PART III. Remarks on Mr. Williams’s Reasoning.

PART III.

containing some remarks on mr. williams’s exceptionable way of reasoning, in support of his own scheme, and in opposition to the contrary principles.

SECT. I.

General observations upon his way of arguing, and answering arguments;_ with some instances of the first method excepted against._

Mr. W. endeavours to support his own opinion, and to confute the book he pretends to answer, by the following methods.

1. By frequently _misrepresenting what I say, _and then disputing or exclaiming against what he wrongfully charges as mine.

2. By misrepresenting what _others _say in their writings, whose opinions he pretends to espouse.

3. By _seeming to oppose _and _confute _arguments, and yet only saying things which have _no reference _at all to them, but relate entirely to _other _matters, that are altogether _foreign _to the argument in hand.

4. By advancing new and extraordinary notions; which are both manifestly contrary to _truth, _and also contrary to the _common apprehensions _of the christian church in all ages.

5. By making use of peremptory and confident _assertions, _instead of arguments.

6. By using great _exclamation, _in the room of arguing; as though he would amuse and alarm his readers, and excite terror in them, instead of rational conviction.

7. By wholly _overlooking _arguments, and not answering at all; pretending, that there is no argument, nothing to answer; when the case is manifestly far otherwise.

8. By frequently turning off an argument with this reflection, that it is begging the question; when there is not the least show or pretext for it.

9. By very frequently _begging the question _himself, or doing that which is equivalent.

10. By often alleging and insisting on things in which he is _inconsistent _with himself.

As to the _first _of these methods used by Mr. W. _i.e. _his _misrepresenting what I say, _and then disputing or exclaiming against what he injuriously charges as mine, many instances have been already observed: I now would take notice of some other instances.

In p. 15. c. He charges me with “affirming vehemently, in a number of repetitions, that the doctrine taught is, that no manner of pretence to any visible holiness is made or designed to be made.” These he cites as my words, marking them with notes of quotation. Whereas I never said or thought any such thing, but the contrary. I knew, that those whose doctrine I opposed, declared that _visible holiness _was necessary: and take particular notice of it, (p. 8.) where I say, “It is granted on all hands, that none ought to be admitted, as members of the visible church of Christ, but visible saints:” and argue on this supposition for fifteen pages together, in that same part of my book where Mr. W. charges me with asserting the contrary. What I say is, that people are taught, that _they come into the church without any pretence to sanctifying grace, _(p. 15. d.) I do not say, without a pretence to _visible holiness. _Thus Mr. W. alters my words, to make them speak something not only diverse but contrary to what I do say, and say very often; and so takes occasion, or rather _makes _an occasion, to charge me before the world, with telling a _manifest untruth, _(p. 15. d.)

Again, Mr. W. in answering my argument concerning _brotherly lov_e, (p. 70. _e. _71. a.) represents me as arguing, “That in the exercise of christian love described in the gospel, there is such an union of hearts, as there cannot be of a saint to an unsanctified man.” Which is a thing I never said, and is quite contrary to the sentiments which I have abundantly declared. I indeed speak of that _brotherly love, _as what cannot be of a saint to one that is not _apprehended _and _judged _to be sanctified. But that notion of a peculiar love, which cannot be to an unsanctified man—or without the reality of holiness in the person beloved—is what I ever abhorred, and have borne a most loud and open and large testimony against, again and again, from the press, Marks of a Work of the True Spirit, p. 101, 102.103,104. Thoughts on the Revival of Religion, from p. 292 to 303. Nature of Religious Affections, p. 85-87. Preface to Inquiry into Qualifications for Communion, p. 5. and did so in the preface to that very book which Mr. W. writes against.

In p. 74. _a. b. _Mr. W. represents me as supposing, that in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, both the covenanting parties, _viz. _Christ and the communicant, seal to the truth of the communicant’s faith; or that both seal to this as true, that the communicant does receive Christ. Whereas, by me, no such thing was ever thought; nor is any thing said that has such an aspect. What I say, is very plain and express, (p. 75.) “That Christ by his minister professes his part of the covenant, presents himself, and professes the willingness of his heart to be theirs who receive him. That on the other hand, the communicant in receiving the offered symbols, professes his part in the covenant, and the willingness of his heart to receive Christ who is offered.” How different is this from both parties sealing to the truth of the communicant’s faith!

In p. 76, 77, and 80, he greatly misrepresents my argument from . “Let a man examine himself,” &c. as though I supposed, the Greek word translated _examine, _must necessarily imply an examination to approbation; that it signifies to approve; and that a man’s examination must mean his approving himself to himself to be sanctified. This representation he makes over and over, and builds his answer to the argument upon it; and in opposition to this, he says, (p. 77. c.) “Wherever the word means to examine to approbation, it is not used in its natural sense, but metonymically.” Whereas, there is not the least foundation for such a representation: no such thing is said or suggested by me, as if I supposed that the meaning of the word is to _approve, _or to _examine to approbation. _What I say is, that it properly signifies _proving or trying a thing, whether it be true and of the right sort. _(p. 77. d.) And, in the same place, I expressly speak of the word (in the manner Mr. W. does) as not used in its natural sense, but metonymically, when it is used to signify _approve. _So that Mr. W.‘s representation is not only diverse from, but contrary to, what I say. Indeed I suppose (as well I may) that when the apostle directs persons to try themselves with respect to their qualifications for the Lord’s supper, he would not have them come, if upon trial they find themselves not qualified. But it would be ridiculous to say, that I therefore suppose the meaning of the word, _try _or _examine, _is to _approve, _when it is evident that the _trying _is only in order to knowing whether a thing is to be _approved, _or disapproved.

In p. 98. _b. _on the argument from _John’s _baptism, Mr. W. alters my words, bringing them the better to comport with the odious representation he had made of my opinion, _viz. that I required giving an account of experiences, _as a term of communion; he puts in words as mine which are not mine, and distinguishes them with marks of quotation; charging me with representing it as ” probable that _John _had as much time to inquire into their experiences as into their doctrinal knowledge.”—Whereas, my words are these, (p. 101. a.) He had as much opportunity to inquire info the credibility of their profession, as he had to inquire into their doctrinal knowledge and moral character.

In p. 118. _d. _(and to the like purpose, p. 134. c.) our author represents me, and others of my principles, as holding, That the gospel does peremptorily sentence men to damnation for eating and drinking without sanctifying grace. But surely Mr. W. would have done well to have referred to the place in my Inquiry, where any thing is said that has such an appearance. For, I find nothing that I have said in that book, or any other writing of mine, about the gospel peremptorily sentencing such men to damnation, or signifying how far I thought they were exposed to damnation, or expressing my sentiments more or less about the matter.

In p. 130. _e. _and 131. _a. _Mr. W. says, ” When one sees with what epithets of honour Mr. Edwards in some parts of his book has complimented Mr. Stoddard, it must look like a strange medley to tack to them;—That he was a weak beggar of his question; a supposer of what was to be proved; taking for granted the point in controversy; inconsistent with himself; ridiculously contradicting his own arguments.” These expressions, which Mr. W. speaks of as tacked to those honourable epithets, he represents as expressions which I had used concerning Mr. Stoddard. And his readers that have not consulted my book, will doubtless take it so from his manner of representation. Whereas, the truth is, no one of these expressions is used concerning Mr. S. any where in my book; nor is there one disrespectful word spoken of him there. All the ground Mr. W. had to make such a representation, was, that in answering _arguments _against my opinion I endeavoured to show them to be _weak, _(though I do not find that I used that epithet,) and certainly for one to pretend to answer arguments, and yet allow them to be strong, would be to show himself to be very weak. In answering some of these arguments, and endeavouring to show wherein the inconclusiveness of them lay, I have sometimes taken notice that the defect lay in what is called _begging the question, _or supposing the thing to be proved. And if I had said so concerning Mr. S—d’s arguments, speaking of them _as his, _I do not know why it should be represented as any _personal _reflection, or unhandsome dishonourable treatment of _him. _Every inconclusive argument is weak; and the business of a disputant is to show wherein the weakness lies: but to speak of _arguments _as weak, is not to call _men _weak.—All the ground Mr. W. has to speak of me as saying, that Mr. S. _ridiculously contradicted his own arguments is, _that (in p. 11.) citing some passages out of Mr. S—d’s _Appeal, _I use these words; “But how he reconciled these passages with the rest of his treatise, I would modestly say, I must confess myself at a loss.” And particularly I observed, that I could not see how they consist with what he says, p. 16. and so proceed to mention one thing which appears to me not well to consist with them. But certainly this is not indecently to reflect on Mr. S. any more than Mr. W. indecently reflects on the _first reformers, _in his answer to Mr. _Croswell, _(p. 74, 75.) where speaking of their doctrine of a particular persuasion as of the essence of saving faith, he says, They are found inconsistent with themselves, and their doctrine lighter than vanity. And again, (p. 82.) If ever, (says Mr. W.) any men were confuted from their own concessions, these divines are. And more to the like purpose.—Which gives me a fair occasion to express the like _wonder _at him, as he does at me, (p. 131. a.) but I forbear _personal _reflections.

Mr. W. (in the same p. d.) has these words; “And to say, that all unsanctified men do profess and seal their consent to the covenant of grace in the Lord’s supper, when they _know _at the same time they do not consent to it, nor have their heart at all in the affair,—is something _worse _than begging the question,”—that is, as I suppose, (the same that he charged me with before,) _telling a manifest untruth. _By which he plainly suggests, that I have said thus. Whereas, I no where say, nor in any respect signify that I suppose, all unsanctified communicants do know that they do not consent to the covenant of grace. I never made any doubt, but that multitudes of unsanctified communicants are deceived, and think they do consent to it.

In p. 132. _d. _he says of me, “The author endeavours to show, that the admitting unsanctified persons tends to the ruin and reproach of the christian church; and to the ruin of the persons admitted.” But how widely different is this from what I express in the place he refers to! (_Inq. _p. 121. c.) That which I say there, is, that “by express liberty given, to open the door to as many as please, of those who have _no visibility _of real saintship, and make no profession of it, nor pretension to it, is a method which tends to the ruin and great reproach of the christian church, and also to the ruin of the persons admitted.” I freely grant, and show abundantly in my book, it is never to be expected, that all unsanctified men can be kept out, by the most exact attendance on the rules of Christ, by those that admit members.

In p. 136. _d. _Mr. W. wholly without grounds speaks of me as representing, that “unconverted men make pretension to nothing but what God’s enemies have, remaining in open and avowed rebellion against him.” Whereas, I suppose that some natural men do profess, and profess truly, _many things, _which those have not, who are _open _and _avowed _enemies of God. They may truly profess that sort of moral sincerity, in many things belonging to morality and religion, which avowed enemies have not: nor is there any sentence or word in my book, which implies or intimates the contrary.

In p. 141. c. _d. _Mr. W. evidently insinuates, that I am one of those who “If men live never so strictly conformable to the laws of the gospel, and never so diligently seek their own salvation, to outward appearance, yet do not stick to speak of them, and act openly towards them, as persons giving no more public evidence, that they are not the enemies of God and haters of Jesus Christ, than the very worst of the heathen.” But surely every one that has read my book, every one that knows my constant conduct, and manner of preaching, as well as writing, and how much I have written, said, and done, against judging and censuring persons of an externally moral and religious behaviour, must know how injurious this representation of me is.

SECT. II.

Instances of the second thing mentioned as exceptionable in Mr. W.‘s method of managing this controversy;_ viz. His misrepresenting what is said in the writings of others, that he supposes favour his opinion._

Perhaps instances enough of this have already been taken notice of; yet I would now mention some others.

In what he says in reply to my answer to the eighth _objection, _he says, (p. 108.) “Mr. Stoddard does not say, If sanctifying Grace be necessary to a person’s lawful partaking of the Lord’s supper, then God would have given some certain rule, whereby those who are to admit them, may know whether they have such grace or not.” Mr. W. there intimates (as the reader may see) as if Mr. S. spake so, that it is to be understood _disjunctively, _meaning, he would _either _have given some certain rule to the church who admit them, or else to the persons themselves: so that by one means or other, the _Lord’s supper might be restrained to converted men. _And he exclaims against me for representing as though Mr. Stoddard’s argument were concerning a _certain rule, whereby those who are to admit them, may know whether they have grace, _(see the foregoing page,) and speaks of it as nothing akin to Mr. S.‘s argument. Now let the reader take notice of Mr. S.‘s words, and see whether his argument be not something _akin _to this. He says expressly, (_Appeal, _p. 75.) “God does not bind his church to impossibilities. If he had made such an ordinance, he would give gifts to his church, to distinguish sincere men from hypocrites, whereby the ordinance might have been attended.—The _minor _is also evident: he has given no such rule to his church, whereby it may be restrained to converted men. This appears, because by the rule that they are to go by, they are allowed to give the Lord’s supper to many unconverted men. For all visible signs are common to men converted, and unconverted.” So that Mr. S. in fact does say, If sanctifying grace be necessary to a person’s lawful partaking of the Lord’s supper, then God would have given some certain rule, whereby the church [those who are to admit them] may know,” whether they have grace, or not. Though Mr. W. denies it, and says, this is nothing akin to Mr. S.‘s argument; contrary to the plainest fact.

In p. 99. Mr. W. replying to my answer to the sixth objection, misrepresents Mr. _Hudson, _in the following passage. “This, (_i. e. _baptism,) says Mr. _Hudson, _makes them members of the body of Christ. And as for a particular explicit covenant, besides the general imposed on churches, I find no mention of it, no example, nor warrant for it, in all the Scripture.”—Here Mr. W. is still manifestly endeavouring to discredit my doctrine of an explicit owning the covenant of grace; and he so manages and alters Mr. Hudson’s words, as naturally leads the reader to suppose, that Mr. _Hudson _speaks against this: whereas, he says not a word about it. What Mr. H. speaks of, is not an explicit owning the covenant of grace, or baptismal covenant; but a _particular church-covenant, _by which a particular society bind themselves explicitly, one to another, jointly to carry on the public worship. Mr. _Hudson’s _words are, (p. 19.) “I dare not make a particular explicit holy covenant to be the form of a particular church, as this description seemeth to do; because I find no mention of any such covenant, besides the general imposed on churches, nor example, nor warrant for it, in all the Scripture.” And then afterwards Mr. _Hudson _says, “but it is the general covenant sealed by _baptism, _and not this, that makes them members of the body of Christ.”—Mr. W. by citing distant passages in Mr. _Hudson, _and joining them, in his own way, by particles and conjunctions, which Mr. _Hudson _does not use, and leading out these words—To be the form of a particular church, as this description seemeth to do,—quite blinds the mind of his reader, as to Mr. _Hudson’s _true sense, which is nothing to Mr. W.‘s purpose.—Mr. _Hudson _says not a word here against, or about an _express or explicit covenanting, _or owning the covenant in my sense: but in other places, in the same book, he speaks of it, and for it., as necessary for all _Christians. _Thus, (p. 69. b. c.) “There is one individual express, eternal covenant; not only on God’s part,—but also it is one external, visible covenant, on men’s part; which _all Christians, _as Christians, _enter into, _by their professed acceptance, and express restipulation, and promised subjection and obedience; though not altogether in one place, or at one time.” He speaks again to the same purpose, p. 100.

SECT. III.

_Instances of the third thing observed in Mr. W.‘s manner of arguing, viz. His pretending to oppose and answer arguments, by saying things which have no reference to them, but relate to other matters, perfectly foreign to the subject of the argument. _

Such is his answer (p. 37, &c.) to my argument from Isa. lvi. Particularly from those words, Isaiah lvi. 6, 7. “Also the sons, of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants,—even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer,” &c. For I say nothing under that argument, (as Mr. W. in his answer presumes,) which supposes any _antithesis _or opposition here between the state of the Gentiles and eunuchs under the Old Testament, and under the gospel, as to terms of acceptance with God: nor any opposition, as to a greater necessity of sanctifying grace, to the lawful partaking of ordinances, under the gospel, than under the law; as Mr. W. also supposes in his arguings on this head. But the _opposition _I speak of, as plainly pointed forth in the chapter, is this: That whereas under the law, _not only _piety of heart and practice were required, but something else, even soundness of body and circumcision, it is foretold, that under the gospel, piety of heart and practice _only _should be required; that although they were eunuchs or uncircumcised, yet if it appeared that they _loved the name of the Lord, _&c. they should be admitted.

So when I argued, that Christ, in the latter part of the 7th chap. of Matt.. representing the final issue of things, with regard to the visible church in general, speaks of all as those who had looked on themselves to be interested in him as their Lord and Saviour, and had an opinion of their good estate; though the hope of some was built on the _sand, _and others on a rock:—Mr. W. in his reply, (p. 40, 41.) entirely overlooks the argument, and talks about other things. He says, Christ does not find fault with those that cried, Lord, Lord, for entering into covenant, but for not keeping covenant, (p. 41. b.) Here he runs back to another thing, relating to another argument, to which this has no reference, which he dwells wholly upon; and says nothing to the argument I use in that place.

So in his reply to what I say on the parable of the _wheat and tares, _(p. 98, &c.) he has entirely overlooked the argument. He says, to vindicate the objection, (p. 99.) “Which we think shows us the mind and will of Christ in this matter is, that his servants shall proceed only on certain established rules of his visible kingdom, and not upon any private rules of judging about them.”—Whereas, I never said, or supposed, that Christ’s servants must not _proceed on certain established rules of his visible kingdom, _or that they ought to go upon any private rules of judging; but particularly and largely expressed my mind to the contrary, in explaining the question; (_Inq. p. _5.) “That it is properly a visibility to the eye of the _public _charity, and not of a _private _judgment, that gives a right to be received as visible saints by the public.” And repeat the same thing again, p. 125. c. d.

And as to what Mr. W. says in this place about _infants _being _born in the church, _it entirely diverts the reader to another point (which I shall hereafter particularly consider) wholly distinct from the subject of the argument; which is about rules _of admission into the church, _whenever they are admitted. If persons are born in the church in complete standing, as Mr. W. supposes, then they are not _admitted _at all, but in their _ancestors. _But, however, the question returns, whether ancestors that are _unsanctified, _can have a lawful right to come into the church? Mr. W. holds they may. The subject of the argument is about _bringing in _tares into the field, _whenever they are brought in, _whether sooner or later; and whether _tares _have a lawful right, by warrant from Christ, to be in the field; supposing this to intend the church of Christ. The argument I produced to the contrary was, that the tares were introduced contrary to the owner’s design, through men’s infirmity and Satan’s procurement. Which argument, being entirely overlooked by my opponent, I desire it may be now particularly considered.

When the _devil _brought in the _tares, _it is manifest, he brought in something that did not belong there; and therein counteracted the owner of the field, and did it under that very notion of crossing his design. _An enemy _(says the parable) _hath done this. _But how does this consist with the tares having a lawful right, by the owner’s warrant and appointment, to have a standing in his field? If Christ by his institution has, in mercy to unsanctified men, given them a lawful right to come into the church, that it may be a means of their conversion; then it is a work of his kindness, as the compassionate Redeemer of souls, to bring them in; and not the doing of the great _enemy _and destroyer of souls. If the great Physician of souls has built his church, as an infirmary, in compassion to those that are sick, for this end, that they may be brought in and healed there; shall it be said with surprise, when such are found there, How came those sick people here? And shall the compassionate Physician, who built the hospital, make answer, An enemy hath done this?

Besides, if Christ has appointed that unsanctified men should come into the church, in order to their conversion, it would be an instance of the faithfulness of his servants to bring in such. But the bringing in tares into the field, is not represented as owing to the faithfulness and watchfulness of the servants; but on the contrary, is ascribed to their sleepiness and remissness. They were brought in while they slept, who ought to have done the part of watchmen, in keeping them out, and preventing the designs of the subtle enemy that brought them in.—Perhaps some would be ready to make the reflection that those churches whose practice is agreeable to the loose principles Mr. W. espouses, do that at noon-day, in the presence of God, angels, and men, which the devil did in the dead of the night, while men slept!

Again, Mr. W. in his reply to my argument from that _christian brotherly love, _which is required towards all members of the visible church, goes entirely off from the argument, to things quite alien from it. His first answer (p. 69. c.) is, that the exercise of this christian love is not the term of communion or admission into the visible church: which is perfectly foreign to the business. For the argument respects _the object _of this love, _viz. _visible saints, that are to be thus beloved; and not at all the qualifications of the _inherent subject _of it, or the _person that exercises this love. _If they that are admitted, are to be loved _as true saints, _or for _the image of Christ appearing in them, or supposed to be in them, _(as Mr. W. allows (p. 68. c.) then it will follow, that none are to be admitted, but such as can reasonably be the objects of christian love, or be loved _as true saints, _and as those who _have the image of Christ appearing in them. _Whether the exercise of this love be the term of communion, or not; yet if we are commanded to exercise this love to all that are admitted to communion, then it will certainly follow, that some reasonable ground for being thus beloved, must be a term of communion in such as a are admitted. To suppose it appointed, that we should love all that are admitted as true saints, and yet that it is not appointed that such as are admitted should exhibit any reasonable grounds for such a love, is certainly to suppose very inconsistent appointments. “The apostles looked on all those, whom they gathered into churches or christian congregations to eat the Lord’s supper, as having the truth dwelling in them: and so they behoved, every one of them, to look upon one another: seeing they could not love one another as brethren in the truth, without acknowledging that truth as dwelling in them. And so we see the apostles, in their writings to the churches, supposing all their members objects of this brotherly love.—Christ’s visible church then is the congregation of those whom the apostle could call the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus.”—Glass’s Notes on Scripture Texts, Numb. 5. p. 32.

Mr. W.‘s second answer (p. 70. b.) is no less impertinent; _viz. That men’s right to communion in gospel-ordinances does not depend upon the corruptions of other men, _in their forbearing to love them. As if my argument were, that unless men are _actually loved, _as true saints, they have no right to communion! Whereas, the argument was very diverse, _viz. _That unless men have _a right to be so loved, _they have no right to communion. If men have an appearance, to reason, of being true saints, they may have a right to be loved as true saints, and to be admitted as such; however corrupt and void of love other men are: but without such an appearance to reason, it is no corruption, not to love them as true saints; unless it be corrupt, not to act without reason. A good argument might also be drawn from the corruption of unsanctified men; for that they are all sounder the power of corruption, that they are not able to love saints, or any one else, with truly christian love. Agreeable to what Mr. Stoddard says in his three sermons, (p. 40 ) “Men are obliged to love their neighbours as themselves. But no natural men do in any measure live up to this rule; but men are great enemies one to another, hateful and hating one another. They do but little good one to another: they do a great deal of hurt one to another.” Now is it reasonable to suppose, that such men have the proper qualifications, by divine institution, for a lawful right to be members of the visible family of God? —As to Mr. W.’s third answer, and the misrepresentation it is built upon, it has already been taken notice of.

In Mr. W.‘s reply to my answer to the first objection, (p. 81, &c.) he wholly leaves the argument, and writes in support and defence of other matters, quite different from those which I mentioned, or had any concern with. The objection which I mentioned, and which had been much insisted on by some against my opinion, was, That church-members are called disciples, or scholars; a name, that gives us a notion of the visible church as a school; and leads us to suppose, that all who profess that sort of faith and sincerity, which implies a disposition to seek christian learning and spiritual attainments, are qualified for admission. But Mr. W. says nothing at all in support of this objection. In answer to it, I endeavoured to show, that the name disciples given to church-members, does not argue that unsanctified persons are fit to be members. He says nothing to show that it does. He says, if it will not follow from Christ’s visible church being represented as Christ’s school, that it is in order to _all _good attainments; _yet it is in order to all that they have not yet attained. _Which is nothing to the purpose, but foreign to the thing in debate, _viz. Whether sanctifying grace is one of those things which are not yet attained by those that are lawfully in the church. _He there says nothing to prove that it is; and especially to prove it from the meaning of the word, disciples; which was the argument in hand. He insists, that men may be sufficiently subject to Christ as their master and teacher, in order to be in his school or church, without grace: but then the thing to be proved, was, that church-members being called disciples makes this evident, in order to support the argument or objection I was upon: which argument is entirely neglected throughout all his discourse under this head.

So in his reply to my answer to the eleventh objection, (p. 123, &c.) he wholly neglects the argument, and labours to support a different one. I endeavoured, without concerning myself about the words of any argument in Mr. Stoddard’s _Appeal, _to answer an argument abundantly used at Northampton against my doctrine, of unsanctified men not having a right to come to the Lord’s supper; which was this, “You may as well say, that unsanctified men may not attend any other duty of worship:” and particularly, “You may as well forbid them to pray.”—As for Mr. S.‘s objection, in these words, “If unsanctified men may attend all other ordinances or duties of worship, then they may lawfully attend the Lord’s supper;” it was an argument I was not obliged to attend to in the words in which he delivered it, because it was not an argument brought against _my _scheme of things, but one very diverse: since it is not my opinion, that unsanctified men may attend all other ordinances, or duties of worship, besides the Lord’s supper; for I do not suppose, such may offer themselves to baptism; which Mr. S. takes for granted, in his argument. And therefore what Mr. W. says in support of it, is quite beside the business. As to the argument I was concerned with, taken especially from the lawfulness of unsanctified men _praying, _to prove, that therefore it must be lawful for them to come to the Lord’s supper, certainly if there be any consequence in it, the consequence depends on the truth of this supposition, that the same thing which makes it lawful for a man to pray, _also makes it lawful for him to come to the Lord’s supper. _And seeing this position is proved to be not true, the argument falls to the ground. And Mr. W.‘s nice observations and distinctions, of a _non obstante, _and a _simply and per se, _are nothing to the purpose.

This good reason (with several others) may be given, why the same that makes it lawful for a man to pray and hear the word, will not make it lawful for him to partake of sacraments, _viz. _that the sacraments are not only duties, but _covenant privileges, _and are never lawfully given or received but under that notion. Whereas, it is not so with prayer and hearing the word: and therefore they who have no interest in the _covenant of grace, _and are in no respect God’s _covenant people, _may lawfully hear the word and pray. But it is agreed on all hands, that they who are not in some respect God’s _covenant people, _may not come to sacraments: and the reason is this, because sacraments are _covenant privileges. _And this same reason will prove, that none but true believers, or those that have saving faith, the only condition of the _covenant of grace, _have a right to sacraments. For, as was observed before, the condition of any covenant is the condition of all the benefits or privileges of that covenant. (See Part II. sect. 8.)

SECT. IV.

_The fourth thing observed in Mr. W.‘s method of managing the controversy, particularly considered, viz. His advancing new and extraordinary notions, not only manifestly contrary to truth, but also to the common and received principles of the christian church. _

Thus it is with regard to many things which have already been taken notice of. As, that men may be ungodly, and yet truly profess to love God more than the world; that men may be professors of religion and have no true grace, and yet not be lukewarm, but serve God as their only master; that such may profess to be subject to Christ with all their hearts, and to give up all their hearts and lives to Christ, and speak true, &c. &c.

I shall now take notice of another remarkable instance, _viz. _That Mr. W. in his reply to my argument from the epithets and characters given by the apostles to the members of visible christian churches, in their epistles, represents, (p. 56. d.) That there “is no difference in all the epithets and characters, which I had heaped up from the New Testament“ from those that are given in the Old Testament, to the whole body of the Jewish church; which he elsewhere abundantly suppose to be the whole body of the Jewish nation; yea, even in their _worst _times, till the nation was rejected and cast off by God from being any longer his people; as I shall have occasion particularly to observe afterwards.

That it may be the more easily judged, how manifestly this is contrary to truth, I shall here repeat some of those _epithets _and _characters _I before mentioned, to which Mr. W. has reference. This is very manifest concerning most of them; but that I may not be tedious, I will now rehearse but a few instances: _viz. _Being “made free from sin, and becoming the servants of righteousness;” Having “the spirit of adoption:” Being “the children of God, heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ:” Being “vessels of mercy, prepared unto glory:” Being such “as do not live to themselves, nor die to themselves; but live to the Lord, and die unto the Lord;” and who “living and dying are the Lord’s:” Being those that have “all things for theirs, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; because they are Christ’s”: Being “begotten through the gospel:” Being such as “shall judge the world:” Being “washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God:” Being “manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but by the Spirit or the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart:” Being such as “behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and are changed into the same image, from glory to glory:” Being “chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without blame before him in love; and predestinated unto the adoption of children:” Being “sealed by that holy spirit of promise:” Being “quickened, though once dead in trespasses and sins:” Being “made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:” Being “dead, and having their life hid with Christ in God;” and being those who, “when Christ who is our life shall appear, shall also appear with him in glory; having put off the old man with his deeds, and having put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him:” Being “begotten again to a living hope—to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for them; who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation; who love Christ, though they have not seen him; in whom, though now they see him not, yet believing, they rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; having purified their souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit; knowing him that is from the beginning; having their sins forgiven; having overcome the wicked one; having an unction from the Holy One, by which they know all things; who are now the sons of God; and who, when Christ shall appear, shall be like him, because they shall see him as he is.”

Now let the christian reader judge, with what face of reason our author could represent as though there were nothing in all these epithets and characters, more than used of old to be given to the whole nation of the _Jews, _and that even in times of their greatest corruption and apostacy, till the nation was rejected of God! One would think, there is no need of arguing the matter with any that have read the Bible.

This representation of Mr. W.‘s is not only very contrary to truth, but also to the common sentiments of the _christian church. _Though I pretend not to be a person of great reading, yet I have read enough to warrant this assertion. I never yet (as I remember) met with any author that went the same length in this matter with Mr. W. but Mr. Taylor, of _Norwich, _in _England, _the author who lately has been so famous for his corrupt doctrine. In his piece which he calls _A Key to the Apostolic Writings, _where he delivers his scheme of religion, (which seems scarcely so agreeable to the christian scheme, as the doctrine of many of the wiser heathen,) he delivers the same opinion, and insists largely upon it; it being a main thing to establish his whole scheme. And it evidently appears, in the manner of his delivering it, that he is sensible it is exceeding far from what has hitherto been the commonly received sentiment in the christian world. He supposes that as all those epithets and characters belong to the whole nation of the _Jews, _even in their most corrupt times, so they belong to all c_hristendom, _even the most vicious parts of it; that the most vicious men, who are baptized, and profess to believe Jesus to be the _Messiah, _are “chosen before the foundation of the world, predestinated according to the foreknowledge of God, regenerated, justified, sanctified, children of God, heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ, the spouse of Christ, the temple of God, made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ, being the family of heaven,” &c. &c. And certainly he may with as good reason, and with the same reason, suppose this of all c_hristendom, _even the most vicious parts of it, as of the whole nation of the _Jews, _however corrupt, till there was a national rejection of them.

Indeed, it is manifest there is no other way of evading the force of the argument from the epistles, but by falling into Taylor’s scheme. If his scheme of religion be not true, then it is plain as any fact in the New Testament, that all the christian churches, through the whole earth, in the apostles’ days, were constituted in the manner that I insist on. The Scripture says ten times as much to demonstrate this matter, as it does about the manner of discipline, officers and government of the church, or about the several parts of the public worship, or the sanctification of the christian sabbath.

SECT. V.

_Instances of the fifth and sixth particulars, in Mr. W.‘s method of disputing, viz. his using confident and peremptory assertions, and great exclamations, instead of arguments. _

We have an instance of the former, in his reply to my answer to the 14th objection, _viz. _That _it is not unlawful for unsanctified men to carry themselves like saints. _I objected against this, if thereby be meant, that they may lawfully carry themselves externally like saints in all respects, remaining ungodly; and mentioned some things which belonged to the external duty of godly men, which no ungodly man, remaining such, may do. To which Mr. W. makes no reply; but to prove the point says, “Mr. St—d knew, and all divines know, That the external carriage of some unsanctified men _is _to the outward appearance, and the public judgment of the church, the same with the carriage of the saints; and they know they are _bound _to such a behaviour.” And this peremptory confident assertion is all the argument he brings to prove the thing asserted.

Again, I observe, that sometimes Mr. W. uses _great exclamation, _as though he intended to alarm, and excite terror in his readers, and raise their indignation; though they are perhaps never likely to know _for what. _We have two very remarkable instances of this, (p. 136 and 137.) where he says, “I shall further take notice of two _extraordinary _and _surprising _passages, if I understand them. And I have with great diligence tried to find out the meaning of them. One is p. 129. between the 17th and 23d lines; if it be rightly printed.”—He does not quote my words; this mighty exclamation would have become too flat, and appeared ridiculous, if he had.—The passage referred to is in these words—“Indeed such a tendency (i. _e. _a tendency to irreligion and profaneness) it would have, to shut men out from having any part in the Lord, in the sense of the two tribes and half, Josh. xxii. 25. or to fence them out by such a partition-wall, as formerly was between Jews and Gentiles; and so to shut them out as to tell them, if they were never so much disposed to serve God, he was not ready to accept them: according to the notion the Jews seem to have had of the uncircumcised Gentiles.” That is, plainly to shut them out so as to tell them, that let them have hearts never so well and piously disposed to love and serve God, their love and service could not be accepted.—This doubtless would have a tendency to discourage religion in men. And how the owning of it, is an owning my scheme to have such a tendency, I do not know. Mr. W. might as well have picked out any other sentence through all the 136 pages of the book, and called it an _extraordinary postage, _and stood astonished over it, and told how he was ready to doubt whether it was _rightly printed, _and what _great diligence _he had used to find out the meaning of it!

The other extraordinary passage he stands thunderstruck with, is in these words; “May it not be suspected, that this way of baptizing the children of such as never make any proper profession of godliness, is an expedient originally invented for that very end, to give ease to ancestors with respect to their posterity, in times of great declension and degeneracy?”—Mr. W. knows, that through the whole of my book I suppose, this practice of baptizing the children of such as are here spoken of, is wrong; and so does _he _too; for he abundantly allows, that persons in order to be admitted to the privileges of visible saints, must make a profession of real piety, or gospel-holiness. And if it be wrong, as we are both agreed, then surely it is nothing akin to blasphemy, to suspect that it arose from some bad cause.

SECT. VI.

Instances of the seventh particular observed in Mr. W’s way of disputing, viz. His wholly overlooking arguments, pretending there is no argument, nothing to answer;_ when the case is far otherwise._

Thus in his reply to my tenth argument, which was this, “It is necessary, that those who partake of the Lord’s supper, should judge themselves truly and cordially to accept of Christ as their Saviour, and chief good; for this is what the actions, which communicants perform at the Lord’s table, are a solemn profession of.” I largely endeavoured (in p. 75, 76, and 77.) to prove this, from the nature of those significant actions, of receiving the symbols of Christ’s body and blood when offered, representing their accepting the thing signified, as their spiritual food, &c. To all which Mr. W. says,(p. 74. a.) “I do not find that Mr. Edwards has said any thing to prove the proposition, which is the whole argument offered here in proof of the point proposed to be proved, but only gives his opinion, or paraphrase, of the purport and nature of the sacramental actions.”—Since Mr. W. esteems us it no argument, I desire it may be considered impartially whether there be any argument in it or no.

These sacramental actions all allow to be _significant _actions: they are a signification and profession of something: they are not actions without a meaning. And all allow, that these external actions signify something _inward _and _spiritual. _And if they signify any thing spiritual, they doubtless signify those spiritual things which they _represent. _But what _inward _thing does the outward taking or accepting the body and blood of Christ represent, but the _inward _accepting Christ’s body and blood, or an accepting him in the heart? And what _spiritual _thing is the outward feeding on Christ in this ordinance a sign of, but a _spiritual _feeding on Christ, or the soul’s feeding on him? Now there is no other way of the soul’s feeding on him, but by that _faith, _by which Christ becomes our spiritual food, and the refreshment and vital nourishment of our souls. The _outward eating and drinking _in this ordinance is a sign of _spiritual eating and drinking, _as much as the _outward bread _in this ordinance is a sign of spiritual bread; or as much as the _outward drink _is a sign of _spiritual drink. _And doubtless those actions, if they are a profession of any thing at all, are a profession of the things they signify. Mr. Stoddard owns, that the sacramental actions, both in baptism and the Lord’s supper, signify saving faith in Christ. Safety of App. p. 120. “By baptism is signified our fellowship with Christ in his sufferings. That is signified hereby, that we have an interest in the virtue of his sufferings, that his sufferings are made over unto us, and that we do participate in the good and benefit of them.——It was John the Baptist’s manner, before he baptized persons, to teach them that they must believe on Christ. And the apostles and apostolical men would not baptize any adult persons but such as professed to believe on Christ—He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. Baptism is mentioned as the evidence of faith.”—So concerning the Lord’s supper, ibid. p. 122. e. 123. a. “In this ordinance we are invited to put our trust in the death of Christ Take, eat: this is my body: and drink ye all of it. When the body feeds on the sacramental bread and wine, the soul is to do that which answers unto it. The soul is to feed on Christ crucified; which is nothing else but the acting faith on him.” To say, that these significant actions are appointed to be a _profession _of something, but not to be a profession of the _things _they are appointed to _signify, _is as unreasonable as to say, that certain sounds or words are appointed to be a profession of something, but not to be a profession of the things signified by those words.

Again, Mr. W. in his reply to my answer to the _second objection, _with like contempt passes over the main argument which I offered, to prove that the nation of _Israel _were called _God’s people, _and _covenant people, _in another sense besides a being visible saints. My argument (in p. 85, 86.) was this: That it is manifest, something diverse from being visible saints, is often intended by that nation being called G_od’s people, _and that the family of _Israel according to the flesh—_not with regard to any moral and religious qualifications—were in some sense adopted by God, to be his peculiar and covenant people; from Rom. ix. 3, 4, 5.—“I could wish myself accursed from Christ for my brethren according to the flesh; who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, “ &c. I observed, that these privileges are spoken of as belonging to the _Jews, _not now as visible saints, not as professors of the true religion, not as members of the visible church of Christ, (which they did not belong to,) but only as a people of such a nation, such a blood, such an external carnal relation to the patriarchs, their ancestors; Israelites according to the flesh: inasmuch as the apostle is speaking here of the _unbelieving Jews, _professed unbelievers, that were out of the christian church, and open visible enemies to it; and such as had no right at all to the external privileges of Christ’s people.—I observed further, that in like manner this apostle in Rom. xi. 28, 29. speaks of the same _unbelieving Jews, _that were enemies to the gospel, as in some respect an elect people, and interested in the calling, promises, and covenants, God formerly gave their forefathers, and are still beloved for their sakes. “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”

All that Mr. W. says, which has any reference to these things, is, “That he had read my explication of the name of _the people of God, _as given to the people of _Israel, _&c. But that he confesses, it is perfectly unintelligible to him. “The impartial reader is left to judge, whether the matter did not require some other answer.

SECT. VII.

What is, and what is not, begging the question;_ and how Mr. W. charges me, from time to time, with begging the question, without cause._

Among the particulars of Mr. W.‘s method of disputing, I observed, that he often causelessly charges me with begging the question, while he frequently begs the question himself, or does that which is equivalent.

But that it may be determined with justice and clearness, who does, and who does not, beg the question, I desire it may be particularly considered, what that is which is called _begging the question _in a dispute.—This is more especially needful for the sake of illiterate readers. And here,

1. Let it be observed, that merely to suppose something in a dispute, without bringing any argument to prove it, is not begging the question: for this is done necessarily, in every dispute, and even in the best and clearest demonstrations. One point is proved by another, till at length the matter is reduced to a point that is supposed to need no proof; either because it is self-evident, or is a thing wherein both parties are agreed, or so clear that it is supposed it will not be denied.

2. Nor is begging the question the same thing as offering a weak argument, to prove the point in question. It is not all weak arguing, but one _particular way _of weak arguing, that is called begging the question.

3. Nor is it the same thing as _missing the true question, _and bringing an argument that is impertinent, or beside the question.

But the thing which is called _begging the question, _is the making use of the very point in debate, or the thing to be proved, as an argument to prove itself. Thus, if I were endeavouring to prove that none but godly persons might come to sacraments, and should take this for an argument to prove it, that none might come but such as have saving faith, taking this for granted; I should then beg the question: for this is the very point in question, whether a man must have saving faith or no? It is called begging the question, because it is a depending as it were on the courtesy of the other side, to grant me the point in question, without offering any argument as the price of it.

And whether the point I thus take for granted, be the main point in question, in the general dispute, or some subordinate point, something under consideration, under a particular argument; yet if I take this particular point for granted, and then make use of it to prove itself, it is begging the question.

Thus if I were endeavouring, under this general controversy between Mr. W. and me, to prove that particular point, that we ought to love all the members of the church as true saints; and should bring this as a proof of the point, that we ought to love all the members of the church as true Christians, taking this for granted; this is only the same thing, under another term, as the thing to be proved; and therefore is no argument at all, but only begging the question.

Or if the point I thus take for granted, and make use of as an argument, be neither the general point in controversy, nor yet the thing nextly to be proved under a particular argument; yet if it be some known controverted point between the parties, it is begging the question, or equivalent to it: for it is begging a thing known to be in question in the dispute, and using it as if it were a thing allowed.

I would now consider the instances, wherein Mr. W. asserts or suggests that I have begged the question.

In p. 30. _d. e. _and 31. _a. b. _he represents the force of my reasoning as built on a supposition, that there is no unsanctified man, but what knows he has no desire of salvation by Christ, no design to fulfil the covenant of grace, but designs to live in stealing, lying, adultery,—or some other known sin: and then says, “Is it not manifest, that such sort of reasoning is a mere quibbling with words, and begging the question?” And so insinuates, that I have thus begged the question. Whereas, I nowhere say or suppose this which he speaks of, nor any thing like it. But on the contrary, often say, what supposes an unsanctified man may think he is truly godly, and that he has truly upright and gracious designs and desires.—Nor does any argument of mine depend on any such supposition. Nay, under the argument he speaks of, I expressly suppose the contrary, _viz. _That unsanctified men who visibly enter into covenant, may be deceived.

In p. 38. _a. _Mr. W. makes a certain representation of my arguing from Isaiah lvi. and then says upon it, “It is no arguing, but only begging the question.” But as has been already shown, that which he represents as my argument from that scripture, has no relation to my argument.

In p. 59. in opposition to my arguing from the Epistles, that the apostles treated those members of churches which they wrote to, as those who had been received on a positive judgment, _i.e. _(as I explain myself,) a proper and affirmative opinion, that they were real saints; Mr. W. argues, that the apostles could make no such judgment of them, without either personal converse, or revelation; unless it be supposed to be founded on a presumption, that ministers who baptized them, would not have done it, unless they had themselves made such a positive judgment concerning their state: and then adds these words, This may do for this scheme, but only it is a begging the question. Whereas, it is a point that never has been in question in this controversy, as ever I knew, whether _some ministers or churches _might reasonably and affirmatively suppose, the members of _other churches _they are united with, were admitted on evidence of proper qualifications, (whatever they be, whether common or saving,) trusting to the faithfulness of other ministers and churches. Besides, this can be no point in question between me and Mr. W. unless it be a point in question between him and himself. For he holds, as well as I, that persons ought not to be received as visible Christians, without moral evidence (which is something positive, and not a mere negation of evidence of the contrary) of gospel-holiness.

In p. 82. of my book I suppose, that none at all do truly subject themselves to Christ as their master, but those who graciously subject themselves to him, and are delivered from the reigning power of sin. Mr. W. suggests, (p. 83. d.) that herein I beg the question. For which there is no pretext, not only as this is no known point in controversy between the parties in this debate; but also as it is a point I do not take for granted, but offer this argument to prove it, that they who have no grace, _are under the reigning power of sin, _and no man can truly subject himself to two such contrary masters, at the same time, as Christ and sin. I think this argument sufficient to obtain the point, without begging it. And besides, this doctrine, that they who have no grace do not truly subject themselves to Christ, was no point in question between me and Mr. W. But a point wherein we were fully agreed, and wherein he had before expressed himself as fully, and more fully, than I. In his sermons on _Christ a King and Witness, _(p. 18. b.) he speaks of all such as do not depend on Christ, believe in him, and give up themselves and all to him, as not true subjects to Christ; but enemies to him, and his kingdom. We have expressions to the same purpose again, in p. 74. and 91. and in p. 94. _d. e. _of the same book, he says, “It is utterly inconsistent with the nature of the obedience of the gospel, that it should be a _forced subjection.—_No man is a _subject _of Christ, who does not make the laws and will of Christ his choice, and desire to be governed by him, and to live in subjection to the will of Christ, as _good _and _fit, _and _best _to be the rule of his living, and _way to his happiness. A _forced obedience to Christ is _no obedience. It is in terms a contradiction. _Christ draws men with the cords of love, and the bands of a man. Our Lord has himself expressly determined this point. There are other passages in the same book to the same purpose. So that I had no need to beg this point of Mr. W. since he had given it largely, and that in full measure, and over and over again, without begging.

In p. 120. b. he observes, ” That to say, such a profession of internal invisible things is the rule to direct the church in admission,—is to hide the parallel, and beg the question. For the question here is about the persons’ right to come, and not about the church’s admitting them.” Here Mr. W. would make us believe, that he does not know what begging the question is: for it is evident, his meaning is, that my saying so is _beside the question. _But to say something beside the question, is a different thing from begging the question, as has been observed. My saying, that _a profession of invisible things _is the church’s rule in admission, is not begging the question: because it is not, nor ever was, any thing in question. For Mr. S. and Mr. W. himself are full in it, that a profession of _invisible things, _such as a believing that Christ is the Son of God, &c. is the church’s rule. Yea, Mr. W. is express in it, that a credible profession and visibility of _gospel-holiness _is the church’s rule, p. 139. Nor is my saying as above, _beside the question then, in hand, _relating to the church of Israel admitting to the priesthood, those that could not find their register. For that wholly relates to the rule of admission to the priesthood, and not to the priests’ _assurance of their own right. _For, as I observed, if the priests had been never so fully assured of their pedigree, yet if they could not demonstrate it to others, by a public register, it would not have availed for their admission.

Again, in p. 124. _e. _Mr. W. charges me with begging the question, in supposing that sacraments are duties of worship whose very nature and design is an exhibition of those vital and active principles and inward exercises, wherein consists the condition of the covenant of grace. He charges the same thing as a begging the question, p. 131. _d.—_But this is no begging the question, for two reasons; (1.) Because I had before proved this point, by proofs which Mr. W. has not seen cause to attempt to answer, as has been just now observed, in the last section. (2.) This, when I wrote, was no point in question, wherein Mr. W. and I differed; but wherein we were agreed, and in which he had declared himself as fully as I, in his sermons on Christ a King and Witness; p. 76. c. “When we attend sacraments (says he) we are therein visibly to profess our receiving Christ, and the graces of his Spirit, and the benefits of his redemption, on his own terms and offer, and giving up the all of our souls to him, on his call, covenant, and engagement.” And in the next preceding page but one, in a place forecited, he speaks of these acts “as mockery, hypocrisy, falsehood, and lies, if they are not the expressions of faith and hope, and spiritual acts of obedience.” So that I had no manner of need to come to Mr. W. as a beggar for these things, which he had so plentifully given me, and all the world that would accept them, years before.

SECT. VIII.

_Showing how Mr. W. often begs the question himself. _

The question is certainly begged in that argument which Mr. W. espouses and defends, _viz. _That the Lord’s supper has a proper tendency to promote men’s conversion. In the prosecution of the argument Mr. W. implicitly yields, that it is not the apparent natural tendency alone, that is of any force to prove the point; but the apparent tendency under this circumstance, _that there in no express prohibition. _And thus it is allowed, that in the case of express prohibition with respect to the scandalous and morally insincere, no seeming tendency in the nature of the thing proves the ordinance to be intended for the conviction and conversion of such. So that it is a thing supposed in this argument, that all morally insincere persons are expressly forbidden, but unsanctified persons not so. Now when it is supposed, that morally insincere persons are expressly forbidden, the thing meant cannot be, that they are forbidden in those very words; for no such prohibition is to be found: nor are men that live in sodomy, bestiality, and witchcraft, any where expressly forbidden in this sense. But the thing intended must be, that they are very evidently forbidden, by plain implication, or consequence. But then the whole weight of the argument lies in this _supposition, _that unsanctified persons are not also plainly and evidently forbidden; which is the very point in question. And therefore to make this the ground of an argument to prove this point, is a manifest _begging the question. _And what Mr. W. says to the contrary, (p. 127. a.) that Mr. Stoddard had proved this point before, avails nothing: for let it be never so much proved before, yet, after all, to take this very point and make use of it _as a further argument _to prove itself, is certainly _begging the question. _The notion of bringing a new argument is bringing additional proof: but to take a certain point, supposed to be already proved, to prove itself with over again, certainly does not add any thing to the evidence.

Mr. W. says, my supposing _unconverted _persons, as such, to be as evidently forbidden, as _scandalous _persons, is as much begging the question. I answer, So it would be, if I made that point an argument to prove itself with, after Mr. W.’s manner. But this is far from being the case in fact.

And the question is again most certainly begged, in that other thing said to support this argument, _viz. _That though the Lord’s supper may seem to have a tendency to convert scandalous sinners, yet there is another ordinance appointed for that. Here the meaning must be, that there is another ordinance _exclusive _of the Lord’s supper; otherwise it is nothing to the purpose. For they do not deny but that there are other ordinances for the conversion of sinners, who are morally sincere, as well as of those who are scandalous. But the question is, Whether other ordinances are appointed for their conversion _exclusive _of the Lord’s supper; or, whether the Lord’s supper be one ordinance appointed for their conversion? This is the grand point _in question. _And to take this point as the foundation of an argument, to prove this same point, is plainly begging the question. And it is also giving up the argument from the tendency, and resting the whole argument on another thing.

Mr. W. again plainly begs the question in his reply, (p. 127. c. d.) That God’s prohibition is an argument, that God saw there was no such tendency for their conversion. His so saying supposes again, that there is no evident prohibition of unsanctified persons. In which he again flies to the very point in question, and rests the weight of his reasoning upon it.

Just in the same manner Mr. W. begs the question in espousing and making use of that argument, That all in external covenant, and neither ignorant nor scandalous, are commanded to perform all external covenant duties. Here it is supposed, that scandalous persons, (which, according to Mr. W.‘s scheme, must include all that have not moral sincerity,) though in the external covenant, are expressly, that is, evidently, excepted and forbidden: and that unsanctified men are not also evidently forbidden; which is the point in question. For if unsanctified men, though in external covenant, are as evidently forbidden and excepted, as scandalous men that are in external covenant, then the argument touches not one any more than the other. So that the argument is entirely a castle in the air, resting on nothing but itself. The grand thing to be proved, first taken for granted, and then made an argument to prove itself!

In explaining the nature of _begging the question, _I observed, that it is _begging the question, _or equivalent to it, whether the point that is taken for granted, and made an argument of, be the main point in controversy, or some particular known disputed point between the controverting parties: I will now illustrate this by an example. It is a known disputed point in this controversy, whether in the parable concerning the _man without the wedding garment, _the king condemned the man for coming into the church without _grace. _Now supposing that I, because I look on the matter as very clear, should, besides using it as one distinct argument, also make it the basis of other arguments; and should use it in opposition to the strongest arguments of my opposers, as if it were sufficient to stop their mouths, without offering any proper solution of those arguments: as, in case I were pressed with the argument from the passover, if I should fly to the man without the wedding garment; and should say, It is certain, this argument from the passover can be of no force against the express word of God in the 22nd of Matt.. For there _it is plain as any fact that ever the sun shone upon, _that the king condemns the man for coming into the church without a wedding garment; and it is plain as the sun at noonday, that the wedding garment is _grace.—_And if when the argument from _Judas’s _partaking of the Lord’s supper is alleged, I should again fly to _the man without a wedding garment, _and say, whatever reasons Christ might have for admitting _Judas, _yet it is plainly revealed, in Matt. xxii. 12. that God does not approve of men coming into the church without a _wedding garment. _This would be a _beggarly _impertinent way of disputing, thus to answer one argument by throwing another in the way, which is contested, and the validity of which is denied. It is fair, that I should have liberty to use the argument concerning _the wedding garment, _in its place, and make the most of it: but to use it as the support of other arguments, is to produce no additional proof. And thus, from time to time, to produce the disputed hypothesis of one argument, for answer to the arguments of my antagonist, instead of solving those arguments, is flying and hiding from arguments, instead of answering them: instead of defending the fortress which is attacked, it is dodging and flying from one refuge to another.

Mr. W. acts this part from time to time, in the use he makes of his great argument from the _Old-Testament _church and its ordinances. Thus (in p. 8.) he takes this method to answer my argument from the nature of visibility and profession, insisting that the _Israelites _avouching and covenanting was a thing compatible with ungodliness; which he knows is a disputed point in this controversy, and what I deny.—Again, he makes use of the same thing, in answer to my argument from the nature of covenanting with God. (p. 23, 24.) And again he brings it in, (p. 25. _e. _26. a.) answering what I say, by confidently asserting that concerning the church of _Israel, _which he knows is disputed, and I deny; _viz. _That the covenanting of _Israel _did not imply a profession that they did already believe and repent: as in these words, “This was never intended nor understood, in the profession which the _Israelites _made; but that they _would _immediately and from thenceforth comply with the terms of the covenant; and by the help of God, offered in it, _would _fulfil it. I _am sure, _this was what they professed; and _I am sure, _God declared he took them into covenant with him.” And the same thing is brought in again to answer the same argument, (p. 31. c.)—The same thing is thrown in, once and again, as an answer to what I say of the unreasonableness of accepting such professions as leave room to judge the greater part of the professors to be enemies of God. (p. 34. b. c.) The same thing is cast in as a sufficient block in the way of my arguing from the unreasonableness of accepting such professions, as amount to nothing more than _lukewarmness. _(p. 36. d. e.) The same is brought in, and greatly insisted on, to stop my mouth, in arguing from the Epistles. (p. 56, 57.) The same is brought in again, to enervate my argument concerning _brotherly love. _(p. 69. d.) And this is made use of as the support of other arguments; as that from the name _disciples, _and about the church being the school of Christ; and to confute what I say, in answer to that argument. (p. 84. a.) The same is brought in as a support of the eleventh objection, and a confutation of my answer to that. (p. 125. c. d. e.) And again, in reply to what I say in answer to the nineteenth objection. (p. 137. b. c.)

Another thing, near akin to _begging the question, _is resting the weight of arguments on things asserted without proof; which, though they do not properly make a part of the controversy, yet are things not allowed by those on the other side.—Thus does Mr. W. in his arguing from the success of the Lord’s supper in the _conversion _of sinners, (p. 137,138.) Supposing, not only that the Lord’s supper has been the _occasion _of the conversion of many, but that their communicating was the _means _of it. This he offers nothing to prove, and it is not allowed by those on the other side. Thus that very eminent divine, and successful minister of Christ, the late Dr. Doddridge, in his Sermons on Regeneration, speaking of the means of regeneration (p. 251. e. 252. a.) says, “I do not mention the administration of sacraments, upon this occasion; because, though they have so noble and effectual a tendency to improve men’s minds in piety, and to promote christian edification; yet I do not remember to have heard of any instance, in which they have been the means of men’s conversion; which is the less to be wondered at, as they are appointed for a very different end.” And it is what would be very hard to prove: if many were converted _at _the Lord’s table, (which yet is not evident,) it would not prove, that their _partaking _was the means of their conversion; it might be only what they saw and heard there, which others may see and hear, that do not partake.

SECT. IX.

_Mr. W.‘s inconsistence with himself, in what he says in answer to my third and fourth arguments, and in his reply to my arguments from the Acts, and the Epistles. _

The _last _thing observed in Mr. W.‘s way of disputing, is his alleging and insisting on things wherein he is inconsistent with himself. His inconsistencies are of many sorts. Sometimes he alleges those things that are inconsistent with the doctrine of those whose principles he pretends to maintain.—He abundantly urges those things against my scheme, which are in like manner against his own. He often argues against those things which he allows, and strenuously insists on. He denies what he affirms, and affirms what he utterly denies; laying down and urging those things which are contrary to what he says in other books; and sometimes contrary to what he says in the same book. Yielding up the thing wherein the argument lies, yet strenuously maintaining the argument.—Allowing both premises and consequence, yet finding fault, and opposing. Sometimes he urges things which are contrary to what he says under _different _arguments; and sometimes contrary to what he says under the _same _argument. Sometimes he contradicts himself in the plain sense and meaning of what he says; at other times even in plain terms. Sometimes in effect contradicting himself in the same breath, and in the same sentence.

These various kinds of inconsistence have many of them been already observed. And will further appear by a particular consideration of what he says on several heads, in what remains.

In my third argument, I insisted, that it could not be much to God’s honour, for men to profess the assent of their judgment to the true religion, without pretending to any real friendship or love to God in their hearts. Mr. W. in opposition, (p. 34. d. e.) speaks of it as an honour to God, that secret hypocrites openly declare their conviction of the truth of God’s word, &c. as _in the multitude of subjects is the king’s honour. _And yet he himself represents the matter quite otherwise in his sermons on Christ a King and Witness; there (p. 87. a.) he has these words, ” to promote the kingdom of Christ, is not to do that which may prevail with men to make pretences that they are Christians, or that they own Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and to call him Lord, Lord, when really he is not so.”

In answer to my fourth argument (p. 35. d.) Mr. W. says, I make great misrepresentation of the matter, in insinuating that according to Mr. S—d’s scheme, (of which scheme he declares himself to be,) they who are admitted make a pretence of no more than moral sincerity, and common grace. And yet he insists, that when _Philip _required a profession of the _eunuch’s _faith his question designed no more than an assent of the understanding, (p. 51. a. b.) which he there distinguishes from saving faith: and says, that it is morally certain that his inquiry amounted to no more. And yet in his discourse on the same head (p. 49. c.) he inveighs against me for supposing it a consequence of the opinion of my opposers, that the _eunuch, _in order to come to sacraments, had no need to look at any such qualification in himself as saving faith.—Certainly the _eunuch _in making answer to _Philip’s _inquiry, had no need to look at _any more _than _Philip _inquired after. In p. 50. _a. _he says, “It does not seem at all probable, that _Philip _inquired any thing about the regeneration or sanctification of the eunuch.“ And yet in the next preceding sentence, he refers me over to another judgment, for representing as though my opposers supposed, that it was no matter whether a person coming to gospel-ordinances had any grace or not, and had no manner of need to inquire any thing about his sincerity.

And though he highly blames me for insinuating, as above, that my opposers require a pretence of no more than common grace and moral sincerity; yet in opposition to my insisting on a profession of saving faith, speaking of the profession which the _apostles _required, he says, (p. 58. c.) “It is certain, that a profession in these words, which was wont to be required, do sometimes import no more than a conviction of the understanding on moral evidence.” So he says concerning those whose admission into the christian church we have an account of in Acts ii. (p. 45. e.) “There is not one word said about any other faith, but believing that _Jesus _was the Messiah.“ And if so, then certainly no more was professed.

In p. 35. _e. _he allows, that all visible saints who are not truly pious, are hypocrites; and yet maintains, that the profession they make is no more than what they may make and speak honestly and truly. (p. 105. _d. _and 47. c.) How then are they all hypocrites, if they are _honestly and truly _what they profess to be?

In supporting the argument from _John’s _baptism, he insists, that the profession the people made, did _not _imply, that they had savingly repented: and that _John _openly supposed, that their profession did _not _imply it, in what he said to them. (p. 97. a. b. c.)—And (p. 98. a. b.) he says, “We read not a word of _John’s _inquiring whether these people made a credible profession of true piety.” And he there manifestly suggests, that _John _knew they were not pious, as _he knew they were a generation of vipers. _Yet how often elsewhere does Mr. W. insist, that men in order to come to sacraments _must _make a credible profession of true piety and gospel-holiness, and that they must in a judgment of charity be supposed to have real godliness?

In answer to my argument from the instance of the converts in Acts ii. Mr. W. speaking of their convictions, and being _pricked in their hearts, _(p. 45. c. d. e.) says, “They _were convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah _and Saviour, whom God had promised to _Israel,—_whereupon convinced of their sin, they cry out, What shall we do? To which the apostles reply, _Repent and be baptized,—in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.—There is not one word said about any other faith, but believing that Jesus was the Messiah.“—_And in the two next pages Mr. W. insists, that their _gladly receiving the word _can by no necessity from the text imply more, than that they now _believed that Jesus was the Messiah, _and that it was matter of joy to them that the _Messiah _was come.—So that we have this _inconsistent _account of the matter from Mr. W. that these people are first _convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, _and this is cause of _distress _to them: and they ask, what they shall do? Hereupon the apostles direct them to believe that Jesus is the Messiah; which they believed _already, _before they asked the question: but however, when they heard this, _they believed that Jesus was the Messiah. _They now found it out, as a _new _thing they did not know of before, and are _glad _at the joyful discovery; though just before they believed the same thing, and the discovery filled them with distress.

In p. 47. _b. whereas it is said concerning these new converts,—” That such were added to the church, as were the saved“—_Mr. W. says, the like appellation is given to the whole church of Israel. And in this and the foregoing page, he insists, that these converts were before _in _the church of _Israel, _and were not now _admitted, _but only _continued _as some of God’s people. But if these things were so, they were _the saved _before their conversion to Christianity, as much as after; and others that were in the _Jewish _church, that were not yet converted to Christianity, were as much _the saved _as they. And then why is their being _saved _spoken of as what was now brought to pass, and as a thing that distinguished the believing _Jews _from others?

In the same page, _c. _Mr. W. says, “we do not dispute but that the apostles _supposed _and _believed _in charity, so far as they had any thing to do to suppose or believe any thing about it, that God had given these persons saving repentance, and a heart-purifying faith.” And yet in p. 61. he speaks of the apostles as supposing the contrary of many of those that had been admitted into the primitive church; in that they speak of them, as such _temples _of God as might be destroyed: “which (says Mr. W.) cannot be true of sanctified persons, unless they can fall from grace.”

In his answer to the argument from _Philip _and the _eunuch _he supposes, that _believing with all the heart _is only such a belief of the doctrine of Christianity as _unsanctified _men may have. And yet in that forementioned place, (_Christ a King and Witness, _p. 144.) he says, a man before he is renewed by the Holy Ghost, has a view of the truth as a doubtful uncertain thing. And in the book now especially attended to, he in effect owns the thing, which he earnestly disputes against in reply to this argument. He greatly insists, that the phrase, _with all the hearty _does not signify gracious sincerity; and yet he owns it does. (p. 51. _e. _and 52. a. b.) He owns, that according to the usual way of speaking _among mankind, _both in our days, and also in the times when the Scriptures were written, “god _requires _men to give him their hearts, intending by it such a sincerity as God will own and accept; which be sure (says he) is nothing less than a gracious sincerity; which never can be, unless the whole soul and all its faculties be engaged for God.” Then afterwards adds, “But how will this any ways prove, that _when men _use the same expressions, it must necessarily be understood in the same sense?” And yet in the same breath, he had observed that god in thus using the phrase, uses it according to the usual manner of speaking among mankind. He gives this reason, why the phrase need not be understood in the same sense when used _by men, _that men are not searchers of hearts. But the argument is about the phrase as Philip put it to the eunuch’s own conscience, which was or ought to be a searcher of his heart.

And by the way I must observe, that Mr. W. would have done well, if he was able, to have reconciled these repugnant things, taken notice of in my book; “That with the heart man believeth to righteousness,” and that if men believe with the heart that God raised Christ from the dead, they shall be saved; agreeable to Rom. x. 9, 10. And yet that men may believe this with their heart, yea, and with all their heart, and still not believe to righteousness, nor ever be saved. So likewise that “whoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God;” as in 1 John iv. 15. And that ” whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God,” 1 John v. 1. And yet, that a man may believe this very thing ” with all his heart, and confess it with his mouth;” and this in the language of the same apostles and primitive ministers; and still not _be born of God, _nor have a spark of grace in him.

It may also be worthy to be considered, whether it be reasonable to suppose, that the faith which a man must profess, in order to being in the visible kingdom of _Christ, _and not in the visible kingdom of the _devil, _must not be some other sort of faith than that which the _devil _has: that seeing the very design of a public profession of religion is to declare on which side we are, whether on Christ’s, or on the devil’s, no other faith is required to be professed, than such as Satan himself has, and such as is not at all inconsistent with being a willing, cursed servant and slave of the devil, and enemy to Christ; as Mr. W. says all unsanctified men are.

Mr. W. in his reply to my argument from the _epistles, _(p. 55.) speaks of it as an _unaccountable _thing, that I should represent as if according to the principles of my opposites, the primitive Christians were not admitted under any such notion of their being really godly persons, or with any respect to such a character: So in p. 132. c. he exclaims against me thus; ” After all this, to repeat it again and again, that these persons have no visibility to reason of real, saintship, &c. I think, gives better ground to retort Mr. Edwards’s words and yet in his discourse on the same head, he abundantly insists, that it was not real holiness, but only federal holiness, which was the qualification to which the apostles had respect in admitting them; expressly, from time to time, distinguishing _federal _holiness from _real. _In p. 56. _e. _and 57. _a. _“It makes it evident (says he) that this manner of treating churches and bodies of men, and such expressions used to them and of them, are to be understood in no other sense, than to signify federal holiness.”—So in p. 60 he affirms the same thing, once and again, distinguishing _federal holiness from real. _He says, they formed no positive judgment of their real piety.—And knew nothing at all about them, but only that they were federally holy. And again, “They did not make a positive judgment, that these persons were really godly; and the high characters they gave them, and the hopes they expressed concerning them, could be understood in _no other sense _than as holding forth a federal holiness.”—So that by this, they expressed no hopes concerning any thing more than their _federal holiness, _as distinguished from _real. _And he argues earnestly, through the two next pages, that they could not be looked upon, many of them, as having _real holiness. _How does this consist with their being treated as visible saints; under the notion of their having real holiness, and from respect to such a character appearing on them? or with none being visible saints, but such as have a credible visibility of gospel-holiness?

So in p. 63. _b. _he speaks of the gross scandals of many of those to whom the apostles wrote, as an absolute proof, that they considered them only as federally holy; which he in the same place distinguishes from _real holiness. _Then how were they treated (as he insists) as those that had the character of real piety appearing on them, and as making a credible profession of gospel-holiness, and real Christianity? Which, he abundantly allows, all must make in order to being visible saints. See also p. 64. e.

In p. 58. Mr. W. insists, that it does not appear, that those who were admitted into the primitive church, made a declaration that they had saving faith, but only that they engaged to that faith.—But how does this consist with what he abundantly says elsewhere, that they must _pretend _to real piety, make a profession of gospel-holiness, exhibit moral evidence, that they have such holiness, &c.? These things are something else besides _engaging to _saving faith and gospel-holiness for the future.

SECT. X.

The unreasonableness and inconsistence of Mr. W.‘s answer to my argument from the man without a wedding garment, and concerning brotherly love, and from 1 Cor. xi. 28. and of what he says in support of the 15th objection.

Mr. W. in answering my argument from Matt. xxii. 11. allows that the _king’s house, _into which the guest came, is the visible church, (p. 43. _c. _and 44. d.) So that the man’s _coming in hither, _is his coming into the visible church. Nor does he at all dispute but that by _the wedding garment _is meant saving grace; (for truly the thing is too evident to be disputed;) and yet he says, (p. 43. b. c.) “We read nothing of Christ condemning the man for coming into the church without saving grace.” So that Mr. W.‘s answer amounts plainly to this; the king, when he comes to judgment, will say, I do not at all condemn thee for coming in hither without a wedding garment; but friend, how comest thou in hither without a wedding garment? And no wonder; the case is too plain to allow of any other than such a lamentable refuge as this is.—If the _wedding garment _be saving grace, which is not denied; and if coming into the _king’s house _be coming into the visible church, as Mr. W. owns; then if the king condemns the man for coming into the house without a _wedding garment, _he condemns him for coming into the visible church without saving grace.

It is plain, the thing the man is blamed for, is something else than simply _a being without grace, _or without a _wedding garment. _The king’s words have respect to this as it stands in _connexion with coming into the king’s house. _If Christ has commanded men who are _not converted, _to come into the church, _that they may be converted, _he will never say to them, upon their obeying this command, Friend, how comest thou in hither before thou wast converted? Which would be another thing than blaming him simply for not being converted. If a man, at his own cost, sets up a school, in order to teach ignorant children to read; and accordingly ignorant children should go thither in order to learn to read, would he come into the school, and say in anger to an ignorant child that he found there, How comest thou in hither, before thou hadst learnt to read? Did the apostle Paul ever rebuke the heathen, who came to hear him preach the gospel, saying, _How came you hither _ to hear me preach, not having grace? This would have been unreasonable, because preaching is an ordinance appointed to that end, that men might obtain grace. And so, in Mr. W.‘s scheme, is the Lord’s _supper.—_Can we suppose, that Christ will say to men in indignation, at the day of judgment, How came you to presume to use the means I appointed for your conversion, before you were converted!

It is true, the servants were to invite all. _both bad and good, _to come to the feast, and to compel them to come in: but this does not prove, that bad men, _remaining in their badness, _have a lawful right to come. The servants were to invite the vicious, as well as the moral; they were to invite the heathen, who were especially meant by them that were in the highways and hedges: yet it will not follow, that the heathen, while _remaining heathen, _have a lawful right to come to christian sacraments. But heathen men must turn from their heathenism, and come: so likewise wicked men must turn from their wickedness, and come.

I endeavoured to prove, that _that brotherly love, _which is required towards the members of the _christian church _in general, is such a love as is required to those _only _whom we have reason to look upon as _true saints. _Mr. W. disputes, through two pages, (p. 66, 67 ) against the force of my reasoning to prove this point; and yet when he has done, he allows the point. He allows it (p. 68. d, e.) as an undisputed thing, that it is the image of God and Christ appearing or supposed to be in others, that is the ground and reason of this love. And so again (p. 71. d e.) he grants, that there must be some apprehension, and judgment of the mind, of the saintship of persons, in order to this brotherly love. Indeed he pretends to differ from me in this, that he denies the need of any positive judgment: but doubtless the judgment or apprehension of the mind must be as positive as _love _founded on that apprehension and judgment of the mind.

In p. 78, 79. he seems to insist, that what the apostle calls _unworthy communicating, _is eating in a greedy, disorderly, and irreverent manner: as though men might communicate without grace, and yet not communicate _unworthily, _in the apostle’s sense. But if so, the apostle differed much in his sense of things from Mr. W.—The latter says, in his sermon on _Christ a King and Witness, _(p. 77, 78.) “These outward acts of worship, when not performed from faith in Christ, and love to God, are _mocking _God—in their own nature a _lie—the vilest wickedness;—_instead of being that religion, which Christ requires, it is _infinitely contrary _to it—the most flagrant and abominable impiety, and threatened with the severest damnation.“ Is not this a communicating _unworthily _enough of all reason?

In p. 132, 133. Mr. W. strenuously opposes me in my supposition, that the way of freely allowing all that have only _moral sincerity _to come into the church, tends to the _reproach and ruin _of the church. On the contrary, he seems to suppose it tends to the establishing and building up of the church. But I desire that what Mr. Stoddard says, in his sermon on _the danger of speedy degeneracy, _may be considered under this head. He there largely insists, that the prevailing of unconverted men and unholy professors among a people, is the principal thing that brings them into danger of _speedy degeneracy _and corruption. He says, that where this is the case, there will be many bad examples, that will corrupt others; and that unconverted men will indulge their children in evil, will be negligent in their education; and that by this means their children will be very corrupt and ungoverned; If we have reason to expect it will be thus with ungodly parents, with respect to their children, then certainly such cannot reasonably expect ministers and churches should admit their children to baptism, in a dependence that they do give them up to God, and will bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, if they make no profession that implies more than moral sincerity; and none but what wicked men may as well make as the godly, and speak true. that by this means the godly themselves that are among them, will be tainted, as sweet liquor put into a corrupt vessel will be tainted; that thus a people will grow blind, will not much regard the warnings of the word, or the judgments of God; and that they will grow weary of religious duties after awhile; and that many of their leading men will be carnal; and that this will expose a people to have carnal ministers and other leading men in the town and church.

And I desire also, that here may be considered what Mr. W. himself says, in that passage forecited, (p. 86,87.) of his sermons on Christ a King and Witness; where, in explaining what it is to promote the kingdom of Christ, he says negatively, “That it is not to do that which may prevail on men to make _pretences, _that they are Christians, and that they own Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and to _call him Lord, Lord, _when _really _he is not so.” Which he supposes is the case with all unsanctified professors; for in the same book, he abundantly declares, that they who make such pretences, and have not true faith and love, make _false _and _lying _pretences; as has been several times observed.

SECT. XI.

The impertinence of arguments, that are in like manner against the schemes of both the controverting parties:_ And this exemplified in what Mr. W. says concerning the notion of Israel being the people of God, and his manner of arguing concerning the members of the primitive christian church._

Inasmuch as in each of the remaining instances of Mr. W.‘s arguing, that I shall take notice of, he insists upon and urges arguments which are in like manner against his _own _scheme, as against mine, I desire, that such a way of arguing may be a little particularly considered.

And here I would lay down this as a maxim of undoubted verity; _That an argument, brought to support one scheme against another, can avail nothing to the. purpose it is brought for, if it is at the same time against the scheme it would _support, _in like manner as against that which it would _destroy.

It is an old and approved maxim, _That argument which proves too much, proves nothing, i. e. _If it proves too much for him that brings it—proves against himself in like manner as against his opponent—then it is nothing to help his cause.—The reason of it is plain: the business of a dispute is to make one cause good against another, to make one scale heavier than the other. But when a man uses an argument which takes _alike _out of _both _scales, this does not at all serve to make _his _side preponderate, but leaves the balance just as it was.

Arguments brought by any man in a dispute, if they be not altogether impertinent, are against the _difference _between him and his opponent, or against his opponent’s differing from him: for wherein there is _no difference, _there is no _dispute.—_But that can be no argument against his opponent _differing _from him, which is only an argument against what is _common to both, _and taken from some difficulty that _both _sides equally share in. If I charge supposed absurdities or difficulties against him that _differs _from me, as an argument to show the unreasonableness of his differing; and yet the difficulty is not owing to his _differing _from me, inasmuch as the same would lie against him, if he _agreed _with me, my conduct herein is both very impertinent and injurious.

If one in a dispute insists on an argument, that lies equally against his own scheme as the other, and yet will stand to it that his argument is _good, _he in effect stands to that his own scheme is not good; he supplants himself, and gives up his own cause, in opposing his adversary; in holding fast _his argument, _he holds fast what is his own overthrow; and in insisting that his argument is _solid _and _strong, _he in effect insists that his own scheme is _weak _and _vain. _If my antagonist will insist upon it, that his argument is good, that he brings _against me, _which is in like manner against himself; then I may take the same argument, in my turn, and use it against him, and he can have nothing to answer; but has stopped his own mouth, having owned the argument to be conclusive.—Now such sort of arguments as these Mr. W. abundantly uses.

For instance, the argument taken from the whole nation of _Israel _being called _God’s people, _and every thing that Mr. W. alleges, pertaining to this matter, is in like manner against _his own _scheme as against mine: and that, let the question be what it will; whether it be about the qualifications which make it lawful for the church to _admit, _or about the lawfulness of persons _coming _to sacraments; whether it be about the _profession they should make before men, _or the _internal qualification they must have in the sight of God. _And what Mr. W. says to the contrary, does not at all deliver the argument from this embarrassment and absurdity. After all he has said, the argument, if any thing related to the controversy, is plainly this, That because the whole nation of Israel were God’s _visible people, _(which is the same as visible saints,) therefore the scripture notion of _visible saintship _is of larger extent than mine; and the Scripture supposes those to be visible saints, which my scheme does not suppose to be so.

But if this be Mr. W. s argument, then let us see whether it agrees any better with _his own _scheme. Mr. Blake (Mr. W.‘s great author) in his book on the Covenant,(_p. _190. b.) insists, that Israel at the very worst is owned as God’s covenant people, and were called God’s people; and (p. 149. e.) that all the congregation of Israel, and every one of them, are called holy, and God’s own people, even Korah and his company.—And (p. 253. _e. _254. a.) he urges, that every one who is descended from Jacob, even the worst of Israel, in their _lowest _state and condition, were God’s people in covenant, called by the name of God’s people. And Mr. W. herein follows Mr. Blake, and urges the same thing; that this nation was God’s covenant people, and were called God’s people, at the time that they were carried captive into _Babylon, _(p. 24. d.) when they were undoubtedly _at their worst, _more corrupt than at any other time we read of in the Old Testament; being represented by the prophets, as overrun with abominable idolatries, and other kinds of the most gross, heaven-daring impieties, most obstinate, abandoned, pertinacious, and irreclaimable in their rebellion against God, and against his word by his prophets. But yet these, it is urged, are called the people of God; not agreeable to my notion of visible saintship, but agreeable to Mr. W.‘s. What his notion of _visible saints is, he tells us in p. 139. He there says expressly, that he “does not suppose persons to be visible saints, unless they exhibit a credible profession and visibility of gospel-holiness.“ Now do those things said about those vile wretches in Israel, agree with this? Did they exhibit moral evidence of gospel-holiness?—_But if we bring the matter lower still, and say, the true notion of visible saintship is a credible appearance and moral evidence of moral sincerity; does this flagrant, open, abandoned, obstinate impiety consist with moral evidence of such sincerity as that? It is as apparent therefore, in Mr. W.‘s scheme as mine, that when these are called _God’s people, _it is in some other sense than that wherein the members of the christian church are called _visible saints. _And indeed the body of the nation of Israel, in those corrupt times, were so far from being God’s church of visibly pious persons, visibly endowed with _gospel-holiness, _that _that _people, as to the body of them, were visibly and openly declared by God, to be a _whore _and a _witch, _and her children _bastards, _or children of adultery. Isa. lvii. . “Draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore.” We have the like in other places. And so the body of the same people in Christ’s time—which Mr. W. supposes even then to be branches of the _true olive, _in the same manner as the members of the christian church were in the apostles’ times—are visibly declared not to be God’s children, or children of the true church, but bastards, or an adulterous brood. Matt. xii. 39. “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.” Ver. 45. ” Even so shall it be with this wicked generation.” And certainly the people were then, visibly and in the eyes of men, such as Christ had visibly and openly, and in the sight of men, declared them to be.

If the question be not concerning the _visibility _which makes it _lawful for others to admit persons, _but concerning the _qualifications which render it lawful for them to come, _still the objection is no more against _my _scheme than against Mr. W.‘s. He (in p. 84—86.) says, that such openly scandalous persons ought not to be admitted into the church; insinuating, that these scandalous people among the _Jews _were _otherwise _when they were admitted at first: but that being taken in, and not cast out again, _it was lawful for them to be there, _and they had a lawful right to the privileges of the church. But this supposition, that all who are lawfully _admitted _by others, may lawfully _come _into the church, and lawfully _continue _to partake of its privileges _till cast out, _is utterly inconsistent with Mr. W.‘s own scheme. For according to his scheme, it is not lawful for men that are not _morally sincere, _to partake of the privileges of the church; but yet such may in some cases be lawfully admitted by others; for he maintains, that in admitting them, they are not to act as _searchers of hearts, _even with regard to their moral sincerity; and so argues, (p. 106.) that Christ might give _Judas _the sacrament, when not morally sincere. If Christ as head of the visible church might admit _Judas _to his table, when he knew he was not morally sincere, and when it was not lawful for _Judas _himself to come; then it is lawful for men to admit some, for whom it is not lawful to be there; contrary to Mr. W.‘s assertion in p. 86. b.

It is true, that persons may become grossly scandalous, after having been regularly admitted on Mr. W.‘s principles, on a profession in words of indiscriminate signification. And so they may after being regularly admitted, according to my principles, on a credible profession of gospel-holiness in words of a determinate meaning: and therefore the gross wickedness of such apostates as we read of in Scripture, is no more an objection against my principles, than his.

Just in the same manner is Mr. W.‘s arguing (p. 59—63.) concerning the members of churches mentioned in the _epistles, _equally against his own scheme and mine. He largely insists on it, that the apostle speaks of many of them as grossly scandalous, notoriously wicked persons, idolaters, heretics, fornicators, adulterers, adulteresses, &c. &c. In his arguing from these things, he is inconsistent with his own principles, two ways. (1.) Such a character is as plainly inconsistent with the character he insists on as necessary to render it lawful for persons themselves to come to sacraments, as mine. And, (2.) It is utterly inconsistent with what he often declares to be his notion of _visible saintship, _necessary to a being admitted by others; so no more an argument against my opinion of _visible saintship, _than his own.

SECT. XII.

_The great argument from the Jewish sacraments, of the Passover, and Circumcision, considered. _

As has been observed concerning the argument from the _Jewish _nation, so the argument from the _Jewish _ordinances, if it be against my scheme, is as plainly, in every respect, against Mr. W.‘s.—This grand argument, as plainly expressed, or implied, in Mr. Stoddard’s words (which Mr. W. insists I should attend to,) is this:

God did expressly command all the nation of _Israel _to be circumcised; and he also expressly commanded the whole nation to come to the passover; excepting such as were ceremoniously unclean, or on a journey. Therefore it was lawful for unsanctified men to come. (See Mr. S ‘s _sermon _on the contrary. p. 8. and _Appeal, _p. 51.) The want of sanctification never was alleged by any man as a reason for forbearing the passover. (_Appeal, _p. 51.) Unsanctified persons attending this ordinance is never charged on them as a sin in Scripture. (Ibid.) Jesus Christ himself partook of the passover with Judas; which proves it to be lawful for unsanctified men to come to the passover. But such as might lawfully come to _the passover, _may lawfully come to the Lord’s supper.

Now let us consider what are the qualifications, which are necessary, according to Mr. W.‘s scheme, to a lawful coming to christian sacraments; and then see whether this objection, in every part of it, and every thing that belongs to it, be not as plainly and directly against _his own _scheme, as mine.

According to Mr. W. it is not lawful for a man to come unless he is _morally sincere. _(_Pref. _p. 2 and 3. p. 21. _b. _25. _d. e. _30. _d. _35. _e. _36. a. 111. _b. c. _115. b.) And, according as he has explained that moral sincerity, which is necessary in order to come to sacraments, it implies “a real conviction of the judgment and conscience of the truth of the great things of religion, a deep conviction of a man’s undone state without Christ, and an earnest concern to obtain salvation by him,—a fervent desire of Christ and the benefits of the covenant of grace, with an earnest purpose and resolution to seek salvation on the terms of it;—a man’s being willing to do the utmost that he can, by the utmost improvement of his natural and moral power, in the most earnest and diligent use of the ordinances of salvation;—being resolved for Christ, coming to a point, being engaged for heaven;—having a settled determination of the judgment and affections for God;—giving up all his heart and life to Christ,” &c. &c. P. 10. d. 11 c. d. 30. e. 31. a. e. 35. e. 36. a. 53 b. 83. d. 125. b. and many other places. Such moral sincerity as this is necessary, according to Mr. W. to be found in professing Christians, in order to their lawful coming to christian sacraments. And he says, they are received into the church, on like terms, by entering into covenant in like manner, as the Jews; and that their holiness, both real and federal, is the same with theirs, (p. 56, 57. p. 61. _e. _p. 65. c.) So that according to this scheme, none but those that had such qualifications as these, such a sincerity and engagedness in religion as this, might lawfully come to the _passover.—_But now, do the things alleged agree any better with this scheme, than with mine? If the case be so, to what purpose is it alleged, that God, in Numb. ix. expressly commanded all of that perverse, rebellious, and obstinate generation in the wilderness, and the whole nation of _Israel _in all generations, to keep the _passover, _excepting such as were ceremonially unclean or on a journey, without the exception of any other? Was every one else of such a character as is above described? Was every one under deep convictions, and persons of such earnest engagedness in religion, of such settled strong resolution to give up their utmost strength and all their heart and life to God, &c.? Mr. W. suggests, that those who had not moral sincerity are expressly excepted from the command, (p. 93. d.) But I wish he had mentioned the place of Scripture. He cites Mr. Stoddard, who says, God appointed sacrifice to be offered for scandal, with confession. But where did God appoint _sacrifice, _for the _want _of such _sincerity, _for the _want _of such deep conviction, earnest desire, and fixed resolution, as Mr. W. speaks of? And where are such as are without these things, _expressly excepted _from the command to keep the passover? Besides, there were many scandalous sins, for which _no sacrifice _was appointed: as _David’s _murder and adultery, and the sin of idolatry—which the nation in general often fell into—and many other gross sins. Nor was there any precept for _deferring _the keeping of the _passover, _in case of scandalous wickedness, or moral uncleanness, till there should be opportunity for cleansing by _sacrifice, _&c. as was in the case of ceremonial uncleanness.

Mr. S. says, The want of sanctification was never alleged by any man as a reason for forbearing the passover. Where do we read in any part of the Bible, that the _want of such deep conviction, &c. as Mr. W. speaks of, or indeed any scandalous moral uncleanness, was ever alleged by any man, as a reason for forbearing to eat the passover?—_Mr. S. urges, that unsanctified persons attending the _passover _was never charged on them as a _sin. _And where do we read of persons coming without such _moral sincerity _being any more charged on them as a _sin, _than the other? We have reason to think, it was a common thing for parents that had no such _moral sincerity _yea, that were grossly and openly wicked, to have their children circumcised; for the body of the people were often so: but where is this charged as a sin? Mr. S. says, (_Serm. _p. 7.) _Ishmael _was circumcised, but yet a carnal person. And there is as much reason to say, he was _not _of the character Mr. W. insists on, under deep convictions, having earnest desires of grace, a full and fixed determination, with all his heart, to the utmost of his power, to give his whole life to God, &c.—Mr. S. says, (_Serm. _p. 8.) Hezekiah sent to invite the people of Ephraim and Manasseh, and other tribes, to celebrate the passover, though they had lived in idolatry for some ages. But if so, this was as much of an evidence, that they were not of such a character as Mr. W. insists on, as that they were without sanctifying grace.—Mr. W. says, (p. 91. c.) The Israelites had carefully attended the seal of circumcision, from the time of its institution, till the departure out of Egypt. But surely most of them at the same time were without Mr. W.’s moral sincerity; for it is abundantly manifest, that the body of the people fell away to idolatry in _Egypt. _(See Levit. xvii. 7. Josh. xxiv. 14. Ezek. xx. 8. and Ezek. xxiii. 3, 8, 27.) And there is not the least appearance of any more _exception, _either in the precepts or history of the Old Testament, of the case of _moral insincerity, _in such as attended these ordinances, than of ungodliness, or an unsanctified state.

Mr. S. urges, that _Jesus Christ himself partook of the passover with _Judas; and thence he would argue, that it was lawful for an _unregenerate _person to partake of the _Lord’s supper. _But there can be no argument, in any sort, drawn from this, to prove that it is lawful for men to partake of the Lord’s supper without _sanctifying grace, _any more than that it is lawful for them to partake without moral sincerity: for it is every whit as evident, that Judas was at that time without moral sincerity, as that he was unregenerate. We have no greater evidence, in all the scripture history, of the moral insincerity of any one man, than of Judas, at the time when he partook of the _passover _with Christ; he having just then bargained with the high priest to _betray _him, and being then in prosecution of the horrid design of the murder of the Son of God.

If any thing contrary to my principles could be argued from all Israel being required, throughout their generations, to come to the _passover and circumcision, _it would be this; that all persons, of all sorts, throughout all _christendom, _might lawfully come to _baptism _and the Lord’s Supper; godly and ungodly, the knowing and the ignorant, the moral and the vicious, orthodox and heretical, protestants and papists alike. But this does not agree with Mr. W.’s principles, any better than with mine.

SECT. XIII.

_Concerning Judas’s partaking of the Lord’s supper. _

I think, we have a remarkable instance of tergiversation, in what Mr. W. says in support of the argument from Judas’s partaking of the Lord’s supper. By those on his side of the question, it is insisted upon, as a clear evidence of its being lawful for unsanctified men to come to the Lord’s table, that Christ gave the Lord’s supper to Judas, when he knew he was unsanctified. In answer to which I showed, that this is just as much against their own principles, as mine; because Christ knew as perfectly that he was not morally sincere, as that he was not graciously sincere; and they themselves hold, that it is not lawful for such as are not morally sincere, to partake. Mr. W. ridicules this, as very impertinent and strange; because Christ did not know this as head of the visible church, but only as omniscient God and searcher of hearts. And what does this argue? Only, that although Judas was really not fit to come, yet, inasmuch as Christ, acting as king of the visible church, did not know it, he might admit him: but not, that it was lawful for Judas himself to come, who knew his own heart in this matter, and knew his own perfidiousness and treachery; Mr. W. denies, that it is lawful for such to come, as have no moral sincerity. So that here the question is changed; from, who may lawfully come, to who may lawfully be admitted? Mr. W. abundantly insists, that the question is not, who shall be admitted? but, who way lawfully come? Not, whether it be lawful to admit those who have not a visibility of saintship, or do not appear to be true saints? but whether those who are not true saints, may lawfully partake? And this he insists upon in his discourse on this very argument, (p. 104, c. d.) And to prove this latter point, _viz. _That _those, who are not real saints, may lawfully come, _the instance of Judas’s coming to the Lord’s supper is produced as an undeniable evidence. But when it is answered, that the argument does not prove this, any more than that the morally insincere may lawfully come; because Judas was morally insincere: then Mr. W. (p. 106.) to shelter himself, evidently changes the question, at once, to that which he had so much exclaimed against as _not the question. _Now, to serve his turn, the question is not, whether Judas might lawfully come? but, whether Christ might _lawfully admit him, _acting on a public visibility? And he makes an occasion to cry out against me, as talking _strangely, _and soon forgetting that I had said, Christ in this matter did not act as searcher of hearts. Whereas, let the question be what it will, the argument from Judas’s partaking, (should the fact be supposed,) if it proves any thing relating to the matter, is perfectly, and in every respect, against the one, just as it is against the other. It the question be about _profession and visibility _to others, and who others may _lawfully admit, _then Judas’s being admitted, (if he was admitted,) no more proves, that men may be admitted without a visibility and profession of godliness, than without a visibility of moral sincerity. For it no more appears, that he was without a profession and visibility of the former, than of the latter. But if the question is not about _visibility to others, _or who others _may admit, _but who may _lawfully come, _then Judas’s coming no more proves, that a man may come without grace, than without moral necessity; because he was in like manner without both: and Christ knew as perfectly, that he was without the one, as the other; and was not ignorant of the one case, as king of the visible church, any more than of the other. So that there is no way to support this argument, but to hide the question, by shifting and changing it; to have one question in the premises, and to slip in another into the conclusion. Which is according to the course Mr. W. takes. In the premises, (p. 104, 105.) he expressly mentions Mr. S—d’s question, as now in view: and agreeably must here have this for his question, whether it was lawful for a man so qualified to come to the Lord’s supper? Who, according to Mr. W.‘s own doctrine, (p. 111.) ought to act as a discerner of his own heart. But in his conclusion, (p. 106.) he has this for his question, _whether Christ might lawfully admit a man so qualified, _therein not acting as the searcher of hearts?—What shuffling is this!

SECT. XIV.

_Concerning that great argument, which Mr. W. urges in various parts of his book of those being born in the church, who are children of parents that are in covenant. _

It is hard to understand distinctly what Mr. W. would be at, concerning this matter, or what his argument is. He often speaks of parents that are in covenant, as born in covenant, and so born in the church. For to be in covenant, is the same with him as to be members of the visible church. (See p. 98. c. 88. _d. _89. _b. _59. _e. _60. _a. _136. b.) And he speaks of them as admitted into the church in their ancestors, and by the profession of their ancestors. (p. 135. _e. _136. a.) Yea, for ought I can see, he holds that they were born members in complete standing in the visible church, (p. 3.)

And yet he abundantly speaks of their being admitted into the church, and made members, after they are born, _viz. _by their baptism. And his words (unless we will suppose him to speak nonsense) are such as will not allow us to understand him, merely, that baptism is a sign and public acknowledgment of their having been admitted in their ancestors, in preceding generations. For he speaks of baptism as the only rite (or way) of admission into the visible church, applying it to the baptism of children; and as that which makes them members of the body of Christ. (p. 99. c. d.) And he grants, that it was ordained for the admission of the party baptized into the visible church. (p. 99. _e. _p. 100. c.) That baptism is an admission; and that they were thus before admitted, (p. 100. c.) still speaking of the baptism of infants, and of admission of members into churches.—But surely these things do not harmonize with the doctrine of their first receiving being in the church—as a branch receives being in the tree, and grows in it and from it—or their being _born in the covenant, born in the house of God. _And yet these repugnant things are uttered as it were in the same breath by Mr. W. (p. 99.) And he joins them together in the same line, (p. 46. e.) in these words,—“Baptism instituted by him, as a rite of admission into his church, and being continued in covenant with God.”—Certainly, being then admitted into the church, and being continued in covenant (or in the church) into which they were admitted before, are not the same thing, nor consistent one with another. If infants are born members in complete standing, as it seems Mr. W. holds, then their baptism does nothing towards making them members; nor is there any need of it to make the matter more complete.

Again, (p. 3. _b. _where he also speaks of infants as members having a complete standing in the church,) he maintains, that nothing else is requisite in order to _communion and privileges of members in complete standing, _but only that they should be _capable _hereof, and _should desire _the same, and should not be _under censure, or scandalously ignorant or immoral. _(See also p. 100. _c. d. _to the same purpose.) Mr. W says this in opposition to my insisting on something further, _viz. _making a profession of godliness. And yet he himself insists on something _further, _as much as I; which has been observed before. For he abundantly insists on a _personal, explicit profession and open declaration _of believing that the gospel is indeed the revelation of God, and of a hearty consent to the terms of the covenant of grace, &c. And speaks of the whole controversy as turning upon that single point, of the degree of evidence to be given, and the kind of profession to be made, whether in words of indiscriminate meaning? (See p. 5. _b. c. _p. 6. c. d.) And consequently not, whether they must make any profession at all, having been completely admitted before, in the profession of their ancestors?

Therefore, if the infants of visible believers are born in the church, and are already members in complete standing, and do not drop out of the church, and fall from a complete standing, when they grow up; and therefore if they are not ignorant nor immoral, and desire full communion, _nothing else _can be required of them: and it will hence follow, contrary to my principles, that they cannot be required to make a profession in words of discriminate meaning: but then, it also equally follows, contrary to his principles, that neither can they be required to make a profession in words of indiscriminate meaning. If nothing else besides those forementioned things is necessary, then no profession is necessary, in any words at all, neither of determinate nor indeterminate signification. So that Mr. W. in supposing some personal profession to be necessary, gives up and destroys this grand argument.

But if he did not give it up by this means, it would not be tenable on other principles belonging to his scheme; such as its being necessary in order to a being admitted to sacraments, that persons should have a visibility that recommends them to the reasonable judgment and apprehension of the minds of others, as true Christians, really pious persons, and that there should be such a profession as exhibits moral evidence of this. For who will say, that the individual profession of an ancestor, a thousand or fifteen hundred years ago, is a credible exhibition and moral evidence of the real piety of his present posterity, without any personal explicit profession of any thing about religion, in any one of the succeeding generations. And if Mr. W. had not said, there must be a credible exhibition of _gospel-holiness, _but only some common faith or virtue; yet no such thing is made visible to a rational judgment and apprehension of mind, by this means. How, for instance, does it make _orthodoxy _visible? What reasonable ground is there in it, at such a day as this in England, to believe concerning any man, that he believes the doctrine of the Trinity, and all other fundamental doctrines, with full conviction, and with all his heart, because he descended from an ancestor that made a good profession, when the ancient Britons or Saxons were converted from heathenism, and because withal he is free from open scandalous immorality, and appears willing to attend duties of public worship? If an attendance on these public duties was in its own nature a profession of orthodoxy, or even piety; yet the reason of mankind teaches them the need of joining _words and actions _together in public manifestations of the mind, in cases of importance: speech being the great and peculiar talent, which God has given to mankind, as the special means and instrument of the manifestation of their minds one to another. Thus, treaties among men are not concluded and finished, only with actions, without words. Feasting together was used of old, as a testimony of peace and covenant friendship; as between Isaac and Abimelech, Laban and Jacob, but not without a verbal profession. Giving the hand, delivering the ring, &c. are to express a marriage agreement and union; but still a profession in words is annexed. So we allow it to be needful, after persons have fallen into scandal, that in manifesting repentance there should be a verbal profession, besides attending duties of worship. Earthly princes will not trust a profession of allegiance in actions only, such as bowing, kneeling, keeping the king’s birth-day, &c. but they require also a profession in words, and an oath of allegiance is demanded. Yea, it is thought to be reasonably demanded, in order to men’s coming to the actual possession and enjoyment of those privileges _they are born heirs to. _Thus the eldest sons of noblemen in Great Britain, are born heirs to the honours and estate of their fathers; yet this no way hinders but they may be obliged, when they come to ripeness of age, in order to being invested in the actual possession, to take the oath of allegiance: though in order to their lawfully doing it, it may be necessary they should believe in their hearts, that King George is the lawful prince, and that they should not be enemies to him, and friends to the Pretender.

But moreover, if this objection of Mr. W. about infants being born in the church be well considered, it will appear to be all _beside the question, _and so nothing to the purpose. It is not to the purpose of either of the _questions, _Mr. W.‘s or mine. The _question as I have stated it, _is concerning them that may be admitted members in complete standing; not about them that have a _complete standing in the church already, _and so are no candidates for admission; which, he says, is the case of these infants. And _the question as he often states it _is concerning them that may _lawfully come. _And this objection, from infants being _born in the church, _as it must be understood from Mr. W. does not touch this _question. _For when Mr. W. objects, _that some persons are born in the church, and therefore may lawfully come to sacraments, _he cannot be understood to mean, that their being born in the church alone is sufficient; but that, _besides _this, persons must have some virtue or religion, of one sort or other, in order to their _lawful coming. _For he is full in it, that it is not lawful for men to come without moral virtue and sincerity. Therefore the _question _comes to this in the result: seeing persons, besides their being born in covenant, must have some sort of virtue and religion, in order to a lawful coming to the Lord’s supper, _what sort of virtue and religion that is, _whether common or saving? Now this _question _is not touched by the present objection. Merely persons being _born in covenant, _is no more evidence of their having moral sincerity, than saving grace. Yea, there is more reason to suppose the latter, than the former without it, in the infant children of believing parents. For the Scripture gives us ground to think, that some infants have the habit of saving grace, and that they have a new nature given them. But no reason at all to think, that ever God works any mere moral change in them, or infuses any habits of moral virtue without saving grace.—And we know, they cannot come by moral habits in infancy, any other way than by immediate infusion. They cannot obtain them by human instruction, nor contract them by use and custom. And especially there is no reason to think, that the children of such as are visible saints, according to Mr. W’s scheme, have any goodness infused into them by God, of any kind. For in his scheme, all that are morally sincere may lawfully receive the privileges of visible saints; but we have no scripture grounds to suppose, that God will bless the children of such parents as have nothing more than moral sincerity, with either common or saving grace. There are no promises of the covenant of grace made to such parents, either concerning themselves, or their children. The covenant of grace is a conditional covenant; as both sides in this controversy suppose. And therefore, by the supposition, men have no title to the promises without the condition. And as saving faith is the condition, the promises are all made to _that, _both those which respect persons themselves, and those that respect their seed. As it is with many covenants or bargains among men; by these, men are often entitled to possessions for themselves and their heirs: yet they are entitled to no benefits of the bargain, neither for themselves, nor their children, but by complying with the terms of the bargain. So with respect to the covenant of grace, the apostle says, (Acts ii. 39.) “The promise is to you and to your children.” So the apostle says to the _jailor, _(Acts xvi. 31.) “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” And we find many promises, all over the Bible, made to the righteous, that God will bless their seed for their sakes. Thus, Psal. cxii. 2. “The generation of the upright shall be blessed.” Psal. lxix. 35, 36. “For God will save Zion;—The seed also of his servants shall inherit it; and they that love his name shall dwell therein.” (See also Prov. xiv. 26. Psal. cii. 28. Psal. ciii. 17, 18. Exod. xx. 5, 6. Deut. vii. 9.) Supposing these to be what are called indefinite promises; yet do they extend to any but the seed of the righteous? Where are any such promises made to the children of unsanctified men, the enemies of God, and slaves of the devil, (as Mr. W. owns all unsanctified men are,) whatever moral sincerity and common religion they may have?

The baptism of infants is the seal of these promises made to the seed of the righteous: and on these principles, some rational account may be given of infant baptism; but there is no account can be given of it on Mr. W.‘s scheme, no warrant can be found for it in Scripture; for they are _promises, _that are the warrant for privileges: but there are no promises of God’s word to the seed of morally sincere men, and only half Christians. Thus this argument of Mr. W.‘s, let us take it which way we will, has nothing but what is as much, yea, much more, against his scheme, than against mine.

However, if this were not the case, but all the show or pretence of strength there is in the argument, lay directly and only against me, yet the strength of it, if tried, will avail to prove nothing at all. The pretended argument, so far as I can find it out, is this; The children of visible saints are born in covenant; and being already in covenant, they must have a right to the privileges of the covenant, without any more ado:_ such therefore have a right to come to the Lows supper, whether they are truly godly or not._

But the show of argument there is here, depends on the ambiguity of the phrase, being in covenant; which signifies two distinct things: either, (1.) Being under the obligation and bond of the covenant; or, (2.) _Being conformed to the covenant, and complying with the terms of it. _Being the subject of the obligations and engagements of the covenant, is a thing quite distinct from being conformed to these obligations, and so being the subject of the conditions of the covenant.

Now it is not being in covenant in the former, but the latter sense, that gives a right to the privileges of the covenant. The reason is plain, because compliance and conformity to the terms of a covenant, is the thing which gives right to all the benefits; and not merely being under ties to that compliance and conformity. Privileges are not annexed merely to obligations, but to compliance with obligations.

Many that do not so much as visibly comply with the conditions of the covenant, are some of God’s covenant people in _that _sense, that they are under the bonds and engagements of the covenant; so were Korah and his company; so were many gross idolaters in _Israel, _that lived openly in that sin; and so may heretics, deists, and atheists be God’s covenant people. They may still be held under the bonds of their covenant engagements to God; for their great wickedness and apostacy does not free them from the obligation of the solemn promises and engagements they formerly entered into. But yet being in covenant merely in this sense, gives them no right to any privileges of the covenant. In order to that, they must be in covenant in another sense; they must cordially consent to the covenant; which indeed Mr. W. himself owns, when he acknowledges, that in order to come to sacraments, men must profess a cordial consent to, and compliance with the conditions of the covenant of grace. If it be said here, those who have been born of baptized ancestors, though they do not comply with the terms of the covenant, are in covenant, in this sense, that they have a right to the promises of the covenant conditionally, in case they will hereafter comply: I answer, So are all mankind in covenant, God may be said to have bound himself to them all conditionally; and many have these promises declared to them, that still remain Jews, Mahometans, or heathens. And if Mr. W. inquires, Why those children that were born in the covenant, are not _cast out, _when in adult age they make no such profession; certainly, it as much concerns _him _to answer, as me; for it is as much his doctrine, as mine, that they must profess such consent.—But I am willing to answer nevertheless.—They are not cast out, because it is a matter held in suspense, whether they do cordially consent to the covenant, or not; or whether their making no such profession do not arise from some other cause. And none are to be excommunicated, without some positive evidence against them. And therefore they are left in the state they were in, in infancy, not admitted actually to partake of the Lord’s supper (which actual participation is a new positive privilege) for want of a profession, or some evidence, beyond what is merely negative, to make it visible that they do consent to the covenant. For it is reasonable to expect some appearance more than what is negative, of a proper qualification, in order to being admitted to a privilege beyond what they may have hitherto actually received. A negative charity may be sufficient for a negative privilege, such as freedom from censure and punishment; but something more than a negative charity, is needful to actual admission to a new positive privilege.

SECT. XV.

_A particular examination of Mr. W.‘s defence of the ninth objection, or that boasted argument, that if it be not lawful for unconverted men to come to the Lord’s supper, ‘then none may come but they that know themselves to be converted. _

This argument has been greatly gloried in, as altogether invincible. Mr. W. seems to have been alarmed, and his spirits raised to no small degree of warmth, at the pretence of an answer to it: and he uses many big words and strong expressions in his reply; such as, It is absolutely certain—It is beyond my power to comprehend, and I believe beyond the power of any man to tell me—this I assert and stand to—as plain as the sun—a contradiction of the Bible, of the light of nature, and of the common sense of mankind, &c. &c. But let us get away from the noise of a torrent, and bring this matter to the test of calm reasoning, and examine it to the very bottom.

Here let it be considered, wherein precisely the argument consists.—If it has any strength in it, it consists in this proposition, _viz. _That it is not lawful for men to come to sacraments, without a known right. This is a proposition Mr. S. himself reduces the argument to, in his _Appeal, _p. 62,63. And it is very evident, that the whole strength of the argument rests on the supposed truth of this proposition.

And here let it be noted, what sort of _knowledge _of a right Mr. S. and Mr. W. mean in this argument. It is _knowledge _as distinguished from such an _opinion, _or _hope, _as is _founded on probability. _Thus Mr. S. expressly insists, that a man must not only think he has a right, but he must know it—(_Appeal, _p. 62.) And again, (p. 63.) Probable hopes will not warrant him to come.

Mr. W. uses many peremptory strong expressions (p. 109.) to set forth the certainty of that which never was denied; _viz. _That a man cannot know he has a right, unless he knows he has the qualification which gives him a right. But this is not the thing in question: The point is, _Whether a man may not have a lawful right, or way not lawfully come, and yet not know his right, with such _a knowledge and evidence as is beyond probability? This is the thing asserted, and herein lies the argument. And the negative of this cannot be maintained, in order to maintain Mr. W.‘s scheme, without the grossest absurdity; it being a position, which, according to Scripture, reason, Mr. S.‘s doctrine, and Mr. W.‘s own, effectually destroys his scheme.

To this purpose, I observed, if this proposition be true, that no man may come, save he who not only thinks but _knows _he has a right, then it will follow, that no unconverted person may come, unless he _knows _that doctrine to be true, _That unconverted men may have a right. _Because an unconverted man cannot know, that he himself has a right, unless he knows that doctrine which Mr. S. maintained, to be true, _viz. _That men may have a right, though they are unconverted. And consequently no one unconverted man may lawfully come to the Lord’s supper, unless he is so knowing in this point of controversy, as not only to think, and have probable evidence, that this opinion is right, but _knows _it to be so.—Mr. W. endeavours to help the matter by a distinction, of different kinds of knowledge: and by the help of this distinction would make it out, that common people in general, and even boys and girls of sixteen years old, may with ease know, that his doctrine about unsanctified men’s lawful coming to the Lord’s supper, is true. And we must understand him (as he is defending Mr. S.‘s argument) that they may know it with that evidence which is distinguished from probability; and this according to Mr. W. himself, is certainty; which he speaks of as above _a thousand probabilities. _(See p. 118. c.) But how miserable is this; o pretend, that his doctrine about qualifications for sacraments, is so far from a disputable point, that it is of such plain and obvious evidence to common people, and even children, that without being studied in divinity, they may not only _think _it to be _exceeding probable, _but _know it _to be true! When it is an undeniable fact, that multitudes of the greatest ability and piety, that have spent their lives in the study of the Holy Scriptures, have never so much as thought so.

Again, I observed, that according to Mr. S.‘s doctrine, _not one _unconverted man in the world can _know, _that he has _warrant _to come to the Lord’s supper; because, if he has any warrant, God has given him warrant in the Scriptures: and therefore if any unconverted man, not only _thinks, _but _knows, _that he has warrant from God, he must of consequence not only _think, but know, _the Scriptures to be the word of god. Whereas it was the constant doctrine of Mr. S. that no unconverted man _knows _the Scriptures to be the word of God. I did not say, that it was also a doctrine according to Scripture; for there was no occasion for this, among those with whom I had chiefly to do in this controversy; with whom I knew it was a point as much settled and uncontroverted, as any doctrine of Mr. S. whatever. And I know it to be the current doctrine of orthodox divines: who ever allow this doctrine to be implied in such texts as those. John xvii. 7. 1 John iv. 15, 16. Chap. v. 1, 10. and many others. —But Mr. W. would make it out, that Mr. S. did hold, unconverted men might _know _the Scriptures to be the word of God; but only not know it with _a gracious knowledge, such as effectually bowed _men’s _hearts, and influenced them to a gracious obedience, _(p. 113. b.) But let us see whether it was so, or not. Mr. S. in his _Nature of Saving Conversion _(p. 73.) says, “The carnal man is _ignorant _of the divine authority of the word of God;—His wound is, that he _does not know certainly _the divine authority of these institutions; he _does not know _but they are the inventions of men.” Again (_ibid. _p. 74.) he says, “The carnal man is _uncertain _of those things that are the foundation of his reasonings. He thinks there is _a great probability _of the truth of these things; but he has _no assurance. _His principles are grounded on an _uncertain _proposition.” And he observes, (p. 20.) “Men when converted, do not look on it as probable, that the word is his word, as they did before; but they have assurance of the truth of it.”—So elsewhere, (_Guide to Christ, _p. 26.) “They that have not grace, _do not properly believe _the word of god.”—And in another book, (_Safety of Ap. _p. 6.) “The gospel always works effectually where it is believed and received as the truth of god.”—In another book, (_Benef. of the Gos. _p. 149.) ” Common illumination does not convince men of the truth of the gospel.”—In his discourse on the _Virtue of Christ’s Blood, _(p. 27.) speaking of such as have no interest in the blood of Christ, he says, “They are strangers to the divine authority of the word of god.” Again, (_ibid. _p. 16.) “Before [i._e. _before saving faith] they were at a loss whether the word was the word of god.”—To the like purpose are many other passages in his writings. (See _Nat. of Sav. Conv. _p. 72. _Safety of Ap. _p. 6, 7, 99, 107, 186, 187, 229.—_Benef. of the Gosp. _p. 89.)

So that here, if it be true, that some unconverted men have a divine warrant to come to the Lord’s supper; and if the thing which is the foundation of this argument, be also true, _viz. _That in order to men’s warrantably coming to the Lord’s supper, they must not only _think _but _know _they have a right; then it must be true likewise, that they not only _think _but _know, _that the Scripture, wherein this warrant is supposed to be delivered, is the word of god. And then we have the following propositions to make hang together: that unconverted men are ignorant of the Scripture’s being the word of God, are uncertain of it, have no assurance of it, are not convinced of it, do not properly believe it, are at a loss whether it be the word of God, or not; and yet they not only think, but know, that the Scriptures are the word of God, and that the gospel, which is the charter of all christian privileges, is divine; they have a knowledge of it, which is above all probable hope or thought, and attended with evidence above a thousand probabilities.

And now let it be considered, whether this agrees better with Mr. W.’s own doctrine, concerning men’s knowing the truth and divine authority of the gospel, in what has been before cited from his sermons on _Christ a King and Witness. _Where he expressly says, that man, since the fall, is ignorant of the divine truth, and full of prejudices against it; has a view of the truth contained in the Bible, as a doubtful uncertain thing; receives it as what is probably true; sees it as a probable scheme, and something likely to answer the end proposed: but that after conversion it appears divinely true and real. (See p. 114, 115, and 144.) Then unconverted men only looked on the truth of the word of God, as probable, something likely, yet as a doubtful uncertain thing; but now they not only think but know it to be true.

No distinction, about the different kinds of knowledge, or the various ways of knowing, will ever help these absurdities, or reconcile such inconsistencies. If there be any such sort of _knowing, _as is contra-distinguished to probable _thinking, _and to such opinion as is built on _a thousand probabilities, _which yet is inconsistent with being ignorant, not believing, being uncertain, nor assured, nor convinced, only looking on a thing probable, looking on it doubtful and uncertain, it must certainly be a new and very strange sort of knowledge.

But this argument, that is so clear and invincible, must have such supports as these, or must quite sink to the earth. It is indeed a remarkable kind of argument. It is not only as much against the scheme it is brought to support, as against that which it would confute; but abundantly more so. For if it were the case in truth, that none might come to the Lord’s supper, but they that _know _they have a right, yet it would be no direct and proper proof, that _unconverted _men might come. It would indeed prove, that many _godly _men might _not _come; which, it is true, would bring some difficulty on the scheme opposed; yet would be no proof against it. But it is direct and perfect demonstration against the scheme it would support: it demonstrates according to the Scripture, and according to the doctrine of those that urge the argument, that not one unconverted man in the world may lawfully come to the Lord’s supper; as no one of them certainly _knows _the gospel to be divine, and so no one _knows _the charter to be authentic, in which alone the right of any to christian privileges is conveyed; hence no one unsanctified man is _sure _of his right; and therefore (as they draw the consequence) no one unsanctified man may come to the Lord’s supper. And so it follows, that the more strongly Mr. W. stands to this argument, the more peremptory and confident his expressions are concerning it, the more violently and effectually does he supplant himself.

And this position, _that a man must not take any privilege, till he not only thinks, but knows, he has a right, _is not only unreasonable, as used by Mr. W. against me, when indeed it is ten times as much against himself; but it is unreasonable in itself, as it is an argument, which if allowed and pursued, will prove, that a man may do nothing at all, never move hand or foot, for his own advantage, unless he first, not only _thinks, _but _knows, _it is his duty. Mr. W. himself owns (p. 116.) that all the _duties, _which God requires of us in his instituted worship, are _privileges, _as well as the Lord’s supper: and so is every other duty, which we are to do for our own benefit. But all human actions are, upon the whole, either _good _or evil: every thing that we do as rational creatures, is either a duty, or a sin; and the neglect of every thing that is our duty is forbidden. So that we must never so much as take a step, or move a finger, upon only a probable judgment and hope; but must first _know _it to be our duty, before we do it: nay, we must neither move, nor voluntarily forbear to move, without a _certainty _of our duty in the case, one way or other!

As to its being _alike difficult _for men to know or be assured of their moral sincerity, as of their real sanctification, I shall speak to that under the next head; whereby it will appear again, another way, that this argument is vastly more against Mr. W.’s scheme than mine.

SECT. XVI.

_A consideration of Mr. W.’s defence on the 10th objection, against the doctrine of the unlawfulness of unsanctified men coming to the Lord’s supper, that it tends to the great perplexity and torment of many godly men in their attendance on this ordinance. _

My _first _reply to this objection was, that it is for want of like tenderness of conscience, that the other doctrine which insists on _moral sincerity, _does not naturally bring such as are received on those principles, into as great _perplexities.—_Mr. W. in his animadversions upon it says, “This is an assertion which I take to be contrary to common sense, and the experience of mankind: and the allowing of it to be true, must overthrow the law of nature, and cast infinite reproach upon the author of it.”

These are strong expressions; but let us bring the matter to the test of reason.—The necessary qualification, on Mr. W.’s principles, is moral sincerity, and a _certain degree _of moral sincerity. For there is scarcely any man, that lives under the light of the gospel, and is not an atheist, or deist, but what has _some degree _of moral sincerity, in some things pertaining to Christianity and his duty; some degree of common faith, some degree of conviction of the need of Christ, some desire of him, and moral willingness though from selfish considerations, to be good; and some purpose to endeavour a conformity to the covenant of grace, and to seek salvation on the terms of it. But how shall a man know what is a _sufficient degree _of these things? Mr. W. has determined the matter thus; that his belief of the doctrine of the gospel, and moral willingness, to be conformed to the covenant of grace, must be with his whole _heart, _(p. 49. _e. _p. 5. _c. _36. a.) And that his conviction of his undone state without Christ must be deep; and his desire of Christ and his benefits _fervent, _and his purpose _earnest, _(p. 75. e. p. 11. c.) so as to induce him to enter into covenant with all the earnestness he can, and engage him to use endeavours with all the strength and power that he has. (p. 83. _e. _p. 32. _d. _p. 36. a.)

Now how exceeding _difficult must it be for unsanctified men to determine, with any assurance, whether they have moral sincerity to such a degree!—_How difficult for them to know, whether their convictions are thus deep! Every one that is used to deal with souls under conviction, knows, that when they are indeed under deep convictions, they are especially apt to complain of the _hardness _of their hearts, and to think their convictions are _not _deep.—How difficult to determine, with any assurance, whether their assent rises so high, that they can truly be said to believe with all their hearts! Whether their moral willingness to be conformed to the covenant of grace, be with their whole heart! And whether they are really engaged _with all the solicitude they can, _and are willing to do all that they can! These things, I am pretty sure, are of vastly more difficult determination, than whether a man has any true holiness, or not. For in the former case, the determination is concerning the degree of things, that are capable of an infinite variety of degrees; some of which are nearer to, and others are further from, the lowest _sufficient _degree: and consequently some of the degrees that are not sufficient, may yet be very near; which renders the matter of very difficult determination; unspeakably more so, that when what is to be distinguished, is the _nature _of things, which in _all degrees _is widely diverse, and even contrary to that which it is to be distinguished from: as is the case between saving and common grace; which Mr. W. himself acknowledges. See his serm. on Christ a King and Witness, (p. 84. e.) where he says, “notwithstanding the visible likeness of nominal and real Christians, there is a wide difference, as there is between the subjects of christ and the slaves of the devil.” It is more easy to distinguish _light _from darkness, than to determine the precise _degree _of light; and so it is more easy to determine, whether a man be alive or dead, than whether there be exactly such a certain _degree _of vigour and liveliness.

This _moral sincerity, _which Mr. W. insists on, is a most indeterminate uncertain thing; a phrase without any certain precise meaning; and must for ever remain so. It being not determined, _how much _men must be morally sincere; _how much _they must believe with a moral sincerity; whether the deeply awakened and convinced sinner must believe, that God is absolutely sovereign _with respect to his salvation, _and that Christ is perfectly sufficient to save him in particular; and to what _degree _of moral assent and consent, he must believe and embrace these things, and comply with the terms of the covenant of grace; whether he must be willing to obey all God’s commands, the most difficult, as well as the most easy, and this in all circumstances, even the most difficult that can arise in providence; or whether only in some circumstances; and what, and how many. The Scripture gives us many infallible rules, by which to distinguish between saving grace, and common. But I know of no rules given in the Bible, by which men may certainly determine this _precise degree _of moral sincerity. So that if _grace _is not the thing which gives a right to sacraments in the sight of God, we have no certain rule in the Bible, commensurate to the understanding of mankind, by which to determine when we have a right, and when not.—Now let the impartial reader judge, which scheme lays the greatest foundation for _perplexity _to communicants of tender consciences, concerning their qualifications for the Lord’s supper; and whether this argument drawn from such a supposed _tendency _to such perplexity (if there be any force in it) is not vastly more against Mr. W.‘s scheme, than mine.

And here by the way, let it be noted, that by these things it is again demonstrated, that the _ninth objection, _the great argument considered in the preceding section, concerning the necessity of a _known right, _in order to a lawful partaking, is exceedingly more against Mr. W.‘s principles, than mine; inasmuch as, on his principles, it is so much more difficult for men to know, whether they have a right, or have the prescribed qualification, or not.

I answered this argument in the second place, by alleging, that this doctrine of the necessity of saving grace in order to a right to the Lord’s supper, is not properly the cause of the perplexities of doubting saints, in their attendance on this ordinance; though it may be the occasion: but that their own _negligence _and _sin _is the true cause; and that this doctrine is no more the cause of these perplexities, than the doctrine of the necessity of saving grace in order to salvation, is the cause of the perplexity of doubting saints when they come to _die. _Upon which Mr. W. says, There is no shadow of resemblance of these cases, because death is no ordinance, &c. But if death is no ordinance, yet it is the required duty of the saints to yield themselves to the Lord, and resign to the will of God, in their death. And in this respect, the cases are exactly parallel, that perplexities are just so much the consequence of the respective doctrines, in one case, as in the other; that is, the perplexities of a doubting saint on a _death-bed, _the difficulty and trouble he meets with in resigning himself to the will of God in dying, is just in the same manner the consequence of the doctrine of the necessity of saving grace in order to eternal salvation, as the perplexities of a doubting saint at the Lord’s table are the consequence of the doctrine of the necessity of saving grace in order to a right to the Lord’s supper. And this is sufficient for my purpose.

Mr. W. himself says, in his answer to Mr. Croswell, (p. 122. c.) “Although there are comparatively few that obtain assurance; yet it is through their own sloth and negligence that they do not. We fully agree with Mr. Perkins, that a man in this life may ordinarily be infallibly certain of his salvation. So Mr. Stoddard (in his sermon on one good sign—) says, “There is no necessity, that the people of God should lie under darkness and temptation; they may obtain assurance.”—Now, if this be the case, then certainly there is no justice in laying the temptation and uneasiness, which is the effect of sloth and negligence, to the doctrine I maintain, in those that embrace it. It is a wise dispensation of God, that he has so ordered things, that comfort in ordinances, and in all duties, and under all providences, should be to be obtained in a way of diligence; and that slothfulness should be the way to perplexity and uneasiness, and should be a way hedged up with thorns, agreeable to Prov. xv. 19.—That it is so ordered, is for the good of the saints, as it tends to turn them out of this thorny path, into the way of diligence. And so this doctrine, as it has this tendency, has a tendency in the end to that solid peace and comfort, which is the happy fruit of their holy diligence. And that, and not the saints’ perplexity, is properly the effect of this doctrine.

SECT. XVII.

_Containing some further observations on what is said by Mr. W. in support of the 13th objection, concerning God’s commanding all the members of the visible church, that are not ignorant nor scandalous, to attend all external covenant duties. _

It has been already demonstrated (sect. 8th of this third part) that in this argument the question is begged, notwithstanding what Mr. W. has said to the contrary, which sufficiently overthrows the whole argument. Nevertheless, that I may pass by nothing, which those who are on Mr. W.‘s side may be likely to think material, I will here make some further observations on this objection, as represented and supported by Mr. W.

The chief thing, that has the plausible appearance of argument in what Mr. S. and Mr. W. say on this head, is this; “That for God to require all who are in covenant to come to the Lord’s supper, and yet to forbid them to come unconverted, is to suppose, that he both commands them and forbids them at the same time.” And this is thought to be the more manifest, inasmuch as _conversion is not in men’s power. _Though it is not denied, but that God justly requires men to be converted, or to be truly holy. (See p. 129, 130.)

To this I would say,

(1.) If when they speak of commanding and forbidding at the same time, they mean God’s commanding and forbidding the same thing at the same time, no such consequence follows from my principles. For that thing, and that only, which I suppose God requires of any, is to come to the Lord’s supper with a sanctified heart; and that this God requires at _all times, _and never forbids at any time; and that to come without this qualification, is what he _always _forbids, and requires at _no time. _So that _what _he requires, at the same time he forbids something, is not the _same thing _that he forbids; but a very different and contrary one. And it is no absurdity, to suppose, that God requires one thing, and forbids a contrary thing at the same time.

To illustrate this by an example: It was the duty of the _Jews _at _Jerusalem, _openly to _confes_s christ, to own him as the _Messiah, _at that hour when he was led away to be crucified, and openly to testify their adoring respect to him on that extraordinary occasion. But yet they did not believe him to be the _Messiah, _and could not believe it, (many of them at least,) since they looked on his present abject circumstances as a demonstration, that he was not the _Messiah. _It was beyond their power, at least at once, in that instant, to give their assent, with all their hearts, to such a supposition. Nor was it in their power, to exercise an adoring respect to him: for, besides their strong prejudices, most of them were judicially hardened, and given up to a spirit of unbelief and obstinate rejection of him; as appears by that account, (John xii. 39, 40.) “Therefore they could not believe, because that _Esaias _said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes,” &c. (See also Luke xix. 41, 42. and Matt. xiii. 14, 15.) And yet it would have been unlawful for them to have made a lying profession; to profess, that they believed him to be the _Messiah, _and that they received and loved him as such, when at the same time they hated him, and did not believe he was the _Messiah.—_But here is no requiring and forbidding the same thing at the same time: for the only thing required of them was, to have faith and love, and to testify it; which was not at all forbidden.

(2.) None of the difficulties, which Mr. S. or Mr. W. object—either God’s supposed requiring impossibilities, or his requiring and forbidding at the same time—do follow, any more on _my _principles, than on Mr. W.‘s. Mr. W. maintains, that God calls men _this moment _to enter into covenant with him, and commands them to do it. (p. 28. c.) One thing implied in this, according to his own frequent explanation of visibly entering into covenant, is professing a belief of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Now therefore, we will suppose a man to be a candidate for baptism, who has been brought up in Arianism; and is strongly persuaded, that the doctrine of the trinity is not true: yet he is this moment required to profess that doctrine; but has no ability in a moment to believe the doctrine, because he does not at present see the evidence of it. For as Mr. W. himself says, (Sermon on _Christ a King and Witness, _p. 91. _d. e. _and 92. a.) “The understanding cannot be brought to yield its assent to any truth, which it does not see the truth or apprehend the evidence of.—If you would hire him with cart-loads or ship-loads of gold and silver; if you should imprison him, whip him, burn him; you cannot make him believe a thing to be true, which he apprehends to be incredible, or which he sees no sufficient reason to believe.” Now therefore what shall the man do, on Mr. W.’s principles? He is commanded to profess the doctrine of the Trinity, which must be professed in order to be lawfully baptized in the name of the Trinity; and on Mr. W.‘s principles, he is commanded to do it _this moment. _Yet also on his principles, if the man professes it, and is not morally sincere, or knows he does not believe it, he is guilty of horrible falsehood and prevarication; which God doubtless forbids. Therefore here is certainly as much of an appearance of commanding and forbidding the same thing at the same time, as in the other case.

Every husbandman in _Israel, _that lived even in Christ’s time, was required to offer a basket of the first-fruits; and was commanded when he offered it, solemnly to make that profession, concerning the principal facts relating to the redemption out of Egypt,—which is prescribed in . “A _Syrian _ready to perish was my father,” &c. Now supposing there had been an _Israelite, _who did not believe the truth of all these facts, which came to pass so many ages before, (as there are now many in _christendom, _who do not believe the facts concerning Jesus Christ,) and continued in his unbelief, till the very moment of his offering: God peremptorily requires him to make this profession; yet none will say, that he may lawfully profess these things, at the same time when he does not believe them to be true. However, here is no commanding and forbidding the same thing at the same time: because, though God required the _Jews _to make this profession, yet the thing required was _to believe it _and _profess it. _Though some might not believe it, nor be able for the present to believe it; yet this inability arose from depravity and wickedness of heart, which did not at all excuse their unbelief, for _one moment.* _Mr. W. himself owns, (p. 129. b. c.) that God may require those things which are out of men’s natural power.

Now this may be laid down as a truth, of easy and plain evidence; if God may require what wicked men, while such, are unable to perform, then he may also require those things which are connected with it, and dependent on it, and which, if the other be done, they would be able to do, and might do, and without which they may not do it. So, if God may require an unsanctified man to love him, then he may require him to testify and profess his love, as I suppose Christians do in the act of partaking of the Lord’s supper; and yet it may not be lawful for him to testify and profess love, when he has it not. Much of the controversy discussed in this book (and the preceding one) which was agitated with great warmth in the American churches, and which is not unfrequently started among congregational churches in Great Britain, seems to originate in the want of clearly stating the scriptural design of entering into full communion. If this be not previously settled, there is but little hope of a satisfactory adjustment. Without entering here into the minutia of proofs, the following particulars are submitted to the reader’s consideration, as probably calculated to aid his inquiries. 1. The chief end of every human society, as well as of every intelligent being, ought to be this. viz. To glorify God, or to represent him as glorious in all his perfections and ways. No human society, of whatever kind, is exempt from this obligation. For a society is only an aggregate of individuals; and as every individual is obliged to do this in all his actions, he is therefore thus obliged in his social capacity. This obligation arises from the respective natures of God and the creature, and it is clearly enjoined in the Holy Scripture. “Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God”—But. 2. The distinguishing subordinate end or special design of any society, must designate its peculiar nature, whereby it is best adapted to promote that end. Though every society is bound to seek the one chief end, yet every social union is not adapted to answer all social ends. Societies of a religious, moral, charitable, scientific, or political design, must have members of a corresponding character, otherwise the proposed end cannot be answered. The qualifications of the members must have an aptitude to promote the design. 3. The distinguishing design of a society denominated a church, evidently, is to promote religion. Numbers are united by divine appointment, to maintain religion—to exhibit before the world real Christianity— to encourage those who seek the right way—to edify one another—and the like. Such particulars we gather from the sacred Scriptures. ” Striving together for the faith of the gospel.”—“That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God (resembling him) without rebuke (or, cause of rebuke) in the minds of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life.”-A church of Christ is appointed to shine in a dark world, to be blameless and harmless among the crooked and perverse, to imitate God, as far as practicable, while among the children of the wicked one, to give no offence to those who are without or those who are within the church, to hold forth, and hold fast, the word of life, by doctrine, by discipline, and by practice. “Him that is weak in the faith receive you, but not to doubtful disputations.” Provided a person be desirous of christian fellowship, and is possessed of so much knowledge, so much experienced efficacy of truth, and so much good conduct, as is calculated to answer, in a prevailing degree, the design of a church being at all formed, let him not be rejected. “Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do?” This is done by mutual instructions, exhortations, prayers, and praises; by watchful discipline, and the exercise of religious gifts; by friendly offices, and acts of christian kindness. 4. The preceding particulars are produced only as instances; but in order accurately to ascertain the special end of christian fellowship, in full communion, all the passages contained in the New Testament relating to the subject ought to be included. For until the revealed special design for which a church of Christ is instituted be ascertained, it is obviously not possible to ascertain the precise nature of the society, and consequently the qualifications of its members. However, 5. We will suppose that, by an appeal to all the passages of the New Testament, the precise design is known; from whence the nature of a church is deduced: the question returns,—Is there any general rule that may form an invariable standard by which all qualifications of candidates may be measured? There undoubtedly is, for this plain reason, because a church is a society instituted for specific ends, revealed in the New Testament. Now as these ends are matter of divine record, and not of human opinion, the standard is invariable. 6. We will further suppose, that the general rule, by which to measure qualifications for full communion, is The scriptural design for which a gospel church in full communion is divinely instituted. No party, however they may differ about other things, can object to this rule, with any colour of reason. To deny its claim, they must either subvert the evident principles of all voluntary societies, or else hold, that a christian church is not instituted in the New Testament for any specific end. But this no reasonable person, much less a serious Christian, will maintain. Hence, 7. Those candidates for full communion, and only those, who are conformed to this rule, are fully qualified. But here it is of essential importance to observe, that though a rule is, and from its very nature must be, fixed and invariable, the qualifications of individuals are variable things, admitting of more or less conformity to it. The conjectures of men, however ingenious and plausible, cannot be admitted as a rule, because they are variable; but the rule must be deduced from the design itself of instituting a church, which is evidently a matter of pure divine pleasure, and which could not be known without a revelation from God. A rule, then, must be sought from the sacred oracles by an induction of particulars relating to the point in question, and from their harmonious agreement: and it is the business of every christian church, minister and member, to search the Scriptures in order to ascertain it. To contend about qualifications, before this is agreed upon, is to contend about the dimensions of different things, before a standard is fixed upon which to measure them. But the constituent parts of the qualifications in candidates cannot be found in Scripture: they must, most evidently, be sought in the characters of the individuals, which are indefinitely variable. To suppose that the character, or the actual attainment, of each candidate is revealed in Scripture, is too absurd to be maintained by any rational mind. Therefore, 8. What remains for a church to do in judging of qualifications, is to compare the proficiency of the candidate, with the scriptural rule. The former, admitting of indefinite degrees of approximation to the standard, must be learnt from the person himself, from his conduct, and from the testimony of others. His profession, his declared experience of divine truth, his deportment in society, in short, his general character, is to be viewed, in comparison with the evident design of God in forming a church. 9. Should it be objected, that different persons, or churches, might fix on a different standard, by adding more texts of Scripture out of which a various general result would arise; it is answered, that therefore this is the point to be first settled. When any disagree about the rule, they cannot of course agree about the qualifications. There are many texts, however, such as those above produced, concerning which there can be no disagreement. The rule therefore should be admitted, as far as it goes. A measure of a foot long may, as far as it goes, be a standard of straightness and of measure, as well as a yard or a fathom. Or, to change the comparison, a small measure of capacity may be equally accurate, to a certain degree, as a larger measure. Let the church of small attainments act charitably, and wait for brighter evidence. If any lack wisdom, let them ask of God, who giveth liberally. “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.” 10. The scriptural rule is not only invariable, but also perfect in its kind, as dictated by infinite wisdom for the noblest ends. But no human character, in the present state, is perfect, so as to comport universally with the standard. Therefore no candidate for communion is perfectly qualified; that is, his qualifications are only comparative. One may be qualified in a greater, and another in a smaller degree. One is qualified to fill his place eminently, another moderately well. One may be strong, and another weak in the faith. Yet he who is weak in the faith may be comparatively qualified. Therefore, 11. Since qualifications are so various, and admit of indefinite approximations to the perfect standard, or deviations from it, we are bound to accede to another conclusion, viz. That whatever kind or degree of qualification appears to befriend, rather than to oppose, to honour, rather than to discredit, the scriptural design of full communion, ought to be admitted by the church. When a candidate for communion is proposed to a church, its immediate business is to consult the scriptural design of communion; and then to consider how far the qualifications of the candidate appear to befriend and to honour it 12. From the premises it follows, that to reason from qualifications for communion in the Jewish church, to those for full communion in a gospel church, must needs be uncertain and inconclusive; except it could be first proved, that the revealed design of each was the same. But it requires no great labour to show by an induction of particulars, that the design was very different; and consequently, that what would be a suitable qualification for the one. would not be so for the other. 13. We may further infer, that when a church requires a probable evidence of grace as the measuring rule of admission, and directs nearly all its attention to ascertain this point, its proceedings are irregular, unscriptural, and therefore unwarrantable. The rule of judging, as before shown, must be found in the Scripture, and not in the candidate. 14. We may further infer from the preceding observations, that a probable evidence of grace in a candidate, is not the precise ground of the qualification, however desirable that evidence may be. Yet, because ordinarily, and most probably, the absence of saving grace implies the absence of the precise ground of answerableness to the scriptural design of full communion, such probable evidence is of great importance. However nice this distinction may appear to some, the want of attending to it seems to have constituted the chief difference between our author and his antagonists. And, in fair investigation, another question, different from what was agitated, ought to have been first settled, viz. Whether any person, who is not visibly the subject of saving grace, can “befriend, rather than oppose, can honour, rather than discredit, the scriptural design of full communion? ” Fairly to answer this question in the negative, it is not enough to prove, that such a person cannot fully answer the scriptural design. But it ought to be proved, that no person destitute of such probable evidence of saving grace, in any circumstances whatever, can be found, who might befriend and honour the scriptural design of communion, rather than the contrary. This is the real hinge of the controversy. 15. It is an unscriptural notion, too much taken upon trust, that the immediate business of a church, is to form an opinion respecting the spiritual state of a person before God; as. whether be is the subject of saving grace —whether he has a principle of sincerity—whether his motives are spiritually pure, &c. Whereas, a church ought not to act the part of a jury on the candidate’s real state towards God, but on his state towards the church. They are to determine, whether he is or is not eligible to answer the scriptural ends of such a society, and indeed of that particular church. For, as the circumstances of divers churches may be very different, there may be cases, where the same person may be eligible to one church, and not to another. In one church he may promote its welfare, in another hinder it. This may greatly depend on his peculiar tenets, and the zeal with which he may be disposed to maintain them. In one society he may be a source of disquiet and confusion, but in another the reverse. 16 Hence it is evident, that a visibility of saving grace, though it claims the christian love and respect of the church, does not in all cases constitute eligible qualifications. For, whatever has an evident tendency to produce disputes, animosities, and divisions in a church, ought to be kept out of it. But the admission of a person who appeared zealous for sentiments and customs opposite to those held by the church, would have this apparent tendency, notwithstanding his possessing a visibility of grace, on other accounts. Therefore, though a visibility of grace, in some cases, may be sufficiently plain, yet an apparent failure in other respects may be sufficient to show that a person is not qualified for full communion. In short, if the church have good reason to think, that his admission would do more harm than good, he should be deemed unqualified for membership in that society, though he may be entitled to a charitable opinion, or even christian love, on other accounts: and, on the contrary, if the church have good reason to think, that his admission would do more good than harm, he should be deemed qualified for membership—even though he may be less entitled to a charitable opinion of his state towards God, than the other. COROLLARIES 1. Any candidate who appears, in the charitable judgment of a christian church, likely to give a favourable representation of Christianity to the church and the world—to encourage the desirous, by his knowledge and tempers—and to give and receive christian edification in that communion—is, in the scripture sense, qualified for full communion. 2. Personal religion, in the sight of God, is to be deemed necessary only for the sake of enabling the candidate to answer such ends,—as far as membership is concerned; but, as final salvation is concerned, personal religion is indispensably necessary, this connexion being clearly revealed, as well as founded in the nature of things. 3. A christian minister may consistently exercise holy jealousy over some church-members, and warn them of the danger of hypocrisy, without threatening them with exclusion from their membership; because only their overt-acts (including sentiments, tempers, and conduct.) are the object of discipline, as they were of admission. 4. Some persons, though in a safe state towards God, may not answer the forementioned ends of membership, better than others who are not in such a state. 5. A person may be qualified for the society of heaven, while not qualified for full communion in a christian church; because the natures of the two societies are different, and consequently the scriptural ends of their admission into each. For infants, and idiots &c. may be qualified by grace for the society of heaven; but are totally unqualified for full communion in the church on earth. 6. Were christian churches to act always on these principles, much bitter strife and useless discussions would be avoided, in the admission and exclusion of members. For, in neither the one nor the other, would the church pronounce on the state of the persons towards God; for when any were admitted, no handle would be afforded to the presumption, that membership below is a qualification for heaven - and when any were excluded, no occasion would be given to the excommunicated person, or to the world, to pass the censure of uncharitableness on the church; for every voluntary society has a right to judge, according to its own appropriate rules, who is, and who is not, qualified to promote its welfare.—W.