PART II. Examination of Mr. Williams’s scheme.

PART II.

AN EXAMINATION OF MR. WILLIAMS’S SCHEME, IN THE VARIOUS PARTS OF IT.

SECT. I

_Mr. W—‘s Concessions. _

Mr. W. allows, that, in order to a man’s coming to sacraments, he ought solemnly to profess and declare, that he is really and heartily convinced of the divine truth of the gospel, (p. 30._e. _p.36. _a. _p. 32. c. p. 84. a.) That he does sincerely, and with all his heart, believe the gospel, When I first proposed to a certain candidate for communion at Northampton, the publicly making this profession, viz. That he believed the truth of the gospel with all his heart, many of the people cried out, that I insisted on what no saint on earth could profess, and that this amounted to a profession of absolute perfection. Hence many reports spread about the country, that I insisted on perfection as a term of communion. (p. 49. e.) And that they which admit him, ought to be satisfied he really believes the gospel, that Jesus is the Son of God, the Saviour, (p. 54. c.) That he should profess and declare he believes in Christ, and that the gospel is indeed the revelation of God. (p. 5. c.) He allows, that none ought to be admitted, but such as openly profess and declare a hearty consent to the covenant of grace, and compliance with the call of the gospel, and submission to the proposals of it, and satisfaction with that device for our salvation that is revealed in the gospel, and with the offer which God makes of himself to be our God in Christ Jesus, Mr. W. cites Mr. Guthrie (pref. p. 4. c. e.) as on his side, when he speaks of such a profession, as that which is to be made. and that they fall in with the terms of salvation proposed in the gospel, and renounce all other ways. (p. 5. c. p. 8. a. p. 9. _b. c. _p. 11. a. p. 18. _e. _p. 55. a. p. 32. c.) He plainly supposes it not to be lawful for them that are lukewarm in religion, or those that serve two masters, to come to sacraments. (p. 32. _b. _p. 35. _d. e. _p. 36. c.) He supposes, that there must be a real determination of a man’s judgment and affection for the word of God. (p. 55. c.) That there ought to be a profession of subjection to Christ with all the heart, (p. 10. d.) and of a devotedness to the service of God. (p. 49. d.) And a professed giving up themselves to Christ, to be taught, ruled, and led by him in the gospel-way to salvation; (p. 31. _e. _and 32. a.) And that communicants ought to declare, that they do, with all their hearts, cast themselves upon the mercy of God, to help them to keep covenant; (p. 125. b.) That they ought to profess a proper respect to Christ in their hearts, as well as a true notion of him in their heads; (p. 31. d.) That they must make a profession that imparts a pretence of real friendship to Christ, and love to God above the world. (p. 36. c.) That none ought to be admitted but visible saints, and that this visibility must be such as to a judgment of rational charity makes them appear as real saints, wise virgins, and endowed with gospel holiness: (p. 5. a. b. p. 41. _e. _p. 42. b. p. 139. a. d. p. 14. a.) That there should be a charitable presumption, that the Spirit of God has taken hold of them, and turned their hearts to God. (p. 52. c.) That they should be such persons as are in the eye of a christian judgment truly gracious persons, supposed and believed in charity to be those to whom God has given saving repentance, and a heart-purifying faith; (p. 65. _e. _and p. 47. b. c.) Such as have the moral image of Christ appearing in them, or supposed to be in them, and are to be loved on that account, (p. 68. c.) He allows, that there ought to be some apprehension, some judgment of the mind, that they are Christians and saints, and have the moral image of God in them. By this it appears, when Mr. W. speaks of the church’s rational judgment that persons have real holiness, and the like, he does not mean merely treating them as such, in public administrations, and external conduct: for here he speaks not of the external conduct, but of the apprehension of the understanding, and judgment of the mind; and this as the foundation of the affection of the heart. (p. 68. c. _d. e. _p. 69. a. and 71. d.) He allows, that they must be taken into the church under a notion of their being godly, and with respect to such a character appearing on them: and very often insists, that they themselves must make such a pretence. (p. 55. c. _d. e. _ Mr. W—‘s words (p. 55. d. e) are pretty remarkable: “The reader (says he) will judge, whether the manner of Mr. Edwards’s treating the question, and representing the opinion of Mr. Stoddard and others, in the words I have quoted above, be not unaccountable; though this is neither the first nor the last time of his treating the matter in such a manner: as if Mr. Stoddard and his adherents supposed persons were to be admitted without any notion of their being godly, or any respect to such a character appearing on them, and that they themselves are without such a pretence.” — Whereas, Mr. Stoddard expressly maintains, that men may be duly qualified, and fit matter for church-membership, without saving grace. (Appeal, p. 15, 16.) And that they may and ought to come, though they know themselves to be in a natural condition. (Doct. of Instituted Churches. p. 21. See also his Sermon on the subject, p. 13.) And according to Mr. Stoddard, communicants are not so much as supposed godly persons. This (Appeal, p. 43.) he says expressly, that by the institution communicants at the Lord’s supper are not supposed to be real saints. And also asserts (Appeal, p. 76 ) that we are not obliged to believe visible saints to be real saints. And it seems by what he says in his Appeal, (p. 17.) the church may admit persons to communion, when at the same time they are aware that they are hypocrites. For there, in answer to Dr. Mather, who had cited certain texts to prove, that when hypocrites do come into the church, they come in unawares; he says, but neither of the places he cites proves that all hypocrites come in unawares. And in the next page he says, The discovery of men’s hypocrisy is not the reason of their being cast out. Still evidently on the same foundation, that some known hypocrites are fit to be admitted: for he says, (p. 15. d.) Such as being admitted may not be cast out, are fit to be admitted. And these things are agreeable to what I know Mr. Stoddard’s church and congregation have universally supposed to be his constant doctrine and practice among them. Thus it was, without one dissenting voice among them, during the twenty-four years that I lived with them. And now the reader is desired to judge, as Mr. W. would have him, whether my representing it to be the opinion of Mr. S and his adherents, that persons might be admitted into the church without any notion of their being godly, or any respect to such a character appearing on them, be unaccountable.—By these things it is evident. Mr. S—d’s scheme was far from being what Mr. W. represents it to be, and pretends to maintain as his. And if the question he had to controvert with me, were Mr. S—d’s question, as he asserts: yet he greatly mistakes the true state of the question, though that be given as the title of his book. p. 132. a. c. d. e. p. 136. _d. _p. 143. c.) So he allows, that they must not only be endowed with christian piety in appearance; but that they must be so in profession. (p. 3. a. p. 41. _e. _p. 44. d.) That they make a show of being wise virgins by the nature and purport of their profession. (p. 42. b.) And he insists with great strenuousness, over and over, upon its being their scheme, that they ought to make a profession of real saintship. (p. 132. a. c. d.) Yea, he holds, that there must be not only some visibility and profession of real piety, but moral evidence of it. (p. 139. d.) He often uses notes of distinction, distinguishing between _moral sincerity _and real piety; and insists much upon it as belonging to their scheme, that there must be a visibility of the latter, as thus distinguished from the former. So, he rejects with great contempt any suggestion of its being the scheme of my opposers, that _moral sincerity _is that saintship, which is to be professed and made visible; and in distinction from this, he asserts, that it is _real holiness. _(p. 4. _d. e. _and p. 5. a. b.) And again (p. 35. c.) he uses a note of distinction, and insists that the opposers of my opinion hold, that communicants must make a profession of something more than common grace and moral sincerity. And again (p. 139. a. d.) he uses notes of discrimination, and says, that they must exhibit a credible profession of gospel-holiness, and not merely of moral sincerity; and says, it is not the visibility of moral sincerity, but the moral evidence of gospel-sincerity, which God’s word makes the rule of judging.—And as he holds, that communicants must profess gospel-holiness, so he seems to suppose that these professors must judge this of themselves; several things he says, seem plainly to imply it. This appears evidently implied in that interrogation put by Mr. W. (p. 35. e.) “Mr. S. rightly supposes all visible saints who are not truly pious, to be hypocrites; and the Scripture supposes and calls them so too: but will it therefore follow, that all hypocrites know they are so?” And he in effect asserts, that men should look at such a qualification, as sanctifying grace, in themselves, and inquire whether they have it, or no, in order to determine whether they should present themselves to gospel-ordinances: for he greatly finds fault with me for suggesting, as if those of a different opinion from me supposed, that persons have no manner of need to look at any such qualification in themselves, or at all inquire, whether they have it, in order to present themselves to sacraments. He refers to that passage in my book, (p. 55. d.) “ I cannot conceive what should move _Philip _to utter those words, or what he should aim at in them, if he at the same time supposed that the eunuch had no manner of need to look at any such qualification in himself, or at all to inquire whether he had such a faith, or no, in order to determine whether he might present himself as the subject of baptism.” It is plain, the qualification I have respect to, is _grace, _or _saving faith. _And so Mr. W, himself understands me; as appears by his reflections, (p. 49. c. d. e.) where, after quoting this passage, he consigns me over to another judgment, for suggesting that my opposers hold what I had there expressed, and for “representing the matter, as if they looked on it as no matter whether a person coming to gospel ordinances had any GRACE or no, and that he had no manner of need to inquire any thing about his sincerity .” Now let all that have been acquainted with the controversy between me and my people at Northampton, consider these things, which Mr. W. earnestly insists do belong to his scheme: and judge whether they be agreeable to the scheme which my opposers there have so vehemently and long contended for; yea, whether they are not very opposite to it; or whether in these things Mr. W. has not entirely yielded up, yea, vehemently asserted, the chief things concerning which they contested with me; and so, whether he has at all helped their cause by writing his book, or rather, on the contrary, has fought against them.

SECT. II

_Some plain consequences of the foregoing concessions. _

If it be as Mr. W. says, that the church ought to admit none to their holy communion, in special ordinances, but visible saints, and that this visibility must be such as to a judgment of rational charity, makes them appear as real saints, and those that are admitted must be such as profess real saintship, gospel-holiness, in distinction from moral sincerity; then the whole of my _first _argument, from the nature of a _visibility _and _profession _of Christianity, is allowed by him, in both _premises _and _consequences. _And indeed Mr. W. does not only do thus consequentially, but he is express in it. In (p. 4. c.) taking notice of this argument, he says, ’‘The sense and force of it wholly lies in this compass; a _visible saint _is one that to the view, appearance, and judgment of the church, is a real saint; and since none but _visible saints _are to be admitted by the church, therefore none are to be admitted but such as _appear _to the view and judgment of the church to be real saints.“ But these things, which Mr. W. himself allows as the sum of the argument, both premises and consequence, are expressly allowed by him in what there follows.

2. If there must be a visibility and profession of _real piety, _in distinction from _moral sincerity, _so that it can be truly said, as Mr. W. says with discretive terms, and notes of discrimination, that not merely the one must be professed, but the other; and that more than moral sincerity must be professed, &c.—Then it follows (or rather it is the same thing) that men must profess religion with some _discrimination, _or marks of difference in their words, distinguishing what is professed from moral sincerity; contrary to what Mr. W. strenuously and frequently asserts, (p. 6. c. _d. _and p. 9. _c. _and many other places.) For if the profession is made in words that signify no _difference, _then nothing _different _is signified or professed by those words; and so nothing MORE; contrary to what Mr. W. also asserts

3. If it be as Mr. W. says, that the Scripture has determined none ought to be admitted, but such as make an open profession and declaration of a hearty consent to the terms of the covenant of grace, such as covenant with God with their whole hearts, and profess gospel-holiness: then the whole of my _second _argument, concerning _explicit covenanting with God, _is expressly allowed, in both _premises _and consequence; though Mr. W. seems at the same time, with much labour and earnestness, to militate against it. For the _premises _are, that all outfit openly and explicitly to own God’s covenant, or consent to the terms of _it. _This is the same thing that he asserts, as above. And the _consequence, _or thing which I inferred from it, was, that all that are admitted ought to make a profession of real godliness: and this also he expressly and often allows.

4. Since it is supposed, that in order to admission, men ought to profess real friendship to Christ, and love to him above the world, and to profess a proper respect to Christ in their hearts, as well as true notion of him in their heads; and that they ought to profess gospel-holiness, and not merely moral sincerity: therefore the whole of what belongs to my _third _argument, is allowed, both _premises _and _consequence. _The _premises _were, that _the nature of things affords us much reason for profaning a proper respect to Christ in the heart, as a true notion of him in the head. _This he allows. What I endeavoured to _infer _from hence, was, that therefore men ought to profess true piety, and not only moral sincerity: and this is also allowed by him.

5. It appears, that the whole of my _fourth _argument, both _premises _and _consequence, _is allowed. The _premises _were, that _the Scripture reckons all visible saints who are not truly pious, to be hypocrites. _This Mr. W. expressly allows, (p. 25. e.) The consequence I inferred, was, that visible saints are such as make a profession of true godliness, and not only moral sincerity. This also is very fully allowed by him, (p. 139. a.)

6. Since it is supposed, that when Christ’s rules are attended, they that come to sacraments, _do not know themselves to be hypocrites, _but most l_ook at such a qualification in themselves, _as grace, and make such a _pretence, _and profess gospel holiness: therefore all is in effect allowed, that I endeavoured from the latter part of the 7th chapter of _Matthew, _which was to show, that professing Christians in general, all those that said, _Lord, Lord, _both those that built on the _sand, _and those that built on a _rock, _were such as imagined themselves to have a saving interest in Christ, and _pretended _to be his real disciples, and made such a _profession. _The same was what I endeavoured to show from the parable of the _ten virgins. _And therefore all that I argued from thence is in like manner allowed.

7. Hence, in vain is all the opposition Mr. W. makes to what I allege from the _Acts of the Apostles, _from the story of the _eunuch _and other parts of that book, concerning the manner and circumstances of the admission of members into the primitive christian church, and the profession they made; seeing he grants the main point I endeavoured to prove by it, _viz. _That they _did make, _and all adult persons that are admitted into the church must make, a profession _of something _more _than moral sincerity, _even gospel-holiness.

8. Hence, in vain is all he says in opposition to my _eighth _argument, taken from the manner of the apostles’ treating and addressing the primitive churches in their epistles; since he does either expressly or virtually grant each of those three things, which he himself reckons up as the sum of what I intend under that argument, _viz. _(1.) That the apostles speak to the churches, and of them, as supposing and judging them to be gracious persons. (2.) That the members of these churches had such an opinion of themselves. (3.) That they had this judgment one of another. Mr. W. allows all these. He abundantly allows and asserts, that the members of churches are such as are supposed, and rationally judged, to be gracious persons, by those that admit them; that they are taken in under that notion, and from respect to such a character appearing on them; and that they are rationally judged to be so by their fellow-Christians; and that they must look at such a character in themselves, and must make such a pretence.

9. Since Mr. W. abundantly allows, that visible Christians must be believed in charity to be truly pious; and that they are such as have the moral image of Christ appearing in them, and supposed to be in them, and that they are to be loved on that account: therefore very impertinent and inconsistent is the opposition he makes to my _ninth _argument, from the nature of that _brotherly love _required towards all visible Christians; which was to show, that visible Christians by the rule of Christ were to be apprehended to be true Christians.

10. In like manner, vain and to no purpose is the opposition he makes to my _tenth _argument, from the nature of _sacramental actions, _supposed in their intent and signification to be a solemn profession of those things wherein real piety consists, _viz. _a cordial acceptance of Christ and his benefits; from thence arguing, that a profession of these things is necessary, and so inferring, that those who perform these actions, should suppose themselves truly to accept of Christ: since both these things are in effect granted, that communicants must judge that they have sanctifying grace, and also that they must profess gospel-holiness, a compliance with the call of the gospel, and falling in with the terms of salvation proposed, &c.

11. In vain also is the opposition he makes to my _eleventh _argument, from 1 Cor. xi. 28. ” Let a man examine himself; and so let him eat.”—Inferring from thence, that a man ought to inquire concerning such a qualification in himself, as grace, in order to know whether he may come to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. Since Mr. W. himself plainly supposes this very thing. That men ought to look at such a qualification in themselves, as grace, and to inquire whether they have it, in order to determine whether they may present themselves to christian sacraments.

12. If it be true, according to Mr. W.‘s representation of his own scheme, That persons may not be admitted to sacraments, but under a notion of their being truly godly, and with respect to such a character appearing on them; and that persons themselves had need to look at such a qualification in themselves, and inquire whether they have it, in order to determine whether they may come to sacraments; it must be because if they find they have it _not, _they _may not _come, or (which is the same thing) _it is not lawful _for them to come. For it would be ridiculous to say that others must look at such a qualification in them, and must not admit them but from respect to such a character on them; and that they themselves also must look at such a qualification in themselves, and inquire whether they have it in order to determine whether they may come; when yet they _may _come whether they have it or no, and have as much of a lawful right without it as with it. So that Mr. W. has in effect determined against himself the grand point, which he himself insists on, as the point in dispute, according to _the true state of the question. _And therefore,

13. It follows from the foregoing concessions, that Mr. W. is inconsistent with himself in all his arguings that men may come to sacraments without such a qualification or character as that of true piety. Because God has given no certain rule by which sacraments may be restrained to such; See. Mr. W’s book, p. 106, &c. or because that otherwise none might come but those that know they have such a character; Ibid. p. 108, &c. or because the contrary doctrine tends to bring saints into great perplexities in their attendance on sacraments; P. 120, &c. or from the lawfulness of unregenerate men’s attending other duties. P. 123, &c. If there be any force in this arguing from other duties to an attendance on sacraments, then the argument will infer, that men must not be admitted to other duties, but under the notion of their being truly godly, and from respect to such a character appearing on them, &c.—as Mr. W. insists with regard to christian sacraments. And so if these things which Mr. W. concedes and asserts, are true, in vain is all arguing from the like tendency in sacraments to convert men, as in other duties; P. 126, &c. and in vain is it to argue the lawfulness of men’s coming without this character, from their obligation to perform external covenant-duties, P. 128, &c. and to carry themselves like saints; P 131. and in vain is all arguing from the pretended bad consequences of the contrary doctrine. P. 131, &c.

14. The opposition Mr. W. makes to my argument from Isaiah lvi. 6, 7 especially those words, “The sons of the stranger that join themselves to the Lord, to love the Lord, and be his servants—will I bring into my holy mountain”—to prove that none have a right in the sight of God to the privileges of the christian church, but those that love God, and are truly pious; I say, the opposition Mr. W. makes to this argument is frivolous, since he in effect grants the same thing, (as above,) yea, expressly allows, that they must make pretences of being God’s real friends, and loving God more than the world, p. 36. c.

15. If it be true, as Mr. W. allows and abundantly asserts, that in order to persons being admitted to holy communion in special ordinances, the Scripture has determined, that there must be an open profession and declaration of a person’s believing, or of a personal believing, _in Christ, _(which is the same thing,) and of a hearty consent to the terms of the covenant of grace, See how Mr. W. expresses himself, p. 5. b. c. and that therein must be a profession of gospel-holiness: then nothing to the contrary avails that great argument of his, taken from the state of baptized infants, that they are already in the church, and in covenant, and are members in complete standing, &c. and that therefore no owning the covenant or professing godliness can be demanded of them: See especially, p. 3. and in vain is all that he has said to prove this in his discourse on the _wheat _and tares. P. 99, 100.

16. To what purpose is it, to object from the parable now mentioned, that the church ought not to make a distinction between _wheat _and _tares, _in their admission of members, by pretending to discern the difference? When it is so apparent, that there is no pretence to any proper discerning in the case, nor any other distinction pleaded, than what is made by a judgment of charity. According to Mr. W—‘s own scheme, churches are obliged to make a distinction, in the rational judgment they pass, and to admit none, but what they judge to be true saints; so that those who are _wheat, _in the eye of their judgment, only are to be admitted, and such as are _tares, _in the eye of their judgment, are to be excluded.

17. What is said by Mr. W. of the visible church being the _school of Christ, _and men being admitted into it as disciples or scholars, some of them in order to attain grace, (p. 81, and 83.) is nothing to the purpose, if it be as Mr. W. allows and asserts, that in order to be admitted into this _school, _they must be supposed, in a reasonable judgment, to have this attainment already, and make a pretence to it, and a solemn profession of it, and must give moral evidence that they have it, and must be admitted into the school under no other notion than that of their being already possessed of it.

18. If it be as Mr. W. expressly says, That persons are not visible saints without a credible profession, visibility, and moral evidence, not only of moral sincerity, but true holiness, (p. 139.) then all is wholly insignificant and vain, that is said to prove, that the children of _Israel _were visible saints without any evidence of such holiness, by reason of the idolatry and gross and open wickedness of vast multitudes of them, who are yet called God’s people. And so likewise, all that is said to prove, that the members of the primitive christian church had no other visibility of saintship than they, because they are grafted into the same olive; and also all that Mr. W. has said to prove, that many of the members of the primitive churches were as grossly wicked as they.

19. Since according to Mr. W. the terms of admission to the Jewish ordinances, were the same as to christian ordinances, the like profession and the same visibility of saintship required, and no other; as he strenuously asserts, (p. 57. _e. _p. 61. _e. _and p. 65. c.) it will therefore follow from his foregoing concessions and assertions, that none were, by God’s appointment, to come to the passover, and to have their children circumcised, but such as openly professed and declared that they were convinced of the truth of God’s word, and believed it with all their hearts; and professed a hearty consent to the terms of the covenant of grace: such as covenanted with God with their whole hearts, and gave up all their hearts and lives to Christ; such as subjected themselves to Christ with their whole hearts, and gave up themselves to him, to be ruled, taught, and led by him; such as with all their hearts cast themselves on the mercy of God to enable them to keep covenant; such as professed to love God above the world, and professed more than common faith and moral sincerity, even true holiness, real piety; and who gave moral evidence, that they had such a qualification; and were received to the passover, &c. under that notion, and with respect to such a character appearing in them, and apprehended to be in them. And if these things are so, what is become of the argument from the passover and circumcision, against the necessity of the qualifications I have insisted on?

20. To what purpose does Mr. W. insist, (p. 98. a.) That we read not a word in Scripture about John the Baptist’s making any inquiry, whether the people he baptized made a credible profession of true piety? when he himself insists, that in order to admission to christian sacraments, men must make a credible profession of true piety. And why does he urge, (p. 96. e. and p. 97.) That the profession the people made which John baptized did not imply that they had saving repentance, but only an engagement to repent, hereafter? when he himself holds, that in order to admission to sacraments, men must profess something more than common grace, and not only promise it hereafter.

21. It makes nothing to any point in controversy between Mr. W. and me, whether Judas partook of the Lord’s supper or no, since according to the fore-mentioned principles, as well as mine, he could not be admitted there under any other notion than that of being truly pious, and from respect to such a character appearing on him, and a credible profession of gospel-holiness; and since he might not lawfully come without some qualifications he had not, _viz. _such a friendship for Christ, as is above lukewarmness, and above serving two masters, Christ and Mammon, and a giving up all his heart and life to Christ, and a real determination of his judgment and affections for Christ’s word, &c.

22. If it be true, as Mr. W. allows, that ministers and churches ought not to admit adult persons to sacraments, without a pious character appearing on them, and their professing and exhibiting moral evidence of gospel-holiness, then no good argument can be brought against such a way of admission, from the success of ministers in another way, or in any way whatsoever.

Besides these plain and obvious consequences of Mr. W.‘s concessions, some other consequences will hereafter be observed under particular heads.

Thus Mr. W. has in effect given up every point belonging to the whole controversy, every thing material insisted on through that whole book which he undertakes to answer. He has established every part of my scheme, and every particular argument I have used to confirm it; and answered, or overthrown every argument which he brings, or pretends to support, against it. And I should have no further occasion to say any thing in reply to him, if he had not really, through great part of his performance, argued for other things, opposite to those that have been rehearsed, which he so strenuously insists belong to his scheme. That arguing may seem to support another scheme, though nothing akin to his, any otherwise than as it is indeed a mixture of many schemes, one clashing with and destroying another; as will appear in the ensuing part of this reply.

SECT. III.

_The inconsistence of the fore-mentioned concessions with the lawfulness of unsanctified persons coming to the Lord’s supper, and their right to sacraments in the sight of God. _

Mr. W. in the book under consideration, which he entitles the true state of the question, insists upon it that the question to be debated is the question Mr. Stoddard debated in his dispute with Dr. Mather; in whose scheme Mr. W. declares himself to be. Mr. S. in his dispute with Dr. Mather asserted, that it was lawful for some unsanctified men to come to the Lord’s supper, and that they had a right so to do in the sight of God. And he declares that this was the point in dispute between him and Dr. Mather; as in _Appeal, _p. 20. “That which I am to show is, that some unsanctified men have a right before God to the Lord’s supper.” So Mr. Blake (who is so great an author with Mr. W.) says in his treatise _on the covenant, _p. 244. “That faith which is the condition of the promise, is not the condition _in foro Dei _[before God] of a title to the seal.” And there (in the next p.) he insists, that it is a common faith, that is believed by men not justified, which gives this title. Agreeable to these things Mr. W. says, (p. 132. d.) Some men have a lawful right to the sacrament without sanctification. Which is the same thing as to say, They have a right in the sight of God. For if they have no right in the sight of God to come to the Lord’s supper, then it is not lawful in the sight of God that they should come.

Here I would lay down this as a maxim;

There is some inward religion and virtue or other, some sincerity of heart, either moral or saving, that is necessary to a right to sacraments in the sight of God, and in order to a lawful coming to them. No man, I trust, will say, that a man has a right in God’s sight, who has no sort of seriousness of mind; and that merely outward sounds and motions give him this right in God’s sight, without regard to any property or quality of mind, and though this outward show is joined with the most horrid and resolved secret irreligion and wickedness. Mr. W. in particular utterly disclaims such doctrine as this, and always maintains that in order to men’s lawful coming, they must be morally sincere; as in his Preface, and also in p. 25. _d. e. _p. 27. c. p. 30. d. p. 35. _e. _p. 111.—In p. 115, he supposes, that if a man makes a doubt of his moral sincerity, no divine will advise him to come till he knows.

Having observed this, I now desire it may be considered, whether it be reasonable to suppose, as Mr. W. does, that God would give men that are without grace, a lawful right to sacraments, so that this qualification itself should be nothing necessary to a proper and rightful claim to these ordinances; and yet that he would wholly forbid them to come, and others to admit them, without their making some pretence to it, and exhibiting moral evidence that they have it: that moral sincerity is the qualification which by God’s own appointment invests persons with a lawful right to sacraments, and that by his institution nothing more is requisite to a lawful right; and yet that he has commanded them not to come, nor others to allow them to come, without making a profession of something _more _than moral sincerity, as Mr. W. says. Mr. W. supposes that God requires us, before we admit persons, to seek credible evidence of true piety, and to see to it that we have reasonable ground to believe they have it; otherwise, not to allow them to come; and yet that God does not look on such a qualification requisite in itself, when all is done, and that he has given them as true and lawful a right to come without it, as with it. If God insists upon it, as Mr. W. supposes, that members should be admitted under no other notion than of their being truly godly, and from respect to such a character appearing on them, is it not plain, that God looks on such a character in itself requisite, in order to a person’s being a rightful subject of such a privilege. If the want of this qualification do not in the least hinder a person’s lawful right to a thing, on what account can the want of an appearance of it and pretence to it, warrant and oblige others to hinder his taking possession of that thing?

That we should be obliged to require a credible pretence and evidence of the being of a thing, in order to a certain purpose, the being of which is not requisite to that purpose; or that some evidence of a thing should be necessary, and yet withal no necessity there should be any foundation of such evidence, in the being of the thing to be made evident; that it should be necessary for us to seek evidence that something is true, and yet there be no need in order to the intended purpose, that there be any such truth to be made evident;—if these things are the dictates of common sense, I am willing all that are possessed of any degree of common sense should be judges.

If God has plainly revealed, that gospel-holiness is not necessary in itself in order to men’s lawful right to sacraments, as Mr. W. greatly insists, then his churches need not believe it to be necessary; yea, it is their duty _to believe that it is _not _necessary, _as it is their duty to believe what God says to be true. But yet Mr. W. holds, that God forbids his churches to admit any to sacraments, unless they first have some rational evidence obliging them to _believe that they have gospel-holiness. _Now how palpable is the inconsistence, that we must be obliged to believe men have a qualification in order to our suffering them to come, which yet at the same time we need not believe to be necessary for them to have in order to their coming, but which God requires us to believe to be unnecessary! Or in other words, that God has made it necessary for us to believe or suppose men are truly pious, in order to our lawfully allowing them to take the sacraments, and yet at the same time requires us to believe no such thing as their being pious is necessary in order to their lawfully taking the sacraments!

Mr. Stoddard (whose principles Mr. W. in Preface, p. 3. _a. _declares himself to be fully established in) not only says, that some unsanctified men have a right before God to the Lord’s supper, but strongly asserts, over and over, that they are fit to be admitted to the Lord’s supper, that they are duly qualified, fit matter for church-membership—(_Appeal, _p. 15, 16.) And Mr. W. argues that such qualifications as some unsanctified men have, are suffient to bring them into the church. Now if it be so, what business have we to demand evidence or pretence of any thing further. What case in the world can be mentioned parallel to it, in any nation or age? Are there any such kind of laws or regulations to be found in any nation, city, or family; in any society, civil, military or academic, stated or occasional, that the society should be required to insist on some credible pretence and evidence of a certain qualification, in order to persons being admitted to the privileges of the society; prohibiting their being admitted _under any other notion _than as persons possessed of that qualification, or without a respect in their admission to such a character appearing on them: and yet at the same time, by the laws of that very society, that qualification is not necessary; but persons are declared, without any such qualification, to have a lawful right, to be fit matter, to be duly qualified, and to have sufficient qualifications to be admitted to these privileges, without that qualification?

If some men have a right in the sight of God to sacraments without true piety, and are _fit _and _duly qualified _without it, in his sight and by his institution, and yet the church must not admit them unless they are truly pious in their sight; then the eye of man must require higher terms, than the infinitely holy eye of God himself; they must look for something that the eye of God looks not for, and which he judges them duly qualified without.

Mr. W. when speaking of the evidence, on which he supposes the church ought to judge persons to be real saints, from time to time adds, that on such evidence “The church is obliged, in their external carriage, _to treat them as saints, _and admit them to the external privileges of the church.”—So, p. 9. _d. _p. 12. a. &c. p. 13. a. b. and p. 14. _c. _and in other places. But what does he mean by treating them _as saints, _in admitting them to the external privileges of the church? If _sinners _have as much of a lawful right to these privileges, as _saints, _then why is giving them these privileges, a treating them _as saints, _any more than as sinners? If it belongs to an ignorant child, to be admitted into school, as much as one that is learned, then how is it treating him as one that is learned, to admit him? Mr. W. (p. 11. d. e.) giving a reason why he that professes conviction of the truth of the gospel, &c. ought to be admitted to sacraments, says, “Though this conviction may be only by moral evidence and common illumination, yet—the church knows not but it is done on a divine and gracious discovery.” But how can this be a reason? What if the church _did know _that it was not on a gracious discovery, if the man has a right in the sight of God without, and God has made it his duty to come to sacraments without it? Surely the church have no right to forbid him to do that which God has given him a right to do, and made it his duty to do; as Mr. S. says, (_Doct. of Inst. Churches, _p. 20. b.) The church may not hinder any man from doing his duty.

Therefore if this be Mr. S—d’s question, Whether some unsanctified men may lawfully come to the Lord’s supper, and if this be the grand point in dispute, the thing which Mr. W. undertakes to maintain, as he often declares, then it is most plainly evident, that in conceding and asserting those things forementioned, he does in effect abundantly give up that which he himself insists on as the grand point in controversy; and so makes void and vain all his own labour, and for himself effectually confutes all that he has written.

SECT. IV.

_Concerning Mr. W.‘s notion of a public profession of godliness in terms of an indeterminate and double signification. _

According to Mr. W. the profession of godliness must be in words not of a determinate meaning, or without any discrimination in the meaning of the words, obliging us to understand them of saving religion, (p. 6. c. d.) They must make an open declaration of their sincere consent to the terms of the covenant, without any discrimination, by which it can be determined, that the consent signified by the words is a gracious consent. (p. 9. c.) And without any marks of difference, or any distinction in the words, whereby we can be enabled to judge when they mean a saving faith, and when a different one. (p. 10. c. _e. _p. 50. _e. _and p. 53. c.) That nothing should be expressed in the words of the profession, but what some unsanctified men may say, and speak true. (p. 47. e.) He supposes, that the primitive Christians in the profession they made of faith, did not speak only in that sense, _viz. _so as to signify justifying faith; and that the persons admitted did not understand that their profession was understood by those that admitted them, only in that sense, (p. 58. c.)

Agreeable to this notion of making a profession in words of indiscriminate meaning, and professing godliness without godliness, and yet speaking true, Mr. W. (in p. 44. d. e.) allows, that men must be by profession godly persons, in order to come to the sacrament; and yet in the next sentence he denies, that christian grace itself is requisite in the person who is to come to the sacrament, or that the dictate of his conscience that he has it, is the thing that gives him a right to offer himself. And agreeable to this last clause, Mr. Stoddard (of whose opinion Mr. W. professes himself fully to be) expressly maintains, that a man may and ought to come to the Lord’s supper, though he knows himself to be in a natural condition. (_Doct. of Inst. Churches, _p. 21. See also his sermon on this controversy, p. 13.) So that putting these things together, it must be agreeable to Mr. W.‘s scheme, that a man has a right to make a profession of godliness, without having godliness, and without any dictate of his conscience that he has the thing he professes, yea, though he knows he has not! And all this is made out by the doctrine of professing godliness in words that are ambiguous, and of two meanings.

This notion of a solemn profession of godliness, in words of a double meaning, _without any marks of difference in their signification, _is the great peculiarity of Mr. W.‘s scheme; and in all his controversy with me, this appears to be the main hinge, the crisis of the whole affair. Therefore I would particularly consider it. And for the greater distinctness and clearness, I will lay down certain _positions, _as of most evident truth; observing some of their no less plain and evident consequences.

I. Words declare or profess nothing any otherwise than by their signification: for to declare or profess something by words, is to signify something by words. And therefore, if nothing is signified by words of a pretended profession, nothing is really professed; and if something be professed, no more is professed than the words of the profession signify or import.

II. If a man declare or profess any particular thing by words which have no distinguishing signification, or without any signs or discriminating marks by which men may be enabled to distinguish what he means, his words are vain to the pretended purpose, and wholly fail of answering the end of words, which is to convey the thing meant to others’ understanding, or to give notice to others of the thing supposed or understood. The Apostle Paul says, 1 Cor. xiv. 7. “Even things without life, giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?” —Mr. Locke says. Hum. Und. Vol. 2. Edit 7. p. 103. “He that uses words of any language without distinct ideas in his mind, to which he applies them, does so far as he uses them in discourse, only make a noise without any sense or signification.”

Therefore to use words thus in common conversation, is to act in a vain trifling manner, more like children than men: but to use words thus in the sacred services of God’s house, and solemn duties of his worship, is something much worse than children’s play. But thus Mr. W. expressly declares, words are to be used in a public profession of religion, (p. 10. c.) “And these words are so used in such cases, without any marks of difference, whereby we are enabled to judge when they mean a saving faith, and when a different one.”

III. A profession made in words that are either equivocal, or general, equally signifying several distinct things, without any marks of difference or distinction, by which we are enabled to judge what is meant, is not a profession or signification of _any one _of those several things; nor can they afford any rational ground of understanding or apprehending any _particular thing. _Thus for instance, if a man using an equivocal term, should say, that such an evening a king was in that room, without any marks of difference or discrimination whatsoever, by which others could discern whether, by a _king, _he meant the ruler of a kingdom, or a king used in a game of chess; the words thus used would be no declaration, that the head of a kingdom was there at such a time; nor would they give any notice of any such thing to those to whom he spoke, or give them any rational ground to understand or judge any such thing.

Or if a man should use a _general _term, comprehending various particular sorts, without at all distinguishing or pointing forth any one particular sort, he thereby professes no one particular sort. Thus if a man professes that he has metal in his pocket, not saying what sort of metal, whether gold, silver, brass, iron, lead, or tin; his words are no profession that he has gold.

So it a man professes sincerity or religion, designedly using terms of double signification, or (which comes to the same thing) of general signification, equally signifying two entirely distinct things, either _moral sincerity, _or _real piety, _his words are no profession of real piety; he makes no credible profession, and indeed no profession at all of gospel holiness.

IV. If a man who knows himself to be destitute of any certain qualification, yet makes a profession or pretence, in words of double meaning, equally signifying that qualification, and something else very different, with a design to recommend himself to others’ judgment and apprehension, as possessed of that qualification, he is guilty of deceitful equivocation, _viz. _using words of double meaning, or capable of double application, with a design to induce others to judge something to be true, which is not true. But he that would recommend himself by such terms to others’ opinion or judgment, as being what he at the same time knows he is not, endeavours to induce them to believe what he knows is not true, which is to deceive them. “To advance a dubious proposition, knowing it will be understood in a sense different from what you give it in your mind, is an equivocation, in breach of good faith and sincerity.” Chamber’s Dictionary, under the word Equivocation. ‡ Pref. (p. 3. d. e. and 5. d. p. 24 b. 25. b. 22. d. 27. a. 58. d. 69. d

But if the scheme which Mr. W. undertakes to defend were true, it would follow that such a kind of equivocation as this, (be it far from us to suppose it,) is what the infinitely wise and holy God has instituted to be publicly used in the solemn services of his house, as the very condition of persons’ admission to the external privileges of his people! For Mr. W. abundantly asserts, that persons must be _esteemed _in _the judgment and apprehension _of others to have true piety; and that one thing that must _be done in order to it, _one thing pertaining to the moral evidence that _recommends _them to this judgment, is the profession they make of religion, (p. 5. p. 139. p. 47. _b, c. _p. 132. p. 44. d.) In p. 42. speaking of the profession of visible Christians, he has these words, “And it is from the nature and purport of this profession, we say, the church is to judge the members to be wise virgins, of what they make a show of.” And Mr. W. insists upon it, that according to Christ’s institution, this must be in words equally signifying true godliness, and something else, without any discrimination or marks of difference.—This is the scheme! And certainly such a doctrine of deceitful equivocation in the public exercises of religion, is more agreeable to the principles and practices of a religion I am loth to name, than the true religion of Jesus Christ.

Mr. W. says, (p. 35. d.) “I am at a loss to conceive how it will help the cause of truth to represent those who are of Mr. S—‘s opinion, as teaching men that they may enter into covenant with God with known and allowed guile.” Supposing I had made such a representation, I can tell him how it would have helped the cause of truth, (as it would be speaking nothing but the truth,) if he be one of _Mr. Stoddard’s _opinion, (as he says he is,) and represents his own opinion truly.

But let the unreasonableness of this notion of professing gospel-holiness in words of two meanings, without any discrimination or mark of difference, be a little further considered. Since it is allowed, that _gospel-holiness _is the thing which is to be exhibited in the profession, and there are words which signify this by a determinate meaning, why must they needs be avoided, and words of doubtful and double signification only be made use of? Mr. W. (p. 6. d. e.) speaks of a profession in terms of indiscriminate signification, when not contradicted in life, as The sole, entire evidence, which the church, as a church, is to have, by divine appointment, in order to that public judgment it is to make of the saintship of men. Since the design of the profession is to exhibit to others’ understanding that very thing; if the proper and distinguishing names of that must nevertheless be avoided in the profession, and for this very reason, that they point forth to others’ understanding that very thing by a determinate meaning; then we are brought to this gross absurdity, _viz. That the end of a profession is to exhibit to others’ understanding and reasonable judgment a particular qualification; _but at the same time such words only must be used as do not distinctly point forth to others’ understanding and judgment that _particular qualification. _The church are to seek and demand a profession, that shall determine their rational judgment; but yet are designedly to avoid such a profession as shall determine their understandings.—Be it far from us to attribute to the all wise God any such an absurd and inconsistent constitution.

Mr. W. says, _charity obliges the church to understand the words of the professors in the most favourable sense. _But charity does not oblige us to understand their words in any other sense than that in which they professedly use them. But in churches which professedly act on Mr. W.‘s scheme, (if any such there be,) the professors who are admitted, professedly use ambiguous words, or words equally signifying two entirely distinct things, without discrimination or marks of difference; and therefore charity obliges us to understand their words no otherwise, than as signifying that they have one or other of those two things; and not that they have one in particular: for their words do not signify this, in the sense they professedly use them. If a man that is indebted to me, professes that he has either gold or brass, which he promises to pay me; or if he uses an equivocal or general term, that equally, and without marks of difference, signifies either one or the other; charity may oblige me to believe what he says, which is, that he has either gold or brass: but no charity obliges me to believe that he has gold, which he does not say.

Mr. W. in his description of such a profession as Christ has instituted, in order to admission to sacraments, often mentions two things, _viz. _A profession of something _present, _a present believing in Christ, and cordial consent to the terms of the covenant of grace, &c. And a promise of something _future. _And with regard to the latter, he is very full in it, that what is promised for time to come is saving faith, repentance, and obedience. Pref. (p. 3. d. e. and 5. d. p. 24 b. 25. b. 22. d. 27. a. 58. d. 69. d. Now what reason can be given why we should use words of double meaning in the former part of the profession more than in the latter? Seeing Mr. W. allows that we must _profess _gospel-holiness as well as _promise _it, and seeing we may and must make use of words of indiscriminate and double meaning in professing present gospel-holiness, why should not we do so too in promising what is future; and so equivocate in our solemn vows and oaths as the papists do? _if _Mr. W. says it is very hard for men to discern the discrimination between moral sincerity and gospel-holiness; I answer, there is as much need to discern the difference in order understandingly to promise gospel-holiness with discrimination, as to profess it with discrimination.

Mr. W. says, (p. 8. b. c.) “It is a received rule among mankind, in all public judgments, to interpret words in the most extensive and favourable sense that the nature of the words or expressions will bear.” I know not what he means: but if he means, (as he must, if he means any thing to the purpose,) that it is a received rule amongst mankind, to trust, or accept, or at all regard any professions or declarations that men make, with professed design, in words of double and indiscriminate meaning, without any marks of difference by which their meaning can be known, for that very end that they may be used with a safe conscience, though they have no dictates of their own consciences, that they have what others are to believe they have; I say, if this be a received rule among mankind, it is a rule that mankind has lately received from Mr. W. Heretofore mankind, societies or particular persons, would have been counted very foolish for regarding such professions. Is this the way in earthly kingdoms, in professions of allegiance to temporal princes, in order to their admission to the privileges of good subjects? Do they choose equivocal terms to put into their oaths of allegiance, to that end that men may use them and speak true, though they are secret enemies?—There are two competitors for the kingdom of this world, _Christ _and Satan; the design of a public profession of religion is, to declare on which side men are. And is it agreeable to the custom of mankind in such cases, to make laws that no other than ambiguous words shall be used, or to accept of such in declarations of this kind? There are two competitors for the kingdom of _Great Britain, _King George, and the Pretender: is it the constitution of King George and the _British _parliament, that men should take paths of allegiance, contrived in words of indeterminate signification, to the end that men who are in their hearts enemies to King George, and friends to the Pretender, may use them and speak true? And certainly mankind, those of them that have common sense, never in any affairs of life look on such professions as worth a rush. Would Mr. W. himself, if tried, in any affair wherein his temporal interest is concerned, trust such professions as these? If any man with whom he has dealings, should profess to him that he had pawned for him, in a certain place, a _hundred pounds, _evidently, yea professedly, using the expression as an ambiguous one, so that there is no understanding by it, what is pawned there, whether a _hundred pound _in money, or a hundred weight of stones: if he should inquire of the man what he meant, and he should reply, You have no business to _search my heart, _or to turn my heart inside out; you are obliged in charity to understand my words in the most favourable sense; would Mr. W. in this case stick to his own received rule? would he regard such a profession, or run the venture of one _sixpence _upon it? Would he not rather look on such a man as affronting him, and treating him as though he would make a fool of him? And would not he know, that every body else would think him a fool, if he should suffer himself to be gulled by such professions, in things which concern his own private interest? And yet it seems, this is the way in which he thinks he ought to conduct himself as a minister of Christ, and one intrusted by him in affairs wherein his honour and the interests of his kingdom are concerned.

And now I desire it may be judged by such as are possessed of human understanding, and are not disabled by prejudice from exercising it, whether this notion of Mr. W.‘s, of making a solemn profession of gospel-holiness in words of indiscriminate meaning, be not too absurd to be received by the reason God has given mankind.—This peculiar notion of his is apparently the life and soul of his scheme; the main pillar of his temple, on which the whole weight of the building rests; which if it be broken, the whole falls to the ground, and buries the builder, or at least his work, in its ruins. For if this notion of his be disproved, then inasmuch as it is agreed, that true godliness must be professed, it will follow, that it must be professed in words properly signifying the thing by a determinate meaning, which therefore no ungodly men can use, and speak true; and that therefore men must have true godliness in order to a right in the sight of God to make such profession, and to receive the privileges depending thereon: which implies and infers all those principles of mine which Mr. W. opposes in his book, and confutes all that he says in opposition to them.

SECT. V.

_Showing that Mr. Williams, in supposing that unsanctified men may profess such things, as he allows must be professed, and yet speak true, is inconsistent with Mr. Stoddard, and with himself. _

Mr. W. denies, that in order to men being admitted to sacraments, they need make any peculiar profession, distinguished from what an unregenerate man may make, (p. 44. _c. _p. 50. _e. _6. c. _d. e. _9. c. 10. _c. e. _45. _e. _46. _a. _and 53. e.) or that they need to profess any thing but what an unregenerate man may say, and speak true. (p. 47. c.) And that they need make no profession but what is compatible with an unregenerate state, (p. 8. d. e.) And yet the reader has seen what things he says all must profess in order to come to sacraments. One thing he says they must profess, is a real conviction of the heart, of the divine truth of God’s word; that they do sincerely and with all their hearts believe the gospel. And these things, he says, are agreeable to the opinion of Mr. Stoddard, and the doctrine he taught. (p. 32. b. _c. _and p. 36. a.) Let us compare these things with the doctrine Mr. S. taught. Mr. S. taught, that natural men do not believe the gospel, (_Benef. of the Gosp. _p. 89. b.) that they do not properly believe the word of God. (_Guide to Christ, _p. 26. d.) That they do not believe the testimony of God, do not lay weight on the word of God; that they do not believe the report of the gospel. (_Safety of Ap. _Edit. 2. p. 229. c. e.) that they do not receive God’s testimony, nor lay weight on it. (_Ibid. _p. 99.) That there is no man, how great soever his profession, how large soever his knowledge, that continues in a natural condition, who thoroughly believes that truth; i._e. _that men may be saved by Christ’s righteousness. (_Ibid. _p. 4. _d. _and p. 5. d. e.) That common illumination does not convince men of the truth of the gospel. (_Benef. of the Gosp. _p. 148, 149.) How then could it be the doctrine Mr. S. taught, that natural men may really and with all their hearts believe and be convinced of the truth of the gospel?

And Mr. W. himself, in his sermons on _Christ a King and Witness, _(p. 114, 115.) says, “man since the fall is naturally ignorant of divine truth, and an enemy to it, and full or prejudices against the truth:” and further, (_ibid. p. 114.) “The renewing of the Holy Ghost makes an universal change of the heart and life.—He knows the doctrine contained in the Bible in a new manner.—Before, he had a view of the truth as a doubtful uncertain thing; _he received it as a thing which was probably true;—and perhaps for the most part it appeared something likely to answer the end proposed.—But now the gospel appears to him _divinely true _and real,“ &c. But how do these things consist with men being, before conversion, sincerely and with all their hearts convinced of the divine truth of the gospel? Can that be, and yet men _view it as a doubtful uncertain thing, _as not yet appearing to them divinely true and real?

Again, Mr. W. supposes, that some unsanctified men may speak true, and profess a hearty consent to the terms of the covenant of grace, a compliance with the call of the gospel, submission to the proposals of it, satisfaction with that device for our salvation that is revealed in the gospel, and with the offer which God makes of himself to be our God in Christ Jesus, a fervent desire of Christ and the benefits of the covenant of grace, and an earnest purpose and resolution to seek salvation on the terms of it, (p. 11. c.) and a falling in with the terms of salvation proposed in the gospel, with a renouncing of all other ways, (which he speaks of as agreeable to Mr. Stoddard’s opinion, p. 32. b. c.) Quite contrary to the current doctrine of Calvinistic divines; contrary to the opinion of Mr. Guthrie, whom he cites as a witness in his favour, (pref. p. 4.) who insists on satisfaction with that device for our salvation which is revealed in the gospel, and with the offer which God makes of himself to be our God in Christ, as the peculiar nature of saving faith. And contrary to the principles of Mr. Perkins (another author he quotes as his voucher) delivered in these very words, which Mr. W. cites in the present point, (p. 11.) “That a desire of the favour and mercy of God in Christ, and the means to attain that favour, is a special grace of God, and hath the promise of blessedness:—That wicked men cannot sincerely desire these means of eternal life, _faith, repentance, _mortification, reconciliation,” &c. And it is exceedingly contrary to the constant doctrine of Mr. Stoddard, (though he says it was his opinion,) who ever insisted, that all unconverted sinners under the gospel are so far from heartily consenting to the covenant of grace—and complying with the call of the gospel, and falling in with the terms of salvation proposed in it, renouncing all other ways, as Mr. W. supposes—that they are wilful rejecters of Christ, despisers of the gospel, and obstinate refusers of offered mercy. So he says, “The man that has but common grace—sets himself against the way of salvation which God prescribes.” (Nat. of Sav. Conv.) “In awakened sinners, it is not merely from weakness, but from pride and sturdiness of spirit, that they do not come to Christ.” (_Safety of Ap. _p. 229. c. d.) And in other places he says, that it is _from the hardness and stubbornness of natural men’s hearts, _that they do not comply with the gospel; That _there is a mighty opposition in their hearts to believe in Christ, _because it is cross to their haughty spirits; That they are enemies to this way of salvation; That they _are dreadfully averse to come to Christ. _(See Book _of three Sermons, _p. 84. _Guide to Christ, _p. 55. _c. Safety of Ap. _p. 106. and 194. e.)

And this scheme of our author is in a glaring manner contrary to the doctrine of Mr. Williams himself, in his sermon on Isa. xlv. 11. (p. 25, 26, 27.) Speaking to those _whose natures remain unrenewed and unsanctified _(see his words p. 25. d.) he says, p. 27. b. c. “You are opposing all the means of your own deliverance and salvation. The offers of grace, the allurements and invitations of the great Saviour of the world, have all been ineffectual to persuade you to accept of deliverance from a slavery you are willingly held in. Nay, you strive against the liberty of the sons of God, and labour to find out all manner of difficulties and hinderances in the way of it. If you pray for it, you do not desire it should yet come, but would stay a while longer.” And are these the persons who can truly profess, that they comply with the call of the gospel, and submit to the proposals of it, and are satisfied with the device for our salvation, and with the offers of the gospel, and consent to the terms of the covenant of grace _with all their hearts, _renouncing all other ways? It is not much more easy to make these things consist with what he says in his answer to Mr. Croswell, (p. 26. b. c.) He there says, “There is not a son nor daughter of Adam excluded from salvation, who will accept Christ upon God’s offer, and take him in his person and offices, and whole work of redemption, to be their Saviour, and they find themselves willing to accept of Christ as so offered to them, and pleased with that device for their salvation, and heartily choosing him to be to them, and in them, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” (See also to the same purpose, _Ibid. _p. 32. _e. _and p. 33. _a. b. _and p. 94. c.)

Mr. W. though he holds, that it is lawful for some unsanctified men to come to sacraments, yet supposes it not to be lawful for those that are _lukewarm _in religion to come, (p. 35. d. e.) So that according to his scheme some unsanctified professors are above lukewarmness: that is to say, their hearts within them are truly hot or fervent with christian zeal, and they such as Christ will never spue out of his mouth; in a great inconsistence with the Scripture. He suggests, that it is an injury done to the cause of truth, in me, to represent Mr. Stoddard as being of another opinion, (p. 35. c. d. e.) But let us see whether such a representation be an injury to truth or no. Mr. S. taught, that natural men have _no sincerity in them. _(Guide to Christ, p. 60, 61.) That their hearts are dead as a stone, that there is no disposition or inclination to any thing that is good, but a total emptiness of all goodness. (_Ibid. _p. 63. b.) That some of them have considerable shows of goodness, there is an appearance of good desires, &c. but there is nothing of goodness in all this; that all they do is in hypocrisy. (_Benef. of the Gos. _p. 73. _d. _c.) That they are acted by a lust of self-love in all their religion;—If they are swept and garnished, they are empty: there may be some similitude of faith and love, but no reality, not a spark of goodness in their hearts; though corruption may be restrained, yet it reigns. He speaks abundantly to the same purpose in his sermon, entitled, Natural men are under the government of self-love.

And Mr. W. himself, in his sermon on Psal. xci. 1. describing carnal men, by which he means the same with unconverted men, (as is evident through the book, particularly p. 36. c.) says, p. 27, 28. that to such “Religion looks like a dull unpleasant kind of exercises, and so different from the sensual joys and pleasures which they choose, that they _hate _to set about it, as long as they dare let it alone; and would do as _little _as ever they can at it:—That when they durst not let it alone any longer, they set about it, but would fain despatch it as _soon _and as _easily _as they can; because it seems to them a _miserable uncomfortable _sort of life. Ask your own conscience, (says he,) see if this be not the _truth _of the case.”—Now let the reader judge, whether this be a description of persons whom it would be injurious to represent as having nothing above lukewarmness.

Another thing, which Mr. W. supposes must be professed in order to come to sacraments, and therefore according to him is what an unsanctified man can profess, and speak _true, _is, “That they _with all their hearts cast themselves upon the mercy of God, _to help them to keep covenant.” (p. 31. _e. _and p. 32. a.) And yet elsewhere he mentions a depending on Christ for things of this nature, as a discriminating mark of a true Christian. (Ser. on _Christ a King and Witness, _p. 19. c.) Under a use of examination, he there says, “Do you depend on Christ to protect you from all your spiritual enemies, to restore you to holiness, to subdue all your heart to the will of God, to make you partakers of his image and moral perfections, and in that way to preserve and lead you to your true perfection and eternal happiness.”

Mr. W. supposes (p. 36. a. b. c.) that the profession men must make in order to come to sacraments, implies real friendship to God, loving God more than his enemies, loving him above the world; and therefore according to Mr. W. unsanctified men may make this profession also, and speak true: contrary to the whole current of Scripture, which represents unsanctified men as _the enemies of God, those that have not the love of God in them, _under the power of a _carnal mind, _&c.—And contrary to the unanimous voice of all sound divines, yea, of the whole christian world. Mr. W. in the forementioned place blames me, that I had intimated (as he supposes) that the profession which Mr. Stoddard taught to be necessary, did not imply real friendship, and loving God above his enemies, and above the world. Let us then compare this with Mr. S—d’s doctrine, as extant in his writings. He speaks of it as a property of saving grace, wherein it specifically differs from common grace, that a true love to God prizes God above all the world. (_Nat. of Sav. Conv. _p. 7. b. c.) That every natural man prefers vain and base things before God. (_Ibid. _p. 96. b.) That they are all enemies to God, and the very being of God. (_Ibid. _p. 5. _c. d. _and p. 97.) That their hearts are full of enmity to God. (_Ibid. _p. 55. e.) That they have an aversion to those gracious actions of loving God, and trusting in Christ, and are under the dominion of a contrary inclination. (_Ibid. _p. 67.) That those of them whose consciences are enlightened, and are reforming their lives, have no love; and that it is a burden to them that they suspect there is such a God, that they wish there was not such an one. And that they are haters of God, and are so addicted to their own interest, that they have a bitter spirit towards God, have an ill affection to him, and are adversaries to his felicity. (_Ibid. _p. 97. _Three Serm. _p. 38, 39.) That they are governed by a spirit of self-love, and are wholly destitute of love to God; that some of them confess that they have but little love to God; but indeed they have not one spark of love to God in their hearts. (_Three Serm. _p. 48.) That they set their interest at the right hand of God’s glory,—as if God’s honour were not to be regarded, compared with their interest, &c. &c. (_Ibid. _p. 63, 64.)

So Mr. W. himself (_Christ a King and Witness, _p. 145. e.) plainly supposes, that before conversion men love the world more than God. For, speaking of the nature of the change wrought in conversion, he says, things are quite turned about, God and Christ are got into the place the world had before. Again (_Ibid. _p. 18. b.) he says, “You must know that there is no man who is not either a true subject to Christ, or his enemy. That man who does not submit to Christ as his King and Lord, by bearing true faith and allegiance to him, is the enemy of Christ and his kingdom. Such are all they who will not depend on him, believe in him, give up themselves and all to him.” And again, (p. 106. _e. _107. a) “Man since the fall has a natural unlikeness to God, and hates the holiness and purity of the divine nature.” And in his sermon on Isa. xlv. 11. he says to his hearers, If your nature remain unrenewed and unsanctified,—you are the enemies of God and Christ by wicked works, and an impure heart.—But yet now it seems, some of these may profess real friendship to Christ, and loving him above the world, and speak true.

And these things are no less inconsistent with what Mr. W. says in the very book under consideration. He here says, (p. 36.) “Why should any divine now tell us, that these same professions do not imply that there are any pretences of any real friendship, that they import no pretence of loving God more, yea, not so much, as his enemies, no pretence to love God above the world?” When he himself is the divine that tells us so, or plainly supposes so in this very book of his. For, in p. 8, 9. having mentioned the profession communicants may be required to make, he then says, that such a profession contains all that is essential to true religion in it; and if this is the fruit of the love of God, it is true godliness: plainly supposing, that persons may have these things without the love of God; as the reader will see more evidently if he views the place. So that the profession must imply real friendship, and love to God, even above the world; and yet must contain only such things as may be with or without the love of God indiscriminately.

Mr. W. allows, that in order to come to sacraments men ought to profess a subjection to Christ with all their hearts, (p. 10. d.) and to be devoted to the service of God, (p. 49. d.) and to give up themselves to Christ, to be taught, ruled, and led by him in a gospel-way to salvation, (p. 31. _e. and p. 32. a.) And though he and Mr. Stoddard taught, that it is lawful for some unsanctified men to come to sacraments, yet Mr. W. supposes it to be unlawful for any to come to sacraments s_erving two masters; and says Mr. S. taught that they ought to covenant with God with their whole hearts, and give up all their hearts and lives to Christ. We are therefore to understand Mr. W. that some unsanctified men can profess all these things, and speak true. Strange doctrine for a christian divine! Let us see whether Mr. S. taught such doctrine. He taught that faith in Christ is the first act of obedience that any sinner does perform; that it is by faith that a man first gives himself to be God’s servant. (_Safety of App. _p. 228. _e. _p. 229. a.) That all those who are not converted, are under the dominion of sin, enemies to God. (_Ibid. _p. 5. c. d.) That there is no obedience to God in what they do, who have only common grace; that they do not attend the will of God. (_Ibid. p. 7. d.) That all ungodly men are servants of Satan, and live in a way of rebellion against God. ( Ibid. _p. 94. b.) That they are enemies to the authority of God; to the wisdom, power, and justice of God, yea to the very being of God; they have a preparedness of heart to all wickedness that is committed in the world, if God did not restrain them; that if they were in the circumstances that the fallen angels are in they would be as the very devils. (_Ibid. _p. 95.) That their hearts are like the hearts of devils, as full of sin as a toad is full of poison, having no inclination to any thing that is good. (Guide to Christ; p. 68. see also _Benef. of the Gos. _p. 130. a. b.) That they utterly neglect the end they were made for, and make it their business to serve themselves; they care not whether God’s glory sinks or swims. (_Three Sermons, _p. 62.) That they hate God, because God crosses them in his laws. (_Ibid. _p. 38. c.) These are the men, which Mr. W. supposes must, and may (some of them) truly profess a subjection to Christ with all their hearts, and to be devoted to Christ; and the men that Mr. S. taught, might covenant with God with their whole hearts, and give up all their hearts and lives to Christ. Mr. Stoddard taught, that men that have but common grace, go quite in another path than that which God directs to—That they set themselves against the way of salvation God prescribes. (_Safety, _p. 10.) That man in his natural state is an enemy to the way of salvation ; that he is an enemy to the law of God, and the gospel of Jesus Christ. (_Ibid. _p. 106. b. c.) But yet these, if we believe Mr. W. may _truly _profess a subjection to Christ with all their hearts, and give up themselves to him, to be taught, ruled, and led by him in a gospel-way of salvation. Yet if we believe him, we must have the trouble of disbelieving him again; for in these things he is as inconsistent with himself, as he is with Mr. S. For in his sermon on Isa. xlv. 11. (p. 26, 27.) he says to those whose natures are _unrenewed and unsanctified, _“If you are without Christ, you are in a state of slavery to sin, led about of divers lusts, and under the reigning power and dominion of your corruptions, which debase your souls, and bring them down from the dignity of their nature, to the vilest, most shameful, and accursed bondage. And by means of sin, ye are in bondage to the devil, the most hateful and accursed enemy of God and your own souls; And yet now it seems, some such do serve but one master, and give up themselves to Christ to be led by him. —and are opposing all the means of your own deliverance. The offers of grace, the calls and invitations of the gospel, have all been ineffectual to persuade you to accept of deliverance from a slavery you are willingly held in. Nay, you strive against the liberty of the sons of God.” And yet some of these are (if we believe what Mr. W. now says) subject to Christ with all their hearts, give up all their hearts and lives to Christ, and give up themselves to be taught, ruled, and led by him in a gospel-way to salvation.—Mr. W. in his sermons on _Christ a King and Witness, _(p. 81.) under a use of examination, giving marks of trial, says, “Have you unreservedly given up your souls and bodies to him? [_viz. _Christ.] You must be all Christ’s, and have no other master. You must be given to him without reserve, both in body and spirit, which are his.” But now it seems, these are no discriminating evidences of true piety: he says, (_Ibid. _p. 118) “A man naturally hates God should reign. And (p. 119. c.) speaking of the natural man, he says, “He hates to be controlled, and in all things subjected to God;—he really owns no God but himself.” But if so, then certainly he is not subject to God with all his heart.

Our author in the book more especially attended to, says, (p. 31. d. e.) He knows of nobody who has any controversy with me in what he calls my loose way of arguing, in my saying, “The nature of things seems to afford no good reason why the people of Christ should not openly profess a proper respect to him in their hearts, as well as a true notion of him in their heads.” And then, in that and the following page, proceeds to show what respect Mr. S. and those that think with him, suppose men must profess in order to come to the Lord’s supper; and (in p. 33. a.) speaks of such a profession as is equally honourable to Christ with a profession of saving grace. And, as according to Mr. W. no profession discriminating what is professed from common grace, can be required, so common grace must be supposed to be a _proper respect to Christ in the heart. _Now let us see what Mr. S. says. “There is (says he) an opposition between saving and common grace;—they have a contrariety one to another, and are at war one with the other, and would destroy one the other.—Common graces are lusts, and do oppose saving grace.” (_Nat. of Sav. Conv. _p. 9. d. e.) “Men that are in a natural condition, such of them as are addicted to morality and religion, are serving their lusts therein. The most orderly natural men do live an _ungodly _life;—yea, their very religion is iniquity.“ (_Ibid. _p. 96, 97.)—“Their best works are not only sinful, but properly sins; they are acted by a spirit of lust in all that they do.” (Saf. of App. p. 168. d.)—“Moral virtues do not render men acceptable to God ; for though they look like virtues, yet they are lusts.” (_Ibid. _p. 81.)—Now the question plainly is, Whether _lust _can be a proper respect to Christ in the heart? And, Whether a _profession _which implies _no more _in it, be equally honourable to Christ, as a credible profession of a _gracious _respect to him ?

SECT. VI.

_Concerning visibility without apparent probability. _

Mr. Stoddard (_Appeal, _p. 16.) says thus: “Such persons as the _apostles _did admit into gospel churches, are _fit _to be admitted into them; but they admitted _many _that had not a thorough work of regeneration. Indeed by the _rule _that God has given for admissions, if carefully attended, _more _unconverted persons will be admitted, than converted.”

This passage I took notice of in my book, where I say, “I would humbly inquire, How those visible qualifications can be the ground of a rational judgment, that a person is circumcised in heart, which nevertheless at the same time, we are sensible, are so far from being probable signs of it, that they are more frequently without it than with it,” &c. This seems to be a terrible thing in Mr. W.‘s way, which he strikes at from time to time; and is an impediment he boggles at exceedingly. One while he pretends, he can give a sufficient answer. (p. 7, 8.) At another time he pretends, that I remove the difficulty myself. (p. 12.) Then again, in the same page, he pretends to solve the difficulty; and then in the next page pretends, that if the case be as I say, _That we cannot form a rational judgment that a thing is, which, at the same time, and under that degree of light we then stand in, it more probably is a mistaken one than not, _yet it can argue nothing to the case; seeing the judgment we do form, is directed by a rule which is appointed for us. But still as if not satisfied with these answers and remarks, he seems afterwards to suggest, that Mr. S. did not express this as _his own _sentiment, but as Mr. Cotton’s, as a gentleman of the same principles with Mr. Mather, using it as _argumentum ad hominem. _See p. 33.

In p. 34. _a. _he expressly says, “Mr. S. does not say, That when the rule which God has given for admissions is carefully attended, it leaves reason to believe, that the greater part of those who are admitted, are enemies to God“ &c.—True, he does not say this in terms; but he says, “more _unconverted _persons will be admitted, than converted:”—which is equivalent. And (p. 133. a.) Mr. W. presumes confidently to affirm, that Mr. S. says this [the thing forementioned] not with peculiar relation to his own scheme, but only as an application of a saying of Mr. Cotton’s, who was of a different opinion, and said upon a different scheme; to show, that upon their own principles, the matter will not be mended. But this is contrary to the most plain fact. For Mr. S. having said, _The apostles admitted many _unconverted, he immediately adds the passage in dispute, _indeed by the rule, _&c. plainly expressing his own sentiment; though he _backs _it with a saying of Mr. Cotton’s. So, Mr. Cotton’s words come in as a confirmation of Mr. S—d’s; and not Mr. S—d’s as an _application _of Mr. Cotton’s. However, Mr. W. delivers the same sentiment _as his own, _once and again, in his book: he delivers it as his own sentiment, (p. 34.) that probably many more hypocrites, than real saints, do make such a profession, as that which must be accepted. He delivers it as his own sentiment, (p. 61. c.) That the apostles judged it likely, that of the Christians taken into the church under their direction, as many were hypocrites in proportion to their number, as to those that were taken into the _Jewish _church. And as to the latter, he delivers it as his sentiment, (p. 24. a.) that the body of the people were not regenerate. So that, according to his own sentiments, when the apostolical rule of taking in is observed, the body of those who are admitted will be hypocrites.

Now therefore, I desire that this matter may be examined to the very bottom.—And here let it be considered, whether the truth of the following things be not incontestable.

1. If indeed by the rule God has given for admissions, when it is carefully attended, more unconverted persons will he admitted, than converted; then it will follow, That just such a visibility or visible appearance of saintship as the _rule requires, _is more frequently _without _real saintship, than _with _it.

2. If Mr. S. and Mr. W. had just reason from the Holy Scripture, and Divine Providence, to _think thus, _and to publish such a sentiment, and the christian church has good reason to believe them; then God has given the christian church in its present state (dark and imperfect as it is) good reason to _think so _too.

3. If Christ by the rule he has given for admissions, requires his churches to receive such a visibility or appearance, which he has given the same churches at the same time reason to judge to be an appearance that for _the most part _is without godliness, or more frequently connected with ungodliness; then he requires them to receive such an appearance, as he at the same time has given them reason to think does not imply a _probability _of godliness, but is attended rather with a probability of ungodliness. For that is the notion of probability; an appearance, which so far as we have, means to judge, is for the most part connected with the thing. Mr. Locke thus defines probability. (Hum. Und. 7th Edit 8vo. Vol. II. p. 273.) “Probability is nothing but the appearance of such an agreement or disagreement, by the intervention of proofs, whose connexion is not constant and immutable, or at least is not perceived to be so: but is. or appears for the most part to be so; and is enough to induce the mind to judge the proposition to be true, or false, rather than the contrary. And Mr. W. himself (p. 139.) says, “It is moral evidence of gospel sincerity, which God’s word makes the church’s rule,” &c. Now does such an appearance, as we have reason at the same time to think is more frequently without gospel-holiness than with it, amount to moral evidence of gospel-sincerity.” Therefore the sign or appearance, let it be what it will, implies a _probability _of that which we have reason to think it is _for the most part _connected or attended with. Where there is only probability without certainty, there is a _peradventure _in the case on both sides; or in vulgar language, the supposition on both sides stands a chance to be true. But that side which most commonly proves true in such a case, stands the best chance; and therefore properly on that side lies the probability.

4. That cannot be a _credible _visibility or appearance, which is not a _probable _appearance. To say, a thing is _credible _and not _probable, _is a contradiction. And it is impossible rationally to judge a thing true, and at the same time rationally to judge a thing most probably not true. Therefore it is absurd (not to say worse) to talk of any _divine institution, _leading us thus to judge. It would be to suppose, that God by his institution has made that judgment rational, which he at the same time makes improbable, and therefore irrational.

This notion of admitting members into the church of Christ without and against _probability _of true piety, is not only very inconsistent with itself, but very inconsistent with what the common light of mankind teaches in their dealings one with another. Common sense teaches all mankind, in admission of members into societies, at least societies formed for very great and important purposes, to admit none but those concerning whom there is an _apparent probability, _that they are the hearty friends of the society, and of the main designs and interests of it; and especially not to admit such concerning whom there is a greater probability of their being habitual fixed enemies. But thus it is, according to Mr. S.‘s and Mr. W.‘s doctrine, as well as the doctrine of the Scripture, with all _unsanctified _men, in regard to the church of Christ. They are enemies to the head of the society, enemies to his honour and authority, and the work of salvation in the way of the gospel; the upholding and promoting of which is the main design of the society. The church is represented in Scripture as the _household of God, _in a peculiar manner intrusted with the care of his name and honour in the world, the interests of his kingdom, the care of his jewels, and most precious things. And would not common sense teach an earthly prince not to admit into his _household, _such as he had no reason to look upon so much as probable friends and loyal subjects in their hearts; but rather friends and slaves in their hearts to his enemies and competitors for his crown and dignity? The visible church of Christ is often represented as his _city _and his _army. _Now would not common sense teach the inhabitants of a besieged city to open the gates to none, but those concerning whom there is at least an _apparent probability _of their not being enemies? And would any imagine, that in a militant state of things it is a likely way to promote the interest of the war, to fill up the army with such as are more likely to be on the enemies’ side in their hearts, than on the side of their lawful and rightful prince, and his faithful soldiers and subjects.

SECT. VII.

_Concerning the Lord’s supper being a converting ordinance. _

Though Mr. W. holds, that none are to be admitted to the Lord’s supper, but such as make a credible profession of _real godliness, _and are to be admitted under that notion, and with _respect _to such a character appearing on them; yet he holds at the same time, that the Lord’s supper is a _converting ordinance, _an ordinance designed for the bringing of some men that have no such a character, to be of such a character, (p. 14. c. _d. _p. 15. p. 35. _a. b. _p. 83. _b. _p. 100. _e. _101. _a. _126, 127.) It is evident, that the meaning of those divines who speak of the Lord’s supper as a converting ordinance, is not merely that God in his sovereign providence will use it as an _occasion _of the conversion of some; but that it is a converting _means by his institution given to men, _appointing them to use it for this purpose. Thus Mr. Stoddard expressly declares, That the Lord’s supper is instituted to be a means of regeneration, (_Doct. of Inst. Churches, _p. 22. a.) instituted for the conversion of sinners, as well as the confirmation of saints; (_Appeal, _p. 70. c. p. 71. a.) that the direct end of it is conversion, when the subject that it is administered unto stands in need of conversion. (_Ibid. _p. 73, 74.) And thus Mr. W. after Mr. S. speaks of the Lord’s supper as by Christ’s appointment _a proper means of conversion _of some that are unconverted. (p. 100. _e. _101. a.) so he speaks of it as _instituted _for the conversion of sinners. (p. 126, and 127.)

Now if so, what need of men being, to rational charity, converted already, in order to their coming to the Lord’s supper? Is it reasonable to suppose God would _institute _this ordinance _directly for that end, _that sinners might be _converted _by it; and then charge his ministers and churches not to admit any that they had not reasonable ground to think were converted already?—Mr. W. (in p. 83. b.) supposes two ends of Christ’s appointing the communion of the christian church; that such as have grace already should be under proper advantages to gain more, and that those who have none, should be under proper advantages to attain grace. But this ill consists with other parts of his scheme.—If a king should erect an _hospital _for the help of the poor, and therein has two ends; _one, _the nourishing of such as are in health, and the _other, _the healing of the sick; and furnishes the hospital accordingly, with proper food for the healthy, and proper remedies for the sick: but at the same time charges the officers, to whom he commits the care of the hospital, by no means to admit any, unless it be under a notion of their being in health, and from respect to such a qualification in them, and unless they have reasonable ground and moral evidence to induce them to believe that they are well: and if this pretence should be made to justify such a conduct, that the hospital was indeed designed for the healing of the _sick, _yet it was designed to confer this benefit only on such diseased people as were _hypocrites, _and made a profession and pretence of being in health; will any man presume to say, that such a conduct is agreeable to the dictates of the understanding of rational beings? And to suppose, that such should be the conduct of the infinitely wise God, is as unscriptural, as it is unreasonable. We often read in God’s word, of men’s being convinced of their wickedness, and confessing their sins, as a way to be healed and cleansed from sin: but where do we read of men’s pretending to more goodness than they have, and making a hypocritical profession and show of goodness, in order to their becoming good men? Mr. Williams (p. 42.) owns that persons must make a profession wherein they make a show of being wise virgins, in order to come into the visible church. And (p. 35. e.) he owns, that all visible saints who are not truly pious, are hypocrites. Again, it may be observed, he abundantly insists, that men who have no more than common grace and moral sincerity, may lawfully come to sacraments; and yet by what he says, (p. 35. e.) they must profess more. So that men who have no more must profess more; and this, it seems, according to divine institution!—Again he says, (p. 35. a. b. c.) That one end God designed by appointing men to be brought into the church, is, that through divine grace they might effectually be brought to Christ, to give him the whole possession of their hearts; and yet in the very next paragraph (p. 35. e. and 36. a.) he speaks of it as unlawful for men to come to sacraments till they give up all their hearts to Christ. Where have we a divine institution, that any who are _wolves _should put on _sheep’s clothing, _and so come to his people, that they may believe them to be _sheep, _and under this notion receive them into the flock, to the end that they may truly become of his sheep?

But to examine this matter, of the Lord’s supper being a converting ordinance to ungodly men professing godliness, a little more exactly. If Christ has appointed the Lord’s supper to be a converting ordinance to some such as these, then he has appointed it either only for such of them as are mistaken, and think themselves godly when they are not; or he has appointed it not only for such, but also for such as are sensible they are ungodly.

If it be appointed as a converting ordinance only for such as are mistaken, and think themselves converted; then here is an institution of Christ, which never can, in any one instance, be made use of to the end for which he has appointed men to use it. It cannot be used for this end by _those who admit _members, and administer the ordinance: for they, as Mr. W. says, must admit none but such as they are bound by the rule of Christ to look upon as godly men already, and to administer the sacrament to them under that notion, and with respect to such a character. Neither can it be used to such a purpose by any of the communicants: for by the supposition, they must be all such as think they are converted already, and also come _under that notion. _So that by this scheme of things, here is an institution appointed to be upheld and used in the church, which the institution itself makes void and impossible. For, as was observed before, the notion of a converting ordinance has not reference to any secret decree of God, how _he _in his sovereign pleasure will sometimes use it; but to his _institution given to men, _appointing the end for which _they should use it. _Therefore, on the present supposition, the institution appoints the Lord’s supper to be used in some cases for the conversion of sinners, but at the same time forbids its being either given or received under any other notion than that of the communicant’s being converted already: which is in effect to forbid its being either given or received for the conversion of the communicant, in any one instance. So that the institution effectually destroys and disannuls itself.—But God forbid, that we should ascribe any such inconsistent institutions to the Divine Head of the church!

Or if the other part of the disjunction be taken, and it be said, the Lord’s supper is appointed for the conversion of some _that are sensible they are ungodly _or _unconverted, _the consequence is no less absurd, on Mr. W.‘s principles. For then the scheme is this. The institution requires some men to make a pretence of _real piety, _and to make a public solemn profession of _gospel-holiness, _which at the same time they are _sensible _they have not; and this, to the end that others may look upon them to be _real saints, _and receive them to the Lord’s supper under that notion: not putting on a disguise, and making a show of what they have not, through mistake, but doing it consciously and wilfully, to the honour and glory of God: and all this strictly required of them, as the _instituted means _of their becoming real saints, and the children of God!

Mr. W. says, (p. 14. d.) “Since it is _God’s will, _that his church should admit all such visible saints, [_viz. _such as he had been speaking of,] it follows, that the Lord’s supper is a _converting _ordinance to such of them as are unconverted.“ But Mr. W. is mistaken as to his consequence. The Lord’s supper is not instituted to be a converting ordinance to _all _unconverted men, whom it is _God’s will _the church should admit. For it may be the church’s duty, and so God’s will, to admit those that live _secretly _in the grossest wickedness, as adultery, uncleanness, deism, &c. Such men as these may make a fair profession, and the church may be ignorant of their secret wickedness, and therefore may have no warrant to reject them: but yet it will not follow, that God by his institution has given _such a lawful right to the Lord’s supper, having appointed it to be a converting _ordinance to them.

SECT. VIII.

_The notion of moral sincerity’s being the qualification, which gives a lawful right to christian sacraments, examined. _

Though our author disdains the imputation of any such notion, as that of men’s being called visible and professed saints from respect to a visibility and profession of moral sincerity: yet it is manifest, that in his scheme (whether consistently or no, others must judge) _moral sincerity _is the qualification which entitles, and gives a lawful right, to sacraments. For he holds, that it is lawful for unsanctified men, who have this qualification, to come to sacraments; and that it is not lawful for them to come without it. Therefore I desire this notion may be thoroughly examined.

And for the greater clearness, let it be observed what _sincerity _in general is. Now _sincerity, _in the general notion of it, is an _honest conformity of some profession or outward show of some inward property or act of mind, to the truth and reality of it. _If there be a show or pretence of what _is not, _and has _no real existence, _then the pretence is altogether vain; it is only a pretence, and nothing else: and therefore is a pretence or show without any _sincerity, _of any kind, either moral or gracious.

I now proceed to offer the following arguments against the notion of _moral sincerity _being the qualification, which gives a lawful right to sacraments.

I. There is no such thing as moral sincerity, in the _covenant of grace, _distinct from gracious sincerity. If any sincerity at all be requisite in order to a title to the seals of the covenant of grace, doubtless it is the sincerity which belongs to that covenant. But there is only one sort of sincerity which belongs to that covenant; and that is a gracious sincerity. There is but one sort of faith belonging to that covenant; and that is saving faith in Jesus Christ, called in Scripture _unfeigned faith. _As for the faith of devils, it is not the faith of the covenant of grace.

Here the distinction of an _internal and external _covenant, will not help at all; as long as the covenant, of which the sacraments are seals, is a _covenant of salvation, _or a covenant proposing terms of eternal salvation. The sacraments are seals of such a covenant. They are seals of the _New Testament in Christ’s blood, _(Matt. xxvi. 28. Luke xxii. 28.) _a Testament which has better promises than the Old, _(Heb. viii. 6.) and which the apostle tells us, _makes us heirs of the eternal inheritance. _(Heb. ix. 15.)—Mr. W. himself speaks of the covenant sealed in baptism, as _the covenant proposing terms of salvation. _(p. 23. b. c.) So he speaks of the covenant entered into by a visible people, as the covenant _in which God offers everlasting happiness. _(p 24, 25.) But there is no other religion, no other sincerity, belonging to this covenant _of salvation, _but that which _accompanies salvation, _or is _saving religion and sincerity. _As it is written, () “Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts.”

There is what may be called a _moral sincerity, _in distinction from saving, in many moral things; as in loving our friends and neighbours, in loving our country, in choosing the _protestant _religion before the _popish, _in a conscientious care to do many duties, in being willing to take a great deal of pains in religion, in being sorry for the commission of such and such acts of wickedness, &c. But there are some duties, which, unless they are done with a _gracious sincerity, _they cannot be done at all. As Mr. Stoddard observes, (_Safety of Ap. _p. 216.) “There are some duties which cannot be done but from a gracious respect to God.“ Thus, there is but one sort of sincerity in loving God as God, and setting our hearts on him as our highest happiness, loving him above the world, and loving holiness above all the objects of our lusts. He that does not these things with a gracious sincerity, never really doth them at all. He that truly does them, is certainly a godly man; as we are abundantly assured by the word of God. So, there is but one sort of _sincere and cordial consent to the covenant of grace, _but one sort of giving all our hearts to Jesus Christ; which things Mr. W. allows to be necessary, to come to sacraments. That to which a man’s heart is full of reigning enmity, he cannot with any reality at all cordially consent to and comply with: but the hearts of _unsanctified _men are full of reigning enmity to the covenant of grace, according to the doctrine of Scripture, and according to the doctrine of Mr. S. and Mr. W. too, as we have seen before.

However, if there were any such thing, as being heartily willing to accept of Christ, and a giving all our hearts to Christ, without a saving sincerity, this would not be a complying with the terms of a covenant of salvation. For it is self-evident, that only something which is _saving, _is a compliance with the terms of _salvation. _Now Mr. W. himself often allows (as has been observed) that persons must comply with the terms of the covenant of grace, in order to come to sacraments.—Yet because he also in effect denies it, I shall say something further in confirmation of it.

1. The sacraments are covenant privileges. Mr. W. himself calls them so. (p. 5. a. b.) Covenant privileges are covenant benefits, or benefits to which persons have a right by the covenant. “But persons can have no right to any of the benefits of a covenant, without compliance with its terms. For that is the very notion of the terms of a covenant, _viz. _Terms of an interest in the benefits of that covenant. It is so in all covenants whatsoever; if a man refuses to comply with its conditions, he can claim nothing by that covenant.

2. If we consider the sacraments as seals of the covenant, the same thing is evident, _viz. _That a man can have no right to them without a compliance with the terms. The sacraments are not only seals of the offer _on God’s part, _or ordinances God has appointed as confirmations of the truth of his covenant, as Mr. W. seems to insist. (p. 74, 75.) For considered merely as seals and confirmations of the truth of the gospel, they are (as miracles and other evidences of the christian religion) seals equally given to _Christians, Jews, Deists, _moral and vicious, and the whole world that knows of them. Whereas, it is manifest, in the nature of the thing, sacraments are seals of the covenant _to be applied to the communicant, _and of which he is the immediate subject, in a peculiar manner, _as a party in covenant. _Otherwise, what need would there be of his being one of God’s _covenant people, _in any sense whatsoever?

But now it is not reasonable to suppose, that the seal of the covenant belongs to any man, _as a party in the covenant, _who will not accept of and comply with the covenant. He that rejects the covenant, and will not comply with it, has no interest in it. And he that has no interest in the covenant, has no right to the seals; for the covenant and seals go together. It is so in all covenants among mankind; after a man has come into a bargain proposed and offered by another, yielding to the terms of it, he has a right to have the bargain _sealed, _and confirmed to him, as a party in the covenant; but not before.

And if what the communicant does be a seal _on his part _also, as the nature of the thing demonstrates, seeing he is active in the matter, and as Mr. W. seems willing to allow, (p. 75.) it will follow, with equal evidence, that a man cannot lawfully partake, unless he yields to and complies with the covenant. To what purpose is a man’s sealing an instrument or contract, but to confirm it _as his own act and deed, _and to declare his compliance with his part of the contract. As when a servant seals his indenture, it is a testimony and ratification of his compliance as to the proposed contract with his master. And if a covenant of friendship be proposed between two parties, and they both put their seal to it, hereby they both testify and declare their mutual friendship.

It has been already observed, that _unsanctified _men, while such, cannot with any sincerity at all testify a _present _cordial compliance with the covenant of grace: and as they cannot do this, so neither can they with any sincerity promise a _future _compliance with that covenant. Mr. W. often allows, that in order to christian communion men must _promise _a compliance with the covenant, in its spiritual and saving duties; that they will believe and repent in the sense of the covenant, willingly accept of Christ and his salvation, love him and live to him, and will do it immediately, henceforward, from this moment, (p. 25. _c. e. _p. 26. a. p. 28. _a. c. _and p. 76. a. b.) But how absurd is this! when at the same instant, while they are making and uttering these promises, they are entirely _averse _to any such thing; being then enemies to Christ, willingly rejecting him, opposing his salvation, striving against it, labouring to find out all manner of difficulties and hinderances in the way of it, not desiring it should come yet, &c. which our author, in a place forecited, says is the case with all unsanctified men.

And when unsanctified men promise, that they will spend the rest of their lives in universal _obedience _to Christ, there is no sincerity in such promises; because there is not _such a heart _in them. There is no man but a true disciple of Christ, that is willing thoroughly to _deny himself _for him, and _follow him _in a way of obedience to all his commands, unto the end, through all difficulties which Christ has given his followers reason to expect, or commanded them to prepare for; as is evident by Christ’s frequent declarations. (Luke xiv. 25-33. Matt. x. 37, 38, 39. chap. xiii. 44, 45, 46. and many parallel places.) If an unsanctified man thinks he is willing, he does not know his own heart. If he professes to be willing, he does not know what he says. The difficulty and cost of it is not in his view: and therefore he has no proper willingness to comply with the cost and difficulty. That which he is willing for, with a moral sincerity, is something else, which is a great deal easier, and less cross to flesh and blood. Suppose a king should propose to a subject his building him such a tower, promising him a certain reward. If the subject should undertake it, _not counting the cost, _thinking with himself that the king meant another sort of tower, much cheaper; and should be willing only to build that cheap one, which he imagined in his own mind; when he would by no means have consented to build so costly a tower as the king proposed, if he had understood him right: such a man could not be said properly to be willing to comply with his prince’s proposal, with any sincerity at all. For what he consents to with a moral sincerity, is _not the thing _which the king proposed.

The promises of unsanctified men are like the promises of the man we read of, (Luke ix. 57, 58.) who said, “Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.” To whom Christ replied, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” When he made his promise, he probably quite mistook the thing, and did not imagine, that to follow Christ wherever he went, would be to follow him in such poverty and hardship. I suppose, the rich _young man _we read of (Mark x. 17, &c.) might have what is called _moral sincerity. _But he had no sincerity in the _covenant of grace. _When he came to Christ to know _what he should do to have eternal life, _it is probable he ignorantly thought himself willing to yield himself to Christ’s direction. Yet when it came to a trial, and Christ told him he must _go and sell all that he had and give to the poor, _it proved that he had no sincerity of willingness at all for any such thing.—So that it is evident, however unsanctified men may be morally sincere in some things, yet they have no sincerity of any sort in _that covenant, _of which the sacraments are seals; and that moral sincerity, distinct from gracious, in _this covenant, _is a mere imagination, there being indeed no such thing.

II. Another argument against this notion of moral sincerity, giving a right to church communion, is this: a quality that is _transient _and _vanishing, _can be no qualification of fitness for a _standing _privilege. Unsanctified men may be very serious, greatly affected, and much engaged in religion; but the Scripture compares their religion to a _lamp _not supplied with oil, which will go out, and to a _plant _that has _no root _nor _deepness of earth, _which will soon wither ; and compares such unsanctified men to the _dog _that will _return to his vomit, _and to the _sow _which, though washed ever so clean, yet her nature not being changed, will return to her wallowing in the mire.

Mr. W. allows, that persons in order to come to sacraments, must have deep convictions, an earnest concern to obtain salvation, &c. Now every one who is in any degree acquainted with religious matters, knows that such convictions are not wont to last a great while, if they have no saving issue. Mr. S. in his sermon on the danger of speedy degeneracy, (p. 11.) says, “Unconverted men _will grow weary _of religious duties.” And our author himself, (p. 78. c.) speaking of those professors in the primitive churches that fell away to heresy and other wickedness, takes notice that the apostle _observes, _it will be so, that they which are approved, might be made manifest: and says Mr. W. upon it, evil and unsanctified men, by such sins, will discover their hypocrisy.

Now seeing this is the case with moral sincerity and common religion, how can it be a qualification for a standing privilege ? Nothing can be a fitness for a _durable privilege, _but a _durable qualification. _For no qualification has any fitness or adaptedness for more than it extends to; as a short scabbard cannot be fit for a long sword. If a man going a journey in the night, needs a lamp to light him in his way, who will pretend that a flaming wick without oil, which will last but a few rods, is fit for his purpose ? Or if a man were building a house for himself and family, should he put into the frame pieces of timber known to be of such a nature as that they would probably be rotten in a few months; or should he take blocks of ice, instead of hewn stone, because during a present cold season they seemed to be hard and firm; and withal should for a covering put only leaves that will soon fade away, instead of tiles or shingles, that are solid and lasting; would not every spectator ridicule his folly?

If it should be said, that unsanctified men, when they _lose _their moral sincerity, may _be cast out _again: this is far from helping the case, or showing that such men were ever _fit _to be admitted. To say, a piece of timber, though not of a durable nature, is _fit _to be put into the frame of a building, because when it begins to rot, it may be pulled out again, is so far from proving that it was ever fit to be put in, that the speedy necessity of pulling it out rather proves the contrary. If we had the power of constituting a human body, or it were left to us to add members to our own bodies, as there might be occasion; we should not think such a member was fit to be added to the frame, that had already radically seated in it a cancer or gangrene, by which it could last but a little while itself, and would endanger the other members; though it were true, that when the disease should prevail, there were surgeons which might be procured to cut that member off.

But to consider a little further this point of _moral sincerity _qualifying persons for the privileges of the church. I would lay down this proposition as a thing of clear evidence: _those persons have no fitness in themselves to _come _to the privileges of the church, who, if they were known, would not be fit to be _admitted _by others. _For to say, they are _fit _to be members, and yet _not _fit to be allowed to be members, is apparently absurd. But they who have no better fitness than moral sincerity, if that were _known, _would not be fit to be admitted by others; as is allowed by Mr. W. For he holds, that in order to be fit to be admitted by others, they must credibly appear to them to have something _more _than moral sincerity, even gospel-holiness. And it is evident in itself, as well as allowed by Mr. W. that if such were _known, _they would not be _fit _to be admitted, _only _on their moral sincerity, and the profession and promises they make from such a principle; and that for this reason, because such a principle alone _would not be fit to be trusted. _God himself has taught his church, that the religion of unsanctified men is not fit to be trusted; as a lamp without _oil, _and a plant without _root, _are things not to be trusted.—God has directly taught his church to expect, that such religion will fail; and that such men, having no higher principle, will return to their wickedness. Job xxvii. 8, 9, 10. “The hypocrite—will he delight himself in the Almighty? will he always call upon God?”—Dan. xii. 10. “The wicked will do wickedly.” And therefore God does not require his church to accept their profession and promises. If he has taught us not to credit their profession and promises, then certainly he has taught us not to accept them.

III. Another argument against this supposed rule of allowing and requiring unsanctified men with moral sincerity, to come to sacraments, is this. _That rule, _which if fully attended, would naturally bring it to pass, that the _greater part _of communicants would be _unfit, _even according to that very rule, cannot be a _divine _rule. But this supposed rule of _moral sincerity _is such a rule. For if this rule be universally attended, then all unsanctified men, who have present convictions of conscience sufficient to make them _morally sincere, _must come into the communion of the church. But this conviction and common religion, if it do not issue in conversion, (as has been observed,) commonly vanishes away in a short time. And yet still these persons, if not convicted of open scandal, are left in the communion of the church, and remain there, _without even moral sincerity.—_Experience gives us abundant reason to think, that of those who some time or other have considerable convictions of conscience, so as to make them for the present to be what is called _morally sincere, _but few are savingly converted. How small a proportion are there of the vast multitudes, that in the time of the late religious commotion through the land had their consciences awakened who give hopeful abiding evidences of a saving conversion to God! And if all these must be admitted, (as they must, if this rule be fully attended,) then their convictions going away, and their sincerity vanishing with it, it will hereby be brought about, that the Lord’s table is chiefly surrounded with the _worst _sort of morally insincere persons, _viz. _stupid backsliders, that are in themselves far _worse _than they were before, according to the scripture account, Matt. xii. 45. and 2 Pet. ii. 20.—And this as the natural consequence of the forementioned rule, appointing _moral sincerity _to be the qualification for communion. Thus this supposed rule supplants its own design.

IV. Another argument, that moral sincerity is not the qualification to which God has annexed a lawful right to sacraments, is, that this qualification is _not at all inconsistent _with a man’s living at the same time in the most _heinous wickedness, _in a superlative degree contrary to the christian religion.

It was before observed to be a thing evident in itself, and allowed by Mr. W. that there are some _sins, _which, while wilfully continued and lived in, though secretly, do wholly _disqualify _persons for christian sacraments, and make it _unlawful _for men to partake of them. Now if it be thus with some sins, doubtless it is because of the _heinousness _of those sins, the high degree of wickedness which is in them. And hence it will follow, that those sins which are in themselves most heinous, and most contrary to the christian religion, do especially disqualify persons for christian sacraments, when wilfully lived in.

Let it therefore now be considered, whether it will not follow from these premises, that for men to live in enmity against God and Christ, and in wilful unbelief and rejection of Christ, (as the Scriptures teach, and as Mr. S. and Mr. W. too assert, is the case with all unsanctified men under the gospel,) wholly _disqualifies _them for christian sacraments. For it is very manifest, by Scripture and reason, that to live in these things, is to live in some of the _most heinous _kinds of wickedness; as is allowed by _Calvinistic _divines in general, and by Mr. S. in particular, who says, (_Safety of Ap. _p. 224. d.) “You _cannot anger God more by any thing, _than by continuing in the neglect of Christ. This is the _great controversy _God has with sinners; not that they have been guilty of these and those particular transgressions, but that they abide in the rejection of the gospel.” Again, he _says, _(_ibid. _p. 249. e.) “_The great sin, _that God is angry with you for, is your _unbelief. _Despising the gospel is the great provoking sin.“

A man’s continuing in hatred of his _brother, _especially a fellow-communicant, is generally allowed to disqualify for communion. The apostle compares it to _leaven _in the passover, 1 Cor. v. 6, 7, 8. But now certainly it is as bad, and as contrary to the nature and design of christian sacraments, for a man to live in hatred of christ, and to remain a _hateful and accursed enemy _(if I may use Mr. W.‘s own language) to the glorious Redeemer and Head of the christian church.

None will deny, that _lying _and _perjury _are very gross and heinous sins, and (if known) very scandalous: and therefore it follows from what was observed before, that such sins, if lived in, though secretly, do disqualify persons for christian sacraments in God’s sight. But by our author’s own account, all unsanctified men that partake of the Lord’s supper, live in _lying _and _perjury, _and go on to renew these crimes continually; since while they continue ungodly men, they live in a constant violation of their promise and oath.” For Mr. W. often lays it down, that all who enter into covenant with God, promise spiritual duties, such as repentance, faith, love, &c. And that they promise to perform these _henceforward, _even from the _present moment, _unto the end of life; (see p. 25. _c. e. _26. a. 28. a. c. 76. a. b.) and that they not only promise, but _swear _to do this. (p. 18. _d. _100. c. 101. a. 129. _a. _130. c. 140. b.) But for a man to violate the promises he makes in covenanting with God, Mr. W. once and again speaks of it as _lying, _(p. 24. _d. e. _p. 130. r.) And if so, doubtless their breaking the oath they swear to God is _perjury.—_Now lying to _men is _bad; but lying to God is worse. (Acts v. 4.) And without doubt, perjury towards God is the _worst _sort of perjury. But if unsanctified men, when they entered into covenant with God, promised and swore, that they would _immediately _and _thenceforward _accept of Christ as their Saviour, and love him, and live to him; then while they continue in a wilful rejection of him (which according to Mr. W. all unregenerate men do) they live continually in the violation of their promise and oath. Here I would observe, that not only in the general do unsanctified men, notwithstanding their moral sincerity, thus live in the most heinous wickedness; but particularly, according to Mr. W.‘s own doctrine, their very attendance on the outward ordinances and duties of worship, is the vilest, most flagrant, and abominable impiety. In his sermons on Christ a King and Witness, (p. 77, 78.) he says, “If a man could perform all the outward acts of worship and obedience, which the Bible requires, from the beginning to the end of it. and not do them from faith in Christ, and love to God, and not express by them the thoughts, desires, and actings of his soul; they would be so far from being that obedience which Christ requires, that they would be a mocking of God, and hateful to him. These outward acts ought to be no other, and in religion are designed to stand for nothing else, but to be representations of a man’s soul, and the acts of that. And when they are not so. they are in their own nature a lie, and false pretence of something within, which is not there: Therefore the Lord abhors them, and reckons these false pretences the vilest wickedness.—Now when a man performs all outward obedience and worship, but it does not come from his heart, he practically denies the omniscience of Christ, while he puts before him a show and pretence of something for the reality; and so he belies his own profession. And all this, be it more or less, whatever it pretends to be of religion, instead of being that which Christ requires, is entirely different from it, yea. infinitely contrary to it. And those same actions, which when they are the language of the heart, and flow from it, are pleasing and acceptable to God and Jesus Christ, are true obedience to him; when they do not, are reckoned the most flagrant and abominable impiety, and threatened with the severest damnation of hell.”—Now, who can believe, that God has, by his own holy institution, made that sort of sincerity, which is nothing better than what is consistent with such a lying, vile, abominable, flagrantly wicked pretence and show of religion as this, the very thing that gives a right, even in his sight, to christian sacraments. I might here also observe, that if moral sincerity or common grace gives a right to sacraments in the sight of God, then that which (according to Mr. S - d’s doctrine before observed) is a spirit of lust, that which is contrary to, and at war with, and would destroy saving grace, is the thing which gives a right in the sight of God to christian sacraments.

I would observe one thing further under this head, _viz. _That ungodly men which live under the gospel, notwithstanding any moral sincerity they may have, are worse, and more provoking enemies to God, than the very heathen, who never sinned against gospel-light and mercy. This is very manifest by the Scriptures, particularly Matt. x. 13, 14. Amos iii. 2. Rom. ii. 9. 2 Pet. ii. 21. Rev. iii. 15, 16.

I had suggested, concerning Mr. Stoddard’s doctrine of admitting more unconverted than converted by attending Christ’s rule, that this supposes it to be the case of the members of the visible church, that the greater part of them are more provoking enemies to God than most of the heathen. Mr. W. represents himself as greatly alarmed at this: he calls it an extraordinary passage, and puts five questions about it to my serious consideration. (p. 72, 73.) The first and chief question is this; “Did Mr. S. ever say in the _Appeal, _or any where else, of most of our fellow-worshippers at the sacrament, that we have no reason to think concerning them, but that they are more provoking enemies to the Lord, whom Christians love and adore, than most of the very heathen?” His three next questions are to represent the heinousness of such supposed ill treatment of Mr. S.—And I think will be sufficiently answered, by what I shall offer in reply to the first.

I will tell him what Mr. S. said. Speaking to such as do not come to Christ, living under the gospel, he said, (_Safety of Ap. _p. 234, 235.) “You may not think to escape as the _heathen _do: your load will be heavier, and your fire will be hotter, and your judgment sorer, than the judgment of other men. God will proportion every man’s misery to his iniquity. And as you have enjoyed greater light and love, so you must expect more amazing and exquisite wrath, than other men. Conscience has more to accuse you of and condemn you for; and so has God: and you will sink down deeper into hell than other men. You are treasuring up a greater measure of wrath, than others, against the day of wrath. You will wish you had lived in the darkest corners of the earth among Scythians and barbarians.”—

And Mr. W. must allow me to remind him of what another divine has said, and that is himself. In his sermon on Isa. xlv. 11. (p. 25, 26), he says, “It is to be feared, there are great numbers here present, that are in an unconverted, unrenewed, unpardoned state; strangers from God, and enemies to him. Yet you now look with great pity and compassion on that poor _captive, _for whom we have now been offering up our earnest prayers, Mrs. Eunice Williams, brought up in Canada, among the Caghnawaga Indians, sister to the then pastor of the church in Mansfield, where this sermon was preached, upon a day of prayer kept on her account; she being, then in that place on a visit. who has been so long in a pitiable and sorrowful condition, and who is now in the thickness of _popish _darkness and superstition.—If you are out of Christ, and destitute of true faith in him, if your natures remain _unrenewed and unsanctified, _what is your state better than hers, which looks so sorrowful and distressing? Rather, is it not worse? When you consider, that in the fulness of the means of grace which you have enjoyed all your days, you are as far from any saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, as those who have lived in the dregs and abyss of _popish _ignorance, and know not what to believe, but what the church, that is, _antichrist, _tells them. If you die thus, your misery will be _aggravated inconceivably _beyond theirs: which Christ has plainly enough shown us, when he upbraided the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, and tells them how much in the comparison they fall below Tyre and Sidon,” (heathen cities, notorious for luxury, debauchery, and the grossest idolatry,) “and Sodom; for whom it should be _more tolerable _than for them.”

The same author says also, even in the book under consideration, (p. 86.) “That the unbelief and impieties of _visible saints, _is what they will be punished for above all men in the world.“

And now, I think it may be proper for Mr. W. himself to answer his 5th question, which he puts to my serious consideration, _viz. _“What honour is it to our Lord Jesus Christ, to treat visible saints in such a manner, when at the same time it is his revealed will they should be outwardly treated as visible saints?”

SECT**. IX.**

_A view of what Mr. W. says concerning the public covenanting of professors. _

I. Mr. W. often speaks with contempt, of my supposing it to be a duty required of such as come to sacraments, that they should _explicitly own the covenant, _and disputes largely against it. (p. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. and many other places.) He says concerning me, (p. 22. a. b.) “It is very unhappy, that this good gentleman should use the Scripture in such a manner, to prove a divine institution which never had an existence; and after all that is said, is but a mere imagination and chimera; it being evident, there never was any such divine institution for the church under the Old Testament, binding particular persons _publicly and explicitly to own the covenant, _in order to their enjoying the outward ordinances of it.” However, it falls out something happily for me, that I am not quite alone in the chimera, but have Mr. W. himself to join me in it; who abundantly asserts the same thing, (p. 5. c. p. 8. a. p. 9. _b. c. _and many other places,) who uses the Scripture in the same manner, and supposes the same divine institution; and who, (in p. 5. _b. c. _of the treatise in hand,) having stated the following inquiry, “What is that evidence, which by divine appointment the church is to have, of the saintship of those who are admitted to the outward privileges of the covenant of grace?” makes this answer to it: “The scripture has determined the matter thus, that the open profession and declaration of a person’s believing in Christ,—and a hearty consent to the terms of the covenant of grace, and engagement on his part to fulfil it,” &c. ” is the sole and entire ground of that public judgment, which the church is to make of the real saintship of professors.” It is manifest, he cannot intend merely that they should be the _posterity _of such as thus owned the covenant, or _declared their consent to it, _and so are looked upon as those that owned the covenant in their ancestors, at the beginning of the covenant line; (though sometimes he seems to suppose, this is all that is necessary, as I shall take particular notice by and by;) for here he expressly speaks of a _personal _owning the covenant, or the _open profession and declaration of a _person’s consent to the covenant. And thus he often speaks of the same matter, in like manner, as a _personal _thing, or what is done by the person judged of, and received. (See p. 10. _c. d. _31. _e. _32. _e. _33. _a. _34. _b. c. _73. _b _84. _a. _139. a.) And in the second page of his _preface, _he declares himself fully established in Mr. S-—d’s doctrine concerning this affair of qualifications for the Lord’s supper; who expressly declare it to be his judgment, that ” It is requisite, that persons be not admitted unto communion in the Lord’s supper, without making a personal and public profession of their faith and repentance.” (_Appeal, _p. 93, 94.)

And as Mr. W. holds, that there must be a public personal owning of the covenant; so he also maintains, that this profession must be _explicit, _or _express. _He says, (p. 20. d. e.) “Since we have no direction in the Bible, at what time nor in what manner any _personal explicit _covenanting should be performed,—it appears plain to a demonstration, that the people knew nothing of any such institution; as I suppose, the christian church never did, till Mr. Edwards discovered it.” But if I was the first discoverer, he should have owned, that since I have discovered it, he himself, and all my opposers, have seen cause to follow me, and receive my discovery. For so the case seems to be, if he gives us a true account (in p. 132. b.) where he rejects, with indignation, the imputation of any other opinion. “How often (says he) has Mr. Edwards said, none but visible saints are to be admitted? Do not all Mr. Edwards’s opposers say, that no man is to be admitted, who does not profess his hearty belief of the gospel, and the earnest and sincere purpose of his heart, so far as he knows it, to obey all God’s commands, and keep his covenant? None, who do not make as full and express a profession as the _Israelites _did, or was ever required by Christ or his apostles, in any instances that can be produced in the Bible, of bodies of men or particular persons admitted into visible covenant with God?”—He had before spoken of the words which the Israelites used in their entering into covenant with God. (p. 5. d.) Which must refer to their entering into covenant in the wilderness; for we have no account of any _words _at all used by that nation, _at their entering into covenant, _if not there. And this he sometimes speaks of as the covenant they made, when God _took them into covenant. _(p. 8. _d. _36. _d. e. _37. a. b.) And (p. 20.) he allows that to be an instance of explicit covenanting: but ridicules _my _pretending to show, that explicit covenanting was a divine institution for all; when, he says, we have an account of but four instances of any _explicit _covenanting with God by the Jews, and those on most extraordinary occasions, and by _the body of the people. _But what matter is it, whether there were four, or but two, or only that one instance in the wilderness? when he himself with such earnestness declares, that all my opposers hold, _every man _must make as full and express a profession of the covenant as ever the _Israelites did, or was ever required, in any instance that can be produced in the Bible, whether of bodies of men or particular persons’ _admission, &c. If this be so, and what he said before be also true, then all _Israel, _even every individual person among them, that ever was admitted to the privileges of the church, throughout all their generations, by his own confession and assertion, did personally make as _explicit _a profession of the covenant, as the body of the people did in that instance in the _wilderness. _And not only so, but the same must every individual person do, that ever comes to sacraments, through all ages, to the end of the world.—Thus Mr. W. fights hard to beat down himself. But I will not say in his own language, that in so doing he fights hard to beat down a poor man of straw.

If any should say, that Mr. W. when speaking of an _express profession, _does not mean a profession in words, but only in actions; such as an outward attendance on ordinances and duties of worship: I answer, if such actions are a profession, yet certainly they are not an express profession; they are no more than an _implicit profession. _And besides, it is very plain, the profession he speaks of is a _profession in words. _Thus (p. 36. b.) when describing the profession which ought to be made, he says, “It is in as strong words, as were used by any whom the apostles admitted.” And elsewhere (as was before noted) he often insists, that a profession should be made in words without any discrimination as to their meaning. Which shows, it is a profession in _words, _that he designs. And although (p. 104. e.) he speaks of a performance of the outward duties of morality and worship, as the only way that God ever appointed of making real saintship visible: yet this is only another instance of his great _inconsistence _with himself; as appears by what has already been observed, and appears further by this, that when he speaks of a profession of consent to the terms of the covenant, &c. he often speaks of it as a profession which ought to be made in order to admission to these ordinances, (p. 5. b. c. 10. _a _35. _e. _36. _a. b. c. _132. _b. _and other places.) If so, then how can the _attendance _itself, on these ordinances of worship, be all the profession which is to be made? Must men first come to ordinances, in order to admission to ordinances? And moreover, Mr. W. himself distinguishes between _engaging and swearing to keep covenant _in the public profession, and attending on the ordinances and duties of worship, which he speaks of as belonging to the _fulfilment of the engagement and oath. _(p. 130.) And _lastly _I would observe, though it could be consistently made out (which it never can) that Mr. W. does not mean a professing in _words, _it would be nothing to the purpose. If it be in words, or in other signs which are equivalent to words, and which are a _full and express profession, _(as Mr. W. says,) it is exactly the same thing as to my purpose, and the consequence of the argument, which was, that real godliness must be professed. And indeed this very thing which I endeavoured to prove by all that I said on this head, is expressly again and again allowed by Mr. W. Yet he makes a great ado, as if there was a vast difference between him and me in this affair of public covenanting with God; and as though my notions of it were very singular, absurd, and mischievous.

II. Mr. W. says a great deal in opposition to me, to show that _swearing by God’s name, swearing to the Lord, _and the like, do not mean covenanting with God: but yet (in p. 18.) in the midst of his earnest dispute against it, he owns it.—I mentioned several prophecies, referring to the _Gentile _converts in the days of the gospel, which foretell that they should _swear by God’s name, swear to the Lord of hosts, &c. _as a prediction of the Gentiles publicly covenanting with God; using that as one thing which confirmed, that this was commonly the meaning of such phrases in the Old Testament. But Mr. W. despises my interpretation of these prophecies, and my argument from them. Nevertheless, in his reply, he owns the very thing: he in effect owns, that entering into covenant, and owning the covenant, is what is meant by these prophecies; mentioning this, plainly with approbation, as the universal sense of protestant commentators. His words are, (p. 18. d. e.) “As to all these prophecies, which Mr. Edwards has quoted, referring to the Gentiles, and their _swearing by the name of the Lord, _the sense of protestant commentators upon them, I think, universally is, that when the Gentiles in God’s appointed time should be brought into covenant with God, it should be as the Jews were, by being persuaded to consent to the terms of the covenant of grace, and engaging themselves to God, to be faithful to him, and keep covenant with him. He who heartily consents to the terms of the _covenant of grace, _gives up himself to the Lord, gives the hand to the Lord, engages to own and serve him; which is the thing signified in all those metaphorical phrases, which describe or point out this event, in the Old-Testament language.”

III. Mr. W. in these last-cited words, explains the phrase _of giving the hand to the Lord, _as signifying engaging themselves to God in covenant, and consenting to the terms of the covenant, and yet in the next page but two, he contemns and utterly disallows my interpreting the same phrase in the same manner. Mr. W. says, (p. 21. c.) ” As to the words of _Hezekiah, _when he called the Israelites to the passover, bidding them yield or give the hand to the Lord; and in Ezra, they gave the hand to put away their wives; which he thinks to be a _Hebrew _phrase for entering into covenant; it carries its own confutation with it.”

IV. Mr. W. often speaks of the professions made by the ancient Israelites and Jewish Christians, when they entered into covenant, and were admitted into the church. Whereas, according to the doctrine of the same author, in the same book, we have no account of any profession made by either, on any such occasion. For he insists, that the children of such as are in covenant, are born in covenant; and are not admitted into covenant, any otherwise than as they were seminally in their ancestors; and that the profession of their ancestors, at the head of the covenant line, is that _individual profession, which brings them into covenant. _His words are, (p. 135. _e. _136. a. b. c.) “It is one and the same individual profession and engagement, which brings them and their children into covenant. And if there is one instance in the Bible, where God ever took any man into covenant, and not his children at the same time, I should be glad to see it. It is by virtue of their being in covenant, that they have a right to the seals. And if _these _children are not cast out of covenant by God, _their _children have as good a right to the seals as they had. It is God’s will, that his mark and seal should be set upon them, and their children, and their children for ever, till God casts them out of covenant. It is certain, they have an interest in the covenant, and they have a right to the privileges of the covenant so long as they remain in covenant; and that is, till God cuts them off, and casts them out.”

And accordingly he supposes, that _John the Baptist _never inquired into the doctrinal knowledge of those he baptized, because they _were already in covenant with God, _and members of his visible church, and not yet turned out: and he suggests, that _John _knew many of them not to be of a good moral character, (p. 98.) So he largely insists, that the _three thousand Jews _and proselytes that the apostles baptized, (Acts ii.) were not taken into covenant, but only _continued in covenant. _(p. 46, 47.) So he supposes the _eunuch, _before _Philip _baptized him, was a member of the church, and in covenant with God. (p. 50.) Though he inconsistently mentions those same persons in the 2d of Acts, and the _eunuch, _as _admitted into the church _by the apostles, and primitive ministers. (p. 9. _e. _p. 10. _a. _p. 59. a.) And so (p. 8. _d. _p. 26. a.) he mentions God’s _taking all Israel _into covenant: he mentions the _profession _which the _Israelites _made, (p. 25. e.) and (p. 5. d.) he speaks of the _words which the _Israelites _used, in their entering into covenant with God. _And (p. 36. _d. e. _p. 37. a. b.) he speaks of their profession in _Moses’s _time, _which God trusted so far as to admit them into covenant. _Whereas indeed, according to Mr. W. they _were not taken in, _nor did they _enter into covenant, _neither in the plains of _Moab, _nor at mount _Sinai. _He says expressly, that they were _in _covenant before that time, when in _Egypt, _being taken in their ancestors, _Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. _(p. 91. b.) But then we read of _no words _that these patriarchs _used at their entering into covenant.—_And it will undoubtedly follow, on Mr. W.‘s principles, that we must go further back still for _Israel’s _being taken into covenant; we must go up even to _Adam _himself, the first father of mankind, who was visibly in covenant, and so his posterity, in the line of _Noah’s _ancestors, without the line being broken by a visible _cutting off, _and _casting out _by God, as we have all reason to suppose. And after the flood, we have reason to think, God had a covenant race continued in _Shem’s _posterity, especially in the line of _Abraham’s _ancestors. And though _Terah, Abraham’s _father, was tainted with the then prevailing idolatry; yet there is no appearance of the line being then _cut off _in the way Mr. W. speaks of, by God’s visibly _casting him out. _On the contrary, God took a special fatherly care of him and his children, in bringing them from _Ur _of the _Chaldees, _the land of graven images, to _Haran. _(Gen. xi. 31.) And God is called the God of the father of _Abraham _and _Nahor, _that is, the God of _Terah. _(Gen. xxxi. 53.) And if it be said, that in _Abraham _began a new dispensation of the covenant; so that _Abraham _might properly on that account be said to be _taken into covenant, _as though his ancestors had not been in covenant: I answer, The alteration of the dispensation was in no measure so great as that after Christ’s resurrection and ascension; and yet Mr. W. will not allow, that the Jewish converts, received (Acts ii.) on this new dispensation, were any more than _continued in covenant, _and in the church. So that, according to Mr. W.‘s scheme, it must be Adam’s profession of religion, that was _the individual profession _which made all his posterity, in the line of the church, even to the apostles’ days, _visible saints, _or (as he himself explains visible saintship) such as we have rational ground to think are real saints, possessed of gospel-holiness; and on that account have a right to sacraments. For so he says it is with the children of them that are in covenant, and their children, and their children _for ever, _till cut off and cast out by God.

So that now we have the scheme in a true view of it.—The _Pharisees and Sadducees that John baptized, _whom Mr. W. supposes _John _knew to be not of a good moral character, and whose doctrinal knowledge he did not inquire into before he baptized them; because they had before been admitted in their ancestors; even _these were visible saints, _and such as John had rational ground to think had sufficient doctrinal knowledge and were orthodox and _real saints, _having moral evidence that they had _gospel-holiness, _because Adam their original ancestor made a profession of religion, in words of double meaning, without any marks of distinction or discrimination, by which any might know their meaning.

And if we should go back no further than Abraham, it would not much mend the matter; supposing the case had been so, that we had the words of both Abraham’s and Adam’s profession written down in our Bibles: whereas, we have neither; no, nor have we the words of the profession of any one person, either in the Old Testament or New, at their being _taken into _the church, if the things which Mr. W. says are true; though he speaks so often of professions, and words of professions, and declarations, made on such occasions, as if we had an express account of them in Scripture.

V. As our author abundantly maintains, that unsanctified men in covenanting with God, may and do promise the exercise of saving faith, repentance, love, &c.; so he holds, that they promise to begin the exercise of these graces _immediately, from this moment, _and to live in them _from henceforth. _(p. 25. _c. e. _and 26. a. and 28. _a. c. _76. a. b.)

Now I desire this matter may be looked into, and thoroughly examined.—Not only the Holy Scriptures, and agreeable to them, Mr. Stoddard, and sound divines in general, teach us, but Mr. W. himself maintains, that men who are unsanctified do _for the present refuse _and _oppose _these things. In a forecited place of his sermon on Isaiah xlv. 11. our author says, that unregenerate and unsanctified men oppose all means for bringing them to these things, are willingly without them, and labour to find out all manner of difficulties and hinderances in the way of them; and if they pray for them, do not desire they should come yet, but would stay a while longer. Now, how is this consistent with such persons promising, with any _sincerity _at all, that they will comply with and perform these things _immediately, from henceforth, _without staying _one moment _longer? If God calls a man _this moment _to yield his whole heart to him in faith, love, and new obedience; and if he in answer to the call solemnly promises and swears It must be observed, that Mr. W. often speaks of the promise which an unregenerate man makes in covenanting with God, as his oath. P. 18. d. p.100. p 101. a. p. 129. a p. 130. c. p. 143. b. to God, that he will immediately comply with the call, without the least delay, and does it with any sincerity, how does he now willingly refuse, oppose, and struggle against it, as choosing to stay a while longer?

Besides, such promises and oaths of unregenerate men must not only be contrary to sincerity, but very _presumptuous, _upon these two accounts. (1.) Because herein they take an oath to the Most High, which, it is ten thousand to one, they will break as soon as the words are out of their mouths, by continuing still unconverted; yea, an oath which they are breaking even while they are uttering it. And what folly and wickedness is it for men to take such oaths! and how contrary to the counsel given by the wise man, in Eccl. v. 2-6.! And to what purpose should ungodly men be encouraged to utter such promises and oaths before the church, for the church’s acceptance; which are so far from being worthy to be credited, or a fulfilment of them to be expected, that it is many thousands, and perhaps millions, of times more likely to be otherwise? That is, it is so much more likely they will not be converted the very next moment.—(2.) When an unconverted man makes such a promise, he promises what he has not to give, or that for which he has no sufficiency. There is indeed a sufficiency in God to enable him; but he has no claim to it. For God’s helping a man savingly to believe in Christ is a saving blessing: and Mr. W. himself owns, that a man cannot by promise claim any saving blessings, till he has fulfilled the conditions of the covenant of grace. (p. 22. _e. _and 28. e.) So that in vain it is said by Mr. W. (p. 27. e.) “ I pray that it may be thoroughly considered what is propounded in the covenant of grace, and on what _stock _a man is to finish.” Meaning (as appears by the sequel) the _stock _of God’s sufficiency. To what purpose is this said? when the covenant of grace promises or makes over no such _stock _to him who has no interest in the promises of it, as having not yet complied with the condition of its promises. Nor does an unconverted man promise any thing in an humble dependence on that stock; no such men do _lay hold on God’s strength, _or trust in God’s sufficiency. For this is a discriminating mark of a true saint; as our author himself observes, in that forecited passage in his Sermons _on Christ a King and Witness, _p. 19. c.

I would here take notice of it as remarkable, that though Mr. W. had owned that a natural man can claim no saving blessings by God’s_ promise, _yet to help out his scheme of a natural man engaging and promising, even with an oath, the exercises of saving grace, he (in p. 27, 28. especially p. 28. e.) speaking of the _great encouragement _on which unsanctified men can promise these things, supposes God has given _such encouragement _to them who promise and engage themselves to God, with that degree of earnestness and sincerity which he often speaks of as requisite to communion, that we have reason to determine that God never will fail of bestowing on them saving grace; so that they shall fulfil their promises. I say, he supposes that we have reason to determine this, because he himself determines it. His words are these:—“Though there be no promise of saving good, exclusive of faith, yet there being a command and encouragement, there are suitable springs of his endeavour and hope, in his engaging himself to God, and casting himself upon his mercy with all the earnestness and sincerity he can. God never _will be worse than his encouragement, _nor do less than he has encouraged; and he has said, To him that hath shall be given.“ Now if this be so, and if this will make it out, that an unconverted man who is _morally sincere _may reasonably, on this _encouragement, _promise immediately to believe and repent, though this be not in his own power; then it will follow, that whenever an unconverted man covenants, with such moral sincerity as gives a lawful right to sacraments, God never _will fail of _giving him converting grace _that moment, _to enable him _from thenceforward _to believe and repent, as he promises. And if this be so, and none may lawfully covenant with God _without _moral sincerity, (as Mr. W. also says,) then it will follow, that _never _any one person comes, nor can come, lawfully to the Lord’s supper, in an unconverted state; because when they enter into covenant lawfully, (supposing them not converted before,) God al-ways converts them in the moment of their covenanting, _before _they come to the Lord’s table.—And if so, what is become of all this grand dispute about the lawfulness of persons coming to the Lord’s table, who have not converting grace?

VI. Mr. W. greatly misrepresents me from time to time, as though I had asserted, that it is impossible for an unsanctified man to enter into covenant with God; and that those who were sanctified among the _Israelites, _did not enter into covenant with God; that the pretended covenanting of such is not covenanting, but only lying, wilful lying; and that no natural man can own the covenant, but _that he, certainly lies, knows he lies, _and _designedly lies, in all these things, when he says them. _(p. 26. _d. _22. _d. _24. _d. _31. _a. b. c. _21. c.) Whereas, I never said nor supposed any such thing. I never doubted but that multitudes of unsanctified persons, and in all ages of the christian church, and in this age, and here in _New England, _have entered visibly, and in profession, into the covenant of grace, and have owned that covenant, and promised a compliance with all the duties of it, without known or wilful lying; for this reason, because they were deceived, and did not know their own hearts: and that they (however deceived) were under the obligations of the covenant, and bound by their engagements and promises. And that in _that _sense, they were God’s covenant people, that by their own binding act they were engaged to God in covenant; though such an act, performed without habitual holiness, be an unlawful one. If a thing be externally devoted to God, by doing what ought not to have been done, the thing devoted may, by that act, be the Lord’s: as it was with the censers of _Korah _and his company. (Num. xvi. 37, 38.)

What I asserted, was, that none could profess a compliance with the covenant of grace, and avouch jehovah to be their God, and Christ to be their Saviour, i._e. _that they are so by their own act and choice, and yet love the world more than jehovah without lying, or being deceived. See my Inquiry, p. 33, 34. And that he who is wholly under the power of a carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be, cannot promise to love God with all his heart and with all his soul, without either great deceit, or the most manifest and palpable absurdity. Inasmuch as promising supposes the person to be conscious to himself, or persuaded of himself, that he has such a heart in him; because his lips pretend to declare his heart, and the nature of a promise implies real intention, will, and compliance of heart. Ibid. p.37,38. And what can be more evident than these propositions? Surely they that reject the covenant of grace _in their hearts _(as Mr. W. owns all unsanctified men do) cannot own it _with their lips, _without either _deceiving _or _being deceived. _Words cannot be a true signification of more than is in the mind. _Inward covenanting, _as Mr. S. taught, is by an act of saving faith. (_Safety of Ap. _p. 85. _e. _86. a.) And _outward covenanting _is an expression of inward covenanting; therefore, if it be not attended with _inward covenanting, _it is a false expression. And Mr. W. in effect owns the same thing; for he says, (p. 21. b.) ” That there is no doubt they who are wilful obstinate sinners, deal _deceitfully and falsely _when they pretend to covenant with God.” But so do all unregenerate sinners under the gospel, according to Mr. Stoddard and his own doctrine. And thus the very point, about which he contests so earnestly and so long, and with so many great words, is, in the midst of it all, given up fully, by his own concession.

VII. Mr. W. is greatly displeased with my saying (as above) that none who are under the power of a carnal mind can visibly own the covenant, _without lying _or _being deceived, _&c. And he finds great fault with my gloss on Psal. lxxviii. 36, 37. “They did flatter him with their mouth, and lied to him with their tongue:” which I interpret, as though they lied in pretending that respect to God, which indeed they had not. (p. 35. _a. _of my Inquiry.) But he insists, that what is meant is only _their lying in breaking their promise. _(p. 24. e.) And he insists upon it, (as has been observed already,) that natural men may covenant with God and _speak true. _But it seems he has wonderfully changed his mind of late; for a little while ago he declared elsewhere _for _the very same things which he here inveighs _against, _and spoke of natural men’s profession and pretence of respect to God, as being actually a lie in its own nature; and not only becoming so by their breaking covenant afterwards. Particularly, it is remarkable, he has thus interpreted this very text now in dispute. In his sermons on _Christ a King and Witness, _speaking of the outward acts _of worship _done by those that do not love God nor believe in Christ, he expressly says, (p. 77.) ‘They are in their _own nature _a lie; a false pretence of something _within, _that is not there.—See (says Mr. W.) this interpretation of it, in Psal. lxxviii. 34-37. “They did flatter him with their mouths; they lied to him with their tongues,” &c.—(Ibid. p. 74. b. e.) “Christ’s visible church are such as visibly and outwardly profess to be his subjects, and act outwardly as if they believed on him. But these outward acts in themselves are not that religion and obedience, which Christ requires; nay, of themselves, they have no religion in them; and Christ has nothing to do with them, _but as _they are the fruits and expressions of the heart, as they are the language and index of the mind and conscience, and outward declarations of the inward frame, tempers and acting, of the soul. If they are _not so, _they are so far from having any religion in them, that they are _hateful _to him, being only the visible resemblance, the pretence _and feigning, _of religion; _i.e. they are mockery, hypocrisy, falsehood, and lies; and belong not to the kingdom of Christ, but of the devil.“—_Let the reader now compare this with my gloss on the text.

Thus I have considered the various pans and principles of Mr. W.‘s scheme, which are the foundations on which he builds all his superstructure, and the ground on which he proceeds in all his reasonings, through his book; and many particulars in his answers and arguments have been already considered.—Mr. W. says thus, (p. 135.a.) “I own, that at present I have no more expectation to see the scheme which Mr. Edwards aims to establish, defended upon _Calvinistic _principles, than the doctrine of transubstantiation.“ On which I shall only say, it might perhaps be thought very impertinent in me, to tell my readers what I do or what I do not expect, concerning _his _scheme. Every reader, that has reason enough of his own not to take the big words and confident speeches of others for demonstration, is now left to judge for himself, whose scheme is most akin to the doctrine of _transubstantiation, _for inconsistence and self-contradiction. Nevertheless, I will proceed to consider our author’s reasonings a little more particularly, in the ensuing part.