Misrepresentations corrected, and truth vindicated. In a reply to the Rev. Mr. Solomon Williams's…

Certainly my regretting and excusing such an unavoidable Circumstance was a Thing exceeding diverse from giving Notice to the World, that the Thing I aimed at was to set myself up as Mr. Stoddard's Antagonist, and to write an Answer to, and confute what he had written. It will, at first Sight, be manifest to every impartial Reader, that the Design of my Preface was not to state the Subject and Intention of the Book: This is done professedly, and very particularly, afterwards, in the first Part of the Essay itself. And if I might have common Justice, surely I might be allowed to tell my own Opinion, and declare my own Design, without being so confidently & frequently charged with misrepresenting my own Thoughts and Intentions.

Certainly my regretting and excusing such an unavoidable Circumstance was a Thing exceeding diverse from giving Notice to the World, that the Thing I aim'd at was to set myself up as Mr. Stoddard's Antagonist, and to write an Answer to, and confute what he had written. It will, at first Sight, be manifest to every impartial Reader, that the Design of my Preface was not to state the Subject and Intention of the Book: This is done professedly, and very particularly, afterwards, in the first Part of the Essay itself. And if I might have common Justice, surely I might be allowed to tell my own Opinion, and declare my own Design, without being so confidently & frequently charged with misrepresenting my own Thoughts and Intentions.

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 my self, in that Controversy, which I had with my People at Northampton; as it is notorious and publicly 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. Stoddard's Writings on the Subject, or not. 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 my self 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: And this was the Point continually talked of in all Conversation at Northampton, for more than two Years, even 'till Mr. W—ms's Book came out. The Controversy was, Whether there was any Need of making a credible Profession of Godliness, in Order to Person's being admitted to full Communion; Whether they must profess saving Faith, or whether a Profession of common Faith were not sufficient; whether Persons must be esteemed truly godly, and must be taken in under that Notion, or whether if they appeared morally sincere, that were not sufficient? 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 Conversation, was the Question laid down in my Book. No Suggestion among them, that the Profession Persons made in Mr. Stoddard's Way, was taken as a Profession of real Godliness, or Gospel-Holiness; or that they were taken in under a Notion of their being truly pious Persons, as Mr. W. would have it: 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 it was not saving