N06399:713
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.
That to bring a great Punishment on Infants for Adam's Sin, is a great Act of Injustice, and to bring a comparatively small Punishment▪ […] a smaller Act of Injustice; but not, that this is not as truly and demonstrably an Act of Injustice, as the other.
That to bring a great Punishment on Infants for Adam's Sin, is a great Act of Injustice, and to bring a comparatively small Punishment▪ 〈…〉 a smaller Act of Injustice; but not, that this is not as truly and demonstrably an Act of Injustice, as the other.
To illustrate this by an Instance something parallel. 'Tis used as an Argument why I may not exact from one of my Neighbours, what was due to me from another, that he and my Debtor are not the same; and that their Concerns, Interests & Properties are entirely distinct. Now if this Argument be good, it lies as truly against my demanding from him a Part of the Debt, as the Whole. Indeed it is a greater Act of Injustice, for me to take from him the Whole of it, than a Part; but not more truly and certainly an Act of Injustice.
To illustrate this by an Instance something parallel. 'Tis used as an Argument why I may not exact from one of my Neighbours, what was due to me from another, that he and my Debtor are not the same; and that their Concerns, Interests & Properties are intirely distinct. Now if this Argument be good, it lies as truly against my demanding from him a Part of the Debt, as the Whole. Indeed it is a greater Act of Injustice, for me to take from him the Whole of it, than a Part; but not more truly and certainly an Act of Injustice.
The other Divine thinks, there is truly an Imputation of Adam's Sin, so that Infants can't be looked upon as innocent Creatures; yet seems to think it not agreeable to the Perfections of God, to make the State of Infants in another World worse than a State of Non-existence. But this to me appears plainly a giving up that grand Point of the Imputation of Adam's Sin, both in Whole and in Part. For it supposes it to […] not right, for God to bring any Evil on a Child […] dam, which is innocent