has such a heart in him; because his lips pretend to declare his heart, and the nature of a promise implies real intention, will and compliance of heart. And what can be more evi dent than these propositions? Surely they that reject the Covenant of grace in their hearts (as Mr. Williams owns, all unsanctified men do) cannot own it with their lips, without either deceiving or being deceived. Words cannot be a true signification of more than is in the mind. Inward covenanting, as Mr. Stoddard taught, is by an act of saving faith. (Safety of Ap. p. 85, 86.) And outward covenanting is an expression of inward covenanting: Therefore, if it be not attended with inward covenanting, it is a false expression. And Mr. Williams, in effect, owns the same thing: For he says, p. 21, “That there is no doubt they who are wilful, obstinate sinners, deal deceitfully and falsely when they pretend to covenant with God." But so do all unregenerate sinners under the gospel, according to Mr. Stoddard's and his own doctrine. And thus the very point, about which he contests so earnestly and so long, and with so many great words, is in the midst of it all, given up fully by his own concession. VII. Mr. Williams is greatly displeased with my saying (as above) that none who are under the power of a carnal mind can visibly own the covenant, without lying, or being deceived, &c. And he finds great fault with my gloss on Psal. lxxviii. 36, 37. "They did flatter him with their mouth, and lied to him with their tongue :" Which I interpret as though they lied in pretending that respect to God, which indeed they had not, p. 35 of my Inquiry. But he insists, that what is meant is only their " Lying in breaking their promise," p. 24. And he insists upon it (as has been observed already) that natural men may covenant with God and speak true. But it seems he has wonderfully changed his mind of late: For a little while ago he declared elsewhere for the very same things which he here inveighs against, and spoke of natural men's profession and pretence of respect to God, as being actually a LIE IN ITS OWN NATURE; and not only becoming so by their breaking covenant afterwards. Particularly, it is remarkable, he has thus interpreted this very text now in dispute. In his sermons on Christ a King and Witness, speaking of the outward acts of worship done by those that do not love God nor believe in Christ, he expressly says, p. 77. "They are in their own nature a LIE; a false pretence of something within, that is not there. See (says Mr. Williams) this interpretation of it, in Psal. lxxviii. 34....37. They did flatter him with their mouths; they lied to him with their tongues,” &c. (Ibid. p. 74. "Christ's visible church are such as visibly and outwardly profess to be his subjects, and act outwardly as if they believed on him. But these outward acts in themselves are not that religion and obedience, which Christ requires; nay of themselves, they have no religion in them; and Christ has nothing to do with them, but as they are the fruits and expressions of the heart, as they are the language and index of the mind and conscience, and outward declarations of the inward frame, temper and actings of the soul. If they are not so, they are so far from having any religion in them that they are hateful to him, being only the visible resemblance, the pretence and feigning of religion; i. e. they are mockery, hypocrisy, FALSEHOOD and LIES; and belong not to the kingdom of Christ, but of the Devil." Let the reader now compare this with my gloss on the text. CONCLUSION OF THIS SECOND PART. Thus I have considered the various parts and principles of Mr. Williams's scheme, which are the foundations on which he builds all his superstructure, and the ground on which he proceeds in all his reasonings, through his book; and many particulars in his answers and arguments have been already considered. Mr. Williams says thus, p. 135, " I own, that at present I have no more expectation to see the scheme which Mr. Edwards aims to establish, defended upon Calvinistic principles, than the doctrine of transubstantiation.” On which I shall only say, it might perhaps be thought very imper inent in me, to tell my readers what I do, or what I do not expect, concerning his scheme. Every reader, that has reason enough of his own not to take the big words and confident speeches of others for demonstration, is now left to judge for himself, whose scheme is most akin to the doctrine of transubstantiation, for inconsistence and self contradiction. Nevertheless, I will proceed to consider our author's reasonings a little more particularly, in the ensuing part. PART III. Containing some remarks on Mr. Williams's exceptionable Way of Reasoning, in support of his own Scheme, and in Opposition to the contrary principles. SECTION I. General Observations upon his Way of arguing, and answering Arguments; with some Instances of the first Method excepted against. MR. WILLIAMS endeavors to support his own opinion, and to confute the book he pretends to answer, by the following methods. 1. By frequently misrepresenting what I say, and then disputing or exclaiming against what he wrongfully charges as mine. 2. By misrepresenting what others say in their writings, whose opinions he pretends to espouse. 3. By seeming to oppose and confute arguments, and yet only saying things which have no reference at all to them, but relate entirely to other matters, that are altogether foreign to the argument in hand. 4. By advancing new and extraordinary notions; which are both manifestly contrary to truth, and also contrary to the common apprehensions of the Christian church in all ages. 5. By making use of peremptory and confident assertions, instead of arguments. 6. By using great exclamation, in the room of arguing; as though he would amuse and alarm his readers, and excite terror in them, instead of rational conviction. 7. By wholly overlooking arguments, and not answering at all; pretending, that there is no argument, nothing to answer when the case is manifestly far otherwise. 8. By frequently turning off an argument with this reflection, that it is begging the question; when there is not the least shew or pretext for it. 9. By very frequently begging the question himself, or doing that which is equivalent. 10. By often alleging and insisting on things in, which he is inconsistent with himself. As to the first of these methods used by Mr. Williams, i. e. his misrepresenting what I say, and then disputing or exclaim ing against what he injuriously charges as mine, many instances have been already observed: I now would take notice of some other instances. In p. 15, he charges me with " affirming vehemently, in a number of repetitions, that the doctrine taught is, that no manner of pretence to any VISIBLE holiness is made or designed to be made." These he cites as my words, marking them with notes of quotation. Whereas I never said any such words, nor said or thought any such thing, but the contrary. I knew, that those whose doctrine I opposed, declared that visible holiness was necessary: And take particular notice of it (p. 8.) where # say, "It is granted on all hands, that none ought to be admitted, as members of the visible church of Christ, but visible saints;" and argue on this supposition for fifteen pages together, in that same part of my book where Mr. Williams charges me with asserting the contrary. What I say is, that people are taught that they come into the church without any pretence to sanctifying grace (p. 15.) I do not say without a pretence to visible holiness. Thus Mr. Williams alters my words, to make them speak something, not only diverse, but contrary to what I do say, and say very often; and so takes occasion, or rather makes an occasion, to charge me before the world, with telling a manifest untruth, p. 15. Again, Mr. Williams in answering my argument concerning brotherly love, (p. 70, 71) represents me as arguing, "That in the exercise of Christian love described in the gospel, there is such an union of hearts, as there cannot be of a saint to an unsanctified man." Which is a thing I never said, and is quite contrary to the sentiments which I have abundantly declared. I indeed speak of that brotherly love, as what cannot be of a saint to one that is not apprehended and judged to be sanctified. But that notion of a peculiar love, which cannot be to an unsanctified man, or without the reality of holiness in the person beloved, is what I ever abhorred, and have borne a most loud and open and large testimony against, again and again, from the press, and did so in the preface to that very book which Mr. Williams writes against. In p. 74, Mr. Williams represents me as supposing, that in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, both the covenanting parties, viz. Christ and the communicant, seal to the truth of the communicant's faith; or that both seal to this as true, that the communicant does receive Christ. Whereas, by me, no such thing was ever thought; nor is any thing said that has such an aspect. What I say, is very plain and express, (p. 75.) That Christ by his minister professes his part of the covenant, presents himself, and professes the willingness of his heart to be theirs who receive him. That on the other hand, the communicant, in receiving the offered symbols, professes his part in the covenant, and the willingness of his heart to re |