N06399:372
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.
And that the Constitution or Law, with the Threatening of Death annexed, which was given to Adam, was to him as the Head of Mankind, and to his Posterity as included in him, not only follows from some of our Author's own Assertions, and the plain and full Declarations of the Apostle in the fifth of Romans (of which more afterwards) which drove Dr. T. into such gross Inconsistencies. But the Account given in the three first Chapters of Genesis, directly and inevitably lead us to such a Conclusion.
And that the Constitution or Law, with the Threatning of Death annexed, which was given to Adam, was to him as the Head of Mankind, and to his Posterity as included in him, not only follows from some of our Author's own Assertions, and the plain and full Declarations of the Apostle in the fifth of Romans (of which more afterwards) which drove Dr. T. into such gross Inconsistencies. But the Account given in the three first Chapters of Genesis, directly and inevitably lead us to such a Conclusion.
Tho' the Sentence, Gen. iii. 19,—Unto Dust thou shalt return, be not of equal Extent with the Threatening in the foregoing Chapter, or an Execution of the main Curse of the Law therein denounced; for, that it should have been so, would have been inconsistent with the Intimations of Mercy just before given: yet tis plain, this Sentence is in Pursuance of that Threatening, being to something that was included in it. The Words of the Sentence were ⟨p. 173⟩delivered to the same Person, with the Words of the Threatening, and in the same Manner, in like singular Terms, as much without any express Mention of his Posterity: And yet it manifestly appears by the Consequence, as well as all Circumstances, that his Posterity were included in the Words of the Sentence; as is confessed on all Hands. And as the Words were apparently delivered in the Form of the Sentence of a Judge, condemning for something that he was displeased with, and ought to be condemned, viz. Sin; and as the Sentence to him & his Posterity was but one, dooming to the same Suffering, under the same Circumstances, both the one and the other sentenced in the same Words, spoken but once, and immediately to but one Person, we hence justly infer, that it was the same Thing to both; and not as Dr. T. suggests, (P. 67.) a Sentence to a proper Punishment to Adam, but a mere Promise of Favour to his Posterity.