N06399:318
The great Christian doctrine of original sin defended
The great Christian doctrine of original sin defended; evidences of it's [sic] truth produced, and arguments to the contrary answered. Containing, in particular, a reply to the objections and arguings of Dr. John Taylor, in his book, entitled, "The Scripture-doctrine of original sin proposed to free and candid examination, &c. / By the late Reverend and learned Jonathan Edwards, president of the College of New-Jersey. ; [Thirteen lines of quotations]The great Christian doctrine of original sin defended; evidences of it's [sic] truth produced, and arguments to the contrary answered. Containing, in particular, a reply to the objections and arguings of Dr. John Taylor, in his book, intitled, "The Scripture-doctrine of original sin proposed to free and candid examination, &c. / By the late Reverend and learned Jonathan Edwards, president of the College of New-Jersey. ; [Thirteen lines of quotations]
printed by S. Kneeland, 1758
The great Christian Doctrine of ORIGINAL SIN defended. › Part 2 › Chapter 1 › Section 1
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.
THE Doctrine of Original Righteousness, or the Creation of our first Parents with holy Principles and Dispositions, has a close Connection, in several Respects, with the Doctrine of Original Sin. Dr.T.—was sensible of this; and accordingly he strenuously opposes this Doctrine, in his Book against Original Sin. And therefore in handling the Subject, I would in the first Place remove this Author's main Objection against this Doctrine; and then show how the Doctrine may be inferred from the Account which Moses gives us, in the three first Chapters of Genesis.
THE Doctrine of Original Righteousness, or the Creation of our first Parents with holy Principles and Dispositions, has a close Connection, in several Respects, with the Doctrine of Original Sin. Dr.T.—was sensible of this; and accordingly he strenuously opposes this Doctrine, in his Book against Original Sin. And therefore in handling the Subject, I would in the first Place remove this Author's main Objection against this Doctrine; and then shew how the Doctrine may be infer'd from the Account which Moses gives us, in the three first Chapters of Genesis.
Dr. T—r's grand Objection against this Doctrine, which he abundantly insists on, is this: That it is utterly inconsistent with the Nature of Virtue, that it should be concreated with any Person; because, if so, it must be by an Act of God's absolute Power, without our Knowledge or Concurrence; and that moral Virtue, in it's very Nature implieth the Choice and Consent of the moral Agent, ⟨p. 140⟩without which it cannot be Virtue and Holiness: that a necessary Holiness, is no Holiness. So P. 179, 180. Where he observes, That Adam must exist, he must be created, yea he must exercise Thought and Reflection, before he was righteous. See also P. 250, 251. In P. 437. he says, To say, that God not only endowed Adam with a Capacity of being righteous, but moreover that Righteousness and true Holiness were created with him, or wrought into his Nature, at the same Time he was made, is to affirm a Contradiction, or what is inconsistent with the very Nature of Righteousness. And in like Manner Dr. Turnbull in many places insists upon it, that it is necessary to the very Being of Virtue, that it be owing to our own Choice, and diligent Culture.