N03467:441
Discourses on various important subjects, nearly concerning the great affair of the soul's eternal…
Discourses on various important subjects, nearly concerning the great affair of the soul's eternal salvation, viz. I. Justification by faith alone. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. III. Ruth's resolution. IV. The justice of God in the damnation of sinners. V. The excellency of Jesus Christ. : Delivered at Northampton, chiefly at the time of the late wonderful pouring out of the spirit of God there. / By Jonathan Edwards, A.M. Pastor of the Church of Christ in Northampton. ; [Three lines from Deuteronomy]
Boston: printed by S. Kneeland and T. Green, 1738
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Discourse 4: The Justice of GOD in the Damnation of Sinners.
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.
So that the Objections that are made against the infinite Punishment of Sin, from the Necessity, or rather previous Certainty of the Futurition of Sin, arising from the Decree of God, or unavoidable original Corruption of Nature, if they argue any Thing, don't argue against the Infiniteness of the Degree of the Faultiness of Sin directly, and no otherwise than they argue against any Faultiness at all: For if this Necessity or Certainty, leaves any Evil at all in Sin, that Fault must be infinite by Reason of the infinite Object.
But every such Objector, as would argue from hence, that there is no Fault at all in Sin▪ confutes himself, and shows his own Insincerity in his Objection. For at the same Time that he objects, that Men's Acts are necessary, from God's Decrees, and original Sin, and that this ⟨p. 199⟩Kind of Necessity is inconsistent with Faultiness in the Act, his own Practice shows that he don't believe what he objects to be true: Otherwise why does he at all blame Men? Or why are such Persons at all displeased with Men, for abusive, injurious, and ungrateful Acts towards them? Whatever they pretend, by this they show that indeed they do believe that there is no Necessity in Men's Acts, from divine Decrees, or Corruption of Nature, that is inconsistent with Blame. And if their Objection be this, That this previous Certainty is by God's own Ordering, and that where God orders an antecedent Certainty of Acts, he transfers all the Fault from the Actor on himself; their Practice shows, that at the same Time they don't believe this; but fully believe the Contrary: For when they are abused by Men, they are displeased with Men, and not with God only.
But every such Objector, as would argue from hence, that there is no Fault at all in Sin▪ confutes himself, and shews his own Insincerity in his Objection. For at the same Time that he objects, that Men's Acts are necessary, from God's Decrees, and original Sin, and that this ⟨p. 199⟩