N05401:288
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.
Mr. W. says, my supposing unconverted Persons, as such, to be as evidently forbidden, as scandalous Persons, is as much begging the Question. I answer, So it would be, if I made that Point an Argument to prove it self with, after Mr. W—ms's Manner. But this is far from being the Case in Fact.
And the Question is again most certainly begged, in that other Thing said to support this Argument, viz. That tho' the Lord's Supper may seem to have a Tendency to convert scandalous Sinners, yet there is another Ordinance appointed for that. Here the Meaning must be, that there is another Ordinance exclusive of the Lord's Supper; otherwise 'tis nothing to the Purpose. For they don't deny but that there are other Ordinances for the Conversion of Sinners, who are morally sincere, as well as of those who are scandalous. But the Question is, Whether other Ordinances are appointed for their Conversion exclusive of the Lord's Supper; or, Whether the Lord's Supper be one Ordinance appointed for their Conversion? This is the grand Point in Question. And to take this Point as the Foundation of an Argument, to prove this same Point, is plain begging the Question. And 'tis also giving up the Argument from the Tendency, and resting the whole Argument on another Thing.
Mr. W. again plainly begs the Question in his Reply (P. 127. c. d.) That God's Prohibition is an Argument, that God saw there was no such Tendency for their Conversion. ⟨p. 122⟩His so saying supposes again, that there is no evident Prohibition of unsanctified Persons. In which he again flies to the very Point in Question, and rests the Weight of his Reasoning upon it.