N06399:369
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 3
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.
4. Dr. T. in what he says concerning this Matter, speaks of the Threatening of the Law delivered to Adam, which the possible Existence of his Posterity fell under, as the Ground of the Judgment to Condemnation coming upon all Men. But herein he is exceeding inconsistent with himself: For he affirms in a Place forecited, that the Scripture never speaks of any Sentence of Condemnation coming upon all Men, but that Sentence in the third of Genesis, concerning Man's turning to Dust. But according to him, the Threatening of the Law delivered to Adam, could not be the Ground of that Sentence; for he greatly insists upon it, that that Law was entirely abrogated before that Sentence was pronounced, that this Law at that Time was not in Being, had no Existence to have any such Influence, as might procure a Sentence of Death; and that therefore this Sentence was introduced entirely on another Foot, viz. on the Foot of a new Dispensation of Grace. The Reader may see this Matter strenuously urged, and particularly argued by him, P. 389,—396. So that this Sentence could not, according to him, have the Threatening of that Law for it's Ground, as he supposes; for it never stood upon that Ground. It could not be called a Judgment of Condemnation, under any such View; for it could not be viewed under Circumstances, under which it never existed.
4. Dr. T. in what he says concerning this Matter, speaks of the Threatning of the Law delivered to Adam, which the possible Existence of his Posterity fell under, as the Ground of the Judgment to Condemnation coming upon all Men. But herein he is exceeding inconsistent with himself: For he affirms in a Place forecited, that the Scripture never speaks of any Sentence of Condemnation coming upon all Men, but that Sentence in the third of Genesis, concerning Man's turning to Dust. But according to him, the Threatning of the Law delivered to Adam, could not be the Ground of that Sentence; for he greatly insists upon it, that that Law was entirely abrogated before that Sentence was pronounced, that this Law at that Time was not in Being, had no Existence to have any such Influence, as might procure a Sentence of Death; and that therefore this Sentence was introduced entirely on another Foot, viz. on the Foot of a new Dispensation of Grace. The Reader may see this Matter strenuously urged, and particularly argued by him, P. 389,—396. So that this Sentence could not, according to him, have the Threatning of that Law for it's Ground, as he supposes; for it never stood upon that Ground. It could not be called a Judgment of Condemnation, under any such View; for it could not be viewed under Circumstances, under which it never existed.