N06399:333
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.
And let us consider how it could be otherwise, than that Adam was always, in every Moment of his Existence, obliged to exercise such Regard or Respect of Heart towards every Object or Thing, as was agreeable to the apparent Merit of that Object. For Instance, would it not at any Time have been a becoming Thing in Adam, on the Exhibition to his Mind of God's infinite Goodness to him, for him to have exercised answerable Gratitude; and the contrary have been unbecoming and odious? And if something had been presented to Adam's View, transcendently amiable in it self, as for Instance, the glorious Perfection of the divine Nature, would it not have become him to love, relish and delight in it? Would not such an Object have merited this? And if the View of an Object so amiable in it self did not affect his Mind with Complacence, would it not, according to the plain Dictates of our Understanding, have shown an unbecoming Temper of Mind? To say, that he had not had Time, by Culture, to form and establish a good Disposition or Relish, is not what would have taken off the Disagreeableness & Odiousness of ⟨p. 157⟩the Temper. And if there had been never so much Time, I don't see, how it could be expected he should improve it aright, in order to obtain a good Disposition, if he had not already some good Disposition to engage him to it.
And let us consider how it could be otherwise, than that Adam was always, in every Moment of his Existence, obliged to exercise such Regard or Respect of Heart towards every Object or Thing, as was agreable to the apparent Merit of that Object. For Instance, would it not at any Time have been a becoming Thing in Adam, on the Exhibition to his Mind of God's infinite Goodness to him, for him to have exercised answerable Gratitude; and the contrary have been unbecoming and odious? And if something had been presented to Adam's View, transcendently amiable in it self, as for Instance, the glorious Perfection of the divine Nature, would it not have become him to love, relish and delight in it? Would not such an Object have merited this? And if the View of an Object so amiable in it self did not affect his Mind with Complacence, would it not, according to the plain Dictates of our Understanding, have shown an unbecoming Temper of Mind? To say, that he had not had Time, by Culture, to form and establish a good Disposition or Relish, is not what would have taken off the Disagreableness & Odiousness of ⟨p. 157⟩