N05401:286
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 VIII. Showing how Mr. W. often begs the Question Himself.
SECTION VIII. Shewing how Mr. W. often begs the Question Himself.
THE Question is certainly begged in that Argument, which Mr. W. espouses and defends, viz. That the Lord's Supper has a proper Tendency to promote Men's Conversion. In the Prosecution of the Argument Mr. W. implicitly yields, that it is not the apparent natural Tendency alone, that is of any Force to prove the Point; but the apparent Tendency under this Circumstance, That there is no express Prohibition. And thus 'tis allowed, that in the Case of express Prohibition with Respect to the scandalous and morally Insincere, no seeming Tendency in the Nature of the Thing proves the Ordinance to be intended for the Conviction and Conversion of such. So that 'tis a Thing supposed in this Argument, that all morally insincere Persons are expressly forbidden, but unsanctified Persons not so. Now when it is supposed, that morally insincere Persons are expressly forbidden, the Thing meant can't be, that they are forbidden in those very Words; for no such Prohibition is to be found: nor are Men that live in Sodomy, Bestiality, and Witchcraft, any where expressly forbidden in this Sense. But the Thing intended must be, that they are very evidently forbidden, ⟨p. 121⟩by plain Implication, or Consequence. But then the whole Weight of the Argument lies in this Supposition, That unsanctified Persons are not also plainly and evidently forbidden; which is the very Point in Question. And therefore to make this the Ground of an Argument to prove this Point, is a manifest begging the Question. And what Mr. W. says to the contrary (P. 127. a.) That Mr. Stoddard had proved this Point before, avails Nothing: For let it be never so much proved before, yet, after all, to take this very Point and make use of it as a further Argument to prove it self, is certainly begging the Question. The Notion of bringing a new Argument is bringing additional Proof: But to take a certain Point, supposed to be already proved, to prove it self with over again, certainly don't add any Thing to the Evidence.