in admission to duties of worship, with regard to some qualifications, yet sanctifying grace is not one of those qualifications that make the difference; would be but a giving up the argument, and a perfect begging the question.

It is said, there can be no reason assigned, why unsanctified persons may attend other duties of worship and not the Lord's supper. But I humbly conceive this must be an inadvertence. For there is a reason very obvious from that necessary and very notable distinction among duties of worship which follows:

1. There are some duties of worship, that imply a profession of God's covenant; whose very nature and design is an exhibition of those vital active principles and inward exercises, wherein consists the condition of the covenant of grace, or that union of soul to God, which is the union between Christ and his spouse, entered into by an inward, hearty consenting to that covenant. Such are the Christian sacraments, whose very design is to make and confirm a profession of compliance with that covenant, and whose very nature is to exhibit or express the uniting acts of the soul: Those sacramental duties therefore cannot, by any whose hearts do not really consent to that covenant, and whose souls do not truly close with Christ, be attended without either their being selfdeceived, or else wilfully making a false profession, and lying in a very aggravated manner.

2. There are other duties, which are not in their own na ture an exhibition of a covenant union with God, or of any compliance with the condition of the covenant of grace; but are the expression of general virtues, or virtues in their largest extent, including both speclal and common. Thus, prayer or asking mercy of God, is in its own nature no profession of a compliance with the covenant of grace: It is an expression of some belief of the being of a God, an expression of some sense of our wants, some sense of our need of help, and some sense of a need of God's help, some sense of our dependance, &c. but not only such a sense of these things as is spiritual and saving. Indeed there are some prayers proper to be made by saints, and many things proper to be expressed by VOL. I. 2 P

them in prayer, which imply the profession of a spiritual un ion of heart to God through Christ; but such as no Heathen, no heretic, nor natural man whatever, can or ought to make. Prayer in general, and asking mercy and help from God is no more a profession of consent to the covenant of grace, than reading the Scriptures, or meditation, or performing any duty of morality and natural religion. A Mahometan may as well ask mercy as hear instruction: And any natural man may as well express his desires to God, as hear when God declares his will to him. It is true, when an unconverted man prays, the manner of his doing it is sinful: But when a natural man, knowing himself to be so, comes to the Lord's supper, the very matter of what he does, in respect of the profession he there makes, and his pretension to lay hold of God's covenant, is a lie, and a lie told in the most solemn

manner.

In a word, the venerable Mr. Stoddard himself, in his Doc. trine of Instituted Churches, has taught us to distinguish between instituted and natural acts of religion: The word and prayer he places under the head of moral duty, and considers as common to all; but the sacraments, according to what he says there, being instituted, are of special administration, and must be limited agreeable to the institution.

OBJECTION XII.

THE Lord's supper has a proper tendency to promote men's conversion, being an affecting representation of the greatest and most important things of God's word : It has a proper tendency to awaken and humble sinners; here being a discovery of the terrible anger of God for sin, by the infliction of the curse upon Christ, when sin was imputed to him; and the representation here made of the dying love of Christ has a tendency to draw the hearts of sinners from sin to God, &c.

ANSW. Unless it be an evident truth, that what the Lord's supper may have tendency to promote, the same it was appointed to promote, nothing follows from this argument. If the argument affords any consequence, the consequence is built on the tendency of the Lord's supper. And if the consequence be good and strong on this foundation, as drawn from such premises, then wherever the premises hold, the consequence holds; otherwise it must appear, that the premises and consequence are not connected. And now let us see how it is in fart. Do not scandalous persons need to have these very ef fects wrought in their hearts, which have been mentioned? Yes, surely; they need them in a special manner: They need to be awakened; they need to have an affecting discovery of that terrible wrath of God against sin, which was manifested in a peculiar manner by the terrible effects of God's wrath in the sufferings of his own incarnate Son: Gross sinners need this in some respect more than others: They need to have their hearts broken by an affecting view of the great and important things of God's word: They need especially to fly to Christ for refuge, and therefore need to have their hearts drawn. And seeing the Lord's supper has so great a tendency to promote these things, if the consequence from the tendency of the Lord's supper, as inferring the end of its appointment be good, then it must be a consequence also well inferred, that the Lord's supper was appointed for the reclaiming and bringing to repentance scandalous persons.

Here, for any to go to turn this off, by saying, Scandalous persons are expressly forbid, is but a giving up the argument, and a begging the question. It is a giving up the argument; since it allows the consequence not to be good. For it allows, that notwithstanding the proper tendency of the Lord's supper. to promote a design, yet it may be so that the Lord's supper was not appointed with a view to promote that end. And it is a begging the question; since it supposes, that unconverted men are not evidently forbidden, as well as scandalous persons; which is the thing in controversy. If they be evidently forbid, that is as much to reasonable creatures (who need nothing but good evidence) as if they were expressly forbidden.

To say here, that the Lord's supper is a converting ordinance only to orderly members and that there is another ordinance appointed for bringing scandalous persons to repentance, this is no solution of the difficulty; but it is only another instance of yielding up the argument and begging the question: For it plainly concedes, that the tendency of an ordinance does not prove it appointed to all the ends, which it seems to have a tendency to promote: And also supposes, that there is not any other ordinance, appointed for the converting of sinners that are moral and orderly in their lives, exclusive of this, which is the thing in question.

It is at best but very precarious arguing, from the seeming tendency of things, to the divine appointment, or God's will and disposition with respect to the use of those things. It looks as though it would have had a great tendency to convince the Scribes and Pharisees, and to promote their conversion if they had been admitted into the Mount when Christ was transfigured: But yet it was not the will of Christ, that they should be admitted there, or any other but Peter, James and John. It seems as though it would have had a very great tendency to convince and bring to repentance the unbelieving Jews, if they had been allowed to see and converse freely with Christ after his resurrection, and see him ascend into heaven: But yet it was the will of God, that none but disciples should be admitted to these privileges. So it seems as though it might have had a good tendency, if all that were sincere followers of Christ, women as well as men, had been allowed to be present at the institution of the Lord's supper ; But yet it is commonly thought none were admitted beside the Apostles.

Indeed the ever honored author of the Appeal to the Learned has supplied me with the true and proper answer to this objection, in the following words, p. 27, 28. «The efficacy of the Lord's supper does depend upon the blessing of God. Whatever TENDENCY ordinances have in their owN NATURE to be serviceable to men, yet they will not prevail any further than God doth bless them. The weapons of our warfare are mighty through God, 2 Cor. x. 4. It is God that teaches men

to profit, and makes them profitable and serviceable to men's souls. There is reason to hope for a divine blessing on the Lord's supper, when it is administered to those that it ought to be administered to: God's blessing is to be expected in God's way. If men act according to their own humors and fancies, and do not keep in the way of obedience, it is presumption to expect God's blessing, Matth. xv. 9. In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. But when they are admitted to the Lord's supper that God would have to be admitted, there is ground to hope that he will make it profitable."

OBJECTION XIII.

ALL that are members of the visible church and in the external covenant, and neither ignorant nor scandalous, are commanded to perform all external covenant duties; and particularly they are commanded to attend the Lord's supper, in those words of Christ, This do in remembrance of me.

ANSW. This argument is of no force, without first taking for granted the very thing in question. For this is plainly supposed in it, that however these commands are given to such as are in the external covenant, yet they are not given indefinitely, but with exceptions and reserves, and do not immediately reach all such; they do not reach those who are unqualified, though they be in the external covenant. Now the question is, Who are these that are unqualified? The objection supposes, that only ignorant and scandalous persons are so. But why are they only supposed unqualified; and not unconverted persons too? Because it is taken for granted, that these are not unqualified. And thus the grand point in question is supposed, instead of being proved. Why are these limitations only singled out, neither ignorant nor scandalous ; and not others as well? The answer must be, because these are all the limitations which the scripture makes: But this now is the