N06399:326
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.
But yet it follows from these inconsistent Principles, there is no moral Rectitude or Virtue in the first Act of Choice, that is the Cause of all consequent Virtue. This follows two Ways; 1. Because every Part of Virtue lies in the benevolent Principle, which is the Effect; and therefore no Part of it can lie in the Cause. 2. The Choice of Virtue, as to the first Act at least, can have no Virtue or Righteousness at all, because it don't proceed from any foregoing Choice. For Dr. T. insists, that a Man must first have Reflection and Choice, before he can have Righteousness; and that it is essential to Holiness, that it proceed from Choice. So that the first Choice of Holiness, which Holiness proceeds from, can have no Virtue at all, because by the Supposition it don't proceed from Choice, being the first Choice. Hence if it be essential to Holiness, that it proceeds from Choice, it must proceed from an unholy Choice; unless the first holy Choice can be before it self, or there be a virtuous Act of Choice before that which is first of all.
And with respect to Adam, let us consider how upon Dr. T—r's Principles, it was possible he ever should have any such Thing as Righteousness, by any Means at all. In the State wherein God created him, he could have no such thing as Love to God, or any Love or Benevolence in his Heart. For if so, there would have been Original Righteousness; there would have been genuine moral Rectitude; Nothing would be wanting: For our Author says, True genuine moral Rectitude, in every Part of it, is to be resolved into this single Principle. But if he were wholly without any such thing as Love to God, or any virtuous Love, how should he come by Virtue? The Answer doubtless will be, By Act of Choice: he must first choose to be virtuous. But what if he did choose to be virtuous? It could not be from Love to God, or any ⟨p. 153⟩virtuous Principle, that he chose it; for, by the Supposition, he has no such Principle in his Heart: And if he chooses it without such a Principle, still, according to this Author, there is no Virtue in his Choice; for all Virtue, he says, is to be resolved into that single Principle of Love. Or will he say, there may be produced in the Heart a virtuous Benevolence by an Act or Acts of Choice, that are not virtuous? But this don't consist with what he implicitly asserts. That to the Cause alone is to be ascribed what is in the Effect. So that there is no Way can possibly be devised, in Consistence with Dr. T—r's Scheme, in which Adam ever could have any Righteousness, or could ever either obtain any Principle of Virtue, or perform any one virtuous Act.