as

which Mr. Williams has reference to. This is very manifest concerning most of them. But that I may not be tedious, I will now rehearse but a few instances, viz., being "made free from sin, and becoining the servants of righteousness; having" the spirit of adoption ;" being "the children of God, heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ;" being " vessels of mercy prepared unto glory;" being such " as do not live to themselves, nor die to themselves; but live unto the Lord and die unto the Lord;" and who," living and dying are the Lord's;" being those that have "all things for theirs, whether Paul or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; because they are Christ's;" being " begotten through the gospel;" being such as "shall judge the world;" being "washed, sanctified, justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God;" being "manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, written, not with ink, but by the Spirit of the living God; not in the tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart;" being such behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and are changed into the same image from glory to glory;" being "chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, that they should be holy and without blame before him in love; and predestinated unto the adoption of children;" being "sealed by that holy Spirit of promise ;" being "quickened, though once dead in trespasses and sins;" being "made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light;" being "dead, and having their life hid with Christ in God;" and being those that "when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, shall also appear with him in glory; having put off the old man with his deeds, and having put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge, after the image of him that created him;" being "begotten again to a living hope-to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for thein; who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation; who love Christ though they have not seen him; in whom, though now they see him not, yet believing, they rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; having purified their souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit; knowing him that is from the beginning; having their sins forgiven; having overcome the wicked one; having an unction from the holy one, by which they know all things; who are now the sons of God; and who, when Christ shall appear, shall be like him, because they shall see him as he is."

Now let the Christian reader judge, with what face of reason our author could represent, as though there were nothing in all these epithets and characters, more than used of old to be given to the whole nation of the Jews, and that, even in times of their greatest corruption and apostasy, till the nation was rejected of God! One would think, there is no need of arguing the matter with any that have read the Bible.

This representation of Mr. Williams's is not only very contrary to truth but also to the common sentiments of the Christian church. Though I pretend not to be a person of great reading, yet I have read enough to warrant this assertion. I never yet (as I remember) met with any author that went the same length in this matter with Mr. Williams, but only Mr. Taylor of Norwich, in England, the author that lately has been so famous for his corrupt doctrine. In his piece which he calls A Key to the Apostolic Writings, where he delivers his scheme of religion (which seems scarcely so agreeable to the Christian scheme, as the doctrine of many of the wiser Heathen) he delivers the same opinion, and insists largely upon it; it being a main thing he makes use of to establish his whole scheme. And it evidently appears in the manner of his delivering it, that he is sensible it is exceeding far from what has hitherto been the coin

monly received sentiment in the Christian world. He supposes that as all those epithets and characters belong to the whole nation of the Jews, even in their most corrupt times, so they belong to all Christendom, even the most vicious parts of it; that the most vicious men who are baptized, and profess to believe Jesus to be the Messiah, are "chosen before the foundation of the world, pre destinated according to the foreknowledge of God, regenerated, justified, sanctified children of God, heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ, the spouse of Christ, the temple of God, made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ, being the family of heaven," &c. &c. And certainly he may with as good reason, and with the same reason, suppose this of all Christendom, even the most vicious parts of it, as of the whole nation of the Jews, however corrupt, till there was a national rejection of them.

Indeed it is manifest there is no other way of evading the force of the argument from the epistles, but by falling into Taylor's scheme. If his scheme of religion be not true, then it is plain as any fact in the New Testament, that all the Christian churches, through the whole earth, in the apostles' days, were constituted in the manner that I insist on. The Scripture says ten times as much to demonstrate this matter, as it does about the manner of discipline, officers, and government of the church, or as it does about the several parts of the public worship, or about the sanctification of the Christian Sabbath.

SECTION V.

Instances of the fifth and sixth particulars, in Mr. Williams's method of disputing, viz., his using confident and peremptory Assertions, and great Exclamations, instead of Arguments.

We have an instance of the former, in his reply to my answer to the 14th objection, viz., that "it is not unlawful for unsanctified men to carry themselves like saints." I objected against this, if thereby be meant, that they may lawfully carry themselves externally like the saints in all respects, remaining ungodly and mentioned some things which belonged to the external duty of godly men, which no ungodly man, remaining such, may do. To which Mr. Williams makes no reply; but to prove the point says," Mr. Stoddard knew, and all divines know, that the external carriage of some unsanctified men is, to the outward appearance, and the public judgment of the church, the same with the carriage of the saints; and they know they are bound to such a behavior." And this peremptory, confident assertion, is all the argument he brings to prove the thing asserted.

Again, I observe, that sometimes Mr. Williams uses great exclamation, as though he intended to alarm, and excite terror in his readers, and raise their indignation: though they are perhaps never like to know for what. We have two very remarkable instances of this, p. 136 and 137, where he says, I shall further take notice of two extraordinary and surprising passages, if I understand them. And I have with great diligence tried to find out the meaning of them. One is p. 129, between the 17th and 23d lines; if it be rightly printed." He does not quote my words: this mighty exclamation would have be come too flat, and appeared ridiculous, if he had. The passage referred to is in these words:" indeed such a tendency (i. e., a tendency to irreligion and profaneness) it would have, to shut men out from having any part in the Lord,

in the sense of the two tribes and half, Josh. xxii. 25, or to fence them out by such a partition wall, as formerly was between Jews and Gentiles and so shut them out as to tell them, if they were never so much disposed to serve God, he was not ready to accept them according to the notion the Jews seem to have had of the uncircumcised Gentiles." That is, plainly, to shut them out so as to tell them, that let them have hearts never so well and piously disposed to love and serve God, their love and service could not be accepted. This doubtless would have a tendency to discourage religion in men. And how the owning of it is an owning my scheme to have such a tendency, I do not know. Mr Williams might as well have picked out any other sentence through all th 136 pages of the book, and called it an extraordinary passage, and stooc astonished over it, and told how he was ready to doubt whether it was rightly printed, and what great diligence he had used to find out the meaning of it!

The other extraordinary passage he stands thunderstruck with, is in these words; "May it not be suspected, that this way of baptizing children of such as never take any proper profession of godliness, is an expedient, originally invented for that very end, to give ease to ancestors with respect to their posterity, in times of great declension and degeneracy?" Mr. Williams knows, that through the whole of the book I suppose this practice of baptizing the children of such as are here spoken of, is wrong; and so does he too; for he abundantly allows, that persons, in order to be admitted to the privileges of visible saints, must make a profession of real piety, or gospel holiness. And if it be wrong, as we are both agreed, then surely it is nothing, akin to blasphemy, to suspect that it arose from some bad cause.

SECTION VI.

Instances of the seventh particular, observed in Mr. Williams's way of disputing, viz, his wholly overlooking arguments, pretending there is no argument, nothing to answer; when the case is far otherwise.

Thus in his reply to my tenth argument, which was this, "It is necessary, that those who partake of the Lord's supper should judge themselves truly and cordially to accept Christ as their Saviour, and chief good; for this is what the actions, which communicants perform at the Lord's table, are a solemn profession of." I largely endeavored in p. 75, 76 and 77, to prove this, from the nature of those significant actions, of receiving the symbols of Christ's body and blood when offered, representing their accepting the thing signified, as their spiritual food, &c. To all which Mr. Williams says, p. 74, "I do not 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 purport and nature of the sacramental actions." Since Mr. Williams esteems it no argument, I desire it may be considered itpartially whether there be any argument in it or no.

These sacramental actious all allow to be significant actions. They are a signification and profession of something. They are not actions without a meaning. And all allow, that these external actions signify something inward and spiritual. And if they signify any thing spiritual, they doubtless signify those spiritual things which they represent. But what inward thing does the

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.

66

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 170: " By baptism is signified our fellowship with Christ in his sufferings. That is signified he,eby, 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 tranner, 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 th⋅ d ́ath 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.”

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