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

Besides, if Christ has appointed that unsanctified Men should come into the Church, in Order to their Conversion, it would be an Instance of the Faithfulness of his Servants to bring in such. But the bringing in Tares into the Field, is not represented as owing to the Faithfulness and Watchfulness of the Servants; but on the contrary, is ascribed to their Sleepiness and Remissness: They were brought in while they slept, who ought to have done the Part of Watch-men, in keeping 'em out, and preventing the Designs of the subtle Enemy that brought 'em in.— Perhaps some would be ready to make the Reflection, that those Churches whose Practice is agreeable to the loose Principles Mr. W. espouses, do that at Noon-Day, in the Presence of God, Angels & Men, which the Devil did in the dead of the Night, while Men slept!

Besides, if Christ has appointed that unsanctified Men should come into the Church, in Order to their Conversion, it would be an Instance of the Faithfulness of his Servants to bring in such. But the bringing in Tares into the Field, is not represented as owing to the Faithfulness and Watchfulness of the Servants; but on the contrary, is ascribed to their Sleepiness and Remisness: They were brought in while they slept, who ought to have done the Part of Watch-men, in keeping 'em out, and preventing the Designs of the subtil Enemy that brought 'em in.— Perhaps some would be ready to make the Reflection, that those Churches whose Practice is agreable to the loose Principles Mr. W. espouses, do that at Noon-Day, in the Presence of God, Angels & Men, which the Devil did in the dead of the Night, while Men slept!

Again, Mr. W. in his Reply to my Argument from that Christian brotherly Love, which is required towards all Members of the visible Church, goes entirely off from the Argument, to Things quite alien from it. His first Answer (P. 69. c.) is, that the Exercise of this Christian Love is not the ⟨p. 104⟩Term of Communion or Admission into the visible Church: which is perfectly foreign to the Business. For the Argument respects the Object of this Love, viz. visible Saints, that are to be thus beloved; and not at all the Qualifications of the inherent Subject of it, or the Person that exercises this Love. If they that are admitted, are to be loved as true Saints, or for the Image of Christ appearing in them, or supposed to be in them (as Mr. W. allows P. 68. c.) then it will follow, that none are to be admitted, but such as can reasonably be the Objects of Christian Love, or be loved as true Saints, and as those who have the Image of Christ appearing in them. Whether the Exercise of this Love be the Term of Communion, or not; yet if we are commanded to exercise this Love to all that are admitted to Communion, then it will certainly follow, that some reasonable Ground for being thus beloved, must be a Term of Communion in such as are admitted. To suppose it appointed, that we should love all that are admitted as true Saints, & yet that it is not appointed that such as are admitted should exhibit any reasonable Grounds for such a Love, is certainly to suppose very inconsistent Appointments.