speak) moral sincerity in religion to be necessary: They suppose it to be requisite, that persons should have some kind of serious principle and view in coming to the Lord's table; some sort of intention of subjecting themselves to Christ, and of seeking and serving him, in general; and in particular some religious end in coming to the sacramental supper, some religious respect to Christ in it. But now did not Christ at that time perfectly know, that Judas had none of these things? He knew he had nothing of sincerity in the Christian religion, or of regard to Christ in that ordinance, of any sort whatsoever; he knew that Satan had entered into him and filled his heart, and that he was then cherishing in himself a malignant, malicious spirit against his master, excited by the reproof Christ had lately given him (compare John xii, 8. with Matth. xxvi. 8.... 16, and Mark xiv. 4....11) and that he had already formed a traitorous murderous design against him, and was now in the prosecution of that bloody design, having actually just before been to the chief priests, and agreed with them to betray him for thirty pieces of silver. (See Matth. xxvi. 14, 15, 16. Mark xiv. 10, 11. Luke xxii. 3....6, and John xiii. 2.) Christ knew these things, and knew that Judas was utterly unqualified for the holy sacrament of the Lord's supper; though it had not yet been made known to the church, or the disciples.... Therefore it concerns those on the contrary part in this controversy, to find out some solution of this difficulty, as much as it does me; and they will find they have as much need to take refuge in the solu tion already given, in one or other of the two preceding answers to this objection. By the way I would observe, that Christ's not excluding Judas from the passover, under these circumstances, knowing him to be thus unqualified, without so much as moral sincerity, &c. is another thing that effectually enervates all the strength of the objection against me, from the passover: For Judas did not only in common with others fall under God's strict command, in the law of Moses, to keep this feast, without any exception of his case there to be found; but Christ himself, with his own hand, gave him the soft, a part of the paschal feast; even although at the same instant he had in view the man's secret wickedness and hypocrisy, the traitorous design which was then in his heart, and the horrid conspiracy with the chief priests, which he had already entered into, and was now in prosecution of: This was then in Christ's mind, and he intimated it to him, at the same moment when he gave him the sop, saying, What thou dost, do quickly. This demonstrates that the objection from the passover is no stronger argument against my scheme, than the scheme of those whom I oppose; because it is no stronger against the necessity of sanctifying grace, the qualification for Christian sacraments, which I insist upon, than it is against the necessity of moral seriousness and sincerity, the qualifications which they insist upon. OBJECTION VIII. IF sanctifying grace be a requisite qualification in order to persons' due access to Christian sacraments, God would have given some certain rule whereby those who are to admit them, might know whether they have such grace or not. ANSW. This objection was obviated in my stating the question. However, I will say something further to it in this place; and would here observe, that if there be any strength in this objection, it lies in the truth of this proposition, viz. That whatever qualifications are requisite in order to persons, due access to Christian sacraments, God has given some certain rule, whereby those who admit them, may know whether they have those qualifications, or not. If this proposition is not true, then there is no force at all in the argument. But I dare say, there is not a divine, nor Christian of common sense, on the face of the earth, that will assert and stand to it, that this proposition is true: For there is none will deny, that some sort of belief of the being of a God, some sort of belief that the scriptures are the word of God, that there is a future state of rewards and punishments, and that Jesus is the Messiah, are qualifications requisite in order to persons' due access te Christian sacraments; and yet God has given those who are to admit persons no certain rule whereby they may know whether they believe any one of these things. Neither has he given his ministers or churches any certain rule, whereby they may know whether any person that offers himself for admission to the sacrament, has any degree of moral sincerity, moral seriousness of spirit, or any inward moral qualifica tion whatsoever. These things have all their existence in the soul, which is out of our neighbor's view. Not therefore a certainty, but a profession and visibility of these things, must be the rule of the church's proceedings; and it is as good and as reasonable a rule of judgment concerning saving grace, as it is concerning any other internal, invisible qualifications, which cannot be certainly known by any but the subject himself. OBJECTION IX. IF sanctifying grace be requisite to a due approach to the Lord's table, then no man may come but he that knows he has such grace. A man must not only think he has a right to the Lord's supper, in order to his lawful partaking of it; but he must know he has a right. If nothing but sanctification gives him a real right to the Lord's supper, then nothing short of the knowledge of sanctification gives him a known right to it: Only an opinion and probable hopes of a right will not warrant his coming. ANSW. I. I desire those who insist on this as an invincible argument, to consider calmly whether they themselves ever did or ever will stand to it. For here these two things are to be observed: (1.) If no man may warrantably come to the Lord's supper, but such as know they have a right, then no unconverted persons may come unless they not only think, but know it is the mind of God, that unconverted persons should come, and t know that he does not require grace in order to their coming. For unless they know that men may come without grace, they cannot know that they themselves have a right to come, being without grace. And will any one assert and stand to it, that of necessity, all adult persons of every age, rank and condition of life, must be so versed in this controversy, as to have a certainty in this matter, in order to their coming to the Lord's supper? It would be most absurd for any to assert it a point of easy proof, the evidence of which is so clear and obvious to every one of every-capacity, as to supereede all occasion for their being studied in divinity, in order to a certainty of its truth, that persons may come to the sacred table of the Lord, notwithstanding they know themselves to be unconverted! Especially considering, it seems a matter of plain fact, that the contrary to this opinion has been in general the judgment of Protestant divines and churches, from the reformation to this day; and that the most part of the greatest divines that have ever appeared in the world, who have spent their lives in the diligent, prayerful study of divinity, have been fixed in the reverse of that opinion. This is sufficient at least to shew, that this opinion is not so plain as not to be a disputable point; and that the evidence of it is not so obvious to persons of the lowest capacity and little inquiry, as that all may come to a certainty in the matter, without diffi culty and without study. I would humbly ask here, What has been the case in 'fact in our churches, who have practised *for so many years on this principle? Can it be pretended, or was it ever supposed, that the communicants in general, even persons of mean intellectuals and low education, not excepting the very boys and girls of sixteen years old, that have 'been taken into the church, had so studied divinity, as not only to think, but know, that our pious forefathers, and almost -all the Protestant and Christian divines in the world have been in an error in this matter? And have people ever been taught the necessity of this previous knowledge? Has it ever been insisted upon, that before persons come to the Lord's supper, they must look so far into the case of a right to the Lord's supper, as to come not only to a full settled opinion, bat even certainty in this point? And has any one minister or church in their admissions ever proceeded on the supposition, that all whom they took into communion were so versed in this controversy, as this comes to? Has it ever been the manner in examining them as to the sufficiency of their knowledge, to examine them as to their thorough acquaintance with this particular controversy? Has it been the manner to put by those who had only an opinion and not a certainty; even as the priests who could not find their register, were put by, till the matter could be determined by Urim and Thummim? And I dare appeal to every minister, and every member of a church that has been concerned in admitting communicants, whether they ever imagined, or it ever entered into their thought, concerning each one whose admission they have consented to, that they had looked so much into this matter, as not only to have settled their opinion, but to be arrived to a proper certainty ? (2.) I desire it may be remembered, the venerable author of the Appeal to the Learned, did in his ministry ever teach such doctrine from whence it will unavoidably follow, that no one unconverted man in the world can know he has warrant to come to the Lord's supper. For if any unconverted man has warrant to worship his Maker in this way, it must be because God has given him warrant by the revelation of his mind in the Holy Scriptures. And therefore if any unconverted man, not only thinks, but knows, he has warrant from God, he must of consequence, not only think, but know, that the scriptures are the word of God. But I believe all that survive of the stated hearers of that eminent divine, and all who are acquainted with him, well remember it to be a doctrine which he often taught and much insisted on, that no natural man knows the scripture to be the word of God; that although such may think so, yet they do not know it; and that at best they have but a doubtful opinion: And he often would express himself thus; No natural man is thoroughly convinced, that the scriptures are the word of God; if they were convinced, they would be gained. Now if so, it is impossible any natural man in the world should ever know, it is his right, in his present condition |