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."

a people will grow blind, will not much regard the warnings of the word, or the judgments of God; and that they will grow weary of religious duties after awhile; and that many of their leading men will be carnal; and that this will expose a people to have carnal ministers and other leading men in the town and church.

And I desire also, that here may be considered what Mr. W. himself says, in that passage forecited, (p. 86, 87.) of his sermons on Christ a King and Witness; where, in explaining what it is to promote the kingdom of Christ, he says negatively, "That it is not to do that which may prevail on men to make pretences, that they are Christians, and that they own Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and to call him Lord, Lord, when really he is not so." Which he supposes is the case with all unsanctified professors; for in the same book, he abundantly declares, that they who make such pretences, and have not true faith and love, make false and lying pretences; as has been several times observed.

SECT. XI.

The impertinence of arguments, that are in like manner against the schemes of both the controverting parties: And this exemplified in what Mr. W. says concerning the notion of Israel being the people of God, and his manner of arguing concerning the members of the primitive Christian church.

Inasmuch as in each of the remaining instances of Mr. W.'s arguing, that I shall take notice of, he insists upon and urges arguments, which are in like manner against his own scheme, as against mine, I desire, that such a way of arguing may be a little particularly considered.

And here I would lay down this as a maxim of undoubted verity; That an argument, brought to support one scheme against another, can avail nothing to the purpose it is brought for, if it is at the same time against the scheme it would support, in like manner as against that which it would destroy.

It is an old and approved maxim, That argument which proves too much, proves nothing, i. e. If it proves too much for him that brings it-proves against himself in like manner as against his opponent-then it is nothing to help his cause. The reason of it is plain: The business of a dispute is to make one cause good against another, to make one scale heavier than the other. But when a man uses an argument which takes alike

out of both scales, this does not at all serve to make his side preponderate, but leaves the balance just as it was.

Arguments brought by any man in a dispute, if they be not altogether impertinent, are against the difference between him and his opponent, or against his opponent's differing from him for wherein there is no difference, there is no dispute.But that can be no argument against his opponent differing from him, which is only an argument against what is common to both, and taken from some difficulty that both sides equally share in. If I charge supposed absurdities or difficulties against him that differs from me, as an argument to shew the unreasonableness of his differing; and yet the difficulty is not owing to his differing from me, inasmuch as the same would lie against him, if he agreed with me, my conduct herein is both very impertinent and injurious.

If one in a dispute insists on an argument, that lies equally against his own scheme as the other, and yet will stand to it that his argument is good, he in effect stands to it that his own scheme is not good; he supplants himself, and gives up his own cause, in opposing his adversary; in holding fast his argument, he holds fast what is his own overthrow; and in insisting that his argument is solid and strong, he in effect insists that his own scheme is weak and vain. If my antagonist will insist upon it, that his argument is good, that he brings against me, which is in like manner against himself; then I may take the same argument, in my turn, and use it against him, and he can have nothing to answer; but has stopped his own mouth, having owned the argument to be conclusive. Now such sort of arguments as these Mr. W. abundantly uses.

For instance, the argument taken from the whole nation of Israel being called God's people, and every thing that Mr. W. alledges, pertaining to this matter, is in like manner against his own scheme as against mine: And that, let the question be what it will; whether it be about the qualifications which make it lawful for the church to admit, or about the lawfulness of persons coming to sacraments; whether it be about the profession they should make before men, or the internal qualification they must have in the sight of God. And what Mr. W. says to the contrary, does not at all deliver the argument from this embarrassment and absurdity. After all he has said, the argument, if any thing related to the controversy, is plainly this, That because the whole nation of Israel were God's visible people, (which is the same as visible saints,) therefore the scripture notion of visible saintship is of larger extent than mine: and the scripture supposes those to be visible saints, which my scheme does not suppose to be so.

But if this be Mr. W.'s argument, then let us see whether