N06399:538
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 4 › 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.
1. The main Thing, by which he justifies such Interpretations, is, that Sin, in various Instances, is used for Suffering, in the old Testament. To which I reply▪ Tho' it be true, that the Word Chattaah, signifies both Sin, and a Sin-offering; and this, and some other Hebrew Words, which signify Sin, Iniquity, & Wickedness, are sometimes put for the Effect or Punishment of Iniquity, by a M• tonymy of the Cause for the Effect; yet it does not appear, that these Words are ever used for enduring Suffering, where the Suffering is not spoken of under any Notion of a Punishment of Sin, or a Fruit of God's Anger for Sin, or of any Imputation of Guilt, or under any Notion of Sin's being at all laid to the Charge of the Sufferer, or the Suffering's being at all of the Nature of any Recompense, Compensation or Satisfaction for Sin. And therefore none of the Instances he mentions, come up to his Purpose. When Let is commanded to leave Sodom, that he might not be consumed in the Iniquity of the City, meaning, in that Fire, which is the Effect and Punishment of the Iniquity of the City; this is quite another Thing, than if that Fire came on the City in general as no Punishment at all, nor as any Fruit of a Charge of Iniquity on the City, or of God's Displeasure for their Sin, but as a Token of God's Favour to the Inhabitants; Which is what is supposed with respect to the Death of Mankind; it being introduced only as a Benefit, on the Foot of a Covenant of Grace. And especially is this quite another Thing, than if, in the Expression used, the Iniquity had been ascribed to Lot; and God, instead of saying, Lest thou be consumed in the Iniquity of the City, had said, Lest thou be consumed in thine Iniquity, or, Lest thou Sin, or be made a Sinner. Whereas, the Expression is such as does expressly remove the Iniquity, spoken of, from Lot, and fix it on another Subject, viz. the City. The Place cited by our Author, in Jer. li.—is exactly Parallel. And as to what Abimeleck says to Abraham, What have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me, and on my Kingdom, a great Sin? 'Tis manifest, Abimeleck was afraid, that God was angry, ⟨p. 264⟩for what he had done to Sarah or; would have been angry with him, if he had done what he was about to do, as imputing Sin to him for it: