N05401:94
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.
If God has plainly revealed, that Gospel-Holiness is not necessary in it self in Order to Men's lawful Right to Sacraments, as Mr. W. greatly insists, then his Churches need not believe it to be necessary; yea, 'tis their Duty to believe that 'tis not necessary, as 'tis their Duty to believe what God says to be true. But yet Mr. W. holds, that God forbids his Churches to admit any to Sacraments, unless they first have some rational Evidence obliging 'em to believe that ⟨p. 37⟩they have Gospel-Holiness. Now how palpable is the Inconsistence, that we must be obliged to believe Men have a Qualification in Order to our suffering them to come, which yet at the same Time we need not believe to be necessary for 'em to have in Order to their Coming, but which God requires us to believe to be unnecessary? Or in other Words, that God has made it necessary for us to believe or suppose Men are truly pious, in Order to our lawfully allowing them to take the Sacraments, & yet at the same Time requires us to believe no such Thing as their being pious is necessary in Order to their lawfully taking the Sacraments?
If God has plainly reveal'd, that Gospel-Holiness is not necessary in it self in Order to Men's lawful Right to Sacraments, as Mr. W. greatly insists, then his Churches need not believe it to be necessary; yea, 'tis their Duty to believe that 'tis not necessary, as 'tis their Duty to believe what God says to be true. But yet Mr. W. holds, that God forbids his Churches to admit any to Sacraments, unless they first have some rational Evidence obliging 'em to believe that ⟨p. 37⟩they have Gospel-Holiness. Now how palpable is the Inconsistence, that we must be obliged to believe Men have a Qualification in Order to our suffering them to come, which yet at the same Time we need not believe to be necessary for 'em to have in Order to their Coming, but which God requires us to believe to be unnecessary? Or in other Words, that God has made it necessary for us to believe or suppose Men are truly pious, in Order to our lawfully allowing them to take the Sacraments, & yet at the same Time requires us to believe no such Thing as their being pious is necessary in Order to their lawfully taking the Sacraments?