order to their receiving and treating others as their Christian brethren, to all intents and purposes; or of their first examining them concerning the particular method and order of their experiences. They required of them a profession of the things wrought; but no account of the manner of working was required of them. Nor is there the least shadow in the Scripture of any such custom in the church of God, from Adam to the death of the Apostle John." To the same purpose again I express myself in p. 302, and in the preface to the book that Mr. Williams writes against, I make particular mention of this book on Religious Affections, wherein these things are said; and there declare expressly, that when I wrote that book, I was of the same mind concerning the qualifications of communicants that I am of now. But,

VII. To make my scheme still more obnoxious and odious, Mr. Williams once and again insinuates, that I insist on an account of such inward FEELINGS, as are by men supposed to be the certain discriminating marks of grace (so p. 7, and 141), though I never once used the phrase anywhere in my book. I said not a word about inward feelings, from one end of it to the other: nor is any inward feeling at all more implied in my scheme, than in his. But however, Mr. Williams knew that these phrases, experiences and inward feelings, were become odious of late to a great part of the country; and especially the latter of them, since Mr. Whitefield used it so much. And he well knew, that to tack these phrases to my scheme, and to suggest to his readers that these were the things I professed to insist on, would tend to render me and my scheme contemptible. If he says, though I use not that phrase, yet the things I insist on, are such as are inwardly felt; such as saving repentance, faith, &c.; I answer, these things are no more inward feelings, than the things he himself insists on; such as a deep conviction of a man's undone state, unfeigned fervent desires after Christ, a fixed resolution for Christ, engagedness for heaven, &c.

VIII. Mr. Williams abundantly, in almost all parts of his book, represents my principles to be such as suppose men to be the SEARCHERS of others' hearts. For which I have given no other ground, than only supposing that some such qualifications are necessary in order to communion, which have their seat in the heart, and so not to be intuitively seen by others; and that such qualifications must by profession and practice, be made so visible or credible to others, that others may rationally judge they are there. And Mr. Williams supposes the same thing as much as I. In p. 111, he expressly speaks of the qualifications necessary to communion, as being in the heart, and not possible to be known. any other way than by their being seen there: and also often allows, that these qualifications must be exhibited, and made visible, by a credible profession, and answerable practice. Yea, he goes further, he even supposes that those who admit them to sacraments, ought to be satisfied by their profession, that they really have these qualifications. Thus he says, p. 54, "The baptizer ought to be satisfied by a person's profession, that he really believes the gospel, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Saviour."

IX. Mr. Williams is not contented with all these representations of my scheme, but will have it appear more absurd and monstrous still; and therefore represents me as maintaining, that it is not the visible profession of experiences, that I suppose the ground of the church's judgment; but these experiences and inward feelings themselves, by having the heart turned inside out, and viewing them immediately in the heart itself, and judging upon the next and immediate actings of the heart. Here, I only desire the reader to read down Mr. Williams's 7th page, and make his own reflections.

X. Whereas in p. 16, of my book, I observed it to be the opinion of some,

that," Although the members of the visible church are saints in profession and visibility, and in the acceptance of others, yet this is not with reference to saving holiness, but to quite another sort of saintship, viz., moral sincerity; and that this is the real saintship, discipleship, and godliness, that is professed and visible in them," &c. Mr. Williams, p. 4, 5, says, " He does not remember that he ever heard of this, or that any body thought of it, before he saw it in my book; and represents it as a poor man of straw, of my own framing: and he insists upon it, that it is allowed on all hands, that the visibility must be with reference to saving holiness.

I will not say, that Mr. Williams knew it to be a false representation which he here makes but this I will say, that he ought to have been better informed, before he had thus publicly ridiculed this as a fiction of mine; especially considering the opportunities and advantages he has had to know otherwise: this being the notion that had been (as was before observed) so loudly and publicly insisted on, for more than two years, by the people of Northampton, and by the neighboring ministers, and those of them that were Mr. Williams's near relatives; as he has had abundant opportunities to be fully informed, having withal had great inducements to inquire. Besides, that this has been the universal opinion of all that part of the country (who thought themselves Mr. Stoddard's followers) for more than twenty years, is a fact as notorious, as that the people there generally believe Mr. Stoddard's doctrine of the necessity of a work of conversion, in order to get to heaven. And this is the opinion professedly maintained in a pamphlet published in Boston (anno 1741), entitled, A right to the Lord's supper considered: a piece which has long been well known among Mr. Williams's nearest relatives, and in good repute with them; as I have had occasion to observe. This pamphlet insists expressly and abundantly, that moral sincerity is the REAL discipleship and holiness, with respect to which visible Christians are called disciples and saints, in Scripture. Particularly see pages 9, 10, 13, and 14. And which is more strange yet, Mr. Blake, the great author Mr. Williams makes so much use of, and in a book which I know he has long been the possessor of, speaks much of a profession of religion that has respect only to a dogmatical, historical faith, a common faith, a faith true indeed (as he says) in its kind, but short of that which is justifying and saving, and a profession which goes no further, as that which entitles to sealing ordinances. Thus he does expressly. See Blake on the Covenant, p. 241, 244, 245. The same author again and again distinguishes between justifying faith, and faith of profession; as in p. 284, 285. 286. And which is more than all this, Mr. Williams (as will appear in the sequel) abundantly contends for the same thing himself, though against himself, and although he charges me in p. 35, with a great misrepresentation, in supposing that according to the scheme of my opposers, the profession required in those that are admitted, does not imply a pretence to any thing more than moral sincerity and common grace.

PART II.

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

SECTION I.

Mr. Williams's Concessions.

MR. WILLIAMS 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, 36, 32, 84. That he does sincerely, and with all his heart believe the gospel,* p. 49. 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. That he should profess and declare he believes in Christ, and that the gospel is indeed the revelation of God," p. 5. He allows, that "none ought to be admitted, but such as openly profess and declare an 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,† and that they fall in with the terms of salvation proposed in the gospel, and renounce all other ways," p. 5, 8, 9, 11, 18, 55, 32. 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, 35, 36. He supposes, that there must be "a real determination of a man's judgment and affection for the word of God," p. 53. That there ought to be a profession of subjection to Christ with all the heart, p. 10, and of a devotedness to the service of God, p. 49, and a professed giving up themselves to Christ, to be taught, ruled, and led by him in the Gospel way to salvation, p. 31, 32 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. 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. That they must make a profession that "imports a pretence of real friendship to Christ, and love to God above the world," p. 36. That "none ought to he 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, 41, 42, 139, 14. 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. That "they should be such persons as are in the eye of a Christain 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, and 47. "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. "He allows that there ought to be some apprehension, some judgment of the mind, that they

• 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.

Mr. Williams cites Mr. Guthrie (preface p. 4) as on his side, when he speaks of such a profession, as that which is to be made. 27

VOL. I.

p. 68.

are Christians and saints, and have the moral image of God in them,"* 69, and 71. He allows, that "they must be taken into the church under a notion of 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.† 132, 136, 143. 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, 41, 44. "That they make a show of being wise virgins by the nature and purport of their profession," p. 42. 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. Yea, he holds, that there must be not only some visibility and profession of real piety, but moral evidence of it, p. 139. 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, and 5. And again, p. 35, 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, he uses notes of distinction or 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 Williams, p. 35, " Mr. Stoddard 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 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 a 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.

Mr. Williams's words (p. 55) 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 this 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. (Doc. 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), 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 wenty-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. Stoddard's scheme was far from being what Mr. Williams represents it to be, and pretends to maintain as his. And if the question he had to controvert with me were Mr. Stoddard'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.

asserts, “taat men snould 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 one 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, “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. Williams himself understands me; as appears by his reflections, p. 49; 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."*

SECTION II.

Some of the plain consequences of the foregoing concessions of Mr. Williams.

1. If it be as Mr. Williams 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 consequence. And indeed Mr. Williams does this not only consequentially, but he is express in it. In p. 4, 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. Williams 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, to that it can be truly said, as Mr. Williams 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. Williams strenuously and frequently asserts (p. 6, 9, and many other places). For if the

Now let all who have been acquainted with the controversy between me and my people at Nor thampton, consider these things, which Mr. Williams 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. Williams 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.