N05401:246
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.
Again, Mr. W. in his Reply to my Argument from that Christian brotherly Love, which is required towards all Members of the visible Church, goes entirely off from the Argument, to Things quite alien from it. His first Answer (P. 69. c.) is, that the Exercise of this Christian Love is not the ⟨p. 104⟩Term of Communion or Admission into the visible Church: which is perfectly foreign to the Business. For the Argument respects the Object of this Love, viz. visible Saints, that are to be thus beloved; and not at all the Qualifications of the inherent Subject of it, or the Person that exercises this Love. If they that are admitted, are to be loved as true Saints, or for the Image of Christ appearing in them, or supposed to be in them (as Mr. W. allows P. 68. c.) then it will follow, that none are to be admitted, but such as can reasonably be the Objects of Christian Love, or be loved▪ as true Saints, and as those who have the Image of Christ appearing in them. Whether the Exercise of this Love be the Term of Communion, or not; yet if we are commanded to exercise this Love to all that are admitted to Communion, then it will certainly follow, that some reasonable Ground for being thus beloved, must be a Term of Communion in such as are admitted. To suppose it appointed, that we should love all that are admitted as true Saints, & yet that it is not appointed that such as are admitted should exhibit any reasonable Grounds for such a Love, is certainly to suppose very inconsistent Appointments.*
Again, Mr. W. in his Reply to my Argument from that Christian brotherly Love, which is required towards all Members of the visible Church, goes entirely off from the Argument, to Things quite aliene from it. His first Answer (P. 69. c.) is, that the Exercise of this Christian Love is not the ⟨p. 104⟩Term of Communion or Admission into the visible Church: which is perfectly foreign to the Business. For the Argument respects the Object of this Love, viz. visible Saints, that are to be thus beloved; and not at all the Qualifications of the inherent Subject of it, or the Person that exercises this Love. If they that are admitted, are to be lov'd as true Saints, or for the Image of Christ appearing in them, or supposed to be in them (as Mr. W. allows P. 68. c.) then it will follow, that none are to be admitted, but such as can reasonably be the Objects of Christian Love, or be loved as true Saints, and as those who have the Image of Christ appearing in them. Whether the Exercise of this Love be the Term of Communion, or not; yet if we are commanded to exercise this Love to all that are admitted to Communion, then it will certainly follow, that some reasonable Ground for being thus beloved, must be a Term of Communion in such as are admitted. To suppose it appointed, that we should love all that are admitted as true Saints, & yet that it is not appointed that such as are admitted should exhibit any reasonable Grounds for such a Love, is certainly to suppose very inconsistent Appointments.