N06399:370
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.
5. If it be as our Author supposes, that the Sentence of Death on all Men comes under the Notion of a Judgment to Condemnation by this Means, viz. that the Threatening to Adam was in some respect the Ground of it; then it also comes under the Notion of a Punishment: For Threatenings annexed to Breaches of Laws, are to Punishments; and a Judgment of Condemnation to the Thing threatened, must be to Punishment; and the Thing condemned to, must have as much the Notion of a Punishment, as the Sentence has the Notion of a Judgment to Condemnation. But this Dr.T. wholly denies: he denies that the Death sentenced to, comes as any Punishment at all; but insists that it comes only as a Favour & Benefit, ⟨p. 172⟩and a Fruit of fatherly Love to Adam's Posterity, respected not as guilty, but wholly innocent. So that his Scheme will not admit of it's coming under the Notion of a Sentence to Condemnation in any Respect whatsoever. Our Author's Supposition, that the possible Existence of Adam's Posterity comes under the Threatening of the Law, and into the Hands of the Judge, and is the Ground of the Condemnation of all Men to Death, implies, that Death by this Sentence is appointed to Mankind as an Evil, at least, negatively so; as it is a Privation of Good: for he manifestly speaks of a Non-existence as a negative Evil. But herein he is inconsistent with himself: for he continually insists, that Mankind are subjected to Death only as a Benefit, as has been before shown. According to him, Death is not appointed to Mankind as a negative Evil, as any Cessation of Existence, as any Cessation or even Diminution of Good; but on the contrary, as a Means of a more happy Existence, and a great Increase of Good.
5. If it be as our Author supposes, that the Sentence of Death on all Men comes under the Notion of a Judgment to Condemnation by this Means, viz. that the Threatning to Adam was in some respect the Ground of it; then it also comes under the Notion of a Punishment: For Threatnings annexed to Breaches of Laws, are to Punishments; and a Judgment of Condemnation to the Thing threatned, must be to Punishment; and the Thing condemned to, must have as much the Notion of a Punishment, as the Sentence has the Notion of a Judgment to Condemnation. But this Dr.T. wholly denies: he denies that the Death sentenced to, comes as any Punishment at all; but insists that it comes only as a Favour & Benefit, ⟨p. 172⟩