N06399:701
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 3
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.
And I am persuaded, no solid Reason can be given, why God, who constitutes all other created Union or Oneness, according to his Pleasure, and for what Purposes, Communications, and Effects, he pleases, may not establish a Constitution whereby the natural Posterity of Adam, proceeding from him, much as the Buds and Branches from the Stock or Root of a Tree, should be treated as One with him, for the Derivation, either of Righteousness, and Communion in Rewards, or of the Loss of Righteousness, and consequent Corruption and Guilt.*
- *I appeal to such as are not wont to content themselves with judging by a superficial Appearance and View of Things, but are habituated to examine things strictly and closely, that they may judge righteous Judgement, Whether on Supposition that all Mankind had co-existed, in the Manner mention'd before, any good Reason can be given, why their Creator might not, If he had pleased, have established such an Union between Adam and the rest of Mankind, as was in that Case supposed. Particularly, if it had been the Case, that Adam's Posterity had actually, according to a Law of Nature, some how grown out of him, & yet remain'd contiguous and literally united to him, as the Branches to a Tree, or the Members of the Body to the Head; and had all, before the Fall, existed together at the same Time, thô in different Places, as the Head and Members are in different Places: In this Case, who can determine, that the Author of Nature might not, if it had pleased him, have established such an Union between the Root and Branches of this complex Being, as that all should constitute one moral Whole; so that by the Law of Union, there should be a Communication in each moral Alteration, and that the Heart of every Branch should at the same Moment participate with the Heart of the Root, be conformed to it and concurring with it in all its Affections and Acts, and so jointly partaking in its State, as a Part of the same Thing? Why might not God, if he had pleased, have fix'd such a Kind of Union as this, an Union of the various Parts of such a moral While, as well as many other Unions, which he has actually fix'd, according to his sovereign Pleasure? And if he might, by his sovereign Constitution, have established such as Union of the various Branches of Mankind, when existing. In different Places, I don't see why he might not also do the same, though they exist in different Times. I know not why Succession, or Diversity of Time, should make any such con••itued Union more unreasonable, than Diversity of Place. The only Reason, why Diversity of Time can seem to make it unreasonable, is, that Difference of Time shows, there is no absolute Identity of the Things existing in those different Times: But it shows this, I think, not at all more than the Difference of the Place of Existence.