Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Williams acts this part from time to time in the use he makes of his great argument from the Old Testament church and its ordinances. Thus, in p. 8, he takes this meth

od to answer my argument from the nature of visibility and profession, insisting that the Israelites, avouching and cove nanting was a thing compatible with ungodliness; which he knows is a disputed point in this controversy, and what I deny. Again he makes use of the same thing in answer to my argument from the nature of covenanting with God, p. 23, 24. And again he brings it in, p. 25, 26, answering what I say, by confidently asserting that concerning the church of Israel, which he knows is disputed, and I deny; viz. That the covenanting of Israel did not imply a profession that they did already believe and repent: As in these words, "This was never intended nor understood, in the profession which the Israelites made; but that they would immediately, and from thenceforth comply with the terms of the covenant; and by the help of God, offered in it, would fulfil it. I am sure, this was what they professed; and I am sure, God declared he took them into covenant with him." And the same thing is brought in again to answer the same argument p. 31. The same thing is thrown in, once and again, as an answer to what I say of the unreasonableness of accepting such professions as leave room to judge the greater part of the professors to be enemies of God, p. 34. The same thing is cast in as a sufficient block in the way of my arguing from the unreasonableness of accepting such professions, as amount to nothing more than lukewarmness, p. 36. The same is brought in and greatly insisted on, to stop my mouth, in arguing from the epistles, p. 56, 57. The same is brought in again to enervate my argument concerning brotherly love, p. 69. And this is made use of as the support of other arguments; as that from the name disciples, and about the church's being the school of Christ; and to confute what I say, in answer to that argument, p. 84. The same is brought in as a support of the eleventh objection, and a confutation of my answer to that, p. 125. And again, in reply to what I say in answer to the nineteenth objection, p. 137.

Another thing, near akin to begging the question, is resting the weight of arguments on things asserted without proof; which, though they do not properly make a part of the controversy, yet are things not allowed by those on the other side. Thus does Mr. Williams in his arguing from the suc cess of the Lord's supper in the conversion of sinners, p. 137, 138, supposing, not only that the Lord's supper, has been the occasion of the conversion of many, but that their communicating was the means of it. This he offers nothing to prove, and it is not allowed by those on the other side.* And it is what would be very hard to prove: If many were converted at the Lord's table (which yet is not evident) it would not prove, that their partaking was the means of their conversion; it might be only what they saw and heard there, which others may see and hear, that do not partake.

SECTION IX.

Mr. Williams's Inconsistence with himself, in what he says in Answer to my third and fourth Arguments, and in his Reply to my Arguments from the Acts, and the Epistles.

THE last thing observed in Mr. Williams's way of disput ing, is his alleging and insisting on things wherein he is inconsistent with himself. His inconsistencies are of many

Thus that very eminent divine, and successful minister of Christ, the late Dr. Doddridge, in his Sermons on regeneration, speaking of the means of regeneration, p. 251, 252, says, "I do not mention the administration of sacraments, upon this occasion; because, though they have so noble and effectual a tendency to improve men's minds in piety,and to promote Christian edification; yet I do not remember to have heard of any instance, in which they have been the means of men's conversion; which is not to be wondered at, as they are appointed for a very different end."

sorts Sometimes he alleges those things that are inconsistent with the doctrine of those whose principles he pretends to maintain : He abundantly urges those things against my scheme, which are in like manner against his own: He often argues against those things which he allows, and strenuously insists on He denies what he affirms, and affirms what he utterly denies; laying down and urging those things which are contrary to what he says in other books; and sometimes contrary to what he says in the same book: Yielding up the thing wherein the argument lies, yet strenuously maintaining the argument; allowing both premises and consequence, yet finding fault, and opposing : Sometimes urging things which are contrary to what he says under different arguments; and sometimes contrary to what he says under the same argument: Sometimes contradicting himself in the plain sense and meaning of what he says; at other times even in plain terms: Sometimes in effect contradicting himself in the same breath, and in the same sentence.

These various kinds of inconsistences have many of them been already observed: And will further appear by a particular consideration of what he says on several heads in what remains.

In my third argument, I insisted, that it could not be much to God's honor, for men to profess the assent of their judgment to the true religion, without pretending to any real friendship or love to God in their hearts. Mr. Williams, in opposition, p, 34, speaks of it as an honor to God, that secret hypocrites openly declare their conviction of the truth of God's word, &c. as in the multitude of subjects is the king's honor. And yet he himself represents the matter quite otherwise in his sermons on Christ a King and Witness; there, in p. 87, he has these words, "to promote the kingdom of Christ, is not to do that which may prevail with men to make pretences that they are Christians, or that they own Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and to call him Lord, Lord, when really he is not so."

In answer to my fourth argument, p. 35, Mr. Williams says, I make "a great misrepresentation of the matter, in in

sinuating that according to Mr. Stoddard's scheme, [which scheme he declares himself to be of] they who are admitted make a pretence of NO MORE than moral sincerity, and common grace." And yet he insists, that when Philip required a profession of the Eunuch's faith, his question designed NO MORE than an assent of the understanding, p. 51, which he there distinguishes from saving faith: And says, that it is morally certain that his enquiry amounted to No more. And yet in his discourse on the same head, p. 49, he inveigh's against me for suppossing it a consequence of the opinion of my opposers, that the Eunuch, in order to come to sacraments, had no manner of need to look at any such qualification in himself as saving faith. Certainly the Eunuch, in making answer to Philip's enquiry, had no need to look at any more than Philip enquired after. In p. 50. he says, "It does not seem at all probable, that Philip enquired any thing about the regeneration or sanctification of the Eunuch." And yet in the next preceding sentence, he refers me over to another judgment, for representing as though my opposers supposed, that it was no matter whether a person coming to gospel ordinances had any grace or not, and had no manner of need to enquire any thing about his sincerity.

And though he highly blames me for insinuating, as above, that my opposers require a pretence of NO MORE than common grace and moral sincerity; yet in opposition to my insisting on a profession of saving faith, speaking of the profession which the apostles required, he says, p. 58. "It is certain, that a profession in these words, which was wont to be required, does sometimes import No MORE than a conviction of the understanding on moral evidence." So he says concerning those whose admission into the Christian church we have an account of in Acts ii. (p. 45.) "There is not one word said about ANY OTHER FAITH, but believing that Jesus was the Messiah." And if so, then certainly MO MORE Was professed.

In p. 35, he allows, that all visible saints who are not truly pious, are hypocrites; and yet maintains, that the profession they make is no more than what they may make and speak VOL. I. 3 M

HONESTLY and TRULY, p. 105 and 47. How then are they all hypocrites, if they are honestly and truly what they profess to be?

In supporting the argument from John's baptism, he insists, that the profession the people made, did not imply, that they had savingly repented: And that John openly supposed, that their profession did not imply it, in what he said to them, p. 97. And in p. 98, he says, "we read not a word of John's enquiring whether these people made a credible profession of true piety." And he there manifestly suggests, that John knew they were not pious, as he knew they were a generation of vipers. Yet how often elsewhere does Mr. Williams insist, that men, in order to come to sacraments, must make a credible profession of true piety and gospel holiness, and that they must in a judgment of charity be supposed to have real godliness?

[ocr errors]

In answer to my argument from the instance of the converts in Acts ii. Mr. Williants, speaking of their convictions, and being pricked in their heart, p. 45, says, " They were convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah and Saviour, whom God had promised to Israel, whereupon convinced of their sin, they cry out, what shall we do? To which the apostle replies, repent and be baptized....in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. There is not one word said about any other faith, but believing that Jesus was the Messiah." And in the two next pages Mr. Williams insists, that their gladly receiving the word can by no necessity from the text imply more, than that they now believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that it was matter of joy to them that the Messiah was come. So that we have this inconsistent account of the matter from Mr. Williams. That these people are first convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, and this is cause of distress to them: And they ask, what they shall do? Hereupon the apostle directs them to believe that Jesus is the Messiah; which they believed already, before they asked the question : But however, when they heard this, they believed that Jesus was the Messiah; they now found it out, as a new thing they did not know of before, and are glad at the joyful discovery;

« PreviousContinue »