This project investigates the Solomon Stoddard vs. Edward Taylor controversy over the administration of the Lord’s Supper in the context of their views of preparationism. Specifically, the project corrects the oft-repeated notion that Edward Taylor—by believing that the sacrament should not be administered to those of the “half-way covenant”—was a hardline conservative. Indeed, the research shows Taylor’s benevolence when compared with Stoddard’s harsh view of preparation. This argument is made by juxtaposing the contrasting arguments of David Parker (“Edward Taylor’s Preparationism) and Wilson Brissett (“Edward Taylor’s Public Devotions”).

1. Edward Taylor vs. Solomon Stoddard: Their Differences in the Context of Preparation
by Jeremy Scott Borgia

2. Abstract
This project investigates the Solomon Stoddard vs. Edward Taylor controversy over the
administration of the Lord’s Supper in the context of their views of preparationism.
Specifically, the project corrects the oft-repeated notion that Edward Taylor—by believing
that the sacrament should not be administered to those of the “half-way covenant”—was a
hardline conservative. Indeed, the research shows Taylor’s benevolence when compared with
Stoddard’s harsh view of preparation. This argument is made by juxtaposing the contrasting
arguments of David Parker (“Edward Taylor’s Preparationism) and Wilson Brissett (“Edward
Taylor’s Public Devotions”). Ultimately, the project argues, the men’s disparate views led to
the same results: the same group of “half-way” applicants were able to partake of the Lord’s
Supper. Taylor encouraged them by teaching them that their preparation was an effectual part
of their conversion, allaying their hesitation to make a declaration of faith. He gave them
confidence in their salvation by assuring them that preparation was well-pleasing to God.
Stoddard encouraged the same people by allowing them to take communion without a
declaration, identifying that he was unable to recognize the “internal call,” and so could not
effectively restrict access to the Lord’s Supper based on external signs. Ultimately, both
resolved the conflict of the unregenerate imposed upon their faith by the principles of
preparationism.
***

3. In the years leading up to the First Great Awakening in America, a great theological
debate was stirring in the American colonies. The issue was salvation; more specifically, the
question of whether good works, or “preparation,” were in themselves effectual towards one’s
election. Preparationism was the view that the unregenerate could take steps to prepare for
conversion, and should be encouraged in doing so. It advocated “preparatory” works such as
reading the Bible, humiliation, praying, and attending worship services as almost a checklist
of prerequisites for effectual conversion (Kang, 20). Critics, including figures such as Anne
Hutchinson and John Cotton, asserted that preparationism was a covenant of works
(McClymond, 678). Advocates of preparationism held varying views: some believed that
preparatory works could in themselves be effectual, even without an “arrival” at salvation;
others believed that saving grace through Christ was the only source of salvation, and
preparatory works were only effectual in their ability to bring people to that point. It is with
this contextual foundation that a study of Edward Taylor and Solomon Stoddard becomes
valuable and enlightening. Their disparate views of preparation directly informed their views
of other issues such as the Lord’s Supper, an issue which they famously disagreed on. Indeed,
a study of their debate without the proper context of preparation would be incomplete,
inconclusive, and even misleading.
Wilson Brissett, in his essay “Edward Taylor's Public Devotions,” examines the
aesthetic values of Taylor’s contemporary Puritan New England culture in order to “argue that
a culture that could understand beauty as central to personal spiritual transformation and
social unity could be expected to produce a poet in the vein of Edward Taylor” (Brissett, 457).
Brissett performs a valuable close reading of many of Taylor’s meditations, showing the

4. preparationist strains in his personal struggle for recognition of his election. However,
Brissett fails to identify Taylor’s preparationism as the foundation of his views on the
sacrament, although he properly identifies the significance of the communion argument in
light of the preparationist debate: “For Taylor as for other Puritans, the communion
controversy was of vital importance because it questioned the fundamental place of
conversion in Puritan religious culture” (459). Brissett correctly acknowledges that the root of
the controversy was the question of when and how effectual conversion took place, though he
does not delve into Taylor’s and Stoddard’s beliefs on that subject. In his discussion of the
controversy regarding the Lord’s Supper, Brissett paints Taylor as a hardline conservative,
stating that he “was one of the older preparationist school in conversionary thinking, and he
devoted himself, both in his pulpit and in print, to arguing that those who participated in
communion without assurance of salvation ate and drank judgment upon
themselves” (Brissett, 459). Brissett’s only reference to Stoddard, however, paints him as a
liberal reformer “who advocated the broad use of the sacrament of communion as a
‘converting ordinance’ to bring sinners into a state of grace” (459). While these assertions
regarding each man’s opinion on the availability of the Lord’s Supper to those of the half-way
covenant may seem obvious, neither considers the nuanced reasoning behind these stances.
Without the context of preparationism, their differing views of the availability of communion
to the unregenerate have no useful application. In order to understand the reasoning, our
conversation must turn to the differences of opinion between Taylor and Stoddard regarding
the role of “preparationism” in the conversion process; these differences are the root of the
disparity between their views on the Lord’s Supper. Rather than supporting the view of Taylor

5. as a hardline conservative, this context reveals his liberal beliefs compared to his
contemporaries, particularly Stoddard.
Although there are many differences between Edward Taylor’s and Solomon
Stoddard’s views, the relevant differences can be reduced to their opposite views on
preparation and effectual conversion. In David L. Parker’s “Edward Taylor’s Preparationism,”
Parker explains these beliefs by examining their views of the preparatory steps of contrition
and humiliation:
In this preparatory process, the soul had first to experience
contrition and humiliation. Contrition is the moment of
awareness, when a man perceives sin…Humiliation follows,
when he submits to God and is divorced from vanity and
pride. The preparationists maintained that contrition and
humiliation were not in themselves saving graces but
preliminary steps, and that while God takes away all
resistance, this cannot be done without man’s consent. The
period of preparatory meditation on sin and depravity was
intended to “soften” or “break” the heart, forcing man to
realize his need for grace. (Parker, 260)
Essentially, preparation destroys the soul’s natural tendencies towards self-sufficiency, paving
the way for an effectual conversion. This process provides a way for men to measure their
progress without any presumption of salvation; these steps, although not saving in themselves
and not demonstrative of one’s electability, are required for those who are elect to gain
salvation. Stoddard and Taylor diverged at whether these preparatory steps had any effectual
value in themselves, rather than as mere prerequisites to effectual faith and conversion.
Solomon Stoddard held the view that there was no saving grace in preparation. Said
he:

6. It is in no ways fit to tell a man that God will shew mercy to
him. For though this be the manner of God, when men are
prepared for Grace, to bestow Grace upon them, yet there is no
promise in the Scripture made to such persons; the promises
are made to Coming to Christ: Faith is the Condition of
Salvation; and though there by many promises made to
Humility, yet there are none made to Humiliation. And he is to
be told, that he is in God’s Hands, God is at liberty to do as he
will with him, and that he must wait upon God to open his
eyes, and shew Jesus Christ unto him. (Stoddard, 86)
Stoddard was careful to make the distinction that, although preparation was required
before faith could be attained, it was not an efficacious sign of salvation. The steps were only
valuable if one was elected; humiliation is only valuable once true humility has been
achieved. One way that Stoddard made this clear was by distinguishing between the “external
call,” or the Gospel promises offered to all—though not efficacious—and an “inward call,”
which was effectual to salvation and “consisted of a spiritual enlightenment of the convert,
through grace, compelling his belief in and acceptance of the promises” (Parker, 261). Only
the inward call was effectual and served as a solid basis for assurance. This fact excluded the
probable hope of assurance that some sought from preparationism. Stoddard’s exclusion of
preparation as evidence of election leaves essentially no basis on which assurance can be
determined, especially because an inward call is not visible to a minister. Because of this,
Stoddard was “willing to admit all but the openly scandalous to communion, in the absence of
any clearly visible criteria for determining which candidates are sheep and which
goats” (Parker, 262).
Although Edward Taylor believed similarly about the steps of preparation, he was
open to the idea that preparation itself could be part of an effectual calling. He believed that

7. the Spirit could lead to salvation, although grace would be provided only after the
inauguration of faith. Taylor’s sermons clearly lay out preparation as an effectual means of
gaining faith:
Effectual-Calling is the Regenerating Work of the Spirit of
God in the means of Grace upon the Soule, whereby the Soule
turning from Sin, is inseparably joy[n]’d unto Christ in a new
Covenant, this regenerating work of Effectual-Calling
therefore consists in Convicti[on] and Repentan[ce.]
Conviction is the first work of the Spirit in effectual Calling,
on the Soule, which upon the understanding, is called
Illumination, & in the Will, & Affections is properly called
Conviction.
Repentance is the next work in Effectual Calling carried on
upon the Soule whereby the Soule turns from Sin unto God; &
it consists in Aversion from sin, & Reversion to God.
Aversion from Sin is the first part of Repentance consisting in
the turning of the Soule from sin in its preparation for God, by
the work of Contrition, & Humiliation. (“Profession of Faith,”
45-6)
Here, Taylor names the preparatory steps of conviction and repentance as “the regenerating
work of the Spirit of God.” Far more than being a prerequisite to faith, Taylor posits that
preparation itself develops faith. When the soul turns from sin, Taylor writes, it “is
inseparable joy[n]’d unto Christ in a new Covenant.” In this line, Taylor suggests that the
“turning” itself may be effectual in binding oneself to Christ, as opposed to the prevailing idea
of the day that one was damned until full conversion and election took place, an event that
occurred by God’s grace, not by any work of one's own. Taylor’s poetry reveals his hope for
effectual preparation in his personal life:
My Sin! my sin, My God, these Cursed Dregs,

8. Green, Yellow, Blew streakt Poyson hellish, ranck,
Bubs hatcht in natures nest on Serpents Eggs,
Yelp, Cherp and Cry; they set my Soule a Cramp.
I frown, Chide, strik and fight them, mourn and Cry
To Conquor them, but cannot them destroy
(“Preparatory Meditations,” 39)
In these lines, we see Taylor’s journey through some important preparatory steps, namely
humiliation, recognition of sin, and recognition that he needs the saving grace of Christ. In the
last line Taylor acknowledges his own inability to conquer his natural weaknesses. Further
reading of his poetry supplements his desire to rely on Christ in light of his own
insufficiencies. Indeed, a theme of much of Taylor’s poetry is his shortcomings in life, often
represented by shortcomings in his poetry. In Meditation 34, Taylor wrote:
My Lord I fain would Praise thee Well but find
Impossibilities block up my pass.
My tongue Wants Words to tell my thoughts, my Minde
Wants thoughts to Comprehend thy Worth, alas!
Thy Glory far surmounts my thoughts, my thoughts
Surmount my Words: Hence little Praise is brought
In these lines lies the dual themes of the greatness of God and the weakness of Taylor, and
Taylor’s writing. The lines begin with Taylor mourning the inability of his poetry to capture
the greatness of God; by the end we have seen Taylor shift his inabilities from his poetry,
zooming out onto his “worth” and “thoughts.” Brissett states that, “Eventually, the theme of
poetic ineffability becomes subsumed within Taylor’s overarching concern with the state of
the heart as seen in its journey toward holiness through conversion and increasing devotion to
God” (Brissett, 462). These lines, combined with the previous excerpt regarding Taylor’s
inability to overcome sin, paint Taylor’s desire to have his inabilities healed through God’s
grace. We must understand that: “Taylor’s Puritan insistence that the inadequacy of language

9. always instantiates a greater sense of loss to be located in the brokenness of the human soul
before God. This brokenness…can be addressed and healed within true religion” (Brissett,
62). The personal record, which Taylor’s devotional poetry offers, is the tool that he uses to
work out his own redemptive experience. Thus, Taylor’s poetry not only offers a glimpse of
his theological views but is an embodiment of his preparatory beliefs. His meditations also
reveal his own personal struggle for evidence of salvation, which offers a possible reason he
was more liberal in his preparationist views. His consistent references to his inadequacies
suggest a lack of confidence that could only be reconciled by a supreme reconfirmation of
conversion, which “would have been the turning of his affections consistently toward the
things of God, but this did not seem to be forthcoming. Still, Taylor longs for this affectional
constancy in the Meditations; as he pines for a beatific vision that will seize his heart and
direct him passionately toward Christ” (Brissett, 467). So, Taylor’s poetic meditations offer
the why, the how, and the content of Taylor’s preparationism.
Taylor’s wrote his “Preparatory Meditations” as a personal exercise to prepare to
receive the Lord’s Supper. His poems “are centrally concerned with personal readiness to
receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the most important aspect of this readiness for
Puritans of Taylor’s stripe was assurance of conversion” (Brissett, 460). Taylor encouraged his
followers to prepare for full membership by attaining grace. In his Foundation Day Sermon,
Taylor exhorted his congregation as follows:
To prepare for it is the way to have a glory of it. The greater
preparation for it, the greater glory will be present in it,
according to the preparation that thou makes for God, such
will be the presence of God, in it. Oh! how a glorious presence
would alwayes here appeare, if wee did but alwayes appeare

10. here duelie prepared. For our preparation consisting in the
graces of the Spirit, oh we by preparing should stir up those
shining spangles of the Divine image upon our soules that they
being such a presence well pleasing to God that God would in
Christ give forth an answerable glory upon the same that
would fill his house with glory. (Parker, 263)
Taylor is suggesting that preparation invites the grace of God—teetering quite closely
to the doctrine of works—revealing his own liberal view that men had a role, through
preparation, in inviting and strengthening salvation through faith. His conclusion that
preparation is not only well pleasing to God, but that God would respond by giving “an
answerable glory upon the same” flies in the face of the Calvinist doctrine of faith over works,
and reveals his own belief that works were effectual to salvation.
Stoddard’s and Taylor’s different views on the efficacy of preparationism towards
salvation led directly to their disagreement over the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, their views on the
availability of communion to the unregenerate stemmed from Taylor's and Stoddard's need to
resolve the conflict raised by preparationism.
How was one to be sure that the faith he professed was, in fact,
saving, if saving faith was to be measured in preparation for
the faith that was required, but was not itself a saving
operation of the Spirit? How could one, in actual practice,
determine the precise point in the conversion process at which
the “common” preparatory influences of the Spirit gave way to
the actual infusion of saving grace? The problem was difficult
enough for the sincere and conscientious individual to resolve
by examining his own heart. It became next to impossible for
even a trained minister to resolve with any degree of certainty
in examining the profession and external behavior of another.
(Parker)
Taylor dealt with this conflict by redefining the steps towards conversion, or, in other words,
by considering as efficacious the preparatory steps. Stoddard, in contrast, responded by doing

11. away with the need to pinpoint the moment of conversion as a requirement for involvement
with communion, hoping that communion would help to convert hesitant half-way members.
Ultimately, Parker states, the results were likely the same: the same group of “doubt-ridden
but conscientious half-way applicants” were allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Taylor
encouraged them by teaching them that their preparation was an effectual part of their
conversion, allaying their hesitation to make a declaration of faith. He gave them confidence
in their salvation by assuring them that preparation was well-pleasing to God. Stoddard
encouraged the same people by allowing them to take communion without a declaration,
identifying that he was unable to recognize the “internal call,” and so could not effectively
restrict access to the Lord’s Supper based on external signs. Ultimately, both resolved the
conflict of the unregenerate imposed upon their faith by the principles of preparationism. So,
although a superficial study of Edward Taylor’s views on the Lord’s Supper may paint him as
a hardline conservative, a more meaningful and properly contextualized study reveals that he
sought to find mercy and peace through the doctrine of preparationism.

12. Works Cited
Brissett, Wilson. “Edward Taylor’s Public Devotions.” Early American Literature 44.3
(2009):457+. Literature Resource Center. Web.
Carlisle, E. F. "The Puritan Structure of Edward Taylor's Poetry." American Quarterly 1968:
147-63. Print.
Hass, Robert. "Edward Taylor: What was He Up to?" American Poetry Review 31.2 (2002):
43. Print.
Kang, Paul Chulhong (2006). “Justification: The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness from
Reformation Theology to the American Great Awakening And the Korean Revivals.”
Peter Lang. Web.
McClymond, Michael J.; McDermott, Gerald R. (2012). The Theology of Jonathan Edwards.
Oxford University Press. Web.
Parker, David L. “Edward Taylor’s Preparationism: A New Perspective on the Taylor-
Stoddard Controversy.” Early American Literature 11.3 (1976): 259. World History
Collection. Web.
Stoddard, Solomon. A Guide to Christ. Or, The Way of Directing Souls that are under the
Work of Conversion. Boston, 1714. 86. Web.
Taylor, Edward. “Preparatory Meditations - First Series: 39”
Taylor, Edward. “Profession of Faith.” Westfield Church Records pp. 45-46