I Think, we have a remarkable Instance of Tergiversation, in what Mr. W. says in support of the Argument from Judas's partaking of the Lord's Supper. By those on his Side of the Question, 'tis insisted upon, as a clear Evidence of its being lawful for unsanctified Men to come to the Lord's Table, That Christ gave the Lord's Supper to Judas, when he knew he was unsanctified. In Answer to which, I showed, that this is just as much against their own Principles, as mine; because Christ knew as perfectly that he was not morally sincere, as that he was not graciously sincere; and they themselves hold, that 'tis not lawful for such as are not morally sincere, to partake. Mr. W. ridicules this, as very impertinent & strange; because Christ did not know this as Head of the visible Church, but only as omniscient God and Searcher of Hearts. And what does this argue? Only, that although' Judas was really not fit to come, yet, in-as-much-as Christ, acting as King of the visible Church, did not know it, He might admit him: But not, that it was lawful for Judas himself to come, who knew his own Heart in this Matter, and knew his own Perfidiousness and Treachery▪ for Mr. W. denies▪ that 'tis lawful for such to come, as have no moral Sincerity. So that here the Question is changed▪ from, Who may lawfully come, to Who may lawfully be admitted? Mr. W. does abundantly in his Book insist, that the Question is not, Who shall be admitted? but, Who may lawfully come? Not, whether it be lawful to admit those who have not a Visibility of Saintship, or don't appear to be true Saints? but whether those who are not true Saints, may lawfully partake? And this he insists upon in his Discourse on this very Argument, P. 104. c, d. And to prove this latter Point, viz. That those who are not real Saints, may lawfully come, the Instance of Judas's coming to the Lord's Supper is produced as an undeniable Evidence. But when it is answered, that the Argument don't prove this, any more than that the morally insincere may lawfully come; because Judas was morally insincere: then Mr. W. (P. 106.) to shelter himself, dodges, and ⟨p. 145⟩evidently changes the Question, at once, to that which he had so much exclaimed against as not the Question. Now, to serve his Turn, the Question is not, Whether Judas might lawfully come? but, Whether Christ might lawfully admit him, acting on a public Visibility?
I Think, we have a remarkable Instance of Tergiversation, in what Mr. W. says in support of the Argument from Judas's partaking of the Lord's Supper. By those on his Side of the Question, 'tis insisted upon, as a clear Evidence of its being lawful for unsanctified Men to come to the Lord's Table, That Christ gave the Lord's Supper to Judas, when he knew he was unsanctified. In Answer to which, I shewed, that this is just as much against their own Principles, as mine; because Christ knew as perfectly that he was not morally sincere, as that he was not graciously sincere; and they themselves hold, that 'tis not lawful for such as are not morally sincere, to partake. Mr. W. ridicules this, as very impertinent & strange; because Christ did not know this as Head of the visible Church, but only as omniscient God and Searcher of Hearts. And what does this argue? Only, that altho' Judas was really not fit to come, yet, in-as-much-as Christ, acting as King of the visible Church, did not know it, He might admit him: But not, that it was lawful for Judas himself to come, who knew his own Heart in this Matter, and knew his own Perfidiousness and Treachery▪ for Mr. W. denies▪ that 'tis lawful for such to come, as have no moral Sincerity. So that here the Question is changed▪ from, Who may lawfully come, to Who may lawfully be admitted? Mr. W. does abundantly in his Book insist, that the Question is not, Who shall be admitted? but, Who may lawfully come? Not, whether it be lawful to admit those who have not a Visibility of Saintship, or don't appear to be true Saints? but whether those who are not true Saints, may lawfully partake? And this he insists upon in his Discourse on this very Argument, P. 104. c, d. And to prove this latter Point, viz. That those who are not real Saints, may lawfully come, the Instance of Judas's coming to the Lord's Supper is produced as an undeniable Evidence. But when it is answered, that the Argument don't prove this, any more than that the morally insincere may lawfully come; because Judas was morally insincere: then Mr. W. (P. 106.) to shelter himself, dodges, and ⟨p. 145⟩evidently changes the Question, at once, to that which he had so much exclaimed against as not the Question. Now, to serve his Turn, the Question is not, Whether Judas might lawfully come? but, Whether Christ might lawfully admit him, acting on a publick Visibility?
