Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

to perform all external covenant-duties. Here it is supposed. that scandalous persons, (which, according to Mr. W.'s scheme, must include all that have not moral sincerity,) though in the external covenant, are expressly, that is, evidently excepted and forbidden and that unsanctified men are not also evidently forbidden; which is the point in question. For if unsanctified men, though in external covenant, are as evidently forbidden and excepted, as scandalous men that are in external covenant, then the argument touches not one any more than the other. So that the argument is entirely a castle in the air, resting on nothing but itself. The grand thing to be proved, first taken for granted, and then made an argument to prove itself!

In explaining the nature of begging the question, I observed, that it is begging the question, or equivalent to it, whether the point that is taken for granted, and made an argument of, be the main point in controversy, or some particular known disputed point between the controverting parties: I will now illustrate this by an example. It is a known disputed point in this controversy, whether in the parable concerning the man without the wedding-garment, the king condemned the man for coming into the church without grace. Now supposing that I, because I look on the matter as very clear, should, besides using it as one distinct argument, also make it the basis of other arguments; and should use it in opposition to the strongest arguments of my opposers, as if it were sufficient to stop their mouths, without offering any proper solution of those arguments: As, in case I were pressed with the argument from the passover, if I should fly to the man without the wedding-garment; and should say, It is certain, this argument from the passover can be of no force against the express word of God in Matt. xxii. For there it is plain as any fact that ever the sun shone upon, that the king condemns the man for coming into the church without a wedding-garment; and it is plain as the sun at noon-day, that the wedding-garment is grace.-And if when the argument from Judas's partaking of the Lord's supper is alledged, I should again fly to the man without a wedding-garment, and say, Whatever reasons Christ might have for admitting Judas, yet it is plainly revealed, in Matt. xxii. 12, that God does not approve of men coming into the church without a wedding garment: This would be a beggarly, impertinent way of disputing, thus to answer one argument by throwing another in the way, which is contested, and the validity of which is denied. It is fair, that I should have liberty to use the argument concerning the wedding-garment, in its place, and make the most of it: But to use it as the support of other arguments, is to produce no additional proof. And thus, from time to time, to produce the disputed hypothesis of one argument, for answer to the arguments

of my antagonist, instead of solving those arguments, is flying and hiding from arguments, instead of answering them: instead of defending the fortress which is attacked, it is dodging and flying from one refuge to another.

Mr. W. acts this part from time to time, in the use he makes of his great argument from the Old Testament church and its ordinances. Thus (in p. 8.) he takes this method to answer my argument from the nature of visibility and profession, insisting that the Israelites avouching and covenanting was a thing compatible with ungodliness; which he knows is a disputed point in this controversy, and what I deny. Again, he makes use of the same thing, in answer to my argument from the nature of covenanting with God. (p. 23, 24.) And again he brings it in, (p. 25. e. 26. a.) answering what I say, by confidently asserting that concerning the church of Israel, which he knows is disputed, and I deny; viz. That the covenanting of Israel did not imply a profession that they did already believe and repent: As in these words, "This was never intended nor understood, in the profession which the Israelites made; but that they would immediately and from thenceforth comply with the terms of the covenant; and by the help of God, offered in it, would fulfil it. I am sure, this was what they professed; and I am sure, God declared he took them into covenant with him." And the same thing is brought in again to answer the same argument. (p. 31. c.) The same thing is thrown in, once and again, as an answer to what I say of the unreasonableness of accepting such professions as leave room to judge the greater part of the professors to be enemies of God. (p. 34. b. c.) The same thing is cast in as a sufficient block in the way of my arguing from the unreasonableness of accepting such professions, as amount to nothing more than lukewarmness. (p. 36, d. e.) The same is brought in, and greatly insisted on, to stop my mouth, in arguing from the epistles. (p. 56, 57.) The same is brought in again, to enervate my argument concerning brotherly-love. (p. 69. d.) And this is made use of as the support of other arguments; as that from the name disciples, and about the church being the school of Christ; and to confute what I say, in answer to that argument. (p. 84. a.) The same is brought in as a support of the eleventh objection, and a confutation of my answer to that. (p. 125. c. d. e.) And again, in reply to what I say in answer to the nineteenth objection. (p. 137. b. c.)

Another thing, near akin to begging the question, is resting the weight of arguments on things asserted without proof; which, though they do not properly make a part of the controversy, yet are things not allowed by those on the other side. Thus does Mr. W. in his arguing from the success of the Lord's supper in the conversion of sinners; (p. 137, 138.) supposing,

not only that the Lord's supper has been the occasion of the conversion of many, but that their communicating was the means of it. This he offers nothing to prove, and it is not allowed by those on the other side.* And it is what would be very hard to prove: If many were converted at the Lord's table, (which yet is not evident,) it would not prove, that their partaking was the means of their conversion; it might be only what they saw and heard there, which others may see and hear, that do not partake.

SECT. IX.

Mr. W.'s inconsistence with himself, in what he says in answer to my third and fourth arguments, and in his reply to my arguments from the Acts, and the Epistles.

The last thing observed in Mr. W.'s way of disputing, is his alledging and insisting on things wherein he is inconsistent with himself. His inconsistencies are of many sorts. Sometimes he alledges those things that are inconsistent with the doctrine of those whose principles he pretends to maintain.He abundantly urges those things against my scheme, which are in like manner against his own. He often argues against those things which he allows, and strenuously insists on. He denies what he affirms, and affirms what he utterly denies; laying down and urging those things which are contrary to what he says in other books; and sometimes contrary to what he says in the same book. Yielding up the thing wherein the argument lies, yet strenuously maintaining the argument.--Allowing both premises and consequence, yet finding fault, and opposing. Sometimes he urges things which are contrary to what he says under different arguments; and sometimes contrary to what he says under the same argument. Sometimes he contradicts himself in the plain sense and meaning of what he says; at other times even in plain terms. Sometimes in effect contradicting himself in the same breath, and in the same sentence.

These various kinds of inconsistence have many of them been already observed. And will further appear by a particular consideration of what he says on several heads, in what remains.

In my third argument, I insisted, that it could not be much

Thus that very eminent divine, and successful minister of Christ, the late Dr. Doddridge, in his Sermons on Regeneration, speaking of the means of regeneration, (p. 251. e. 252. a.) says," I do not mention the administration of sacraments, upon this occasion; because though they have so noble and effectual a tendency to improve men's minds in piety, and to promote Christian edification; yet I do not remember to have heard of any instance, in which they have been the means of men's conversion: which is the less to be wondered at, as they are appointed for a very different end."

to God's honour, for men to profess the assent of their judgment to the true religion, without pretending to any real friendship or love to God in their hearts. Mr. W. in opposition, (p. 34. d. e.) speaks of it as an honour to God, that secret hypocrites openly declare their conviction of the truth of God's word, &c. as in the multitude of subjects is the king's honour. And yet he himself represents the matter quite otherwise in his sermons on Christ a King and Witness; there (p. 87. a.) he has these words, "To promote the kingdom of Christ, is not to do that which may prevail with men to make pretences that they are Christians, or that they own Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and to call him Lord, Lord, when really he is not so."

In answer to my fourth argument, (p. 35. d.) Mr. W. says, I make a great misrepresentation of the matter, in insinuating that according to Mr. S-d's scheme, (of which scheme he declares himself to be) they who are admitted make a pretence of no more than moral sincerity, and common grace. And yet he insists, that when Philip required a profession of the Eunuch's faith, his question designed no more than an assent of the understanding, (p. 51. a. b.) which he there distinguishes from saving faith and says, that it is morally certain that his inquiry amounted to no more. And yet in his discourse on the same head, (p. 49. c.) he inveighs against me for supposing it a consequence of the opinion of my opposers, that the Eunuch, in order to come to sacraments, had no need to look at any such qualification in himself as saving faith.-Certainly the Eunuch in making answer to Philip's inquiry, had no need to look at any more than Philip inquired after. In p. 50. a. he says, "It does not seem at all probable, that Philip inquired any thing about the regeneration or sanctification of the Eunuch." And yet in the next preceding sentence, he refers me over to another judgment, for representing, as though my opposers supposed, that it was no matter whether a person coming to gospel-ordinances had any grace or not, and had no manner of need to inquire any thing about his sincerity.

And though he highly blames me for insinuating, as above, that my opposers require a pretence of no more than common grace and moral sincerity; yet in opposition to my insisting on a profession of saving faith, speaking of the profession which the apostles required, he says, (p. 58. c) "It is certain that a profession in these words, which was wont to be required, do sometimes import no more than a conviction of the understanding on moral evidence." So he says concerning those whose admission into the Christian church we have an account of in Acts ii. (p. 45. e.) "There is not one word said about any other faith, but believing that Jesus was the Messiah. And if so, then certainly no more was professed.

In p. 35. e. he allows that all visible saints who are not truly pious, are hypocrites; and yet maintains, that the profession they make is no more than what they make and speak honestly and truly. (p. 105. d. & 47. c.) how then are they all hypocrites, if they are honestly and truly what they profess to be?

c.)—And

In supporting the argument from John's baptism, he insists, that the profession the people made, did not imply, that they had savingly repented and that John openly supposed, that their profession did not imply it, in what he said to them. (p. 97. a. b. c.) And (p. 98. a. b.) he says, "We read not a word of John's inquiring whether these people made a'credible profession of true piety." And he there manifestly suggests, that John knew they were not pious, as he knew they were a generation of vipers. Yet how often elsewhere does Mr. W. insist, that men in order to come to sacraments must make a credible profession of true piety and gospel-holiness, and that they must in a judgment of charity be supposed to have real godliness?

In answer to my argument from the instance of the converts in Acts ii. Mr. W. speaking of their convictions, and being pricked in their hearts, (p. 45. c. d. e.) says, "They were convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah and Saviour, whom God had promised to Israel,-whereupon convinced of their sin, they cry out what shall we do? To which the apostles reply, repent and be baptized,-in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.-There is not one word said about any other faith, but believing that Jesus was the Messiah."-And in the two next pages Mr. W. insists, that their gladly receiving the word can by no necessity from the text imply more, than that they now believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that it was matter of joy to them that the Messiah was come.-So that we have this inconsistent account of the matter from Mr. W.; that these people are first convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, and this is cause of distress to them and they ask, what they shall do? Hereupon the apostles direct them to believe that Jesus is the Messiah; which they believed already, before they asked the question but however, when they heard this, they believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They now found it out, as a new thing they did not know of before, and are glad at the joyful discovery; though just before they believed the same thing, and the discovery filled them with distress.

In p. 47. b. whereas it is said concerning these new converts,- "That such were added to the church, as were the saved," Mr. W. 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

« FöregåendeFortsätt »