N05401:232
Misrepresentations corrected, and truth vindicated. In a reply to the Rev. Mr. Solomon Williams's…
Misrepresentations corrected, and truth vindicated. In a reply to the Rev. Mr. Solomon Williams's book, entitled, The true state of the question concerning the qualifications necessary to lawful communion in the Christian sacraments. / By Jonathan Edwards, M.A. Minister of the Gospel at Stockbridge. ; [Five lines of Scripture texts]Misrepresentations corrected, and truth vindicated. In a reply to the Rev. Mr. Solomon Williams's book, intitled, The true state of the question concerning the qualifications necessary to lawful communion in the Christian sacraments. / By Jonathan Edwards, M.A. Minister of the Gospel at Stockbridge. ; [Five lines of Scripture texts]
Boston: printed by S. Kneeland, 1752
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
SECTION II. Instances of the second Thing mentioned as exceptionable in Mr. W—ms's Method of managing this Controversy; viz. His misrepresenting what is said in the Writings of Others, that he supposes favour his Opinion.
Perhaps Instances enough of this have already been taken Notice of; yet I would now mention some others.
PErhaps Instances enough of this have already been taken Notice of; yet I would now mention some others.
In what he says in Reply to my Answer to the eighth Objection, he says, (P. 108) Mr. Stoddard does not say, If sanctifying Grace be necessary to a Person's lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper, then God would have given some certain Rule, whereby those WHO ARE TO ADMIT ⟨p. 99⟩THEM, may know whether they have such Grace, or not. Mr. W. there intimates (as the Reader may see) as if Mr. Stoddard spake so, that it is to be understood disjunctively, meaning, he would either have given some certain Rule to the Church who admit them, or else to the Persons themselves: so that by one Means or other, the Lord's Supper might be restrained to converted Men. And he exclaims against me for representing as tho' Mr. Stoddard's Argument were concerning a certain Rule, whereby those who are to admit them, may know whether they have Grace (see the foregoing Page) and speaks of it as nothing akin to Mr. S—d's Argument. Now let the Reader take Notice of Mr. S—d's Words, and see whether his Argument ben't something akin to this. He says expressly (Appeal P. 75.) God don't bind his CHURCH to Impossibilities. If he had made such an Ordinance, He would give Gifts to his CHURCH, to distinguish sincere Men from Hypocrites, whereby the Ordinance might have been attended.—The minor is also evident: He has given no such Rule to his CHURCH, whereby it may be restrained to converted Men. This appears, because by the Rule that they are to go by, they are allowed TO GIVE the Lord's Supper to many unconverted Men. For all visible Signs are common to Men converted, and unconverted. — So that Mr. S. in Fact does say, If sanctifying Grace be necessary to a Person's lawful partaking of the Lord's Supper, then God would have given some certain Rule, whereby the Church [those who are to admit them] may know, whether they have Grace, or not. Tho' Mr. W. denies it, and says, this is nothing akin to Mr. S—d's Argument; contrary to the plainest Fact.