Now I desire the reader to observe what is the whole ground, on which he makes such a representation. In explaining my opinion, in the beginning of my inquiry (p. 6), I desired it might be observed, that I did not suppose we ought to expect any such degree of certainty of the godliness of those who are admitted into the church, as that when the whole number admitted are taken collectively, or considered in the gross, we should have any reason to suppose every one to be truly godly; though we might have charity for each one that was admitted, taken singly, and by himself. And to show, that such a thing was possible, I endeavored to illustrate it by a comparison, or supposed case of probability of ten to one in the example of certain stones, with such probable marks of a diamond, as by experience had been found not to fail more than once in ten times. In which case, if a particular stone were found with those marks, there would be a probability of ten to one, with respect to that stone, singly taken, that it was genuine but if ten such were taken together, there would not be the same probability that every one of them was so; but in this case, it is as likely as not, that some one in the ten is spurious. Now it is so apparent, that this particular degree of probability of ten to one is mentioned only as a supposed case, for illustration, and because, in a particular example, some number or other must be mentioned, that it would have been an affront to the sense of my readers to have added any caution, that he should not understand me otherwise. However, Mr. Williams has laid hold on this, as a good handle by which he might exhibit my scheme to the world in a ridiculous light; as though I had declared it my real opinion, that there must be the probability, of just ten to one, of true godliness, in order to persons' admission into the church. He might with as much appearance of sense and justice, have asserted concerning all the supposed cases in books of arithmetic, that the authors intend these cases should be understood as real fucts, and that they have written their books, with all the sums and numbers in them, as books of history; and if any cases mentioned there only as examples of the several rules, are unlikely to be true accounts of fact, therefore have charged the authors with writing a false and absurd history.

IV. Another thing, yet further from what is honorable in Mr. Williams is this; that whereas I said as above, that there ought to be a prevailing opinion concerning those that are admitted, taken singly, or by themselves, that they are truly godly or gracious, though when we look on the whole number in the gross, we are far from determining that every one is a true saint, and that not one of the judginents we have passed, has been mistaken; Mr. Williams, because I used the phrase singly taken, has laid hold on the expression, and from thence has taken occasion to insinuate to his readers, as if my scheme were so very extravagant, that according to this, when a great multitude are admitted, their admitters must be confident of EVERY ONE's being regenerated. Hence he observes (p. 98): "There is no appearance, that John made a positive judgment that every one of these people were regenerated." Plainly using the expression as a very strong one; leading the reader to suppose, I insist the evidence shall be so clear, that when such a vast multitude as John baptized are viewed, the admitter should be peremptory in it, that his judgment has not failed so much as in a single instance; the very reverse of what I had expressed. In like manner, Mr. Williams treats the matter from time to time. As in p. 55: "The thing to be proved from hence is, that the apostles and primitive Christians, not only thought that these persons were Christians, by reason of their external calling, and professed compliance with the call; but had formed a positive judgment concerning EVERY ONE OF THEM

SINGLY, that they were real saints." Here the expression is plainly used as a very strong one; as implying much more than esteeming so great a multitude, when taken in the gross, to be generally true saints, and with a manifest design to carry the same idea in the mind of the reader as was before mentioned. See another like instance, p. 62.

V. However, my opinion is not represented bad enough yet; but to make it appear still worse, Mr. Williams is bold to strain his representation of it to that height, as to suggest that what I insist on, is a certainty of others' regeneration though this be so diverse from what I had largely explained in stating the question, and plainly expressed in other parts of my book, and also inconsistent with his own representations in other places. For if what I insist on be a probability that may fuil once in ten times, as he says it is, p. 63, then it is not a certainty that I insist on; as he suggests, p. 141. Speaking of the evil consequences of my opinion, he says, "the notion of men's being able and fit to determine positively the condition of other men, or the certainty of their gracious estate, has a direct tendency to deceive the souls of men." So again in p. 69. And he suggests, that I require more than moral evidence, in p. 6, and p. 139.

VI. Mr. Williams represents me as insisting on some way of judging the state of such as are admitted to communion, by their inward and spiritual experiences, diverse from judging by their profession and behavior. So p. 7:"If their outward profession and behavior be the ground of this judgment, then it is the inward experience of the heart." P. 55, "Which judgment must be founded on something beyond and beside their external calling, and visible profession to comply with it, and to be separated for God: and therefore this judgment must be founded, either upon revelation, or a personal acquaintance with their experiences," &c. In like manner he is abundant, from one end of his book to the other, in representing as though I insisted on judging of men by their inward and spiritual experiences, in some peculiar manner. Which is something surprising, since there is not so much as a word said about relating, or giving an account of experiences, or what is commonly so called, as a term of communion. Mr. Williams (p. 6) pretends to quote two passages of mine, as an evidence, that this is what I insist on. One is from the 5th page of my book. It is true I there say thus: "It is a visibility to the eye of the public charity, and not a private judgment, that gives a person a right to be received as a visible saint by the public." And I there say, "a public and serious profession of the great and the main things wherein the essence of true religion or godliness consists, together with an honest character, an agreeable conversation, and good understanding of the doctrines of Christianity, and particularly those doctrines that teach the grand condition of salvation, and the nature of true saving religion; this justly recommends persons to the good opinion of the public; whatever suspicions and fears any particular person, either the minister, or some other, may entertain, from what he in particular has observed; perhaps the manner of his express ing himself in giving an account of his experiences, or an obscurity in the order and method of his experiences, &c." But the words do not imply, it may be demanded of the candidate, that he should give an account of his experiences to the minister or any body else, as the term of his admission into the church; nor had I respect to any such thing. But I knew it was the • In stating the question, p. 5, I explained the requisite visibility, to be some outward manifestation that ordinarily renders the thing probable. To the like purpose, is what I say in p. 11, and p. 12. A in p 106. I say expressly, "Not a certainty, but a profession and visibility of these things, must be the rule of the church's proceeding

manner in many places for those who hoped they were godly persons, to con verse with their neighbors, and especially with their minister, about their experiences; whether it was required of them in order to their coming into the church, or no; and particularly, I was sensible, that this was the manner at Northampton, for whose sake especially I wrote; and I supposed it the way of many ministers, and people, to judge of others' state, openly and publicly, by the order and method of their experiences, or the manner of their relating them. But this I condemn in the very passage that Mr. Williams quotes; and very much condemn, in other writings of mine which have been publish ed; and have ever loudly condemned, and borne my testimony against.

There is one passage more, which Mr. Williams adds to the preceding, and fathers on me, to prove that I require an account of experiences in order to admission; pretending to rehearse my words, with marks of quotation, saying as follows, p. 6, and as he further explains himself, elsewhere; "the proper visibility which the public is to have of a man's being a saint, must be on some account of his experience of those doctrines which teach the nature of true saving religion." I have made long and diligent search for such a passage in my writings, but cannot find it. Mr. Williams says, "I thus explain myself elsewhere" but I wish he had mentioned in what place.

If there be such a sentence in some of my writings (as I suppose there is not), it will serve little to Mr. Williams's purpose. If we take the word expe rience according to the common acceptation of it in the English language, viz., a person's perceiving or knowing any thing by trial or experiment, or by immediate sensation or consciousness within himself: in this sense, I own, it may from what I say in my book be inferred, that a man's profession of his experience should be required as a term of communion. And so it may be as justly and as plainly inferred, that Mr. Williams himself insists on a profession of experience as a term of communion; experience of a deep conviction of a man's undone state without Christ: experience of a persuasion of his judg ment and conscience, that there is no other way of salvation; experience of unfeigned desires to be brought to the terms of the covenant. For such things as these, he says, must be professed. So p. 75, and in innumerable other places. There is no such thing possible as a man's professing any thing within himself or belonging to his own mind, either good or bad, either common or saving, unless it be something that he finds, or (which is the same thing) experiences, within himself.

I know the word experience is used by many in a sort of peculiar sense, for the particular order and method of what passes within the mind and heart in conversion. And in this sense, Mr. Williams knows I disclaim the notion of making experiences a term of communion. I say he knows it, because (in p. 6) he quotes and rehearses the very words wherein I do expressly disclaim it. And I am very large and particular in testifying against it in my book on Religious Affections: a book I have good reason to think Mr. Williams has seen and read, having been thus informed by a man of his own principles, that had it from his mouth. There, in p. 300 and 301, I say as follows: "In order to persons' making a proper profession of Christianity, such as the Scripture directs to, and such as the followers of Christ should require in order to the acceptance of the professors with full charity, as of their society, it is not necessary they should give an account of the particular steps and method, by which the Holy Spirit, sensibly to them, wrought and brought about those great essential things of Christianity in their hearts. There is no footstep in the Scripture of any such way of the apostles, or primitive ministers and Christians requiring any such relation in

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. Williains 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 fired 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 1 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