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 c. Mr. W. 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. W.) 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 greatly insists, that the phrase, with all the heart, does not signify gracious sincerity; and yet he owns it does. (p. 51. e. & 52. a. b.) He owns, that according to the usual way of speaking among mankind, both in our days, and also in the times when the scriptures were written, "God requires men to give him their hearts, intending by it such a sincerity as God will own and accept; which be sure (says he) is nothing less 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 way 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 understood 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. W. 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

66

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 "whosoever 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 a 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 on the devil's, no other faith is required to be professed, than such as Satan himself has, and such as is not at all inconsistent with being a willing, cursed servant, and slave of the devil, and enemy to Christ; as Mr. W. says, all unsanctified men are.

Mr. W. 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 opposites, 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 to which the apostles had respect in admitting them; expressly, from time to time, distinguishing federal holiness from real. In p. 56. e. & 57. a. "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 judg ment 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 under

*So in p. 132. c. he exclaims against me thus: "After all this, to repeat i 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."

stood 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 being visible saints, but such as have a credible visibility of gospel-holiness?

So in p. 63. b. he speaks of the gross scandals of many of those to whom the apostles wrote, 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. e.

In p. 58. Mr. W. insists, that it does not appear, that those who were 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.

SECT. X.

The unreasonableness and inconsistence of Mr. W'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 15th objection.

Mr. W. in answering my argument from Matt. xxii. 11, allows that the king's house, into which the guest came, is the visible church, (p. 43. c. and 44. d.) 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. b. c.) "We read nothing of Christ condemning the man for coming into the church without saving grace." So that Mr. W.'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. W. 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 weddinggarment. The king's words have respect to this as it stands in connection 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. W.'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 conversion, before you were converted?

It is true, the servants were to invite all, both bad and good, to come to the feast, and to compel them to come in: but this does not prove, that bad men, remaining in their badness, have a lawful right to come. The servants were to invite the vicious, as well as the moral; they were to invite the Heathen, who were especially meant by them that were in the highways and hedges: Yet it will not follow, that the Heathen, while remaining Heathen, have a lawful right to come to Christian sacraments. But Heathen men must turn from their Heathenism, and come so likewise wicked men must turn from their wickedness, and come.

I endeavoured to prove, that that brotherly love, which is required towards the members of the Christian church in general, is such a love as is required to those only whom we have reason to look upon as true saints. Mr. W. disputes, through

two pages, (p. 66, 67.) against the force of my reasoning to prove this point; and yet when he has done, he allows the point. He allows it (p. 68. d. e.)as an undisputed thing, that it is the image of God and Christ appearing or supposed to be in others, that is the ground and reason of this love. And so again, (p. 71. d. e.) he grants, that there must be some apprehension, and judgment of the mind, of the saintship of persons, in order to this brotherly love. Indeed he pretends to differ from me in this, that he denies the need of any positive judgment: But doubtless the judgment or apprehension of the mind must be as positive as the love founded on that apprehension and judgment of the mind.

In p. 78, 79. he seems to insist, that what the apostle calls unworthy communicating, is eating in a greedy, disorderly and irreverent manner: as though men might communicate without grace, and yet not communicate unworthily, in the apostle's sense. But if so, the apostle differed much in his sense of things from Mr. W.-The latter says, in his sermon on Christ a King and Witness, (p. 77. 78.) " These outward acts of worship, when not performed from faith in Christ, and love to God, are mocking God-in their own nature a lie-the vilest wickedness:instead of being that religion, which Christ requires, it is infinitely contrary to it-the most flagrant and abominable impiety, and threatened with the severest damnation." Is not this a communicating unworthily enough of all reason?

In p. 132, 133. Mr. W. strenuously opposes me in my supposition, that the way of freely allowing all that have only moral sincerity to come into the church, tends to the reproach and ruin of the church. On the contrary, he seems to suppose it tends to the establishing and building up of the church. But I desire that what Mr. Stoddard says, in his sermon on the danger of speedy degeneracy, may be considered under this head. He there largely insists, that the prevailing of unconverted men and unholy professors among a people, is the principal thing that brings them into danger of speedy degeneracy and corruption. He says, that where this is the case, there will be many bad examples, that will corrupt others; and that unconverted men will indulge their children in evil, will be negligent in their education; and that by this means their children will be very corrupt and ungoverned ;* that by this means the godly themselves that are among them, will be tainted, as sweet liquor put into a corrupt vessel will be tainted; that thus

*If we have reason to expect it will be thus with ungodly parents, with respect to their children, then certainly such cannot reasonably expect ministers and churches should admit their children to baptism, in a dependence that they do give them up to God, and will bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, if they make no profession that implies more than moral sincerity; and none but what wicked men may as well make as the godly, and speak true.