MR. Edwards has stated his Question in these Words, Page 1. ‘Whether, according to the Rules of CHRIST, any ought to be admitted to the Com­munion and Priviledges of Members of the visible Church of CHRIST in compleat Standing, but such as are in Profession, and in the Eye of the Church's Christian Judgment, godly or gracious Persons?’

I own that every Man may reasonably claim the Priviledge of stat­ing his own Question, and propound what he intends to debate in his own Terms. But then, I think 'tis just and equitable, when a Man intends to refute another Man's Question, he should keep strictly to the Terms of that; and not take upon him to choose other Words which are more ambiguous, and give him Scope to amuse his Readers with Things foreign to that other Question which he undertakes to confute, under the Terms of his own.—Now, I think Mr. Edwards has sufficiently shewn, that this is in Fact the Case with him in managing the Controversy he has undertaken.—He declares in the Beginning of his Preface, ‘that Mr. Stoddard, his venerable Predecessor &c. Publickly and strenuously appeared in Opposition to the Doctrine here maintained.’ He says, Page 3. ‘He has formerly been of his Opinion, tho' never without some Difficulties in his View, which he could not solve.’ And again, Pag. 4. ‘'Tis far from a pleasing Circumstance of this Publica­tion, that 'tis against what my honoured Grandfather strenuously maintained both from the Pulpit and the Press.’ And in his Explanation of his Question, Pag. 4. ‘A Profession of a Belief of a [Page 2] future State &c. is all relating to these Things, that is requisite to give a Man a Right before the Church; but it is the real Existence of these Things that is what lays a proper and good Foundation for his making this Profession, and so demanding these Priviledges.’—And after a great many more Words; to­wards the Bottom of the same Page are these, viz. ‘In the same Manner, and no otherwise, I suppose that Christian Grace it self is a Qualification requisite in order to a proper solid Ground of a Right in a Person to come to the Christian Sacraments.’ By all which it appears, that his Design is to confute what Mr. Stod­dard did so strenuously maintain.

Now the Question which Mr. Stoddard did so strenuously main­tain, is in these Words, in his Appeal to the Learned, Pag. 2. ‘That sanctifying Grace is not necessary to the lawful attending the Lord's Supper.’—In the same Page Mr. Stoddard blames Dr. Mather for adding this Consequence, as if it was held by him— ‘Whether the Church may admit to their holy Communion in special Ordinances, such as are not in the Judgment of a rational Charity true Believers.’—Upon which, Mr. Stoddard has these Words: ‘But I have no Controversy with him upon that Account. My Business was to answer a Case of Conscience, and direct those that might have Scruples about Participation of the Lord's Sup­per, because they had not a Work of saving Conversion; not at all to direct the Churches to admit any that were not to a rational Charity true Believers; so that he blots a great deal of Paper to no Purpose, beats the Air, and fights against a Shadow of his own making.’ To what other Purpose has Mr. Edwards chang'd the Question, nearly into the same Shape in which Mr. Stoddard never controverted it, in order to confute what he did maintain? Can it serve the Cause of Truth to state a Question in such Terms as Mr. Stoddard expresly disclaims, to blot all the Paper Mr. Edwards has done to explain, and then to confute it, as Mr. Stoddard's Principle? Whatever Ends it may serve, surely it is not fair Treatment of Mr. Stoddard, nor of the grand Point in Question; which had it been strictly observed, would have needed no Explication, and I believe might have been brought to a fair and satisfactory Decision with fewer Words.

This Reverend Author uses a great many Words in the explain­ing his Question, to shew us that ‘a main Thing intended in it [Page 3] is, whether any that are adult Persons, but such as are in Pro­fession and Appearance endowed with Christian Grace or Piety, ought to be admitted to the Christian Sacraments; particularly to the Lord's Supper:’ i. e. as I understand it, whether the Church ought to admit them. Which was no main Thing, nor any Thing at all in Mr. Stoddard's Question, nor ever intended or maintained by him: and which he denies to be a Consequence from his Prin­ciples.—I confess, I know of no Members of the Church, unless Persons under Censure, or scandalously ignorant, or immoral, but what the Church ought to admit to Communion & Priviledges of Members in compleat Standing; if they are capable of receiving and enjoying them, and desire to do so.

The Rev. Author notes, ‘that it was requisite that a Distinction of Members having a standing in the Church, and a compleat Standing, should be made, to avoid a lengthning out his Dis­course exceedingly with needless Questions & Debates concerning the State of baptized Infants; which he says, is needless to his present Purpose.’—I am so far of his Opinion, that that Debate is needless to the Purpose of his Book, because I imagine the State of baptized Infants affords an Argument which utterly overthrows all that is to the Purpose in his Argument. If it be not so, I should be glad to see such a Dissertation as he speaks of, to clear up that Matter, and state the Difference between Members in regular Standing, and Members in compleat Standing in the visible Church. It appears to me (to use Mr. Edwards's Similitude) if any was about to describe that Kind of Birds called Doves; he must own when he had done, that a young Dove is as compleat a Dove as an old one, tho' it be not so large, nor has so many Feathers. So I am apt to conceive an Infant who is a Member of a Family, is as com­pleat a Member of that Family, and has as good a Right to all the Priviledges of it that he is capable to enjoy, as a Child who is grown up, tho' he be not so big.—There are several Things which the Rev. Author says to explain his Question; which I shall not re­mark upon now, because they are brought in afterwards under the Arguments, and may be taken Notice of there, and save Repetitions.

Pag. 8. Mr. Edwards says, ‘He comes to observe some Things which may tend to evince the Truth of this Position, that none ought to be admitted to the Communion & Priviledges of Mem­bers of the visible Church of Christ in compleat Standing, but [Page 4] such as are in Profession, and in the Eye of the Church's Christian Judgment godly or gracious Pesons.’

He begins with observing, ‘That 'tis evident from the Word of God, and granted on all Hands, that none ought to be admitted as Members of the visible Church of Christ, but visible Saints, and professing Saints, or visible and professing Christians.’—He particularly notes in the 9th Page, ‘that Mr. Stoddard allows it in diverse Places in his Appeal, and even thro' the Treatise: And he thinks, that if any Allowance is made, or the Words of it used with any Propriety of Speech, or in any Agreement with Scripture Representations, the whole of that which he has laid down is either implied, or will certainly follow.’ Page 9. & 11. he says, ‘How Mr. Stoddard reconciled these Passages with the rest of his Treatise, he must confess himself at a Loss.’

If I can comprehend the Sense & Force of the Argument which is here offered to prove what Mr. Edwards aims at, it wholly lies in this Compass: A visible Saint is one that to the View, Appea­rance, and Judgment of the Church is a real Saint. And since 'tis granted, that 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.—Mr. Edwards has taken much Pains by his Explication of the Words Visibility, and visible Saints, to shew that this Concession is inconsistent with Mr. Stoddard's Argument and Scripture Repre­sentations, and a giving up the Point: And makes, and answers divers Objections, which we neither make, nor concern our selves about an Answer to. And particularly Page 10, he says, ‘There is one Way taken by some to evade these Things, viz. Altho' it be true, that the Scriptures represent the Members of the visible Church of Christ as Professors of Godliness &c. yet this is not with any Reference to saving Holiness, but to quite ano­ther Sort of Saintship, viz. moral Sincerity; and that is the real Saintship, Discipleship, and Godliness, which is profess'd, and visible in them; with Regard to which, as having the Appea­rance of it to the Eye of Reason, they have the Name of Saints, Disciples &c. in Scripture.’ ‘This, he says, is a meer Eva­sion, tho' the only one he ever saw or heard of; and he thinks the only one possible.—And if this Evasion sails, all sails, and the whole Matter in Debate must be given up.’—Now I freely [Page 5] give up all this Evasion. I don't remember, that ever I heard of it, or that any Body tho't of it, before I saw it in Mr. Edwards's Book: So as I have no Concern with it, I yield Mr. Edwards all the Triumph of his Argument for the next six Pages; in which he fights hard to beat down this poor Man of Straw.

Since 'tis allowed on all Hands that the Church ought to admit none to their holy Communion in special Ordinances, or the out­ward Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace, but visible Saints, and this Visibility must be such as to a Judgment of rational Charity, makes them appear as real Saints: I conceive therefore, that the whole Argument, and indeed the whole Controversy turns upon this single Point, viz. What is that Evidence which by divine Ap­pointment, the Church is to have of the Saintship of those who are admitted to the outward Priviledges of the Covenant of Grace?

Mr. Edwards seems to suppose this must be the highest Evidence a Man can give of Sincerity; & I apprehend to be the lowest Evidence the Nature of the Thing will admit. And the Scripture has determin­ed the Matter thus, that the open Profession and Declaration of a Person's believing in Christ, or believing that the Gospel is indeed the Revelation of God, with a true understanding of the essential Doctrines of it, and of an hearty Consent to the Terms of the Co­venant of Grace, and Engagement on his Part to fulfil it by that Help of God which is offered in it; when nothing appears in his Life and Conversation to contradict this Profession, is the sole and entire Ground of that publick Judgment which the Church is to make of the real Saintship of Professors.—It matters not whether this be done in the Words which the Israelites used in their entring into Covenant [...] God, or those which we find used by divine Direction by any particular Person in the old Testament or the new; or the visible Signs of this Thing appointed in the Word of God; or all put together that we find any Example of in the Bible.—This Mr. Edwards, in the close of his Explication of his Question, and elsewhere, seems to allow at [...] he is not determined is not sufficient, provided the Persons who use the Words are taught to use them, and others to understand them in their proper meaning. i. e. as he explains himself Pag. 5. provided they use them as Words giving an Account of their Experience of the sanctifying Work of God's Spirit on their Hearts: for upon his Discourse of the Ground of the good Opinion of the Publick, he adds, ‘What­ever [Page 6] Suspicions and Fears any particular Person, either the Mi­nister or some other may entertain from what he has in particu­lar observed; perhaps from the Manner of his expressing him­self in giving an Account of his Experiences, or an Obscurity in the Order and Method of his Experiences.’ And as he fur­ther explains himself elsewhere: ‘The proper Visibility which the Publick is to have of a Man's being a Saint, must be on some Account of his Experience of those Doctrines which teach the Nature of true saving Religion.’—Therefore I understand Mr. Edwards when he seems to be satisfied with a Profession & Engage­ment like to what I have express'd above, to intend that the Person who makes that Profession and Engagement, do in it rightly distin­guish between moral and gracious Sincerity. As when he says, I believe that Jesus is the Christ, he must intend, and is to be under­stood to mean, that he really believes this in a gracious Manner, from the special, saving Illumination of the Holy Ghost; and so of all like Words in his professing and covenanting; and that by giv­ing an Account of his Experiences in some Words or other, the Church is to receive Satisfaction that that Profession is in that Sense true, and make a positive Judgment, that the Man is a real Christian. So that besides all moral and outward Evidence of a Man's Sincerity, there must be some way contained in the Profession of a Man's Faith and Engagement to God, a Discrimination of it from all that can be contained in a Work of common Illumination, provided the Man speaks true; which I call the highest Evidence of Sincerity. Whereas in the Sense that I understand the like Profession and Engagement, the Ground of the Church's Judgment, is the Profession & Engage­ment itself, not apparently contradicted by the Life and visible Be­haviour of the Person making it; the Church taking it in the most favourable Sense that it can bear; tho' not obliged by the very Na­ture and Meaning of the Words to understand it in the best Sense; which I call the lowest Evidence of Sincerity.—And if it can be fairly determined that this open Profession of Christianity, this Decla­ration & Engagement, is the sole entire Evidence which the Church as a Church is to have by divine Appointment in order to that publick Judgment it is to make of the Saintship of Men, in order to their being obliged in their external Carriage to treat them as Saints, and admit them to the external Priviledges of the Church; then there the Matter must rest. Some of the Reasons which convince me of it are these.

[Page 7] 1. That the Lord Jesus Christ in his publick visible Dealings with the Church, and in all the Administration of external Ordi­nances, designs to act only as visible King of the Church, and not as the Searcher of Hearts.—That he always does so in Fact, Mr. Ed­wards has once and again allowed, and therefore I conclude I need not prove, that he always designs to act in this Manner; and if this be allowed, I think it is certain, that his Ministers and Churches acting in his Name in these external Matters, are to act so too. The Judgments they are to make with Respect to the Characters of Men, or admitting them to the visible Priviledges of his House, are to be founded only on the visible Profession & Behaviour of Men. And if their outward Profession and Behaviour be the Ground of this Judgment, then it is not the inward Experience of the Heart, or such inward Feelings as are by Men supposed to be the certain, discriminating Marks of Grace, or the Actings of Grace themselves. For when a Judgment is founded on them, or positively made of their gracious State thereby, then Christ ceases to act as visible King of the Church, and acts as Searcher of Hearts. To say that when Men do profess and relate their Experiences of a Work of Grace in their Hearts, or declare those Things, wherein (according to Mr. Edwards Way of speaking) the Essence of true Godliness, or Christian Piety consists; That this is then made visible in Men's Words, and so still the Ground of the publick Judgment is the visible Pro­fession and Behaviour of Men, seems to be an Equivocation with Words. For this Visibility is only of their Hearts supposed to be turned inside out; and judging upon what never can be seen but in their Hearts. It is not a judging that Mens Profession & Beha­viour Proceeds from a good Heart, but judging they have a good Heart from what they suppose they see in the Heart itself; it is a judging upon the next and immediate Actings of the Heart. When Christ judges so he don't act as visible King of the Church, but as the Searcher of Hearts; and so do his Churches too: Not accord­ing to the Rule he has given us, Luk. 7. 20. By their Fruits, ye shall know them. Nor according to his own Practice in trusting to the Profession of his People after the Manner of Men; giving Credit to their Profession, and Engagement to keep Covenant with him; kindly supposing the best that can be supposed; that they will be as they seem, Isai. 63. 8. Surely they are my People, Children that will not lie; so he was their Saviour. Which I think contains [Page 8] a sufficient Answer to Mr. Edwards's Enquiry, Pag. 11, 12. ‘How those visible Qualifications can be the Ground of a rational Judg­ment, that a Person is circumcised in Heart, which nevertheless at the same Time we are sensible are so far from being any pro­bable Signs of it, that they are more frequently without it?’ The Profession of an hearty Belief of the Gospel, and solemn, hearty Engagement to God, and Consent to the Terms of the Covenant of Grace &c. contains all that is essential to Religion in it; and if this is the Fruit of the Love of God, it is true Godliness. This Confession of the Mouth is the proper Product of that inward Grace; and tho' it may more frequently be without it; yet it can be the proper Ground of a rational Judgment of Charity. For in all Publick Judgments among Men 'tis esteemed rational, just and fit to judge the most favourably of Mens Actions, that the Nature of the Thing will admit: 'Tis a received Rule among Mankind by which they hold themselves bound in all publick Judgments; and 'tis a Rule respecting all Charters and Grants of Priviledges, that they shall be interpreted in the most extensive and favourable Sense for the Patentees that the Nature of the Words & Expressions will bear. And Christ when he acts as visible King of his Church, will therefore act in such a Manner, taking visible Appearances in the most favourable Sense and Construction for those for whom he makes that Judgment; which is implied in the Way, Nature, and Notion of his acting as visible King or the Church, and not as Searcher of Hearts; and is I think a fair Determination that he will have his Churches act in like Manner in their publick Judgments, and with Respect to the visible Priviledges of his House.

2. Christ has in Fact always acted thus in his outward Dispen­sations towards his Church, and Administration of Ordinances, in all Ages, under the old Testament and the New. That God took all Israel into Covenant, is a Fact which Mr. Edwards will not deny. On what Terms he did it, is declared Deut. 20. 17, 18. Thou [...] Lord [...] Day [...] God, and to walk in his Ways, and to keep his [...], and his Commandments, and his Judg­ments, and [...] his Voice; and the Lord hath avouched thee this Day [...] peculiar People as he hath promised thee, and that [...] shouldest keep at his Commandments. Now this According, this Engaging, this Covenanting, was such a Thing as was compatable with an unregenerate State; yet it was such a Profession as Christ, [Page 9] as visible King of the Church judged they made with all their Hearts. No doubt these who were godly did it with a gracious and holy Sincerity, & from supreme Love to God: others did it with no more than such a Sincerity, and Resolution as we call moral; and under a deep Conviction of the Duty, Reasonableness, and Advantages of it; and with all the Heart and Power they had. However, the visible Appearance was the same, and the judgment which the King of the visible Church as such made of them was the same; the outward Privileges & Ordinances they were admitted to were ex­actly the same. Deut. 33. 3. A [...] his Saints are in [...]. Psal. 149, 1. His Praise is in the Congregation of the Saints. They were alike cal­led the People of God. A [...] Generation, a royal [...], an [...] peculiar People. Here was no Declaration of their Ex­periences; no other Evidence of their Saintship but their Profession, and declared Consentto the Terms of the Covenants altho' their after Carriage proved there were great Multitudes of them unregenerate Men, and it's not unlikely the greater Part of them by far. Now 'tis certain, in this Affair the King of the visible Church, in the Judg­ment he as such made concerning them, went upon no other Ground than their open Declaration of their sincere Consent to the Terms of the Covenant, and their Engagement to fulfil it; without any Dis­crimination by which it might be determined that the Consent of some was a gracious Consent, of others only a moral Sincerity: And as he went upon this Ground in his Admission of them, and Carriage towards them, I can't doubt but so is the Church to do in the publick Judgments they make concerning others, & their Car­riage towards them: i. e. they are to take them to be such as they profess to be, and allow them the outward Priviledges of Saints, 'till their outward Behaviour proves them Hypocrites.—If we look thro' the new Testament, we find that Persons were every where admit­ted into the Church by Christ and his Apostles, upon no other De­claration than that they believed that Jesus was the Christ, and of their Repentance. We read, Act 2. 38, 39. Then they that gladly received the Word were baptized. Act. 8. 12, 13. 'tis said of the Samaritans upon Philip's preaching to them, that when they believed the Things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both Men & Women. Then Simon himself believed also, and was baptized. I mention not the Case of the [...] here, because Mr. Edwards has considered it in another Place.— [Page 10] In these, and other Instances in the new Testament, of Persons Ad­mission into the Church by Baptism, we find nothing is demanded in order to it but their professing Jesus Christ is the Saviour, or believing the Gospel Revelation concerning him; and so soon as they made this Profession and desired Baptism, it was administred to them. I am ready to allow all that can be reasonably demanded in this Case, viz. that believing does sometimes, yea very often in the new Testament, signify saving Faith: But this will not ener­vate the Argument; because it is certain, that the Words believe, and believed, as terminated on Christ, and the Gospel, do in the New-Testament sometimes not mean saving Faith, but a Belief up­on moral Evidence, and no more than a Conviction of the Judg­ment and Conscience, that Jesus was the Messiah, or that the Gos­pel was true. This is plain in the Case of Simon; and it is plain from the Accounts we have in the Epistles, of great Numbers of Hypocrites and Apostates; and because many of the temporary Disciples of Christ are said to have believed on him; and yet after­wards went away. And these Words are so used in such Cases without any Marks or Difference whereby we are enabled to judge when they mean a saving Faith, and when a different one; but left to learn this from the different Consequences. From hence it seems evident, that Christ the King of the visible Church acted on the same Ground in admitting Members into the visible Church under the New-Testament, as under the Old. And the Ground of the Church's charitable Judgment was the same, viz. the open Pro­fession of Faith in Christ, and Subjection to him, with all the Heart, or Engagement to keep Covenant with God; without any other Way of Men's determining the gracious Sincerity of it, but what arises from the Nature of that Profession and Engagement itself, not contradicted or proved false by the Life and Behaviour of the Person's making it: that is the lowest Kind of Evidence, and most favourably constructed that the Nature of the Thing will admit.—These Persons may be godly, or they may not, as was in Fact the different Case with those who by Christ, or the Apostles, were ad­mitted into the Church. But the same Profession of Faith des­cribed by the same Words and Names, without any discriminating Marks express'd, was the Ground of rational Charity, and the pub­lick Judgment, on which they were admitted, one, as well as the other.—They had the same common Titles of Believers, Saints, [Page 11] Disciples, Christians, which are given in common in the New-Testa­ment to all such Persons as renounced Judaism, & Heathenism, and by a publick Profession declared they did believe the Gospel, and submit to the Proposals of it, and engage to fulfil or come up to the Terms of the Covenant of Grace, thro' the Help of God offered in it: And therefore the Church is to make no other publick Judg­ment about such Persons, 'till they contradict their own Profession by their outward Carriage.

3. Another Consideration which appears to be of some Weight to determine this Rule of Judgment, is this, That 'tis a Doctrine plainly taught in Scripture; and which I suppose all orthodox Di­vines are agreed in; that true Desires of Grace are Grace. Sincere Desires of Interest in Christ, and Salvation in the Way of the Gos­pel, are gracious. So says Mr. Perkins: ‘A Desire of the Favour and Mercy of God in Christ, and the Means to attain that Fa­vour; this Desire is a special Grace of God, and hath the Pro­mise of Blessedness. For tho' wicked Men desire eternal Life, as Balaam did, yet they can't sincerely desire the Means, as Faith, Repentance, Mortification, Reconciliation &c.’ Pag. 366. It were easy to shew this is the current Doctrine of Calvinistick Divines.

Now that Man who makes a Profession of a servent Desire of Christ, and the Benefits of the Covenant of Grace, and his earnest Purpose & Resolution to seek his Salvation on the Terms of it: He makes a Profession of that, which for the Matter of it is true Godli­ness.—And every Man who is convinced in his Conscience of the Truth of the Gospel, and that he is bound to seek his Salvation by Christ, and that it is to be had on no other Terms than are pro­pounded in the Gospel, is not only bound to seek it in that Way, but he is bound to make an open Profession of Christ; he holds the Truth in Unrighteousness, and sins against his Conscience if he does not. Tho' this Conviction may be only by moral Evidence, and common Illumination; yet for ought that can be visible in the Nature of the Thing, the Church know not but 'tis done upon a divine and gracious Discovery, and the Testimony of the Spirit of God; and they are bound to make the most charitable Judgment when they act in a publick Character that the Nature of the Thing will admit.—If the Man thinks otherwise himself, this is nothing to the Purpose, because he may be mistaken; and whether he be or not, his Apprehensions concerning his own State, are not the Rule [Page 12] of the Church's Judgment; but his visible Character & Behaviour.—The Church's publick Judgment respects only their publick Carri­age towards him, and allowing him the external Priviledges of a Christian. If this be a Judgment of Charity, it must be built on his Profession, and the visible Effects of it, in the most favourable Construction of it.

Notwithstanding all the Difficulty in Mr. Edwards's Mind to ‘conceive how these visible Qualifications can be the Ground of a rational Judgment that a Person in circumcised in Heart, which nevertheless at the same Time we are sensible are so far from being any Signs of it that they are more frequently without it than with it;’ yet he says, ‘He can easily see how that may seem visible, and appear probable in God's People by Reason of the imperfect and dark State they are in, and so oblige their Charity, which yet is not real, and would not appear at all pro­bable to Angels, who stand in a clearer Light.’ Pag. 11, 12. I think I can as easily see, why these visible Qualifications can be the Ground of a rational Judgment of Charity that a Person is cir­cumcised in Heart, when at the same Time they are more frequently without it than with it; which no Man ever would have known, but by the Consequence; which Consequence at the Time of mak­ing his Judgment he does not see; and therefore is not to come into Consideration in making his Judgment.—It is certain, we are in a dark imperfect State, and agreable to this dark imperfect State, God, has appointed the Rule & Ground of our Judgment: Which State, as to the inward Workings of the Spirit of God upon Mens Hearts, and the secret Actings of their Souls, is equally dark under the Gospel, as under the Law; and must remain so without a Revelation to us of the Fact of those secret Workings of the Spirit of God upon other Mens Hearts; tho' the Light of the Gospel may better enable us to Judge of them in our own Hearts.—How Angels would judge about it, I know not, but all Men who know the Bible, know that Christ acting as King of the visible Church has judged so: From whence it is certain, without any metaphysical Speculations, or abstruse Reason­ings, upon the Nature of Visibilities & Realities, and appears plain to common Sense, that a Judgment of rational Charity, is founded on the lowest Kind of Evidence that the Nature of the Thing will admit; this being a publick Judgment, made not to determine the final State of Men, but only to be the Rule of the Church's grant­ing the Priviledges of the visible Kingdom of Christ, and admini­string [Page 13] the outward Ordinances of it. If an Appointment, can be known from the Nature of the Thing, and his own constant Practise, we know that the King of the Church has appointed the Plainest Rules of the Determination of this Judgment, and that the [...] Ground of the publick Judgment of the Church, shall lie in the visi­ble Qualifications, moral Conduct and Behaviour of his professing People: And this Rule of Judging in this Matter, serves all the Ends for which the Publick is to judge at all of the State of other Men, that is to direct our publick Carriage towards them. I think it appears from the Nature of the Thing, that publick Evidence is all the Evidence the Publick can with Safety act upon; and in order to their acting, there must be some certain Rule by which that E­vidence, and the Judgment upon it, must be determined: And this Rule must be such as may be plainly known by all that are con­cern'd to act by it; it must be suited to the State of those who are to act by it; and accordingly it is.— ‘What tho' we can't form a rational Judgment that a Thing is, which at the same Time, and under that Degree of Light we think we then stand, it's more probable is a mistaken one than not’—it can argue nothing in this Case; when the Judgment we do form is directed by that Rule of Judgment which is appointed for us in the Case we judge about, tho' our Judgment may with Respect to another Rule, and Ground of Judgment (which we have nothing to do with) be a Mistake; yet 'tis rightly made upon our Rule & Evidence. Ano­ther Kind of Evidence, and another Rule, is no Light at all to us; because that is the Rule of another Judgment, and not of ours.—Suppose that the Lord Jesus Christ will judge that the Judgment we make concerning the States of Men are Mistakes in Fact ninety nine times in an Hundred, because he sees the Bottom of Mens Hearts, and judges of their State by what is there, and not by the visible Appearance; yet we judge rightly and rationally when we judge according to the Rule of our judging; and keep to the Evidence which is to determine our Judgment.—I am apt to think, 'tis only a confounding in our Minds these two different Rules of judging, that makes us think it difficult to form a rational Judgment of Charity; and because we take upon us to judge of Men's State by the same Rule which is only proper to the Searcher of Hearts. God knows that Men in their present State are not fit to be trusted with such invisible Rules of judging; and considering what Work [Page 14] Men have made when they have gone upon such Grounds, 'tis a Wonder they don't know it themselves.—Therefore, altho' we freely allow none but visible Saints are to be admitted by the Church to the holy Communion, and that the Judgment we make of their visible Saintship is with Respect to real Holiness, yet I conceive there is no Inconsistency between this, and Mr. Stoddard's Doctrine, nor does it at all grant that sanctifying Grace is necessary in order to a Person's lawfully partaking of the Lord's Supper. For tho' by a different Rule of Judgment it may appear that Thousands of whom this charitable Judgment is made by the Church have not sanctify­ing Grace, and it may appear to us in some future Time to be so by the Rule of judging given to us; yet it does not appear so at pre­sent: When we are called to make that Judgment, we are to have just so must Reference to their real Godliness as the Rule of our judging requires; and be just so certain of it as that will make us; and up­on the Evidence which that requires, we are bound to admit them, not because we are certain they have sanctifying Grace, but because 'tis certain they have those visible Signs of it, by which our publick Judgment is to be determined; and our Carriage towards them di­rected. When they have those Signs we make a right Judgment a­bout our Carriage towards them, and treat them according to the Will of God, when we treat them as visible Saints. And since 'tis God's Will that his Church should admit all such visible Saints, it follows that the Lord's Supper is a converting Ordinance to such of them as are unconverted.

Since I suppose Mr. Edwards knows this was Mr. Stoddard's Doctrine, and he professes to be disputing against it: I can't but be somewhat surprised at his going off from his Argument, to cast an Odium upon it, in his vehement Declamation, Pag. 12, 13, 14, 15. ‘That there is no need according to the Doctrine that is taught, that the Person himself or any other, should have any Imagina­tion that he has sanctifying Grace, and that it clearly follows on the Principles he opposes, no Kind of Visibility or Appearance, whether more direct or indirect, whether to a greater or less De­gree; no Charity, no Hope of it, have any Thing to do at all in this Affair of Admission to the Lord's Supper;’ and many such like Expressions.

What is there to found all this Exclamation upon? For my Part I know of no Place in the World where any such Doctrine is taught. [Page 15] I believe no Minister nor Church in the World, will own it; and I think it to be demonstratively evident, that no such Thing follows from the Principle Mr. Edwards opposes (if I know what it is) no such Thing follows from Mr. Stoddard's Opinion, that sanctifying Grace is not necessary to the lawful [...] on the Lord's Supper. And Mr. Edwards knows that Mr. Stoddard disclaim'd it, and held ‘that none but visible Saints, and such Persons as to a Judgment of Charity were true Believers, were to be admitted by the Church to the Communion.’ And when Mr. Mather argues, that if the Lord's Supper be a converting Ordinance, then profane Persons ought to be admitted; Mr. Stoddard denies the Consequence, and says, ‘The Lord's Supper is a converting Ordinance only to Church Members,’ Appeal, Pag. 20. And again, Pag. 28. ‘It is the Will of God that such as to a Judgment of rational Charity are Believers, be admitted to the Lord's Supper, tho' they be unre­generate; and the Lord's Supper may be look'd on as a con­verting Ordinance for Church-Members that carry orderly.’ Now, because the Lord's Supper is said to be a converting Ordi­nance to such Persons as these; to affirm so vehemently in such 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’ &c. may tend to reproach some Men & their Principles, and render them odious to the unthinking Multitude; but I can see no Tendency in it to lead any Man into the Knowledge of the Truth, for the Thing itself is a manifest Untruth. And to treat Mr. Stoddard and his Doctrine in this Manner, after his Declarations before mentioned, and others who are of Mr. Stoddard's Opinion, I think must be owing to some Warmth of Temper in the Heat of Disputation, which made my good Kinsman a little lose the Influ­ence of that Modesty he speaks of, when he mentions the Loss he is at to reconcile the Concessions of his venerable and ever-honour'd Grand-father with the rest of his Treatise.

In Pag. 23. Mr. Edwards comes to his second Argument, which is thus propounded: ‘That 'tis a Duty which in an ordinary State of Things is required of all that are capable of it to make an ex­plicit open Profession of the true Religion, by owning God's Covenant; or in other Words, professedly, and verbally to unite themselves to God in his Covenant by their own publick Act.’ He proposes, ‘1. To prove this Point; and then, 2. Draw the Con­sequence, [Page 16] and shew how this demonstrates the Thing in Debate. He undertakes to shew that it was not only a Duty in Israel of old, but is so in the Christian Church, and to the End of the World; and that it is a Duty required of adult Persons before they come to the Sacraments.’—What is here to be made out is,

1. That this was an Institution in the ordinary State of the jewish Church, and so also of the Christian. 2. That this was a divine Institution, to be attended in order to the Israelites partaking of the Passover, and so in order to baptized Christians partaking of the Lord's Supper. Mr. Edwards endeavours to prove this Institution to be made, Deut. 6. 13.& Chap. 10. 20. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and swear by his Name. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his Name.

There seem to be two Things on which this Rev. Author grounds his Argument to prove that these Texts contain an Institution of publick Covenanting with God, in the Manner & Extent he supposes.

The first is a Criticism on the Hebrew Words: He says, ‘The Prefix Beth, which is there used in the Word Bishmc, and rendred By his Name; signifies In, or Into, as well as By.’—The other Thing which he thinks makes it abundantly manifest, that the Thing in­tended here was a publick Covenanting with God, is; ‘that Cove­nanting in Scripture is very often called by the Name of Swearing, and a Covenant is call'd an Oath; and particularly God's Co­venant is call'd his Oath. Deut. 29. 12. and other Places of Scrip­ture.’ See Pag. 24. Upon these, I think, lies the whole Stress of what is offered in Proof of this Institution.

It is evident from very many Places of Scripture where Beth is prefix'd to a Word, it signifies By. And all that Mr. Edwards pre­tends here is, that this Prefix signifies In, or Into, as well as By: Which is it self a Confutation of the Argument. For if it signifies By as well as Into; then certainly, there's nothing in the Meaning of the Prefix it self, which necessitates Mr. Edwards's Construction. But it may as naturally be understood as our Translators have ren­dred it, as in the Sense Mr. Edwards has rendred it. And therefore at best it proves just nothing at all.—But to confirm this Way of rendring the Words he observes, ‘that Swearing by the Name of the Lord is so often mentioned by the Prophets, that it would be unreasonable to understand it only, or chiefly of taking an [Page 17] Oath occasionally before a Court of Judicature, which it may be, one tenth Part of the People never had Occasion to do once in their Lives.’ If it were so, that not a tenth Part of the People ever had Occasion to do it, why should it be thought unreasonable that God should take so much Care about their Swearing in a reli­gious and due Manner? since 'tis evident he designed to take Care of every Part of the Religion of that People, and gave them Laws to govern and direct the tenth and twentieth Part; yea, every one of them, as well as the whole collective Body, in all their Business and Conduct; and if all the Instances of Swearing by the Name of the Lord mentioned by the Prophets, or in the Law put together, will not amount to the hundredth Part of the Directions given to direct their Conduct, and govern their Behaviour.—But besides Oaths and Covenants were Things which probably might concern the most of that People, as of every other People in the World: And no Man knew before hand whom they would concern, nor could any Man know but they would concern him. 'Tis therefore far from being an unreasonable Thing to believe that God did take Care that whosoever of his People, & wheresoever they were called to Swear, either to their Princes, or as Witnesses, or to their Cove­nants or Contracts, should Swear by the true God; which is one Part of divine Worship; and a necessary Acknowledgement, that there is no other God; which was a Thing that certainly God took abundant Care his People should constantly acknowledge & profess. Of this Kind of Swearing all Protestant Writers (so far as I have observed) have understood the Words. So Mr. Wilson in his Christian Dictionary giving their general Sense, interprets these Words, and applies them to this Sort of Swearing.

The other Thing which Mr. Edwards thinks gives abundant Reason to be satisfied that the Swearing [...] spoken of intends a publick Covenanting with God, seems to have very little Weight in it.—God's Covenant is sometimes call'd his Oath, because he was pleased to Swear by Himself, to confirm it; surely not because he Swear in to Himself.—There are several Places wherein we read of Persons Swearing to God; and God did sometimes call them to Swear to perform Obedience to him; as we see 2 Chron. 15. 12, 14, 15. but Swearing by the Lord in this, or any other Place where the Prefix's Beth, or Lamed, are used, is no more necessarily to be understood, to be an Institution of Covenanting with God in order to enjoy the [Page 18] outward Ordinances of the Gospel, than Skenting and [...], and Cornets, which they used on the same Occasion. When [...] re­quired the Spies to Swear to her [...] Josh. 9. 10. When [...] tells the Israelites, that their Princes had [...] 'tis pretty evident they had no Thought about owning the Covenant. And this very Place, Deut 6. 13. which Mr. Edwards takes to be an Institution of publick owning the Co­venant, is understood, as Mr. Wilson renders it, by [...] Fagius [...] from [...] in [...] What farther Weight can there be in the same Criticism on the [...] 1 Kin18. 32. & Chap. 8. 44. where these Prefix's [...] & [...] signify To and not [...]? But as they naturally may signify either the one or the other, it is therefore impossible that by themselves they should determine the Meaning of the Text either Way: But that must be judged of by the particular Case wherein they are used in which something else is necessary to determine in what Sense they must be rendred: Wherefore Isai 2. 7. and the other Texts about Swearing by the Name of the Lord, can't with any Certainty be shewn to imply more in them, than that, as Swearing is a Part of religious Worship, therefore the calling Jehovah to witness is the Acknow­ledgement of Him as the only true God, including all his essential, eternal, and unchangeable Perfections. In which Way Mr. Wilson expounds Swearing in Truth, Judgment & Righteousness; and which 'tis easy to shew is the plain Meaning of the Words. So the Swear­ing by the Lord and by [...], Expositors render halting between God, and Idois. As to all those Prophecies which Mr. Edwards has quoted, as refering to the Gentiles, and their Swearing by the Name of the Lord; the Sense of Protestant Commentators upon them, I think, universally is, that when the Gentiles, in God's ap­pointed Time should be brought into Covenant with God, it should be as the Jews were, by being perswaded to Consent to the Terms of the Covenant of Grace, & engaging themselves to God to be faith­ful to him, and keep Covenant with him. He who heartily con­sents to the Terms of the Covenant of Grace, gives up himself to the Lord; gives the Hand to the Lord; engages to own, and serve him. Which is the Thing signified in all those metaphorical Phra­ses, which describe, or Point out this Event in the old Testament Language—To suppose that Text, Isai. 45. 22, 25 to be a Pro­phecy or such a Sort of Covenanting with God as Mr. Edwards ima­gines, [Page 19] seems to be a strange Freedom with the holy Scripture. He says himself Pag. 27. ‘It will have its last Fulfilment at the Day of Judgment; and that the Thing most directly intended is the Conversion of the Gentile World to the Christian Religion.’ If it be so, then 'tis certain the Thing most directly intended is not an explicit, open Covenanting with God before the Church in order to partake of Gospel Ordinances.—Mr. Wilson says, it is to make Con­fession, or solemn Profession that God is Searcher of Hearts, to ac­knowledge him as Witness and Rewarder of Truth; and a severe and just Revenger of halfhood & Perjury. To confirm his Expo­sition of [...] 45. 23. he quotes, Rom. 14. 11. Every Tongue shall [...] to God. ‘The fore mentioned learned Man says upon it; the latter Place expounds the former. And altho' the Prophecy of Isaiah cited by Paul be in Part fulfilled now in this Life for the Wicked are forced to confess Christ sometimes to be a just and righteous God, whom the Faithful willingly acknowledge to be so yet it shall not be fully accomplished 'till Christ comes in the Clouds, and all appear before Him; when, will they, nill they; they shall be forced to acknowledge him the Judge: And be­cause none can be the universal Judge of the World, save He which is essentially God, therefore Paul aptly cites that Text out of Isaiah. to prove that the Glory of the God-head belongs to Christ; to whom all must give an Account, and all Knees must bow.’ Whether this is any Proof of an Institution for baptized Christians publickly owning the Covenant in order to their partaking of the Lord's Supper, the Reader must judge.

It appears to me a plain Demonstration, that Deut. 6. 13. was no such Institution, nor ever intended for any such, and that the other Texts alledged to support that Notion never mean any such Thing: For if it were so, then every Israelite must personally and publickly have owned the Covenant in order to his partaking of the Passover; whereas it is certain that every Israelite was ante­cedently bound by the Covenant, and divine Institution, to partake of the Passover. Every Man that was circumcised was to eat the Passover. Exod. 12. 44. ad finem. Numb. 9. 13. The Man that is clean, and is not in a Journey, and forbeareth to eat the Passover, even the same Soul shall be out off from his People. Now the 10 th ℣. tells us the Uncleanness which hindred a Man from this, was his touch­ing a dead Body; not the want of publick owning the Covenant.— [Page 20] Mr. Edwards owns ‘that he can't be certain when and after what Manner the Israelites ordinarily performed this explicit owning the Covenant.’ Pa. 28. Covenanting explicitly with God, was first done (as he says) at the first Promulgation of the Covenant at Mount Sinai. And when that Generation was dead, about forty Years after, it was done by the new Generation on the Plains of Moab, just before their entring into Canaan.—It was done in Josiah's Time after that gene­ral and dreadful Defection to Idolatry which the Jews had been guilty of, in that great Reformation which they then set about. 2 Kin. 23. 3. And it was done after the Return of the Captivity from Babylon at the Feast of Tabernacles, Neh. 8. 9, 10.—Now from this publick Covenanting with God by the whole Body of that People, upon four extraordinary Occasions during the whole Time of the Continuance of that Church; such Occasions as that People never had the like; the only Times we have any Account of an open explicit Covenanting with God: It appears likely to Mr. Ed­wards ‘that it was done every seventh Year at the Feast of Taber­nacles when the Law was [...]read, at least by all them who heard the Law read the first Time, and had never publickly owned the Covenant of God before.’—And I see not why he might not with as good Reason have supposed it was done in the Year of Jubilee, or every Year on the Day of Atonement, or any other Occasion which he thought convenient.—It is a strong Supposition, but it has the Unhappiness to want Proof.—Since this is the Case in Fact, that we have but four Instances of any explicit Covenanting with God by the Jews, and those upon the most extra­ordinary Occasions that ever were in the State, and by the whole Body of the People together; and no Direction in the Bible at what Time, nor in what Manner any personal explicit Covenanting should be performed; nor no Account that it was ever done by one single Person in the jewish Church; it appears a Demonstration that that People knew nothing of any such Institution; as I suppose the Christian Church never did 'till Mr. Edwards discovered it.—But ‘he thinks there are good Evidences that they never had Commu­nion with God in those Ordinances wherein themselves were to be active, such as their Sacrifices &c. 'till they had done this; and that they did it before they partook of the Passover,’ Pag. 28. for which he produces, Psal. 50. 16. taken with the preceeding Part from ℣. 5. 2 Chron. 30. 8. Ezra 10. 19. The 5th ℣. of that 50th [Page 21] Psalm is, Gather my Saints unto me, those that have made a Covenant with me by Sacrifice. So far as these Words relate to the Jews, the best Commentators I have met with, understand them of the People of Israel, who were Saints by Calling and Profession, as a Body ta­ken into Covenant with God, which was done by Sacrifice, Exod. 24. 8. they were denominated Saints, by being in Covenant with God, which Covenant was entred into by Sacrifice; Korathi Be­rithi Guali Tzaboth; who have struck a Covenant with me, in Al­lusion to the cutting the Sacrifice in two Parts, as Gen. 15. 10. one Party to have one, and the other, the other; so this Covenant was struck over, or upon the Sacrifice; not entred into without, or in order to the offering of the Sacrifice.—There is no doubt they who were wilful and obstinate Sinners dealt deceitfully and salsly, when they pretended to Covenant with God. But how this has any Re­lation to owning the Covenant publickly in order to offer Sacrifice, is hard to comprehend.—As to the Words of Hezekiah, 2 Chron. 30. 8. when he called the Israelites to the Passover, bidding them yield or give the Hand to the Lord; and in Ezra, they gave the Hand to put away the Wives: which he thinks to be an Hebrew Phrase for en­tring into Covenant: it carries its own Confutation with it: for could Hezekiah call these People to enter into Covenant with God in or­der to eat the Passover when they had been in Covenant with him all their Days, and were bound upon the Peril of their Lives to eat the Passover? Giving the Hand is an Hebrew Phrase used to express Submission to God, or any Submission in general; to signify Friend­ship, Reconciliation, & Good-Will. 2 Kin. 10. 15. 'Tis sometimes used as a Token of a Covenant agreed upon, as Ezek. 17. 18. And it signifies Consent, in the Text quoted Ezra 10. 19. Babylon, when she surrendred, is said to give her Hand, Jer. 50. 15.—Mr. Edwards's own Supposition must destroy his Argument: For if the Israelites were personally, explicitly and publickly to own the Covenant in order to have Communion with God in the Sacrifices they were to be act­ive in, and so in order to eat the Passover; and this owning the Co­venant was to be every seventh Year; then all who in that seven Years had not owned the Covenant in that Manner, must inevitably perish. For if they did not eat the Passover every Year, they must be cut off. And besides, upon the Return of this seventh Year, if they were not Regenerate, they could not upon Mr. Edwards Prin­ciples own the Covenant without wilful Lying; and yet nevertheless [Page 22] were by Institution bound to do it; and at the Same Time by ex­press Law of God bound to eat the [...] every Year. whether they were regenerated, or had owned the [...] not. 'Tis very unhappy that this good Gentleman should aft [...] Scripture in such a Manner to prove a divine Institution which [...] Ex­istence, and, after all that is said is but [...] nation and Chimera.

It being evident there never was any such [...] Institution for the Church under the old Testament [...] Persons publickly and explicitly to own the [...] to their en­joying the outward Ordinances of it, and consequently that no such Thing is appointed in the old Testament for baptized Christians under the New; therefore Mr. Edwards's Consequence and all his Reasonings from that Supposition, are built upon the Sand: and I might fairly pass them over as having nothing to do in this Controversy;—Yet I would not willingly omit any Thing which looks like an Argument, whether it follows from any Principle supposed or not; being willing, as Mr. Edwards desires, to encounter every Argument. I shall therefore, as well as I can, consider the true Force of what is Argumentative in the next twelve Pages.—If I can comprehend it, the whole Force of the Argument lies in this Compass: ‘That in the Covenant of Grace, the one only Co­venant which God enters into with Man, he offers himself to be their God thro' Jesus Christ; or avouches, and takes them to be his People upon the Terms of the Gospel: On Man's Part, there is a Consent to that Proposal, an avouching the Lord to be their God, to walk in his Ways, to keep his Statutes, his Command­ments, and his Judgments, according to Deut. 26. 17, 18. i. e. Faith and Repentance. Now to profess to consent to this Cove­nant without Faith & Repentance, is false, and no Covenanting with God at all.’—These Words don't he together in any one Place, nor are in this Shape propounded as the Argument, but so far as I can understand the Discourse, there, these contain the Sub­stance, and whole Force of the Argument.

I have no Controversy with Mr. Edwards about the O [...]eness of the Covenant of Grace, nor about the Terms of it, either on God's Part, or Man's. Faith & Repentance, are the Conditions to be fulfil'd on Man's Part; and unless those be fulfil'd, he can't by Pro­mise claim any saving & eternal Blessings.—But Mr. Edwards takes [Page 23] Notice. Pag.30. of the [...] between the internal and external Covenant. I suppose, as he does, that the Divines who make this Distinction, don't imagine that there are two Covenants, but that there are two Ways that this [...] Covenant of Grace is exhibited: one externally and the other internally. This Distinction God himself has made and observed ever since he has treated with Man in the Way at a Covenant of Grace. Tho' these are not two distinct Covenants of Grace, yet they are properly two distinct Ways of the Exhibition [...] of the Covenant of Grace. Dr. [...] expresses it in these Words: ‘There is a two fold Covenant: a sin­gle Covenant which God makes with his Children when they are baptized, which is this: If you believe, repent, and walk in my Ways, you shall be saved. Now if they break this Covenant. God is freed. And there is a double Covenant to perform both Parts, which is this: if ye will repent and believe, ye shall be saved; and I will give you an Heart to repent, believe and be saved.’ Pa [...]s says. ‘To be in Covenant is taken two Ways, either according to Title to the Covenant, at to the Benefits of the Covenant. He is said to be in Covenant, who either obtains the Benefits of the Covenant, which are Remission of Sins, Adoption &c. or else that hath the Title and outward Budge of the Cove­nant: All that externally make Profession of the Covenant en­gage themselves upon God's Teams that they will repent & be­lieve: And Remission of Sins Justification. Adoption &c. which belong only to the Elect. Regenerate are promised to them up­on these Terms.’

The external Exhibition of the Covenant is all that is visible in this World, and this is the Way of God's [...] with his People. Such as make that Profession & Engagement, are really in that one Covenant of Grace in the [...] and outward Dispensation of it.—

This appears,

Because God so [...] in the People of the Jews. The same Covenant of Grace God entered into with them as with Christians; there is but one. Deut. [...]. Hear O [...] & Judg­ments, which I spea [...] in your Ears this Day that ye they learn them, and keep them, and do them. The Lord our God made a Covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this Covenant with our Fathers, but with Us, even with Us, who are all of us alive this Day. Deut. 29. 10, 11, 12,— 16. Ye stand this Day all of you before the Lord your

[Page 24] [...]

This appears from the very Nature of Covenanting in the proper Sense of it.—God is pleased in Scripture to call his Promise

[Page 25] His Covenant; his [...] his Covenant; his [...] his Covenant. These seem to be so called in a figurative & improper Sense. But the strict & proper Nature of a Covenant, is the Stipulation of two Parties to the Performance of Articles upon Condition, or entring into a Compact upon Agreement on Terms & Propositions. Mr. Edwards himself says, Pag. 38. ‘The very Notion of entring into Covenant with any Being, is entring into a mutual Agreement of doing, or engaging that which it done, the other Party becomes engaged on his Part.’

The New Testament, as Mr. Blake defines it, is ‘a gracious Cove­nant of God with fallen Man, whereby he engages Himself, upon Faith in Christ, and Repentance for Sin, or return to God, and sincere Obedience; to confer on Man Remission of Sins, and all whatsoever tends to everlasting Happiness. Now what can Man's [...] be; but that [...] will believe & return to God?’ What else can answer, or be a Counter part to the Stipulation which God propounds to him.—If we look to the Marriage Covenant, to which Mr. Edwards observes, the Covenant of Grace is most fre­quently compared; in this the Bride does not profess that she has taken the Man for her Husband, that she has been enjoy'd by him, or brought forth the Fruit of her Body to him; that she has forsa­ken all others, and cleaved to him all her Days; but that she will perform all this from this Time forth. She does not profess that she has performed the Articles of the Marriage-Covenant, but that she will perform them from thenceforth to the End of her Life.—Mr. Edwards says, Pag. 32. ‘For Persons meerly to promise that they will believe in Christ, this is not to own the Covenant of Grace: such Persons don't profess to enter now into the Covenant of Grace with Christ; all they do is to speak fair &c.’ Indeed with what he has put in, viz. ‘that they don't pretend at present to any other than to continue in Rebellion against God; and that they know they are under the reigning Power of Enmity against God &c. the like:’ It must be confess'd, if Per [...]ns so pretend to believe and repent, they are guilty of the most horrid Faithood or Prevarication.—But this is by no Means necessarily included in the Profession which unregenerate Men make. This was never in­cluded, nor understood in the Profession which the Israelites made; but that they would immediately & from thenceforth comply with [...] Terms of the Covenant; and by the Help of God offered in it, [Page 26] would fulfil it. I am sure, this was what they profess'd; and I am sure, that God declared he took them into Covenant with him; and that they did enter into Covenant with him.—In the Case of the Woman marrying, which is again mentioned, Pag. 32. no Doubt, but she Professes now to accept this Man as her Husband; but suppose she does not in her Heart renounce all o­thers, and secretly proves false; yet I suppose she is married, and in Covenant with her Husband.—As to the primitive Converts mention'd, Pag. 33. we may have Occasion to consider their Ad­mission afterwards.—Altho' I think Mr. Edwards's own Definition of a Covenant overthrows his Scheme; he thinks it militates against that which he opposes; ‘because he says, in this Covenant, God obliges himself to nothing in us that is exclusive of saving Faith, and the spiritual Duties that attend it.’—His own Definition a­grees only to the external Covenant, or outward Dispensation of the Covenant; and yet his arguing goes off from it in this View, and considers it only internally. In this Dispensation of it, as was ob­served before, God engages to perform the whole. Jer. 31. 33. This shall be the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel after those Days, faith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward Parts, and write it in their Hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my People. In order to the Accomplishment of this, God is pleased externally to propound the Covenant, and give the Call and Offer of it to Men. This outward Dispensation is all that Men have out­wardly to do with it. And as the Covenant propounds Salvation to Men upon the Terms or Conditions of Faith & Repentance, the Restipulation of Man in Answer to this Call is, I will believe and repent in the Sense of the Covenant: Not only I will endeavour, and pray for Help, and the like, but by the Help of God offered in the Covenant, I will comply, & fulfil the Part propounded to me. ‘But Mr. Edwards thinks it impossible for an unsanctified Man to enter into a Covenant with God; and that he must make a lying Promise if he engages, because he has no gracious Sincerity.’—What is this, but to say, 'tis impossible he should enter into Cove­nant with God before he has fulfilled the Covenant, and impossible it should be true which God tells us; that the Israelites did enter into Covenant with him, when yet he had not given them an Heart to perceive &c. His Mind is here evidently turned off from the exter­nal Covenant, and his own Definition or Description of a Covenant, to the internal Covenant.—He will forgive the Repetition, if I set [Page 27] his own Words again in View: ‘The very Notion of entring into a Covenant with any Being, is a mutual Agreement, doing or en­gaging that which if done, the other Party becomes engaged on his Part.’ The Covenant God propounds to Man is believe, re­pent, and thou shalt be saved. ‘No unsanctified Man, he says, can enter into this Covenant, because he don't believe & repent.’ But surely if he engages to believe and repent, he engages to do that which if done, God becomes engaged on his Part. Here is a mu­tual Agreement on Covenant Terms, and an Engagement to do that which if done, God is obliged by his Covenant, to bestow Life upon him. Here is a Proposal of Articles or Terms on the Part of God, and a Restipulation on the Part of Man to whom the Proposal is made, exactly answerable to the Terms propounded.—But the Rev. Author says; a natural Man deceives himself if he thinks he is truly willing to perform external Obedience &c. therefore surely he deceives himself if he thinks he is truly willing to believe & repent. He says, ‘he can't promise these Things without great Deceit or pal­pable Absurdity; for promising supposes the Person to be cons­cious to himself, or perswaded that he has such an Heart &c.’—If the Man don't think he is willing to do this at the same Time that he says he is, if it be not the read, earnest Purpose and Design of his Heart, so far: as he knows himself, doubtless he makes a ly­ing Promise, and is guilty of wicked Prevarication. But supposing he believes he is really willing, and earnestly desirous to do this, and it be only moral Sincerity, and not a gracious Willing (which Mr. Edwards says there is no Room for any Distinction between, and I don't remark upon now, because 'tis so often repeated, & I shall take Notice of it elsewhere) suppose this is the Case, yet there is an In­tention, a real, earnest, hearty Desire, and Design: therefore the Man speaks true, for in the very Notion, & Nature of a Lie, is im­plied a Will, and Intent to deceive.—But still there is a Difficulty how he can promise this, ‘when no natural Man has Strength to go thro' with it, nor is God obliged to give him Strength.’ I pray that it may be thoroughly considered, what is propounded in the Covenant of Grace, and on what Stock a Man is to finish. Mr. Edwards, I doubt not, will own, that if a godly Man promises in his own Strength to persevere, or do any Duty of the Covenant, he is deceived, and guilty of great Presumption. He has nothing to trust to but the Promise and Help of God.—But this Promise and [Page 28] unsanctified Man has not.—However Mr. Edwards owns, ‘that every natural Man that lives under the Gospel is obliged to com­ply with the Terms of the Covenant of Grace.’ I suppose he means that he is this Moment obliged to do it.—I think all Divines are agreed that there is some Kind of Promise implied even in a Com­mand; an indefinite one, which contains, great Encouragement, that God will help him, if he sets himself, with all the Power he has to comply with that Command. I believe also they are agreed, that in the outward Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, there is a Promise that those who are under it, if they do as earnestly as they can endeavour to comply with the Terms of it, shall not want the outward Means necessary to their Salvation. There is certainly more Encouragement than any have who are not under it, that God will send his Spirit to help them thro' the Work & Trials he calls them to Deut 4 7. For what Nation is there so great, who hath God so [...]igh unto them, as the Lord our God is in ALL THINGS that we call upon him for. Now since God calls the Man this Moment to enter into Covenant with him, commands him to do it, and sets so much Encouragement before him, surely he is bound to answer this Call, & obey this Command; and therefore he is bound to do it as far as he can: for no Man is called or commanded by God to do any Thing, who is not by that Call or Command, bound to e­very Thing he can to comply with that Command. Therefore he must be certainly bound to lay himself under the strongest Engage­ments, and put himself under the greatest Advantages he can to do it. Mr. Edwards owns his promising & engaging to do it, increases his Obligation. And as 'tis certain from God's Word it puts him under more Encouragement of Help to get thro' with it: the increa­sing his Obligation, and being under greater Encouragement, and therefore greater Advantages, are proper Means to his doing the Thing commanded. God never commands a Man to do a Thing but he requires him to use all the Means which are necessary & pro­per to the doing it. Tho' there be no Promise of saving Good ex­clusive of Faith, yet there being a Command & Encouragement, there are suitable Springs of his Endeavour, and Hope, in his en­gaging himself to God, and casting himself upon his Mercy, with all the Earnestness and Sincerity he can. God never will be worse than his Encouragement, nor do less than he has encouraged; and he has said, to [...] that hath shall be given. To do this, is to bring [Page 29] the Man into the external Covenant. It is an entring into Cove­nant with God upon the Terms propounded in the outward Dispen­sation of the Gospel, and no lying Promise; which Mr. Edwards endeavours further to shew it is by bringing Psal. 50. 16. as a great Confirmation of what he says against unconverted Men's Covenanting with God, Pag. 38. to 41. And to obviate an Ob­jection which he foresaw would arise from ℣. 17, 18, 19, 20. where these wicked Men are described by hating God's Instructions, and cast­ing his Words behind their Backs, being Thieves, Liars, Adulterers, Slanderers; he takes much Pains to shew that the Scripture knows but of two Sorts of Men, the Righteous, and the Wicked, Saints and [...], and [...]; that all graceless Men, are in Scripture called wicked Men; and that all unregenerate Men shall be shut out of Heaven.—We believe that all unsanctified Men will be shut out of Heaven, and that the Searcher of Hearts now perfectly knows who they be, and at the Day of Judgment will discover them to the World: But we know that the Church at present know not who they be, nor does God allow them in their publick Judgment or open Carriage, to treat any Professor of the Gospel of Christ as wicked Men, save those who by their apparent wicked Lives discover them­selves to be so.—To what Purpose then can be the Observation, Pa. 39. ‘that 'tis a common Thing in Scripture in the Description of Men both godly & ungodly, to insert into their Character some ex­cellent Practises of the one which Grace tends to; and some gross Sins of the other, which there is a Foundation for in the reigning Corruption of their Hearts.’—Will this serve for a Proof that when Men are godly, there do always appear to the Church such excellent Practises as do necessarily spring from a gracious Princi­ple in them, by which that gracious Principle may be certainly known; or that when a Man is ungodly, the Church may always see such gross Sins in his Life, as there is a Foundation for in the reigning Corruption of his Heart; and so determine that he is a Hypocrite, or his Profession a Lie? Is it don't prove this, it proves nothing that I can see to Mr. Edwards's Purpose; and the Church will not from hence be helped in the Rule of admitting Men into Covenant.—If the Church know that a Ma [...] is a Thief, a Liar, a Slanderer, an Adulterer, I readily yield, they ought not to admit him, or if such a Man be in the Church, without apparent Repen­tance, they ought to cast him out.—And Christ acting as King of [Page 30] the visible Church, lets his People know that they are to judge of the Wickedness of Professors only by their gross, and open or known Practises; and that these only keep, or throw them out of the ex­ternal Covenant: But he himself, when he comes to final Judgment (of which he is speaking in this Psalm) will deal with them accord­ing to what they really are; and not according to their visible ex­ternal Relation to him. And here is no Colour to suppose he blames them for entring into Covenant with him, but for their Hy­pocrisy and Falshood in the Covenant, and not fulfilling it. What had they to do, or with what Face could they pretend to take his Covenant into their Mouths, or declare his Statutes, when they al­lowed themselves in those very Sins which they Covenanted against, and knew those Statutes condemned; and hated the Instructions of them. Their own Consciences condemned them and Christ had let them know that when he comes to Judgment, he will condemn them. In this Way I think the current of Commentators explain the Passage.—And it is to as little Purpose to prove, that no unsanctified Persons may, or can come into Covenant with God, as it is to prove that the Church may admit none such; unless we draw the Conse­quence in Mr. Edwards's own Words, Pag. 4. ‘Therefore I think it follows that they who know it is thus with them; have nothing to do to take God's Covenant into their Mouths; or in other Words, have no Warrant to do this, until it be otherwise with them.’

If a Man knows and feels a relgning Enmity in his Heart against God; if he knows he has no Desire of Salvation by Christ; that he has no Design to fulfil the Terms of the Covenant of Grace, but designs to live in Stealing, Lying, Adultery, Slander, or any other known Sin; I believe there is not a Divine in this Country, who doubts, but if that Man at the same time enters into visible Cove­nant with God, or seals that Covenant, he is an abominable Liar, and acts in a most Presumptuous Manner. And if the Church knows it to be so with him, they ought by no Means to allow him so to profane the Covenant, & the Name of God.—But is it not ma­nifest that such Sort of Reasoning is a meer quibling with Words, and begging the Question? Is it not taking it for granted that there is no such Thing as moral Sincerity, in Distinction from that which is gracious? that no unsanctified Man can have a real, hearty Convicti­on of his Judgment, and Conscience of the Truth of the Gospel? that no such Man can be convinc'd that he is undone without Christ, [Page 31] nor be earnestly concerned to obtain Salvation by him? that no such Man can do the utmost he can, to obtain it, and to come up to, and fulfil the Terms propounded in the Covenant? but that he certainly lies, that he knows he lies, and designedly lies in all these Things when he says them? and that the Church must con­clude so of every Man, unless they have some other Way to know he is converted, than what they can have by his declaring these Things? If there is any Force in Mr. Edwards Reasoning as he does; I think these Things, must be taken for granted. Whereas these Suppositions are absolutely false, & contrary to the Scripture &to common Sense.—And to suppose that this Passage of Scripture, or the many others which this Reverend Author has alledged, are designed to shew, that all the unsanctified Men in the jewish Church are by the blessed God charged with Lying, when they pretended to enter into Co­venant with God, or that these Scriptures do shew they did not enter into Covenant with God; but only lied, & deceived themselves, is such a Gloss upon the Scripture, as is not only contrary to the cur­rent of Commentators, but appears to be an evident Misunderstand­ing and Misapplication of Scripture; because God himself in many Places most expresly tells us, they did enter into Covenant with him; that he did call them to it; and did in Fact take them into Cove­nant with him.—All such Glosses do contradict a Fact as notorious as the Exit of the Children of Israel out of Egypt, and as plainly at­tested in Scripture as any Fact there spoken of, unless we need ex­cept the Creation of the World, and the Death and Resurrection of Christ.—And certainly we know that 'tis impossible any Gloss should be right, which makes the holy Scripture in such a Manner militate with, and contradict it self.

Mr. Edwards propounds his third Argument, Pag. 41. in these Words, ‘The Nature of Things seems to afford no great Rea­son why the People of Christ should not openly profess a proper Respect to him in their Hearts, as well as a true Notion of him in their Heads, or a right Opinion of him in their Judgments.’—In this loose Way of arguing, I know of no Body who has any Controversy with him. Those who do not think sanctifying Grace to be necessary to a lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper, I sup­pose never imagine that orthodoxy in Profession is all that is ne­cessary to, or implied in a Person's Covenanting with God; but there is always implied in it a professed Subjection to Christ, and giving up themselves to be taught, ruled, & led by him in the Gospel­way [Page 32] to Salvation.—If any Thing be intended in this Argument re­lating to the Question in Debate, I conceive it must be this: That the Nature of external Covenanting with God, and the Design of Christ's having a visible Church, require that the Persons who con­stitute it, make a Profession of Regeneration.

Mr. Edwards mentions but one End of this Profession, which is, the giving Honour to God: The Force of his arguing I think lies in this; that unless the Profession of Religion be such as necessarily to imply a Profession of sanctifying Grace, it is only a Profession of right speculative Notions of God; and that it don't imply at most, any more than a Profession of Luke warmness, as he speaks, Pa. 43. yet Pag. 41, 42. he calls it a Manifestation of their doctrinal Knowledge, and the Assent of their Judgments. A Profession of the Religion of Christ in the Opinion of Mr. Stoddard, and those who think with him, implies in it such a Profession as make Men visible Saints; therefore in the Nature of the Thing, it can't be only an orthodox Profession of the Doctrine of the Gospel, but also a professed Con­viction of the divine Truth of it, and that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour, and the Terms of the Covenant of Grace, propounded in the Gospel, are the only Terms of Salvation; therefore that they do renounce all other Ways, fall in with that, and engage to seek, and look for their Salvation in no other. This Declaration in the Nature of the Thing imports, that their Judgments are convinced of this; that they see such Evidence of these Truths, that they can't with-hold their Assent from them.—And God has by the Law of Na­ture, and the Gospel of Christ, taught them, that the Salvation of their, Souls ought to be the great Concern of their Lives; they find such a Concern about securing this Salvation, as upon the forego­ing Conviction to put themselves with all the Earnestness and Soli­citude they can into the Way of the Gospel Covenant, and engage to comply with the Terms of it, as the only Way of Salvation. This we apprehend is necessarily implied in the Profession of the Christian Religion. But all this may be from the common Illu­mination of the Spirit of God; with the Use of Reason, & moral Arguments. But the Church knows not (nor perhaps the Man who makes it) whether it be not from gracious and special Illumi­nation. And if the Man himself professes that it is so, the Church knows not but he is mistaken, or an Hypocrite. The Things he professes and engages, contain in them the Matter of real Godliness; [Page 33] the Difference lies in the different Kind of Illumination, or Testi­mony, upon which rises his Evidence, or the difference of the Prin­ciple from whence his Engagement proceeds; of which the Church's Evidence is the Influence, & Efficacy of it in the Person's Life: but the Profession in its self, and as visible, is equally honourable to Christ.

Pag. 42. Mr. Edwards expresses himself at a Loss how that ‘Vi­sibility of Saintship, which the honoured Author of the Appeal to the Learned, supposes to be all that is required in order to Ad­mission to the Lord's Supper, can be much to God's Honour, viz. Such a Visibility as leaves Room to believe that the greater Part of those who have it, are Enemies to God in their Hearts, and inwardly the Servants of Sin.’ He has once before Pag. 11. represented Mr. Stoddard's Opinion in this Light.—'Tis a Piece of Justice due to the Truth, and to the Name of that venerable Man, to enquire fairly into this Matter.—The Words of that honoured Author are these: ‘Indeed by the Rule that God has given for Admissions, if it be carefully attended, more unconverted Men will be admitted than converted.’ He cites the venerable Mr. Cotton, who was on the other Side of the Question; who speaks in these Words: ‘Let Ministers use as much Diligence & Vigilance as well they may, yet such is the Dimness of discerning in hu­man Frailty, and such is the Subtlety of many Hypocrites, that it may be ninety nine Hypocrites may creep into the Church, to one single Sheep of Christ.’ And further he notes, that the same Mr. Cotton preached as Boston, "that it would be well, if ten Men in a Church were saved." Pag. 16, of the Appeal. Now the plain Fact appears to be this: Mr. Stoddard is there answering this Ar­ment of Dr. Mather's, viz. ‘Unsanctified Persons are not fit to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, because they are not duly quali­ed to be Members of particular Gospel Churches.’ He allows, that by the Rule that God has given for Admissions, if it be care­fully attended, more unconverted Persons will be admitted than converted; and to prove that this would be the Case, even upon Dr. Mather's Principles, and if what he thought was the Rule were carefully attended; he quotes these Passages of Mr. Cotton, a Gentleman of the same Principles, as Argumentum ad hominem. This I think every Reader who examines that Matter, will see to be the plain State of that Case. Now whether Mr. Edwards has done [Page 34] Honour or Justice to Mr. Stoddard, or the Truth, in the Represen­tation he has once and again made of this Passage. I leave the Rea­der to judge.

Mr. Stoddard does not say, that when the Rule which God has given for Admissions is carefully attended it leaves Reason to be­lieve, that the greater Part of those who are admitted, are [...] to God &c. Whether Mr. Edwards intended it by so representing the Matter or not; yet this seems to imply that according to Mr. Stoddard's Principles, the visible Church, judging upon the visible Appearance of Things, must reasonably judge this of the most that are admitted; whereas he intended no such Thing. He says, ‘they must be visible Saints who are admitted: They must be such Persons as God himself did admit into the Church of Israel: Such Persons as the Apostles did admit into Gospel Churches; Such as must be admitted,’ or else God will be greatly offended; and whether they be such the Church is to judge by their Profession of the Gospel Doctrines, and giving themselves up to God in Cove­nant.—Now, tho' in Fact many Hypocrites may do thus, and pro­bably many more Hypocrites than real Saints; yet the sole Ground of the publick Judgment of the Church being their outward Pro­fession, Engagement, and Carriage, this don't leave Reason to judge they are Hypocrites, it indeed they are so. The Rule which God has given for Admissions, will admit such as God himself ad­mitted into the Church of Israel, and such as the Apostles admit­ted into Gospel Churches; and yet many of these had not a tho­rough Work of Regeneration; yet God certainly thought it was for his Honour to admit them. It is an Honour to the infinite Pity and Condescention of God, to put peor Sinners under such Advantages, and Engagements for his Glory, and their Salvation: 'Tis an Honour to God, that Men openly declare their Conviction of the Truth of his Word: And as the Multitude of the Subjects is the King's Honour, Prov. 14. 28. So the old Testament Prophecies speak often of this Circumstance of the Honour of Christ in the Gos­pel Church. The Multitude of his visible Subjects, if they carry out­wardly according to their Profession, spreads his Fame and Glory, and commends him to the Consideration of those that are out of Covenant; and so do their Lives commend him too,& his Religion. Their secret Hypocrisy, and breach of Covenant, will aggravate their own Wickedness and Condemnation: But so long as it is secret, it is no visible Dishonour to Christ.

[Page 35] Another Design which God has been pleased to tell us of, in ad­mitting Members into his Church, is to put them under Advanta­ges for their Salvation, that they may learn the Way of the Lord. Deut. 4. [...],—10. where 'tis plain, what one End of his taking them into Covenant was that they may [...] fear God all [...] Days they [...]. upon the Ea [...]se, and [...] they may [...] And Chap. 1. 5. 1. and Chap 14. 23. [...] Lord thy God, in the Place which i [...] shall [...] place his Name there, that [...]. fear the Lord thy God always. And Chap. 31. 11. 12. 13. These Things make it evident what Way Christ is con­testing with the Devil to get the Hearts of Men; and may satisfy us that God thought it was a suitable Way to carry on the War which he manages with the Devil; that by the visible Dispensation of the Covenant, and its Ordinances, Men might be put under Advantages to be, thro' divine Grace effectually brought to Christ, and give him the whole Possession of their Hearts.

Mr. Edwards's 4th Argument, Pag. 43. is taken from various Scriptures, as Job. 1. 47. & Isai. 33. 14. and diverse others, set­ting forth those visible Saints, or Professors, who are not truly pious, as Counterfeits, or Hypocrites. From whence he argues, that it must be supposed that when they enter into Covenant with God, they make a Profession of true Piety, whereas according to Mr. Stoddard's Scheme, 'tis insinuated they never make any Pretence to any Thing more than moral, Sincerity, and common Grace. This is a great Misrepresention of the Matter: And so again, when Pa. 45. ‘he speaks of all that which he owns to be moral Sincerity, to be nothing beyond Lukewarmness.’—I am at a Loss to conceive how it will help the Cause of Truth, to represent those who are of Mr. Stoddard's Opinion, as teaching Men, that they may enter into Co­venant with God, with known and allowed [...], and that they have Religion eno' if they make a lukewarm and hypocritical Pro­fession.—Mr. Stoddard rightly supposes all visible Saints who are not truly pious, to be Hypocrites; and the Scripture supposes and calls them so too: But will it therefore follow that all Hypocrites know they are so, or because some Men may lawfully attend the Lord's Supper, who have not sanctifying Grace, will it follow therefore that they may lawfully come to the Sacrament with a lukewarm Spirit, and serve two Masters? Mr. Edwards doubtless knows that such Divines as are of Mr. Stoddard's Opinion do teach, and [Page 36] Mr. Stoddard himself taught Men, that they ought to Covenant with God with their whole Hearts, to give up all their Hearts & Lives to Christ: And being convinced of the Truth of the Gospel, and Necessity of Salvation by Christ, they ought to enter into Covenant with God with all the Strength & Power they have with a [...] De­termination to keep Covenant with God; & in the most [...] and diligent Use of the Ordinances of Salvation, to cast themselves as far as they can upon the Encouragement & Mercy of God for Help. And their making a Profession of this; & so far as we [...] accord­ingly, is a sufficient Reason for their being publickly judged & treated as visible Saints. These are as great Professions of Piety as any we read of, made by Persons in the Old Testament, when God t [...]k them into Covenant; they are as strong Words and Profession as were used by any whom the Apostles admitted into the Christian Church: And since God thought fit to admit such Professions as sufficient to found a publick Judgment of Charity upon concerning the visible Saintship of those whom he admitted; and the A­postles thought them sufficient for the same Purpose: why should any Divine now tell us, that these same Professions don't imply, ‘that there are any Pretences of any real Friendship, that they im­port no Pretence of loving God more, yea not so much as his E­nemies; no Pretence to love God above the World. And all this Profession amounts to nothing more than Lukewarmness?’ All the Reason assigned, is because an unsanctified Man may make them, and they don't necessarily determine that the Person who makes them is godly.—However, they are as good Proofs as they were when the King of the visible Church trusted them in Mo [...]es's Time: They are as good as they were in the Times of the Apostles.

To alledge those Scriptures which Mr. Edwards has quoted. or all of like Sort which are found in the Bible to prove, that Men may not lawfully enter into Covenant with God, upon such a Pro­fession, or that the Church may not lawfully admit them; or that it was against the Mind of God that they should do so in the Times of the Old Testament; is, as has been observed, to use them to disprove as plain a Fact, as that ever the Sun shi [...]'d, or that Israel was the Covenant People of God. That Text Mr. Edwards quotes Isai. 63. 8, 9, 10. appears to me to be a full Answer to himself: He said, surely they are my People, Children that will not lie; so he was their Saviour: in all their Affliction he was afflicted; but they rebel­led, and vexed his holy Spirit. I agree with him, that God speaks [Page 37] this, because in his present external Dealings with his People, he did'nt act as Searcher of Hearts, but as King of the visible Church.—And so he also did, and always does in admitting them into visible Covenant, trusting their Profession. This was not trusting a Pro­fession which necessarily implied they were regenerate, unless they lied: because they never made such a Profession; nor did God re­quire them to make such a Profession; for then he would have re­quired a [...]: But speaking after the Manner of Men, he trusted they would be true to their Vows, and keep Covenant with him, as they promised to do, but did not; and therein he represents himself as deceived by them. They were not stedfast in his Cove­nant, and then Rebellions evidently appeared not to be the Spot of his Children.

Mr. Edwards's fifth Argument is propounded Pa. 45, 46. in this Manner: ‘The eight first Verses of the 56th Chapter of Isaiah, I think afford good Evidence that such Qualifications are requi­site in order to a due coming to the Priviledges of a visible Church State, as I have insisted on.’—Putting in the Words due coming, seem to have made the Argument something more ambiguous than the Terms of the Question.—If by a due coming, we are to under­stand a coming so as to be owned and accepted of God, and inti­tled to the Promises of Salvation, we have no Controversy with him; nor do at all suppose, that any Person can duly come to God, so as to be intitled to everlasting Life, without Faith, &Repentance unfeigned, or without Sanctification. Nor, as was before observed, am I disputing against the Substance of the Question he had laid down in the Terms 'tis proposed; but against it as he has explained it, and the Thing he disputes under the ambiguous Terms of it, which he tells us is Mr. Stoddard's Question, That sanctifying Grace is not necessary in order to the lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper.

If I can comprehend the Argument Mr. Edwards would draw from this Passage of Scripture; it is to this Effect: That seeing this is a Prophecy of the abolishing the ceremonial Law (which kept Eunuchs and Gentiles out from the Ordinances of the Church) by the coming of Christ, by whom the ceremonial Law should be re­moved out of the Way; and it is declared, that the great Qualifi­cation for Acceptance with God in those Days, was Piety of Heart and Practice; therefore Piety of Heart and Practice is necessary in the Time of the Gospel, to the lawful partaking of the Lord's [Page 38] Supper.—This is no more than to say, that in the Time of the Gospel, it is necessary Persons should have true Piety of Heart and Life, in order to God's everlasting Acceptance; and therefore true Piety of Heart and Life, is necessary in order to the lawful partak­ing of the Lord's Supper: Which is no arguing, but only begging the Question.

If he intends by it, that in Opposition to the ceremonial Law, which kept the Gentiles and Eunuchs out of the visible Church, the great Qualification which should be necessary in the Gospel Times, for the Admission of Persons into the visible Church, is in this Pro­phecy declared to be Piety of Heart and Practice. This remains to be proved.

I think the right and plain Way of coming to the true under­standing of this Passage of Scripture is by considering the Antithesis in it, and its Analogy with other Scriptures. It appears, that the Prophet for the Encouragement of Eunuchs and Gentiles, sets forth the Antithesis or Opposition of their State under the Gospel, to their then present State. Now this Antithesis does not lie in the Terms of their everlasting Acceptance with God, or at their Admission into the internal Covenant, which were Faith and Repentance, as much under the Mosaic Dispensation, as under the Christian. 'Tis certain, that Men's being Eunuchs did not hinder them from Ac­ceptance with God upon the Terms of Faith and Repentance. For Ebedmeleck, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, & Azariah, and others, who were made Eunuchs, were accepted of God upon these Terms; not­withstanding they were shut out from several Parts of the outward Priviledges of the Worship of God, by the ceremonial Law. Nor were the Gentiles shut out from these invisible Blessings if they had these invisible Qualifications, but only shut out from the outward Priviledges of the Covenant, for want of Circumcision: yet if they would submit to that, they were invited to stand on the same Terms as did the Jews, as appears Exod. 12. 48, 49. Therefore when the Prophet here speaks the Promises of God's Acceptance and saving Blessings to the Eunuchs, that keep his Sabbaths, & choose the Things that please him, and take hold on his Covenant. [...]. 4. And to the Gentiles that join themselves to the Lord to serve him, to be his Servants &c. that God will bring them into his holy Mountain, and make them joyful in his House of Prayer, and accept their Burnt-Offer­ings and Sacrifices, &c. [...]. 6, 7. Here is no Antithesis at all be­tween [Page 39] the State of the Gentiles and the Eunuchs in the Christian and [...] Dispensation, for on those Terms they were accepted, and should be as certainly intitled to God's everlasting Favour then, as now.—The only Antithesis between the Representation of their State then, and now, is, that under the Gospel, the ceremonial Law should be taken away, and Eunuchs and Gentiles, should be under far greater outward Advantages for their Salvation, than they were then; because under this Dispensation these ceremonial Pollutions should not at all keep them out of the Church, but they should stand upon equal Terms with the Jews, and those who were admitted to the greatest outward Priviledges in the Church; enjoy equally all the outward Advantages of the Covenant of Grace, and Helps to keep Covenant with God, with as much Ease, and in as great Latitude as they. It appears from the principal Design of the Prophet, that this is the plain genuine Construction of this Passage, and is confirmed by the 8th ℣. The Lord which gathereth the Outcasts of Israel saith, yet will I gather others unto him, besides those who are gathered unto him. Where 'tis declared the Gentiles shall be gathered unto [...] Church of Israel, to be made one Church with them. Or beside Israel, I will gather the Gentiles, who shall be joined to him in the Church; and upon the same Terms; for the ceremonial Law shall then make no Difference; they shall be equally welcome to the Priesthood, from which Eunuchs were ex­cluded by the Law; and to the Gospel Ordinances and Priviledges of the Gospel Passover, from which uncircumcised Gentiles were excluded. So that nothing is spoken here to shew that sanctifying Grace is more necessary to the lawful partaking of the Ordinances of the Gospel, than of the Law.—In this Way Calovius, Forecius, Musculus, and other most learned Commentators carry the Words and Sense of this Passage. And what further confirms it, is, the Analogy of this Sense with other Scriptures in the Old-Testament, and the New; which abundantly assure us, that the visible Church in the Old-Testament and the New, is the same Church of Christ; or that when the Jews rejected Christ, the Gentiles should be taken in in their Stead, call'd by the same Name; the Church or People of God; and stand in the same Relation to him; save only the Burden of the ceremonial Law removed; and Christ known and owned as the Head and Author of the new Dispensation. Gen. 9. 27. God shall enlarge Japhet, and he shall dwell in the Tents of Shem. Shem was in Covenant, Japhet is to come into Covenant in like Man­ner, [Page 40] the Terms the same, save only the ceremonial Law, which Christ took away. Isai. 55. 5. In that Day Israel shall be a third with Egypt, and with Assyria, even a Blessing in the midst of the Land, when the Lord of Hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my People, and Assyria the Wash of my Hands, and Israel mine Inheritance. Here Egypt, Assyria, or the Gentiles, are taken into Covenant in like Man­ner, and stood on like Terms. I omit to mention more, because I shall have Occasion to take Notice of diverse like Passages after­wards.

Page 46. we have the sixth Argument in these Words: ‘The Representations which Christ makes of his visible Church from Time to Time in his Discourses and Parables, make the Thing manifest which I have laid down.’—To shew this, Mr. Edwards first alledges Matth. 7. and some other Places, representing the final Issue of Things with Respect to the different Sorts of Mem­bers of the visible Church. Pag. 47. from whence he thinks it is ‘manifest, that all visible Christians or Saints are such as profess a saving Interest in Christ and Relation to him, and live in Hope of being hereafter owned as those that are so interested & related.’ The Reason from whence this Consequence is drawn, is this: ‘The Paragraph in the 7th of Matth. from ℣. 21. ad finem, appears to be a Description of false and insincere Professors and Members of the visible Church, and of those who are faithful, and the issue of their Expectations at the Day of Judgment. False, and insincere Professors are such as only say, or cry, Lord, [...] Christ as their Lord, and professedly own Subjection to him, but are not faithful to that Profession. Not every one, says Christ, that saith Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but only those who beside making a Profession do the Will of God.’—What plain or clear Consequence fol­lows from hence, but this, that 'tis not visibly entring into Cove­nant with God, that will give Men just Ground of Hope of entring into Heaven; for 'tis plain, that many who say, Lord, and enter into Covenant, prove faithless and disobedient; and therefore will be shut out of Heaven, tho' they have made never so high a Pro­fession. Men that rest in an outward Profession, and encourage themselves, that because of their outward Priviledges and visible Relation, to Christ, they shall be safe, without true Faith & sincere Repentance, will be dreadfully disappointed, when the trying Time [Page 41] shall come. By entring into Covenant with God, they became bound to keep Covenant, and fulfil the Terms of the Covenant; to which Engagement they have proved false & perfidious. This is the utmost I conceive, that will fairly follow from the Representation given us in the Passage referred to. And that this is what Christ intends to teach us about this Matter, I think appears evident, for that he don't tell the Men they did not say, Lord, Lord, or that they were not in the Church, or in Covenant; nor does he blame them for eating & drinking. &c. but for not doing the Will of God. He don't fault them for entring into Covenant, but for not keeping Covenant. The Prophecy of [...]. Ch. 8. 2. which Mr. Edwards refers to, appears to me a clear Confutation of his Argument. Israel shall [...] my God, we know thee. The foregoing ℣ says, They have [...] Covenant & trespassed against my Law. If they had [...] God's Covenant, 'tis certain they were in Covenant, else it was impossible they should have transgressed it; but being in Covenant, they cry, My God, we know thee. They might truly say, My God, we know thee, in such a Sense as no other People in the World could, and yet be Hypocrites. Not because they said, they had sanctifying Grace, when they had not; but because they promised and engaged to keep Covenant with God, and yet dealt falsely in his Covenant. This is no more than God himself says of them, Amos. [...]. 2. You only have I known of all the Families of the Earth; therefore I will punish you for all your Iniquities. The parallel Place, Luk. 13. 2 [...]. proves nothing different from the fore­cited Passage, and needs nothing more to be said to it.

Pag. 48. The same Thing, Mr. Edwards says, is manifest by the Parable of the ten Virgins, Math. 25. ‘The two Sorts of Virgins, he says, evidently represent two Sorts of Men in the vi­sible Church. The wise, those who are true Christians, and the foolish, those who are apparent, but not true Christians.’—That there are two such Sorts of Men in the visible Church, Mr. Edwards well knows we allow; and that all that are Members of the visible Church, are Saints by Calling and Profession; and that they are Saints in a Judgment of rational Charity, he knows is yield­ed by us; therefore all his arguing on this Head is needless: And to prove his Question in the Terms he has worded it, is needless. And this is all that his arguing from this Text looks like doing. But he ought to prove it in the Sense he has explained it; and in [Page 42] Opposition to Mr. Stoddard's Question, as he lets us know he de­signs it shall be understood. Now I can't find that his arguing from the Representation given us here of the different State of Church Members, is any Thing to this Purpose. The Virgins are the Members of the visible Church, their Lamps are their Profession of the Doctrine of the Gospel, and their Engagement to subject and give up themselves to Jesus Christ, and seek and look for Salvation only on Gospel Terms: And all their Attendance on Gospel Ordi­nances naturally holds forth, and imports this Obligation on all the Members of the Church; and 'tis from the Nature and Purpose of this Profession, we say the Church is to judge the Members to be wise Virgins, or what they make a Show of; yea we are taught here too, that tho' Fact and Experience has shewn in past Ages, that great Multitudes of Church Members who have Covenanted with God, have proved false & perfidious, and have broken Covenant; and Christ has told us it will be so with the Christian Church; and will so appear when the Searcher of Hearts will come to judge the World, and make manifest the Secrets of Men's Hearts; and we may have secret Reasons to fear this is the Case with many of the visible Church now: Yet as the Rule of judging is the same; so our publick Judgment and outward Carriage, must, according to that Rule, be alike: But that these Virgins made any other Profession that they were regenerate, or that that Profession, or their Experi­ence, is the Rule of the Church's Judgment, I can't find here the Shadow of a Proof.

Towards the close of this Argument, Page 49, Mr. Edwards ‘endeavours to prove, that true Piety is what Persons ought to look at in themselves as a proper Ground for them to proceed up­on in coming into the visible Church of Christ, and taking the Priviledges of its Members.’

It would be ridiculous in any Man to dispute, that true Piety is not what Persons ought to look to as a proper Ground to proceed in coming to the Lord's Supper, or in praying, hearing, or any other Duty of divine Worship. True Piety is what Men ought always to look at, and no Man does any Duty rightly without it. But Mr. Edwards knows the Question he has here to prove is, that a Man may not lawfully come without it.

The Evidence he brings to prove it is, from the Parable of the Marriage which the King made for his Son, Matth. 22. particularly [Page 43] ℣. 11, 12. And when the King came in to see the Guests, he saw there a Man that had not on a wedding Garment; and he said unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding Garment? and he was speechless.

He cites Part of Mr. Stoddard's Answer to Dr. Mather's Argu­ment from this Text: Appeal, Page 4, 5. ‘Here is a Representa­tion of the Day of Judgment, and such Persons as come for Sal­vation without a wedding Garment shall be rejected in that Day. So that here being nothing said about the Lord's Supper, all ar­guing from this Scripture falls to the Ground.’—If we allow Mr. Edwards's Exposition of the Text, it does nothing help his Argument; for himself owns, that Christ's coming to see the Guests, means his com­ing to Judgment: And 'tis then, and not before, he condemns the Man for not having a wedding Garment. We read nothing of his condemning him for coming into the visible Church without sav­ing Grace; for Good and Bad were compelled to come in, ℣. 10. but for being found without, now when he came to Judgment: Shewing us, that all who shall be found without that Garment at that Day, will be condemned. We know that according to the Proverb, Parables don't run upon all Four. We are to attend to the main Scope and Drift of them, which is plainly to shew us, that all of those who have been in the House, or Church, even to a Man, who shall be found without a wedding Garment when Christ comes to Judgment, will be condemned: They will not all continue in his House till he comes to Judgment. What tho' this coming in­to the visible Church upon Christ Invitation sent forth in all Ages, ‘by no Means, as Mr. Edwards says, signifies Men's coming for Salvation after the Day of Grace is at an End, at Christ's ap­pearing in the Clouds of Heaven:’ Yet without Doubt, it sig­nifies that there are Hypocrites in the visible Church, who deceive themselves with vain Expectations of Salvation, tho' they never keep Covenant with God; and that such Hypocrites will come with Expectation of Salvation at that Time: Which is no other than the coming of those who are in the ninth of Matth. represented as coming for Salvation after the Day of Grace is at an End, and the Door is shut, and cry, Lord, Lord; as Mr. Edwards has just been shewing under the same Argument; and even here he says too; ‘As to the Man's being cast out of the King's House when the King comes in to see the Guests, 'tis agreeable to other Repre­sentations [Page 44] made of false Christians being thrust out of God's King­dom at the Day of Judgment.’—'Tis certain, that the Man was brought into the King's House by the King's Servants, who were or­dered to compel him to come in. It is also certain, that he was turned out of the King's House at the Day of Judgment; and it appears from the Parable, that he was not shut out of Heaven when the King came, because he had not true Grace when he entred into the King's House, or the visible Church; for of this there is not one Word said; but because he was found without that wedding Garment, when the King came to Judgment.—As Mr. Humphrey observes, ‘the Lord's very Exclusion of him that came to the Feast manifests, that he must needs be first admitted, and brought in by the Servants. His Sin consisted not in his coming thither, for that the Servants were bid to compel him to by which I con­ceive is meant his Duty, but in his Neglect of putting on the wedding Garment.’

So that I think Mr. Stoddard's Argument might very well have saved Mr. Edwards the Trouble of his Argument from this Text.

The 7th Argument is propounded, Page 52. viz. ‘If we con­sider what took Place in Fact in the Manner and Circumstances of the Admission of Members into the primitive Christian Church, and the Profession they made in order to their Admission, as we have these Things recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, it will fur­ther confirm the Point I have endeavoured to prove.’—

I must for the Sake of some Sorts of Readers again observe, that if the Reverend Author had only meant, it would prove the Point nearly as it stands worded in his Question, ‘that none but visible Saints are to be admitted, or none but such as are in Profession, and in the Eye of the Church's Christian Judgment or a Judg­ment of rational Charity, godly Persons:’ I should readily own the Argument proves this; and this is a Point I don't controvert with him.—But as he has explained it, the Point is, ‘that Christian Grace it self is requisite in the Person who is to come to the Sa­crament, and the Dictates of his Conscience that he has it, the Thing that obliges him, or gives him a Right to offer himself, and a positive Judgment of the Church, founded on some positive Appearance of it, distinguishing his Profession and Engagement from all that is morally sincere, is to be the Ground of the Church's Proceeding in admitting him.’ See Pag. 4, 5. and [Page 45] elsewhere. ‘Or, that sanctifying Grace is necessary to his lawful Attendance on the Sacraments, and a positive Judgment of the Church that he has this, necessary to their admitting him.’ This is what I dispute.

For the Proof of the Point, the first Thing Mr. Edwards pro­poses to be considered, is the Account we have in the 2 d of Acts, of the three Thousand Converts.—Now the Account we have there in the first Part of the Chapter, is, that at the Day of Pentecost, Christ sent the Promise of the Father upon the Disciples, the miraculous Gifts of the Holy Ghost; and then they spake with Tongues to the understanding of all those of all Nations that were present; to the great Amazement of all, to ℣. 12. but when some mocked, and represented them as drunken Men; Peter shews them, that these Gifts of Tongues were not the Effects of Drunkenness, but the Ful­filment of a famous Prophecy, in Jeel 2. which was to receive its Accomplishment in the Days of the Messiah, from whence he un­answerably proves that that Jesus of Nazareth whom they had late­ly crucified was the Messiah, and that God had raised him up from the Dead, as he foretold David he would, in the 16 th Psalm, which he proves must needs be spoken of Christ; as also what is said Psal. 11 [...] 2. From whence he bids them know assuredly, that that same Jesus whom they had crucified is both Lord & Christ: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their Hearts, and said unto Peter &c. Men and Brethren, what shall we do? It appears they were con­vinced that that Jesus whom they had rejected and crucified as an Impostor, was the true Messiah, and the Saviour, whom God had promised to Israel; and therefore in putting him to Death, they had shed innocent Blood, and rejected the Messiah: whereupon con­vinced of their Sin they cry out, What shall we do? To which the Apostle replies. ℣. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the Remission of Sins, and ye shall re­ceive the Gift of the holy Ghost; for the Promise is unto you, and to your Children &c. There is not one Word said about any other Faith but believing that Jesus was the Messiah, and they are called to repent of their Sin in rejecting and crucifying him. Allowing that with suitable Explication, this contains the Doctrine of saving Faith and gracious Repentance to which Remission of Sins is pro­mised; yet where is the Explication? And what Word was said to open the Nature of Faith and Repentance; and shew them the [Page 46] discriminating Marks and Differences of it from an historical Belief, or Conviction of their Judgment of the Truth of these Things, un­less this is supposed to be implied in the 40th ℣. And with many other Words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save your selves from this un­toward Generation; who having rejected the Messiah, and crucified him, resolve to continue in Infidelity?—All that the Text declares is, that the Apostle proved that Jesus was the Messiah, and that the Jews being in Covenant with God, they and their Children had the first offer of Salvation made them by Christ.— ‘It would, says Mr. Blake, have been lost Labour for the Apostle to have press'd those who had crucified Christ as a Blasphemer & Impostor, to receive Baptism in his Name, or hope for Remission of Sins by him, and thro' his Blood; so long as they took themselves to be without Sin in shedding his Blood.—But the Apostle shews, that notwith­standing, they and their Seed were under a Promise of God; and puts them into a Way in Acceptation of Christ in the Gospel­Tender in the present Way of Administration of the Covenant, to be continued his People, still in Covenant, and that they might enjoy it in the former Latitude to them and to their Children, the Promise (of which they were not yet dispossessed of, but stood as a People of God in visible Covenant, and their Children) is here brought as a Motive to embrace the Way which their long expect­ed and desired Messiah had now instituted, by which he would ad­mit all that he should call by the Gospel into Covenant with him.’

'Tis added, then they which gladly received the Word were baptized. Mr. Edwards says, ‘their Profession was of that Repentance for Re­mission of Sins, and that Faith in Christ, which the Apostle had directed them to, in Answer to their Inquiry, What they should do to be saved.’—We don't read that the Apostle said any Thing about Faith, but only their believing that Jesus was the Messiah, and shews them the Necessity of their repenting of their Sin in rejecting and crucifying the Messiah, and of Baptism in the Name of Christ for the Remission of Sins, that they might receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. The Answer therefore can by no Necessity from the Text imply more, than that they were convinced of their Sin in crucifying & rejecting Christ; and now believed him to be the Messiah, and submitted to Baptism instituted by him as a Rite of Admission into his Church, and being continued in Covenant with God, and enjoying the Ordinances of Salvation—And what follows [Page 47] no more proves the Thing in Question than what goes before; un­less it proves, that it was no Matter of Joy that the Messiah was come, nor Occasion of Praise to be continued in Covenant with God, and under all proper Ordinances & Means of Salvation.—Nor does this seem to be any better Proof of the Point in the last Verse, the Lord added to the Church daily such as shall be saved. Mr. Edwards owns [...] was a common Appellation given to all visible Christians; therefore it was not an Appellation appropriated to the Regenerate, in distinction from the Unregenerate; but applied to them only as visible Christians; no more importing that the Church made a positive Judgment that they were regenerate Persons, than the like Appellation given to the whole Church of Israel, Deut. 33. 29. Happy art [...]. O Israel, a People saved by the Lord.

We don't dispute but that the A postles supposed, and believed in Charity, so far as they had any Thing to do to suppose and believe about it, that God had given these Persons saving Repentance, and an Heart purifying Faith. But the Thing is, what was the Ground of this charitable Supposal? Nothing is express'd in the Words which they profess'd, but what the Apostles knew, and we know some unsanctified Men may say, and speak true; and yet the same Profession contains in it, that which if understood in the most fa­vourable Sense is a Profession of true Piety. The Apostles not only supposed, but they knew that Christ had taken it in this Sense as King of the visible Church, and thereby taught them to trust to it so far as no longer to treat such Persons as were converted from Judaism, or Heathenism to Christanity, as Jews or Heathens, but as Christians; and People in Covenant with God: But that in Mr. Edwards Sense they made a positive Judgment they were regenerate, we do not find.—And it appears that they shewed them from Time to Time, that tho' they were in Covenant, yet if they did not keep Covenant by Faith & Repentance, they would miss of Salvation.—We read (Act. 11. 21.) that the Hand of the Lord was with the Preachers of the Gospel to the Grecians at Antioch, and a great Num­ber believed and turned to the Lord; and when Tydings of these Things came to the Church at Jerusalem, they sent Barnabas & Paul to them, who when they had seen the Grace of God were glad; and exhorted them that with Purpose of Heart they would cleave unto the Lord, and much People was added to the Lord. Mr. Edwards supposes divers Things, which I can't find he has any more Reason to suppose, than we have [Page 48] that Paul and Barnabas did instruct these Gentiles Converts in the true Nature of Faith and Repentance, and shewed them that their being Professors, and entring into Covenant with God, would be ut­terly insufficient, if they were not renewed & sanctified by the Holy Ghost; and really did what they had Covenanted to do, and was implied in their Profession. So Act. 13. 43. Many of the Jews and religious Proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who speaking to them, perswaded them to continue in the Grace of God. These, and many such Exhortations to hold fast their Profession, lest they should re­ceive the Grace of God in vain; I think must needs lead us to sup­pose that these included Instructions about the Nature & Terms of the Covenant of Grace, which they must in Sincerity comply with, and fulfil as well as profess, or else they would not be saved; as that they were Exhortations to persevere in Holiness.

Upon Act. 11. 18. & 15. 19. When they heard these Things, they held their Peace, and glorified God, saying, then hath God also granted unto the Gentiles Repentance unto Life;—and put no Difference between us and them, purifying their Hearts by Faith: Mr. Edwards founds a very strong Supposition that ‘the Apostles in his Senses supposed and believed that God had given them saving Repentance, and an Heart purifying Faith.’—The plain Case in both these Texts, as every Reader may see, is; that Peter's going to the Gentiles, and making the offer of the Gospel to them which was the first Time it was done) was a Thing which the jewish Converts had no No­tions of; but supposed that still the Covenant of Grace was to be confined to their Nation; and that it was against the Will of God that the Jews should have any more Communion with the Gentiles, than they had under the former Dispensation.—And that the Gen­tiles should be taken into Covenant with God without the Ceremo­nial Law, and stand upon equal Terms with them, was a Mystery hidden from Ages & Generations; and in many Places of the Gospel spoken of as a Matter of Wonder and Amazement: It was one of the great Stumbling-Blocks to the Nation of the Jews, and an Occasion of their persecuting the Apostles: It was a Matter which needed two Miracles to convince Peter of, as we find Chap. II. and Peter's doing as he did, was the Occasion of the Contention of the Jewish Converts with him. Now when Peter gives them an Ac­count in what Manner God had convinced him, they held their Peace, &c. What is proved by this but that God had taken, and would [Page 49] take the Gentiles into Covenant with him, on the same Terms as the Jews; that the Wall of Partition was broken down, and the want of Compliance with the Ceremonial Law, was no Bar nor Hindrance at all to their Salvation, but they should be as welcome to Salvation by Christ as the Jews; taken into Covenant, in the same Latitude as they; and be saved by Faith without the Law. And if Corne­lius, and his Friends were all really gracious Persons, yet these Pas­sages don't prove it; for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, or his fall­ing on them, we are told, was in the Gift of Tongues, Ch. 10. 48. which Persons might have without sanctifying Grace; nor do these passages prove, that the Apostles and Converts made any more po­sitive Judgment they were sanctified, than they had formerly made of the whole Body of the jewish Church.

In the rest of the 54th and Beginning of the 55th Pages, there are several Things supposed, agreable to Mr. Edwards's Scheme, but since they want Proof, they can't want an Answer.

The next Passage urged in Proof, Pag. 55. is the Story of Phi­lip and the Eunuch, which we have Act. 8.—The Argument is after this Manner: That when the Eunuch desired to be baptized, Philip answers, [...]. 37. If thou believest with all thine Heart thou mayst. Mr. Edwards says, ‘he can't conceive what should move Philip to utter these Words&c. if at the same Time he 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 any such Faith or no.&c.’ I trust the Reader will here again call to Mind that Mr. Stoddard taught, that visible Saintship is necessary to Church Membership: And in order to a Man's being a visible Saint, I suppose no Protestant Divine thinks less is needful than a Declaration either by Words or Actions, or both, that a Person is solemnly separated to God, devoted to his Service, engaged to seek all the Grace of the Covenant in the Way, and only on the Terms of the Gospel-Offer thro' Jesus Christ: and if he is adult, that he does sincerely and with all his Heart believe the Gospel. Now to represent the Matter, as if those of a different Opinion from Mr. Edwards look'd on it as no Matter, whether a Person coming to the Gospel Ordinances had any Grace or no, and that he has no Man­ner of Need to inquire any Thing about his Sincerity, is a Way of treating Men and Questions, that I leave to another Judgment.

In Answer to the Argument, these Things are to be observed,

[Page 50] 1. That it does not seem at all probable, that Philip did here in­quire about the Regeneration or Sanctification of the Eunuch.—The History informs us, that he had gone up from Ethiopia to Jerusalem to worship at the Temple, so that 'tis manifest he was a Proselyte to the jewish Religion, otherwise he could not have been admitted to [...] the Temple. Some think we are not literally to un­derstand [...] Word Eunuch; that it may here signify, as the Word will bear to be rendred, Lord-Chamberlain, or Treasurer; and if so, he was doubtless a compleat Proselyte: And this seems to be evident, because we are told that Peter was the first by whom God did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a People for his Name, Act. 15. 14. And if this Man was a Proselyte to the jewish Religion, he was already in Covenant with God; but if he was an Eunuch in the strict Sense of the Word, and so by Reason of the Ceremonial Law could not be admitted to all the Worship of the Jews; yet Com­mentators suppose Eunuchs were owned as Members of the jewish Church, when they went so far as the Ceremonial Law would per­mit them; and so [...] was in Covenant with God: and be sure his being an Eunuch [...] not shut him out from the internal Covenant and Grace of God: And both his Profession, and the Pains he took in travelling so many Scores, or Hundreds of Miles to attend the instituted Worship of God, and enjoy Communion with him, as well as the Employment Philip found him in, gave some Reason to think he was a godly Man, and so does the visible Humility he shewed in receiving Philip, a Stranger, so readily to instruct him; and the Desire he shewed to be instructed in the Doctrine of the Scripture: These Things make it look probable that Philip did not inquire to be satis­fy'd about his Regeneration, seeing it appeared he was in Covenant with God, and there was as much Evidence of his Saintship, as was won't to be enquired after in the jewish Church, in order to a Person's Com­munion in the Sacraments.—But if this were not so, yet

2. It seems evident Philip did not enquire to be satisfied of the Eunuch's Experiences in order to make a positive Judgment that his Faith was a saving Faith. If we take the Eunuch's Answer to Philip's Question, to which it was a Reply, and compare them to­gether, they don't from any Necessity in the Nature or Meaning of Words declare any other Faith than 'tis possible for an unregenerate Man to have. They may imply saving Faith, and they may in­clude no more than the clear Conviction of his Judgment, & Cons­cience, [Page 51] and the Assent of his Understanding to that Truth that Je­sus was the Messiah: And as they did not necessarily imply more than this, Philip from thence could make no positive Conclusion of any Thing more from them; therefore his being satisfied with that Answer, implies that his Question designed no more. And this is further evident from the Account we have in the Beginning of this Chapter, that this same Philip went down, and preached the Gospel at Samaria; where we are told, that those who had been bewitched by Simon the Sorcerer, believed Philip's preaching the Things concern­ing the Kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, and were bap­tized; and Simon himself believed also, and was baptized, Ver. 12, 13. Now it seems to be morally certain, that Philip's enquiring of the Eunuch, amounted to no more than his enquiring of Simon, and that he was as easily satisfied in the one Case as the other.

To prove that Philip by the Question he put to the Eunuch, Whe­ther he believed with all his Heart, did intend to get Satisfaction of his Sanctification, so as to make a positive Judgment thereof, and that the Eunuch understood that he must give this Satisfaction, in order to his receiving Baptism; Mr. Edwards has page 55, 56. numbred many Passages of Scripture, where serving God with all the Heart, fearing God with all the Heart, walking before him with all the Heart, and the like, means a gracious Sincerity. From whence he aims to shew, that Philip must needs intend this, when he ask'd the Eunuch, if he believed with all his Heart; and that the Eunuch must needs answer in this Sense.

To come to a fair Determination of this Matter, we ought to con­sider that the Heart, when 'tis spoken of in Scripture with Respect to Men, commonly signifies the Soul, containing it's Faculties of Reason, Understanding, Judgment, Will, and Affections. Some­times all, sometimes one, sometimes the other: As any Man may be satisfied who will consult the Bible himself, or look into Wilson's Christian Dictionary, or Leigh's Critica Sacra; where he will be turned to the Places.—Doing a Thing with the Heart, the whole Heart, or a perfect Heart, do signify the Engagement of a man's Soul, his Reason, his Judgment, his Desires, or Affections, about that Thing concerning which they are spoken. This is a Manner of Speech which is usual among Mankind in our Days; and the Scrip­tures shew us it was a usual Manner of speaking in the Times in which they were written. When a Man is said to do a Thing with [Page 52] all his Heart, or a perfect Heart, it signifies that he is in earnest, sincerely, chearfully set to do it, or in doing it. According to this usual Manner of speaking, God requires Men to [...] him their Hearts, to serve him, to love him with all their Hearts; intending by it such a Sincerity as he will own and accept; which besure is nothing less than a gracious Sincerity; which never can be, unless the whole Soul, and all its Faculties, be engaged for God. This was required in the Covenant, Deut 11. 13 Deut [...] And when God gives the Character of a godly Man from this usual Manner of speaking concerning the Faculties, Desires & Affections of the Heart, he does it as [...] the Knower, or Searcher of Hearts. But how will this any Ways prove that when Men use the Expressions of all the Heart, or the whole Heart, and the like, that it must ne­cessarily be understood in the same Sense, or any otherwise than on a charitable Presumption, that where the Heart, i. e. the Affections, Desires and Purpose of the Soul appear to be engaged, there the Grace of God has taken hold of the Man, and turned his Heart to God. For Men are uncapable to judge in the same Way that God does, as Knowers of other Mens Hearts, & were never trusted to do so. The like Expressions are used not only in common Speech among Men, but in the Scripture, when they signify only the Engage­ment of a Man's Soul, or his Desires and Affections about a Thing, and not a gracious Sincerity. And Mr. Edwards is really mistaken when he supposes, ‘that not so much as one Place can be produced, wherein there is the least Evidence or Appearance of their being used to signify any Thing but a gracious Sincerity:’ for 'tis said 1 Chron. 12. 28. concerning the Thousands of the several Tribes of Israel, that they all came with perfect Heart to make David King: Here is some Appearance that the Words perfect Heart, are used in a Sense that means nothing about a gracious Sincerity. So when the Prin­ces and Congregation contributed for the building of the Temple, it is said 1 Chron. 29. 9. Then the People rejoyced for that they offer­ed willingly, because with perfect Heart, they offered willingly to the Lord. The Expression of a perfect Heart is as strong, as all the Heart, or the whole Heart. And Yet I suppose few think that all these Peo­ple had a gracious Sincerity, or that these Words were ever design­ed to testify any such Thing to us; but that according to the usual Way of speaking, they were hearty and engaged in this Business, they did it chearfully, and without known Guile or Deceit. I con­ceive [Page 53] that these Expressions are spoken after the Manner of Men; and when God is pleased to use them, he uses a Phrase which has been usual among Mankind to signify an Engagement of the Soul, and its Affections and Faculties, about that of which it is spoken, without any known or allowed Guile or Deceit. Tho' God who knows Mens Hearts, and is able to tell when this Sincerity is gra­cious, is pleased to describe their Piety to Him by that Engagement, and Affection of Soul, the visible Appearance of which to us is the lowest Kind of Evidence, because we are not able to distinguish the Actings of this Heartiness when it is human, and proceeds from moral Principles, from that which is gracious in other Men. Whence it appears that the Rule of publick judging is upon such a Profession of the Conviction of the Heart of the Truth of God's Word, and the Engagement of the Soul to obey it without known Guile or De­ceit. And if there can be no real Conviction & Determination of a Man's Judgment and Affections without sanctifying Grace, or if there were no such Distinction known in the Apostles Times, I am satisfied there is no more Occasion for this Dispute; but I think this Distinction is as plain in the Apostles Time as ours, Jam. 3. 2. If any Man sin not in Word, he is a perfect Man. Which some Com­mentators think is as much as to say, if a Man so behave himself, in his Speech and Conversation, as that the Rules of God's Word don't condemn him for an Hypocrite, he is to be judged and treated as sincere.

Another Thing which seems to make Mr. Edwards very positive that Philip must here be demanding such Satisfaction of true Grace in the Eunuch, and that the Eunuch must himself be satisfied that he had it, in order to his receiving Baptism, is; That the Word be­lieving in the New-Testament answers to the Word trust in the Old, and believing with the Heart, is a Word used to signify saving Faith. To which Purpose he quotes Rom. 10 9, 10. and Chap. 8. 17, 18.—Altho' believing sometimes signifies the same as trusting, yet certainly many times it does not. So believing sometimes signifies saving Faith; and the same Word believing is often used for Faith, when it signifies no more than the Assent of the Understanding & Judgment upon moral Evidence, and without a Distinction in the Word, as has been already observed; and appears not only in the Case of Simon, but also Joh. 7. 31. And many of the People believed on him, and said, when Christ cometh will be do more Miracles than these which this Man [Page 54] hath done. Joh. 8. 30. 31. And as he spake these Words many believed on him; then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, if ye continue in my Word, then are ye my Disciples indeed. And Joh. 2. 23, 24. Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover on the Feast-Day, many be­lieved in his Name when they saw the Miracles which he did; but Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all Men.—And 'tis certain, upon such a believing a Man is bound to declare he does believe in the Name of Christ, or make a Profession of the Christian Religion, from Joh. 12. 42, 43. Nevertheless among the chief Rulers also many believed on him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the Synagogue, for they loved the Praise of Men more than the Praise of God. From whence I think appears the inconclusiveness of Mr. Edwards's arguing to prove that Philip inquired of the Eunuch, in order to make a positive Judgment that he was an holy Man, and that the Eunuch's Answer was such as to imply, that he designed, or thought himself bound to give him Sa­tisfaction of this, in order to his receiving Baptism from him. It appears plainly that Philip's Enquiry was, whether he was thro'ly convinced that Jesus was the Messiah; and he plainly answered, that he really, or heartily believed it. This Passage shews us, that the Baptizer ought to be satisfied by a Person's Profession, that he really believes the Gospel, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Saviour: And the Person whose Judgment and Conscience, is clearly convinced of this Truth, is bound to declare it. I hope no Pro­testant Church will admit Persons to the Enjoyment of the Ordinan­ces upon lower Evidence of their Sincerity, than the Eunuch's Profession could give Philip.

Mr. Edwards's 8th Argument, Page 58, is taken from the Man­ner of the Apostles treating and addressing the primitive Churches in their Epistles; upon which he spends more than 14 Pages.

As far as I can find out what he intends as the Topicks & Force of his arguing, I will endeavour to weigh & consider them. I take them to be these.

1. The Apostles in their Epistles 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 the Members of these primitive Churches had this Judg­ment of one another, and of the Members of the visible Church of Christ in general.—

[Page 55] The Thing to be proved from hence is, that the Apostles and primitive Christians not only tho't that these Persons were Christians by Reason of their external Calling, and professed Compliance with that Call, but had formed a positive Jndgment concerning every one of them singly, that they were real Saints.—Which Judgment must be founded upon something beyond and beside their external Calling, and visible Profession to comply with it, and to be separated for God.—And therefore this Judgment must be founded either up­on Revelation, or a personal Acquaintance with their Experiences, or a Presumption that others would not admit them without such Evidence.—For Mr. Edwards knows, and quotes Mr. Stoddard's O­pinion, that none ought to be admitted but what in a Judgment of rational Charity are true Christians. Appeal, Page 2, 3, 10, 28, 33, 67, 73, 93, 94.—The Force of all his arguing from these Topicks lies, as I conceive, in this— ‘That their treating the Churches in the Manner they do in their Epistles would be unaccountable, if the Members of the primitive Churches were not admitted into them under any such Notion of their being really godly Persons, and Heirs of eternal Life, nor with any Respect to such a Cha­racter appearing on them; and that they themselves joined to these Churches without any such Pretence, as having no such Opi­nion of themselves.’ These are his Words, Page 64.— ‘And that the treating them in such a Manner would not be consist­ent with Faithfulness in their Ministry, but the ready Way, and the most direct Course in the World eternally to undo them.’ Page 69, 70. The Reader will judge whether the Manner of Mr. Edwards's treating the Question, and representing the Opinion of Mr. Stoddard and others, in the Words I have quoted above, be not unaccountable; tho' this is neither the first nor the last Time of his treating the Matter in such a Manner: As if Mr. Stoddard and his Adherents, supposed Persons were to be admitted into the Church without any Notion of their being godly, or any Respect to such a Cha­racter appearing on them; and that they themselves are without any such Pretence: When Mr. Stoddard has said the contrary nine Times over in the Appeal; and none of Mr. Edwards's Opposers ever thought of admitting any but visible Saints. But they think God has given and established a certain known Rule by which the publick Judgment is to be made of Mens visible Saintship; and that those who publickly appear to have the Qualifications required by [Page 56] that Rule, are to be publickly treated as visible Saints, and that such ought to enter into Covenant with God, and may lawfully attend his Ordinances, whether they be real Saints or not.—But to the Argument, I answer,

1. This Treatment of the primitive Churches by the Apostles&c. is no more strange nor unaccountable upon Mr. Stoddard's Opinion, than was God's Treatment of the jewish Church. Deut. 7. 6, 7, 8. For then art an holy People unto the Lord [...] God: The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special People unto himself [...] all People that are upon the Face of the Earth: The Lord did not set his Love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in Number than any People; for ye were the fewest of all People; but because the Lord loves you, and because he would keep the Oath which he had sworn unto your Fa­thers. Dan. 8. 24. He shall destroy the holy People. Ch. 12. 7. When he shall have accomplished to [...] the Power of the holy People The whole Body of the Church are called God's [...], and [...] Prophets. 1 Chron. 16. 22. and the same Psal. 105. 1 [...]. [...]. [...] And ye shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests, and an holy Notion. Deut. 33. 3. Yea he loved the People, all [...] Saints are in thy Hand. Psal. 149. 1. The Church is called the Congregation of the Saints. And many other Places to the like Purpose may be observed thro' the Writings of Moses, the [...], and Prophets. May I not now ask Mr. Edwards with as good Reason, as he asks; how unaccoun­table would these Things be, if all these People were not in such a positive Judgment, as he speaks of, real Saints? For what Diffe­rence is there in all the Epithets and Characters he has heaped up from the New-Testament? Diverse of which are Quotations of these and like Passages from the Old-Testament, or References to them, and Applications of them to the New-Testament Church. 'Tis beyond all Dispute, that to [...] beloved of God, to be a Saint, to be an holy Man, to it, [...], & the like, do signify the same Thing in the Old-Testament as the New; and therefore these Questions no more prove the New-Testament Churches to be real Saints, than the Old; nor that the Apostles made any more positive Judgment they were so, than the King of the visible Church or his Ministers did of the Old-Testament Church; nor that they went upon any other Grounds.—It makes it evident, that this Manner of treating Chur­ches and Bodies of Men, and such Expressions used to them, and of them, are to be understood in no other Sense than to signify a [Page 57] fedaeral Holiness; their Covenant Engagement and Separation to be the Lord's; devoted to his Service, and bound to look for his Mercy in the Way of the Covenant. I can conceive nothing else can be manifest by all these Things, of the Judgment of the Apostles and primitive Churches, but that they treated the Christian Church in the same Manner in which God had treated the Jewish Church, as a People who were called to be Saints, who by their solemn Co­venanting with God had given themselves up to him, & were bound to keep Covenant with him, and from thence in their publick Judg­ment and visible Treatment of them, they were bound to suppose they did, until the contrary appeared: They trusted them as God did Israel; I Said, surely they are Children that will not lie, so he was their Saviour.—And what makes it further evident that they treated them in this Manner upon no other Ground is, because they tell us that God had made known to them that great Mystery which had been from Ages & Generations, that the Gentiles were to be received into the Church that the Jews were. Eph. 3. 4, 5, 6. Whereby when ye read ye may understand my Knowledge in the Mystery of Christ, which in other Ages was not made known unto the Sons of Men, as it is now revealed unto his holy Apostles & Prophets by the Spirit, that the Gen­tiles should be FELLOW HEIRS, and of the SAME BODY, and Partakers of the Promise of Christ by the Gospel. That the Gentiles were to be engrafted into the same Olive from whence the Jews were bro­ken off by Unbelief; and that they should in common with the Jews partake of the Root and Fatness of the Olive-Tree, Rom. 11, 17, &c. Which Olive-Tree, is sufficiently proved by Mr. Blake, to be the jewish Church.—And this is still further evident by the Apostle Peter's first Epist. 2. 9. applying to Christians a Passage which is spoken of the jewish Church, Deut. 7. 6. Ye are a chosen Generation, a royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar People, that ye should shew forth the Praises of him who hath called you out of Darkness, into his marvellous Light; which in Time past were not a People, but are now the People of God; which had not obtained Mercy, but now have obtained Mercy. Wherein he shews that Christians were brought into a like Covenant Relation to God, & on like Terms are his holy People; that is, in a Way of Covenant, & on the Terms of Cove­nant keeping, to which they engaged by entring in like Manner in­to Covenant, which Engagement, God as King of the visible Church would trust after the Manner of Men, 'till they appeared to contra­dict it; as he did by the Jews.

[Page 58] 2. It appears from the Accounts of the New-Testament, and the Nature of Things, impossible that the Apostles should make any such positive Judgment of the real Piety of the Generality of Christi­ans in the primitive Church; as is here supposed.

For in the first Place, We have no Account any where in the New­Testament of any Thing else required of any jewish or Heathen Convert to Christianity, in order to his Baptism, or Admission into the Christian Church, but a Profession of his Belief that Jesus was the Christ; or the Saviour by whom alone God offered Salvation to Men; allowing that this may include in it all that is essential to justifying Faith; yet this must be with very considerable Explica­tions, and the adding some very important Words from other Pas­sages of Scripture: And 'tis certain that a Profession in those Words which was won't to be required in order to Baptism, do sometimes import no more than a Conviction of the Understanding, and Assent of the Mind upon moral Evidence. And as the Apostles have no where given us an Account, that in order to the Admission of Per­sons, they spoke only in the first Sense, or determined that the Words must necessarily be understood only in that Sense; therefore there is no Certainty that they did, or that they did design to make a po­sitive Judgment themselves, or that the Persons admitted should un­derstand that their Profession was understood by them only in that Sense.—If it be said, that they propounded Salvation to them on the Condition of Faith, and the Faith to which Salvation was promised, must be saving Faith, yet it can't follow, that they made a positive Judgment that the Profession they did make was a Declaration they had that Kind of Faith, but only that their submitting to Baptism was an Engagement to that Faith, and to the Terms of Salvation. John's Baptism was from Heaven, and as Mr. Edwards owns, in Substance the same as the Christian Baptism. And John did preach the Baptism of Repentance, Mar. 1. 4. The Publicans were baptized with the Baptism of John, Luk. 7. 29. Act. 19. 4, 5. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the Baptism of Repentance, saying unto the People, that they should believe on him that should come after him. When they heard this, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. The Apostles immediately baptized all that made Profession of their Be­lief that Jesus was the Christ; and they give us no Account of any other Evidence which was the Ground of the Judgment they made of their Christianity.

[Page 59] Again, there is no rational Probability that the Apostles ever had any personal, or particular converse with many Thousands that were admitted into the primitive Church, Act. 21. 20. Thou [...] Bro­ther how many Thousands there are which believe. The Greek is [...]. Myriads; How many ten Thousands. And among all the Dispersions of the Gentiles, what Numbers of Thousands were there.—Mr. Edwards observes. Page 65. that the Epistle to the Hebrews was "written to all jewish Christians in the Land of Canaan. The hundredth Part of whom there is little Reason to believe St. Paul had ever seen, or spoken one Word personally with. The Epistles of Peter were written to all Christian Jews thro' Pontus, Galatia, Capa­ [...], Asia, and Bithinia. The Epistle of James was directed to all Christian Jews scattered abroad thro' the whole World. Now can it be imagined that if these Apostles had spent every Day after the Day of Pentecost to that Time, in nothing else, that they would have been able personally to have conversed with these People, and heard their Experiences. ‘The Apostle Paul, as Mr. Edwards says, directs his first Epistle to the Corinthians: to all professing Christi­ans thro' the Face of the Earth; and he takes particular Notice—that he calls them all, Churches of Saints.’ Which appears to be a sufficient Confutation of his Inference that he had made a posi­tive Judgment that they were all real Saints: For it was a Thing morally impossible, that he should have had any Converse with the most of them, and probably had never seen them. The Epistles to the Romans and Colossians were written to Churches & Persons whom Paul himself tells us he had never seen; and therefore he could make no positive Judgment about them, unless it was founded up­on Inspiration, or common Fame. I conclude Mr. Edwards does not think his Judgment was founded on a particular Revelation of the spiritual State of these Persons; and to suppose that it was found­ed on the Fame and Report of these Persons being Christians, was too slender a Ground for the positive Judgment of such a great A­postle. I know of no other Ground for it; unless it be supposed to be founded upon a Presumption that the Ministers who baptized them would not have done it, unless they had themselves made such a positive Judgment concerning their State. This might do for this Scheme, but only 'tis a begging the Question.—

3. It appears that the Apostles made no such positive Judgment &c. if it be considered, that these primitive Churches consisted of [Page 60] all the Persons who were baptized by the Apostles, and first Mini­sters, and of all their Children, for they also with their Parents, were taken into Covenant with God. As the Apostle Peter Shews us, Act. 2. 39. For the Promise is unto you, and to your Children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.—As none of the Epistles were written 'till about twenty Years after our Saviour's Ascension, and most of Paul's Epistles about twenty-five or thirty Years after. The Epistles of Peter and John near thirty­one or thirty-Two Years after: In which Time there were doubtless Thousands and Thousands of Children grown up, who had been in Infancy admitted into the Christian Church; for as to the Institu­tion supposed by Mr. Edwards of a personal explicit owning the Covenant in order to Admission, I believe all ecclesiastical History is silent about it. And besure the New-Testament speaks not a Word of it: But Baptism was the only instituted Rite of Ad­mission into the Christian Church, as Circumcision was into the Jewish; as Mr. Stoddard has sufficiently shewn.—Now what Ground is there to believe the Apostles had formed such a positive Judgment of the gracious Experiences or real Piety of those about whom they knew nothing at all, but only that all who were in Covenant with God, and admitted into the Catholick Church, were Persons faede­rally holy, and devoted, and bound to God; and accordingly treated them in like Manner as God had by his Example taught them to treat his visible Church.

4. The contrary to Mr. Edwards's Supposition, viz. That the Apostles did not make such a positive Judgment that these Persons were really godly; appears plain to me, from the very Accounts given of their Treatment of these Persons; and that the high Cha­racters they gave them, and the Hopes they expressed concerning them, could be understood in no other Sense, than as holding forth a faederal Holiness, and that the Apostles trusted to their Profession.—The Apostle Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, represents many of them as contentious Persons, indulging Strife, Divisions, and quarelling about Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, as the Heads of their several Parties. He calls them carnal, and tells them they walked as Men. He warns them to build on Christ, Chap. 3. as well as to take Heed what they built upon him. And tho' he speaks of them as the Temple of God, and having the Spirit of God dwelling in them: Yet it appears that he speaks not this as having made a positive Judg­ment [Page 61] of their Sanctification with Respect to their Profession and Covenant Engagement, for he adds, ℣. 17. If any Man defile the Temple of God, him shall God destroy. Wherefore that very Temple which they were, might be so defiled by them as to be destroyed; which can't be true of sanctified Persons (really so) unless they can fall from Grace. He charges them with being puffed up with Pride, Ch. 4. latter End. And Ch. 5. with living in Fornication, and glorying in it, at lest in him who lived in Incest with his Father's Wife. Chap. 6, he charges them with quarelling, and cheating one another; and takes Occasion to warn them that such Persons shall not inherit the Kingdom of God; and evidently distinguishes between his own Thoughts of some of them, from others. He says, the Saints shall judge the World: and we shall judge Angels; putting himself among them, as one of them. Yet it seems evi­dent, he designs it shall be understood with an if they were truly what they had engaged to be, real Saints, because he sets before them still the Danger and horrible Nature of those Sins which he plainly supposes some of them lived in.—In the 10th Chap. he says, he would not have them ignorant how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud, and all passed thro' the Sea, and were baptized unto Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea, and did all eat the same spiritual Meat, & did all drink the same spiritual Drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. Here is as strong an Ex­pression holding forth the Piety of the Church of Israel as any of those which Mr. Edwards; has produced to prove, that all the Christian Churches were truly pious; yet the Apostle says, With many of them God was not well pleased; and then adds, ℣. 11, 12. Now all these Things were our Examples, and they are written for our Admonition upon whom the Ends of the World are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth, take Heed least he fall. This appears to me to be undeniable Evidence that the Apostle looked upon Christians to be taken into the Chnrch upon like Terms as the Jews were, and that the Holiness he spake of in them, was the same with that of the jewish Church in common; and that he judged it likely there were proportionably to their Num­bers as many Hypocrites among them. Which surely is inconsist­ent with a positive Judgment, that they were all real Saints. He strongly intimates in the following Verse, that they were guilty of Idolatry, ℣. 18. 20. he warns them against it by the Consideration [Page 62] of the dreadful Jealousy of God, and the Danger of provoking him, ℣. 22. Chap. 11. he tells them that there was a Report, and he had too much Reason to believe it; of scandalous Divisions, Disorders, and Drunkenness among them, and intimates that there were such Heresies, Factions, and corrupt Opinions, as struck at the Founda­tion of Christianity, and all sound Religion, ℣. 17,—21. Beside many lesser Disorders in the Use of Tongues, and other spiritual Gifts among them; as Chap. 14, 1 [...]. and Chap. 15. 12. he signifies that some among them, denied the Resurrection. He warns them in ℣. 33, 34. not to be deceived, but awake to Righteousness, and sin not, for some have not the Knowledge of God; I speak this to your Shame.—And notwithstanding that Repentance which the greater Part of the Church manifested, and their Submission to his Sentence of the incestuous Person about whom he wrote to them in his first Epistle; yet I think whoever diligently and impartially considers the Repre­sentation he makes of this Church in the latter Part of his 2nd E­pistle to them, will not be very easy to believe this Apostle had made a positive Judgment that this Church singly considered were truly pious and sanctified Persons, Chap. 12. ℣. 20, 21. I fear left when I come I shall not find you such as I would; and that I shall be found unto you such as [...] would not; left there be Debates, Envy, Wrath, strifes, Backbitings, Whisperings, Swellings, Tumults; and lest when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have [...] already, and have not repented of their Uncleanness, and Fornication, and Lasciviousness, which they have committed.

The Epistle to the Galatians gives us not much more Reason to believe the Apostle went upon Mr. Edwards's Scheme. Chap. 1. ℣. 6. he tells them they are removed from him that called them into the Grace of Christ unto another Gospel. They denied [...] great Gospel Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. In the Beginning of the third Chap. he speaks of their Principles and Hopes, as so different from the great Principles of the Gospel, and Way of Salvation taught in it, that he asks them, who hath bewitched them. Chap. 4. [...]. he says, I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed on you Labour in vain. ℣. 19. My little Children of whom I travail in Birth until Christ be formed in you. If he had made a positive Judgment that they were regenerate, with what Propriety could he say this?—There are diverse Passages in the fifth Chapter, which don't look very [Page 63] favourably upon Mr. Edwards's Scheme.—The Apostles in their Writings sometimes speak to the Churches hypothetically, if ye have put on Christ, and the like.—The Epistle of James, as this Reverend Author takes Notice, speaks of scandalous Persons among those Christians to whom he wrote: Men of unbridled Tongues, Anti­nomians, who cursed their Brethren, raised Wars and Fightings a­mong them, were Adulterers and Adulteresses, and persecuted Christians.—Now are not these Accounts absolutely inconsistent with a positive Judgment that these Persons were real Saints? And how can the Characters which the Apostles give them of Saints, be­loved of God, and such like, be any Ways consistent with themselves, but only as they considered these Bodies of Men as faederally holy, and by Profession engaged to God, and so long as they continued in visible good Standing, they were outwardly, and in the publick Judgment, to be treated as Saints by Calling, and their Profession so long to be trusted?—

When the Apostles speak of Men crept in unawares, I don't know of one Place in the New-Testament, but where the Words are spo­ken of Hereticks and Jews, who got into the Church by pretending to be Christians, concealing their real Principles, and getting in with a wicked Design to corrupt the Church, or get some Advantage against it to persecute it. So the Epistles themselves explain the Thing, Jude 4. & Gal. 2. 4. False Brethren unawares crept in to spy out our Liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they may bring us into Bondage. Nothing is spoken in any Place of Persons coming in unawares so far as I can find) meerly respecting them as uncon­verted, or which gives Reason to suppose that the Apostles would not have admitted any such Persons as Mr. Stoddard would.

5. I humbly conceive that to suppose the Apostles trusting Christi­ans in their publick Writings and Carriage, as Saints, holy, Heirs of eternal Salvation, and the like; was understood by them to import a positive Judgment that they and the Churches had formed of their real Piety, was a much more likely Way to be the eternal Ruin of great Numbers, than the other Supposition. Mr. Edwards himself supposes on his own Scheme when he has made a positive Judgment that every one singly whom he admits into the Church is regenerate, yet when taken collectively, its probable one in ten will be an Hy­pocrite: if he had supposed five in ten, he would not have exceeded our blessed Saviour's Representation of the Matter, Matth. 25. but [Page 64] be they more or less; if these Persons had known that in all these Passages which Mr. Edwards has quoted, and others to the like Purpose, wherein the Apostles speak of them as in ‘a safe & happy State, and secure of eternal Salvation, making no Distinction of the Regenerate from the Unregenerate, nor directing their Speech to the unregenerate Members of the Church to awaken them, and make them sensible of their miserable Condition.’—But they intended that these Christians should know that they the inspired Apostles, and all other godly People among whom they lived, had formed a positive Judgment upon their Experiences, or some other at lest as certain a Ground, that they were regenerate, truly sanctified Souls; let me return Mr. Edwards's Question: Is not this altogether unaccountable? When the Apostles must know this was the most direct Method they could take to fix them in Hypo­crisy, and eternally undo them. For this amounts to as much Evi­dence as they could have without themselves (unless by Revelation) that they were indeed sanctified, and had nothing to do but rejoyce in Expectation of eternal Life, for the Apostles themselves had determined they were the Children of the Light, and of the Day; and that God had not appointed them to Wrath, but to obtain Salva­tion by Jesus Christ. So that they were like to sit secure under all the Thunder of these Threatnings of the Wrath of Christ which will come on ungodly Men as a Thief in the Night; & when they shall say, Peace and Safety, then sudden Destruction shall come upon them as Travail upon a Wo­man with Child, and they shall not escape. ‘Shall we thus determine the Apostles to be such Prophets as daubed with untempered Mortar, and sewed Pillows under all Arm-holes? and healed the Hurt of immortal Souls slightly, crying Peace, Peace, when there is no Peace?’—Whereas on Mr. Stoddard's Opinion, these Things are easily and fairly accounted for. These Christians knew that in all such Expressions and Characters the Apostles treated them as Persons faederally holy, and brought into the extenal Cove­nant; and put under the proper Means and Ordinances of Salva­tion by Christ; and if they kept Covenant, as they had engaged to do, and came up to the Terms of it, they should be saved; and upon Presumption that they did so, they gave them these Characters, and pronounced these Consolations; and no other­wise. And in this View of Things, there would be no Danger of [Page 65] their being setlted in Hypocrisy by these Consolations; for they well know upon what Terms only they belonged to them.

Moreover, it ought to be remembred, the Epistles of the Apostles are not to be considered as their Sermons, or popular Discourses, but as the Solutions of Cases of Conscience; as the Orders, Rules, and Directions of the House of Christ, and Directions for the Church then, and in all Ages. So that 'tis not to be wondred at, that we don't find Uses of Awakening and Exhortation, as we find in Ser­mons, and such popular Discourses. Yet in these Expistles we find sufficient Rules and Directions to ground such Admonitions Warn­ings & Exhortations upon, with which Mr. Stoddard was wont, and all other faithful Ministers are wont to address their Congregations. For the Apostles have taken great Care to let us know that Christians are taken into the visible Church, as the Jews were, and upon like Terms with them except the Ceremonial Law which is at an End) as in the [...] and other Places, and as the ancient Pro­phecies of the Old-Testament were therein fulfilled, wherein God promised to take the Gentiles into like Church-State; and therefore they stood upon like Terms; their Holiness both real and faederal was the same, 1 Cor. 7. 14. they refer them and us, all along to the Examples of God's Dealing with the jewish Church, to learn [...] to expect from him. They tell them and us, over and over, that all these Things hapned to the Jewish Church for Examples to the Christian: And therefore all the Expectations of Salvation which this Treatment of the Apostles and others raised in them, they were to govern and measure according to their real Conformity to the Terms of the Covenant of Grace, and their Fulfilment thereof; their Pre­tensions to which the Apostles trusted in the same Manner God had done by the Jews: And yet certainly, he did not daub them with untempered Mortar.

The 9th Argumument is Page 71st. viz. ‘Another Evidence that such as are taken into the Church ought to be in the Eye of a Christian Judgment truly gracious or pious Persons, is this, That the Scripture represents the visible Church of Christ as a Society having its several Members united by the Band of Christian Bro­therly Love.’—I desire again the Reader will remember the true State of the Question according to the Author's Explication, and that I am not disputing against the Words here proposed.

I shall endeavour first to consider the scriptures here urged, and [Page 66] the Criticisms upon them; and then to shew how they fail of prov­ing the Question in Debate.

The first Text is Act. 4. 32. The Multitudes of them that believed were of one Heart and one Soul, neither said any of them that ought of the Things which he [...] was his [...], but they had all Things common. [...]. ‘Which, says Beza, is the same Thing which the Apostle beseeches of [...] & [...] Phil. 4. 2. that they be of the same mind in the Lord. By the Words [...] Heart and Mind, says he, is to be understood a full Consent in Doctrine, and Desire, or Will; but in my most ancient [...] are these Words, [...] which he says [...] testifies he found in many ancient Greek Copies, and cites Cyprian also to vouch the same; and so renders the Words, There was no Separation, there was no Difference among them.’ But I, say she, chuse to render the Words there was no Controversy among them. The plain Sense of the Words is, there were no Disputes about the great Doctrines of the Gospel, [...] Controversy about Matters of Faith, but a good Harmony and Agreement: and such was their Love to one another, and the Cause of Christ, that they sold their [...] to promote it, and put all into one common Stock.—The next Texts are Math. 40. 41. 42. Mark 9. 41. He that [...] a Prophet in the Name of a Prophet [...] a Prophets [...], and he that [...] a righteous Man, in the Name of a righteous [...] shall receive a righteous Mans Reward; & whosoever shall give to [...] one of these [...] Cup of cold Water only in the Name of a [...] shall in no wise loose his Reward. [...] says, [...] to Christ. To explain this, Mr. Edwards refers us to the new Commandment which Christ gives his Disciples, Joh. 13. 34. [...] another as Christ has loved them. And refers to Chap. 15. 13, 14, 15. And Chap. 17, to the End. This he calls that [...] or Love the Brethren, which is a very good and [...] thing. Note of true Grace. Be it so; but what will that prove about [...] between the Affections of Christ's Disciples, arising from their being satisfied of their Sanctification? The Texts teach us, that a Prophet is to be received in the Name of a Prophet; a righteous Man in the Name of a righteous Man; and a little One [...] he belongs to Christ; and that the Love described is express'd in relieving their Necessities, being kind and charitable to them for Christ's Sake according to the Account given us in the Delineation of the Proceeding at the Day [Page 67] of Judgment, Matth.25. latter End. When a Person receives them for the Sake of Christ, and shews them Kindness and Respect on that Account, he exerciseth the Christian Love here required. We are, says Beza, to reverence Christ in it, otherwise we do no­thing in this Kindness, which the profane Nations did not most a­bundantly do. The Respect that is shown to Christ is the Essence and Soul of that Love and Christian Charity, which is here distin­guished from the Love of Friendship and natural Relation. And [...] truly exercised when a supream Respect is exercised to Christ. If a Man receives a lawful Minister of Christ, if he receives & owns a visible Christian and shews him Respect & Love, from a supream Regard to Christian so related to him, he then exercises that Christian Love and Kindness, which Christ will own, and which is a distin­ [...]shing Note of true Grace. Mr. Edwards quotes, Rom. 12. 10. [...] one to another, with Brotherly Love in Honour [...] one another. And says the Greek is more emphatical, shew­ing a peculiar Endearment between gracious Persons, [...] Beza observes the Word [...] notes not only be loving, But a Propensity to love. Leigh renders it in the time Manner, and having quoted Tertulliant's Explication, he says, it can't be better rendred in English than be kindly affectioned. The true Meaning of it is, set there be a Propensity in you to love one another with Brotherly-Love, so that you be ready to prefer one another in Honour.—The next Text is, 1 Pet. 1. 22. seeing [...] your Souls in [...] the Truth thro' the Spirit unto [...] [...] i. e. in plain [...] with [...] or [...] Love. See that ye love [...] Heart fervently. And again, Chap. 3. 8. [...] Brethren, be ye all of one Mind, having Compassion one of ano­ther, [...] as Brethren, be pitiful, be courteous. The Words in Greek Mr. Edwards thinks are much more significant, elegant, & forcible; [...] Which Beza renders, ‘Be ye all of one [...] mutually affected with each others Troubles, endued with Brotherly Love, prone or disposed to she [...] Mercy, kind or affable.’ In the same Manner Grotius, Gomaras, [...], Gernard, Piscator; when all the Criticks have strained the Text as much as they can, it appears that nothing can be got out of it more to the Purpose than our Translators have ren­der'd it.—Here 'tis to be noted, that all these Citations out of the [Page 68] Epistles, are Exhortations to the paactise of that Christian Love or Charity, which Christ requires all his Disciples to exercise—

The Reverend Author further quotes Col. 1. 4. 1 Thes. 4. 9. and [...]. 5. where the Exercise of brotherly Love among Christians is spoken of, and some further Exhortations to it, Heb. 13 1. 1 Thes. 5. 26. Let Brotherly Love continue. And four Texts to exhort Christians to greet one another with an holy Kiss. This Love to the Brethren (he says is that Love which the Apostle John insists on as one of the most distinguishing Characteristicks of true Grace. And then in the next Page cites some more Texts, and goes over some of the same again, to shew how the Apostles exhort visible Christians to exercise this Love to all other Members of the visible Church. By these Things, he says, Page 72, must needs be understood a ‘Love to Saints as Saints, or on Account of the spiritual Image of God supposed to be in them, and their spiritual Relation to God. According as it has been always understood by orthodox Divines.’ However, I apprehend, most orthodox Divines when they describe Christian Love as exercised, or acting towards the moral Image of God in others, have not just the same Idea of the Ground of our Apprehension of it or Judgment about it, as Mr. Edwards has. The Dispute is not at all, whether it is the Image of God or Christ ap­pearing, or supposed to be in others, that as the Ground or Reason of our Love to them does distinguish Christian Love from natural Love, or common Friendship. I don't know that any orthodox Divines differ about this, nor do they dispute whether any Act of Love or Kindness to them on the Account of any Part of God's I­mage on them, be a gracious Love. So that I apprehend this Dis­pute is not at all affected by these Things.

But we are now to consider how these Scriptures prove the Point Mr. Edwards has to prove. His Argument from these Things seems to be offer'd Pag. 73, towards the Bottom, after this Manner:

‘This Love must have some Apprehension of the Understanding, some Judgment of the Mind, for its Foundation.’ i. e If he will speak to his Question, there must be a positive Determination in our Minds that they are true Saints, else we can't exercise this Christi­an Love towards them, and therefore they ought not to be admitted to Communion. As to some Apprehension, some Judgment of the Mind, and such like Words, which have been so often used; I hope the Reader need not again be told that we have some Apprehension, [Page 69] and some Judgment of the Mind, that they are Christians; and that Apprehension and Judgment is founded on the Rule which Christ has given for the publick Judgment, as we suppose in the utmost Extent of that Rule, tho' it may not so fully satisfy the Mind of a Casuist, or a private Christian, as some other Way of judging; which Christ has not appointed to be the Rule of publick Judgments. To trifle with Words may serve to draw out a Disp [...]te to a great Length, and hide the Truth, but not to discover it. If there be any Thing in the Argument, I think it must be what I have dis­serve'd, viz. that a Christian must make a positive Judgment and Determination, that another Man is a Saint, and this Judgment must have for its Ground something which he supposes is at least ordinarily a certain Evidence of his Saintship, and by which gracious Sincerity is certainly distinguished from every Thing else; otherwise he can't exercise any Christian Love to him, and therefore can't join with him in the Sacrament, & consequently he ought not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. I think many Things evidence the Inconsequence of this Agument; but beside what has been said, I would only beg the Readers Patience to consider two or three Things.

1. The exercise of this Christian Love is not a Term of Commu­nion or Admission into the visible Church instituted by Christ.

Christ has made it the Duty of all Christians to love one another for his Sake, and all true Christians do sincerely exercise this Love; but the Exercise of it by the Church or particular Persons towards others, is no where in the Bible instituted as the Rule by which the Church is to proceed in the Admission of Persons to Communion; [...] ought to have had, and no doubt but he had both a natural and holy Love to the Israelites, but this Love was not the [...] of his proceeding as the Minister of God, to admit them into Cove­nant; but their Profession and Engagement to love God with all their Heart, and to keep Covenant with him. The Apostles were bound to love all Christians for Christ's Sake, but we no where read that then Love to them was appointed to be the Rule of their admitting Persons into the Christian Church, but the Profession of their Faith in Christ, and their Engagement to [...] Covenant. Nor do I know of any Place in the Bible where Christ has appointed the Exercise of this Christian Love to be the Rule of Admission, or the Term upon which the Church is to allow Persons the Enjoyment of Gospel-Ordinances. And as there are to be no Terms of Commu­nion [Page 70] but what Christ has instituted, therefore the want of this Love in the Church to any particular Person, is no Ground of excluding that Person from Gospel Ordinances. The want of it may be to the Persons who are without it an Evidence of their own want of Grace; besure of their Neglect of their Duty: but it can no more Evidence that this or that Person is not to be admitted to Communion, than the neglect of giving them an holy Kiss.

2. If this Supposition be true, then Men's Right to Communion in Gospel Ordinances, must depend upon the Corruptions of other Men; or the secret and sovereign Actings of Grace in the Hearts of other Men.—If Men don't love their Christian Brethren, 'tis be­cause of their Corruption, and the Wickedness that is in their Hearts; for God has made it their Duty to love them, and if the Church be at any Time destitute of this Love towards any particular Per­son who is really qualified to partake of the Lord's Supper, then by this Rule Christ has debar'd that Person from this Ordinance, be­cause the Church is for the present under the Prevalency of Corrup­tion.—Again, the Exercise of Christian Love is not only as Mr. Ed­wards observes, ‘not so at Command that we can make it strong­ly go forth to an Object as having such Loveliness, when at the same Time we don't positively judge any such Thing concerning them, but only hope it may be so.’—But neither is it so at Com­mand, that we can ever make it go forth at all without the present Assistance and Grace of the Holy Spirit. A Christian is no more able to exercise Love to another for the Sake of Christ, or in a gracious Manner, without that, than he can act Faith, or any Grace without it. Now these Assistances of the good Spirit of God, are sovereignly free, and given only when God pleases. Therefore ac­cording to this Argument, the Enjoyment of visible Ordinances by others, depends on the secret sovereign Influences of the Spirit of God in the Hearts of the Church, and their Exercise of Grace, and by a divine Appointment Persons are to be excluded from these Or­dinances, according to the Prevalency of the Sin & Corruption of the Church. Both which Suppositions are inconsistent with Reason, and God's Revelation concerning this Matter.

3. I conceive the Argument is contradictory to and inconsistent with it self.—The Thing to be proved is; that the Church ought not to admit unsanctified Persons to the Lord's Supper. The Argument to prove it is taken from the Nature of Christian [Page 71] Love, or that Union there is between Saints. That is, 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. For tho' it is said Page 71, ‘that this Christian Love is to be exercised towards others on Account of their supposed Rela­tion to God as his Children, and to Christ as his Members, and to them as their spiritual Brethren in Christ.’—And again, Pag. 74, there must be a positive Dictate of the Understanding, & some Degree of Satisfaction of the Judgment to be a Ground of that One­ness of Heart and Soul, which is agreable to Scripture Representa­tions of [...]rotherly-Love. Now if any Thing be intended to the Pur­pose for which this Argument is brought, I conceive it must mean, that there must be such a positive Judgment of the real Holiness of Persons as is not mistaken more than once in ten Times (according to the former Representation of the Matter) i. e. there must be the Reality of Grace in order to this Brotherly-Love. And if this Christian Love depends on the Reality of Grace or Holiness in the Subject in whom we judge it to be, then let our Judg­ment be more or less positive, yet if it be a Mistake in Fact, there can be no Exercise of Brotherly-Love. If it can be exercised with­out the Reality of Holiness in the Person towards whom it is exer­cised, then the Argument is given up, for it proves nothing that it was brought to prove: And yet the Reverend Author brings it down so low as to say, ‘Christians must have some Satisfaction of Mind, that they are cordially united with them in adorning and expressing their Love to their common Lord.’—Now 'tis granted on all Sides, that visible Saintship is necessary to any Person's Ad­mission into the visible Church. So that the Argument can't be brought to prove that; and yet if some Apprehension of the Un­derstanding, some Judgment of the Mind of the Saintship of Per­sons, be sufficient Foundation for the Exercise of this Brotherly-Love, this proves nothing more than is granted, and we must go back a­gain to consider what is sufficient Evidence of visible Saintship.—I own, I can't conceive any Force or Consistency in the Argument, unless it be carried the full Length of the Independent Seperates, that the Saints have a certain Knowledge who are the Children of God, by having Fellowship with them (as they term it) or by feel­ing an ineffable Oneness with their Souls. But since Mr. Edwards declares he has no good Opinion of their Notion of a pure Church, [Page 72] by Means of Spirit of Discerning, I must conclude he will give up this Argument.—Mr. Edwards thinks ‘this is well agreeing with the Wisdom of Christ, to suppose that he has made such [...] in his Institutions &c.’ Page 74.—This is not to be wondre [...] [...] since Men always suppose their Fancies about Religion are well a­greeing with the Wisdom of Christ.—But I confess 'tis not very easy to me to conceive to what good Purpose Mr. Stoddard's Ex­pression in his Appeal, Page 16. is here brought in again, with th [...]se Additions: ‘It is hardly credible, that Christ has so ordered Things as that there are no instituted social Acts of Worship wherein his Saints are to manifest their Respect to him, but such as wherein they ordinarily are obliged (if the Rules for Admissions be carefully attended) to join with a Society of Fellow-Worshippers, concern­ing whom they have not Reason to think but the bigger Part of them are unconverted, and are more provoking Enemies to that Lord they love and adore, than most of the very Heathen; and which Mr. Stoddard supposes to be the Case with the Members of the visible Church.’—

I beg Leave in Reply to this extraordinary Passage, to propose these Questions to Mr. Edward's serious Consideration; viz.

1. Did Mr. Stoddard ever say in the Appeal, or any where else, of the 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 that Lord whom Christians love and adore, than most of the very Heathen?

2. Does not Mr. Stoddard say in the Bottom of the 16th & Top of the next Page, concerning Dr. Mather's Endeavour to pro [...]e that Church Members must be visible Saints; it was needless for him to prove it, to leave a Jealousy upon some ignorant People, as it I did deny it?

3. If it was unfair for Dr. Mather to do that, what is it to make the Insinuation, and set t forth as a Doctrine taught by Mr. Stoddard;

4. Whether this Treatment of Mr. Stoddard be perfectly harmo­nious with such Words concerning him, viz.— that great and [...] Man; that great and eminent Divine; my venerable Predecessor; and my own Grand-Father; whose Name and Memory I am under distinguishing obligations on every Account to treat with great Respect and Honour?

[Page 73] 5. What Honour is it to our Lord Jesus Christ to treat visible Saints in such a Manner, when at the same Time it is revealed Will they should be outwardly treated as visible Saints?

I know not but I think as badly of Covenant-Breakers as Mr. Ed­wards. I doubt not they ought to be warned in the most solemn Manner, what all professing Christians are to expect, who deal falsly with Christ: And to be told this from that Word of God which is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged Sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of Soul and Spirit, and of the Joints and Marrow, and is a Discerner of the Thoughts & Intents of the Heart. And to this Word, and the Holy Spirit who indited it, their Coviction is to be left.—But when Persons do solemnly profess and engage to give up themselves to God, and by his Help to come up to the Terms of the Covenant, and seek their whole Salvation thro' Christ, upon the Terms of the Gospel, i. e. in a Way of Faith and Repentance; and that so far as they know they do this without known and allowed Guile; and when they do visibly keep Covenant with God: for the Church or its Guides, because they fear they are unconverted, or don't make a positive Judgment that they are converted, in their publick Carriage or Applications, to treat them as the most hateful Enemies of Christ, and provoking to the Lord whom Christians love and adore above most of the Heathen: Whatever it be; certainly it ought seriously to be consi­dered, whether it be the Exercise of that Christian Love which Christ so abundantly requires of his Disciples; and also whether it be not medling with the Prerogative of God, and anticipating the Work of the Day of Judgment; and what Thanks or Approbation Christ's Disciples are like to meet with for it.

The 10th Argument Page 75, is propounded thus: ‘It is ne­cessary that those who partake of the Lord's Supper, should judge themselves truly and cordially to accept of Christ as their only Saviour and chief Good; for this is what the Actions which the Communicants perform at the Lord's Table are a solemn Pro­fession of.’—The Reader will observe, that the Question at first propounded respected the Ground of the Church's admitting Persons to the Sacrament: This Proposition respects those particu­lar Persons themselves who came to the Lord's Supper; and here is to be proved that they should judge themselves converted for this Reason; because the Actions they perform at the Lord's Table, are [Page 74] a solemn Profession that they are so.—I don't find, that Mr. Ed­wards has said any Thing to prove the Proposition, which is the whole Argument offered here in Proof of the Point proposed to be proved, but only gives his Opinion or Paraphrase of the [...] and Nature of the Sacramental Actions: The Substance of which, if I can comprehend it, is this: That Christ in the Sacrament offers Salvation to every one that is willing to receive him; and he that partakes of the Sacrament professes his Willingness to receive Christ. i. e. that he does receive him, and both Parties seal to the Truth of this. Hence it follows, that the Lord's Supper is a Seal of Sal­vation to him that receives it.

Mr. Stoddard has answered this, in the third and last Part of his Argument to Dr. Mather's third Argument, Appeal Page 22, 23. ‘The Sacraments do not seal up Pardon and Salvation to all that receive them, but they are Seals to the Truth of the Cove­nant: it doth not seal Mens having of Faith, neither doth it seal the Salvation of the Communicants; they miserably de­ceive themselves if they understand it so; but it is a Seal of the Covenant. God offers Pardon & Salvation thro' Faith in Christ. Men are ready to doubt of the Truth of this. But God seals this Covenant in the Sacraments. This is that which is intended when it is said, that Circumcision was a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. Rom. 4. 11. Whether we understand by the Righteousness of Faith, Faith it self, which is our evangelical Righteousness, or the Righ­teousness of Christ, which is Christ apprehended by Faith, it comes to one and the same; and Circumcision seals the Effiacy of this unto Salvation; that the Promise that he has made shall in this Way be fulfilled: and this is a great Encouragement to draw forth the Exercise of Faith.’—And I think Mr. Humfrey has fully answered this Argument, Page 42, [...]. ‘The Sacraments are not properly Seals to Mens Faith; how do we conceive Faith such a Thing as must have God's Seal put to it. God doth not attest our Faith but his own Promises, Heb.0.17. They are Seals properly of the Covenant.—They are not Forma [...]ter in a true and proper Sense Seals to any Thing but the Covenant.—Let the Sacrament be offered to the Godly or to the Hypocrite, it is the same Seal of God declaring the Truth of his Covenant which stands most sure, and all the Unbelief in the World cannot make [Page 75] it of none Effect; they are set to God's Word; and so can ne­ver be to a Blank, while there is Truth in the Promise and Wri­ting in the Gospel. The Sacraments being God's Seals, certainly in the Institution and Nature of them, if I should deny them to be Man's Seals at all there being not for it one Tittle of Scrip­ture, I should quite remove the Scruple from the Hearts of Men; yet in the Use of Seals and Effect, they are to be Man's Seals also, Seals to the Condition of our Part, Seals of Faith.’

If we consider the Lord's Supper in the Use of Man as a Seal, I conceive it must answer to the Proposal seal'd by God, which is the Covenant and the Truth of the Promise upon the Gospel Condition. In receiving therefore Man does not seal that he has fulfilled the Co­venant; but seals his Engagement to fulfil it; and that he con­sents to the Truth of that Offer of Salvation; and the Conditional Promise or Terms of Salvation, to which God seals; and therefore that he will seek, look for, and expect Salvation in that Way, and only on those Terms which the Covenant offers it. A Man's sealing a Covenant in the Nature of the Thing, and the Understanding of all Mankind since the Foundation of the World, does not import that he has already fulfil'd the Covenant, but that he stands bound and engaged to fulfil it.—Mr. Edward's own Similitude illustrates this Matter: A Lady's accepting a Picture from a Prince's Ambassador in Token of her Acceptance of his Person to be her Husband, shews that she does not seal a Profession that she has accepted him, but that she will accept him for her Husband.—I must leave the judicious Reader to judge what Advantage to Truth, or what Light is con­veyed to the Mind, by the injurious Representation which this Re­verend Author is pleased here again to make of the Doctrine of Mr. Stoddard, and those of his Opinion, Page 77, and take Leave again, to declare that I apprehend Mr. Stoddard's Doctrine to imply no such Thing; but plainly to import that in adult Persons Covenanting with God there is necessarily implied a Profession of a deep Con­viction of a Man's undone State without Christ, and the Way in which the Covenant of Grace propounds Salvation to lost Sinners; and that he is in his Judgment and Conscience perswaded there is no other Way of Salvation, and that he desires unfeignedly so far as he knows his own Heart, to be brought up to the Terms of this Covenant; and being under Obligation by the Command of God, and Call of the Gospel, to improve all the Helps God gives him to [Page 76] obtain the Blessings of the Covenant; he binds himself upon the Encouragement of Help from God, to keep Covenant with God: And that Man be he Regenerate or Unregenerate, is bound to make such a Profession, and take hold of God's Covenant in the visible Dispensation of it. It he does not, he holds the Truth in Unrighteousness: he [...] against the Law of Nature, and the Gos­pel of Jesus Christ, and respects the Means appointed to promote his Salvation. If he be Unregenerate, this does not excuse him or living in Unbelief one Moment; but he is bound so much the [...] thro' God's Help to fulfil the Covenant; and it he prove false to his Covenant Vows, will meet an aggravated Condemnation.

The 11th and last Argument Page 77, is taken from 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let a Man examine himself, and so let him eat. The Reader will take Notice that the Argument taken from hence is not to prove the Question in the Words Mr. Edwards has propounded it, but to disprove Mr. Stoddard's, viz. that sanctifying Grace is not necessary to the lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper.

The Argument drawn from this Text, as I take it from the Au­thor's Discourse upon it, lies in this Compass: Seeing here the A­postle directs Persons to examine themselves, and so eat; his Ex­amination must mean a proving themselves to themselves, to be sanctified.

If therefore upon Trial or Examination, they do not prove, or approve themselves to be sanctified, they may not lawfully come.—There seems to be two Ways by which Mr. Edwards endeavours to prove that the Text must be understood in that Sense. One is, by shewing that the Greek Word translated to examine, must ne­cessarily imply an Examination to Approbation of the Truth of Grace in the Heart.—The other, by considering the Scope of the Text, relating to the Context, and compared with the rest of the Discourse.—As to the Greek Word [...], which is here translated Examine, I grant that in diverse Places in the New­Testament, and other Greek Writings, it is used to signify a Trial of a Thing, to see whether it be true, and of the right Sort. And in Scripture, 'tis diverse Times used to signify the Trial of true Piety, and Faith of Christian Professors: But to say as Mr. Ed­wards does, ‘That 'tis always so used, unless where it is used as it were metonimically, and in such Places is variously transla­ted,’ [Page 77] is grans dictum, and but little else than to say it is always so [...] New-Testament, unless where it is used otherwise.

[...] the Word, Probo, Experior, Exploro, Examino, [...] Laudo, Item is Pretis habeo. Leigh says, it has various Acceptations, but usually signifies to prove. Pareus says, it is to try what there is in a Thing, and to distinguish a Thing from those which are diverse and contrary.—Luk. 14. 19. I have bought five [...] of Oxen, and I go to prove them i. e. says Leigh, to see whether they will bear the Yoke or no. 1 Thes. 5. 21. Prove all Things, bold fast that which is good. i. e. try all Things. Besure he does not bid us approve all Things. Rom. 12. 2. Be ye not con­formed unto this World &c. That ye may prove what is that good and acceptable, and perfect Will of God. A Discerning, says Leigh, made with Judgment, concerning good Things. 1 Thes. 2. 4. But God who trieth our Heart. Which does not signify that he approves it. Rom. 1. 28. As they did not like to retain God. In all these Places the same Greek Word is used which is used in the Text now under Consideration. And in those of the Texts which Mr. Edwards has quoted, the Word is not used in the Sense he represents it. And so I think Expositors take it, 1 Pet. 1. 7. That the Trial of your Faith being much more precious than of Gold which perisheth, tho' it be tried by Fire, might be found unto Praise &c. The Trial of Faith here seems plainly to mean the Exercise of it by those Afflictions which Christians endured; by their persevering under which, it would ap­pear to the Glory of Christ at his Appearing, that their Faith was true. The Word here as far as it respects Approbation is metoni­mically used. Jam. 1. 3. The trying of your Faith worketh Patience. Here the Word [...] is used metonimically for the Afflictions themselves, by which the Faith of Christians is tried, and can't mean that their Approbation of their Faith worked Patience in them. 2 Cor. 8. 8. Gal. 0. 4. Where the Word is not rendered Examine, but Prove. I think it proves nothing to Mr. Edwards's Purpose, but rather on the contrary, that wherever it means to examine a Man's State, so as to approve it to himself. The Word is not used in it's natural Sense, but metonimically: Therefore all Attempts to prove that the Examination here spoken of, must from the natural and ne­cessary Meaning of the Word [...] signify a Man's examining the Truth of Grace in him, to his own Approbation, are vain.

Let us now consider the other Way, whereby this is proposed to [Page 78] be made out, viz. The Scope of the Text compared with the Con­text, compared with the rest of the Discourse.—Mr. Stoddard thinks it is most evident, that the Examination here stir'd up to, is not such an Examination as Mr. Edwards supposes. ‘If we look to the foregoing Verses, where he blames them for communicat­ing in a rude Manner; or if we look to the subsequent Words, where he finds Fault with those that don't discern the Lord's Body.’ Appeal, Pag 6, 8.

We find the Apostle begins his Discourse to the Corinthians, con­cerning their partaking of the Lord's Supper, ℣. 17. He lets them know he did not commend them for the Manner in which they attended this holy Ordinance, for they came not together for the better, but for the worse. That he heard when they came together in the Church; there were Divisions among them, and every one taketh before other his own Supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken. He ob­serves that it will be so, for they as well as other Churches were ob­noxious to greater Evils, even to Heresies in Doctrines, that they who were approved, might be made manifest. Evil and unsanctified Men, by such Sins will discover their Hypocrisy, and ought no lon­ger to be approved by the Church, as others who carry themselves well should be. It appears evident, that they scandalously profan'd the Lord's Supper, both by a greedy, irreverent disorderly Manner of taking the Elements, and by making it a carnal drunken Feast. In the next Verse he lets them know they were not to attend the Lord's Super, to satisfy any bodily Appetite: This was to despise the Church of God, and to scandalize Men, it was a Pro­phanation of the Lord's Supper. In the next, viz. 23, 24, 25, ℣s he sets down the Words of the Institution which he had received of the Lord Jesus, instructing them that the Lord's Supper was in­stituted to be a Memorial of the Body and Blood of Christ; and therefore as an holy Institution of Christ, to be celebrated with great Solemnity and Reverence in Remembrance of him. What more suitable Method can be conceived in dealing with them, than first to set forth their Disorders, and rebuke them; then to shew them what was orderly, in what Manner, and with what Views they were to celebrate this holy Institution; then threaten them with the heavy Displeasure of Christ for unworthy partaking. He speaks nothing, as Mr. Stoddard observes, about unworthy Communicants, but of their unworthy Communicating: And that this unworthy Communicating, [Page 79] exposed them to the Judgments and Chastisements of the Lord; and for this Cause those Judgments had already, come upon them. ℣. 30. Wherefore he says, ℣. 28. But [...] a Man examine him, [...] and [...]. What would these Corinthians suppose from this Discourse of the Apostle, they must examine themselves about? Surely something he had been speaking to them of. And what was this, but their ignorant, inconsiderate, disorderly, gluttonous and drunken Prophanation of this holy Ordinance. If the Sense he to be gathered from the Apostles own Discourse, what is there to be gathered from that, but [...] a Man should try himself whether he discerns the Design, and Use of this Ordinance; and finds in him­self a solemn serious Apprehension of it's Nature and Design to re­present Christ, and his Sufferings? Whether he have a Disposition to attend it with a View to the spiritual and proper Benefits of it, in Distinction from carnal Views and Ends: If we Respect the Scope and plain Sense of the Apostle's Discourse, and are to judge from thence; it appears more agreable to that; and that this was the Sum of what the Cerizticious could collect from it; than to sup­pose they would understand that they were to examine themselves as to their Sanctification, so as to stand approved in that Point. How a Man can be inclined to put that Construction upon the Words, is not very easy to conceive, unless it be because that is more agreable to a presupposed Scheme, and must be intended because a Man must be sanctified in order to his coming lawfully; which the Apostle here has discoursed nothing about.

It is evident enough from other Scriptures, that Men ought to be very diligent, and frequent in the Examination of their spiritual State. They ought to set to, both the Habit and Actings of Faith. They ought doubtless to do this both before and after the Lord's Supper, both before and after Prayer, Hearing, and every Ordinance of the Gospel. For none of these will be of saving Advantage to any Man, without Faith; but can this prove, if it were granted that Examining here, has any Respect to a Man's ex­amining himself about the Truth of his Faith, if a Man cannot ap­prove himself, or dare not say he has saving Faith; that therefore he may not pray, not hear, not attend the Sacraments.— ‘Is says Mr. Humfrey receiving the Sacrament unworthily, otherwise dam­nable than Hearing unworthily. Where of Christ says as much. Mar. 10. 10. & Jeb. 3. 18. Go and preach— He that believeth [Page 80] not is damned. And if it be not, why, upon the same Account as Men go to Prayer, to the Word, and other Duties, tho' they cannot pray and hear worthily, may they not as well go to the Sacrament? If unregenerate Men pray, hear, receive, they Sin, (not in what they do I conceive, but in what they do not.) If they do not pray, hear, and receive, they Sin worse, and are impious. Now what must be done here, if there be a Necessity of sinning, of two Evils, the least must be chosen. It's a less Evil to do what we can, tho' the Matter only be done, than to fail in Matter and Manner too. But if that Axiom be true, Nemo Angustiatur ad Peccandum; there is no Case where in a Man is ne­cessitated to Sin; then 'tis clear that a Man ought to come, and do the best he can, which if he doth, haply he shall not Sin (at least so far he doth not) and God may bless his Endeavours. Habenti Dabitur; whereas if he neglects, he sins without Questi­on, this being Malum perse, the other per Accidens only.’

The Apostle can't be understood here, that a Man must so exa­mine himself, as to know that he shall eat in the Exercise of Faith; for if he has Faith to Night, that can't assure him he shall eat in Faith to Morrow, because this depends on God's good Pleasure, and the present Influence of his Spirit: And if he means the Habit of Faith, or a sanctified State; then, if upon Examination he be doubt­ful, and the Unworthiness here spoken of, be Unworthiness of Per­son, and his Want of saving Grace, and he must examine so as to approve himself to have that, so long as he is doubtful he cannot do this; and therefore he may not come, whether he approves himself in his own Opinion, or be doubtful. He must according to this Interpretation of the Words, have the Thing, or he comes under the Threatning of Damnation. If he hopes strongly that he has sanctifying Grace, yet his Hopes alter not his State; the Thing he must have, or according to this Interpretation of the Text, He eateth and drinketh Damnation, not discerning the Lord's Body. If unwor­thily in the Verse before and after means unholily, this is plain; and if it do not, this Interpretation of this Verse can't be right.

IN the third Part of Mr. Edwards's Book, he under the Name of Objections, proposes to answer the Arguments which Divines have offered, to prove that some unsanctified Men may lawfully partake of the Sacraments; or are, and may be admitted into Co­venant with God.

The first he propounds Page 81. ‘The Scripture calls the Mem­bers of the visible Church by the Name of Disciples, Scholars or Learners &c.’

As the Reverend Author has not refer'd us to the Book or Author whence this Argument is taken, so I can't tell whether it be fairly stated or not.—As far as I am acquainted with the Reasoning of Divines from this Topick, the Substance of it is this: One Notion the Scripture gives us of the visible Church, is under the Name of Disciples. All that in Scripture are called Disciples of Christ, are in Covenant with God, and own'd by him as the Members of his Family, and the School of Christ.—Whence they infer, that such Qualifications as they had to whom Christ gives this Name, or which were the Ground of their Admission into his School, are now sufficient for the same; such Qualifications of Mind and Carriage, as are requisite to Persons putting themselves under Christ as their Master and Teacher, and submitting to the Rules of his School, are suffici­ent to bring them into it.

1. Mr. Edwards owns, that the Scripture calls the Members of the visible Church Disciples, but denies that it therefore follows that the Church which they are Members of, is duly and properly constituted of those who have not true Piety.—The Words duly and properly, have nothing to do with this Question, nor with Mr. Stoddard's, nor with any Question in this Debate. We say, the [Page 82] Church is lawfully constituted of such, and that some who have not true Piety ought to be admitted into it by the Appointment of Christ the Master of it. Let the Question stand fairly in Sight, and it will easily appear, that it will not follow from that Argument as Mr. Edwards suggests, ‘That not only the [...] but the invisi­ble Church is constituted of such as have not true Piety.’—To shew this Consequence, Mr. Edwards says, ‘the Member of the Mystical Church as such, and to denote the special [...] or of such, are called Disciples.’—An observing Reader [...] see the Fallacy of this arguing. For the Terms in the Proposition, or Premises of it, are equivocal. The Word Disciple in those Texts which are refer'd to, Luk. 14. 20. [...]. 33. & [...] Chap. 13. 35. Chap.15.8. by being compared, shew that the Word Disciple there is used in a peculiar Sense, for one that is a Disciple [...], in Distincti­on from one that is visibly so, and called by the same Name in other Scriptures, in a more large and extensive Manner, as a Member of the visible Church, in Contradistinction from the invisible: And when the Terms of an Argument are equivocal, and not strictly and precisely used in the same Sense, the Conse­quence is a Fallacy. The Word Disciple is evidently used in a different Sense, when applied to the Members of the Church, in many Places: As Joh. 4. 1, 2. [...] 10. Go Disciple all Nations. Judas is called one of Christ's Disciples, Mat.10.4.Saul [...] out Threatning [...] against the Disciples of the Lord, Act. [...]. 10. If you would know who the Holy Ghost means there, he tells you, they were all that Saul could find of that Way. Complaint made Act. 15. 10. that those who urged the Necessity of Circumcision, put a Yoke upon the Neck of the Disciples, which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear; and many other Places: But these are enough to shew, that all the Nation of the Jews and their Children, and all the Children of Christians, are the Disciples of Christ, and by the Sacraments of Circumcision and Baptism visibly admitted into his Church. Now if Disciples here, and Disciples in those Texts, mean one and the same Thing, and the same precise Ideas are expressed by the Term, then Mr. Edwards has answered the Argument, [...] wise not.—In such a Way of arguing, it may be [...], that no Man can be a Minister of a Church, because Ministers of the Church are called Angels.—

2. He says, ‘that tho' Christ's visible Church is represented as his School, yet it will not follow; it is in order to all good At­tainments.’ [Page 83] —If is be not in order to all good Attainments, yet 'tis in order to all that they have not as yet attained, as the pro­per Benefits of Christ, and his Instruction, as far as the Instruction and Discipline of that School can be the Means of helping them to these Attainments.—It an Indian Child is pat to a College, it is not in order to change his Blood, and mike him an Englishman: this is not the Use of Schools, nor to learn Him Indian Language, which he knew before; but it is to put him under Advantage of learning all the Arts and Sciences which are taught there. And as Christ puts visible Christians to his School, no doubt he intends those of them who have Grace already, shall be under proper Advantages to gain more, and those that have none, be under proper Advan­tages attain Grace, and all spiritual. Improvements they want. Persons are never put to School to attain what they have already, but something which they have not: And the Censures of the Church are the R [...]d and Discipline of Christ, with which scandalous and [...] Persons in his School, are to be corrected, that they may learn [...] to blaspheme.

He says, ‘He Grants that no other Qualifications are ne­cessary in order to being Members of that School or Christ, than [...] as their requisite in order to their subjecting themselves to Christ as their Master, and Teacher, &c. but denies that common Faith and moral Sincerity are sufficient for this, &c.’ Pag. 82.

Here Mr. Edwards uses Terms in a different Sense from what they are taken in the Argument We allow that no Man graciously subjects himself to Christ, without Grace; but to urge this, is but to beg the Question: 'Tis not supposed they graciously subject themselves to Christ. But the Question is, Whether their Sub­mission to the Rules and Orders of Christ so far as they can by com­mon Grace, and the utmost Improvement of their natural and mo­ral [...], be not such a Subjection as Christ requires in Order to admit them into his School, and agreable to the Notion and Nature of that School as visible.—Tho' unconverted Men as such, are in some Sense represented in Scripture, as Enemies of the Cross of Christ &c. Yet it they are visibly engaged with all the Earnestness they can, to obtain Salvation by Christ in the Way of the Gospel; the Scripture does show no Christian to treat them in their open Carriage, of publick Judgment as such.—And to say, ‘that the Scripture knows nothing of an ecclesiastical School, constituted [Page 84] of the Enemies of the Cross of Christ, and appointed to bring such to be reconciled to Him;’—at the same Time understand­ing this of Persons solemnly professing themselves convinced of the Truth of the Gospel, and engaged with all the Power they have to obtain Salvation by Christ, and engaging to keep Covenant with God, is very strange. For if this be true, the Scripture knows no­thing about the jewish Church, nor about Disciples of Christ there; among whom were more than a few no better than these. And then the Scripture knows nothing of the Discipleship of all the unregene­rate Seed of Christians that ever were baptized by the Order of Je­sus Christ: And if this be true, the Scripture knows nothing of any visible Church at all.

As to what Mr. Edwards says under his 4th Head, I have nothing to say, but in the Apostle's Words, Rom. 2. 1. Wherein thou judg­est another, thou condemnest thy self. vide Page 74, 76.—And when it can be made out, that Christ has appointed humane Laws and Lawgivers, or any other Method but the Dispensation of the Gos­pel Covenant, to put Men into his School, then I shall believe that such Methods may be the Means of Men's Conversion.

Object. 2. Page 83. ‘Visible Saintship in the Scripture Sense, can't be the same with that which has been supposed &c. because Israel of old were from Time to Time called God's People, when 'tis certain the greater Part of them were far from having any such visible Holiness, as this &c.’—'Tis Pity Mr. Edwards had not cited the Authors from whom he took his Objections, that he might have appeared to have dealt fairly with them.—It this be taken from Mr. Blake, as I suspect, by some Things said in Reasoning against it; it must needs be mistaken; because he never supposed that Church Members ought not to be in the Eye of a rational Charity truly pious. Both he and Mr. Stoddard differ from Mr. Edwards, about the Rule of the Church's publick Judgment concerning visible Saint­ship.—But Mr. Blake's Question was, that some unregenerate Men "were of the visible Church, and in Covenant with God." Mr. Stoddard's Question was, ‘that sanctifying Grace is not necessary to the lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper.’—In the Defence of which, they have shews that God did take Multitudes of unrege­nerate Men into visible Covenant with him, and that by [...] Com­mand they partook of the Sacraments and Seals of the Covenant; and therefore they had a lawful Right to do so. I never read that [Page 85] they or any other attempted to prove, that such open Idolaters, and openly scandalous Sinners among the Jews, ought to be admitted in­to the Church:—But God had in Fact taken them into Covenant, and into his visible Church; and their Impieties proved they were wicked Men. They were admitted as visible Saints, taken into the Family of Christ, to be trained up in his School, and under his Dis­cipline, but by their Sins and Impieties, they broke the everlasting Covenant, Isai. 24. 5. which it had been impossible for them to have done, it they had not been in it. This they have abundantly prov­ed, and 'tis as certain as the Old-Testament is a divine Revelation. So that Mr. Edwards is evidently mistaken in his Answer. The Ar­gument proves nothing too much, but it demonstrates that which it is brought to prove. It overthrows the Scheme of no Protestants, but those who oppose the Questions which they disputed.—What tho' these wicked Men had not the Visibility of moral Sincerity, in the Times of their Apostacy & Idolatry: This was a visible Breach of Covenant No Man pretends that as such they were admitted, or that any other appearing such, are ever to be admitted into the visible Church. They were admitted as visible Saints; and when they appeared to have corrupted their Way, they ought, according to God's Appointment, to have been cut off as rot­ten Members. But being taken into God's House & Family, they were of it, 'till the Master of the House turned them out. And since he had not yet done it, he calls them his People, and gives them the Name of his Saints, in the Passages cited, and a great many more.—And excepting their corporal Idolatry, I don't know that they have worse Characters given them than those Christians to whom the Apostle James writes, of whom he say, Chap. 2.— that they were [...], they despised the Peer. The [...] Men among them blasphemed the Name of Christ. He signifies there were those among them who were [...], and had no Regard to the Law of God pretending in Opposition to it to be [...] by Faith. Ch. 3. he says, they [...] their Brethren, that they had bitter Envying and Strife. Chap. 4. that they were [...] & Adulteresses: they lusted and killed, were [...], and asked for Blessings to consume them upon their Lusts; were double minded, presumptuous. In the 5th Chap. he calls upon the Rich among them to weep and bowl for the Miseries that shall come upon them. He tells them their Riches are corrupted, their Garments are Moth-eaten, their Gold and [Page 86] their Silver cankered, and the Rust of them shall be a Witness against them, and eat their Flesh as it wise Fire. He charges them with cheating their Labourers, living in Wantonness, and nourishing their Hearts as in a Day of Slaughter, of condemning and killing the Just. And yet these are some of the Christians whom the Apostles ad­mitted into the visible Church, and of whom Mr. Edwards suppo­ses they formed a positive Judgment that they were godly Men.—Now what blacker Crimes, except corporal Idolatry, are charged against the Church of Israel in those degenerate Days Mr. Edwards refers to? No Body supposes that these Persons appeared such when the Apostles admitted them into the Church, or that Persons so appearing, ought to be admitted into any Christian Church. But these Things shew that when unregenerate Men appear to be, and carry visibly as Saints, they ought by the Church to be admitted into it, and are therefore lawfully there. But their Unbelief and Impieties are a Breach of Covenant, and they will be punished a­bove all Men in the World for them.

I think this Controversy is nothing affected by the peculiar Way of explaining the Name of the People God, as given to the Peo­ple of Israel, and the Endeavours Mr. Edwards has used to shew ‘there were several Senses in which they might be called God's Covenant People, and holy; and God's affixing his Blessing to them as a particular Blood, as to a particular Place, or Spot or Ground, a certain Building, or particular Heap of Stones, and the like; and several Appendages of the Covenant, which don't belong to the Gentiles.’ I have read over that Explication with all the Attention I am able, but I must confess it is perfectly unintelligi­ble to me. Neither can I find any greater Light in the Reasons offered to shew the Conveniency of such a Dispensation. I am well satisfied with the Reason God himself has given for his taking the Israelites into Covenant with himself, Deut. 7. 6, 7, 8. And I never expect to hear any better. Mr. Edwards owns after all, that the ‘main Thing, the Substance & Marrow of that Covenant which God made with Abraham, and the other Patriarchs, was the Co­venant of Grace.—And again, if we consider that Covenant with Regard to what the Soul and Marrow o [...] it was, it was the Cove­nant of Grace. But then I own, that what he says, Page [...]. That the Covenant by which they were made a People of God, was a Type of the Covenant of Grace;’ is not only new, but be­yond [Page 87] my Comprehension; for I never tho't before that the Covenant of Grace was a Type of itself—It the Soul [...] Marrow of this Covenant was the Covenant of Grace, then 'tis of no Consequence to this Argu­ment, it there were ten Thousand Appendages to it, for they were certainly taken into the Covenant of Grace, therefore they had a law­ful Right, and it was their Duty to use the Seals of the Covenant of Grace. And hence it follows, that all others whom God calls into it in like Manner, and with like Qualifications, have as good a Right as they had; and that the Gentiles are so called, I think the Apostle undeniably proves in the 11th Chap. to the Romans, which ‘Mr. Edwards thinks can be understood no otherwise in Consist­ence with plain Fact, than that the Gentile Christians succeeded the Jews &c.’—By which I take it, he pretends to obviate or Answer the Argument level'd really against his Notion or Ground of Admission Persons into the visible Church; and which he mentions Page 89. ‘That the Gentle Christians are visible Saints, according to the New Testament Notion of visible Saintship, in the very same Manner as the whole Jewish Nation were, 'till they were broken off by their obstinate Rejection of the Messiah.’

Now it is not intended as I conceive ‘that we ought to insist on no higher or better Qualifications, in admitting Persons Mem­bers of the Christian Church; then the whole Nation of the Jews of that Generation, who lived in Christ's Time were possessed of.’ And yet the Objection is directly to the Purpose, because it proves, that Gentiles are to be taken into Covenant, on the same Founda­tion of Charity that the Jews were; that nothing more is required in order to their being judged visible Saints: And that as God did take into Covenant great Numbers of unregenerate Men among them, and made it their Duty to receive the Seals and Sacraments of the Covenant; then it follows, that the Gentiles have as good a Right, and are bound in like Manner, and on like Terms; because that 11th Chapter to the [...] proves them to be the same Church continued. If this Chapter proves that Point, it must entirely o­verthrow Mr. Edwards's Scheme.—That the Reader may see the true Force of the Argument, I beg his Patience to give it in Mr. Blake's Words, for tho perhaps it might be snortned, yet being another Man's I would not take upon me to after it.—Attending carefully to the Apostle's Discourse from the 15th ℣. of the 11th to the Romans, will show the Reader that the ingraffing there spoken [Page 88] of, is not a mystical ingraffing into Christ, by Election and saving Faith, but into the visible Church by the Profession of Faith.— Page 3 [...] ‘The Apostle having largely discoursed of the Rejecti­on [...] Jews out of their Church State, with the Call of the Gentiles, and their present Adoption, lets them know that the Fall of the Jews was not total nor final, and gives them an Account of a twofold End of the Fall of the Jews. 1. The Call of the Gentiles. 2. A more glorious Return of the Jews, in Emulati­on of the Gentiles. ℣. 12. Whereupon he falls upon a large Dis­course of his Zeal towards them, and their re-engraffing; adding ℣. 18. If the first Fruit be holy, the Lump is also holy: And if the Root be holy, so are the Branches. The first is only mentioned, the second is largely commented upon. Here is a Supposition of the Holiness of the first Fruits, the Holiness of the Root, and an Affirmation that the whole Lump is holy, the Branches are holy. The last is grounded on a Principle in Nature, univer­sally true; as is the Root, so are the Branches: They are both of one and the same Nature. Which he applies first to the Jews in their ancient State, when they were a People of God, in Covenant Relation, Holy; so stiled of him frequently in Scripture: In their present State, for a great Part broken off, and so made no People: In their future Condition, when they should be called of God, and as it were risen from the Dead. And he applies it also to the Gentiles;’

‘6. If the State of the Jews continued to this Day, be an ex­clusion from a visible Church State, so that they are no People of God in Name, then a visible Church State is that which they lost, and the Gentiles gain'd. This is plain, the State in which they stand, being rejected, is their State of Rejection. But their Condition since that Time, is an Exclusion out of a visible Church State. This needs no Proof, therefore a visible Church State is that which the Jews lost & the Gentiles gain'd.—Their Church State, and Relation to God in it, being the same; the Holiness spoken of them, or attributed to them in the New-Testament is the same faederal Holiness.’—I think this Discourse on the 11th Chap. to the Romans, and the Reasonings there from, are consistent with plain Fact, and as plain Facts as were ever seen since the Creation of the World. And when I shall see a fair Solution of these Argu­ments, [Page 91] and a better Exposition of this Passage of Scripture, I think. I shall readily own the Objection is nothing to the Purpose.

Object. 3. Page 91. ‘Those in Israel, who made no Profession of Piety of Heart, did according to divine Institution partake of the Passover; and particularly, it would be unreasonable to sup­pose this of all those whom God commanded to keep the first Passover in Egypt.’ This seems to contain two Objections.

1. That those in Israel who made no Profession of Piety of Heart, did according to divine Institution partake of the Passover.

2. So did the Congregation in Egypt partake of the first Passover.

He first considers this last Part, or second Objection.

In Answer to his Discourse upon it, let it be observed.

1. That the Israelites in Egypt were in Covenant with God before that Time, taken in, in their Ancestors Abraham, Isaac & Jacob; and as God had not been pleased to institute any other Seal of the Covenant, than Circumcision, 'till the Time of the Exit from Egypt; therefore they could observe no other, and it appears that they had carefully observed that, from the Time of its Institution 'till then. So that by God's Command, they had used all the Or­dinances of the Covenant which he had appointed.

2. That the whole Time from Jacob's coming into Egypt, 'till the Israelites went out under Moses, was about 215 Years, and Joseph lived about 72 Years after Jacob's coming into Egypt; And it's probable most of the Patriarchs lived near as long. So that from the Death of the Patriarchs to the Exit, was but about 143 Years. Considering this short Space of Time, and how many godly People there were among them, and that Moses and Aaron were then 80 Years old. Exod. 7. 7. And the constant Expectation they lived in, of going into the Land of Canaan, according to God's Promise to their Ancestors: It looks wonderfully incredible, and commonly speaking impossible, that this People should be sunk down into such a State of horrible Ignorance of Religion as Mr. Edwards seems to suppose, in order to turn our Argument against us; besure 'tis taking that for granted, which we deny, and supposing a Thing a­gainst ten Times the Probability of the contrary. For 'tis ten Times more reasonable to suppose, they were generally well instruct­ed in their Religion, which God had revealed to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which was all the revealed Religion then in the World. And the very Attendance on the great Ordinance of the Passover, [Page 92] in Obedience to God's Command by Moses, was doubtless a suffi­cient publick Declaration of what they were bound to declare of these Matters, who were already in Covenant with God, and not now to be taken in.

3. As to the Want of publick Profession of Repentance for their Idolatry and scandalous Sins, Mr. Edwards has given a sufficient Answer to himself, Page 96. observing that it was before any In­stitution of a publick Profession of Godliness, or of Repentance in Case of Scandal: And if there was no Institution for it, no Man can conceive why it should be done.

4. It was God's express Command that they should eat the Passo­ver at that Time. And as this was Reason enough, so it implies, that God took their Compliance with it as a Profession of then De­dication of themselves to him; and of their Repentance of their Idolatry, and Adherence to the Covenant with him, and a sufficient visible Profession of it at that Time; to which, after the Manner of Men, as King of the visible Church he trusted; and in this Case, Moses was not instructed to examine their Qualifications, nor had any Business to demand Satisfaction about them.

I am now to consider his Answer to the other Part of the Objection, viz. Those in Israel who made no Profession of Piety of Heart, did according to divine Institution partake of the Passover &c.

The Sum of his Answer under his first Head, as far as I can ga­ther it up lies in these Things. ‘If the same Qualifications be re­quisite to partake of the Passover as the Lord's Supper, then the Partakers must have Knowledge to discern the Lord's Body, in Mr. Stoddard's Sense of 1 Cor. 11. 29. in the Passover as in the Lord's Supper: But this is as difficult to suppose, as that they professed Godliness. And why were not scandalous Sinners as expresly forbidden? and why was not moral Sincerity as expresly required?—And that God required them to keep the Passover no more strictly than he required them to love the Lord their God with their whole Heart.’ To this I reply,

1. That, as has been shewn, the Covenant in its Dispensation to, or with Christians, as to all the Substance of it, is the same now with Christians, as it was with the Jews; so it is certain, that Circum­cision and the Passover, were Seals of the same Covenant, as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are now. And I can't conceive any Difficulty in supposing that the Israelites who were to partake of the Passover [Page 93] should have Knowledge to discern the Lord's Body in Mr. Stoddard's Sense o [...] 1 Cor. 11. 29. For this does not imply that they must have as clear a discerning of the Death and Sufferings of Christ in the Passover, as Christians now have in the Lord's Supper; when the New-Testament has unvailed the Face of Moses; and Christ the Substance being come, the Shadows of the Ceremonial Law are dispell'd. We can't Question but the Revelation which the Old­Testament made, was sufficiently clear, and had Light enough in it for the Salvation of the People of God under it. And therefore there was sufficient Light held forth in it, to be the Means to lead them to Christ; and certainly they might know that he was prin­cipally shadowed in the Passover, because the Apostle says, He is our Passover. And the Apostle Peter Act. 10. 43. To him give all the Prophets Witness, that thro' his Name, who over believeth in him shall receive Remission of Sins. If the Old-Testament did not give suffici­ent Light in this Matter for Salvation; then Salvation was not to be had under it. And if it did, then the Jews might know that this was a Sacramental Representation of the Way of Salvation by the promised Messiah, who was the great Expectation of all the Ages and Generations of that Nation. Tho' they could not so clearly apprehend the Manner in which he would work out this Sal­vation by his Blood-shedding and the breaking of his Body on the Cross, yet they might know so much as to be a sufficient Encou­ragement of their Faith in him, and Compliance with the Terms of the Covenant of Grace. And this was eno', 'till God revealed farther Light. The doctrinal Knowledge of Religion is not ne­cessary in the same Degree under each Dispensation, but according to the Degree of Light held forth by divine Revelation. There­fore this is by no Means as difficult to suppose, as that Profession of Godliness in Mr. Edwards's Sense of it.

2. Scandalous Sinners were forbidden, and moral Sincerity re­quired expresly, in Persons Attendance on the Passover. Mr. Stoddard has observ'd, Appeal Page 58, 59. ‘That there was in the Church of Israel, a Way appointed for the removing Scan­dals. Levit. 6. 6, 7. And this Offering of Sacrifice was to be at­tended with Confession, Levit. 5. 5. & Numb. 5. 6, 7. Hereby Scandal was removed, and in Case of Obstinacy, they had their ecclesiastical Censures according to divine Institution; which as Dr. Owen calls them, were an authoritative Exclusion from the [Page 94] Society of the Church, and the Members of it, &c. as may be seen more fully, Appeal Page 59. Therefore if scandalous and im­moral Persons, were allowed to eat the Passover; it was for Want of keeping up that Discipline which God had appointed, and so it is with Respect to the Lord's Supper.’

3. I own that God as strictly required them to love the Lord with all their Heart, as he did to eat the Passover, &c.—I think eno' has been said before to answer all such Kind of Reasoning. All I shall say to it now is; God required all the Males in Israel to go up three Times a Year to worship him at the Temple. Now what Sort of Arguing is it for me to say, that God as strictly required all the Males in Israel to love him with all their Heart. Will it follow from thence, that if any of the Males in Israel did not love him with all his Heart, therefore he must not go up to worship at the Tem­ple? The Consequence is as good in one Case as the other.

Mr. Edwards second Answer Page 95. is; ‘Whatever was the Case with Respect to the Qualifications for the Sacraments of the Old-Testament Dispensation, I humbly concieve 'tis nothing to the Purpose in the present Argument, nor needful to determine us with Respect to the Qualifications for the Sacraments of the Christian Dispensation, which is a Matter of such plain Fact in the New-Testament.’

I am humbly of a very different Opinion, for these Reasons.

1. Because I am so weak not to name with me, Mr. Blake, Mr. Guthry, Mr. Stoddard, Mr. Humfrey, Mr. Timson, and Hundreds of others) as not to think Mr. Edwards's Notion of the Terms of Com­munion such plain Fact in the New-Testament. Nay, I think the other Side of the Question to be plain Fact, and wonder Mr. Ed­wards should controvert it. Now in this Debate, how shall we be determined? We have no living infallible Judge to decide it; what Way shall we take but to turn our Eyes to the Old-Testament; there we find God called a People into the same Covenant of Grace as he has called Christians, and instituted Seals of that Covenant; to which he has told us, the Seals of the Covenant in the New­Testament Dispensation do succeed, and are appointed in their Room. Now when we there see how God himself has determined these Matters, and Facts which we controvert; when we find what were the Qualifications necessary then, in Order to enter into Covenant with God, and enjoy the Ordinances of it; and when [Page 95] we also know that the New-Testament Church is grassed into the same Olive: Methinks this affords us great Light in this Matter: for we on both Sides own that God understands his own Word better than we, and his Actions, and Interpretation are a better Explication of it than any of ours; therefore when he calls a Man a Saint, a People holy, and his own People; and his own Actions determine what Sense he put upon these Words in the Old-Testament, when we find him using the same Words, and those of like Signification with Respect to Persons in like Circumstances, and like Bodies; it seems to me our Wisdom should yield to the Wisdom of God, and we ought to be determined, and set down in an absolute Sub­mission to the divine Authority.

2. Altho' Divines differ as Mr. Edwards observes, as to the pre­cise Agreement, and Difference between the two Dispensations of the Covenant under Moses, and under Christ; and the Dispensation of the Covenant so far as it was Ceremonial is at an End: yet those Things wherein they agree are of great Consequence to be under­stood. In God the Author, propounding the Covenant, who is the God not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also. Rom. 3. 29. In the Party to whom it is propounded, and who is called to accept the Terms of the Covenant; fallen perishing Men; in the Motive or impulsive Cause; meer Grace to fallen Man in his lost Condition: in the Mediator Jesus Christ; who is ever the same in both: In the Terms or Conditions annex'd; Remission of Sins and everlast­lasting Life on the Part of God, Faith and Repentance on the Part of Man: in the Unity of Church-Fellowship; constituting one and the same Church. Gal. 2. 14, 15, 16. Matth. 21. 43. Some Things wherein they differ are also of great Consequence to be known, and want it as to the precise Difference 'tis of no Consequence: Yet I find our Saviour, and his Apostles often refer us to this Dispensation to prove the Christian Dispensation & the Doctrines of it to be the [...] God, and the Apostles declare it to be of standing Use and Direction to the Church as long as the World lasts. 2 Pet. 1. 19, 20, 21.

3. I find the Apostles expresly declaring the Use and End of the Scriptures of the Old-Testament as well as the New, to be for the teaching, reproving, correcting, instructing in Righteousness, that the People of God pray he perfected, thoro'ly furnished unto all good Works, 2 [...] 16. And they refer us to the Way of God's dealing with the [...] Church, and his Chastisements of them, to learn what [Page 96] to expect in like Case. They tell us that these Things were done, and written for our Sake, even in this very Matter. 1 Cor. 10 Chap. begin. to ℣. 11. I hope these are satisfying Reasons why I differ from my Brother Edwards in this Point: And I can't but think, if Peo­ple are once perswaded by the Ministers of Christ, to have little Regard to the Old-Testament, the New will soon go after it.

His third Answer is, ‘that he thinks nothing can be alledged from the Scripture that is sufficient to prove a Profession of God­liness (i. e. in his Sense) not to be a Qualification r [...]quis [...]e in or­der to a due & regular Participation of the Passover.’—The Rea­der is desired to observe, the Words due & regular must intend lawful, else they are nothing to the Purpose, nor concerned in this Dispute.

I think enough has been said to shew, that it was otherwise; but of this the Reader must judge. I shall not swell this Answer by saying any Thing to what Mr. Edwards thinks may be Reasons why the Matter about such a Profession may be involved in so much Obscurity and Difficulty: Only I would observe, they seem to be founded mostly on a Notion that there was a divine Institution for an explicit publick Covenanting with God by particular Persons, in order to their eating the Passoever, which I think has been shewn to be without any Foundation in the Word of God; nor is there, I suppose, any Reason to believe it was ever known, either in the Jewish or Christian Church before.

The fourth Objection proposed to be answered is Page 99. viz. ‘It is not reasonable to suppose that the Multitudes which John Baptist baptized, made a Profession of saving Grace, &c.’ He answers, ‘That those whom John baptized made a Pro­fession of some Kind of Repentance, and 'tis not reasonable to suppose the Repentance they profess'd was specifically, or in Kind, diverse from that which he had instructed them in, and called them to, which is call'd Repentance for the Remission of Sins; and that is saving Repentance.’

The plain Account the Gospel gives us of this Matter, will doubtless clearly open it to an impartial Enquirer. John's Baptism was the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins. Luk. 3. 3. Doubtless we are to understand this as Mr. Edwards says, that Men should now speedily turn to God by Repentance, and Faith in the promised Saviour; but surely this does not prove that hey did declare before their Baptism, and in order to it, that they had a [Page 97] saving Repentance towards God, and saving Faith in the Lamb; for the very Text he quotes is a Confutation of this Supposition. Acts 19. 4, 5. John verily baptized with the Baptism of Repentance, saying unto the People that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ.

These Words seem plainly to import that John declared (as we find he did to the People that came to him, that the Messiah was now speedily to be manifested; and that they must engage to submit to him as soon as he should be manifested, and willingly receive him upon the Evidences of his Mission. But can it follow that by an Engagement that they would turn from all their Sins, and receive and submit to Christ as soon as he was manifested; that they did now believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah before he was manifested; and did now trust in Him for Salvation? And be­cause they confessed their Sins, and engaged to turn from them, as the Way, and Term of their Expectation of the Mercies of the Messiah's Kingdom, that this implied in it that they had exercised this Repentance? And when John declares, Matth. 3. 11. I indeed baptize you with Water unto Repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, &c. he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire. If John baptized unto Repentance, then his Baptism was a Seal of their Engagement to repent, not a Seal of a Profession that they had savingly repented. Agreeable to this, as the People and Nation of the Jews were at that Time in general Expectation that the Messiah would quickly appear; great Multitudes from all Quarters, and many of the Pharisees went out to John; and upon the foregoing Declaration made by him, and their confessing their Sins, he baptized them; but these Pharisees, and Multitudes of the Rest of them, when the Messiah did appear, did not like him, and proved his most obstinate and malicious Enemies, and broke their Engagements to God.—The Sum of the Account the Gospel gives us is, that upon John's Preaching that the Messiah was at Hand, and God called them to Repentance, and to come into his Kingdom, which he would soon set up; thereupon they confess'd their Sins, and received Baptism, which implied a Consent to John's Declaration, and Engagement to submit to the Messiah according to it. Upon their Confession of their Sins, and such an Engagement by Implication, to submit to the Laws of the Messiah's Kingdom, when he should set it up, John baptized them without Delay, and [Page 98] seal'd their Profession and Engagement.—What Opportunity John had to enquire, whether these People that he Baptized made a credible Profession of true Piety, we know not: But we know that we read not a Word in Scripture about any such Enquiry; therefore I know of no other Reason we can have to suppose he did make it, but only first, to suppose that he ought to have made it. As to the moral Character of the Pharisees and Sadducees, he knew it well without Enquiry, and told them Matt 3. 7. That they were a Generation of Vipers. Yet upon the Confession of their Sins, and being willing to receive his Baptism, he baptized them.

I think Mr. Edwards is much mistaken, to suppose he has done enough to stop the Mouths of the Objectors, by representing it as ‘probable that he had as much Time to inquire into their Expe­riences, as into their doctrinal Knowledge, because his Oppo­nents suppose this to be necessary.’ John knew these People were not Heathen, they were in Covenant with God, Members of his visible Church, and were not yet turned out of it. And his Opponents therefore don't suppose, that John did enquire at all a­bout their doctrinal Knowledge.—Besure it seems evident from the Consideration of plain Facts, and all the Accounts the Gospel gives us concerning this Matter, that there is no Appearance that John made a positive Judgment, that every one of these People were re­generated; or that he taught them, that they themselves must be well satisfied that it was so, and be in Fact so, or else it was unlaw­ful for them to be baptized, or for him to baptize them. And yet if these Things don't appear, Mr. Edwards has said nothing to the Purpose of his own Argument, or in Answer to the Objection.

As to the fifth Objection Page 101, it is one that I don't make, and if any Body argues in that Manner against Mr. Edwards's No­tion of the Terms of Church Communion, I leave them to concern themselves about his Answer to it.

Object. 6. Page 102, is taken from the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, Matth. 13. when the Servants of the Housholder unexpect­edly found Tares among the Wheat, they said to their Master; Wilt thou that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay, left while ye gather up the Tares, ye root up also the Wheat with them, let both grow together until the Harvest.

I think Mr. Edwards's Words don't so exactly represent our Ar­gument from this Parable: If we may be allowed to do it our selves, [Page 99] it would be after this Manner, viz. This shews the Mind of Christ, that he will not trust his Servants in this World to pretend to dis­cern between true Saints, and those that are only apparent. But if they were never so much perswaded in their own Minds they are Tares, they may not upon that Presumption, root them up, lest they should root up the Wheat. Which we think shews us the Will of Christ in this Matter, is; that his Servants shall proceed only upon certain established known Rules of his visible Kingdom, and not upon any private Rules of judging about them.—Allowing that those Words in the Parable have only Respect to casting out of the Church, and purging the Field; Mr. Edwards says, ‘He agrees with us, that adult Persons actually admitted to the Communion of the visible Church, ought not to be cast out unless they are obstinate in Heresy, or Scandal.—But he thinks this Parable is a clear Evidence of what he maintains.’—

Notwithstanding all he has said, I find an insuperable Difficulty left upon my Mind respecting his Opinion.—For I find it is the Will of Christ, that all the Infant Seed of visible Believers should be baptized: And I find that Baptism is the only Rite of Admission into the visible Church, that Christ has instituted in the New-Testa­ment.—I can't find one Word of any other Way of Admission, which the Apostles ever used. These Children I conceive to be born in the Covenant, born in the House of God, as his menial Ser­vants; and the Covenant by his Appointment seal'd by Baptism. ‘This, says Mr. Hudson, makes them Members of the Body of Christ; and as for particular explicit Covenant, besides the general, im­posed on Churches, I find no mention of it, no Example, nor War­rant for it in all the Scripture; and therefore cannot account it an Ordinance of God; but a prudential human Device, which in some Cases and Places may haply be of good Use, so it be not urged as an Ordinance of God.’ Page 19.

Mr. Cotton says in his Treatise of Holiness of Church-Members, Pa. 1. ‘Such as are born of Christian Parents, and baptized in their In­fancy into the Fellowship of the Church, are initiated Members of the same Church, tho' destitute of spiritual Grace, until they justly deprive themselves of the Priviledge of that Fellowship; for even of such is the Kingdom of God, Mar. 10. 14.’ The Assem­bly's Confession of Faith ‘defines Baptism to be a Sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the Ad­mission [Page 100] of the Party baptized into the visible Church &c.’ Admission of Persons by Baptism into Church-Membership they lay down as a Thing never doubted. And says Mr. Blake I know no orthodox Writer that questions it.—As soon as any were discipled, thro' the Acts of the Apostles, according to the Commission, Matth. 28. 19. they were thus received. All the Seed therefore of visible Believers who are baptized, are Seed sown by Christ in his Field the Church. When they grow up under the Education of the Church, and come for the Priviledge and Seal of the Lord's Supper, I cannot find out why they have not as good a Right to it as their Fathers & Brethren that we call the Church. If they are turned Heathen, or are obsti­nate in Heresy or Scandal, they ought to be cast out; otherwise Mr. Edwards agrees we have no Business to root them out.

‘I have often marvelled, says Mr. Blake, what Men mean when they speak of Admission of Members into Churches, when the Parties of whom they speak, have already equal Right with them­selves to Membership. If Baptism is an Admission, then their Title is as good, that were thus before admitted, as their's that give them Admission.’

What is it but the Covenant that gives Right to the Seal? & ea­dem est Ratio, utriusque Sacramenti. These Persons Christ has ad­mitted into the Church: He has bound them to keep Covenant; the Seal of it by which they are Sworn to it, has been put upon them; they come and tell the Church they are sensible of this En­gagement, and desire the confirming Seal, and other Priviledges of the Covenant; are neither Ignorant, nor obstinate in Heresy, or Scandal; shall the Church upon a Suspicion of their Unregeneracy tell them no? They were brought in unawares, and contrary to Design, and don't belong to the Church? Why is there not the same Reason that they should thus purge out others that they have the like Suspicion of? I am of Mr. Edwards's Opinion, that ‘if these Persons don't bring forth such Evil Fruit, such scandalous, and obstinate Wickedness, as is visibly inconsistent with the Being of true Grace, they are not to be cast out.’ And without this, I am apt to think the Church have as poor Abilities, and as little Business to go about to separate them, as they had when they were admitted.

And if these orderly Church-Members are really unconverted, and the Ordinance of the Lord's-Supper be not Christ's Appoint­ment [Page 101] a proper Means for their Conversion, and yet nevertheless Christ, as before, has bound and sworn them to attend it: I can't see but this dreadful Consequence must follow; that by Christ's Appointment they are led into a Snare, by which on one Hand or other they are bound to Sin.—If it be said here again, they are as much bound to believe and repent, I grant it: But this implies, they are bound to do all they can in order to it. If it be said, they are bound to Faith and Repentance, in Order to the Enjoyment of this Priviledge; this is begging the Question. And beside, it implies a Supposition, that the Church knows they are Tares, and have Right to purge them out, altho' they don't appear obstinate in Heresy or Scandal; which is a Contradiction of Mr. Edwards's Concession.—

When Mr. Edwards shall help me over these Difficulties, I am ready to give up the Argument from this Parable.

Object. 7. Page 103. ‘Christ himself administred the Lord's Supper to Judas, whom he knew at the same Time to be graceless.’

To this he answers three Things, 1. By denying the Fact. 2. By denying the Consequence. 3. By turning the Difficulty against the Scheme of those he opposes.

1. By denying the Fact, for to him he says ‘it is apparent that Judas was not present at the Administration of the Lord's Supper.’

I shall refer the Reader to the several Accounts the Evangelists give us of this Matter, and offer some Remarks upon them.— Matthew gives us his Account, Chap. 20. from ℣. 20. to 30. Mark's, Chap. 14. ℣. 17, to 26. Luke's Account we have Chap. 22. ℣. 14,—23. John's begins with the 13th Chap. and goes on with an Ac­count of Christ's washing his Disciples Feet, a Discourse of Humi­lity, and diverse Things to the 30 th ℣.—If the Reader will lay all these Accounts before him, and diligently consider them; he may observe, (1) That tho' they all Four give us an Account that Judas was present at the Passover, yet only the three first give us an Account of the Institution of the Lord's Supper. John gives no Account of this at all. (2) He may observe, that Christ's Discourse of the Treachery of one of his Disciples was no Discovery of Judas to the rest. Nor does it appear, that it was discovered 'till Judas discovered it himself. Matth. says, ver. 21. He said, one of you shall betray me. Mark says, ℣. 18. He said one of you which eateth with me shall betray me. This was no Discovery of one more than ano­ther; they then inquire one by one, Lord, is it I? Matt. says [Page 102] ℣. 23. He said he that dippeth his Hand with me in the Dish, the same shall betray me. Mark says ℣. 20. It is one of the twelve that dippeth his Hand with me in the Dish. Still here is no Discovery who it was. If all the Twelve dipped in the same Dish, then there was no nearer Discovery than our Lord at first made; that it was one of them. If they had several Dishes (as was probably the Case) then it comes nearer, and he informed them that it was one of those that dipped in the same Dish, that himself dipped in. So this might point out the Traytor within three or four. After this Matthew gives us an Account, ℣. 25. that Judas himself asked, Master is it I? Jesus replied, thou hast said; by which he knew himself. But if you compare this with John's Account, it appears that Christ spake this with so low a Voice, that none of the rest heard it. For he tells us Chap. 13. 24. that Peter beck'ned, or made some private Sign to John to ask Christ who it was. He lying on Jesus Bosom asked him (as it seems,) as secretly as Peter had beckoned to him, and Christ's Answer was private, and whis­pered only to him (as diverse of the Criticks in Pool's Synopsis ob­serve) and told him it was he to whom he should give a Sop, or a Mor­sel.—And when he had dipped it, he gave it to Judas. For after all this, when Jesus said to him, that thou doest, do quickly. The Evan­gelist tells us ℣. 28. No Man at the Table knew for what Intent he spake this unto him, &c. From all which it appears, that Christ had no Design to discover Judas to the rest; nor does it appear that he did do it. But his Discourse about this Matter, was with Design to give them a farther Proof of his Omniscience, and confirm their Faith in him in that trying Hour which was approaching; when they should remember that he foreknew all Things; and that the Pro­phecy he quoted from Psal. 41. 9. was exactly verified in Judas. And by his Manner of discoursing of this Matter, it appears also, that he design'd to give Judas all suitable Means to awaken his Con­science and bring him to Repentance, by letting him know that he knew his Guilt; and yet treated him with the strongest Argu­ments of Compassion and Tenderness. So that there is no Occa­sion to suppose Judas was excluded because he was become a no­torious, scandalous Sinner; for nothing appears but the rest of the Apostles, all besure excepting John, still took him for as good a Saint as ever they did. In this Sense do Menochius & Lucas Brugensis in Pool's Synopsis, understand those Words, Luk. 22. 21. But behold the [Page 103] Hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the Table. q. d. Altho' I am offering him my Body and Blood, and he is eating and drink­ing the Symbols of them, and I am setting before him such Argu­ments of Repentance; yet the Hand of a Traitor remains on the Table, and the Heart of a Traitor too. And Beza himself owns that in this Manner the Words are best connected with the former, and he has no other Reason against their being so interpreted; but only that he thinks Judas was not at the Table.—(3.) It is to be observed that there seems much less Difficulty in re­conciling the Accounts of the Evangelists, by supposing Judas was at the Eucharist, than on the other Supposition. Matthew and Mark give no Account when he went out; they both give an Ac­count of the Institution and Celebration of the Lord's Supper, im­mediately after the Passover, and that while they were eating Jesus took Bread, &c. So that there is nothing in them, to render it at all probable that he went out before the Supper; but the quick Suc­cession of the Words, Drink ye all of it, and they all drank of it. Which they tell without any Intimation that Judas was gone, ra­ther signify that he was not. And Luke relates that he was in Fact there, and that it was at the Celebration of the Supper that Christ said, The Hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the Table. Now if we consider John gives us no Account at all of the Institu­tion or Celebration of the Supper, but leaves that, as having been sufficiently done by the other Evangelists; and tells us only of the Celebration of the Passover, and of Christ's giving the Sop with a private Intimation to Judas, that he was the Person who should betray him; and then says, he immediately went out. The Ad­verb [...] the same with [...] is presently, quickly, straightway, which does not necessarily imply, that it was that Instant, but soon after; as it diverse Times signifies in other Places, as Mar. 1. 28. Where the Event spoken of required some Time.

The Account which John gives, is, that Judas went out soon af­ter the Sop of the Passover. Luke's Account is, that his Hand was with Christ on the Table, when he administred the Lord's Supper. Now to suppose that John designs to tell us that Judas went out before the Supper, because he speaks of his going out presently after his receiving the Sop; and that the Supper did not intervene, when yet John says nothing about the Supper, seems to be inconsistent with Luke's Account, who tells us, the Hand of Judas was with [Page 104] Christ on the Table at the Supper; and gives us a particular Ac­count of the Celebration both of the Passover and the Supper: By which we are naturally led to think he partook. Whereas to sup­pose John mentioned the going out of Judas upon receiving the Sop, not as an Event that was in Fact next in Order; but only the next that he mentions, and supposing the Supper to intervene between the Sop and his going out (as Luke relates it) since John does not pretend to give an Account of the Supper; this appears perfectly harmonious with Luke's Account,, and agreable to the other Evan­gelists; Whether this is not the most reasonable, if not the only Way of reconciling the Accounts which the Evangelists give us of this Matter, I submit to the Reader's Judgment.—Dr. Lightfoot says, it is here demonstrated that Judas was at the Eucharist. Mr. Henry says, it seems plain that Judas did receive the Supper, for after the Solemnity was over, Christ says, Behold the Hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the Table. And many other good Divines and Expositors are of this Opinion; which are the best Expositors, or whether neither are best, the Reader has free Liberty to judge.

In the second Place, Mr. Edwards denies the Consequence, and says, ‘If Judas partook of the Supper, it affords no Consequence in Favour of what he opposes.’

Now if it be so, I confess I am still at a Loss what he does op­pose. Mr. Stoddard's Question was, that sanctifying Grace is not ne­cessary to the lawful Attendance on the Lord's Supper. This is the Doc­trine which Mr. Edwards tells us in many Places he does oppose. He signify's often, ‘that the church is to make a positive Judg­ment of a Man's gracious State founded on some positive Ap­pearance that ordinarily manifests the Thing; or satisfies the Mind about it.’ And does not the Consequence of Judas's par­taking overthrow this Supposition? Or did Judas creep in una­wares to our Lord?

The Argument is, that Jesus Christ the King of the Church ad­mitted Judas to partake of the Lord's Supper.

Judas was an unregenerate Man.

The Consequence is, that 'tis lawful for some other unregenerate Men to be admitted by the Church to partake of the Lord's Sup­per.—Why does not this Argument prove something in Favour of the Opinion of those whom Mr. Edwards opposes? Because he says, ‘He has observed once and again, concerning the Lord's [Page 105] Dealings with his People under the Old-Testament, so under the New, the same Observation takes Place. Christ did not come to judge the Secrets of Men, nor did ordinarily act in his external Dealing with his Disciples, and Administration of Ordinances, as the Searcher of Hearts; but rather as the Head of the visible Church, proceeding according to what was exhibited in Professi­on, and visibility, &c’I know Mr. Edwards has made this Observation, if he had put in the Word always, instead of ordinarily, it would have been as just; and as I think, this Observation con­futes his whole Scheme. I could wish he had kept the true Import of it in his Mind, because I can't but think it might well have saved the Church the Trouble of this Controversy. However it no Ways weakens the Argument offered by Mr. Edwards's Opposers, from Judas's partaking of the Lord's Supper. For from hence it appears, that the Judgment Christ made as Head of the visible Church con­cerning Judas's Religion, was founded on his outward Carriage and Behaviour; his visible owning him as his Lord, his Master, and Saviour; and that he took those Words and Actions in the most favourable Sense they could be interpreted in. It is certain he never founded his Judgment on Judas's gracious Experiences, because he had none. And 'tis certain he never put him upon declaring ex­presly that he had such, in Contradistinction from a Declaration that might be made with moral Honesty, because he knew he must lie, if he had said those Things. And 'tis also clear that he expect­ed that Declaration or Profession which was as much as he could make with common Grace and Help; because tho' Judas did lie when he made this, yet he need not have lied, but might honestly and truly have made this if he would. I think it is plain, Christ did not as Head of the Church, make a positive Judgment that Judas was a godly Man, founded upon his Acquaintance with Judas's Ex­periences, and yet at the same Time as the Searcher of Hearts knew that he was a Devil. And hence it follows, that when Ministers or Churches require the gracious Experiences of Men's Hearts, or their own positive Profession of that which necessarily implies such Experiences, in order to their positive Judgment that they are sancti­fied; and this in order to know if they have Right to the visible Ordinances of the Gospel; they then become Searchers of Hearts, and no longer stand in the Place of the King of the visible Church.

[Page 106] But in the third Place, Mr. Edwards turns the Difficulty against the Scheme of those he opposes, and so makes it Argument [...] Hominem: By which he seems to think, we must be for ever silenced; and says, ‘He will venture to tell them that the Difficulty lies full as hard against their own Scheme; and if there be any Strength at all in the Argument, it is to all Intents of the same Strength against those Qualifications which they themselves suppose to be necessary,—as against those which I think to be so.’ Page 105. How so? Why, because Christ knew all the secret Wickedness, ‘Murder &c. which Judas was now practising against him, and knew that Judas had not moral Sincerity.’ It seems somewhat strange how he could so soon forget what he had been speaking in the Paragraph next foregoing, that both under the Old-Testament and the New, ‘Christ did not in his external Dealing with his Disciples, & the Administration of Ordinances, act as the Searcher of Hearts, but as the Head of the visible Church &c.’ Now I would ask, Whether Christ knew all this secret Wickedness, and the murderous Designs of Judas his Heart, and his secret wicked Trans­actions and Agreement with the chief Priests; as the Head of the visible Church, or as the omniscient God?—I think only the omni­scient God could know it; when at the same Time as King of the visible Church he had moral Evidence that Judas was morally sincere. And if Mr. Edwards will take the moral Evidence of a Man's mo­ral Sincerity to be equally an Evidence of saving Grace, then I con­fess I know not who he is opposing in this Controversy more than himself.—It seems to me, this sufficiently refutes Mr. Edwards's Observation in the Close of his Answer to this Objection, with Respect to the Passover: for Christ acted in the same Character here, as King of the visible Church, and acting as such he knew Judas was morally sincere, seeing the proper instituted Evidences of it in his visible Be­haviour, yet at the same Time as God before whom all Things are naked and open, he clearly saw all the Treachery and Wickedness of his Heart.

Object. 8. Page 106. ‘If sanctifying Grace be a requisite Qua­lification in order to Persons due Access to Christian Sacraments, God would have given some certain Rule whereby those who are to admit them, might know whether they have such Grace or not.’

I suppose this is designed to be a Representation of, and what follows, an Answer to Mr. Stoddard's 5th Argument in his Appeal, [Page 107] Page 74.—'Tis again necessary, that the Reader remember, that the Question Mr. Stoddard disputed is this, ‘Sanctifying Grace is not necessary in order to a Person's lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper.’—And the Argument here pretended to be stated, the Reader may see Page 74 of the Appeal in these Words.— ‘If the Lord's Supper be only for converted Men, then God would have given some certain Rule, in the attending of which, it might be remained to converted Men: But he hath given no such Rule in attending of which it may be restrained to converted Men.’ How Mr. Stoddard has proved both the major and minor Proposi­tions of this Argument the Reader may there see. And if those two Propositions are true, the Consequence must be true.

Mr. Edwards says, ‘This Objection was obviated in his stating the Question: But he farther observes, that if there be any Strength in it, it lies in this Proposition, viz. Whatever Quali­fications are requisite in order to Persons due Access to Christian Sacraments, God hath given some certain Rule whereby those who admit them may know whether they have those Qualifications or not.’ He might also have said, that this Argument was ob­viated, for as he has stated it in the Words of the Objection, it is no more a-kin to Mr. Stoddard's Argument, than his Question in the Words he has propounded it without his Explication, is a-kin to Mr. Stoddard's Question. Indeed I suppose the whole Contro­versy is obviated by his stating the Question, provided he had not explained it to mean another Thing than the Words of the Question might naturally speak. For whether sanctifying Grace be requisite in under to Persons due Access, i. e. right and acceptable Access to Christian [...], is what Mr. Stoddard never denied, nor was denied I suppose by any Divine on Earth. This is a very different Thing from a lawful partaking of them. If Mr. Edwards did not intend to dispute Mr. Stoddard's Question, why did he tell us, he did in his Preface? And why should he pretend to propound and answer Mr. Stoddard's Arguments, which are offered only to prove that Question? If he does; why does he propound a Question in ambiguous Words, which may be taken in different Senses, and change the Terms of Mr. Stoddard's Arguments into ambiguous Words to suit the Terms of his own Question? The Position upon which Mr. Edwards says, the Strength of that Argument depends, is but a Blind. It does not depend on the Truth of that Proposition.

[Page 108] Mr. Stoddard does not say, if sanctifying Grace be necessary to a Person's lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper, that then God would have given some certain Rule whereby those who are to admit them, may know whether they have such Grace or not.

He says, ‘God would have given some certain Rule, in the at­tending of which, the Lord's Supper might be restrained to con­verted Men.’ 'Tis plain, he did not intend that this Rule res­pected wholly these who admit; but as there are some to admit, and some to be admitted; the Rule respects them both. And that he in­tended this, appears, because Page 75, he mentions an Objection of Dr. Mather's, viz. ‘There is a certain Rule given whereby godly Men may know their Godliness, and that they are warranted to come to the Lord's Supper’ To which he replies, ‘Mr. Ma­ther will not stand by this Rule; for he faith, if after serious Self­Examination, a Man cannot but hope he is a godly Man, he may come, tho' he hath not Assurance; and if he goes by Mr. Ma­ther's Rule, that will not restrain the Sacrament to converted Men.’ So that if Mr. Edwards had given a fair State of the Ar­gument, it must have been, That whatever Qualifications are ne­cessary to the lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper, God hath given some certain Rule in the attending of which the Lord's Supper may be restrained to such as have those Qualifications. This is a Propo­sition contained in Mr. Stoddard's Argument, and this I believe there is no Divine nor Christian upon the Face of the Earth that under­stands an Argument, will deny.—What therefore if the Church can as well judge concerning saving Grace, as any other internal invisible Qualification? Yet if the Rule which God hath given for Admission be attended by those who are bound to attend it; the Lord's Supper will certainly be restrained to such as have the Qua­lifications necessary to the lawful Partaking of it, and if it be only for converted Men, then in the Attendance to that Rule it will be restrained to such.—

Object. 9. Page 107. ‘If sanctifying Grace be requisite to a due Approach to the Lord's Table, then no Man may come but he that knows he has sanctifying Grace. A Man must not only think he has Right to the Lord's Supper, in order to his lawful partaking of it; but he must know he has a Right: If nothing but Sanctification gives him a real Right to the Lord's Supper, then nothing short of the Knowledge of Sanctification gives him [Page 109] a known Right to it. Only an Opinion, and probable Hope of a Right will not warrant his coming.’

This is Mr. Stoddard's second Argument. Appeal Page 60.

Mr. Edwards's first Answer is, ‘by desiring those who insist on this as an invincible Argument, to consider calmly whether they themselves ever did, or ever will stand to it.’

Mr. Stoddard besure thought it was an invincible Argument, though his Grandson derides it. For he says, Page 63. ‘The Truth of it is as evident as the Light of the Sun at Noon Day.’—It seems the Reason why we should not stand to it, Mr. Edwards thinks to be because two Things are to be observed.

1. ‘Then no unconverted Persons may come, unless they know that unconverted Persons should come, and know that God don't require Grace in order to their coming.’

If this were so, I see no Reason why we should not stand to the Argument.—Whatsoever Qualifications they be, which are ne­cessary to a Person's lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper, 'tis abso­lutely certain that a Man must have them, or else he cannot law­fully partake. And how he can know he has a lawful Right, un­less he knows he has those Qualifications, I own is at present be­yond my Power to comprehend; and I believe it is beyond the Power of any Man to tell me. To say that a Man may have a lawful Right to partake of the Lord's Supper, and not have the Qualifications which God's Law requires to make it lawful for him to partake, is a Contradiction in Terms, and the same Thing as to say, such a Thing is necessary to warrant his coming, & yet he may warrantably come without it. And 'tis the same Thing to say, a Man may know he has a Right, and yet not know he has the Qualification which gives him that Right: This is no better than to say, a Man may know a Thing, and not know it; or that he may know a Thing to be true, and know the contrary to be true at the same Time. If a Man can warrantably to a Thing, and yet not know he has the Qualification which gives him his Warrant; then he may act warrantably, when he has no Warrant to act.

In Answer to Mr. Edwards's Question, this I assert, and stand to as a Matter of easy Proof, that there is no Qualification whatsoever which is necessary to the lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper, but what a Man must have in order to his lawful doing it; and that he must know he has it, in order to his knowing that he may law­fully do it.

[Page 110] But as no Man ever taught, that the Want of Grace was a Qua­lification necessary to a Man's lawful partaking of the Lord's Sup­per, neither can his Knowledge of his being unconverted, be neces­sary in order to his knowing his Right to come.

A Man must know he has the Qualifications which by the Gos­pel Charter, give him a lawful Right to come; but if he may have these being unconverted, and not know that he is unconverted, then there is no Necessity of his knowing that unconverted Men may lawfully come, in order to his knowing that he has a lawful Right to come. If it be necessary for some unconverted Men to know that unconverted Men may lawfully come, in order to their knowing that they may lawfully come; yet it is not necessary for all to know this.—

As Mr. Stoddard wrote his Book for the Help and Direction of Persons, whos Consciences might be troubled on this Account;—I hope the judicious Reader will excuse me, if I say something more under this Head, for the Sake of the Weak and Injudicious, who may be perplex'd by this Discourse of Mr. Edwards

There are diverse Ways of knowing Things. Some are known only by Intuition, some in a discursive Manner, by Study, Medi­tation and Reasoning, some by Testimony. Accordingly there must needs be different Degrees of Certainty, in the Knowledge which Men attain in these several Ways. And when a Man is come to so much Knowledge of the Objects of his Search in either of these Ways, as the Nature of the Means which God has appointed for the obtaining that Knowledge will ordinarily allow in such Cir­cumstances as God has placed him; he is properly said to know those Things. He knows them as far as the Author of his Na­ture has made it necessary for him to know them.

Now the Revelation of God contained in the Bible, being the only infallible sufficient Rule to direct Men in all Matters of Faith and Practice, necessary to Salvation; therefore to know the Terms of Christian Communion, a Man must search the Word of God with great Care and Diligence, together with earnest Prayer, that God would help him by his good Spirit to understand his Will, and show him his own Duty; using withal whatsoever Means God puts in his way, to help him to come at the right Understanding of the Mind of God revealed in his Word: And here he will find as plain as the Sun, that God requires all Men who hear and read the [Page 111] Gospel [...] [...] Christ, to believe in his Name, to repent of their Sins, and to attend on all the Ordinances which he hath appointed in his Word; and diligently to use all Means instituted for their Sal­vation: That he calls them to give up themselves to him with all their Hearts, and to bind and engage themselves to him as far as they can, to enter into the Bond of the Covenant through Jesus Christ, and engage to fulfil the Terms of the Covenant of Grace, in a Way of believing, repenting, and sincere Obedience. To enable them her into, he gives abundant Encouragement of Assistance by his holy Spirit to them that set themselves in earnest hereunto, and lay this Matter to Heart as their chief Business; and upon the so­lemn Profession hereof, he finds that God hath in all Ages admitted Persons into visible Covenant with himself, and commanded them to use and improve all the Ordinances of his Worship. Now he knows that these are the Qualifications which God requires of him in order hereto, because the Word of God declares so.—But how shall he know if he has these Qualifications? This he must know by Intuition; by seeing them in himself. He has no possible Way to know whether he believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or is sincerely willing to give up his Heart and Life to God, and seek his Salva­tion by Jesus Christ, in the Way the Gospel proposes; but by see­ing these Things in his own Heart.—As this is the most certain Way of knowing, so here his Knowledge must be proportionably cer­tain to the Means of coming at it. When he sees these Qualification, in his own Heart, he knows 'tis his Duty and his Priviledge to attend the Lord's Supper.—But a Scruple is thrown in. Perhaps this Belief and Sincerity which he knows he has, tho' it be without wilful and known Guile or Deceit, may be no more than moral Sincerity; the Effect of common Grac [...] and Illumination, and if it be so, he is unconverted. How must he know that he may law­fully come if that be his Case? He may know by the Word of God, that God has admitted Men upon making such a Profession as he finds he can truly make, and that Multitudes have had God's War­rant to use and enjoy the Ordinances of Salvation, as God's Word shews, had not sanctifying Grace. From whence it follows, that if that really should be the Case with him, yet he has God's Call and Warrant to come, and cast himself upon his Mercy, and do the ut­most he can: His Unregeneracy me [...]rly as such is no Bar. This is such a Fact of Knowledge of this Matter, as the Nature of the [Page 112] Thing makes necessary; and is certainly proportionable to the Means of Knowledge which God ordinarily furnishes Men with: This is a Knowledge which Boys and Girls of 16 Years old may attain to.—And it is of no more Necessity for them to know the Controversies which have been among Divines about this Matter, or whether there ever was any Controversy about it; then to know how many Stars there are. A Man may know that he believes the Doctrine of the Trinity, and that he is bound to adore one God in three Persons; that the human and divine Nature of Christ, are one Person, God-Man, whom he must believe and obey, and serve as the only Lord and Saviour of the Church, as well without know­ing any Thing about the Controversies among Divines concerning these Things, and their Explications upon them, as with. If it be necessary for a Man to stay 'till Divines and Churches have settled their Controversies concerning these Things, and many other Dis­putes, before knows whether he is in his present State bound to worship God, and enjoy the Ordinances of the Gospel; it will be long eno' before he will either believe, or practice any Doctrine of Religion.

But upon the Supposition that sanctifying Grace is necessary to the lawful Attending the Lord's Supper, this is the essential Qualifica­tion which gives a Man a Right, and without which it is impossible he should lawfully do it; and the only possible Way of knowing this Qualification is by seeing it in his own Soul, let him be old, or young, great or small: And the Knowledge a Man must have of God's Will must be as certain as the Nature of the Thing ordina­rily admits. And in this Case this is not only the ordinary, but the only possible Way (except Revelation) for any Man to know his Warrant or Right.

The second Thing Mr. Edwards says under this Head is ‘that the venerable Author of the Appeal to the Learned, did in his Ministry ever teach such Doctrine, whence it unavoidably fol­lows, that no one unconverted Man in the World can know he has a Warrant to come to the Lord's-Supper.’

To this I say two Things.

1. Supposing this was true, it could not in the least Prejudice the Argument which Mr. Edwards is here opposing. The Evidence and Consequence of which is exactly as just and good, if that vene­rable Man was so weak as to contradict himself and treat his People [Page 113] like an Ideot. 'Tis well known that Arguments neither receive, nor loose their Force from the Conduct of the Men that use them, they never become weak and inconclusive because the Men that used them turn Fools, and contradict themselves. But,

2. To do Justice to Mr. Stoddard, which Honour and Conscience oblige me to; I would observe, that this Assertion is a great Mis­take. 'Tis only an Inference of Mr. Edwards's own making, which he charges upon Mr. Stoddard's Doctrine, viz. That no natural Man knows the Scripture to be the Word of God. And I appeal to the Writings of Mr. Stoddard, and to the same Hearers that he explained himself, and that they ever understood him to mean when he ex­press'd himself in that Manner; a gracious Knowledge of God, such as effectually bowed Mens Hearts, and influenced them to a gracious Obedience: Which Knowledge was attain'd, as he was wont to ex­press it, by Way of the Spirit's Testimony to the Divinity of the Word of God. Which overpowred those Jealousies and Doubtings of Heart concerning it, that carnal Men are attended with; but that great Man never taught that unregenerate Men had not or might not have as full Assurance that the Scriptures are the Word of God, as they could have of any Matters of Fact that were ever testified to the World, yea, and himself wrote a Treatise on those Words, Jer. 23. 28. What is the Chaff to the Wheat (which I wish had seen the Light) to prove that there is such a Self-evidencing Light in the Word of God as is sufficient to convince every Man that would use his Reason, and the Advantages God gives him with that Revelation, that it must needs come from God. So that natural Men may as really know that unconverted Men may lawfully come to the Lord's Supper (supposing that Doctrine to be learned from the Bible) as know that it is their Duty to believe in Christ, or to perform any Act of instituted Worship at all; and I appeal to the same Hearers, if they did not always understand him so, and Mr. Stoddard knew they did, and acted accordingly: And it will as clearly follow from the Representation Mr. Edwards gives of Mr. Stoddard's Doc­trine, that natural Men can know nothing of their Obligation to any Duty depending on the revealed Will of God; and if this be the genuine Consequence of the Doctrine Mr. Stoddard ever taught his People, then it must follow that the Doctrine he ever taught his People was not the Will of God, but a Contradiction of the Bible, and of the Light of Nature, and of the common Sense of Mankind. [Page 114] I conclude it was owing to a great Degree of Warmth in Mr. Ed­wards's Imagination that made him forget the Rules of Decency as well as Reasoning, when he wrote that Passage, which does not in the least Degree solve Mr. Stoddard's Argument, any more than it does Honour to his Memory.

His second Answer is Page 109, viz. ‘Men are liable to Doubt concerning their moral Sincerity, as well as saving Grace.—And if their Consciences were awakned, he supposes, they would be every whit as liable to Doubts about their moral Sincerity, as godly Men are about their gracious Sincerity.’—If this were the Case, it would follow, that there would be equal Difficulty in acting upon Mr. Stoddard's Scheme, as upon Mr. Edwards's. How­ever, it will still be absolutely necessary that Men should know the Will of God, else it will be utterly impossible to yield any Obedi­ence to it. It will still be necessary to know we have the Qualifi­cations which are essential to our enjoying the Priviledges of the Lord's Supper, or else impossible to know we have a Right to it. So all the Advantage of this Answer will be, that according to this, Obedience to the Law of God, either outward or inward, is for the most Part impracticable. But I conceive this Assertion of Mr. Ed­wards to be a great Mistake; and suppose herein he differs from most, if not all Divines, and moral Philosophers in the World. The Opinion of Arch Bishop Sharp being now before me, I will give it in his Words.

‘A Man's Heart being nothing else but the Principles, from which his Actions (considered morally) differs; it is a Man's Thoughts and Designs, his Inclinations and Affections. Now what Thing in the World is there that a Man can know if he know not these? A Man is as sensible of the Motions and Dis­positions of his Soul; and knows as well what his Thoughts are, and what Principles he is acted by, as he knows when he is hun­gry and thirsty, when he feels Pleasure, or Pain, when he hears, or sees this or the other Object. When we transact any Business or drive on any Bargain with Men, we know whether we deal honestly and truly with them or no. If we have Designs of over­reaching them or imposing upon them, we can't conceal our Design from our selves.’—Thus he.—If it be not always so easy to know our moral Sincerity; yet 'tis certainly practicable and 'tis in every Man's Power, if he will use the Help God does then [Page 115] give him (unless he be judicially blinded or under some Distemper) for this evident Reason; Because this Power is necessary to his being a moral Agent, and without it he could not be subject to a moral Law. 'Tis true, Men may be liable to Mistakes concerning their moral Sin­cerity; but I know of no other Source of these Mistakes but either bo­dily Indisposition, their own Carelesness, or some judicial Dispensation of divine Providence. And I can't but think Mr. Edwards is very much out in making the Question he does at the close of this Para­graph. I am apt to think, that if a Man should put the Case he supposes to a Divine on this Side the Question, and tell him he did not know but he had known and allowed Guile in his Heart, in his Pretences to give up himself to God: That Divine would have no Imagination the Man ought in that State to come to the Sacrament, and if he was afraid whether he really believed the Doctrine of the Trinity, and any other fundamental Doctrine of the Gospel, he would readily advise him to stay 'till he did know. The more tender a Man's Conscience is, the easier it will be for him to know his moral Sincerity, (if his Conscience be not sickly) because he will the more diligently watch against Mistakes; and the more thoroughly examine the Principles from whence his Actions flow. Tho' a Man may speak more cautiously, yet this is no Evidence he don't know; for every Divine knows that he may know it if he will, and the more thorough and careful he is to know, the more certainly he will know: And such Caution as Mr. Edwards speaks of answering such Question, I believe is not commonly with Re­spect to moral Sincerity; but with Respect to the Distinction of gracious Sincerity, from moral.

The third Answer we have Page 110.—I must desire the Rev. Author to consider whether he has done as he desires to be dealt with, Page 136. viz. "attended to the true State of the Question." For 'tis here again said; ‘Suppose sanctifying Grace to be requi­site in order to a being properly qualified according to God's Word for an Attendance on the Lord's Supper; yet it will not follow that a Man must know he has this Qualification in order to his being capable of conscienciously attending it.’ Tho' this may be agreeable to the Words in which Mr. Edwards has at first pro­pounded his Question; yet since he is here professedly answering an Argument of Mr. Stoddard, I think the Laws of Equity as well as Disputation oblige him to keep that exactly in View.

[Page 116] Mr. Stoddard's Argument is; ‘If no unsanctified Persons may come to the Lord's Supper, then no Man may come but he that knows himself to be sanctified; but Persons may come that don't know themselves to be sanctified.’—Now this is what Mr. Edwards says, will not follow, if he answers this Argument ‘But if he judges that he has it according to the best Light he can ob­tain &c. The Advice of his Pastor, &c. He may be bound in Conscience to attend. The Reason he gives, is because Chr [...] ­ans partaking of the Lord's Supper, is not a Matter of [...] Priviledge, but a Matter of Duty which God claims.’—All the Duties which God requires of us in his instituted Worship, are Priviledges, as really as this. But I cannot find out what [...] this can make on Mr. Edwards's Principles. The partaking of the Lord's Supper is a Priviledge granted by God to all sanctified Per­sons, and to no other. It is also a Duty commanded to all Christi­ans, but every unsanctified Person is forbidden to attend it. So that if a Man has sanctifying Grace, he has a Right to this Priviledge, but no Right if he has not sanctifying Grace, for this is the essential Condition of the Grant, his Attendance is also his Duty, God com­mands it. How? With sanctifying Grace; and if he has nor that he forbids him to meddle with it. So that without that Qualifica­tion, 'tis no present Duty, but a Sin. For tho' God claims it, yet he does not claim it from any Man in an unsanctified State. God never commands, and forbids the same Thing in the same Circum­stances. So that 'tis equally necessary for him to know he has sanc­tifying Grace in order to know that it is his present and immediate Duty to attend, as to know it, in order to know that he may Claim it as his Priviledge; since every Man is bound to know his Duty in order to his doing it, he is bound to know that he has those Qualifications which God has made necessary, and without which, he has forbidden him to perform this Action; without which there­fore it is not his present Duty, but a Sin to do it.

Tho' it be allowed that God commands every Man to repent and to be holy, and so to attend the Lord's Supper; yet on Mr. Ed­ward's Principles, God forbids every Man to attend the Lord's Sup­per without Holiness, therefore if he partakes without Sanctification, he is not only guilty of Sin in the Want of a necessary Qualificati­on for that Duty, and in the Manner of his doing it; but he also sins in the Matter, and acts against God's express Prohibition in that. [Page 117] If I am possitively commanded to partake of the Lord's Supper, be­ing converted, and possitively forbidden to do it, being unconverted, then the Command don't bind me to do it being unconverted, unless the Command cancel the Prohibition. And if this be the Case, then Laws cancel themselves, and dissolve their own Obligation. I [...] i [...] be a Command binding only with such Qualifications, and for­bidding without. I am equally bound to know at least, that I have those Qualifications which make it a Law to me in my present State; as I am, if it be considered only as a Priviledge granted with such Qualifications. If I am now commanded to partake in the State I am, it is because now I have the Qualifications necessary by the Law for the lawful doing that Action; then I must know that I have [...] necessary Qualification, else I can't know that I have now a Right; or that I am now bound, or that it is now lawful for me to do it. If a probable Hope or Judgment binds me, then I must perform Obedience to a divine Law, because I probably hope or judge there is such a Law, and so perform Obedience to a divine Law, when I don't act as a moral Agent.—I know there are many Cases in Life wherein Men are not able to come to a certain Deter­mination that God requires such and such Actions, in which the best Judgment they are able to make with the present Advantages they have [...] oblige their Consciences to act. But when they don't certainly know that such or such a Thing is forbidden, but upon the best Judgment they can make under their present Advantages, it appears probable that God forbids them, 'tis not only safest, but they are bound in Conscience to abstain, with Respect to all Actions which full under the Prohibition of the divine Law, or which the Prohibition respects: a Man must not only hope, but he must be certain God has not forbidden him: The very Doubt & Suspicion of his Mind that he may be forbidden binds his conscience to ab­stain. The Apostle's Determination has put this beyond Question. [...] [...]

The [...] given to illustrate the Case, Page 111. is to me no Manner [...] Illustration, more than the Case it self.—No Man may take upon him the Work of the Ministry, unless he be called of God. No Man is called of God if he have not the essential Qualifications requisite to that Work; and it he may undertake without know­ing that he has them, then he may obey a Call of God without knowing he has a Call, and consequently when he has none. God [Page 118] did never call a Man to do a Thing, without giving him the Means to know that Call; which if he uses to the utmost of his Capacity and present Assistance, he may know. If then a Man don't know that he has the essential Qualifications for the Ministry, and is not come to a proper Certainty that he is called of God, and yet his best Judgment tells him he may not neglect that Work, his b [...]st Judgment is a wrong one, and his Practice upon it is no proper Obe­dience to a divine Call.

Some of the Qualifications for the Ministry, a Man has one Way of knowing, some, another. No Man is a proper Judge of his own Gifts; these he must submit to be tried by those whom God has appointed to judge of them, and when they have been duly tried and pronounced sufficient by those whom God has appointed to judge of them; whatever Diffidence he has of them himself, yet he may know them sufficient by that Testimony which God hath appointed to determine him.—But suppose also that sanctifying Grace is necessary; this is a Thing which he can no more know by the Opinion, Advice or Judgment of others, than he can know the Actings of his own [...], or Affections, or any other Motion of his Mind: For no Man in the World can know their Things but him self; these therefore he must know by seeing them in his own Soul, because this is the only Way they can be known to him. Here then a probable Judgment will not be sufficient; for a Thousand Probabilities will not give him one Certainty: And if he [...] God requires him and calls him without that Knowledge, he runs [...] being sent.—That ever Gentlemen of Mr. Edwards's Principles should think Men run the greatest Risk in abstaining from the Lord's Supper, because they are doubtful whether they have sanctifying Grace, and only hope they have, or think it probable, looks very strange; when according to them the Gospel does peremptorily sentence Men to Damnation for eating and drinking without sancti­fying Grace. And he himself supposes, or else his 11th Argument is a Self-Contradiction, that the Word unworthily, 1 Co [...]. 11. 27,—29.) means unholily, or the same as to be without sanctifying Grace. Therefore he that eats and drinks unsanctified, is guilty of the Body & Blood of the Lord, and seals his own Damnation; and yet runs a greater Risk to abstain, tho' he doubts about his Conver­sion, than to eat in the Face of a positive Prohibition in Case his Hopes be mistaken; tho' this awful Denunciation assures him that [Page 119] if he be in Fact unconverted, he is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, and eats and drinks Damnation to himself. This is such a Way of easing wounded and fearful Consciences, as I never read of before.

As to the Case of the Priests Ezra 2. it appears to me to have all the Force in this Argument, which Mr. Stoddard alledged it for. He says, ‘The Case of Men that don't know their Saintship upon Mr. Mather's Principles, is like the Case of the Priests that could not find their Register: They were put from the Priesthood as polluted, that they should not eat of the holy Things still there stood up a Priest with Urim and Thummim.’—The plain Law in this Case was this: The Family of Aaron was separated to the Priesthood; and were to offer Sacrifice to God; and it was utterly unlawful for any other to do it. Lev. 3. 10. The Stranger that com­eth nigh shall be put to Death. The Priests, and no other were to eat the holy Things, Levit. 22 9, 10. So it is here. The Converted or Sanctified, on Mr. Edwards's Principles, are to eat the Lord's Sup­per; 'tis God's Command; but if any other eat, he must die. He eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself. These Priests in Ezra's Time, were satisfy'd they were Priests; so were the Sanhedrim, for they are called the Children of the Priests, ℣. 61. but they could not prove it by the Register of their Genealogy, therefore they were put [...]. So here, the Man hopes, yea, he strongly hopes, he is converted, but he does not know. The Church suppose him to be coverted, but they don't know. The Case is the same; and therefore the Rule is Good, the Man is to be put by as polluted, 'till there is a Revelation by special Inspiration; 'till there stand up a Priest with Urim and Thummim.—In the Case of the Priests, the Persons must know themselves they were Priests, else it was unlaw­ful for them to officiate; the Sanhedrim must know it, else they might not admit them.—Tho' Mr. Stoddard only alledged this Ex­ample respecting the Persons themselves, to shew that it must be un­lawful for them to take the Lord's Supper, notwithstanding they had a strong Hope and probable Perswasion, if they did not know they were sanctified: For the Church's admitting them is not the [...] Question in this Argument.—Yet if there ever was a Simi­litude, I believe this is one in the Case of both.—To what Purpose is it said, that the Ways of knowing are different? Ceremonial Ho­liness must be proved in the one Case, so must real Holiness in the [Page 120] other; and they must be known according to the different Ways by which such different Things can be known. But be that as it will, the Thing must be known. Mr. Edwards don't pretend that the Profession of the Parties themselves, is the Way by which they are to Evidence to themselves their Qualifications to partake of the Lord's Supper, any more than the Profession of the Priests. And to say, that such a Profession of internal, invisible Things &c. is the Rule to direct the Church in the Admission of Persons to the Or­dinance of the Lord's Supper, is to hide the Parallel, and beg the Question. For the Question here is about the Person's Right to come, and not about the Church's admitting them.—For my Part, I see not but this Argument of Mr. Stoddard's is invincible, for ought any Thing Mr. Edwards has done to conquer it.

Object. 10. Page 112. ‘The natural Consequence of the Doctrine which has been maintained, is to being Multitudes of Persons of a tender Conscience and true Piety, into great Perplexities.’

This I suppose is designed to represent Mr. Stoddard's 9th Argu­ment Appeal Page 86. how exactly the Reader will see. The Ar­gument is this: ‘If sanctifying Grace be necessary unto the law­ful attending the Lord's Supper, then none but those that have a saving Work of Conversion may attend it.’ But that is not true Doctrine.

The minor he says is evident from hence.

‘That Doctrine which has a Tendency to discourage many godly Men from doing their Duty, and the Means of Comfort, & to make their attending their Duty to be a Torment to them, is not accord­ing to Scripture &c.’

Mr. Edwards 1st Answer is, ‘That 'tis for want of like Tender­ness of Conscience, that the other Doctrine which insists on moral Sincerity, don't naturally bring them who are received on those Principles, into the same Perplexities &c.’

Having had occasion before to speak of the same Thing, I shall only say here, that this is an Assertion, which I take to be contrary to common Sense, and the Experience of Mankind, and the allowing it to be true, must overthrow the Law of Nature, and cast infinite Reproach upon the Author of it.

Answ. 2. ‘Supposing the Doctrine which I have maintained be indeed the Doctrine of God's Word, yet it will not follow that the Perplexities true Saints are in, thro' doubting of their State, are Effects owing to the Revelation of God's Word.’

[Page 121] If indeed this Doctrine which he maintains be supposed to be the Doctrine of God's Word, I believe no protestant Divine would have been hardy enough to attempt to shew, that such Consequences would follow. For 'tis certain, that God never made a Revelation of his Will that tended to hinder Men from doing their Duty, or perplex them in it, but the contrary. Mr. Stoddard's Argument is, that therefore this Doctrine is not according to the Scripture, because in Fact it has such a Tendency. These Perplexities are certainly not owing to the Word of God, but because they are the natural Con­sequences of this Doctrine, therefore it is evident, ab absurdo, that this Doctrine cannot be the Word of God; the Design of which is to encourage Men to do their Duty.—Mr. Stoddard says, ‘There be many godly Men that are not assured of their Conversion, but are exercised with many Fears about their Sincerity. Tho' Grace be visible, yet several Persons that have it, do not certainly know it. Grace may be so counterfeited,&false Hearts may go so far in Re­ligion, that many godly Men are held down with great Suspicions that they are not godly, especially at Times.’ Hence godly Men are advised to give all Diligence to make their Calling & Election sure, 2 Pet. 1. 10.—That this is the Doctrine of Calvinistick Divines in general, and of the Fathers of the Reformation, is incontestible: And that it is true Doctrine, the Generation of God's Children will bear Witness.—This Doctrine which Mr. Edwards maintains, Mr. Stoddard says has two bad Effects upon these Persons ‘(1. It makes some neglect the Lord's Supper, whose Duty it is to attend it. (2. It makes some of them attend it with Guilt & Torment.’ Don't these Things naturally follow from this Doctrine? Suppose a Christian believes no Man may lawfully come to the Ordinance without sanctifying Grace, and that he will eat and drink Damna­tion if he does so; and that 'tis the Command of God, that all sanctified Persons shall come: What shall he now do? What can he do while these Doubts remain? He seriously examines himself, and he hopes he is converted: It may be his Pastor tells him 'tis his Duty to come. Will this satisfy his Conscience? He knows the Hopes of many are Delusions, and he has no Certainty that his are not; and so he may be undone if he comes. He would fain yield Obedience to God's Command; but it being Sanctification only that gives him a Warrant to come, he must be afraid of dis­pleasing God by coming. If Sanctification be the Foundation on which his Right depends, and without which God forbids him to [Page 122] come, 'tis not the Hope of it, 'tis not the Advice of all the Pastors in the World, nor any Thing else but the Thing it self in Reality. In this Case, 'tis impossible but a tender Conscience must be in great Perplexity. So long as the Man is afflicted with these Doubtings, those Things must follow from this Doctrine which Mr. Stoddard says do follow. God's Revelations are by no Means answerable for these Perplexities. But since these are the necessary Consequences of this Doctrine, 'tis certain that God has made no such Revelation. For this Effect is contrary to some plain Designs of his Revelations. Suppose these Doubts are mostly owing to Christian Sloth: Yet is the Assurance of their Sanctification a Thing which Christians in the diligent Use of Means do ordinarily soon obtain, and continu­ally keep? Tho' it may sometimes be the Case, yet that 'tis not ordinarily so, the most and best of Protestant Divines do teach.—And if sometimes Christians Doubts do arise from the sovereign Plea­sure of God, or from Melancholy or other Causes, which are not in their Power, then in those Cases this Doctrine necessarily involves them in those Perplexities about doing their Duty, and therefore it is not of God.— ‘Can this be like the Perplexities of Saints at the sensible Approaches of Death?’—Death is no instituted Ordinance of divine Worship. When this approaches, a Saint can't be put into any Perplexity of Conscience to knows whether 'tis his Duty to die; but he is in Perplexity only thro' Fear he is not ready to die; or for Fear he shall not glorify God in the Manner of his dy­ing.—Now what Shadow of Resemblance is in this Case to that wherein 'tis supposed that God has made an Ordinance of his Wor­ship, the attending or not attending of which, is a Matter concern­ing which, a Christian doubting of his Conversion, can't determine his Duty. He can neither act nor forbear acting with a safe and quiet Conscience.

To Mr. Edward'ss third Answer, I say, Doubtless Assurance is attainable; and where it is attained, and so long as it is preserved, his Scheme is practicable.—But the Difficulty here is, how to practice where it is not attained; and how Christians can act 'till they are free from Doubts: Whether acting against the Doubts of their Consciences will ease them at present; or whether for bearing to act, tho' that be also against the Doubts of their Consciences, will give them Ease? On will it be best at present to act Blindfold? Will this still the present Perplexity, or quiet the guilty Fears & Torment of Conscience? And in this Perplexity to go to the Lord's Supper, [Page 123] depending upon Mr. Edwards's Opinion, ‘that attending the Ordi­nance in such a Manner, would on the whole be an happy Occa­sion of much more Comfort than Trouble to them?’—Tender Consciences, as Mr. Stoddard says, will not be baffled in this Manner.

Object. 11. Page 113. ‘You may as well say, that unsanctified Persons may not attend any Duty of divine Worship, as that they may not attend the Lord's Supper &c.’

This I take to be put for Mr. Stoddard's 6th Argument, Appeal Page 76, where it stands thus, ‘If unsanctified Men may attend all other Ordinances or Duties of Worship, then they may lawfully attend the Lord's Supper; but they my attend all other Ordi­nances or Duties of Worship.’

Mr. Edwards undertakes to answer this Argument by reducing it into the Form of the major Propositions of two Categorick Syllo­gisms, viz. ‘Whosoever is qualified for Admission to one Duty of divine Worship, is qualified for Admission to all: He that is unqualified for one, and may be forbidden one, is unqualified for all, and ought to be allowed to attend none.’ Let us reduce these into Categorick Syllogisms: And they must stand thus.—Whosoever is qualified for Admission to one Duty of divine Wor­ship, is qualified for Admission to all; But some unsanctified Men are qualified for Admission to one Duty. Ergo.

He that is unqualified for one Duty, is unqualified for all: But some unsanctified Men are unqualified for one Duty. Ergo.

Now the Sophistry of this Answer is easily detected by shewing that the Terms of these different Propositions are not taken precisely in the same Sense in both, which they must be to support the Conclusion.

When Mr. Stoddard says, unsanctified Men may attend all other Ordinances or Duties, &c. he evidently intends that they may do it, non obstante, their Want of Sanctification; or that the Want of sanctifying Grace, simply and of it self, does not exclude them, as whoever will read what he says under the Argument will easily see.

The Terms of Mr. Edwards's Proposition equivocally stretch to some other Grounds or Causes of Disqualification, some of which are common, to sanctified and unsanctified Men; and which Mr. Stod­dard excepted, such as Scandal, Heresy, &c. Mr. Stoddard in the Qualification implied in his Argument, intends Unregeneracy, sim­ply, & perse considered. Mr. Edwards by Qualification includes all the Requisites to every Duty. The Weight of the Argument no more rests upon either, or both those false or equivocal Propositions [Page 124] which Mr. Edwards has laid down; than his Manhood depends on the Truth of this Argument. He that says you are an Animal, says true; but he that says, you are a Goose, says you are an Ani­mal; therefore he that says you are a Goose, says true.

If Mr. Stoddard has not said eno' to make a Man understand, that that which is a sufficient Qualification for Admission to one Duty, is not so for all; and that the Proposition which is the Foundation of the Argument, can't with any Colour be understood in the Sense it stands in Mr. Edwards's Proposition, I know not what Words can be plain eno'. Mr. Stoddard makes no such triffling Distinc­tion as Mr. Edwards suggests, and has been so far from begging the Question, that he has fairly shewn there never was any Duty of na­tural or instituted Worship, since the Foundation of the World, which unsanctified Men might not attend, meerly because they were unsanctified; tho' they were excluded on some other Accounts.

Mr. Stoddard shews the Consequence of his Argument from hence.— ‘Because there can be no Reason assign'd, why unsanctified Persons may attend all other Duties of Worship, & not the Lord's Supper. If there be a like Reason for them to forbear other Duties o [...] Worship, as to forbear this, and the like Reason to attend this Act of Worship, as others; then the Lawfulness of attending them, shews the Lawfulness of attending this.’

‘This Mr. Edwards humbly conceives must be an Inadvertence from this very notable Distinction among Duties of Worship, viz. That some are such whose very Nature and Design is an Exhibi­tion of those vital and active Principles, and inward Exercise wherein consists the Condition of the Covenant of Grace, and the Union of the Soul to God, &c. And such are the Christian Sa­craments; others are not so, but the Expression of general Virtues.’

The English of which is this: The Christian Sacraments do in their very Nature and Design, manifest and declare the Soul's Re­generation and Sanctification, or it's saving Union to Christ.—Which is the same Thing as to say, the Lords Supper may not be attended by unsanctified Men, tho' other Duties of Worship may, because the Lord's Supper in the very Nature and Design of it, proves that it was appointed only for sanctified Men: but this is the very Thing to be proved: And here the Medium of the Proof is the same in Effect with the Point in Debate. How much better than perfect begging the Question this is, I must refer to Logicians?

The Conclusion which he makes in this Paragraph and the next, [Page 125] and which is [...] express'd in like Words, is, ‘That for an un­sanctified Man to make the Profession which he makes at the Sacrament, and his Pretention to lay hold on God's Covenant, is a Lie; and a Lying in a very aggravated Manner; and again, a Lie, and a Lie told in the most solemn Manner.’

Mr. Edwards well knows that his Opposers are not of his Opi­nion, that the very Nature and Design of a Person's partaking of the Lord's Supper, is to declare that he [...]s regenerated, and savingly u­nited to Christ. But [...] as the Lord's Supper is a Seal of the Truth of the Covenant, and not of Salvation to the Receiver; so 'tis on the Communicant's Part a Seal of a solemn Engagement to keep Co­venant with God, and come up to the Terms on which he offers Salvation to Sinners, by Christ in that Covenant; and that to the utmost of his Power, and with all the Heart, he casts himself upon the Mercy of God to help him to keep Covenant. If an unsancti­fied Man believes and designs this, besure it is no Lie, if Divines and Moralists have given us any true Definition of a Lie. 'Tis no more a Lie, than an unsanctified Man tells, when he prays God for Christ's Sake to pardon his Sins, and enable him sincerely to love and obey God. Such Assertions seem the more surprizing, when Mr. Edwards could not but have taken Notice, that one Reason Mr. Stoddard assigns to prove the Consequence of his Argument is, ‘That the Lord's Supper being a Seal of the Covenant, can be no Reason why unsanctified Men can't lawfully partake of it, because then unregenerate Persons, must be forbidden all Sacraments. Circumcision was a [...] of the Righteousness of Faith. Rom. 4. 11. Yet God commanded [...] at [...] to circumcise [...] the Mak [...]s who were several Hundred Thousands, [...] [...]. 2.’

Now it Mr. Edwards Assertion be just, the Consequence is una­voidable, that God commanded all those Persons who were then un­regenerate, to [...] aggravated and [...] Manner. For if [...] by God's Command was then to Circum­cise them, they were bound by God's Command at that Instant, to receive Circumcision; and to profess Consent to the Covenant of which it was a Seal. And if because they were unregenerate, they must needs Lie when they did this, then God's commanding them at that Instant to do this, was a Command to tell a solemn Lie. It must surely be an inadvertence to charge Men with telling a solemn aggravated Lie, when the Guilt of it must fall upon the God of in­finite Truth, and to suppose that he binds Men to do what he un­changeably hates.

[Page 126] Object. 12. Page 116. ‘The Lord's Supper has a proper Tendency to promote Men's Conversion, &c.’

This is taken from Mr. Stoddard's 4th Argument, Appeal Pag. 70. it is this. ‘If the Lord's Supper be instituted for Conversion of Sinners, as well as for the Edification of Saints; then sanctifying Grace is not necessary to Men's attending of it; but it is institut­ed for the Conversion of Sinners, not for the Conversion of the Heathens to the Christian Religion; but for the saving Conver­sion of professing Men.’ For the Proof of the Minor, which is on­ly in Question, he proposes several Considerations. The first is, ‘That this Ordinance has a proper Tendency to promote Men's Conversion.’—This Head of the Argument Mr. Edwards thinks best to deal with. And he says, ‘Nothing follows from this Ar­gument, unless it be an evident Truth that what the Lord's Sup­per may have a Tendency to promote, the same it was appoint­ed to promote.’

Mr. Stoddard has shewn, that this is a natural and proper Tenden­cy of it; at least it follows from thence, there is a strong probabili­ty that it was appointed for this End, unless, God had told us the contrary. I think it is ever accounted [...] arguing from the Nature and Tendency of Things, to the Will and Design of their Author.—I allow that where the Premisses are true, the Consequence is just as strong in any other like Case: But then I turn this off, nei­ther by giving up the Argument, nor begging the Question, when I say that scandalous Persons are expresly forbidden: If it be probable in one Case, that those Actions which have a Tendency to promote Men's Conversion, God designs shall be done for that and; because it appears congruous to his Wisdom & Goodness to suppose he ap­points Actions to be done to promote that which there is a suita­ble Tendency in them to promote: Is it therefore equally probable in another Case, wherein perhaps I may think the like Actions have a like Tendency; but God has expresly forbidden them in that Case to be done? God has a Right to make Rules about his own Worship, and Men's Actions; and when we know he has done so, as all are agreed in the Case of scandalous Persons, his Rule deter­mines the Matter. And where God has expresly determined the Matter, I think we shall not be immodest if we suspect we are mistaken, when we imagine there is any such Probability: And I can't apprehend how this is a begging the Question. For tho' it supposes, that unconverted Mer [...] are not evidently forbidden; yet [Page 127] there is certainly after all Mr. Stoddard had said, some Reason to suppose this had been proved. To suppose that unconverted Persons as such, are as evidently forbidden, as scandalous Persons are, which Mr. Edwards seems to suppose, is what remains to be proved, and was never yet done; and is at least, as much to beg the Question. And if they are not evidently forbidden as we know all scandalous Persons are) then the Tendency of this Ordinance to promote their Conversion, at least proves it highly probable, that this was God's Design in it: Quad [...] probanium.

But Mr. Edwards gives us another Instance of his Grand Father's begging the Question, and yielding up his Argument, which is his saying, The Lord's Supper is a converting Ordinance only to orderly Mem­bers, and that there is another Ordinance appointed for bringing Scanda­lous Persons to Repentance. Because this concedes that ‘the Ten­dency of an Ordinance don't prove it appointed to all the Ends which it seems to have a Tendency to promote.’ I am utterly insensible how it concedes any such Thing. Mr. Stoddard never pre­tended, and I believe never Thought, that it had a Tendency to pro­mote the Conversion of scandalous Persons, or Heathens, nor did I before ever read of any, except Mr. Chub, who thought so. All Christians know that God has instituted the Ordinance of Church­Censure for scandalous Persons, on Purpose to awaken their Consci­ences and promote their Repentance, therefore I believe God knows that the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper under their present State would not have a Tendency to promote their Conversion. But be that as it will, the express Declaration of God's Will is alone suffi­cient to determine us, whatever seems to Men.

Mr. Edwards says, ‘that this supposes there is not any other Ordinance appointed for the Conversion of such Sinner, exclusive of this.’—How it supposes any such Thing is beyond my Com­prehension. It only supposes that this, as well as other Ordinances, and in Conjunction with them, is appointed for that End. Not that if Men wrongfully exclude them from one of the Ordinances which God hath appointed to promote their Conversion, or if thro' a mis­taken Judgment, and misinformed Conscience, they dare not attend it, that there are no other, which by God's Blessing, may be sufficien [...]. 'Tis indeed supposed, that the Lord's Supper is not excluded from other converting Ordinances to orderly Church-Members: To dis­tinguish in what Sense he means it to be a converting Ordinance, and to what Subjects; and to what, and whom not so: This is not [Page 128] a Thing taken for granted in the Argument, but proposed to be proved from the Tendency of the Lord's Supper; and to represent this Distinction made to shew the Extent of the Proposition of the Argument as a begging the Question, is an unusual Way of seeing thro' Arguments.—But Mr. Stoddard has three other Considerations to prove the Consequence of this Argument. Page [...] ‘2. Some unsanctified Persons ought to offer themselves to Com­munion in the Lord's Supper because they are in Covenant with God, and because it is a Scandal if they do not. 3. The Church by the Ordinance of God is bound to admit many unconverted Persons to the Lord's Supper. 4. The Lord's Supper is for the spiritual Good of all that are regularly to be admitted thereunto.’ Which Reasons Mr. Edwards has not yet thought [...] to answer.

Object. 13. Page 117, &c. ‘All that are Members of the visi­ble Church and in the external Covenant, and neither ignorant nor scandalous are commanded to perform all external Covenant Duties, and particularly they are commanded to attend the Lord's Supper in those Words of Christ. [...]’

This is Mr. Stoddard's [...] Argument Appeal Page. [...]2.—To this Mr. Edwards answers again by telling us the Question is begged. Who so? ‘Because it supposes that of all Persons in the external Covenant, only ignorant and scandalous Persons are unqualified, when as Mr. Edwards says it takes for granted that unconverted Persons are not excluded, which is the very Point in Question.’ The Force and Sense of Mr. Stoddard's Argument is plainly this. All those Persons whom God hath taken into the external Covenant, are bound to attend all the external Duties of it, except such as God hath expresly excluded; but he hath expresly excluded none but ignorant & scandalous Persons. From hence it follows that it there be any unconverted Persons in the external Covenant besides them, 'tis their Duty to attend. The Thing in Question is, [...] un­sanctified Persons [...] a [...] Right I [...] attend the Lord's Supper. This is not taken for granted in the Argument but proved by this Medium, that all in the Covenant have Right to the Ordinances, unless they are specially and expresly excluded by God's Appoint­ment. If it be true that none in the Covenant are excluded who are not excluded by a special Prohibition of God, and also true that none are excluded by such a Prohibition but ignorant & scandalous Persons, then it follows that unconverted Persons as such, are not excluded: which is the Point to be proved. 'Tis certain that all in [Page 129] the external Covenant but such as are so prohibited, are commanded, they are sworn to attend: Nothing but God's express Prohibition can discharge any in Covenant from attending the Duties of it; let it be shown that there is any such Prohibition of any other Per­sons in the external Covenant, and the Business is done.—They are in Covenant. D [...] 5. 2. God hath made them Promise to keep his Covenant, and will he make it Criminal for them to attend those Duties of the Covenant which he hath made them promise to keep? This Rev. Author says, it is supposed in this Argument:

1. That those who have externally entered into God's Covenant, are thereby obliged to no more than the external Duties of the Co­venant. And also supposed.

2. That God don't require those Things of Men that are out of their natural Power, particula [...] that he don't require them to be converted.

Now these Things are neither [...]posed in the Argument, nor ever were supposed by Mr. Stoddard, nor any of his Opinion.—Men in the external Covenant are bound as the Israelites were, and no otherwise; to Love the Lord their God with all their Heart &c. In short, they are bound to keep Covenant. The Reasoning of Mr. Stoddard is plain, & not touched by this Answer. He says, Page 84. ‘It is unreasonable to say, that natural Men are commanded to come, and yet they are forbidden to come 'till they are sanctified; for their Sanctification is a Thing out of their Power: The vi­sible People of God are able to keep the external Covenant. It can't be said to be lawful for them to keep the external Covenant, if it doth depend upon their Conversion, which is indeed out of their Power; but indeed there is no Part of the external Cove­nant that is beyond Men's natural Power, or their legal Power. Allow that God requires Men to be converted, to yield holy, spi­ritual, acceptable Obedience to him,& that in order to this, there must be Love to God; before this, there must be Faith; and before that, there must be Knowledge of God; and before that, there must be a thoro' Humiliation.’—All included in one Word; God commands Men to be holy.—Now, when God commands Men to be holy, he commands every Preparative, and every Step there­unto; then he commands them to attend every Ordinance, and do every Part of his Will, that in its own Nature, or by his Appoint­ment is necessary to their fulfilling the Covenant, their being holy. Now because Holiness, the internal Duties of the Covenant, are be­yond [Page 130] Man's natural Power, can therefore his Obligation to keep the external Covenant, i. e. to do what is in his Power, be forbid­den or suspended? Is he now forbidden to do what he can do, and what he is commanded to do? because there is also something fur­ther to be done which he cannot do? When a Man is commanded to keep Covenant, the very Nature, and necessary Import of that Command binds him to do all he possibly can to yield Obedience to that Command. If we suppose, that when a Man's keeping the internal Covenant depends on the sovereign Will of God, and the Bestowment of special Grace, which for the present God is pleased to with-bold, that Man is then forbidden to keep the external Cove­nant; that is, to do what he can to keep Covenant with God; it inevitably follows that Man's Obligation to do what he can, is dis­charged, yea forbidden, by God's with-holding from him a Power to do what he cannot. So that the Case of unconverted Men in Co­venant, must be this:—God has brought them into Covenant; he has bound them to keep Covenant, therefore be sure bound them to do the utmost they possibly can; which is to attend all the external Duties of the Covenant, with all the Seriousness, Diligence, & Ear­nestness, they can. This he has made them Swear they will do; which God and Man know they can do, and know they Lie if they do not do: And yet at the same Time forbids them to do this, till he give them something which is beyond all their natural Power to obtain. Whether this is the Condition that a God of infinite Purity, and of all Grace, has put these Men into, I refer not only to Christi­ans, but even sober Heathens, to judge.

Mr. Edwards's Talk about a legal Power to be converted &c. seems not much more intelligible.—A Man's legal Right depends on a Law; and to have a legal Right to come to the Lord's Sup­per, supposes a Law commanding him now to come, at least allow­ing him to come: And yet at the same Time to say, that the Law forbids him, because he has not sanctifying Grace, is the same Thing as to say, God gives a Man a Law now to do a Thing, and at the same Time forbids him by a Law to do that Thing, 'till he gives him a Power to do something that he can't do now: Which is to have a Law commanding him, and a Law forbidding him to do the same Thing at the same Time.

When One sees with what Epithets of Honour Mr. Edwards in some Parts of his Book, has complimented Mr. Stoddard, it must needs look like a strange Medly to tack to them;— that he was a [Page 131] weak Beggar of his Question; a Supposer of what was to be proved; taking for granted the Point in Controversy; inconsistent with himself; ridiculously contradicting his own Arguments.—I can't but wonder that the Modesty and Humility which Mr. Edwards has so large a Share of, had not made him rather suspect his own Understanding, than to make so free with his Suspicions of the Arguments and Consistency of that vastly superiour Man, more thorough Divine, and clear­headed Disputant.

Object. 14. Page. 120. ‘Either unsanctified Persons may come to the Lord's Supper, or it is unlawful to carry themselves as Saints; but it is not unlawful for them to carry themselves as Saints.’ This is Mr. Stoddard's eighth Argument, Page 84. of his Appeal.

Mr. Edwards would have done Justice, if he had put in the Word some unsanctified Persons, &c. Which Word some, Mr. Stoddard carefully inserts, to distinguish his Doctrine from the invidious Re­presentation which is cast upon it, as if it let in the vilest Sinners and known Hypocrites into the Church.

Mr. Stoddard did not suppose that the Fruits of Saints would be brought forth by Men 'till they were Saints: But he knew, and all other Divines know, that the external Carriage of some unsanctified Men is to the outward Appearance, and the publick Judgment of the Church, the same with the Carriage of Saints; and they know that they are bound to such a Behaviour. And in all those Things which are the appointed Ways of the Church's judging of Men's vi­sible Saintship, they are bound to carry themselves as Saints. And to say that a natural Man may not attend the Lord's Supper, because that is a Seal of a Profession which contains the discriminating Evi­dences of Saintship, is a begging the Question; a Fault often charged upon Mr. Stoddard. And to say that all unsanctified Men do pro­fess and seal their Consent to the Covenant of Grace in the Lord's Supper, when they know at the same Time they do not consent to it, nor have their Heart at all in the Affair, implying that this is contain'd in, or follows from the Doctrine Mr. Edwards opposes; is something worse than begging the Question.

Object. 15. Page 121. ‘This Scheme will keep out of the Church some true Saints; for there are some such who determine against; themselves, and their prevailing Judgment is, they are not Saints and we had better let in several Hypocrites, than exclude one true Child of God.’

[Page 132] To this he answers, ‘I think it is better to insist on some visibi­lity to Reason of true Saintship, than by express Liberty given to open the Door to as many as please of those who have no visi­bility of real Saintship, and make no Profession of it, nor Preten­tion to it.’ This is the like Representation of Mr. Stoddard's Doctrine, as we have had over and over again.

How often has Mr. Edwards said, none but visible Saints are to be admitted? Do not all Mr. Edwards's Opposers say, that no Man is to be admitted, who does not profess his hearty Belief of the Gos­pel, and the earnest sincere Purpose of his Heart, so far as he knows it, to obey all God's Commands, and keep his Covenant? None who do not make as full and express a Profession as the Israelites did, or was ever required by Christ or his Apostles, in any Instances that can be produced in the Bible, of Bodies of Men or particular Persons Admission into visible Covenant with God.—After all this to repeat it again and again, ‘that these Persons have no Visibility to Reason of real Saintship, make no Profession of it, nor Pre­tention to it,’ I think gives the better Ground to retort Mr. Ed­wards's Words under the next Objection, than he has to use them in the Place he does, viz. ‘This is not so much an Objection against the Doctrine he opposes, as 'tis a Reflection against the Scripture it self, with Regard to the Rules it gives for Persons to form a charitable Judgment by.’

The Thing to be proved is, that no Man has a lawful Right to the Sacrament, without Sanctification. To prove this, is Mr. Ed­wards's avowed Design, as appears by his often declaring that he opposes Mr. Stoddard's Opinion, and by his own Explication Page 4. which has been observed before. His Business according to his own Explication of his Question, is to prove, that no Man who is unsanctified, has a lawful Right to come. And as to the Church they must make a positive Judgment concerning the Man that he has a Right on that Foundation. Now what has some Visibility, some Profession, some Pretention, to do with this Question, unless it be to keep it out of Sight? But the Rev. Author endeavours to show that the admitting unsanctified Persons, 'tends to the Ruin and Reproach of the Christian Church; and to the Ruin of the Persons admitted.

1. To the Ruin and Reproach of the Persons admitted.

To prove this he quotes again that Passage from the Appeal, Pag. 36. ‘For by the Rule which God hath given for Admissions, if it be carefully attended, more unconverted than converted Persons [Page 133] will be admitted.’ And adds upon it, ‘It is then confessedly the Way to have the greater Part of the Members of the Christian Church ungodly Men &c.’ As if Mr. Stoddard had asserted this with a peculiar Relation to his own Scheme; whereas 'tis only an Application of a Saying of Mr. Cotton, who was of a diffe­rent Opinion, and said upon a different Scheme; to shew that up­on their own Principles the Matter will not be mended;—as has been observed before.—If it be an exact State of the Case, that the Godly in the visible Church be few in Comparison of the Ungodly, how will it demonstrably follow on Scripture Principles, that the far bigger Part of the Church will be Persons not of moral Sincerity, &c? I see nothing offered to prove this; but only that unsanctified Men re­maining unsanctified, will be in Danger to loose the good Im­pressions of Convictions and Awaknings; and the Scripture says of some Hypocrites that their Goodness is like the Morning Cloud and early Dew, and that it will happen to them according to the true Proverb, the Dog is returned to his Vomit, and the Sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the Mire. Now if the Scripture gives any Demon­stration of the Consequence Mr. Edwards supposes, upon Mr. Stod­dard's Principles, more than upon his; it must be, because the Men live under all proper Means of their Conversion and Salvation: Yet at­tending the Lord's Supper in an unsanctified State, will do more to make them worse, than that, & all other Ordinances, will do to make them better; and if so, it must be because this is a Seal of their Dam­nation; being appointed only for the Regenerate: Which is the Thing to be proved. If I had A list to Reproach Mr. Edwards or his Principles, I might reckon up as many sad Consequences which will likely follow on his Scheme; and perhaps I could tell of some Churches where the Principles Mr. Edwards maintains, have been long professed and pretended to be practised upon, in which 'tis well if the Case be not so in Fact as he supposes.—But the Truth is, if the Discipline which Christ has appointed in his Church, be duly maintained, none of these Effects will follow: And if it be not, the Church falls into Reproach and tends to Ruin, let them practise upon what Scheme they will. But he says,

2. ‘It tends to the eternal Ruin of the Parties admitted; be­cause it lets in, yea perswades such to come in as know themselves to be impenitent and unbelieving, in a dreadful Manner to take God's Name in vain, &c.’—The whole of any Colour of Argu­ment here, lies in this; that the Profession made in taking the Sacrament [Page 134] is a Profession of a saving Faith, and saving Repentance; and so that the Person who takes it has fulfilled the Covenant on his Part, and to this Profession he Seals; which is a Thing often taken for grant­ed, but never was yet proved: Of which eno' has been said before.—If there be some who do enter into Covenant with God, and with all the Earnestness & Sinc [...]ity of Soul they possibly can, do engage to keep Covenant, still knowing themselves to be impenitent and unbelieving: 'Tis what many do not know of themselves, and 'tis what the Church know not by any Rule of publick Judgment, which God hath given them in his Word. And to admit Persons so qua­lified has, no Tendency to Ruin them, nor do I believe so much by a Thousand-fold, as to admit Hypocrites on Mr. Edwards's Princi­ples. Altho' true Saints who are shut out of the Church by Mr. Ed­wards's Scheme, will not therefore be shut out of Heaven, yet many who according to his State of the Question are admitted, (notwith­standing their own Judgment, and the Churches Skill in judging) will be Hypocrites: And if his Principles are Right, they have sealed their Damnation by coming, and so are like to be shut out of Heaven.—And if Mr. Stoddard's Principles are Right, then many such as ought to be admitted, and who are by Mr. Edwards's Scheme kept out of the Church, are so far as the Church can do it, shut out of Heaven, by being denied the Ordinances which God hath ap­pointed for their Salvation.

As to the Objection made in the Margin, Page 122, viz. That Mr. Edwards's Principles tend to keep the Church small.—I own I am not of the Objector's Mind. I think that Scheme tends greatly to increase the Church of England, and all Arminian Churches, who professedly act upon that Principle, that no unsanctified Person ought to be admitted: But admit all as regenerate or sanctified, who make such a Profession of Faith &Obedience, as appears morally sincere. And when Persons see themselves shut out from the Ordinances of the Gospel on such Terms as they think Christ has given them a Right to them, they will be apt to go where they may enjoy them; tho' some other Things are not agreeable to their Sentiments, rather than be debar'd the ordinary Means of their Salvation. Or if they think themselves Calvinists, they will fall into the independent Anti­nomian Separations, and crumble into as many separate Churches, as they have different Methods of determining Men's Conversion; which as Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Timson observes, was the Way of the Inde­pendents in England, and has been the Way of the Separates in New­England, [Page 135] —And I own that at present I have no more Expectation to see the Scheme which Mr. Edwards aims to establish, defended upon Calvinistick Principles, than the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.—

I fully agree with him that Holiness would cause the Light of the Church to shine, so as to induce others to resort to it; and 'tis the Wickedness of it's Members, that above all Things in the World prejudices Men against it. But then I never expect to see much Ho­liness among Men out of the Church, and do finally believe that the Word and Ordinances of the Gospel, and the right Exercise of Dis­cipline in the Church, are the best outward Means that ever were devised to promote the Holiness of Church Members.

The 16th 17th and 18th Objections, Page 123, 124, 126. are such as I have never hapned to see in that Shape before, and don't think them of much Importance as they stand.

If the Opposers of Mr. Edwards's Scheme have made them, I own they have herein weakly defended their Cause: If he has made, or put them into proper Form for them, it is not to be tho't strange if they are propounded in such Terms as might be best to deal with. But as they all relate only to the Part the Church is to act in the Admission of Persons to Communion; and all the argu­ing against them seems to be founded on the Nature or Ground of that charitable Judgment the Church is to make of the Saintship of Professors; which Mr. Edwards supposes to be an Acquaintance with the spiritual Experiences of Persons, or the Churches Know­ledge of their Application of the Rules and Teaching of God's Word, respecting the Work of Conversion, and their own serious Profession, that they find these Things in their own Souls which their Pastor or Church teach them are the Rules of God's Word to judge of their Conversion by. See Page 125. and other Places. These Things have been already discuss'd. And if the Rule of the publick Judg­ment concerning the visible Saintship of Professors is once deter­mined, there had been no Need of any farther Dispute. This I think has been fairly done, and of which the Reader will judge.—

Object. 19. Page 126. ‘If it be necessary that adult Persons should make a Profession of Godliness, in order to their own Ad­mission to Baptism, then undoubtedly it is necessary in order to their Children's being Baptized on their Account.’

I readily grant, the same Profession which is necessary for Hea­thens to make in order to their own Baptism, is necessary for them to make in order to the Baptism of their Children; for it is one [Page 136] and the same individual Profession and Engagement, which brings them and their Children into Covenant.—And if there is one Instance in the Bible where God ever took any Man into Covenant, and not his Children at the same Time, I should be glad to see it. It is by Virtue of their being in Covenant that they have a Right to the Seals; and if these Children are not cast out of Covenant by God, their Children have as good a Right to the Seals as they had. 'Tis God's Will that his Mark and Seal should be set upon them and their Children, and their Children for ever; 'till God cast them out of Covenant.—If there arises a Generation of ungodly Children in the Church for Want of a pious Education, 'tis not only the Sin of the Parent, but 'tis also the Sin of the Church: who are bound to see to it that they have a godly Education. But 'tis certain they have an Interest in the Covenant, and they have a Right to the Priviledges of the Covenant, so long as they remain in Covenant; and that is, 'till God cuts them off, and casts them out. We all agree that Christ is the best Judge of the Tendency of his own Institutions, therefore the Question should be only whether these Persons whom the Church shall judge to be unconverted, be in Covenant with God or not; if they be not, their Children have no Right to Baptism; if they be, their Children by the Appointment of God have a Right to it; and it is Sacriledge for Men to deny it them. I must needs say, he is a bold Man that dare say, that the Children of such Persons as are in Covenant with God have no Title to the Honour of Baptism, or that dare say, 'tis contrary to Scripture, Reason and Experience to say, the denying Baptism to them is the Way to pro­mote Irreligion & Profaneness. But the Substance of the Discourse under this Objection, I suppose the Reader will observe is a taking for granted what wants to be proved, or such Sort of Representations of the Profession, and covenanting of unconverted Men as Men mak­ing no Pretensions to any Thing of Godliness; nothing but what God's Enemies have remaining in open and avowed Rebellion against him. The Inconsistency and Unreasonableness of which Treatment of visible Professors of Religion, when their Lives and Conversation don't give Proof of this, has been eno' observed already.

I shall therefore only further take Notice of two extraordinary and surprizing Passages, if I understand them: And I have with great Diligence tried to find out the Meaning of them. One is Page 129. between the 17th and 23 Lines, if it be rightly printed, I take that Concession of Mr. Edwards to be in Effect.—That the practising [Page 137] on his Scheme would be a plain Contradiction to the great Scope and merciful Tendency of the Gospel Dispensation: And if his Prin­ciples have such a Tendency, I hope he will soon renounce them. The other is Page 130. from the 23 to the 28 Line. "May it not be suspected, .—We all hold that all ought to make a proper Profession of Godliness, such an one as God's People of Israel made, such as the Apostles required Men to make when they baptized them. But says Mr. Edwards, this Way of baptizing Children without a proper Profession of Godliness (which must mean such as he thinks proper for them to make) ‘may it not be suspected that it was invented for this very End, to give Ease to Ancestors with Respect to their Posterity in Time of general Declension and Dege­neracy?’ Now did not God invent the Rite of Circumcision, and command all the Males in Israel to be Circumcised? Did he not appoint it as a Token and Seal of the Covenant of Grace? Did not Christ invent and appoint Baptism, as a Token and Seal of the same Covenant, to succeed it in the Christian Church? And did God invent this as an Expedient to give Ease to Ancestors with Respect to their Posterity in Times of general Declension? Do Mr. Edwards's Opposers administer it but upon a Profession in the same Words which God, and Jesus Christ and his Apostles did it, and command­ed it to be done; leaving out nothing but Mr. Edwards's Additi­on and Explication, which they did not put in.—

Object. 20. ‘Some Ministers have been greatly bless'd in the other Way of Proceeding, and some Men have been converted at the Lord's Supper.’—Why not by Means of the Lord's Supper? As probably very many have been.

Mr. Edwards answers, ‘That we are not to interpret the Works of God to a Sense, or apply them to a Scope, inconsistent with the Word of God &c.’—This we agree with him in; but we think, if Mr. Edwards had rightly interpreted, and applied the Word of God, he would have been abundantly satisfied of his Mistake in pretending to maintain the Doctrine which he has espoused.—Thus far 'tis safe arguing from the Works & Providence of God; that they are a great Confirmation of the Truth of his Word; and a great Help to explain the doubtful Passages of it.—The Apostle thought the Conversion of the Corinthians by his Ministry, was a Con­firmation of his Mission from Christ. 1 Cor. 9. 1, 2. Are not you my Work in the Lord; the Seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord. 2 Cor. 3. 2. Ye are our Epistle. If this Controversy were doubtful, [Page 138] and not clearly and plainly determined by the Word of God; then if it pleased God to use Ministers in this Way to be greatly Instru­mental to promote Men's Conversion, as he did Mr. Stoddard, and I trust he did Mr. Edwards: If he makes Use of the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper, to be the Means of the Conversion of many; or of some Souls; this certainly does something to determine us, that 'tis lawful for some unsanctified Men to attend it, and that 'tis not a Seal of the Damnation of unsanctified Men, as such: And that God will bless it to be a Means of Conversion still to Persons in Covenant, if they need Conversion.—That other Ministers who think differently should be blessed also, and owned of God in their Work, is no Argument at all against what is supposed to be proved in the Objection. For 'tis not supposed that the Lord's Supper, or Baptism, are the only Ordinances which God hath appointed to pro­mote Men's Conversion, but also all other Ordinances, & the whole Dispensation of the Gospel. If many are savingly converted by the Preaching of the Word before they come to the Lord's Table, this does not at all weaken the Argument.—I conclude Mr. Edwards does not think that Jacob's Lying, or Solomon's worshipping in an high Place, or Saul's persecuting the Church, were the Means of their Conversion, or obtaining God's Blessing; and if not, it seems they must be impertinently alledged, or brought in as a Parallel here.

Page 132, [...]re these Words: ‘As to the two last Arguments in the Appeal to the Learned, concerning the Subjects of the Christian Sacraments, their being Members of the visible Church, and not the invisible; the Force of those Arguments depend, intirely on the Resolution of that Question, who are visible Saints? or what adult Persons are regularly admitted to the Priviledges of Mem­bers of the visible Church? Which Question has already been largely considered; and I think it has been demonstrated that they are those who exhibit a credible Profession and Visibility of Gospel Holiness, or vital Piety, and not meerly or moral Since­rity; so that there is no Need of farther debating the Point in this Place.’

I have all along been sensible that the whole Controversy turns upon that Point, who are visible Saints; and therefore might have been finished in one Quarter of the Paper which has been blotted with it; but if Mr. Edwards's Determination of this Point is a good Reason why 'tis not worth while to answer the two last Arguments in the Appeal, I can't see why it was not full as weighty against [Page 139] answering any of the rest: For Mr. Stoddard always held, that none but visible Saints have Right to the Seals, or are in Covenant. But the Demonstration that those who exhibit a credible Profession and visibility of Gospel Holiness, and not meerly of moral Sincerity, will nothing serve to the Purpose, for we don't suppose Persons to be visible Saints without this. But to defend the Principle which Mr. Edwards Disputes for, he ought to have demonstrated that none are visible Saints, but real Saints; for the Doctrine he pretends to maintain is, that none but real Saints have a lawful Right to the Sa­craments; that none but such may lawfully receive them, and the Church may not lawfully give them to any but those whom they positively judge to be such, by knowing the inward Experiences of their Hearts: or which amounts to the same Thing: Their own serious Profession of having experienced such Workings of the Spirit of God, as the Church & their Pastor account to contain the Essence of vital Piety. If Mr. Edwards has demonstrated this to be the pro­per Exhibition of a credible Profession of Gospel-Holiness, in the publick Judgment of the Church, and according to the Rule God hath given the Church for that publick Judgment, the Reader must judge.—Or whether after all his Demonstration, it does not ap­peal a plain and certain Truth, that [...] Scripture neither does, nor [...]ver did give the Church any other [...] for their publick Judg­ment of the Credibility of any Pers [...] [...] Profession of Gospel Holi­ness, than their own Declaration of their Belief of the Gospel Doctrine, and their Engagement to keep Covenant with God upon his Encouragement, and through his Grace helping them; nothing appearing in their outward Carriage to contradict it. It is not the Visibility of moral Sincerity, but the moral Evidence of Gospel Sin­cerity, which God's Word make the Church's Rule of judging of the Visibility of Gospel Holiness in other Men.—

If this be the Case, them Mr. Stoddard's Arguments remain in full Force, notwithstanding all Mr. Edwards's Demonstrations.—

The 10th Argument in the Appeal, Page 89. is this, ‘They who do convey to their Children a Right to the Sacrament of Christi­an Baptism, have a Right themselves to the Lord's Supper, pro­vided they carry inoffensively.’

‘But some unsanctified Persons do convey to their Children, [...] Right to the Sacrament of Baptism.’

The minor I suppose no Christian, but an Anabaptist will deny.

‘The Consequence, Mr. Stoddard says, is evident, because this shews they are in Covenant with God: if they were not in Co­venant [Page 140] with God, their Children would not be in Covenant; nei­ther would they have any Right to Baptism: But God hath made Promises to them, and they are under Covenant Engagements to him; and because they are in Covenant, and inoffensive in their Conversation, the Seal of the Covenant does belong to them.’

Argument 11. Page 91. ‘If the invisible Church Catholick is not the prime and principal Subject of the Seal of the Covenant, then some unsanctified Persons may lawfully partake of the Lord's Supper: But the invisible Church Catholick is not the prime and principal Subject of the Seals of the Covenant.’—Where the Author remarks, ‘that the Minor is laid down as a Conclusion by Mr. Thomas Hooker in his Survey; which he proves by seve­ral Arguments. Particularly he argues, that such as were grace­less, and without an Interest in Christ, and so none of his invisible Members, have God's Command to enjoin, and his Word to warrant them to receive the Seals; as Ishmael and Esau, and all the Males were enjoined to be circumcised. All the Families of the Jews were commanded to eat the Passover; many whereof were, without all Question, not invisible and believing Members of Christ.’ Thus he.

I have no doubt, but the learned and judicious Reader will be of Opinion, that 'tis much easier to pass over these Arguments, and no further to debate the Point, than it is to answer them.

I agree with my dear Brother Edwards, that if Men should set their own Wit and Wisdom in Opposition to God's revealed Will, there's no End of Objections which may be raised against any of God's Institutions, and if we lift up our Tool to [...]nd God's Alta [...] we shall pollute it.—And I am of Opinion [...] both real and imaginary may attend the Scheme which he has undertaken to maintain: And that they are not only equal to the manifest Con­veniences and happy Tendencies of it, or to the Inconveniencies and bad Consequences of the other, but vastly greater, and that it is a Scheme contrary to God's Dispensation to his Church in all Ages, and inconsistent with it self.

The outward Duties of Morality and Worship, when to Appear­ance they are sincerely performed, are by the Church in their pub­lick Judgment to be charitably thought to be the Product of the great inward Duties of the Love of God; and Acceptance of Christ. The latter ought not only to be pretended to, but exhibited by the former; and God never appointed any other Way of their being [Page 141] made visible to the World: And he who is the Searcher of Hearts has only a Right and Ability to determine of them otherwise. But in this State of Things, he neither has given us a Rule, nor will al­low us to judge otherwise in order to Persons being taken into his Family, and to the outward Priviledges of his House.—The No­tion of Men's being able and fit to determine positively the Condi­tion of other Men, or the certainly of their gracious Estate; has a direct Tendency to decieve the Souls of Men; to harden some in Hypocrisy, and lift up others with Pride and Self-Conceit. The Effect of such a Way and Practise in Admission of Persons into the visible Church seems naturally this, and these Effects speak out themselves: That since the outward Duties of Morality and Wor­ship may proceed from other Causes than the Love of God, and Faith in Christ, therefore some Persons look upon these as not giving any Evidence at all of those Grace: But judge of some Accounts which they hear of Persons relating their Experiences, or some in­ward Feelings; (which can only be said to evidence their Grace if they be not decieved themselves, nor aim to decieve others) and which without those Duties of Morality and Worship, or separate from them, can't be so good Evidences of Grace as these are without them. And so they determine that if Men live never so strictly conformable to the Laws of the Gospel, and never so diligently seek their own Salvation to outward Appearance, they give no more pub­lick Evidence that they are not Enemies of God, and Haters of Jesus Christ, than the very worst of the Heathen. Nor do they stick any more to speak of them, and act openly towards them in such a Man­ner; thereby violating in the most open & scandalous Manner the Law of Christ, wherein he solemnly forbids them to judge one ano­ther: Which yet they continually do in open Defiance of his Law, the Rules of his visible Kingdom, and his own Example as King of the visible Church. And the greatest Part of those who are in Cove­nant with God, and to whom Christ has commanded Baptism the Seal of the Covenant to be administred, whom he hath bound by the most solemn Engagements to attend all his Ordinances, and wait at his Foot for all the Blessings of the Covenant of Grace; are forbid­den to do it by their Brethren, tho' they own them at the same Time to be in Covenant with God; because they think them not good enough to recieve the Food which Christ has provided for them.

Mr. Edwards proposes one of two Evil Consequences inevitably following the Method of Proceeding which he opposes.— ‘Either [Page 142] there must be no publick Notice given of the Conversion of a Sinner, or else this Notice must be given in a Way of Conversa­tion by the Parties themselves.’

And how are these Evils remedied upon his Scheme? Supposing it be necessary that some publick Notice be given of the Conver­sion of every Person in a Town, what Way can it be done? Ac­cording to him the best visible Exercise of the Worship of God, and most sincere Practise of moral Virtues to outward Appearance; the greatest visible Appearance of the Love of God, and Concern to please him that is compatible to the State of an unconverted Man, is not so much as the lest Evidence of any Pretence to Godliness.

What other Way is there left but a Declaration of inward Expe­riences? For as to Persons saying they are converted, this I believe will by few be thought to be so good an Evidence as the former. Now what Way has the Church to judge of these Experiences? Are they to take the Minister's Word for them; and so admit the Person? If this is the Way, it may indeed give him as great Ad­vantage in some Respects as the Romish Priests have, or make him something like Nebuchadnezzer, Dan. 5. 19. But it will leave the Church as much in the Dark as they were before; and if they offer unto God Thanksgiving upon his Information, it must surely be done upon an implicit Faith; if the Church are to judge for themselves, there can be no Way but by hearing the Man relate his Experien­ces. ‘And this must be done by Persons declaring their Experiences from Time to Time, and Place to Place,’ or else the Church must all meet together to hear them, and this amounts to the same Thing. So that I can't see how one of these Evil Consequences is avoided by Mr. Edwards's Scheme. ‘He supposes the Matter ought to be under some Regulation, and the Direction of skilful Guides &c.’—Shall these skilful Guides direct every Man, Woman and Child, what Experiences to relate, and what to omit, what are fit to be published, and what not? If so, I believe the Church will soon judge, or if they don't others will, that this is as artificial a Sort of Conversion, as the making a common Draught, and Formula, for the Experiences of all that are to be taken into the Church. Whether this is like to promote the Honour of God, or be a Scandal & Reproach to his Name, seems not very difficult to determine.—One would think the late dreadful Consequences of such Sort of Doings in this Land had been enough to convince every judicious Christian of the Sinfulness of it. Neither upon Mr. Edwards's Scheme can I con­ceive [Page 143] the making two distinct Kinds of visible Churches, or visible Bodies of professing Saints any more unavoidable than on the other. Indeed the very Doctrine itself makes two such Bodies within one another, and openly distinguish'd one from another. One Compa­ny consisting of such as openly declare that they judge themselves gracious Christians: And the other of those whom these own to be in Covenant with God, who have been sealed with the Seal of his Covenant, and Christ has taken into his Family, but only they have no Right to so much as the outward Priviledges of it belonging to the visible Kingdom of Christ, and yet at the same Time visibly and openly belonging to the Kingdom of the Devil; declaring that they desire above all Things in the World to partake and enjoy the Blessings of the Kingdom of Christ, having sworn that they will make it their chief Business to obtain them, and use every Method which Christ has appointed therefor; moral or visibly Religious in their Conversation, and yet treated as open and avowed Enemies of Jesus Christ, and his Kingdom, making no Pretence to Godliness; and this by the declared & publick Judgment of the Church, in the same visible Covenant with them. I appeal also to the common Sense of Mankind, whether this be not the Case where that Method of Proceeding Mr. Edwards contends for, is established; and with Mr. Edwards, leave it to the judicious Reader to make his own Remarks, whether there be a just Foundation in Scripture or Rea­son for such a State of Things; and whether this is the comely Order of the Gospel which Christ hath instituted.

How much my good Brother Edwards has had to prejudice his Mind on one Side or other of this Question, I know not: Altho' I cannot but wonder, ‘he has thought himself constrained to act as he has done in this Controversy, from the clear Evidences of the Word of God,’ and to make such Use and Application of Scrip­ture as he has done, when he has so little to say from Scripture or Reason, for the maintaining the Cause he has espoused.

I have endeavoured as far as I was able to comply with Mr. Ed­wards's reasonable Requests: And I should think it a great Ho­nour and no small Felicity, if I might be so happy as to be a Means of giving him any Conviction of his Mistake, and re-uniting him and the People of Northampton; that he might spend the rest of his Days in great Usefulness and Comfort among them. But I confess this is what I have no Expectation of; and however that might be, I was perswaded the Defence of the Cause I have been pleading, is a [Page 144] Service due to Christ, and to his Churches: Tho' I heartily wish'd it might have been done by a more able Hand. He that knows the Sincerity of my Aim, I trust, will mercifully accept thro' Jesus Christ, my Endeavour to vindicate what I believe to be his Truth & Will.—

I have these reasonable Requests to make to Mr. Edwards, that in his Reply he will keep close to the Question in Debate. That he will be so candid to his Readers, as to think them capable to under­stand plain English and common Sense, without an Explication. And that he would propound his Arguments as plain and short as possible, and as strongly as he pleases.—And if God should please to continue my Life, and give me Health and Help, I will consi­der every Word with as much Care and Attention as I can. I heartily join with him in his concluding Prayer, and add to it; Since God has given to each of Us a divine Right of judging for our Selves, that he would teach us to unite with one another on the only true Principles of Christian Union. Phil. 3. 15, 16. And teach us all to think soberly of our Selves, as we ought to think.—The Event of all I leave with God, whose Truth will finally prevail over all the Mistakes of Men. And the Reasonings I submit to the Judgment of the Reader.