The very nature of the case is such as must lead every impartial person to a conviction, that the design of my writing must be to defend myself, in that controversy, which Ihad with my people at Northampton; as it is notorious and pub ficly known, that that controversy was the occasion of my writing; and that therefore my business must be to defend that opinion or position of mine which I had declared to them, which had been the occasion of the controversy, and so the grand subject of debate between us; whether this were exactly agreeable to any words that might be found in Mr. Stod dard's writings on the subject, or hot. Now this opinion or position was the same with that which I expressed in the first part of my book. In such terms I expressed myself to the committee of the church, when I first made that declaration of my opinion, which was the beginning of the controversy, and when writing in defence of my opinion was first proposed i And this was the point continually talked of in all conversa tion at Northampton, for more than two years, even until Mr. Williams's book came out. The controversy was, Whether there was any need of making a credible profession of godliness, in order to persons being admitted to full communion; Wheth er they must profess saving faith, or whether a profession of common faith were not sufficient ; whether persons must be èså teemed truly godly, and must be taken in under that notion, or whether if they afifiéaréd morally sincere, that were not suffi èient ? And when my book came abroad, there was no objection made, that I had not truly expressed the subject of debate, In my stating the question: But the subject of debate afterwards, in parish meetings, church meetings, and in all con versation, was the question faid down in my book. No sugges tion among them, that the profession persons made in Mr. Stoddard's way, was taken as a profession of reat godliness, or gospel holiness; or that they were taken in under a notion of their being truly pious persons, as Mr. Williams would have ft: No suggestion, that the dispute was only about the degree of evidence. But the dispute was, what was the thing to be made evident; whether real godliness or, moral sincerity? It was constantly insisted on, with the greatest vehemence, that VOL. I.

2 U

it was not saving religion, which needed to be professed, or pretended to; but another thing, religion of a lower kind. The public acts of the church and parish from time to time, shew, that the point in controversy was, whether the professors of godliness only, ought to be admitted? Public votes, of which I made a record, were several times to know the church's mind concerning the admission of those who are able and willing to make a profession of godliness; using these terms. And once it was passed, that, such should not be admitted in the way of publicly making such a profession. And at another time the vote passed,that the admission of such persons in such a way (described in the same words) should not be rereferred to the judgment of certain neighboring ministers. At another time, it was insisted on by the parish, in a parish meeting, that I should put a vote in the church, in these words, Whether there be not a dispute between Mr. Edwards pastor of the church, and the church, respecting the question he hath argued in his book last published? And accordingly the vote was put and affirmed, in a church meeting, in the same terms. And this was the question I insisted on in my public lectures at Northampton, appointed for giving the reasons of my opinion. My doctrine was in these words, "It is the mind and will of God, that none should be admitted to full communion in the church of Christ, but such as in profession, and in the eye of a reasonable judgment, are truly saints, or godly persons." The town was full of objections against those sermons: But none, as ever I heard, objected, that my doctrine was beside the controversy. And this was all along the point of difference between me and the neighboring Ministers. This was the grand subject of debate with them, at a meeting of ministers, appointed on purpose for conference on the subject. It was wholly concerning the matter of profession, or the thing to be exhibited and made evident or visible; and not about the manner of professing, and the degree of evidence. And this was the doctrine directly opposed by Mr. A-y, one of the neighboring ministers, whom my people had got as their champion to defend their cause in the pulpit at Northamp ton. Thus one of the corollaries he drew from his doctrine

(as it was taken from his mouth in writing) was, that ❝ a man may be a visible saint, and yet there be no sufficient grounds for our charity, that he is regenerate." Quite contrary to what Mr. Williams maintains. Another of his corollaries was in these words, " a minister or church may judge a man a saint, and upon good grounds, and not have grounds to judge him regenerate." He proposed this enquiry, ❝ do not such as join themselves to the church, covenant, not only to be visible saints, but saints in heart?" The answer was in the negative; quite contrary to Mr. Williams. Another was, "does not a visible saint imply a visibility of grace, or an appearance of it?" The answer was, "not always." Quite contrary to Mr. Williams. Another was, " Is it not hypocrisy in any man, to make a profession of religion, and join himself to the church, and not have ?" grace The answer was in the negative; also quite contrary to Mr. Williams. But these sermons of Mr. A―y, were highly approved by the generality of the people of Northampton, as agrecable to their minds.

And the controversy, as I have stated it in my book, was the controversy in which the church and I appeared before the council, who determined our separation, when we each of us declared our sentiments before them: The point of dif ference was entirely the matter of profession, and the thing to be made visible; not the degree of evidence or visibility. No hint was given as though we both agreed, that true piety or gospel holiness was the thing to be made visible, and that such only should be received as are truly godly persons in the eye of the church's judgment (as Mr. Williams holds) and that we only differed about the proper grounds of such a judg

ment.

And therefore it is apparent, it was this controversy, and its consequences, that were the ground of my separation from my people; and not any thing like the controversy which Mr. Williams professes to manage in his answer. This controversy, when it came out in Mr. Williams's book, was new in Northampton, and entirely alien from all the dispute which had filled that part of the country, and a great part of Neweng.

land, with noise and uproar, for about two years and an half. The thing which Mr. Williams over and over allows to be true, was the very same, both in effect and in terms, which the people had been most vehemently fighting against, from week to week, and from month to month, during all this time; And therefore the design of my writing led and obliged me to maintain that position or doctrine of mine, which was the occasion of this debate.

And, be it so, that I did suppose this position was contrary to Mr. Stoddard's opinion, and was opposed by him, and therefore thought St in my preface to excuse myself to the world for differing from him; did this oblige me, in all that I wrote for the maintaining my position, to keep myself strictly to the words which he had expressed his question in, and to regulate and limit myself in every argument I used, and objection I answered, by the terms which he made use of in proposing his opinion and arguments? And if I have not done it, do I therefore deserve to be charged before the world with changing the question, with unfair treatment of Mr. Stoddard, with surprisingly going off from his argument, with disserving the cause of truth, &c.

It would have been no great condescension in Mr. Williams If he had allowed that I knew what the question was, which was disputed between me and my people, as well as he, in a distant part of the country: Yea, if he had acknowledged, that I was as likely as he, to understand Mr. Stoddard's real senti ments and practice; since I was in the ministry two years with him, as copastor of the same church, and was united with him in ecclesiastical administrations, in admitting members, and in examining them as to their qualifications, and have stood for more than twenty three years in a pastoral relation to his church, most intimately acquainted with the nature of its constitution, its sentiments and method of administration, and all its religious concerns, have my self been immediately concerned in the admission of more than three quarters of its present members, and have had the greatest occasion to look

Whether I was mistaken in this, will appear in the sequel,

into their way of admission, and have been acquainted with every living member that Mr. Stoddard had admitted before my coming; and have been particularly informed, by many of them, of the manner of Mr. Stoddard's conduct in admitting them, their own apprehensions concerning the terms of their admission, and the profession they made in order to it; and also the sentiments of the whole of that large town, who were born and brought up under his ministry, concerning his constant doctrine and practice, relating to the admission of members, froin their infancy. Whereas, Mr. Williams from his youth had lived in another part of the country, at seventy miles distance.

SECTION II.

Observing Mr. Williams's Misrepresentations of the principles and tenets, delivered in the book which he undertakes to answer.

MR. WILLIAMS does very greatly misrepresent the opinion I am of, and the principles I maintain in my book, in many respects.

I. He says, p. 5. "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 privileges of the covenant of grace? Mr. Edwards seems to suppose, this must be the highest evidence a man can give of sincerity; and I apprehend it to be the lowest evidence the nature of the thing will admit." But this is very strange, since I had particularly declared in my stating of the question (p. 5.) that the evidence I insisted on, was some outward manifestation, that ordinarily rendered the thing probable. Which