N06399:320
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.
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.
In the first Place, I think it a Contradiction to the Nature of Things, as judged of by the common Sense of Mankind. It is agreeable to the Sense of the Minds of Men in all Nations and Ages, not only that the Fruit or Effect of a good Choice is virtuous, but the good Choice itself, from whence that Effect proceeds; yea, and not only so, but also the antecedent good Disposition, Temper or Affection of Mind, from whence proceeds that good Choice, is virtuous. This is the general Notion, not that Principles derive their Goodness from Actions, but that Actions derive their Goodness from the Principles whence they proceed; and so that the Act of choosing that which is good, is no further virtuous than it proceeds from a good Principle, or virtuous Disposition of Mind. Which supposes, that a virtuous Disposition of Mind may be before a virtuous ⟨p. 141⟩Act of Choice; and that therefore it is not necessary that there should first be Thought, Reflection and Choice, before there can be any virtuous Disposition. If the Choice be first, before the Existence of a good Disposition of Heart, what signifies that Choice? There can, according to our natural Notions, be no Virtue in a Choice which proceeds from no virtuous Principle, but from mere Self-love, Ambition, or some animal Appetite. And therefore a virtuous Temper of Mind may be before a good Act of Choice, as a Tree may be before the Fruit, and the Fountain before the Stream which proceeds from it.