only be endowed with Christian piety in appearance; but that they must be so in profession. (p. 3. a. p. 41. e. p. 44. d.) That they make a shew of being wise virgins by the nature and purport of their profession. (p. 42. b.) And he insists with strenuousness, over and over, upon its being their scheme, that they ought to make a profession of real saintship. (p. 132. a. c. d.) Yea, he holds, that there must be not only some visibility and profession of real piety, but moral evidence of it. (p. 139. d.) He often uses notes of distinction, distinguishing between moral sincerity, and real piety; and insists much upon it as belonging to their scheme; that there must be a visibility of the latter, as thus distinguished from the former. So, he rejects with great contempt any suggestion of its being the scheme of my opposers, that moral sincerity is that saintship, which is to be professed and made visible; and in distinction from this, he asserts, that it is real holiness. (p. 4. d. e. and p. 5. a. b.) And again, (p. 35 c.) he uses a note of distinction, and insists that the opposers of my opinion hold, that communicants must make a profession of something more than common grace and moral sincerity. And again, (p. 139. a. d.) he uses notes of discrimination, and says that they must exhibit a credible profession of gospel-holiness, and not merely of moral sincerity; and says it is not the visibility of moral sincerity, but the moral evidence of gospel-sincerity, which God's word makes the rule of judging,—And as he holds, that communicants must profess gospel-holiness, so he seems to suppose that these professors must judge this of themselves; several things, he says, seem plainly to imply it. This appears evidently implied in that interrogation put by Mr. W. (p. 35. e.) "Mr. S. rightly supposes all visible saints who are not truly pious, to be hypocrites; and the scripture supposes and calls ed to believe visible Saints to be real Saints. And it seems by what he says in his Appeal, (p. 17.) the Church may admit persons to communion, when at the same time they are aware that they are hypocrites. For there, in answer to Dr. Mather, who had cited certain texts to prove, that when hypocrites do come into the Church, they come in unawares: he says, but neither of the places he cites proves that all hypocrites come in unawares. And in the next page, he says, The discovery of men's hypocrisy is not the reason of their being cast out. Still evidently on the same foundation, that some known hypocrites are fit to be admitted: for he says, (p. 15. d.) Such as being admitted may not be cast out, are fit to be admitted. And these things are agreeable to what I know Mr. Stoddard's church and congregation have universally supposed to be his constant doctrine and prac tice among them. Thus it was, without one dissenting voice among them, during the twenty-four years that I lived with them. And now the reader is desired to judge, as Mr. W. would have him, whether my representing it to be the opinion of Mr. S. and his adherents, that persons might be admitted into the Church without any notion of their being godly, or any respect to such a character appearing on them, be unaccountable.-By these things it is evident, Mr. S-d's scheme was far from being what Mr. W. represents it to be, and pretends to maintain as his. And if the question he had to controvert with me, were Mr. S-d's question, as he asserts; yet he greatly mistakes the true state of the question, though that be given as the title of his book. them so too: But will it therefore follow that all hypocrites know they are so? And he in effect asserts, that men should look at such a qualification, as sanctifying grace, in themselves and inquire whether they have it, or no, in order to determine whether they should present themselves to gospel-ordinances : for he greatly finds fault with me for suggesting, as if those of a different opinion from me supposed, that persons have no manner of need to look at any such qualification in themselves, or at all inquire, whether they have it, in order to present themselves to sacraments. He refers to that passage in my book. (p. 55. d.) "I cannot conceive what should move Philip to utter those words, or what he should aim at in them, if he at the same time supposed that the eunuch had no manner of need to look at any such qualification in himself, or at all to inquire whether he had such a faith, or no, in order to determine whether he might present himself as the subject of baptism." It is plain, the qualification I have respect to, is grace, or saving faith. And so Mr. W. himself understands me; as appears by his reflections, (p. 49. c. d. e.) where, after quoting this passage, he consigns me over to another judgment, for suggesting that my opposers hold what I had there expressed, and for "representing the matter, as if they looked on it as no matter whether a person coming to gospel-ordinances had any grace, or no, and that he had no manner of need to inquire any thing about his sincerity."* SECT. II. Some plain consequences of the foregoing Concessions. If it be as Mr. W. says, that the Church ought to admit none to their holy communion, in special ordinances, but visible saints, and that this visibility must be such as to a judgment of rational charity, makes them appear as real saints, and those that are admitted must be such as profess real saintship, gospel-holiness, in distinction from moral sincerity; then the whole of my first argument, from the nature of a visibility and profession of Christianity, is allowed by him, in both premises and consequences. And indeed Mr. W. does not only do thus con * Now let all that have been acquainted with the controversy between me and my people at Northampton, consider these things, which Mr. W. earnestly insists do belong to his scheme; and judge whether they be agreeable to the scheme which my opposers there have so vehemently and long contended for; yea, whether they are not very opposite to it; or whether in these things Mr. W. has not entirely yielded up, yea, vehemently asserted, the chief things concerning which they contested with me; and so, whether he has at all helped their cause by wri ting his book, or rather, on the contrary, has fought against them. sequentially, but he is express in it. In (p. 4. c.) taking notice of this argument, he says, "The sense and force of it wholly lies in this compass; a visible saint is one that to the view, ap pearance and judgment of the Church is a real saint; and since none but visible saints are to be admitted by the church, therefore none are to be admitted but such as appear to the view and judgment of the church to be real saints." But these things, which Mr. W. himself allows as the sum of the argument, both premises and consequence, are expressly allowed by him in what there follows. 2. If there must be a visibility and profession of real piety, in distinction from moral sincerity, so that it can be truly said, as Mr. W. says with discretive terms, and notes of discrimination, that not merely the one must be professed, but the other; and that more than moral sincerity must be professed, &c.Then it follows (or rather it is the same thing) that men must profess religion with some discrimination, or marks of difference in their words, distinguishing what is professed from moral sincerity; contrary to what Mr. W. strenuously and frequently asserts, (p. 6 c. d. & p. 9. c. and many other places.) For if the profession is made in words that signify no difference, then nothing different is signified or professed by those words; and so nothing more; contrary to what Mr. W. also asserts. 3. If it be as Mr. W. says, that the scripture has determined none ought to be admitted, but such as make an open profession and declaration of an hearty consent to the terms of the covenant of grace, such as covenant with God with their whole hearts, and profess gospel-holiness: Then the whole of my second argument, concerning explicit covenanting with God, is expressly allowed, in both premises and consequence; though Mr. W. seems at the same time, with so much labour and earnestness to militate against it. For the premises are that all ought openly and explicitly to own God's covenant, or consent to the terms of it. This is the same thing that he asserts, as above. And the consequence, or thing which I inferred from it, was, that all that are admitted ought to make a profession of real godliness and this also he expressly and often allows. 4. Since it is supposed, that in order to admission, men ought to profess real friendship to Christ, and love to him above the world, and to profess a proper respect to Christ in their hearts, as well as true notion of him in their heads; and that they ought to profess gospel-holiness, and not merely moral sincerity: therefore the whole of what belongs to my third argument, is allowed, both premises and consequence. The premises were, that the nature of things affords as much reason for professing a proper respect to Christ in the heart, as a true notion of him in the head. This he allows. What I endea voured to infer from hence, was, that therefore men ought to profess true piety, and not onlymoral sincerity: and this is also llowed by him. 5. It appears, that the whole of my fourth argument, both premises and consequence, is allowed. The premises were, that the scripture reckons all visible saints who are not truly pious, to be hypocrites. This Mr. W. expressly allows, (p. 25. e.) The consequence I inferred, was, that visible saints are such as make a profession of true godliness, and not only moral sincerity. This also is very fully allowed by him, (p. 139. a.) 6. Since it is supposed, that when Christ's rules are attended, they that come to sacraments, do not know themselves to be hypocrites, but must look at such a qualification in themselves, as grace, and make such a pretence, and profess gospel holiness; therefore all is in effect allowed, that I endeavoured from the latter part of the 7th chapter of Matthew, which was to shew, that professing Christians in general, all those that said, Lord, Lord, both those that built on the sand, and those that built on a rock, were such as imagined themselves to have a saving interest in Christ, and pretended to be his real disciples, and made such a profession. The same was what I endeavoured to shew from the parable of the ten virgins. And therefore all that I argued from thence is in like manner allowed. 7. Hence, in vain is all the opposition Mr. W. makes to what I allege from the Acts of the Apostles, from the story of the Eunuch and other parts of that book, concerning the manner and circumstances of the admission of members into the primitive Christian church, and the profession they made; seeing he grants the main point I endeavoured to prove by it, viz. That they did make, and all adult persons that are admitted into the church, must make, a profession of something more than moral sincerity, even gospel-holiness. 8. Hence, in vain is all he says in opposition to my eighth argument, taken from the manner of the apostles' treating and addressing the primitive churches in their Epistles; since he does either expressly or virtually grant each of those three things, which he himself reckons up as the sum of what I intend under that argument, viz. (1.) That the apostles speak to the churches, and of them, as supposing and judging them to be gracious persons. (2.) That the members of these churches had such an opinion of themselves. (3.) That they had this judgment one of another. Mr. W. allows all these. He abundantly allows and asserts, that the members of churches are such as. are supposed, and rationally judged to be gracious persons, by those that admit them; that they are taken in under that notion, and from respect to such a character appearing on them; and that they are rationally judged to be so by their fellow Chris tians; and that they must look at such a character in themselves, and must make such a pretence. 9. Since Mr. W. abundantly allows, that visible Christians must be believed in charity to be truly pious; and that they are such as have the moral image of Christ appearing in them, and supposed to be in them, and that they are to be loved on that account; therefore very impertinent and inconsistent is the opposition he makes to my ninth argument, from the nature of that brotherly love required towards all visible Christians; which was to shew, that visible Christians by the rule of Christ were to be apprehended to be true Christians. 10. In like manner, vain and to no purpose is the opposi tion he makes to my tenth argument, from the nature of sacramental actions, supposed in their intent and signification to be a solemn profession of those things wherein real piety consists, viz. a cordial acceptance of Christ and his benefits; from thence arguing, that a profession of these things is necessary, and so inferring, that those who perform these actions, should suppose themselves truly to accept of Christ: Since both these things are in effect granted, that communicants must judge that they have sanctifying grace, and also that they must profess gospelholiness, a compliance with the call of the gospel, and falling in with the terms of salvation proposed, &c. 11. In vain also is the opposition he makes to my eleventh argument, from 1 Cor. xi. 28. "Let a man examine himself; and so let him eat."-Inferring from thence, that a man ought to inquire concerning such a qualification in himself, as grace, in order to know whether he may come to the sacrament of the Lord's supper. Since Mr. W. himself plainly supposes this very thing That men ought to look at such a qualification in themselves, as grace, and to inquire whether they have it, in order to determine whether they may present themselves to Christian sacraments. 12. If it be true, according to Mr. W.'s representation of his own scheme, That persons may not be admitted to sacraments, but under a notion of their being truly godly, and with respect to such a character appearing on them; and that per sons themselves had need to look at such a qualification in themselves, and inquire whether they have it, in order to deter mine whether they may come to sacraments; it must be because if they find they have it not, they may not come, or (which is the same thing) it is not lawful for them to come. For it would be ridiculous to say that others must look at such a qualification in them, and must not admit them but from respect to such a character on them; and that they themselves also must look at such a qualification in themselves, and inquire whether they have it, in order to determine whether they may come; when |