N05401:324
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.
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.
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 shew 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.
If one in a Dispute insists on an Argument, that lies equally against his own Scheme as the other, and yet will stand to it that his Argument is good, he in Effect stands to it that his own Scheme is not good; he supplants himself, and gives up his own Cause, in opposing his Adversary; in holding fast his Argument, he holds fast what is his own Overthrow; and in insisting that his Argument is solid and strong, he in Effect insists that his own Scheme is weak and vain. If my Antagonist will insist upon it, that his Argument is good, that he brings against me, which is in like Manner against himself; then I may take the same Argument, in my Turn, and use it against him, and he can have nothing to answer; but has stopped his own Mouth, having owned the Argument to be conclusive.