N06399:319
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.
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.
With respect to this, I would observe, that it consists in a Notion of Virtue quite inconsistent with the Nature of Things, and the common Notions of Mankind; and also inconsistent with Dr.T—r's own Notions of Virtue. Therefore, if it be truly so, that to affirm that to be Virtue or Holiness which is not the Fruit of preceding Thought, Reflection and Choice, is to affirm a Contradiction, I shall show plainly, that for him to affirm otherwise, is a Contradiction to himself.
With respect to this, I would observe, that it consists in a Notion of Virtue quite inconsistent with the Nature of Things, and the common Notions of Mankind; and also inconsistent with Dr.T—r's own Notions of Virtue. Therefore, if it be truly so, that to affirm that to be Virtue or Holiness which is not the Fruit of preceeding Thought, Reflection and Choice, is to affirm a Contradiction, I shall shew plainly, that for him to affirm otherwise, is a Contradiction to himself.