N06399:456
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 3 › Section 2
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.
Or Secondly, if any Universality at all be allowed, it is only of the collective Bodies spoken of; and these collective Bodies but two, as Dr.T. reckons them, viz. the Jewish Nation, and the Gentile World; supposing the Apostle is here representing each of these Parts of Mankind as being Wicked. But is this the Way of Men's using Language, when speaking of but two Things, to express themselves in universal Terms, of such a Sort, and in such a Manner, and when they mean no more than that the Thing affirmed is predicated of both of them? If a Man speaking of his two Feet as both lame, should say, All my Feet are lame, They are all lame. All together are become weak, None of my Feet are strong, None of them are sound; No, not one; would not he be thought to be lame in his Understanding, as well as his Feet? When the Apostle says, That every Mouth may be stopped, must we suppose, that he speaks only of those two great collective Bodies, figuratively ascribing to each of them a Mouth, and mean that those two Mouths are stopped!
Or Secondly, if any Universality at all be allowed, it is only of the collective Bodies spoken of; and these collective Bodies but two, as Dr.T. reckons them, viz. the Jewish Nation, and the Gentile World; supposing the Apostle is here representing each of these Parts of Mankind as being Wicked. But is this the Way of Men's using Language, when speaking of but two Things, to express themselves in universal Terms, of such a Sort, and in such a Manner, and when they mean no more than that the Thing affirm'd is predicated of both of them? If a Man speaking of his two Feet as both lame, should say, All my Feet are lame, They are all lame. All together are become weak, None of my Feet are strong, None of them are sound; No, not one; would not he be thought to be lame in his Understanding, as well as his Feet? When the Apostle says, That every Mouth may be stopped, must we suppose, that he speaks only of those two great collective Bodies, figuratively ascribing to each of them a Mouth, and mean that those two Mouths are stopped!
And besides, according to our Author's own Interpretation, the universal Terms used in these Texts cited from the old Testament, have no respect to those two great collective Bodies, nor indeed to either of them; but to some in Israel, a particular disaffected Party in that one Nation, which was made up of wicked Men. So that his Interpretation is every way absurd and inconsistent.