the Lord's Supper has a tendency to convert the unconverted, or that it has been effectual in any instances to this end, is deftitute of proof. I will not deny that the representations usually made at the Lord's table of the love of Chrift, of the evil of the fin, &c. may have a tendency, and may have been effectual, to excite ferious convictions in the minds of the ungodly, which have ended in a true convertion to God; but it does not appear that the act of receiving the facramental bread and wine has ever been, or is likely to be, of real use in this view; it is easy to conceive that the fame end might as well be answered by a bare attendance while the ordinance is administered, without an actual participation of it. Befides, let it be further obferved, that if there be any thing in this argument for unconverted perfons to attend the Lord's Supper, it will be equally conclufive with regard to finners of all characters, even the most abandoned and profane, who have at least equal need with others to attend every probable means of reformation. But it is on all fides agreed that fuch ought not to approach the table of the Lord; the argument therefore, by prov ing too much, proves nothing at all."

I am, Rev. SIR,

Your's, &c.

LET

LETTER V.

I'

Reverend SIR,

N proving that unholy perfons have no right to the Lord's Supper and ought not to attend upon it, I have hitherto only argued from Reason upon the nature of the ordinance, and the profeffion implied in the celebration of it. I now proceed to the further vindication of the point by arguments drawn from Scripture.

I do not here pretend to produce any paffage in which it is exprefsly afferted that none but real Chriftians ought to approach the Lord's table: I acknowledge there is not one fuch in the whole New Teftament. But it does not follow from hence that the doctrine is unscriptural. * It is fufficient to fupport it, if it can be made to appear that the scripture furnishes us with fuch general directions, prohibitions or reproofs as may warrantably be applied, thro' a fimilarity of circumftances, to this particular cafe; or if it may be deduced, by juft inference, from any thing therein exprefsly afferted. That we have ample evidence of this kind in fcripture with respect to the present question, is to me indifputably

clear.

* See LETTER I

The

The first argument I fhall produce is this: The fcripture not only requires uprightness in every religious fervice, and condemns all external performances, without it, as vain; but alfo forbids all falfe profeffions and hypocritical pretences, and reprefents them as difpleafing to God and as aggravations of a perfon's guilt. All lying and falfehood of every kind, is strictly forbidden and feverely threatened, whatever the pretences for it may be. Now fince actions have as expreffive a language as words, and either truth or falfehood may be declared thereby with equal ftrength; fince the action of receiving the Lord's Supper (according to your own account of it)" is a declaration of a man's refolution, by the 66 grace of God, to live and die like a Chriftian," and fince (as I have already proved) none but good men do or can thus refolve; it follows, that mere nominal Chriftians, by engaging in this action, are guilty of folemnly declaring a falfehood, fo that they are virtually forbidden to engage in this action, till by a change in them, the language of it fhall be the truth.

But further; the fcripture particularly reproves those that make a profeffion of Religion while they are deftitute of the power of it, and reprefents fuch a profeffion as criminal and dangerous. By a profeffion of religion, I would not here be understood to mean, an attendance on public worship in general, much less a decent external carriage, both of which are commendable even where there is nothing more; but fuch a profeffion as amounts to a folemn declaration of a man's being truly religious. Such an one I take the celebration of the Lord's Supper to be, and nothing lefs than this is implied in your account of it, just now referred to. Now the making fuch a folemn declaration as I have before fhown is made in this inftitution, of fubjection to the authority of Christ, of entering into covenant with God thro' him, of a relation

E

lation to his church, and of a resolution, by divine grace, to walk as becomes a member of it, while the heart really means no fuch thing, and the foul is averse to the purity of the gofpel; feems to me ftrongly condemned and ftrictly forbidden by fuch paffages as the following: When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand " to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; • incenfe is an abomination unto me; the new moons ' and fabbaths, the calling of affemblies, I cannot away with, it is iniquity, even the folemn meeting. 'Your new moons and your appointed feafts my foul hateth, they are a trouble unto me. I am weary to bear them. Unto the wicked God faith, What haft 'thou to do to declare my ftatutes, or that thou 'fhouldst take my covenant into thy mouth? feeing ⚫ thou hateft inftruction and cafteft my words behind thee.' + To the fame purpose are some paffages in the New Teftament, particularly that parable of our Lord concerning the Wedding Supper, which I the rather quote at large, as you have excepted against it as foreign to the purpose. The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a marriage for his fon,and the wedding was furnishwith guests. And when the king came in to fee the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding-garment; and he faith unto him, Friend, how cameft thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? and he was fpeechlefs. Then faid the king to the fervants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away and caft him into outer darknefs; ⚫ there fhall be weeping and gnafhing of teeth.' The manner in which you speak of this parable, carries in it an infinuation, that those who apply it to the case of the Lord's Supper, do it without fufficient warrant, and upon a mistaken view of the ordinance. § "They [communicants having conceived of it as a "folemn

Ifa. i. 12-14. † Pfal. L. 16, 17. Matt. xxii. § p. 41.

folemn thing to come to the Lord's table] would alfo apply the parable of our Saviour concerning "the wedding fupper, and confider the person who

had not on the wedding-garment as reprefenting "an unworthy communicant." And pray where is the abfurdity of this? Do you fay our Saviour, by the wedding fupper, did not intend the Lord's Supper? It is granted he did not. I know of none, and you can hardly fuppofe any, weak enough to think that he did. You might as well imagine that I fuppofe this ordinance to be referred to in the fcriptures quoted above from the Old Teftament. But because the Lord's Supper is not particularly intended in any of these paffages, fhall it be faid, they ought not to be applied to it? With as much reafon might you except against applying them to any religious duty at all, because no one is immediately referred to. They relate to a religious profeffion in general, and therefore are justly applicable to any particular part of it, that implies a declaration of a man's piety; more efpecially to the most folemn and exprefs part of it, which you acknowledge the Lord's Supper to be. The man in the parable without the wedding-garment, well reprefents the cafe of thofe in general, who make a publick and folemn profeffion of Chriftianity, but are deftitute of the inward power of it, or of the genuine mper of Chriftians; which character is exactly the fame with that of an unworthy communicant, to whom, with every infincere profeffor, may that part of the parable alfo be applied, which reprefents the king's difpleasure against the bold intruder, How cameft thou in hither, not having on a wedding garment? Take him, bind him hand and foot,' &c. It will doubtless be more intolerable in the day of judgment for fuch' as have added lying and hypocrify to all their other fins, than for those who in other refpects are equally guilty, but have made no fuch profeffion. I will only add one paffage more under E 2

this