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. And when, according to Mr. Williams'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. Williams of the visible church's being the school of Christ, and men's 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. Williams 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. Williams 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 Church had no other visibility of saintship than they, because they are grafted into the same olive: And also all that Mr. Williams has said to prove, that many of the members of the primitive churches were as grossly wicked as they.

19. Since according to Mr. Williams the terms of admission to the Jewish ordinances, were "the same as to Christian erdinances, the like profession and the same visibility of saintship required and no other ;" as he strenuously asserts, p. 57, 61, 65; it will therefore follow from his foregoing concessions

and assertions, That none were by God's appointment, te 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 1 have insisted on !

20. To what purpose does Mr. Williams insist (p. 98) "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 picty?" 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, 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. Williams and me, whether Judas partook of the Lord's supper or no, since according to Mr. Williams's own forementioned 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. Williams 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 admis sion, from the success of ministers in another way, or in any way whatsoever.

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

Thus Mr. Williams has not only abundantly given up the main point in that controversy I have lately been engaged in, and the main point which I have written in defence of; but he 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 the scheme I have appeared in, and every particular argument I have used to confirm it; and answered, and 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; which arguing may seem to support another scheme, though nothing akin to his, any otherwise than as his scheme is indeed a mixture of many schemes, one clashing with, and destroying another; as will appear in the ensuing part of this reply.

SECTION III.

The Inconsistence of the forementioned Concessions with the Lawfulness of unsanctified Persons coming to the Lord's Supper, and their Right to Sacraments in the sight of God.

MR. WILLIAMS 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. Williams declares himself to be. Mr. Stoddard 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 shew is, that some unsanctified men have a right before God to the Lord's supper." So M. Blake (who is so great an author with Mr. Williams) 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. Agreeably to these things Mr. Williams says (p. 132) 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 serious

ness 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 shew is joined with the most horrid and resolved secret irreligion and wickedness. Mr. Williams in particular utterly disclaims such doctrine as this in 3d and 4th pages of his preface, and always maintains that in order to men's lawful coming, they must be morally sincere; as there in his preface, and also in p. 25, 27, 30, 35, 111, In p. 115, he supposes, that if a man makes a doubt of his moral sincerity, no divine will advise him to come until he knows.

Having observed this, I now desire it may be considered, whether it be reasonable to suppose, as Mr. Williams 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. Williams says. Mr. Williams supposes that God requires us, before we admit persons, to seek credible evidence of true piety, and to see toit 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. Williams 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 persons's being a rightful subject of such a privilege? If the want of this qualification does not in the least hinder a