The great Christian doctrine of original sin defended

Evasion I. Dr. T. says, P. 231, 232. Adam's Nature, it is allowed, was very far from being sinful; yet he sinned. And therefore, the common Doctrine of Original Sin, is no more necessary to account for the Sin that hath been in the World, than it is to account for Adam's Sin. Again, P. 328, &c. If we allow Mankind to be as wicked as R. R. has represented them to be; and suppose that there is not one upon Earth that is truly righteous, & without Sin, and that some are very enormous Sinners, yet it will not thence follow, that they are naturally corrupt.—For, if sinful Action infers a Nature originally corrupt, then, whereas Adam (according to them that hold the Doctrine of Original Sin) committed the most heinous and aggravated Sin, that ever was committed in the World; for, according to them, he had greater Light than any other Man in the World, to know his Duty, and greater Power than any other Man to fulfil it, and was under greater Obligations than any other Men to Obedience; he sinned when he knew he was the Representative ⟨p. 101⟩of Millions, and that the happy or mise• able State of all Mankind depended on his Conduct; which never was, nor can be, the Case of any other Man in the World:—then, I say, it will follow, that his Nature was originally corrupt, &c.—Thus, their Argument from the Wickedness of Mankind, to prove a sinful and corrupt Nature, must inevitably and irrecoverably fall to the Ground.—Which will appear more abundantly, if we take in the Case of the Angels; who in Numbers sinned and kept not their first Estate, tho' created with a Nature superior to Adam's. Again, P. 421. When it is enquired, how it comes to pass that our Appetites and Passions are now so irregular and strong, as that not one Person has resisted them, so as to keep himself pure and innocent? If this be the Case, if such as make the Enquiry will tell the World, how it came to pass that Adam's Appetites and Passions were so irregular and strong, that he did not resist them, so as to keep himself pure and innocent, when upon their Principles he was far more able to have resisted them; I also will tell them how it comes pass, that his Posterity don't resist them. Sin doth not alter it's Nature, by it's being general; and therefore, how far soever it spreads, it must come upon all just as it came upon Adam.

EVasion I. Dr. T. says, P. 231, 232. Adam's Nature, it is allowed, was very far from being sinful; yet he sinned. And therefore, the common Doctrine of Original Sin, is no more necessary to account for the Sin that hath been in the World, than it is to account for Adam's Sin. Again, P. 328, &c. If we allow Mankind to be as wicked as R. R. has represented them to be; and suppose that there is not one upon Earth that is truly righteous, & without Sin, and that some are very enormous Sinners, yet it will not thence follow, that they are naturally corrupt.—For, if sinful Action infers a Nature originally corrupt, then, whereas Adam (according to them that hold the Doctrine of Original Sin) committed the most heinous and aggravated Sin, that ever was committed in the World; for, according to them, he had greater Light than any other Man in the World, to know his Duty, and greater Power than any other Man to fulfil it, and was under greater Obligations than any other Men to Obedience; he sinned when he knew he was the Representative