe Ordinances were appointed for the advancing of Holineſs, there was Religion in them, they were to be attended in an holy manner, and it was great Wickedneſs to uſe them in a p. 79prophane way; they were deſigned for the honour of God, yet that was no ſufficient reaſon for Unregenerate men to forbear attending of them: and therefore that can be no ſufficient reaſon to forbear attending the Lords Supper.

2. The Lords Supper being a Sacrament or Seal of the Covenant can be no reaſon. Two of Mr. Gilleſpy's arguments are built upon that foundation; but if that arguing were good, Unregenerate perſons muſt be forbidden all Sacraments. Circumciſion was a Seal of the Righteouſneſs of faith, Rom. 4.11. Yet God commanded Joſhua at Gilgal to Circumciſe all the Males who were born in the Wilderneſs: who were ſeveral hundred thouſands, Joſh. 5.2.

3. Its being a Sacrament of confirmation can be no ſufficient reaſon. For the Paſsover was ſo as well as the Lords Supper; Circumciſion was the initiating Sacrament to the Jews, and the Paſsover the Sacrament of confirmation: but Unregenerate men might lawfully celebrate the Paſsover, when God firſt appointed it, multitudes of them were Unregenerate, as appears by their carriage in the Wilderneſs. As this Sacrament does repreſent p. 80Chriſt as food for the Soul, ſo did the Paſsover: As in this Ordinance, Saints have communion with Chriſt, ſo they had in the Paſsover.

4. It is no ſufficient reaſon, becauſe the Miniſter is to ſay at the adminiſtration of the Lords Supper, That this is Chriſts body which is given for you, and this is his blood which is ſhed for you: according to the Pattern: Luke 22.19,20. For theſe words may be ſpoken to Unregenerate men. As Miniſters often do in their Sermons, when they call on Sinners to come to Chriſt, and when they reprove for ſin, and urge them to duties of Obedience: thoſe expreſſions do not intend that Chriſt did dye deſignedly for them, but that his death and ſatisfaction is offered to them, and ſhall be made over to them if they accept of Him.

5. Gods not allowing Scandalous perſons to come to this Ordinance is no reaſon. Some Scandalous perſons indeed may be far better than Unregenerate perſons, yet there may be great reaſon for the former to be prohibited and not the latter: Scandalous perſons are forbidden, partly to bring them in that way to a ſight of their evil practices, partly for the p. 81Vindication of Gods Name, which has been diſhonoured by them.

6. The Apoſtles commanding men to Examine themſelves as a preparation for coming to the Lords Supper, can be no reaſon. If he had ſaid, Let men Examine themſelves & ſo let them faſt, we ſhould not have thought that to be a ſufficient reaſon for Unregenerate men to abſtain from faſting. And if he had ſaid, That he that Prays unworthily, and Hears the word unworthily, expoſes himſelf to Damnation or Judgment, we ſhould not have looked upon that a ſufficient reaſon for Unregenerate men to refrain from Praying, and Hearing of the Word.

Were I a Papiſt, and did I believe the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, that the Bread and Wine were the natural body and blood of Chriſt, I might think that to be a ſufficient reaſon for Unregenerate mens not coming to the Lords Supper, & though I do not imagine any ſuch apprehenſions in thoſe Brethren that differ from me, yet I doubt that opinion has laid the foundation of their doctrine, and likewiſe of recieving the Sacrament kneeling.

p. 827. Argument. They that are in external Covenant with God, and neither Ignerant nor Scandalous may lawfully come to the Lords Supper, but ſome Unſanctifyed perſons are in external Covenant with God.

The minor cannot be denyed. God made a Covenant with the whole People of Iſrael: Deut. 5.2. They and their Poſterity after them were the Covenant People of God: God ſtood in relation to them as their God, they ſtood in relation to him as his People. And ſo the Profeſſing People of God now are in Covenant with him, and ſo are their Children, and therefore they are baptized.

The conſequence is evident from hence. Becauſe it is lawful for them to keep the external Covenant: as they have a natural ſo they have a legal power to keep the external Covenant. The attending of the Lords Supper is one of the external duties of the Covenant: Circumciſion is ſaid to be the Covenant: Gen. 17.10. This is my Covenant which ye ſhall keep between me and you, and thy Seed after thee, every man Child among you, ſhall be circumciſed. And v. 14. The neglect of this is called, A breaking of the Covenant. So the Lords Supper p. 83is part of the Covenant, and a token of the Covenant: and if any Profeſſing People do neglect it, be it under what notion it will, it will be a grievous breach of Covenant.

If God does command them to attend Covenant duties, then he don't forbid them; God does not require and prohibit the ſame thing, there is a conſiſtency in Gods commands: He does not lay a tye upon mens Conſciences to come, and lay a tye upon their Conſciences to forbear; God makes them promiſe to keep his Covenant; and will he make it criminal to attend thoſe duties of the Covenant, which he has made them promiſe to keep? they cannot keep the Covenant if they don't come to the Lords Supper, therefore it muſt be lawful for them to come.

Obj. It is a Covenant duty but it muſt not be attended by Unqualifyed Perſons; though it be a Covenant duty, yet not for Ignorant Perſons, nor Scandalous Perſons, nor Unſanctifyed Perſons: if Perſons be not duly qualified it is no immediate duty for them; the Ignorant muſt get knowledge, Scandalous perſons muſt repent of their tranſgreſſions, and Natural men muſt get into a Converted condition, and ſo come to the Lords Supper.

p. 84Anſw. It is very reaſonable to ſay that God requires Ignorant perſons to come, and yet for bids them to come before they have knowledge; and that he requires Scandalous perſons to come, and yet forbids their coming until they have made Satisfaction: becauſe they are able to qualify themſelves, they may truly be ſaid to have liberty and legal power to come, becauſe they have a natural power to qualify themſelves; it is their duty to amend their fauls and ſo to come.

But it is unreaſonable to ſay that natural men are commanded to come, and yet that they are forbidden to come till they are Sanctifyed: for their Sanctification is a thing out of their power: the viſible people of God are able to keep the external Covenant: It cannot be ſaid to be lawful for them to keep the external Covenant, if it doth depend upon their Converſion which is indeed out of their power. But indeed there is no part of the external Covenant, that is beyond mens natural power, or their legal power.

8. Argument. Either ſome Unſanctifyed Perſons may lawfully come to the Lords Supper, or it is not lawful for them to carry themſelves p. 85as Saints: But it is not unlawful for them to carry themſelves as Soints.

The minor doth appear: Becauſe Profeſſors are commanded to carry as becometh Saints: Phil. 1.27. Let your converſation be as becometh the Goſpel of Chriſt. 2 Tim. 2.19. Let every one that nameth the name of Chriſt depart from iniquity. Such as make a Profeſſion of the Goſpel, ought not to carry ſo as to give men occaſion to ſear that they are not Saints: they may not live in ſuch a way as is unlawful for Saints to live in, in ſuch a way as is contrary to the Spirits of Saints: it is unlawful for them to bring a reproach upon their Profeſſion; to live in ſuch a way as is inconſiſtent with the living exerciſe of Grace.

The truth of the disjunction doth appear; becauſe when Profeſſors do neglect the Lords Supper, they do not carry themſelves as Saints; for they do neglect that Ordinance that Saints are bound to attend; and they neglect that Ordinance that the Souls of Saints do crave, they do viſibly deny the Goſpel, they withold their Teſtimony from Jeſus Chriſt, and do not ſhew forth the Lords death. This neglect of theirs is an unholy carriage, not p. 86according to their Profeſſion; they carry like viſible Unbelievers they are called viſible Saints & challenge Baptiſm for their Children as viſible Saints, and yet in this particular they carry themſelves as Unbelieves, and not as viſible Saints.

9. Argument. If Sanctifying Grace be neceſſary unto the lawful attending of the Lords Supper, then none but thoſe that have a Saving work of Converſion, may attend it: but that is not true doctrine.

The minor is evident from hence: That doctrine that has a direct tendency to diſcourage many godly Men from doing their duty, and the means of their comfort, and to make their attending of their duty to be a torment to them, is not according to the Scripture. For one great deſign in the Scripture is to encourage godly men to do their duty: but this doctrine has quite another tendency.

There be many godly men, that are not aſſured of their Converſion: but are exerciſed with many fears about their Sincerity: though Grace be viſible, yet ſeveral Perſons that have it do not certainly know it. Grace may be ſo counterfeited, and falſe hearts may go ſo far p. 87in Religion, that many godly men are held down with great Suſpicions that they are not godly, eſpecially at times. Hence godly men are adviſed to give all diligence to make their Calling & Election ſure, 2 Pet. 1.10. And this doctrine has two bad effects upon them.

1. It makes them neglect the Lords Supper. It is their duty to attend it: it is one of the holy appointments of Jeſus Chriſt; and we owe this Service to Chriſt to ſhew forth his Death, and give our teſtimony before the world, to the vertue of his blood, which is an honour and glory to him; and this Service is of great conſequence to our ſelves to draw forth the actings of faith, to ſtrengthen our comfort and to quicken us in a way of Obedience: but ſeveral as choice Perſons for godlineſs as any, ſo far as men can judge, have been ſo diſcouraged by this doctrine, that they have neglected the Lords Supper; and continued at leaſt for ſome time in the Omiſſion of this Ordinance.

2. It makes ſome of them to attend it with guilt and torment. They have been urged to attend it by a fear leaſt they ſhould offend God, and by the perſwaſions of men, and by conſidering that it would be an p. 88occaſion of reproach: and an offence to the Church, if they ſhould not do it. Yet becauſe of this doctrine, they have been far from Satisfaction in what they have been doing: Conſcience has forbidden them, threatned them and condemned them for doing of it; they have ſet upon thorns, and had a great deal of fear and diſquietment of Spirit: hereby they have been hindred from attending of it in an holy manner; Conſcience has forbidden them to meddle with it, their thoughts has been taken up at the time, not about the virtue of Chriſts Death, but about their own dreadful venture in coming thither: the fears of their hypocriſy have been increaſed by their daring to participate; that that ſhould have been a means to comfort them, has proved an occaſion of torment to them.

If theſe perſons be told that this Ordinance be only for Converted perſons, yet if they after Serious Examination have hopes that they are Converted, they may and ought to come; That will not ſatisfy their tender Conſciences: they will ſay, We may have ſuch hopes and yet not be Converted: the hopes of Multitudes of men are deluſions, and if our hopes ſhould be ſuch, p. 89they will not warrant us to come, we don't find in the Scriptures, that God gives allowance to men becauſe they have hopes; we can't find that God ſaith we ſhould come, if we have ſuch hopes: the men ſay: We don't know but that we eat and drink Damnation to our ſelves: the thing that is required is Converſion, not hopes of Converſion. If God ſhould demand of us, What makes us ſo bold to come, He will not accept of that for an anſwer, That we hoped we were Converted, if we be not indeed ſo, we prophane Gods Ordinance, and eat forbidden fruit. Fears that they are not Converted is a ſtronger argument to make them ſtay away, than hopes that they are Converted is to make them come: Tender Conſciences will not be bafled with ſuch anſwers.

10. Argument. They who do convey to their Children a right to the Sacrament of Baptiſm, have a right themſelves to the Lords Supper, provided they carry inoffenſively: But ſome Unſanctifyed perſons do convey unto their Children a right to the Sacrament of Baptiſm.

The minor is evident from theſe two things.

1. That the Children of ſome Unſanctifyed p. 90perſons have a right to Baptiſm. For the Children of all viſible Believers have a right to Baptiſm, and among them, there be ſeveral Unſanctifyed Perſons: and it has been determined by a Synod in NewEngland, That the Children of thoſe who are born in the Church, and underſtand the Principles of Religion, and own the Covenant, are to be Baptized. And the generality of the Churches in New-England do practice accordingly.

2. That the Parents though Unſanctifyed, do convey this right unto their Children. The Children have a right to Baptiſm, becauſe they are the Children of viſible Believers: the Children are Eccleſiaſtically holy becauſe one at leaſt of their Parents are viſible Believers: 1 Cor. 7.14. The unbelieving Husband is Sanctifyed by the Wife, and the unbelieving Wife is Sanctifyed by the Husband, elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they holy.

The conſequence is evident, becauſe this ſhews that they are in Covanant with God. If they were not in Covenant with God, their Children would not be in Covenant, neither would they have any right to Baptiſm; but they are in Covenant, God has made Promiſes to p. 91them, and they are under Covenant ingagements to him; and becauſe they are in Covenant, and inoffenſive in their Converſation, the Seal of the Covenant does belong to them.

11. Argument. If the Inviſible Church Catholick is not the prime and principal Subject of the Seal of the Covenant, then ſome Unſanctifyed perſons may lawfully partake of the Lords-Supper: But the Inviſible Church Catholick is not the prime and principal Subject, of the Seals of the Covenant.

The minor is laid down as a concluſion by Mr. Thomas Hooker, in his Survey: p. 41. which he proves by ſeveral arguments againſt Mr. Ruterford.

Particularly he argues, Such as were graceleſs and without any intereſt in Chriſt, and ſo none of his inviſible Members, have Gods command to injoyn, and his word to warrant them, to receive the Seals; as Iſhmael, Eſau, and all the Males were injoyned to be Circumciſed. All the Families of the Jews were commanded to eat the Paſsover, many whereof were without all queſtion, not inviſible and believing Members of Chriſt. He p. 92adds, That the viſible Church is the Olive ſpoken of, Rom. 11.17. The Seals are part of that fulneſs that appertains thereunto: and therefore the viſible Church is the prime ſubject of them. And he brings in Mr. Ruterford confeſſing that if any after they are received, ſhall be found Unregenerate, they are not to be caſt out for that. And ſaith upon it. Then I ſuppoſe you will not deny them the Seals. p. 43.

I mention this Teſtimony of Mr. Hookers, to ſhew how injuriouſly Mr. Mather deals with me, when he calls my Opinion, a new, upſtart and ſingular Opinion; and the vanity of his admiration, That a Miniſter of New-England, ſhould Publiſh ſuch doctrine; whereas its no other than what has been Printed by one of the Pillars of the Churches of New-England, Sixty years before.

Had Mr. Hooker ſpoken half ſo much in the Vindication of Mr. Mather's Opinion, in probability he would have ſpent good part of a Page in an Encomium of him, and in urging the irrefragableneſs of his diſcourſe.

p. 93Before I conclude, I ſhall take notice of two failings further in Mr. Mather's Book; one is, That he recites ſome ſentences of mine, where I Paraphraſe on and illuſtrate my Poſition about the LordsSupper: as if they were the arguments that I brought to prove my Opinion; and then ſaith, Is not all this weak arguing. p. 76. He has now my arguments, and his liberty to ſhew the weakneſs of them.

The other is, That he ſaith, My doctrine hath been condemned by an whole Synod of Elders and Meſſengers of Churches: who met in Boſton in the year 1679.

The words of the Synod are theſe, It is requiſite that Perſons be not admitted unto Communion in the Lords Supper, without making a Perſonal and Publick Profeſſion of their Faith and Repentance, either Orally or in ſome other way, to the juſt Satisfaction of the Church, and that therefore both Elders and Churches be duely watchful and circumſpect in this matter.

I ſhall give the World an Account how the matter was acted. Some of the Elders in the Synod had drawn up a Concluſion, p. 94That perſons ſhould make a Relation of the work of Gods Spirit upon their hearts, in order to coming into full Communion. Some others of the Elders objected againſt it, and after ſome diſcourſe it was agreed to have a diſpute on that queſtion, Whether thoſe Profeſſors of Religion as are of good Converſation, are not to be admitted to full Communion, provided that they are able to Examine themſelves, and diſcern the Lords body. Mr. Mather held the Negative; I laboured to make good the Affirmative: The reſult was, That they blotted out that clauſe of Making a Relation of the work of Gods Spirit, and put in the room of it, The Making a Profeſſion of their Faith and Repentance; and ſo I Voted with the Reſt, and am of the ſame judgment ſtill; yet this Vote is mentioned as condemning my Opinion.

What can we ſuppoſe to be the reaſon, that Divines in reckoning up thoſe benefits that flow from Effectual Calling, take no notice of a right to the Lords Supper, they reckon Juſtification, Adoption, Sanctification, Peace of Conſcience, Joy in the Holy Ghoſt, Aſſurance of Gods Love, &c. p. 95But I meet with none that reckon a right to the Lords-Supper among thoſe benefits: I can give no other reaſon than this, That it is not accounted of by them a peculiar Priviledge of thoſe that are Effectually Called; but the Priviledge of viſible Believers: neither would Paſtors of Churches ſatisfy their Conſciences, to forbear warning of ſuch as were convinced that they were in a Natural Eſtate, to refrain coming to the Lords Supper, if they did judge it to be a Sinful and Dangerous thing for them to come.

If theſe things which I have Written be impartially conſidered, it will appear that Mr. Mather has not proved any miſtake in the Sermon, that he has ſhewed ſo much zeal againſt; indeed Mr. Mather has in a manner given the caſe. (1.) By owning that the Church ought to receive Unregenerate men, provided they are Godly to rational Charity. (2.) That it is the duty of perſons to come to the Lords-Supper, if after Examination they cannot but hope, that there is a good work begun in them.

p. 96I will conclude this defence, of my Self, and my Sermon againſt which Mr. Mather has Written, with my aſſurance of my Brethren in the Miniſtry, and all good Men, That I differ from none of them in a ſtrict Opinion of the Straightneſs of the Gate, and Narrowneſs of the Way that leads to Life; nor of the Neceſſity of Sincere Repentance, true Faith and Obedience, to all the Commandments of the Goſpel, in all ſuch as Expect Salvation by our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, of which the Participation in the Sacraments of the New-Teſtament of themſelves, give no Aſſurance, as is evident from our Saviours anſwer at the Great Day to ſuch as challenge, to have Eaten and Drank in his Preſence; yet am well aſſured, they are the Ordinances and path of Life, in which every Chriſtian ought to walk; and I dare not my ſelf, as one of the Stewards in Gods Houſe, refuſe his Bread to ſuch as regularly demand it, upon the Tearms mentioned in this ſmall Tract, in which I am well confirmed by the Practice of ſo many Proteſtant Churches; nor am I at all Startled by p. 97any mans Opinion to the contrary. All Proteſtants agree that there is no Infalibility at Rome; and I know no body pretends to any elſe ſince the Apoſtles days; nor do I fear the Athenian accuſation of Novelty any more than the great Apoſtle, and becauſe we muſt all anſwer for our ſelves to our Great Maſter, I am contented, and hope I live dayly in a Preparation for that Account. In the mean time, I will carry it as I ought to all good men of another Opinion, leaſt I be found beginning to beat my Fellow-Servant, when my Lord ſhall come; being well aſſured, That if a ſtrict diſcipline be maintained in the Churches of Chriſt, all Unworthy Communicants will be far more eaſily convinced and reformed, than if I ſhould refuſe them what is their juſt due, and thereby Scandalize them, to their Offence, and it may be to their Ruin.

The firſt Reformers of the Church from Popery proceeded well, but we ſtayed not with Luther, ſince which the Proteſtant Churches have gone further; and I hope New-England, has done ſomething more p. 98than moſt: but I ſhould be very vain to think there muſt be nothing left for us of this Generation, and am very fearful leaſt the Neglect of a good Government of all Gods People, born within the Pale of the Church, ſhould bring theſe Churches to a great defection; the means to prevent which, is not to deny them their right at the Lords Table, but to give them that, and a good and ſtrict Watch over their Lives and Manners, together with it; which I Pray to God may be never wanting in New-England.

FINIS.

End of the text · Solomon Stoddard, An Appeal to the Learned (1709)