the rule 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. Stoddard 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. Williams denies it, and says, this is nothing akin to Mr. Stoddard's argument; contrary to the plainest fact.

66

In p. 99, Mr. Williams, 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. Williams is still manifestly endeavoring 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. Hudson speaks of, is not an explicit owning the covenant of grace, or baptismal covenant; but a particular church covenant, by which a particular society binds 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. Williams, 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 leaving 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. Williams's purpose. Mr. Hudson says not a word here against, or about an express or explicit covenanting, or owning the coveant, in ny sense: but in other places, in the same book, he speaks of it, and or it, as necessary for all Christians. Thus, in p. 69, "There is one individual, EXPRESS, external 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 subjec tion and obedience; though not altogether in one place, or at one time." He speaks again to the same purpose, p. 100.

SECTION III.

Instances of the third thing observed in Mr, Williams'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) to my argument from Isa. lvi. Particularly from those words, v. 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 servantseven 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. Williams 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 to 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. Williams 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 chapter of Matt. representing the final issue of things, with regard to the visible church in general, speaks of all as being such as 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. Williams, in his reply, p. 40, 41, entirely overlooks the argument, and talks about other things. He says, "Christ does not fault those that cried Lord, Lord, for entering into covenant, but for not keeping covenant," p. 41. 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 my explaining the question and say, 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.

And as to what Mr. Williams 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 in the church, whenever they are admitted. If persons are born in the church in complete standing, as Mr. Williams 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. Williams 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 whenever 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? I CHRIST by his institution has, in mercy to unsanctified men, given them a lawful sight 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 these sick people HERE? And shall the compassionate physician, who built the hospital, make answer, An enemy hath done this?

Besides, if Christ had 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 watchinen 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. Williams espouses, do that at noonday, in the presence of God, angels and men, which the devil did in the dread of the might, while men slept!

Again, Mr. Williams, 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, 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 sub ject 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. Williams allows, p. 68), then it will follow that none are to be adinitted, 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 cominunion, 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 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 adinitted should exhibit any reasonable grounds for such a love, is certainly to suppose very inconsistent ap pointments.

Mr. Williams's second answer, p. 70, 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 iny argument

." The aposties looked on all thos`, 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 acknowledg• ing that truth as dwelling in them. And so we s e the apostles, in their writings to the charches, supposing all their members objects of this brotherly love. Christ's visible church then is the congregati of these whom the apostle could call the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus. —Gilars's Notes on Scripture Texts Numb. 5, p. 32.

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. As to Mr. Williams's third answer, and the misrepresentations it is built upon, it has already been taken notice of.

*

In Mr. Williams'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. Williams says nothing at all in support of this objection. In answer to it, I endeavored 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's 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 11th objection, p. 123, &c., he wholly neglects the argument, and labors to support a different one. I endeavored, 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's 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. Stoddard'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 1 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,

• A good argument might also be drawn from the corruption of unsanctiɗed men; for that they are all so under 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 huis. Three Sermons, p. 40, Men ate obliged to love their neighbors as themselves. Bet no natural men do in any measure live up to that rule but med are great enemies to one another, hateful and hating one another. They do but little good one to another. They do a great deal of hurt one to año her.” Now is it reasonable to suppose, that such men have the proper qualifications, by divine institution, for a lawtal right to be membe is of the visi de tuily of God! Vol. I. 33

besides the Lord's supper;" for I do not suppose, such may offer themselves to baptism; which Mr. Stoddard takes for granted, in his argument. And there fore, what Mr. Williams 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's 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. Williams'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 respects God's covenant people, may not come to sacrainents: 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. Sec. S.

SECTION IV.

The fourth thing observed in Mr. Williams'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 men, 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 of this, viz., that Mr. Williams, in his reply to my argument, from the epithets and characters given by the apostles to the members of the visible Christian churches, in their epistles, represents, p. 56, that there is no difference in all the epithets and characters, which I have 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 supposes to be the whole body of the Jewish nation; yea, even in their worst times, until 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 easier judged, how manifestly this is contrary to truth, I shall here repeat some of those epithets and characters I before mentioned,