N06399:655
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 4 › Chapter 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.
ONE Argument against Men's being supposed to be born with sinful Depravity, which Dr. T. greatly insists upon, is, "That this does in Effect charge Him who is the Author of our Nature, who formed us in the Womb, with being the Author of a sinful Corruption of Nature; and that it is highly injurious to the God of our Nature, whose Hands have formed and fashioned us, to believe our Nature to be originally corrupted, and that in the worst Sense of Corruption."*
- *P. 137. 187, 188, 189, 256, 258, 260, 419, 424, and other Places.
With respect to this, I would observe in the first Place, that this Writer, in his handling this grand Objection, supposes something to belong to the Doctrine objected against, as maintained by the Divines whom he is opposing, which does not belong to it, nor does follow from it: As particularly, he supposes the Doctrine of original Sin to imply, that Nature must be corrupted by some positive Influence; something, by some Means or other, infused into the human Nature; some Quality or other, not from the Choice of our Minds, but like a Taint, Tincture, or Infection, altering the natural Constitution, Faculties& Dispositions of our Souls.† That Sin and evil Dispositions ⟨p. 317⟩are IMPLANTED in the Foetus in the Womb. *—Whereas truly our Doctrine neither implies nor infers any such Thing. In order to account for a sinful Corruption of Nature, yea, a total native Depravity of the Heart of Man, there is not the least Need of supposing any evil Quality infused, implanted, or wrought into the Nature of Man, by any positive Cause, or Influence whatsoever, either from God, or the Creature; or of supposing, that Man is conceived and born with a Fountain of Evil in his Heart, such as is any thing properly positive. I think, a little Attention to the Nature of Things will be sufficient to satisfy any impartial considerate Inquirer, that the Absence of positive good Principles, and so the With holding of a special divine Influence to impart and maintain those good Principles, leaving the common natural Principles of Self-love, natural Appetite, &c. (which were in Man in Innocence) leaving these, I say, to themselves, without the Government of superior divine Principles, will certainly be followed with the Corruption, yea, the total Corruption of the Heart, without Occasion for any positive Influence at all: And, that it was thus indeed that Corruption of Nature came on Adam, immediately on his Fall, and comes on all his Posterity, as sinning in him and falling with him.