though just before they believed the same thing, and the discovery filled them with distress.

In p. 47, whereas it is said concerning these new converts, "that such were added to the church, as were the saved.” Mr. Williams says, "the like appellation is given to the whole church of Israel." And in this, and the foregoing page, he insists, that these converts were before in the church of Israel, and were not now admitted, but only continued as some of God's people. But if these things were so, they were the saved before their conversion to Christianity, as much as after; and others that were in the Jewish church, that were not yet converted to Christianity, were as much the saved as they. And then why is their being saved spoken of as what was now brought to pass, and as a thing that distinguished the believing Jews from others?

In the same page Mr. Williams says, "we do not dispute but that the apostles supposed and believed in charity, so far as they had any thing to do to suppose or believe any thing about it, that God had given these persons saving repentance, and an heart purifying faith." And yet in p. 61. He speaks of the apostles as supposing the contrary of many of those that had been admitted into the primitive church; in that they speak of them as such temples of God as might be destroyed : "Which (says Mr. Williams) cannot be true of sanctified persons, unless they can fall from grace."

In his answer to the argument from Philip and the Eunuch, he supposes, that believing with all the heart is only such a belief of the doctrine of Christianity as unsanctified men may have. And yet in that forementioned place Christ a King and Witness, p. 144, he says, a man before he is " renewed by the Holy Ghost, has a view of the truth as a doubtful, uncertain thing." And in the book now especially attended to, he in effect owns the thing, which he earnestly disputes against in reply to this argument. He grealy insists, that the phrase, with all the heart, does not signify gracious sincerity; and yet he owns it does. P. 51 and 52, he owns, that according to the usual way of speaking among mankind, both in our days, and also in times when the scriptures were written, “ Go»

requires men to give him their hearts, "intending by it such a sincerity as God will own and accept; which besure (says he) is nothing else than a gracious sincerity; which never can be, unless the whole soul and all its faculties be engaged for God." Then afterwards adds, "But how will this any ways prove, that when men use the same expressions, it must necessarily be understood in the same sense?" And yet in the same breath, he had observed that God in thus using the phrase, uses it according to the usual manner of speaking AMONG MANKIND. He gives this reason why the phrase need not be understoood in the same sense when used by men, that men are not searchers of hearts. But the argument is about the phrase as Philip put it to the Eunuch's own conscience, which was or ought to be a searcher of his heart.

And by the way I must observe, that Mr. Williams would have done well, if he was able, to have reconciled these repugnant things, taken notice of in my book; " That with the heart man believeth to righteousness, and that if men believe with the heart that God raised Christ from the dead, they shall be saved;" agreeable to Rom. x. 9, 10. And yet that men may "believe this with their heart, yea, and with all their heart, and still not believe to righteousness, nor ever be saved." So likewise, "That whoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God;" as in 1 John iv. 15. And that whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God," 1 John v. 1. And yet that man may believe this very thing with all his heart, and confess it with his mouth; and this in the language of the same apostles and primitive ministers; and still not be born of God, nor have a spark of grace in him.

It may also be worthy to be considered, whether it be reasonable to suppose, that the faith which a man must profess, in order to being in the visible kingdom of Christ, and not in the visible kingdom of the devil, must not be some other sort of faith than that which the devil has: That seeing the very design of a public profession of religion is to declare on which side we are, whether on Christ's or the devil's, no other faith is required to be professed, than such as Satan himself has,

"willing,

and such as is not at all inconsistent with being a cursed servant and slave of the devil, and enemy to Christ ;" as Mr. Williams says, all unsanctifled men are.

Mr. Williams, in his reply to my argument from the epistles, p. 55, speaks of it as an unaccountable thing, that I should represent as if, according to the principles of my opposers, the primitive Christians were not admitted "under any such notion of their being REALLY godly persons, or with any respect to such a character :"* and yet in his discourse on the same head, he abundantly insists, that it was not REAL holiness, but only FEDERAL holiness, which was the qualification, which the apostles had reference to in admitting them; expressly from time to time, distinguishing federal holiness from real. In p. 56, and 57, "It makes it evident (says he) that this manner of treating churches and bodies of men, and such expressions used to them and of them, are to be understood in no other sense, than to signify FEDERAL holiness." So in p. 60, he affirms the same thing once and again, distinguishing federal holiness from real. He says, "They formed no positive judgment of their REAL piety. And knew nothing at all about them, but only that they were FEDERALLY holy." And again, “They did not make a positive judgment, that these persons were REALLY godly; and the high characters they gave them, and the hopes they expressed concerning them, could be understood in no other sense than as holding forth a FEDERAL holiness." So that by this they expressed no HOPES concerning any thing more than their federal holiness, as distinguished from real. And he argues earnestly through the two next pages, that they could not be looked upon, many of them, as having real holiness. How does this consist with their being treated as visible saints; under the notion of their having real holiness, and from respect to such a character appearing on them? Or with none's being visible saints, but such as have a credible visibility of gospel holiness?

* So in p. 132, he exclaims against me thus; "After all this, to repeat it again and again, that these persons have no visibility to reason of REAL saintship, &c. I think, gives better ground to retort Mr. Edwards's words."

So in p. 63, he speaks of the gross scandals of many of those the apostles wrote to, as an absolute proof, that they considered them only as federally holy; which he in the same place distinguishes from real holiness. Then how were they treated (as he insists) as those that "had the character of REAL PIETY appearing on them, and as making a credible profession of gospel holiness, and real Christianity?" Which he abundantly allows, all must make in order to being visible saints. See also p. 64.

In p. 58, Mr. Williams insists, that it does not appear, that those who are admitted into the primitive church, “ made a declaration that they had saving faith, but ONLY that they engaged to that faith." But how does this consist with what he abundantly says elsewhere, That they must pretend to real piety, make a profession of gospel holiness, exhibit moral evidence, that they have such holiness, &c? These things are something else besides engaging to saving faith and gospel holiness for the future.

SECTION X.

The Unreasonableness and Inconsistence of Mr. Williams's Answer to my Argument from the Man without a Wedding Garment, and concerning Brotherly Love, and from 1 Cor. xi. 28, and of what he says in support of the fifteenth Objec

tion.

MR. WILLIAMS, in answering my argument from Matth. xxii. 11, allows that the king's house, into which the guests came, is the visible church, p. 43, 44. So that the man's coming in hither, is his coming into the visible church. Nor does he at all dispute but that by the wedding garment is meant saving grace; (for truly the thing is too evident to be

disputed :) And yet he says, p. 43, "We read nothing of Christ's condemning the man for coming into the church without saving grace." So that Mr. Williams's answer amounts plainly to this; The king, when he comes to judgment, will say, I do not at all condemn thee for coming in hither without a wedding garment: But, friend, how camest thou in hither without a wedding garment? And no wonder; the case is too plain to allow of any other than such a lamentable refuge as this is. If the wedding garment be saving grace, which is not denied; and if coming into the king's house be coming into the visible church, as Mr. Williams owns: Then if the king condemns the man for coming into the house without a wedding garment, he condemns him for coming into the visible church without saving grace.

It is plain, the thing the man is blamed for, is something else than simply a being without grace, or without a wedding garment. The king's words have respect to this as it stands in connexion with coming into the king's house. If Christ has commanded men who are not converted, to come into the church, that they may be converted, he will never say to them, upon their obeying this command, « Friend, how camest thou in hither before thou wast converted?" Which would be another thing than blaming him simply for not being converted. If a man, at his own cost sets up a school, in order to teach ignorant children to read; and accordingly ignorant children should go thither in order to learn to read, would he come into the school, and say in anger to an ignorant child that he found there; «How camest thou in hither before thou hadst learnt to read?" Did the Apostle Paul ever rebuke the heathen, who came to hear him preach the gospel, saying, “how came you hither to hear me preach, not having grace?" This would have been unreasonable, because preaching is an ordinance appointed to that end, that men might obtain grace. And so in Mr. Williams's scheme is the Lord's supper. Can we suppose that Christ will say to men in indignation, at the day of judgment, " How came you to presume to use the means I appointed for your cenversion, before you were converted?