tions made to them. And it is undoubtedly true, and has been matter of fact, for the most part, that of those called in this sense, many have been but only called, and never truly obedient to the call, few have been true saints. So it was in the Jewish nation, to which the parable in the twentieth of Matthew has a special respect; in general, they had the external call of God's word, and attended many religious duties, in hopes of God's favour and reward, which is called labouring in God's vineyard; and yet but few of them eventually obtained salvation; nay, great multitudes of those who were called in this sense, were scandalous persons, and gross hypocrites. The Pharisees and Sadducees were called, and they laboured in the vineyard, in the sense of the parable; for which they expected great rewards, above the Gentile converts or proselytes; wherefore their eye was evil towards them, and they could not bear that they should be made equal to them. But still these Pharisees and Sadducees had not generally the intellectual and moral qualifications, that my opponents suppose requisite for Christian sacraments; being generally scandalous persons, denying some fundamental principles of religion, and explaining away some of its most important precepts. Thus, many in Christendom are called, by the outward call of God's word, and yet few of them are in a state of salvation: But not all who sit under the sound of the gospel, and hear its invitations, are fit to come to sacraments.

That by those who are called, in this saying of our Saviour, is meant those that have the gospel-offer, and not those who belong to the society of visible saints, is evident beyond all dispute, in Matth. xxii. 14. By the many that are called, are plainly intended the many that are invited to the wedding. In the foregoing parable, we have an account of those who from time to time were bidden, or CALLED, (for the word is the same in the original), ver. 3. "And sent forth his servants to CALL them that were CALLED [xasσα 85 xexλeves,] and they would not come." This has respect to the Jews, who refused not only savingly to come to Christ, but refused so much as to come into the visible church of Christ. Ver. 4. " Again he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, [or CALLED,] Behold I have prepared my dinner," &c. Ver. 8. "They which were bidden [or CALLED] were not worthy." Ver. 9. "Go ve therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid [or CALL, xaλstars] to the marriage," or nuptial banquet; representing the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles; who upon it came into the king's house, i. e. the visible church, and among them one that had not a wedding-garment, who was bound hand and foot, and cast out when the king came: And then, at the conclusion, Christ adds this remark, ver. 14. "For many are CALLED or bidden [xλro,] but few are chosen ;" which must have reference, not only to the man last mentioned, who came

into the wedding-house, the Christian visible church, without a wedding-garment, but to those also mentioned before, who were called, but would not so much as come into the king's house, or join to the visible Christian church. To suppose this saying to have reference only to that one man who came without a wedding-garment, (representing one that comes into the visible church, but is not a true saint,) would be to make the introduction of this aphorism, and its connection with what went before very strange and unintelligible, thus,-" Multitudes came into the king's house, who were called, and the house was full of guests; but among them was found one man who was not chosen; for many are called, but few are chosen."

OBJECT. VI.

When the servants of the householder, in the parable of the wheat and tares, (Matth. xiii.) unexpectedly found tares among the wheat, they said to their master," Wilt thou that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them; let both grow together until the harvest." Which shews the mind of Christ, that we ought not to make a distinction between true saints and others in this world, or aim at admitting true saints only into the visible church, but ought to let both be together in the church till the day of judgment.

ANSW. 1. These things have no reference to introduction into the field, or admission into the visible church, as though no care nor measures should be taken to prevent tares being sown; or as though the servants who had the charge of the field, would have done well to have taken tares, appearing to be such, and planted them in the field amongst the wheat: No, instead of this the parable plainly implies the contrary. But the words cited have wholly respect to a CASTING OUT and purging the field, after the tares had been introduced unawares, and contrary to design, through men's infirmity and Satan's procurement.Concerning purging the tares out of the field, or casting men out of the church, there is no difference between me and those whom I oppose in the present controversy: And therefore it is impossible there should be any objection from that which Christ says here concerning this matter against me, but what is as much of an objection against them; for we both hold the same thing. It is agreed on all hands, that adult persons, actually admitted to communion in the visible church, however they may behave themselves so as to bring their spiritual state into suspicion, yet ought not to be cast out, unless they are obstinate in heresy or

scandal; lest, while we go about to root out the tares, we should root out the wheat also. And it is also agreed on all hands, that when those represented under the name of tares bring forth such evil fruit, such scandalous and obstinate wickedness, as is plainly and visibly inconsistent with the being of true grace, they ought to be cast out. And therefore it is impossible that this objection should be any thing to the purpose.

ANSWER 2. I think this parable, instead of being a just objection against the doctrine I maintain, is on the contrary a clear evidence for it.

For, (1.) The parable shews plainly, that if any are introduced into the field of the householder, or church of Christ, who proves to be not wheat (i. e. not true saints,) they are brought in unawares, or contrary to design. If tares are as properly to be sown in the field as is the wheat, which must be the case if the Lord's supper be a converting ordinance; then surely no care ought to be taken to introduce wheat only, and no respect ought to be had more to the qualities of wheat in sowing the field, than the qualities of tares; nor is there any more impropriety in the tares having a place there, than the wheat.But this surely is altogether inconsistent with the scope of the parable.

(2.) This parable plainly shews, that those who are in the visible church, have at first a visibility, or appearance to human sight of true grace, or of the nature of true saints. For it is observed, tares have this property, that when they first appear, and till the products of the field arrive to some maturity, they have such a resemblance of wheat, that it is next to impossible to distinguish them.

OBJECT. VII.

Christ himself administered the Lord's supper to Judas. whom he knew at the same time to be graceless; which is a full evidence, that grace is not in itself a requisite qualification in order to coming to the Lord's supper; and if it be not requisite in itself, a profession of it cannot be requisite.

ANSWER 1. It is to me apparent, that Judas was not present at the administration of the Lord's supper. It is true, he was present at the passover, and dipped with Christ in the paschal dish. The three former Evangelists do differ in the order of the account they give of this dipping in the dish.-Luke gives an account of it after his account of the Lord's supper, Luke xxii. 21. But Matthew and Mark both give an account of it before. (Matt. xxvi. 23, Mark xiv. 20.) And the like might be

shewn in other instances of these three Evangelists differing one from another in the order of their narratives; one places those things in his history after others, which another places first.These sacred historians do not undertake to declare precisely the date of every incident, but regard more the truth of facts, than the order of time. However, in the present case, the nature of the thing speaks for itself, and shews, that Judas's dipping with Christ in the dish, or his hand being with Christ on the table, or receiving a sop dipped in the dish, must be in that order wherein Matthew and Mark place it in their history, viz. at the passover, antecedent to the Lord's supper. For there is no such thing in the Lord's supper as dipping of sops, and dipping together in the dish; but there was in the passover, where all had their hands together in the dish, and dipt their sops in the bitter sauce. None of these three evangelists give us any account of the time when Judas went out; but John-who is vastly more particular as to what passed that night, and is every where more exact as to the order of time than the other Evangelists-is very precise as to the time, viz. that Jesus when he gave him the sop, at the same time sent him away, bidding him do quickly what he intended to do; and accordingly, when he had received the sop, he went immediately out, John xiii. 27-30. Now this sop being at the passover, it is evident he was not present at the Lord's supper which followed. Many of the best expositors are of this opinion, such as Van Mastricht, Dr. Doddridge, and others.

ANSWER 2. If Judas was there I deny the consequence, As I have observed once and again concerning the Lord's dealings with his people under the Old Testament, so under the New the same observation takes place. Christ did not come to judge the secrets of men, nor did ordinarily act in his external dealings with his disciples, and in the administration of ordinances, as the Searcher of Hearts; but rather as the head of the visible church, proceeding according to what was exhibited in profession and visibility; herein setting an example to his ministers, who should stand in his place when he was gone, and act in his name in the administration of ordinances. Judas had made the same profession of regard to his master, and of forsaking all for him, as the other disciples: And therefore Christ did not openly renounce him till he himself had destroyed his profession and visibility of saintship, by public scandalous apostacy. Supposing then the presence of Judas at the Lord's supper, this affords no consequence in favour of what I

oppose.

ANSWER 3. If they with whom I have to do in this con

troversy are not contented with the answers already given, and think there is a remaining difficulty in this matter lying against my scheme, I will venture to tell them, that this difficulty lies full as hard against their own scheme: and if there be any strength at all in the argument, it is to all intents of the same strength against the need of those qualifications which they themselves suppose to be necessary in order to an approach to the Lord's table. For although they do not think renewing saving grace necessary, yet they suppose moral seriousness, or (as they variously speak) moral sincerity in religion to be necessary. They suppose it to be requisite, that persons should have some kind of serious principle and view in coming to the Lord's table; some intention of subjecting themselves to Christ, and of seeking and serving him, in general; and in particular some religious end in coming to the sacramental supper, some religious respect to Christ in it. But now did not Christ at that time perfectly know that Judas had none of these things? He knew he had nothing of sincerity in the Christian religion, or of regard to Christ in that ordinance, of any sort whatsoever; he knew that Satan had entered into him and filled his heart, and that he was then cherishing in himself a malignant spirit against his master, excited by the reproof Christ had lately given him, (compare John xii. 8, with Matt. xxvi. 8-16, and Mark xiv. 4-11) and that he had already formed a traitorous murderous design against him, and was now in the prosecution of that bloody design, having actually just before been to the chief priests, and agreed with them to betray him for thirty pieces of silver. (See Matt. xxvi. 14, 15, 16. Mark xiv. 10, 11. Luke xxii. 3-6, and John xiii. 2.)Christ knew these things, and knew that Judas was utterly unqualified for the holy sacrament of the Lord's supper; though it had not yet been made known to the church or the disciples. Therefore it concerns those on the contrary part in this controversy, to find out some solution of this difficulty, as much as it does me; and they will find they have as much need to take refuge in the solution already given, in one or other of the two preceding answers to this objection.

By the way I would observe, that Christ's not excluding Judas from the passover, under these circumstances, knowing him to be thus unqualified, without so much as moral sincerity,&c. is another thing that effectually enervates all the strength of the objection against me, from the passover. For Judas did not only in common with others fall under God's strict command, in the law of Moses, to keep this feast, without any exception of his case there to be found; but Christ himself, with his own hand, gave him the sop, a part of the paschal feast; even although at the same instant he had in view the man's secret wickedness and hypocrisy, the traitorous design which was then in his heart.