« PreviousContinue »
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. 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 Matth. 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, intirely 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, Ing. p. 5, “ That it is properly a visibility to the eya 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 into the church, whenever they are admitted. If persons are born in the church in complete standing, as Mr. Williams supposes, then they are not admit., ied 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 lares into the field, whenever they are brought in, whether sooner or later: And whether tares have a lawful right, by war.. rant 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 intirely 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) ha!h done this. But how does this consist with the tares have ing 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 unsactified 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
surprize, when such are found there, how came these sick preofile 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 scrvants; 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. Williams 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 siept !
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 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. Williams allows, p. 68) 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 tbus beloved, must be a term of communion in such as are admitted. To suppose it appoint, VOL. I.
ed, 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. 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 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, ia reason, of being true saints, they may have a right to be love ed 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.f
As to Mr. Williams's third answer, and the misrepresentations it is built upon, it has already been taken notice of.
*" 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, io 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. 38.
+ 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 neighbors 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 light to be members of the visible family of God ?
* In Mr. Williams's reply to my answer to the first objec. tion 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 no
tion of the visible church as a school ; and leads us to sup*pose, 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 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's being représented 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 lawful. ly in the church. He there says nothing to prove, that il is ; "and especially to prove it from the meaning of the word, dis
ciples; 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