N06399:68
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 1 › Chapter 1 › 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.
One Thing more is to be observed here, viz. That the Topic mainly insisted on by the Opposers of the Doctrine of Original Sin, is the Justice of God; both in their Objections against the Imputation of Adam's Sin, and also against it's being so ordered that Men should come into the World with a corrupt and ruined Nature, without having merited the Displeasure of their Creator by any personal Fault. But the latter is not repugnant to God's Justice, if Men can be, and actually are, born into the World with a Tendency to Sin, and to Misery and Ruin for their Sin, which actually will be the Consequence, unless mere Grace steps in and prevents it. If this be allowed, the Argument from Justice is given up: For it is to suppose that their Liableness to Misery & Ruin comes in a Way of Justice; otherwise there would be no Need of the Interposition of divine Grace to save 'em; Justice alone would be sufficient Security, if exercised, without Grace. 'Tis all one in this Dispute about what is just & righteous, whether Men are born in a miserable State, by a Tendency to Ruin, which actually follows, and that justly; or whether they are born in such a State as tends to a Desert of Ruin, which might justly follow, and would actually follow, did not Grace prevent. For the Controversy is not, what Grace will do, but what Justice might do.
One Thing more is to be observed here, viz. That the Topic mainly insisted on by the Opposers of the Doctrine of Original Sin, is the Justice of God; both in their Objections against the Imputation of Adam's Sin, and also against it's being so order'd that Men should come into the World with a corrupt and ruin'd Nature, without having merited the Displeasure of their Creator by any personal Fault. But the latter is not repugnant to God's Justice, if Men can be, and actually are, born into the World with a Tendency to Sin, and to Misery and Ruin for their Sin, which actually will be the Consequence, unless meer Grace steps in and prevents it. If this be allowed, the Argument from Justice is given up: For it is to suppose that their Liableness to Misery & Ruin comes in a Way of Justice; otherwise there would be no Need of the Interposition of divine Grace to save 'em; Justice alone would be sufficient Security, if exercised, without Grace. 'Tis all one in this Dispute about what is just & righteous, whether Men are born in a miserable State, by a Tendency to Ruin, which actually follows, and that justly; or whether they are born in such a State as tends to a Desert of Ruin, which might justly follow, and would actually follow, did not Grace prevent. For the Controversy is not, what Grace will do, but what Justice might do.