N05035:360
An humble inquiry into the rules of the Word of God, concerning the qualifications…
An humble inquiry into the rules of the Word of God, concerning the qualifications requisite to a complete standing and full communion in the visible Christian church. By Jonathan Edwards, A.M. Pastor of the First Church in Northampton. ; With an appendix by Mr. Foxcroft. ; [Ten lines of quotations]An humble inquiry into the rules of the Word of God, concerning the qualifications requisite to a compleat standing and full communion in the visible Christian church. By Jonathan Edwards, A.M. Pastor of the First Church in Northampton. ; With an appendix by Mr. Foxcroft. ; [Ten lines of quotations]
Boston: : Printed & sold by S. Kneeland in Queenstreet, 1749
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
ANSW. I am aware, Sir, tho' 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 Calvinist 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's also only by Accident that they ⟨p. 3⟩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 kn•w 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.
ANSW. I am aware, Sir, tho' 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 Calvinist 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's also only by Accident that they