N05035:296
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.
An Inquiry into the Qualifications for full Communion in the visibl… › Part 3
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.
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. 'Tis a giving up the Argument; since it allows the Consequence not to be good. For it allows, that not withstanding 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 'tis 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 is only another Instance of yielding up the ⟨p. 117⟩Argument and begging the Question: For it plainly concedes, that the Tendency of an Ordinance don't 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.
Here, for any to go to turn this off by saying, Scandalous Persons are expresly forbid, is but a giving up the Argument, and a begging the Question. 'Tis a giving up the Argument; since it allows the Consequence not to be good. For it allows, that not withstanding 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 'tis a begging the Question; since it supposes, that unconverted Men are not evidently forbidden, as well as scandalous Persons; which is the Thing in Controverly. If they be evidently forbid, that is as much to reasonable Creatures. (who need nothing but good Evidence) as if they were expresly 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 is only another Instance of yielding up the ⟨p. 117⟩Argument and begging the Question: For it plainly concedes, that the Tendency of an Ordinance don't 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.