N05401:322
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.
And here I would lay down this as a Maxim of undoubted Verity; That an Argument, brought to support one Scheme against another, can avail Nothing to the Purpose it is brought for, if it is at the same Time against the Scheme it would support, in like Manner as against that which it would destroy.
It is an old and approved Maxim, That Argument which proves too much, proves Nothing. i. e. If it proves too much ⟨p. 136⟩for him that brings it, proves against himself in like Manner as against his Opponent, then it is Nothing to help his Cause. The Reason of it is plain: The Business of a Dispute is to make one Cause good against another, to make one Scale heavier than the other. But when a Man uses an Argument which takes alike out of both Scales, this don't at all serve to make his Side preponderate, but leaves the Balance just as it was.
It is an old and approved Maxim, That Argument which proves too much, proves Nothing. i. e. If it proves too much ⟨p. 136⟩for him that brings it, proves against himself in like Manner as against his Opponent, then it is Nothing to help his Cause. The Reason of it is plain: The Business of a Dispute is to make one Cause good against another, to make one Scale heavier than the other. But when a Man uses an Argument which takes alike out of both Scales, this don't at all serve to make his Side preponderate, but leaves the Ballance just as it was.
Arguments brought by any Man in a Dispute, if they ben't altogether impertinent, are against the Difference between Him and his Opponent, or against his Opponent's differing from him: For wherein there is no Difference, there is no Dispute. But that can be no Argument against his Opponent's differing from him, which is only an Argument against what is common to both, and taken from some Difficulty that both Sides equally share in. If I charge supposed Absurdities or Difficulties against him that differs from me, as an Argument to show the Unreasonableness of his differing; and yet the Difficulty is not owing to his differing from me, in as much as the same would lie against him, if he agreed with me, my Conduct herein is both very impertinent and injurious.