Page images
PDF
EPUB

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. 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.

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." citing distant passages in Mr. Hudson, and joining them, in

Mr. Williams, by

his own way, by particles and conjunctions, which Mr. Hud, son 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 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, 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 subjection and obedience; though not altogether in one place, or at one time." p. 100.

He speaks again to the same purpose,

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. Ivi. 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 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. 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 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 argu ment. 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 ey 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 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 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 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) 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 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 peofile 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 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 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 re

spects 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 thus beloved, must be a term of communion in such as are admitted. To suppose it appoint VOL. I. SI

« PreviousContinue »