Page images
PDF
EPUB

with Ged, Mr. Williams once and again speaks of it as lying. P. 24, 130. And if so, doubtless their breaking the oath they swear to God, is perjury. Now lying to men is bad; but lying to Gop is worse. Acts v. 4. And, without doubt, perjury towards God is the worst sort of perjury. But if unsanctifed men, when they entered into covenant with God, promised and swore, that they would immediately and henceforward 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. Williams all unregenerate men do) they live continually in the violation of their promise and oath.*

[ocr errors]

*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. Williams'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 wor ship 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 shew 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 in 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 institu tion, made that sort of sincerity, which is nothing better than what is consistent with such a lying, vile, abominable, flagrantly wicked pretence and shew of religion as this, the very thing that gives a right, even in his sight, to Christian zacraments!

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

I having 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. Williams 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. Stoddard ever say in the Ap peal, 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. Stoddard....And I think will be sufficiently answered, by what I shall offer in reply to the first.

I will tell him what Mr. Stoddard 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 con

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. Stoddard'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,

And you will sink down
You are treasuring up a

demn you for; and so has God: deeper into hell, than other men. 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. Williams 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 compas sion on that poor captive, for whom we have now been offering up our earnest prayers, who has been so long in so pitiable and sorrowful a 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 shewn 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 consid. eration, p. 86. "That the unbelief and impieties of visible saints, is what they will be punished for above all men in the world."

Mrs. Eunice Willams, brought up in Canada, among the Caghnawaga Indians, sister to the then pastor of the church in Mansfield, where this ser mon was preached, upon a day of prayer kept on her account; she being then in that place on a visit.

And now, I think it may be proper for Mr. Williams himself to answer his 5th question, which he puts to my seri ous consideration, viz. "What honor 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 ?"

SECTION IX.

A View of what Mr. Williams says concerning the public Covenanting of Professors.

I. MR. WILLIAMS 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. "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 this chimera, but have Mr. Williams himself to join me in it; who abundantly asserts the same thing p. 5, 8, 9, and many other places, who uses the scripture in the same manner, and supposes the same divine institution; and who in p. 5, 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

[ocr errors]

declaration of a PERSON's believing in Christ....And an 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 declaratian of a PERSONS'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, 31, 32, 33, 34, 73, 84, 139. And in the 2d page of his preface, he declares himself fully established in Mr. Stoddard's doctrine concerning this affair of qualifications for the Lord's supper; who expressly declares 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. Williams holds that there must be a public, personal owning the covenant; so he also maintains, that this profession must be explicit, or express. He says p. 20. « 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 did until Mr. Edwards discovered it." But if I was the first discoverer he should have owned, that since I have have discovered it, he himself and all my opposers have seen cause to follow me and receive my dicovery. For so the case seems to be, if he gives us a true account (in p. 132) 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.

« PreviousContinue »