N06399:567
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 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.
The Particle ([Greek or Hebrew]) even, when prefixed in this Manner, used to ⟨p. 281⟩signify something additional, some Advance in the Sense or Argument; implying, that the Words following express something more, or express the same thing more fully, plainly, or forcibly. But to unite two Clauses by such a Particle, in such a Manner, when there is Nothing besides a flat Repetition, with no superadded Sense or Force, but rather a greater Uncertainty and Obscurity, would be very unusual, and indeed very absurd.
The Particle (〈non-Latin alphabet〉) even, when prefix'd in this Manner, used to ⟨p. 281⟩signify something additional, some Advance in the Sense or Argument; implying, that the Words following express something more, or express the same thing more fully, plainly, or forcibly. But to unite two Clauses by such a Particle, in such a Manner, when there is Nothing besides a flat Repetition, with no superadded Sense or Force, but rather a greater Uncertainty and Obscurity, would be very unusual, and indeed very absurd.
I can see no Reason, why we should be dissatisfied with that Explanation of this Clause, which has more commonly been given, viz. That by them who have not sinned after the Similitude of Adam's Transgression, are meant Infants; who, tho' they have indeed sinned in Adam, yet never sinned as Adam did, by actually transgressing in their own Persons; unless it be, that this Interpretation is too old, and too common. It was well known by those the Apostle wrote to, that vast Numbers had died in Infancy, within that Period which the Apostle speaks of, particularly in the Time of the Deluge: And it would be strange, the Apostle should not have the Case of such Infants in his Mind; even supposing, his Scope were what our Author supposes, and he had only intended to prove that Death did not come on Mankind for their personal Sin. How directly would it have served the Purpose of proving this, to have mentioned so great a Part of Mankind, that are subject to Death, who, all know, never committed any Sin in their own Persons? How much more plain and easy the Proof of the Point by that, than to go round about, as Dr. T. supposes, and bring in a Thing so dark and uncertain, as this, That God never would bring Death on all Mankind for personal Sin (tho' they had personal Sin) without an express revealed Constitution; and then to observe that there was no revealed Constitution of this Nature from Adam to Moses; which also seems a Thing without any plain Evidence; and then to infer, that it must needs be so, that it could come only on Occasion of Adam's Sin, though not for his Sin, or as any Punishment of it; which Inference also is very dark & unintelligible.