glorious things there signified; having no habitual hunger or relish for the spiritual food there represented, no inward, vital and experimental taste for that flesh of the Son of Man, which is meat indeed. The word translated discerning, signifies to discriminate or distinguish. The taste is the proper sense whereby to discern or distinguish food, Job. xxxiv. 3. And it is a spiritual sense or taste which is that whereby we discern or distinguish spiritual food. Heb. v. 14," Those who by reason of use, have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil;” προς διάκρισιν, &c. A word of the same root with that rendered discerning, in 1 Cor. xi. 29. He that has no habitual appetite to and relish of that spiritual food, which is represented and offered at the Lord's table; he that has no spiritual taste, wherewith to perceive any thing more at the Lord's supper, than in common food; or that has no higher view, than with a little seeming devotion to eat bread, as it were in the way of an ordinance, but without regarding in his heart the spiritual meaning and end of it, and without being suitably affected with the dying love of Christ therein commemorated; such a one may most truly and properly be said not to discern the Lord's body. When therefore the apostle exhorts to self-examination as a preparative for the sacramental supper, he may well be understood to put professors upon inquiring whether they have such a principle of faith, by means whereof they are habitually in a capacity and disposition of mind to discern the Lord's body practically and spiritually (as well as speculatively and notionally) in their communicating at the Lord's table. Which is what none can do who have but common grace, or a faith short of that which is justifying and saving. It is only a living faith that capacitates men to discern the Lord's body in the sacrament with that spiritual sensation or spiritual gust, which is suitable to the nature and design of the ordinance, and which the apostle seems principally to intend.

PART THIRD.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

Objection I.

THE Scripture calls the members of the visible church by the name of disciples, scholars, or learners; and that suggests to us this notion of the visible church, that it is the school of Christ, into which persons are adınitted in order to their learning of Christ, and coming to spiritual attainments, in the use of the means of teaching, discipline, and training up, established in the school. Now if this be a right notion of the visible church, then reason shows that no other qualifications are necessary in order to a being members of this school, than such a faith and disposition of mind as are requisite to persons putting themselves under Christ as their Master and Teacher, and subjecting themselves to the orders of the school. But a common faith and moral sincerity are sufficient for this. Therefore the Scripture leads us to suppose the visible church to be properly constituted of those who have these qualifications, though they have not saving faith and true piety.

ANSWER. I own, the Scripture calls the members of the visible church by the name of disciples. But I deny it therefore follows that the church which

they are members of, is duly and properly constituted of those who have not true piety. Because if this consequence was good, then it would equally fol low, that not only the visible, but also the invisible or mystical church is properly constituted of those who have not unfeigned faith and true piety. For the members of the mystical church, as such, and to denote the special character of such, are called disciples, in Luke xiv. 26, 27, 33, and in John viii. 31, and xiii. 35, and xv. 8. This shows, that in the argument I am answering, there is no connection between the premises and the conclusion. For the force of the objection consists in this, that the members of the visible church are called disciples in Scripture: this is the sum total of the premises: and if there be any connection between the premises and the conclusion, it must lie in the truth of this proposition: The church, whose members are called by the name of disciples, as signifying their state and quality as members of that society, that church is properly and fitly constituted, not only of persons truly pious, but of others that have merely a common faith and virtue. But this proposition, we have seen, is not true; and so there is no connection between the former and latter part of it, which are the same with the premises and conclusion of this argument.

2. Though I do not deny, that the visible church of Christ may fitly be represented as a school of Christ, where persons are trained up in the use of means, in order to some spiritual attainments: yet it will not hence necessarily follow, that this is in order to all good attaininents; for it will not follow but that certain good attainments may be prerequisite, in order to a place in the school. The church of Christ is a school appointed for the training up Christ's little children, to greater degrees of knowledge, higher privileges, and greater serviceableness in this world, and more of a meetness for the possession of their eternal inheritance. But there is no necessity of supposing that it is in order to fit them to become Christ's children, or to be introduced into his family; any more than there is a necessity of supposing, because a prince puts his children under tutors, that therefore it must be in order to their attaining to be of the royal family. If it be necessary, that there should be a church of Christ ap pointed as a school of instruction and discipline, to bring persons to all good attainments whatsoever, then it will follow, that there must be a visible church constituted of scandalous and profane persons and heretics, and all in common that assume the Christian name, that so means may be used with them in order to bring them to moral sincerity, and an acknowledgment of the Christian faith.

3. I grant, that no other qualifications are necessary in order to bring members of that school of Christ which is his visible church, than such as are requisite in order to their subjecting themselves to Christ as their Master and Teacher, and subjecting themselves to the laws and orders of his school: nevertheless I deny that a common fuith, and moral sincerity are sufficient for this; because none do truly subject themselves to Christ as their Master, but such as, having their hearts purified by faith, are delivered from the reigning power of sin: for we cannot subject ourselves to obey two contrary masters at the same time. None do submit to Christ as their Teacher, but those who truly receive him as their Prophet, to teach them by his word and Spirit; giving up themselves to his teachings, sitting with Mary, as little children, at Jesus' feet to hear his word; and hearkening more to his dictates, than those of their blind and deceitful lusts, and relying on his wisdom more than their own. The Scripture knows nothing of an ecclesiastical school constituted of enemies of the cross of Christ, and appointed to bring such to be reconciled to him and submit to him as their Master. Neither have they who are not truly pious persons, any true disposition

of heart to submit to the laws and orders of Christ's school, the rules which his word prescribes to all his scholars; such as, to love their Master supremely; to love one another as brethren; and to love their book, i. e., their Bible, more than vain trifles and amusements, yea, above gold and silver; to be faithful to the interest of the Master, and of the school; to depend on his teachings; to cry to him for knowledge; above all their gettings, to get understanding, &c.

4. Whatever ways of constituting the church may to us seem fit, proper, and reasonable, the question is, not what constitution of Christ's church seems convenient to human wisdom, but what constitution is actually established by Christ's infinite wisdom. Doubtless, if men should set their wits to work, and proceed according to what seems good in their sight, they would greatly alter Christ's constitution of his church, to make it more convenient and beautiful, and would adorn it with a vast variety of ingenious inventions; as the church of Rome has done. The question is, whether this school of Christ, which they talk of, made up very much of those who pretend to no experience or attainments but what consist with their being enemies of Christ in their hearts, and who in reality love the vilest lust better than him, be that church of Christ which in the New Testament is denominated his city, his temple, his family, his body, &c., by which names the visible church of Christ is there frequently called?

I acknowledge, that means, of Christ's appointment, are to be used with those who are Christ's enemies, and do not profess themselves any other, to change their hearts, and bring them to be Christ's friends and disciples. Such means are to be used with all sorts of persons, with Jews, Mahometans, Heatheus, with nominal Christians that are heretical or vicious, the profane, the intemperate, the unclean, and all other enemies of Christ; and these means to be used constantly, and laboriously. Scandalous persons need to go to school, to learn to be Christians, as much as other men. And there are many persons that are not morally sincere, who, from selfish and sinister views, do consent ordinarily to go to church, and so be in the way of the use of means. And none ought to forbid them thus going to Christ's school, that they may be taught by him in the ministry of the gospel. But yet it will not follow, that such a school is the church of CHRIST. Human laws can put persons, even those who are very vicious, into the school of Christ, in that sense; they can oblige them constantly to be present at public teaching, and attend on the means of grace appointed by Christ, and dispensed in his name: but human laws cannot join men to the church of Christ, and make them members of his body.

Objection II.

Visible saintship in the Scripture sense cannot be the same with that which has been supposed and insisted on, viz., a being in the eye of a rational charity truly pious; because Israel of old were from time to time called God's people, when it is certain the greater part of them were far from having any such visible holiness as this. Thus the ten tribes were called God's people, Hosea iv. 6, after they had revolted from the true worship of God, and had obstinately continued in their idolatrous worship at Bethel and Dan for about two hundred and fifty years, and were at that time, a little before their captivity especially, in the height of their wickedness. So the Jews are called God's people, in Ezek. xxxvi. 20, and other places, at the time of their captivity in Babylon; a time when most of them were abandoned to all kinds of the most horrid and open mpieties, as the prophets frequently represent. Now it is certain that the peo

ple at that time were not called God's people, because of any visibility of true piety to the eye of reason or of a rational charity, because most of them were grossly wicked, and declared their sin as Sodom. And in the same manner wherein the Jews of old were God's people, are the members of the visible Christian Gentile church God's people; for they are spoken of as grafted into the same olive tree, from whence the fortner were broken off by unbelief.

ANSWER. The argument proves too much, and therefore nothing at all. If those whom I oppose in this controversy, bring this objection, they will in effect as much oppose themselves in it as me. The objection, if it have any force, equally militates against their and my notion of visible saintship. For those Jews which it is alleged were called God's people, and yet were so notoriously, openly, and obstinately wicked, had neither any visibility of true piety, nor yet of that moral sincerity in the profession and duties of the true religion, which the opponents themselves suppose to be requisite in order to a proper visible holiness, and a due admission to the privileges and ordinances of the church of God. None will pretend that these obstinate idolaters and impious wretches had those qualifications which are now requisite in order to an admission to the Christian sacraments. And therefore to what purpose can they bring this objection? Which, if it proves any thing, overthrows my scheme and their own both together, and both in an equally effectual manner; and not only so, but will thoroughly destroy the scheme of all Protestants through the world concerning the qualifications of the subjects of Christian ordinances. And therefore the support of what I have laid down against those whom I oppose in this controversy, requires no further answer to this objection. Nevertheless for the greater satisfaction, I would here observe further:

That such appellations as God's people, God's Israel, and some other like phrases, are used and applied in Scripture with considerable diversity of intention. Thus, we have a plain distinction between the house of Israel, and the house of Israel, in Ezek. xx. 38, 39, 40. By the house of Israel, in the 39th verse, is meant literally the nation or family of Israel: but by the house of Israel in the 40th verse, seems to be intended the spiritual house, the body of God's visible saints, that should attend the ordinances of his public worship in gospel times. So likewise there is a distinction made between the house of Israel, and God's disciples, who should profess and visibly adhere to his law and testimony, in Isa. viii. 14-17. And though the whole nation of the Jews are often called God's people in those degenerate times wherein the prophets were sent to reprove them, yet at the satne time they are charged as falsely calling themselves of the holy city, Isa. xlviii. 2. And God often tells them, they are rather to be reckoned among aliens, and to be looked upon as children of the Ethiopians, or of the posterity of the ancient Canaanites, on account of their grossly wicked and scandalous behavior. See Amos ix. 7, 8, &c., Ezek. xvi. 2, 3, &c., verses 45, 46, &c., Isa. i. 10.

It is evident that God sometimes, according to the methods of his marvellous mercy, and long-suffering towards mankind, has a merciful respect to a degenerate church, that is become exceeding corrupt in regard that it is constituted of members who have not those qualifications which ought to be insisted on: God continues still to have respect to them so far as not utterly to forsake them, or wholly to deny his confirmation of, and blessing on their administrations And not being utterly renounced of God, their administrations are to be looked upon as in some respect valid, and the society as in some sort a people or church of God: which was the case with the church of Rome, at least till the Refor. mation and Council of Trent; fe till then we must own their baptists and or

dinations to be valid.-The church that the pope sits in, is called, The Temple of God, 2. Thess. ii. 4.

And with regard to the people of Israel, it is very manifest, that something diverse is oftentimes intended by that nation's being God's people, from their being visible saints, or visibly holy, or having those qualifications which are requisite in order to a due admission to the ecclesiastical privileges of such. That nation, that family of Israel, according to the flesh, and with regard to that external and carnal qualification, were in some sense adopted by God to be his peculiar people, and his covenant people. This is not only evident by what has been already observed, but also indisputably manifest from Rom. ix. 3, 4, 5, " I have great heaviness and sorrow of heart; for I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen, 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; and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came." It is to be noted, that the privileges here mentioned are spoken of as belonging to the Jews, not now as visible saints, not as professors of true religion, not as members of the visible church of Christ; but only as people of such a nation, such a blood, such an external and carnal relation to the patriarchs, their ancestors, Israelites, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. For 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 to the external privileges of Christ's people. So, in Rom. xi. 28, 29, the apostle speaks of the same unbelieving Jews, as in some respect an elect people, and interested in the calling, promises, and covenants God formerly gave to their forefathers, and as still beloved for their sakes. "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sake; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." These things are in these places spoken of, not as privileges belonging to the Jews now as a people of the right religion, or in the true church of visible worshippers of God; but as a people of such a pedigree or blood; and that even after the ceasing of the Mosaic administration. But these were privileges more especially belonging to them under the Old Testament: they were a family that God had chosen in distinction from all others, to show special favor to, above all other nations. It was manifestly agreeable to God's design to constitute things so under the Old Testament, that the means of grace and spiritual privileges and blessings should be, though not wholly, yet in a great measure confined to a particular family, much more than those privileges and blessings are confined to any posterity or blood now under the gospel. God did purposely so order things that that nation should by these favors be distinguished, not only from those who were not professors of the worship of the true God, but also in a great measure from other nations, by a wall of separation that he made. This was not merely a wall of separation, between professors and non-professors (such a wall of separation as this remains still in the days of the gospel), but between NATION and NATIONS. God, if he pleases, may by his sovereignty annex his blessing, and in some measure fix it, for his own reasons, to a particular blood, as well as to a particular place or spot of ground, to a certain building, to a particular heap of stones, or altar of brass, to particular garments, and other external things. And it is evident, that he actually did affix his blessing to that particular external family of Jacob, very much as he did to the city of Jerusalein, that he chose to place his name there, and to Mount Zion, where he commanded the blessing God did not affix his blessing to Jerusalem or Mount Zion, as to limit himself VOL L 20