N06399:711
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.
It may not be improper here to add something (by Way of Supplement to this Chapter, in which we have had Occasion to say so much about the Imputation of Adam's Sin) concerning the Opinions of two Divines, of no inconsiderable Note among the Dissenters in England, relating to a partial Imputation of Adam's first Sin.
One of them supposes, that this Sin, though truly imputed to INFANTS, so that thereby they are exposed to a proper Punishment, yet is not imputed to them in such a Degree, as that upon this Account they should be liable to eternal Punishment, as Adam himself was, but only to temporal Death, or Annihilation; Adam himself, the immediate Actor, being made infinitely more guilty by it, than his Posterity.—On which I would observe; That to suppose, God imputes not all the Guilt of Adam's Sin, but only some little Part of it, this relieves Nothing but one's Imagination. To think of poor little Infants bearing such Torments for Adam's Sin, as they sometimes do in this World, and these Torments ending in Death and Annihilation, may fit easier on the Imagination, than to conceive of their suffering eternal Misery for it. But it does not at all relieve one's Reason. There is no Rule of Reason, that can be supposed to lie against imputing a Sin in the Whole of it, which was committed by one, to another who did not personally commit it, but what will also lie against its being so imputed and punished in Part. For all the Reasons (if there are any) lie against the Imputation; not the Quantity or Degree of what is imputed. If there be any Rule of Reason, that is strong and good, lying against a proper Derivation or Communication of Guilt, from one that acted, to another that did not act; then it lies against all that is of […] Nature. The Force of the ⟨p. 354⟩Reasons brought against imputing Adam's Sin to his Posterity (if there be any Force in them) lies in this, That Adam and his Posterity are not One. But this lies as properly against charging a Part of the Guilt, as the Whole. For Adam's Posterity, by not being the same with him, had no more Hand in a Little of what was done, than in the Whole. They were as absolutely free from being concerned in that Act partly, as they were wholly. And there is no Reason can be brought, why one Man's Sin can't be justly reckoned to another's Account, who was not then in Being, in the Whole of it; but what will as properly lie against it's being reckoned to him in any Part, so as that he should be subject to any Condemnation or Punishment on that Account.—If those Reasons are good, all the Difference there can be, is this;