liness." Now do those things said about those vile wretches in Israel agree with this? Did they exhibit moral evidence of gospel holiness! But if we bring the matter lower still, and say, the true notion of visible saintship is a credible appearance and moral evidence of moral sincerity; does this flagrant, open, abandoned, obstinate impiety, consist with moral evidence of such sincerity as that? It is as apparent therefore, in Mr. Williams's scheme as mine, that when these are called God's people, it is in some other sense than that wherein the members of the Christian church are called visible saints. And indeed the body of the nation of Israel, in those corrupt times, were so far from being God's church of visibly pious persons, visibly endowed with gospel holiness, that that people, as to the body of them, were visibly and openly declared by God, to be a whore and a witch, and her children bastards, or children of adultery. Isa. lvii. 3. " Draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the whore." We have the like in other places. And so the body of the same people in Christ's time (which Mr. Williams supposes even then to be branches of the true olive, in the same manner as the members of the Christian church were in the apostles' times) are visibly declared not to be God's children, or children of the true church, but bastards or an adulterous brood. Matth. xii. 39. “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. V. 45, Even so shall it be with this wicked generation." And certainly the people were then, visibly and in the eyes of men, such as Christ had visibly and openly and in the sight of men declared them to be.

If the question be not concerning the visibility which makes it lawful for others to admit persons, but concerning the qualifications which render it lawful for them to come, still the objection is no more against my scheme, than against Mr. Williams's. He, in page 84, 85 and 86, says, that "such openly scandalous persons ought not to be admitted into the church;" insinuating, that these scandalous people among the Jews were otherwise when they were admitted at first: But that being taken in, and not cast out again, it was lawful for them to be there, and they had a lawful right to the privi

leges of the church. But this supposition, that all that are lawfully admitted by others, may lawfully come into the church, and lawfully continue to partake of its privileges till cast out, is utterly inconsistent with Mr. Williams's own scheme. For according to his scheme, it is not lawful for men that are not morally sincere, to partake of the privileges of the church; but yet such may, in some cases, be lawfully admitted by others; for he maintains, that in admitting them, they are not to act as searchers of hearts, even with regard to their moral sincerity; and so argues, p. 106, That Christ might give Judas the sacrament, when not morally sincere. If Christ, as head of the visible church might admit Judas to his table, when he knew he was not morally sincere, and when it was not lawful for Judas himself to come; then it is lawful for men to admit some, for whom it is not lawful to be there; contrary to Mr. Williams's assertion in p. 86.

It is true, that persons may become grossly scandalous, after having been regularly admitted on Mr. Williams's principles, on a profession in words of indiscriminate signification. And so they may, after being regularly admitted, according to my principles, on a credible profession of gospel holiness in words of a determinate meaning: And therefore, the gross wickedness of such apostates as we read of in scripture, is no more an objection against my principles, than his.

Just in the same manner is Mr. Williams's arguing, p. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, concerning the members of churches mentioned in the epistles, equally against his own scheme and mine. He largely insists upon it, that the apostle speaks of many of them as grossly scandalous, notoriously wicked persons, idolaters, hereticks, fornicators, adulterers, adulteresses, &c. &c.. In his arguing from these things, he is inconsistent with his own principles, two ways. (1.) Such a character is as plainly inconsistent with the character he insists on as necessary to render it lawful for persons to come to sacraments, as mine. And (2.) it is utterly inconsistent with what he often declares to be his notion of visible saintship, necessary to a being admitted by others; so no more an argument against my opinion of visible saintship, than his own.

SECTION XII.

The great Argument from the Jewish Sacraments, of the Passover and Circumcision, considered.

AS has been observed concerning the argument from the Jewish nation, so the argument from the Jewish ordinances, if it be against my scheme, is as plainly, in every respect, against Mr. Williams's.

This grand argument, as plainly expressed, or implied in Mr. Stoddard's words (which Mr. Williams insists I should attend to) is this:

God did expressly command all the nation of Israel to be circumcised; and he also expressly commanded the whole nation to come to the passover; excepting such as were cere. monially unclean, or in a journey. Therefore it was lawful for unsanctified men to come. (See Mr. Stoddard's sermon on the Controv. p. 8, and Appeal, p. 51.) The want of sanc tification never was alleged by any man as a reason for forbearing the passover. Appeal, p. 51. Unsanctified persons' attending this ordinance is never charged on them as a sin in scripture. Ibid. Jesus Christ himself partook of the passover with Judas; which proves it to be lawful for unsancti. fied men to come to the passover. But such as might lawfully come to the passover, may lawfully come to the Lord's supper.

Now let us consider what are the qualifications, which are necessary, according to Mr. Williams's scheme, to a lawful coming to Christian sacraments; and then see whether this objection, in every part of it, and every thing that belongs to it, be not as plainly and directly against his own scheme, as mine.

According to Mr. Williams, it is not lawful for a man to come, unless he is morally sincere. Pref. p. 2, 3, 21, 25, 30, 35, 36, 111, 115. And, according as he has explained that moral sincerity, which is necessary in order to come to sacra

ments, it implies "a real conviction of the judgment and conscience of the truth of the great things of religion....a deep conviction of a man's undone state without Christ, and an earnest concern to obtain salvation by him....a fervent desire of Christ and the benefits of the covenant of grace, with an earnest purpose and resolution to seek salvation on the terms of it; a man's being willing to do the utmost that he can, by the utmost improvement of his natural and moral power, in the most earnest and diligent use of the ordinances of salvation; being resolved for Christ, coming to a point, being engaged for heaven; having a settled determination of the the judgment and affections for God; giving up all his heart and life to Christ, &c. &c."* Such moral sincerity as this is necessary, according to Mr. Williams, to be found in professing Christians, in order to their lawful coming to Christian sacraments. And he says they are received into the church, "on like terms, by entering into covenant in like manner, as the Jews; and that their holiness, both real and federal, is the same with theirs. P. 56, 57, 61, 65. So that according to this scheme, none but those that had such qualifications as these, such a sincerity and engagedness in religion as this, might lawfully come to the passover. But now do the things alleged agree any better with this his scheme, than with mine? If the case be so, to what purpose is it alleged, that God, in Numb. chap. ix. expressly commanded all of that perverse, rebellious and obstinate generation in the wilderness, and the whole nation of Israel, in all generations, to keep the passover, excepting such as were ceremonially unclean or in a journey, without the exception of any other? Was every one else of such a character as is above described? Was every one under deep convictions, and persons of such earnest engagedness in religion, of such settled, strong resolution to give up their utmost strength and all their heart and life to God, &c. Mr. Williams suggests, that those who had not moral sincerity are expressly excepted from the command," p. 93. But I wish he had mentioned the place of

* P. 10, 11, 30, 31, 35, 36, 53, 83, 125, and many other places.

scripture. He cites Mr. Stoddard, who says, "God appointed sacrifice to be offered for scandal, with confession." But where did God appoint sacrifice for the want of such sincerity, for the want of such deep conviction, earnest desire, and fixed resolution, as Mr. Williams speaks of? And where are such as are without these things expressly excepted from the command to keep the passover? And besides there were many scandalous sins, for which no sacrifice was appointed: As David's murder and adultery, and the sin of idolatry, (which the nation in general often fell into) and many other gross sins. Nor was there any precept for deferring the keeping of the passover, in case of scandalous wickedness, or moral uncleanness, until there should be opportunity for cleansing by sacrifice, &c. as was in the case of ceremonial uncleanness.

Mr. Stoddard says, "The want of sanctification was never alleged by any man as a reason for forbearing the passover. So, where do we read in any part of the Bible, that ever the want of such deep conviction, &c. as Mr. Williams speaks of, or indeed any scandalous moral uncleanness, was ever alleged by any man as a reason for forbearing to eat the passover? Mr. Stoddard urges that unsanctified persons attending the passover was never charged on them as a sin. And where do we read of persons' coming without such moral sincerity being any more charged on them as a sin, than the other? We have reason to think, it was a common thing for parents that had no such moral sincerity, yea, that were grossly and openly wicked, to have their children circumcised ; for the body of the people were often so: But where is this charged as a sin? Mr. Stoddard says, (Serm. p. 7.) Ishmael was circumcised, but yet a carnal person. And there is as much reason to say, he was not of the character Mr. Williams insists on, "under deep convictions, having earnest desires of grace, a full and fixed determination, with all his heart, to the utmost of his power, to give his whole life to God, &e." Mr. Stoddard says, (Serm. p. 8) Hezekiah sent to invite the people of Ephraim and Manasseh, and other tribes, to celebrate the passover, though they had lived in idolatry for some VOL. I. 30