N05035:300
An humble inquiry into the rules of the Word of God, concerning the qualifications…
An humble inquiry into the rules of the Word of God, concerning the qualifications requisite to a complete standing and full communion in the visible Christian church. By Jonathan Edwards, A.M. Pastor of the First Church in Northampton. ; With an appendix by Mr. Foxcroft. ; [Ten lines of quotations]An humble inquiry into the rules of the Word of God, concerning the qualifications requisite to a compleat standing and full communion in the visible Christian church. By Jonathan Edwards, A.M. Pastor of the First Church in Northampton. ; With an appendix by Mr. Foxcroft. ; [Ten lines of quotations]
Boston: : Printed & sold by S. Kneeland in Queenstreet, 1749
Title page typeset from the transcription.
An Inquiry into the Qualifications for full Communion in the visibl… › Part 3
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
ANSW. This Argument is of no Force, without first taking for granted the very Thing in Question. For this is plainly supposed in it, that however these Commands are given to such as are in the external Covenant, yet they are not given indefinitely, but with Exceptions and Reserves, and don't immediately reach all such; they don't reach those who are unqualified, tho' they be in the external Covenant. Now the Question is, who are these that are unqualified? The Objection supposes, that only ignorant and scandalous Persons are so. But why are they only supposed unqualified; and not unconverted Persons too? Because 'tis taken for granted, that these are not unqualified. And thus the grand Point in Question is supposed, instead of being proved. Why are these Limitations only singled out, neither Ignorant nor Scandalous; and not others as well? The Answer must be, because these are all the Limitations which the Scripture makes: But this now is the very Thing in Question. Whereas, the Business of an Argument is to prove, and not to suppose, or take for granted, the very Thing which is to be proved.
ANSW. This Argument is of no Force, without first taking for granted the very Thing in Question. For this is plainly supposed in it, that however these Commands are given to such as are in the external Covenant, yet they are not given indefinitely, but with Exceptions and Reserves, and don't immediately reach all such; they don't reach those who are unqualified, tho' they be in the external Covenant. Now the Question is, who are these that are unqualified? The Objection supposes, that only ignorant and scandalous Persons are so. But why are they only supposed unqualified; and not unconverted Persons too? Because 'tis taken for granted, that these are not unqualified. And thus the grand Point in Question is suppos'd, instead of being prov'd. Why are these Limitations only singled out, neither Ignorant nor Scandalous; and not others as well? The Answer must be, because these are all the Limitations which the Scripture makes: But this now is the very Thing in Question. Whereas, the Business of an Argument is to prove, and not to suppose, or take for granted, the very Thing which is to be proved.
If it be here said, It is with good Reason that those who are Ignorant or Scandalous alone are supposed to be excepted in God's Command, and Obligations of the Covenant; for the Covenant spoken of in the Objection, is the external Covenant, and this requires only external Duties; which alone are what lie within the Reach of Man's natural Power, and so in the Reach of his legal Power: God don't command or require what Men have no natural Power to perform, and which can't be performed before something else, some antecedent Duty, is performed, which antecedent Duty is not in their natural Power.