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 high ways 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 endeavored 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. Williams 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, 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, 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. Williams. 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. Williams 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 a people will grow blind, will not much regard the warnings of the word, or the judg ments of God; and that they will grow weary of religious duties after a while; 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. Williams 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

* 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 dependance that they do give them up to God, and will bring them up in the nurture and admomition 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.

they own Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and to call him Loră, 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 already observed.

SECTION XI.

The Impertinence of Arguments, that are in like manner against the schemes of both the controverting parties: And this exemplified in what Mr. Williams says concerning the notion of Israel's 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. Williams'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 are 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's 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 show 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. Williams abundantly makes use of.

For instance, the argument taken from the whole nation of of Israel's being called God's people, and every thing that Mr. Williams alleges, 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 law

fulness for 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. Williams says to the contrary, does not relieve the ar gument from this embarrassment and absurdity. After all he has said, in turning and twisting it, to save the force of it, 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. Williams's argument, then let us see whether it agrees any better with his own scheme. Mr. Blake (Mr. Williams's great author) in his book on the Covenant, p. 190, insists that " Israel, at the very worst is owned as God's covenant people, and were called God's people ;" and p. 149, that "all the congregation of Israel, and every one of them, are called holy, and God's own people, even Corah and his company." And p. 253, 254, he urges, that every one who is descended from Jacob, even the WORST of Israel, in their LOWEST state and condition, were God's people in covenant, called by the name of God's people." And Mr. Williams herein follows Mr. Blake and urges the same thing; that this nation was God's covenant people, and were called God's people, at the time that they were carried captive into Babylon, p. 24, when they were undoubtedly at their worst, more corrupt than at any other time we read of in the Old Testament; being represented by the prophets, as overrun with abominable idolatries, and other kinds of the most gross, heaven daring impieties, most obstinate, abandoned, pertinacious and irreclaimable in their rebellion against God, and against his word by his prophets. But yet these, it is urged, are called the people of God; not agreeable to my notion of visible saintship, but agreeabie to Mr. Williams's. What his notion of visible saints is, he tells us in p. 139. He there says expressly that he "does not suppose persons to be visible saints, unless they exhibit a credible profession and visibility of gospel ho