Appendix. Mr. Foxcroft’s letter.

APPENDIX.

Being a letter to the author, in answer to his request of information concerning the opinion of Protestant Divines and Churches in general, of the Presbyterians in Scotland and Dissenters in England in particular, respecting five questions that relate to this controversy.

rev. and dear sir,

If you look into Mr. Baxter’s controversial writings against Mr. Blake, you will meet with such accounts of principles and facts, as I think may reasonably give an inquirer much satisfaction as to the common judgment of protestant churches and divines in the points you mention. I particularly refer you to his five disputations of Right to Sacraments, and the true Nature of Visible Christianity; where all or the most of your _queries _are considered and answered, with a multitude of _testimonies _produced in favour of sentiments contrary to those of your excellent predecessor, the late _Mr. Stoddard. _I have not said this from any disposition to excuse myself from the labour of making some further inquiry, if it be thought needful. And as it may show my willingness to gratify your desire, I will now say something on your _questions _distinctly, but with as much brevity as I can.

Quest. I. _What is the general opinion respecting that _self-examination required in 1 Cor. xi. 28. _Whether communicants are not here directed to examine themselves concerning the _truth of grace, or their real godliness?

Answ. This construction of the text, as far as I have had opportunity to inquire, appears to me very generally received; if I may judge by what many celebrated _expositors _have said on the place, and by what many famous divines have written in treatises of _preparation _for the Lord’s supper, besides what is contained in public confessions, catechisms, directories, &c. I think Dr. Reynolds, in his _Meditations on the Lord’s Supper, _has summarily expressed the common judgment of Calvinists in these strong lines of his: “The _sacrament _is but a _seal _of the covenant; and the covenant essentially includes conditions; and the condition on our part is faith. No faith, no covenant; no covenant, no seal; no seal, no sacrament.—The _matter _then of this _trial _(says he) must be that _vital qualification, _which predisposeth a man for receiving of these holy mysteries; and that is faith.“

However, I may venture to be confident, that Mr. Stoddard’s gloss on the text, who tells us in his controverted _sermon, _“The meaning is, that a man must _come solemnly _to that ordinance, examining what need he has of it,“ is quite foreign from the current sense of Calvinist writers. And, though he makes a different comment in his _Appeal to the Learned, _saying, “The _examination _called for is, whether they _understood the nature _of the ordinance, that so they may _solemnly consider what they have to do _when they wait upon God in it,” neither can I find any appearance of a general consent of the learned and orthodox to this _new gloss, _at least as exhibiting the full meaning of the text. I might easily confront it with numerous authorities: but the _Palatine Catechism, _and that of the _Westminster Assembly, _with the common explanations and catechizings upon them, may be appealed to as _instar omnium. _And I shall only add here, if it be allowed a just expectation that the _candidate _for the communion _examine himself _about the _same _things at least as the _pastor, _to whom he applies for admission, ought to make the subject of his examination, then it was worth while to hear the opinion of those unnamed _ministers in New England, _(among whom the late Dr. Colman, I have reason to think, was the principal,) that answered Dr. Mather’s _Order of the Gospel, _(anno 1700,) who, in the _Postscript _to their _Review, _thus express themselves: ”We highly approve—that the proponant of the Lord’s table be _examined _of his baptismal vow; _his sense _of spiritual wants, sinfulness, and wretchedness; _his hope, faith, experiences, _resolutions through the grace of God.” This, I think, is something beyond Mr. Stoddard.

Quest. II. _Whether it be the general opinion of those aforesaid, that some who _know _themselves to be _unregenerate, _and under the reigning power of sin, _ought notwithstanding, in such a state, to come to the Lord’s table?

Answ. I am aware, Sir, though you have seen fit to take no notice of it to me, that Mr. Stoddard (in his Doctrine of Instituted Churches) is peremptory in the affirmative; but I have met with no author among Calvinists, at home or abroad, consenting with him, unless it be Mr. Blake, and some that were for a promiscuous admission, with little or no limitation. If divines in general, of the Calvinistic character, were for such a latitude as Mr. Stoddard’s, what can we suppose to be the reason, that in treating on the Lord’s supper, they so constantly consider it as one of the rights of the church, belonging to the truly faithful alone, exclusively of all others? Why do we hear them declaring, It is certain that the right of external fellowship resides in the faithful only: and as to the rest, they are in that communion only by accident, and it is also only by accident that they are suffered there; but being what they are, they have not any part in the rights of that society properly belonging to them? If they thought the sacrament instituted for _conversion, _why do we never find them recommending it as a _converting _ordinance, and urging persons to come to it with that view, who _know _themselves to be in an unconverted state? If they thought that any such have a _right before God, _and may come to it _with a good conscience, _why do we find them so solemnly _warning _all that are truly _convinced _of their remaining yet in a _natural _state, to _refrain _coming to the Lord’s table in their unbelief and impenitence; as if they judged it a _sinful _and _dangerous _thing for them to come under such circumstances? I know Mr. Stoddard, in his _Appeal, _disputes the _fact. _But it has occurred to me in abundance of instances, while reviewing my authors on this occasion.

Among the foreign protestants in Germany, France, &c. I shall name but two out of many instances before me. The _Heidelberg _or _Palatine Catechism, _which had the solemn approbation of the synod of Dort, and was especially praised by the divines of Great Britain; which has been in a manner universally received and taught, formerly in Scotland, and still all over Holland, and by reason of its excellency has been translated into no less than _thirteen _several languages; this is most express in claiming the _Lord’s supper _for a special privilege of such as have _true faith _and repentance; and forbidding it to _hypocrites, _as well as scandalous persons, declaring that none such ought to come. See the _eighty-first _and other questions and answers, with Ursin’s Latin _Explications, _and De Witte’s English _Catechizings _thereon. Here, Sir, indeed you have the judgment of a multitude in one. Another celebrated book is Claude’s Historical Defence of the Reformation; in which I meet with repeated declarations of the same sentiments, perfectly on the _negative _side of the question in hand, but, I think, too many and too long to be here transcribed.—The language of some of them I have just now had occasion to make use of.

As for the church of Scotland, I find they have adopted the Westminster Confession, Catechisms, and Directory, which debar all _ignorant _and _ungodly _persons from the Lord’s table, and require every one to _examine _himself, not only as to his knowledge, but also his _faith, repentance, love, new obedience, _&c.—In their _books of discipline, _I observe sundry passages that appropriate the sacrament to the _truly penitent and faithful, _as the only proper subjects. Their _national covenant, _renewed from time to time, has this clause; to the which [true reformed kirk] we join ourselves willingly, in doctrine, faith, religion, discipline, and use of the holy sacraments, _as lively members _of the same _in Christ _our Head, &c. And among the _divines _of Scotland, I find many in their sermons, sacramental speeches, and other discourses, declaring themselves strongly on the _negative _part in the question before us, advising to strictness in admission to the Lord’s supper, renouncing the opinion of its being a _converting ordinance, _inviting only the sincere friends of Christ to it, and frequently _warning _professors conscious of reigning sin and hypocrisy to forbear approaching the Lord’s table. I might bring much to this purpose from Mr. Andrew Gray’s book of sermons, published anno 1716; and his sermons printed anno 1746; with a preface by Mr. Willison.—So from Mr. Ebenezer Erskine’s synodical sermon, anno 1732.—And from Mr. Ralph Erskine’s sermon on Isa. xlii. 6. and his discourse on fencing the tables, annexed to his sermon on John xvi. 15..—So from Mr. Willison’s synodical sermon, anno 1733; where he sets down a variety of searching questions (no less than twenty-seven) which he advises to be put to proponants, and their answers to be waited for, before they are admitted.—The anonymous author of _a Defence of National Churches against the Independents, _(who is reputed to be Mr. Willison,) asserts it as a presbyterian principle, that none have _right before God _to the complete communion of the church, but such as have grace; and that none are to be admitted but those who are _saints, _at least in profession; such as profess to accept of the offers of Christ’s grace, &c. and confess themselves to be _sincere. _Mr. Aytone, in his _Review, _against Mr. Glas, owns that the Lord’s supper is not a formal mean of _conversion, _but of further growth and nourishment to those _already _converted. In the same strain is Mr. Nasmith’s Treatise of the Entail of the Covenant.—And Mr. Warden’s _Essay on Baptism. _In a word, I find Mr. Currie (in his synodical sermon, anno 1732) testifying of the ministers in Scotland, that they are _tender (i. e. circumspect and cautious) in admitting people to the holy table of the Lord; _knowing the _design _of the ordinance is _not conversion, _but confirmation; and he observes, that all who approve themselves to God here, will a thousand times rather choose to have, was it but _one table _or _half _a table of honest communicants, _true believers _and _real saints, _than have a _hundred _tables, by admitting any that are _unworthy, _(or _Christless _souls, as he anon characterizes them,) of whom there are not moral evidences of their _fitness _for this holy ordinance. And for the commendable practice of the church of Scotland, in being _pointed _and _particular _in _debarring _the unworthy from this ordinance, (says he,) God forbid ever it turn into desuetude. I think I may here not unfitly subjoin those remarkable passages in Mr. Anderson’s excellent _Defence of the Presbyterians, _against Mr. Rhind; where he informs us, they look upon this holy ordinance as the common privilege of the faithful; and therefore they usually fence the Lord’s table, in the words of Scripture, 1 Cor. vi. 9. or some such-like. To exclude the _impenitent _from the _privilege _of gospel-mysteries; to debar those from the _Lord’s table, _whom the Lord has, by the express sentence of his word, debarred out of the _kingdom of heaven, _is what every one, who is not quite lost in impiety, must own to be not only _lawful, _but a _duty. _Upon which I beg leave to observe, according to this principle I do not see but that a man who with apparent signs of credibility _confesses _himself habitually impenitent, ought to be debarred from the Lord’s table: and surely, by parity of reason, he that _knows _himself to be unregenerate, ought to _refrain _coming, since there can be no true repentance without regeneration. I think we have no just grounds to suppose Mr. Stoddard’s principle in this matter has hitherto any general prevalence in the church of Scotland.

And now to pass over to England, neither do I find reason to think the _dissenters _there in general are for Mr. Stoddard’s latitude. The _Assembly of Divines _pronounce all the _ungodly, _as well as ignorant, _unworthy _of the Lord’s table; direct to _preparation _for it, by examining ourselves of our _being in Christ, _&c. And though they declare this sacrament appointed for the relief even of the _weak _and _doubting _Christian, who _unfeignedly, _desires to be found in Christ; and having directed _such _a one to bewail his unbelief and labour to have his doubts resolved, they assert that so doing he may and ought to come to the Lord’s supper, to be further strengthened: yet I do not find any appearance of a hint, as if others who _know _themselves to be in a natural state, or are conscious of their being certainly graceless, may and ought to come to this ordinance, that they may be _converted. _Nay, they expressly declare of all _ungodly _persons, that while they remain such, they _cannot _without great sin against Christ partake of those holy mysteries.—As to particular divines, I find multitudes of them among the dissenters, in later as well as former times, expressing the same sentiments: distinguishing between natural and instituted duties, between initial and confirming means, between special ordinances and common: and declaring the Lord’s supper a _disciple-privilege, _peculiar to such as have _disciple-properties, _and admonishing as well the _close hypocrite, _as the more gross, of the _sin and danger _of coming to it in his unregenerate state, impenitent and unbelieving. Thus Mr. Bolton, in his discourse on _the Wedding Supper and the Wedding Garment, _warns the _graceless _not to come to the Lord’s supper; affirming, that an _unsanctified presence _will be found as bad as a profane absence.—Mr. Baxter, in his _Five Disputations, _has much that runs in the same strain; so in his _Reformed Liturgy, _and in his _Christian Concord, _where we have his brethren joining their testimony with his. Likewise Mr. Charnock, in his discourse of the Subjects of the Lord’s Supper—Mr. Palmer, in his Scripture—Rail to the Lord’s Table—Mr. Saunders, in his Anti—Diatribe—Mr. Langley, in his Suspension Reviewed—Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Henry, Dr. Earle, and others, in their books on the Lord’s Supper—Mr. Shower, in his Sacramental Discourses—Mr. Flavel, in his sermon on _Gospel—Unity, _and other pieces—Mr. Philip Henry, and Mr. Trosse, in the accounts of their _Live_s—Dr. Calamy, in his discourse on _Vows, _and his Defence of Nonconformity—Mr. Simon Browne, in the Continuation of _Henry’s Exposition, _on 1 Cor. xi. 28.—Dr. Harris, in his discourse on Self—Dedication—Dr. Jennings, in his sermons to Young People.—I could, from all these authors, cite passages much to the purpose: but it would be too tedious. Yet I will give you a few hints from some others.—Dr. Williams, in his _Gospel—Truth Stated, _says, Though a man had it revealed to him that he is one of the _elect, _yet so long as he remains _unregenerate, _he has no right to partake of the Lord’s supper.—Dr. Guyse, in his late sermon at Mr. Gibbons’s ordination, observes, that men being _church-members _supposes them _already _to have a _good work begun _in them, and to be partakers of christian _love, _even such as proceeds from _faith, _in a prevailing degree; and persons (says he) that have nothing of this, _ought not _to be church-members.—Mr. Hall, in his _Exhortation _on the same occasion, remarks, that the seals of the covenant are to be used as _discriminating _signs of the real separation of true believers from the world; and urges to have the fence kept up, which Christ has set about his church, that it may appear to be a body wholly _distinct _from the world: God’s house being erected for the entertainment, not of _hypocrites _and dead sinners, but of the living in Jerusalem.—But says Dr. Watts, in his _Humble Attempt, _it is true, this cannot be practised universally and perfectly here on earth, so as to prevent some _secret _sinners making their way into our separate congregations, and joining with us in the most solemn ordinances; yet he declares such _not really worthy _of any room or place in the house of God.—And in his _Holiness of Times, Places, and People, _the Doctor observes, The _visible _christian church is founded on a _supposition, _that the members of it are, or should appear to be, members of the invisible: and _none _(says he) are to be admitted into the _visible _church, or esteemed complete members of it, but those who make such a declaration and profession of their faith in Christ and their avowed subjection to him, as may be supposed in a judgment of charity to manifest them to be real believers, true subjects of his spiritual kingdom, and members of the _invisible _church.—I find Dr. Doddridge in the same sentiments, by what he says in his _Family Expositor. _Thus, on the case of Ananias and Sapphira, he has this note, The _church _is never _happier, _than when the _sons of falsehood _are _deterred _from intruding into it: if its _members _are _less numerous, _it is a sufficient balance, that it is more pure. And on Simon’s case, he pronounces it to be _in vain _for men to _profess _themselves _Christians, _in vain to submit to _baptism, _&c. if their _heart _be not _right with God. _And _such persons _being admitted to _distinguishing _ordinances, he calls an evil, in the present state of things unavoidable; wishing for the _happy medium, _between _prostituting divine ordinances _by a foolish credulity, and _defrauding the children of the household of their bread, _by a rigorous severity and mistaken caution. He every where represents the Lord’s supper as the sacrament of _nutrition, _a reviving and nourishing ordinance; but never that I can find, as a _regenerating _or _converting _one. Upon the case of Judas, the Doctor observes, that if he had truly stated the order of the story, then Judas certainly _went out _before the _Eucharist _was instituted: and indeed one cannot reasonably suppose, Christ would have commanded him to _drink of this cup _as the _blood shed for _him _for the remission of sins, _when he had just before been declaring in effect, that _his _sins should _never _be forgiven.—By which observation, I think, Dr. Doddridge has quite demolished one of the most plausible pleas in favour of the secret and conscious hypocrite’s claim to the Lord’s supper.

In fine, even those who appear advocates for a latitude in admissions to the communion, I observe, generally in the course of the argument offer such _distinctions, _or make such _concessions, _as seem by fair consequence a giving up of the point, at least as stated in the present question. For they usually distinguish between a right _in foro Dei _and in foro ecclesiæ; accordingly treat these as two different questions, Who ought to come? and, Who ought to be admitted? considering the latter as an _ecclesiastical _case, and here they assert a latitude; but the former, as a case of _conscience, _of private reference only, and here they grant a _limitation. _How large soever their principles, while taking the case in its _ecclesiastical _view, yet I have met with very few divines, that taking it as a _private case of conscience, _have gone Mr. Stoddard’s length, in asserting, that _some unsanctified men have right before God to the Lord’s supper, _and _may come with a good conscience, _yea, _ought to come, _notwithstanding they _know _themselves at the same time to be in a _natural _condition. This he declares in his _Doctrine of Instituted Churches, _and confirms in his _Sermon and Appeal. _But then he has made some _concessions, _which seem to be subversive of his opinion. For he expressly allows, that the _sacrament _by institution supposes communicants to be visible saints; and this title of _visible saints _he assigns to “such as have a visible union to Christ, such as are in the judgment of rational charity believers, such as carry themselves so that there is reason to look upon them to be saints.” Now, taking the case as a _private case of conscience, _(in which light only Mr. Stoddard professes to have designed to consider it in his sermon, and not at all as an _ecclesiastical _case,) I think, this _visibility of saintship _immediately respects the _proponant _for the Lord’s table, and must be referred to his own _private judgment _of himself. But then, how can there be a _visibility of saintship _in the eve of the man’s own conscience, when at the same time he _knows _himself to be in a _natural _condition? Or how can a man come to the Lord’s table with a good _conscience, _as having _right before God, _while he cannot form so much as a judgment of _rational charity _for himself; seeing he carries so, in the view of his own _conscience, _that he has no _reason _to look on himself to be a _saint, _nay, even _knows _he is still in a natural state, and therefore in the eye of his own impartial judgment is not such a one as the _sacrament _by institution _supposes _the communicant to be? Moreover, Mr. Stoddard, in describing visible saints, inserts into their character _a serious profession of the true religion, _which he sometimes calls a profession of faith and repentance, morally sincere: and in his _Doctrine of Instituted Churches, _(p. 19.) he lays down a remarkable _position, _in these words, such a profession as being sincere makes a man a real saint, being morally sincere makes a man a visible saint. Now according to this, it seems to me, the _profession _itself, whether evangelically or morally sincere, is always of a uniform tenor; having one and the same thing for the _matter _of it; and not respecting, in the different cases, a religion _specifically _different, or a faith and repentance of a higher and a lower _kind. _But then it is quite beyond me to comprehend, how a man who _knows _himself to be in a _natural _condition, can be so much as _morally _sincere in his _profession, _while it is in its matter and tenor _such a profession as being _(evangelically) _sincere makes a man a real saint. _For if he _knows _himself to be in a _natural _condition, he then as certainly _knows _he hath not (in the principle or exercise) that _faith and repentance, _which is the just matter of such a profession: and how therefore can he be reasonably supposed, with any degree of _moral sincerity, _to make _such a profession, _when for the matter of it, it is the very _same _profession he would make, if he _knew _himself to be a real saint? Can a person in any sound gospel sense profess himself a _saint _or _believing penitent, _and herein _speak the truth _with a common _moral honesty, _while yet he _knows _himself to be destitute of all such _characters _in the sight of God and conscience, being still in a _natural _condition, and under the dominion of _unbelief _and impenitence? For my own part, I must confess this a difficulty in Mr. Stoddard’s scheme, that I am not capable of solving. His favourite hypothesis, I think, must fall, if his _position _stands, and his _concessions _be abode by; which serve clearly to determine the present _question _in the _negative, _agreeable to the general sense of protestant churches and divines.

Quest. III. _Whether it be not the general opinion, that persons admitted to the Lord’s table ought to _profess saving faith and repentance; _meaning that faith and repentance, which are the terms of the _covenant of grace?

Answ. I believe, after what has been already offered, we need be at no loss to know the mind of the generality respecting the subject of this inquiry. Were there occasion for it, I could easily produce a _cloud of witnesses, _to evidence that the general opinion is on the _affirmative _side, in this question. Repeated searches have been made by diligent and impartial inquirers, who though of varying judgment and practice in church-discipline, yet agree in their reports: and from them I will give you the following attestations.

Mr. Lob (in his _True Dissenter) _tells us, It is the judgment of all the _Nonconformists, _that nothing less than the _profession _of _saving faith, _credibly significant of the thing professed, gives right to church-communion. And this he declares to be the rule of _all protestants _in general. He brings even Mr. Humphrey (though opposite in judgment) for his voucher: who acknowledges, that the _visible church _is defined by a _profession _of true regenerate faith, and of no less than that, according to the most _general _opinion of _protestant divines. _He speaks of it as the _common opinion, _that a profession of no less than true grace or justifying faith is the _rule of admission _to the church-sacraments. And though Mr. Humphrey went off from the received opinion, yet could he not come into Mr. Blake’s notions in this matter, who also had gone off from it, nor hope for their vindication: hence he makes that challenge, _What man is there, that dares revive Mr. Blake’s cause, and defend it against Mr. Barter’s _right to sacraments?

Mr. Baxter in this his book very copiously argues a _profession _of _saving faith, _as the rule of admission to the sacraments, and much insists on its being so by the unanimous consent of judicious divines. He tells us, Mr. Gataker in his books has largely proved this by a multitude of quotations from protestant writers. And he adds his own testimony, repeatedly saying, It is indeed their _most common _doctrine—It is the _common protestant _doctrine. And again, Certain I am, this is the _common _doctrine of reformed divines. He subjoins, I must profess, that I do not know of _any one protestant _divine, reputed orthodox, of the contrary judgment, before Dr. Ward and Mr. Blake, though some papists and Arminians I knew of that mind. And again, (beside Sir Henry Vane,) he says, _All _that I know of, since Dr. Ward, is Mr. Blake, Mr. Humphrey, and one John Timson; and John Timson, Mr. Humphrey, and Mr. Blake. He alleges Mr. Vines, as thus witnessing in the case on his side. To this purpose _all our learned divines _have given their suffrage: I need not authors or churches. It is so plain a case, that I wonder those [of the contrary opinion] have not taken notice of it, there is an army to a man against them.

Mr. Langley, in his _Suspension Reviewed, _observes, The _concurrent judgment _of divines, English and foreign, episcopal and presbyterian, that a man of vast and digested reading, the learned Mr. Baxter, hath demonstrated at large in sixty testimonies; sundry of which have _many _in them, being the judgment of many _churches _and many _learned _men therein; and more might easily be brought. In short, he calls it the _old protestant _doctrine asserted against the papists; and wonders at the confidence of the men, who tell us, against our own eyes, that it is a novelism.

To these attestations I subjoin that of our Mr. Mitchel, (in his introduction before the _Defence of the Synod, _1662,) who while asserting a different latitude of the two sacraments, yet pleads for strictness in admissions to the Lord’s table; and testifies, It is most evident, that _godly reforming divines _have in their doctrine _unanimously _taught, and in their practice (many of them) endeavoured, a _strict selection _of those who should be admitted to the _Lord’s supper. _I think it may he not improperly observed here, that in a manuscript, drawn up by this eminent person for his own satisfaction, and inserted in the account of his life, he has left his solemn testimony against a lax _mode _of _profession, _(exclusive of all examinations and confessions, of a practical and experimental nature,) as having been found by plentiful experience a _nurse _of _formality _and irreligion. At the same time declaring his judgment, with a particular eye to the churches of _New England, _that the _power of godliness _will be _lost, _if only _doctrinal _knowledge and _outward _behaviour come to be accounted sufficient for a title to all church-privileges; and the use of _practical confessions _and _examinations _of men’s _spiritual _estate be laid aside. For (says he) that which people see to be publicly required and held in reputation, _that _will they look after, and usually _no more. _In another place he observes, this will not only lose the power of godliness, but in a little time bring in _profaneness _and _ruin the churches, _these two ways. (1.) _Election of ministers _will soon be carried by a formal looser sort. (2.) The exercise of _discipline _will by this means be impossible.—And discipline failing, profaneness riseth like a flood. Agreeably he says elsewhere; Certain it is, that we stand for the _purity _of the churches, when we stand for _such qualifications _as we do, in those whom we would admit to full communion; and do withstand those notions and reasonings that would infer a _laxness _therein, which hath apparent _peril _in it. In sum, (says he,) we make account that we shall be near about the _middle-way _of church reformation, if we keep _baptism _within the compass of the _non-excommunicable, _and the _Lord’s supper _within the compass of those that have (unto charity) somewhat of the _power _of godliness, or grace in _exercise. _For Mr. Mitchel, as he thought faith in the special and lively exercise _thereof _necessary to a safe and comfortable participation of the Lord’s _supper, _so he judged an _appearance _of this unto rational charity, judging by _positive sensible _signs and evidences, justly required in order to admission into _full communion. _Whereas, he thought _baptism _annexed to _initial _faith, or faith in the _being _of it; the charitable judgment whereof (says he) runs upon a great latitude; and he conceived the same _strictness, _as to outward signs, not necessary unto a charitable probable judgment, or hope of the _being _of faith, which entitles to baptism, as of that _growth _and _special exercise _of faith, which is requisite to the Lord’s supper. These are the main _distinctions, _on which he grounded his opinion of a _different _latitude of the two sacraments. For I must observe, as strenuously as he pleads for a various extent, as to the subjects of them, he never supposes any adult regularly admittable to either sacrament, but such as in ecclesiastical reputation sustain the character of believers; such as in the account of a rational charity (judging by probable signs) have the being of regeneration; or as he variously expresses it, have _true faith, _in the judgment of charity; and do in _some measure _perform the duties of faith and obedience, as to _church-visibility _and charitable hope; and therefore are such as the church ought to receive and hold as _heirs of the grace of life, _according to the rules of christian charity. Though it seems Mr. Shepard before him speaks of his _church charity _and experimental charity; so Mr. Mitchel had his _positive _charity and his _negative, _and conducted his judgment and administrations accordingly, in admitting persons to the one sacrament or the other. I should not have been so prolix and particular here, but that I thought it might serve to prepare the way for a more easy, short, and intelligible answer to your remaining queries.

Quest. IV. _Whether it be the general opinion of protestant churches and divines, in the case of _adult _persons, that the terms of admission to _both _sacraments are the _same?

ANSW. I presume, Sir, the question does not respect a sameness in the _degree _of qualifications, experiences, and evidences; but only a sameness in _kind, _or for the substance and general nature of things. I suppose, you had no view here to any such critical _distinction _as that before mentioned, between an _initial _faith and a _grown _faith; or between the simple _being _of faith, which entitleth to baptism, and the _special exercise _of faith, which fits for the Lord’s supper; nor aim at a nice adjustment of the several _characters of visibility, _or _motives of credibility, _in the one case and the other, but only intend in general to inquire, whether persons admittable to one or other sacrament, ought to profess _true justifying faith, _and not be admitted on the profession of any faith of a kind _inferior _and _specifically _different. Now, taking this to be the scope of your question, I have good reason to apprehend, that the _generality _of protestant churches and divines, of the Calvinistic persuasion especially, have declared themselves for the affirmative.

I think all that hold the _visible _christian church ought to consist of such as make a _visible and credible profession of faith and holiness, _and _appear to rational charity real members of the church invisible, _(which is the common language of protestants,) are to be understood as in principle exploding the conceit of a conscious unbeliever’s right before God to special church-ordinances, and as denying the apparent unbeliever’s right before the church to admission, whether to one sacrament or the other. I observe, _Eadem est ratio utriusque sacramenti, _is a maxim (in its general notion) espoused by the several contending parties in this controversy about a right to sacraments.

That a credible profession of saving faith and repentance is necessary to _baptism, _in the case of the adult, I can show, by the authority of Claude’s approved _Defence _of _the Reformation, _to be the general opinion of French protestants; and by the Palatine Catechism, by the Leyden Professors’ _Synopsis, _&c. to be the prevailing judgment of the reformed in Germany, Holland, and foreign parts.

And for the _Dissenters in England, _that they are in general of the same judgment, I might prove from the _Assembly of Divines’ _Confession, Catechisms, and Directory; and from the Heads of Agreement assented to by the _United Ministers, _formerly distinguished by the names of _Presbyterian _and Congregational; as also by a large induction of particular instances among divines of every denomination, would it not carry me to too great a length. I find Mr. Lob (in his _True Dissenter) _assuring us in general, “It is held by the dissenters, that nothing less than the _profession of a saving faith _gives a right to baptism.“ Nor do I see, by their writings of a later date and most in vogue, any just grounds to suppose a general change of sentiments among them. I will mention two or three moderns of distinguished name. Dr. Harris (in his _Self-Dedication) _tells us, The nature of the Lord’s supper plainly supposes faith; and that none but _real _Christians have right in the sight of God; though a credible _profession _entitles to it in the sight of the church, who cannot know the heart. And he declares it the _same faith, _which qualifies the adult, both for _baptism _and for the Lord’s supper; there being the same common nature to both sacraments, and the latter only a _recognising _the former. The late Dr. Watts (in his _Holiness of Times, Places, and People) _says, The christian church receives none but upon profession of _true _faith in Christ, and _sincere _repentance; none but those who profess to be members of the _invisible _church, and in a judgment of charity are to be so esteemed. Our _entrance _into it is appointed to be by a visible _profession _of our being _born of God, _of real faith in Christ, of true repentance, and inward holiness. In fine, to name no more, Dr. Doddridge (in his _Family Expositor, _on Acts viii. 37..) supposes a credible _profession _of their _faith in Christ _required of the adult in apostolic times, in order to their being admitted to baptism; even such (says he) as implied their cordially subjecting their souls to the gospel, and their being come to a point, so as to give up themselves to Christ with all their heart.

And for the church of Scotland, Mr. Anderson, who well understood their principles and practice, assures us, (in his _Defence _of them,) that _presbyterians _will not baptize without a previous profession or sponsor. To the adult (says he) it is not only necessary (as it is also in infants) that they be _internally sanctified, _but also that they make an _outward profession, _of which baptism is the badge and token. To justify this, he observes concerning the _catechumens _in primitive times, that during all that state they were probationers, not only as to their knowledge, but piety; and were obliged, before they could be admitted to _baptism, _to give moral evidences of the _grace of God in their hearts. _And he advances it as a _presbyterian _principle, that _faith _and _repentance _are _prerequired _to baptism, in adult persons at least. By this he points out the true _matter _of baptismal profession: and then in opposition to such as pretend baptism to be a _converting _ordinance, he observes, If they can have faith and _repentance _without the _Spirit _and spiritual _regeneration, _which they say is not obtained but _in _and _by baptism, _I do not see why they may not go to _heaven _without the Spirit and spiritual regeneration: for I am sure, _repentance _toward God and _faith _toward our Lord Jesus Christ, is the sum of the gospel.—Mr. Warden, another of their noted writers, (in his _Essay on Baptism,) _says in the name of _presbyterians, _We think that baptism _supposeth _men Christians; else they have _no right _to baptism, the seal of Christianity; all seals, in their nature, supposing the _thing _that is sealed. He that is of adult age, is to _profess _his _faith _in Christ, and his _compliance _with the whole device of salvation, _before _he can have the seal of the covenant administered to him. The author of the _Defence of National Churches, _(thought to be Mr. Willison,) says, I know nothing more requisite to admission to the Lord’s supper, _in foro ecclesiastico, _than unto baptism in an adult person; they being both seals of the same covenant. And he thinks the objects of church-fellowship are “all who profess to accept the offers of Christ’s grace, with subjection to his ordinances, and a suitable walk, and who confess themselves sincere.”

I have reserved Mr. Baxter for my last witness, because his attestation is comprehensive and of a general aspect. In his _Disputations of Right to Sacraments, _and other writings, he repeatedly declares, “It hath been the constant principle and practice of the _universal _church of Christ, to require a _profession _of saving _faith _and _repentance, _as necessary before they would baptize; and not to baptize any upon the profession of any _lower _kind of faith. He must shut his eyes against the fullest evidence of history and church-practice, who will deny this. I desire those otherwise—minded to help me to an instance of any _one _approved baptism, since Christ’s time or his apostles, upon the account of a _faith _that was _short _of _justifying, _and not upon the profession of a justifying faith. Hitherto this is not done by them, but the contrary is fully done by others, and yet they confidently except against my opinion as a _novelty. _Mr. Gataker’s books have multitudes of sentences recited out of our _protestant _divines, that affirm this which they call _new. _It is indeed the common _protestant _doctrine, that the sacraments do _presuppose _remission of sins, and our faith; that they are instituted to signify these as in being; and do solemnize and publicly own and confirm the mutual covenant _already _entered in heart. The Jesuits themselves do witness this to be the ordinary _protestant _doctrine.—It seems not necessary to mention the judgment of our reformed divines, as expressed in any of their particular sayings, when their public confessions and practices are so satisfactory herein.” Mr. Baxter, however, recites a multitude of their testimonies; producing the judgment of Luther, Calvin, Beza, Pet. Martyr, Piscator, Melancthon, Altingius, Junius, Polanus, Zanchius, Ursinus, Paræus, Bucanus, Musculus, Professores Leyd. et Salm. Wollebius, Vossius, Wendeline, Keckerman, Bullinger, Alsted, Deodate, Dr. Ames, Dr. Moulin; The Catechism of the Church of England, and English Divines; Bp. Usher, Dr. Willet, Dr. Fulk, Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Whitaker, Mr. Yates, Perkins, Cartwright, &c.; The Scottish Church in their Heads of Church-policy, and Divines of Scotland; Mr. Gillespie, Mr. Rutherford, and Mr. Wood; The Westminster Assembly of Divines, their Confession, Catechisms, and Directory; The Annot of some of those Divines, &c. And for the _reformed _churches in general (Mr. Baxter observes) it is past all question, by their constant _practice, _that they require the profession of a _saving _christian faith, and take not up with any _lower. _And respecting the then practice in England, he says, This is manifest by our daily administration of baptism. I never heard (says he) any man baptize an infant but upon the parent’s, or susceptor’s, or offerer’s _profession _of a justifying faith.

This leads to your last inquiry.

Quest. V. _Whether it be the general opinion, that the _same qualifications _are required in a _parent _bringing his child to baptism, as in an _adult person for his own admission to this ordinance?

ANSW. Here, Sir, I suppose you intend only the same qualifications in kind; or a profession and visibility, in some degree, of the _same sort _of faith and repentance; meaning that which is truly evangelical and saving. And understanding you in this sense, I am persuaded, by all I can observe, that the generality of protestants are in the affirmative; not assenting to a specific and essential difference, whatever circumstantial and gradual disparity they may allow, between the two cases you mention.

Mr. Baxter, speaking of the judgment and practice of the christian _fathers, _tells us, that faith (justifying faith, and not another kind of faith) was supposed to be in the parent, for himself and his seed: because the condition or qualification of the infant is but this, that he be the _seed _of a _believer. _And he thinks the generality of the _reformed _are in these sentiments. He declares his own judgment in full concurrence herewith, and backs the same with a variety of arguments, in his _Five Disputations, _and other writings. He observes, it seems strange to him that any should imagine, a _lower _belief in the parent will help his _child _to a title to baptism, than that which is necessary to _his own, _if he were unbaptized; because mutual consent is necessary to mutual covenant, and the covenant must be mutual. No man hath right to God’s part, that refuseth his own: they that have no right to remission of sins, have no right given them by God to baptism. If God be not at all actually obliged in covenant to any _ungodly _man, then he is not obliged to give him baptism: but God is not obliged so to him. _Most of our divines _make the contrary doctrine Pelagianism, that God should be obliged to man in a state of nature in such a covenant. If the parent’s title be questionable, (says he,) the infant’s is so too; because the ground is the same: and it is from the parent that the child must derive it; nor can any man give that which he hath not. We ought not (says he) to baptize those persons, or their children, as theirs, who are visible members of the kingdom of the devil, or that do not so much as profess their forsaking the devil’s kingdom: but such are all that profess not a saving faith. If such are not visibly _in _the kingdom of the devil, at least they are not visibly _out _of it. All that are duly baptized, are baptized _into _Christ; therefore they are supposed to possess that _faith _by which men are united or ingrafted into Christ: but that is only justifying faith. Tell me (says he) where any man was ever said in Scripture to be united to Christ, without saving faith, or profession of it. In a word, Mr. Baxter takes occasion to declare himself in this manner: If Mr. Blake exacts not a profession of _saving _faith and repentance, I say he makes _foul work _in the church. And when such _foul work _shall be voluntarily maintained, and the word of God abused for the _defilement _of the church and ordinances of God, it is a greater scandal to the _weak, _and to the _schismatics, _and a greater reproach to the church, and a sadder case to considerate men, than the too common pollutions of others, which are merely through _negligence, _but not justified and defended.

We are told by other impartial inquirers, that _all the reformed _do in their directories and practices require _professions, _as well as promises, of _parents _bringing their children to baptism; even professions of present faith and repentance, as well as promises of future obedience; and these not merely of the moral, but the evangelical kind. The judgment of the church of Scotland may be known by their adopting the Confession, Catechisms, and Directory of the Assembly of Divines; who, when they require a _parental profession, _(as in their _Catechisms, _&c.) intend it not of any _lower _kind, than a true gospel faith and obedience. The mind of the _dissenters _may be very much judged of by the _reformed liturgy, _presented in their name upon King Charles’s restoration; where parents’ _credible profession _of their faith, repentance, and obedience, is required in order to the baptism of their children. I might bring further evidence from the writings of particular divines among them, ancient and modern; but I must for brevity omit this. Only I will give you a specimen in two or three hints. Mr. Charnock, that great divine, observes, “Baptism _supposes _faith in the adult, and the profession of faith in the parent for his child.” The late eminent Dr. Watts, in his _Holiness of Times, Places, and People, _thus declares himself, with respect to the infants of true believers: “In my opinion, so far as they are any way members of the _visible _christian church, it is upon _supposition _of their being (with their _parents) _members of the _invisible _church of God.”

On the whole, as to our fathers here in New England, it is true, they asserted a _baptism-right _in parents for themselves and children, whom yet they excluded from full communion; the ground of which difference was hinted before: and they denied a _parity of reason _between the _two cases _now in view, on some accounts. Their chief ground was, that _adult baptism _requires a measure of visible _moral fitness _or inherent holiness in the recipient; whereas, _infant baptism _requires nothing visible in its subject, but a _relative fitness _or federal holiness, the _formalis ratio _of infant membership, accruing from God’s charter of grace to his church, taking in the infant seed with the believing parent. Baptism they supposed to run parallel with regular membership; and the child of such a parent entitled to this covenant-seal in its own right, on the foot of a distinct personal membership, derivative in point of _being, _but independent for its _duration, _and for the _privileges _annexed to it by divine institution. However, they certainly owned _parental profession, _as belonging to the due order and just manner of administration, both _meet _and _needful. _Accordingly they provided, that _parents _claiming covenant-privileges for their children, should own their covenant-state, have a measure of covenant-qualifications, and do covenant-duties, in some degree, to the satisfaction of a rational charity. And it ought to be remembered, they have left it as their solemn judgment, that even taking _baptism-right _for a right of _fitness in foro ecclesiastico, _still the parents whose children they claimed _baptism _for, were such as must be allowed to have a title to it for _themselves, _in case they had remained unbaptized: looking upon them, although not duly fitted for the sacrament of communion and confirmation, yet sufficiently so for the sacrament of union and initiation; professors in their infancy _parentally, _and now _personally, _in an initial way; appearing Abraham’s children, in some measure of _truth, _to a judicious charity; justly therefore baptizable, in their persons and offspring, by all the rules of the gospel. I am not here to argue upon the justness of this scheme of thought on the case; but only to represent the fact in a genuine light.

I have no room, Sir, for any further remarks. But must conclude, with christian salutes, and the tender of every brotherly office, from

Your very affectionate Friend

and humble Servant,

THOMAS FOXCROFT.

_Boston, _

_June 26, 1749. _