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

As to Mr. W—ms's third Answer, and the Misrepresentation it is built upon, it has already been taken Notice of.

As to Mr. W—ms's third Answer, and the Misrepresention it is built upon, it has already been taken Notice of.

In Mr. Williams's Reply to my Answer to the first Objection (P. 81, &c.) He wholly leaves the Argument, and writes in Support and Defence of other Matters, quite different from those which I mentioned, or had any Concern with. The Objection which I mentioned, and which had been much insisted on by some against my Opinion, was, That Church-Members are called Disciples, or Scholars; a Name, that gives us a Notion of the visible Church as a School; and leads us to suppose, that all who profess that Sort of Faith & Sincerity, which implies a Disposition to seek Christian Learning and spiritual Attainments, are qualified for Admission. But Mr. W. says nothing at all in Support of this Objection. In Answer to it, I endeavoured to show, that the Name Disciples given to Church-Members, does not argue that unsanctified Persons are fit to be Members. He says nothing to show, that it does. He says, if it won't follow from Christ's visible Church's being represented as Christ's School, that 'tis in Order to all good Attainments; yet 'tis in Order to all that they have not yet attained. Which is nothing to the Purpose, but foreign to the Thing in Debate, viz. Whether sanctifying Grace […] of those Things which are not yet attained by those that are lawfully in the Church. He there says nothing to prove, that it is; and especially to prove it from the Meaning of the Word, Disciples; which was the Argument in Hand. He insists, that Men may be sufficiently subject to Christ as their Master and Teacher, in Order to be in his School or Church, without Grace: But then the Thing to be proved, was, That Church-Members being called Disciples ⟨p. 106⟩makes this evident, in Order to support the Argument or Objection I was upon: Which Argument is entirely neglected throughout all his Discourse under this Head.

In Mr. Williams's Reply to my Answer to the first Objection (P. 81, &c.) He wholly leaves the Argument, and writes in Support and Defence of other Matters, quite different from those which I mention'd, or had any Concern with. The Objection which I mention'd, and which had been much insisted on by some against my Opinion, was, That Church-Members are called Disciples, or Scholars; a Name, that gives us a Notion of the visible Church as a School; and leads us to suppose, that all who profess that Sort of Faith & Sincerity, which implies a Disposition to seek Christian Learning and spiritual Attainments, are qualified for Admission. But Mr. W. says nothing at all in Support of this Objection. In Answer to it, I endeavour'd to shew, that the Name Disciples given to Church-Members, does not argue that unsanctified Persons are fit to be Members. He says nothing to shew, that it does. He says, if it won't follow from Christ's visible Church's being represented as Christ's School, that 'tis in Order to all good Attainments; yet 'tis in Order to all that they have not yet attained. Which is nothing to the Purpose, but foreign to the Thing in Debate, viz. Whether sanctifying Grace of those Things which are not yet attained by those that are lawfully in the Church. He there says nothing to prove, that it is; and especially to prove it from the Meaning of the Word, Disciples; which was the Argument in Hand. He insists, that Men may be sufficiently subject to Christ as their Master and Teacher, in Order to be in his School or Church, without Grace: But then the Thing to be proved, was, That Church-Members being called Disciples