N05401:236
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 III. Instances of the third Thing observed in Mr. W—ms's Manner of arguing, viz. His pretending to oppose & answer Arguments, by saying Things which have no Reference to 'em, but relate to other Matters, perfectly foreign to the Subject of the Argument.
Such is his Answer (P. 37, &c.) to my Argument from ISAI. lvi. Particularly from those Words, v. 6, 7▪ Also the Sons of the Stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, to love the Name of the Lord, to be his Servants — even them will I bring to my holy Mountain, and make them joyful in my House of Prayer, &c. For I say nothing under that Argument (as Mr. W. in his Answer presumes) which supposes any Antithesis or Opposition here between the State of the Gentiles and Eunuchs under the Old Testament, and under the Gospel, as to Terms of Acceptance with God: Nor any Opposition, as to a greater Necessity of sanctifying Grace, to the lawful partaking of Ordinances, under the Gospel, than under the Law; as Mr. W. also supposes in his Arguings on this Head. But the Opposition I speak of, as plainly pointed forth in the Chapter, is this: That, whereas under the Law, not only Piety of Heart and Practice were required, but something else, even Soundness of Body and Circumcision, 'Tis foretold, that under the Gospel, Piety of Heart and Practice only should be required; that although' they were Eunuchs or Uncircumcised, yet if it appeared that they loved the Name of the Lord, &c. they should be admitted.
SUch is his Answer (P. 37, &c.) to my Argument from ISAI. lvi. Particularly from those Words, v. 6, 7▪ Also the Sons of the Stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, to love the Name of the Lord, to be his Servants — even them will I bring to my holy Mountain, and make them joyful in my House of Prayer, &c. For I say nothing under that Argument (as Mr. W. in his Answer presumes) which supposes any Antithesis or Opposition here between the State of the Gentiles and Eunuchs under the Old Testament, and under the Gospel, as to Terms of Acceptance with God: Nor any Opposition, as to a greater Necessity of sanctifying Grace, to the lawful partaking of Ordinances, under the Gospel, than under the Law; as Mr. W. also supposes in his Arguings on this Head. But the Opposition I speak of, as plainly pointed forth in the Chapter, is this: That, whereas under the Law, not only Piety of Heart and Practice were required, but something else, even Soundness of Body and Circumcision, 'Tis foretold, that under the Gospel, Piety of Heart and Practice only should be required; that altho' they were Eunuchs or Uncircumcised, yet if it appeared that they loved the Name of the Lord, &c. they should be admitted.