N05401:362
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.
THIS Argument has been greatly gloried in, as altogether invincible. Mr. W. seems to have been alarmed, and his Spirits raised to no small Degree of Warmth at the Pretence of an Answer to it: And he uses many big Words, and strong Expressions in his Reply; such as, 'Tis absolutely certain—'Tis beyond my Power to comprehend, and I believe beyond the Power of any Man to tell me—This I assert & stand ⟨p. 154⟩to—As plain as the Sun—A Contradiction of the Bible, of the Light of Nature, and of the common Sense of Mankind, &c. &c. But let us get away from the Noise of a Torrent, and bring this Matter to the Test of calm Reasoning, and examine it to the very Bottom.
Here let it be considered, wherein precisely the Argument consists.—If it has any Strength in it, it consists in this Proposition. viz. That 'tis not lawful for Men to come to Sacraments, without a known Right. This is the Proposition Mr. S. himself reduces the Argument to, in his Appeal, P. 62, 63. And 'tis very evident, that the whole Strength of the Argument rests on the supposed Truth of this Proposition.
And here let it be noted, what Sort of Knowledge of a Right Mr. S. and so Mr. W. mean in this Argument. 'Tis Knowledge as distinguished from such an Opinion, or Hope, as is founded on Probability. Thus Mr. S. expressly insists, that a Man must not only THINK he has a Right, but he must KNOW it. (Appeal, P. 62.) And again, (P. 63.) He says, Probable Hopes won't warrant him to come.
And here let it be noted, what Sort of Knowledge of a Right Mr. S. and so Mr. W. mean in this Argument. 'Tis Knowledge as distinguished from such an Opinion, or Hope, as is founded on Probability. Thus Mr. S. expresly insists, that a Man must not only THINK he has a Right, but he must KNOW it. (Appeal, P. 62.) And again, (P. 63.) He says, Probable Hopes won't warrant him to come.