outward taking or accepting the body and blood of Christ represent, but the inward accepting Christ's body and blood, or an accepting him in the heart? And what spiritual thing is the outward feeding on Christ in this ordinance a sign of, but a spiritual feeding on Christ, or the soul's feeding on him? Now there is no other way of the soul's feeding on him, but by that faith, by which Christ becomes our spiritual food, and the refreshment and vital nourishment of our souls. The outward eating and drinking in this ordinance is a sign of spiritual eating and drinking, as much as the outward bread in this ordinance is a sign of spiritual bread; or as much as the outward drink is a sign of spiritual drink. And doubtless those actions, if they are a profession of any thing, are a profession of the things they signify.* To say, that these significant actions are appointed to be a profession of something, but not to be a profession of the things they are appointed to signify, is as unreasonable as to say, that certain sounds or words are appointed to be a profession of something, but not to be a profession of the things signified by those words.

Again, Mr Williams, in his reply to my answer to the second objection, with like contempt passes over the main argument which I offered, to prove that the nation of Israel were called God's people, and covenant people, in another sense besides a being visible saints. My argument in p. 85, 86, was this: that it is manifest, that something diverse from being visible saints, is often intended by that nation's being called God's people, and that that nation, the family of Israel, according to the flesh, and not with regard to any moral and religious qualifications, were in some sense adopted by God, to be his peculiar and covenant people, from Rom. ix. 3, 4, 5: "I could wish myself accursed from Christ for my brethren according to the flesh; who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the COVENANTS, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers," &c. I observed, that these privileges here mentioned, are spoken of as belonging to the Jews, not now as visible saints, not as professors of the true religion, not as members of the visible church of Christ, which they did not belong to, but only as a people of such a nation, such a blood, such an external, carnal relation to the patriarchs, their ancestors; Israelites, according to the flesh. Inasmuch as the apostle is speaking here of the unbelieving Jews, professed unbelievers, that were out of the Christian church, and open, visible enemies to it; and such as had no right at all to the external privileges of Christ's people. I observed further, that in like manner this apostle in Rom. xi. 28, 29, speaks of the same unbelieving Jews, that were enemies to the gospel, as in some respect an elect people, and interested in the calling, promises, and covenants, God formerly gave their forefathers, and are still beloved for their sakes. "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes. But as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

All that Mr. Williams says, which has any reference to these things, is, "that he had read my explication of the name of the people of God, as given

Mr. Stoddard owns, that the sacramental actions, both in baptism and the Lord's supper, signify saving faith in Christ, Safety of Ap. p. 170: "By baptism is signified our fellowship with Christ in his sufferings. That is signified hereby, that we have an interest in the virtue of his sufferings, that his sufferings are made over unto us, and that we do participate in the good and benefit of them. It was John the Baptist's manner, before he baptized persons, to teach them that they must believe on Christ. And the apostles and apostolical men would not baptize any adult persons but such as professed to believe on Christ. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. Baptism is mentioned as the evidence of faith." So concerning the Lord's supper, Ibid. p. 122, 123: "In this ordinance we are invited to put our trust in the death of Christ. Take, eat; this is my body; and drink ye all of it. When the body feeds on the sacramental bread and wine, the soul is to do that which answers unto it. The soul is to feed on Christ crucified; which is nothing else but the acting faith on him.”

to the people of Israel, &c. But that he confesses, it is perfectly unintelligible to him." The impartial reader is left to judge, whether the matter did not require some other answer.

SECTION VII.

What is, and what is not begging the question; and how Mr. Williams charges me, from time to time, with begging the question, without cause.

Among the particulars of Mr. Williams's method of disputing, I observed, that he often causelessly charges me with begging the question, while he frequently begs the question himself, or does that which is equivalent.

But that it may be determined with justice and clearness, who does, and who does not beg the question, I desire it may be particularly considered, what that is which is called begging the question in a dispute. This is more especially needful for the sake of illiterate readers. And here,

1. Let it be observed, that merely to suppose something in a dispute, without bringing any argument to prove it, is not begging the question. For this is done necessarily, in every dispute, and even in the best and clearest demonstrations. One point is proved by another until at length the matter is reduced to a point that is supposed to need no proof; either because it is self-evident, or is a thing wherein both parties are agreed, or so clear that it is supposed it will not be denied.

2. Nor is begging the question the same thing as offering a weak argument to prove the point in question. It is not all weak arguing, but one particular way of weak arguing, that is called begging the question.

3. Nor is it the same thing as missing the true question, and bringing an argument that is impertinent, or beside the question.

But the thing which is called begging the question, is the making use of the very point, that is the thing in debate, or the thing to be proved, as an argument to prove itself. Thus, if we were endeavoring to prove that none but godly persons might come to sacraments, and should take this for an argument to prove it, that none might come but such as have saving faith, taking this for granted; I should then beg the question: for this is the very point in question, whether a man must have saving faith or no? It is called begging the question, because it is a depending as it were on the courtesy of the other side, to grant me the point in question, without offering any argument as the price of it.

And whether the point I thus take for granted, be the main point in question in the general dispute, or some subordinate point, something under consideration, under a particular argument; yet if I take this particular point for granted, and then make use of it to prove itself, it is begging the question.

Thus if I were endeavoring, under this general controversy between Mr. Williams and me, to prove that particular point, that we ought to love all the members of the Church as true saints; and should bring this as a proof of the point, that we ought to love all the members of the church as true Christians, taking this for granted; this is only the same thing, under another term, as the thing to be proved: and therefore is no argument at all, but only begging the question.

Or if the point I thus take for granted, and make use of as an argument, be neither the general point in controversy, nor yet the thing nextly to be proved

under a particular argument; yet if it be some known controverted point between the parties, it is begging the question, or equivalent to it. For it is begging a thing known to be in question in the dispute, and using it as if it were a thing allowed.

I would now consider the instances, wherein Mr. Williams, asserts or suggests that I have begged the question.

In p. 30 and 31, he represents the force of my reasoning as buiit on a supposition, that there is no unsanctified man, but what knows he has no desire of salvation by Christ, no design to fulfil the covenant of grace, but designs to live in stealing, lying, adultery; or some other known sin: and then says, " Is it not manifest that such sort of reasoning is a mere quibbling with words, and begging the question ?" And so insinuates, that I have thus begged the question. Whereas I nowhere say, or suppose this which he speaks of, nor any thing like it. But on the contrary, often say, what supposes an unsanctified man may think he is truly godly, and that he has truly upright and gracious designs and desires. Nor does any argument of mine depend on any such supposition. Nay, under the argument he speaks of, I expressly suppose the contrary, viz., that unsanctified men who visibly enter into covenant, may be deceived.

In p. 38, Mr. Williams makes a certain representation of my arguing from Isa. lvi., and then says upon it, "It is no arguing, but only begging the question." But as has been already shown, that which he represents as my argument from that Scripture, has no relation to my argument.

In p. 59, in opposition to my arguing from the epistles, that the apostles treated those members of churches which they wrote to, as those who had been received on a positive judgment, i. e. (as I explain myself), a proper and affirmative opinion, that they were real saints; Mr. Williams argues, that the apostles could make no such judgment of them, without either personal converse, or revelation; unless it be supposed to be founded on a presumption, that ministers who baptized them, would not have done it, unless they had themselves made such a a positive judgment concerning their state: and then adds these words, "This may do for this scheme, but only it is a begging the question." Whereas it is a point that never has been in question in this controversy, as ever I knew, whether some ministers or churches might reasonably and affirmatively suppose, the members of other churches they are united with, were admitted on evidence of proper qualifications (whatever they be, whether common or saving), trusting to the faithfulness of other ministers and churches. Besides, this can be no point in question between me and Mr. Williams, unless it be a point in question between him and himself. For he holds, as well as I, persons ought not to be received as visible Christians, without moral evidence (which is something positive, and not a mere negation of evidence of the contrary) of gospel holiness.

In p. 82 of my book I suppose, that none at all do truly subject themselves to Christ as their master, but those who graciously subject themselves to him and are delivered from the reigning power of sin. Mr. Williams suggests, p 83, that herein I beg the question. For which there is no pretext, not only as this is no known point in controversy between the parties in this debate; but also as it is a point I do not take for granted, but offer this argument to prove it, That they who have no grace, are under the reigning power of sin, and no man can truly subject himself to two such contrary masters, at the same time, as Christ and sin. I think this argument sufficient to obtain the point, without begging it. And besides, this doctrine, That they who have no grace do not truly subject themselves to Christ, was no point in question between me and

Mr. Williams. But a point wherein we were fully agreed, and wherein he had before expressed himself as fully, and more fully than I. In his sermons on Christ a King and Witness, p. 18, he speaks of "all such as do not depend on Christ, believe in him, and give up themselves, and all to him, as not true subjects to Christ; but enemies to him and his kingdom." We have expressions to the same purpose again, in p. 74 and 91; and in p. 94, of the same book, he says, "It is utterly inconsistent with the nature of the obedience of the gospel, that it should be a forced subjection. No man is a subject of Christ, who does not make the laws and will of Christ his choice, and desire to be governed by him, and to live in subjection to the will of Christ, as good, and fit, and best to be the rule of his living, and way to his happiness. A forced obedience to Christ is no obedience. It is in terms a contradiction. Christ draws men with the cords of love, and the bands of a man. Our Lord has himself expressly determined this point." There are other passages in the same book, to the same purpose. So that I had no need to beg this point of Mr. Williams, since he had given it largely, and that in full measure, and over and over again, without begging

In p. 120, he observes, "That to say such a profession of internal, invisible things is the rule to direct the church in admission-is to hide the parallel and beg the question. For the question here is about the persons' right to come, and not about the church's admitting them." Here Mr. Williams would make us believe that he does not know what begging the question is: for it is evident his meaning is, that my saying so is beside the question. But to say something beside the question is a different thing from begging the question, as has been observed. My saying that a profession of invisible things is the church's rule in admission, is not begging the question; because it is not, nor ever was any thing in question. For Mr. Stoddard and Mr. Williams himself are full in it, that a profession of invisible things, such as a believing that Christ is the Son of God, &c., is the church's rule. Yea, Mr. Williams is express in it, that a credible profession and visibility of gospel holiness is the church's rule, p. 139. Nor is my saying as above, beside the question then in hand, relating to the church of Israel's admitting to the priesthood, those that could not find their register. For that wholly relates to the rule of admission to the priesthood, and not to the priests' assurance of their own right. For, as I observed, if the priests had been never so fully assured of their pedigree, yet if they could not demonstrate it to others, by a public register, it would not have availed for their admission.

Again, in p. 124, Mr. Williams charges me with begging the question, in supposing that sacraments are duties of worship, whose very nature and design is an exhibition of those vital and active principles and inward exercises, where in consists the condition of the covenant of grace. He charges the same thing as a begging the question, p. 131. But this is no begging the question, for two reasons; (1.) Because I had before proved this point, by proofs which Mr. Williams has not seen cause to attempt to answer, as has been just now observed, in the last section. (2.) This, when I wrote, was no point in question, wherein Mr. Williams and I differed; but wherein we were agreed, and in which he had declared himself as fully as I, in his sermons on Christ a King and Witness, p. 76: "When we attend sacraments (says he) we are therein visibly to profess our receiving Christ, and the graces of his Spirit, and the benefits of his redemption, on his own terms and offer, and giving up the all of our souls to him, on his call, covenant and engagement." And in the next preceding page but one, in a place forecited, he speaks of these acts" as mockery, hypocrisy, falsehood and lies, if they are not the expressions of faith and hope, and spiritual acts of obedience." So that I had no manner of need to come to VOL. I.

34

Mr. Williams as a beggar for these things, which he had so plentifully given me, and all the world that would accept them, years before.

SECTION VIII.

Showing how Mr. Williams begs the Question himself.

The question is certainly begged in that argument, which Mr. Williams espouses and defends, viz., " That the Lord's supper has a proper tendency to promote men's conversion." In the prosecution of the argument Mr. Williams implicitly yields, that it is not the apparent natural tendency alone, that is of any force to prove the point; but the apparent tendency under this circumstance, that there is no express prohibition. And thus it is allowed, that in the case of express prohibition with respect to the scandalous and morally insincere, no seeming tendency in the nature of the thing proves the ordinance to be intended for the conviction and conversion of such. So that it is a thing supposed in this argument, that all morally insincere persons are expressly forbidden, but unsanctified persons not so. Now when it is supposed, that morally insincere persons are expressly forbidden, the thing meant cannot be, that they are forbidden in those very words; for no such prohibition is to be found; nor are men that live in sodomy, bestiality and witchcraft, anywhere expressly forbidden in this sense. But the thing intended must be, that they are very evidently forbidden, by plain implication or consequence. But then the whole weight of the argument lies in this supposition, that unsanctified persons are not also plainly and evidently forbidden; which is the very point in question. And therefore, to make this the ground of an argument to prove this point, is a manifest begging the question. And what Mr. Williams says to the contrary, p. 127, that Mr. Stoddard had proved this point before, avails nothing: for let it be never so much proved before, yet after all, to take this very point and make use of it as a further argument to prove itself, is certainly begging the question. The notion of bringing a new argument is bringing additional proof: but to take a certain point, supposed to be already proved, to prove itself with over again, certainly does not add any thing to the evidence.

Mr. Williams says my supposing unconverted persons, as such, to be as evidently forbidden, as scandalous persons, is as much begging the question. I answer, so it would be, if I made that point an argument to prove itself with after Mr. Williams's manner. But this is far from being the case in fact.

And the question is again most certainly begged, in that other thing said to support this argument, viz., "That though the Lord's supper may seem to have a tendency to convert scandalous sinners, yet there is another ordinance appointed for that. Here the meaning must be, that there is another ordinance exclusive of the Lord's supper; otherwise it is nothing to the purpose. For they do not deny but that there are other ordinances for the conversion of sinners, who are morally sincere, as well as of those who are scandalous. But the question is, Whether other ordinances are appointed for their conversion exclusive of the Lord's supper; or, Whether the Lord's supper be one ordinance appointed for their conversion? This is the grand point in question. And to take this point as the foundation of an argument, to prove this same point, is plainly begging the question. And it is also giving up the argument from the tendency, and resting the whole argument on another thing.