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 at 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 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. *

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. 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 shew, that the name disciples, given to church-members, does not argue that unsanctified persons are fit to be members. He says nothing to shew, 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

"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. v. p. 32.

A good argument might also be drawn from the corruption of unsanctified 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 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 that 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!

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 upon 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 respects 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 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 I. 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 supposes 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 refer

ence. 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 of the living God; notin 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 69

VOL. IV.