Misrepresentations corrected, and truth vindicated. In a reply to the Rev. Mr. Solomon Williams's…

So in his Reply to what I say on the Parable of the Wheat and Tares (P. 98, &c.) He has entirely over-looked the Argument. He says, to vindicate the Objection, (P. 99.) Which we think shows us, the Mind and Will of Christ in this Matter is, that his Servants shall proceed only on certain established Rules of his visible Kingdom, and not upon any private Rules of judging about 'em. —Whereas, I never said, or supposed, that Christ's Servants must not proceed on certain established Rules of his visible Kingdom, or that they ought to go upon any private Rules of judging; but particularly and largely expressed my Mind to the contrary, in my explaining the Question: And say (Inq. P. 5.) That it is properly a Visibility to the Eye of the public Charity, and not of a private Judgment, that gives a Right to be received as visible Saints by the Public. And repeat the same Thing again, P. 125. c, d.

So in his Reply to what I say on the Parable of the Wheat and Tares (P. 98, &c.) He has intirely over-look'd the Argument. He says, to vindicate the Objection, (P. 99.) Which we think shows us, the Mind and Will of Christ in this Matter is, that his Servants shall proceed only on certain establish'd Rules of his visible Kingdom, and not upon any private Rules of judging about 'em. —Whereas, I never said, or supposed, that Christ's Servants must not proceed on certain establish'd Rules of his visible Kingdom, or that they ought to go upon any private Rules of judging; but particularly and largely express'd my Mind to the contrary, in my explaining the Question: And say (Inq. P. 5.) That it is properly a Visibility to the Eye of the publick Charity, and not of a private Judgment, that gives a Right to be received as visible Saints by the Publick. And repeat the same Thing again, P. 125. c, d.

And as to what Mr. W. says in this Place about Infants being born in the Church, it entirely diverts the Reader to another Point (which I shall hereafter particularly consider) wholly distinct from the Subject of the Argument; which is about Rules of Admission into the Church, whenever they are admitted. If Persons are born in the Church in complete Standing, as Mr. W. supposes, then they are not admitted at all, but in their Ancestors. But however, the Question returns, Whether Ancestors that are unsanctified, can have a lawful Right to come into the Church? Mr. W. holds they may. The Subject of the Argument is about bringing-in Tares into the Field, whenever they are brought in, whether sooner or later: And whether Tares have a lawful Right, by Warrant from Christ, to be in the Field; supposing this to intend the Church of Christ. The Argument I produced to the contrary was, that the Tares were introduced contrary to the Owner's Design, through Men's Infirmity & Satan's Procurement. Which Argument, being