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

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,”

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 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 selfevident, 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 Chris tians, 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 built 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 no where 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. Ivi. 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 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 ar gument 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 be tween me and Mr. Williams. But a point wherein we were fully agreed, and werein 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 "It is utterly inconsistent with the nature of the obedience of the gospel, that it should be a forced subjection. No

says,