Our author in the book more especially attended to, says, p. 31, 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. Stoddard, and those that think with hin, suppose men must profess in order to come to the Lord's supper; and in p. 33, speaks of such a profession as equally honorable to Christ with a profession of saving grace. And as according to Mr. Williams, 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. Stoddard 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 grace, are LUSTS, and do oppose saving grace," Nat. of Sav. Conv. p. 9. "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. "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 honorable to Christ, as a credible profession of a gracious respect to him?

SECTION VI.

Concerning visibility, without apparent probabihty.

Mr. Stoddard (Appeal p. 16) says thus: "Such persons as the apostles did adinit into gospel churches, are 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 judg ment, 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. Williams'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 diffi culty myself, p. 12. Then again, in the same page he pretends to solve the ifficulty; 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 tine, and under that degree of light we then stand in, it is more probable 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. Stoddard 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 argumen tum ad hominem. See p. 33.

In p. 34, he expressly says, "Mr. Stoddard 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, "More unconverted &c." [True, he does not say this in terms; but he says, persons will be admitted than converted;" which is equivalent.] And in p 133, Mr. Williams presumes confidently to affirm, that "Mr. Stoddard 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 opinton, 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. Stoddard 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. So Mr. Cotton's words come in as a confirmation of Mr. Stoddard's; and not Mr. Stoddard's as an application of Mr. Cotton's. However, Mr. Williams delivers the same sentiments 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, 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 of those that were taken into the Jewish church." And as to the latter, he delivers it as his sentiment, p. 24, That" the body of the people were not regenerate." So that, according to his own sentiments, when the Apostolic 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 are not incontestable.

1. If indeed by the rule God has given for admissions, when it is carefully attended, more unconverted persons will be 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. Stoddard and Mr. Williams 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. Therefore the sign or appearance, let it be what it

• Mr. Locke thus defines probability (Hum. Und. 7th edit. 8vo. vol. 2, p. 273) : “ Probability is noth mut or disagreem nt, by the intervention of proofs, whose con ing but the app arance of such an agr Lection is not constant and immutele, or ac least is not perceived to be so; but is, or a, penrA FOR THE MOST PART to be so; and is enough to induce the mind to judge the proposition to be vue, or false, rather than the contrary."

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 each side 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 this 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. Stoddard's and Mr. Williams '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 honor 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, that are in a peculiar manner intrusted with the care of his name and honor 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 enemy's side in their hearts, than on the side of their lawful and rightful prince, as his faithful soldiers and subjects?

SECTION VII

Concerning the Lord's Supper being a converting ordinance.

Though Mr. Williams holds, that none are to be admitted to the Lord's supper, but such as make a credible pretence or profession of real godliness, And Mr. Williams himself. p 139. says, "Tis 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 sЯize time to think is more frequently without gospel holiness than with it, amount to moral evidence of gospel Bancerite?

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 not such a character, to be of such a character, p. 14, 15, 35, 83, 100, 101, 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). INSTITUTED for the conversion of sinners, as well as the confirmation of saints, Appeal, p. 70, 71. That the direct end of it is conversion, when the subject that it is adininistered unto stands in need of conversion," Ibid. p. 73, 74. And thus Mr. Williams, after Mr. Stoddard, speaks of the Lord's supper 66 as by Christ's APPOINTMENT a proper means of the conversion" of some that are unconverted, p. 100, 101. So he speaks of it as instituted for the conversion of sinners, through p. 126 and 127.

Now if so, what need of men's 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. Williams, in p. 83, 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 a 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 Gon, is as unscriptural, as it is unreasonable. We often read in God's word, of inen'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 inen? Where have we a divine institution, that any who are wolves should put on sheep's clothing, and so come to his people, that

• Mr. Williams, p. 42. owns, that persons must make a “profession wherein they make a show cl being wine virzīns," in order to come into the visible Church. ~ And, p. 35, he owns, that "all visible saints who are not truly pious, are hypocrites. Acain, it may be observed, he abundantly insists, that men who have no more than common grace and moral sincerity, may lawfully come to sacramen's; and yet by what he says, p. 35, they must profess more. So that men who have no more must profess more, and this, it serins, a cording to divine institution! Again he says, p. 35, that one end God designed appointing men to be brought into the Church is, that through divine grace, they might effectually b

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 the former, if it be appointed as a converting ordinance only for such as are mistaken, and think themselves godly, or 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 made use of for this end by those who admit members, and administer the ordinance. For they, as Mr. Williams 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 made use of 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 a 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 that they are ungodly or unconverted, the consequence is no less absurd, on Mr. Williams'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 none of; 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 honor 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. Williams says, p. 14, Since it is God's will, that his church should admit al 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. Williams 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' duty, and so God's will, to adinit those that live secretly in the grossest wicke

66

brought to Christ, "to give him the whole possession of their hearts;" and yet in the very next paragraph, . 35 and 36, he speaks of it as unlawful for men to come to sacraments till they give up all their hearts Christ."