« PreviousContinue »
ly, nearly, and closely united to God. And viewed thus, their interest must be viewed as one with God's interest, and so is not regarded properly with a disjunct and separate, but an undivided respect. And as to any difficulty of reconciling God's not making the creature his ultimate end, with a res. pect properly distinct from a respect to himself, with his benevolence and free grace, and the creature's obligation to gratitude, the reader must be referred to Chap. I. Sect. 4, Object. 4, where this objection has been considered and answered at large. If by reason of the strictness of the union of a man and his family, their interest may be looked upon as one, how much more one is the interest of Christ and his church, (whose first union in heaven is unspeakably more perfect and exalted than that of an earthly father and his family) if they be considered with regard to their eternal and increasing union | Doubtless it may justly be esteemed as so much one, that it may be supposed to be aimed at and sought, not with a distinct and separate, but an undivided respect. It is certain that what God aimed at in the creation of the world, was the good that would be the consequence of the ereation, in the whole continuance of the thing created. It is no solid objection against God’s aiming at an infinitely perfect union of the creature with himself, that the particular time will never come when it can be said, the union is now infinitely perfect. God aims at satisfying justice in the cternal damnation of sinners; which will be satisfied by their damnation, considered no otherwise than with regard to its eternal "uration. But yet there never will come that particular moment, when it can be said, that now justice is satisfied. But if this does not satisfy our modern free thinkers, who do not like the talk about satisfying justice with an infinite punishment; I suppose it will not be denied by any, that God, in glorifying the saints in heaven with eternal felicity, aims to satisfy his infinite grace or benevolence, by the bestowment of a good infinitely valuable, because eternal; and yet there never will come the moment, when it can be said, that now this infinitely valuable good has been actually be"
O R. I G IN A IL S IN
DEFENDED : EVIDENCES OF ITS TRUTH PRODUCED,
and ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY ANSWERED.
CoNTAINING IN PARTICULAR, A REPLY TO THE obj Ections AND ARGUINGs of DR. John TAYLOR, IN HIs Book, INTITLED, “THE Schi PTURE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN PROPOSED TO FREE AND can DiD ExAMINATIon, &c.”
Matth. ix. 12. “They that be whole, need not a Physician; but they that are sick.” Et bacc montantum ad Peccatores referenda est; quia in omnibus Maledictionibus primi Hominis, omnes ejus Generationes conveniunt.... R. Sal. Jarch 1. Propter Concupiscentiam, innatam Cordi humano, dicitur, In Iniquitate genitus sum ; atque Sensus est, quod a Nativitate implantatum sit Cordi humano jetzer harang Figmentum malum.... As r n Ez a A. ....Ad Mores Natura recurrit Damnatos, fixa et mutari nescia..., ....Dociles, imitandis Turpibus et pravis omnes sumus .. Juv.
THE following Discourse is intended, not merely as an answer to any particular Book written against the Doctrine of Original Sin, but as a general Defence of that great important Doctrine. Mevertheless, I have in this Defence taken notice of the main things said against this Doctrine, by such of the more noted offiosers of it, as I have had offiortunity to read : farticularly those two late Writers, Dr. TURNBULL and Dr. TAylor of Norwich ; but especially the latter, in what he has fublished in those two Books of his, the first intitled, The Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin proposed to free and candid Examination; the other, his Key to the Apostolic Writings, with a Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle to the Romans. I have closely attended to Dr. TAYLoR’s Piece on Original Sin, in all its Parts, and have endeavored that no one thing there said, of any consequence in this Controversy, should flass unnoticed, or that any thing which has the afflearance of an Argument, in offiosition to this Doctrine, should be left unanswered. I look on the Doctrine as of great Importance; which every Body will doubtless own it is, if it be true. For, if the case be such indeed, that all Mankind are by Nature in a State of total Ruin, both with resfiert to the moral Evil they are the subjects of, and the afflictive Evil they are eachosed to, the one as the consequence and funishment of the other, then doubtless the great Salvation by CHRIST stands in direct Relation to this Ruin, as the remedy to the disease; and the whole Gospel, or Doctrine of Salvation, must suffiose it ; and all real belief, or true notion of that Gosfiel, must be built usion it. Therefore, as I think the Doctrine is most certainly both true and important, I hofie, my attempting a Vindication of it, quill be candidly interfireted ;
and that what I have done towards its defence, will be impartially considered, by all that will give themselves the trouble to read the ensuing Discourse ; in which it is designed to examine every thing material throughout the Doctor’s whole Book, and many things in that other Book of Dr. Taylor's, containing his Key and exfiosition on Romans; as also many things written in oftfiosition to this Doctrine by some other modern Authors. And moreover, my discourse being not only intended for an Answer to Dr. TAYLoR, and other offiosers of the Doctrine of Original Sin, but (as was observed above) for a general defence of that Doctrine ; firoducing the evidence of the truth of the Doctrine, as well as answering objections made against it....considering these things, I say, I hofie this attempt of mine will not be thought needless, nor be altogether useless, notwithstanding other fublications on this subject. I would also hofie, that the extensiveness of the filan of the following treatise will excuse the length of it. And that when it is considered, how much was absolutely requisite to the full executing of a design formed on such a filam : how much has been written against the Doctrine of Original Sin, and with what filausibility; and how strong the prejudices of many are in favor of what is said in opposition to this Doctrine ; and that it cannot be exflected, any thing short of a full consideration of almost every argument advanced by the main offiosers, especially by this late and shecious Writer, Dr. Taylor, will satisfy many readers ; and also, how much must unavoidably be said in order to a full handling of the arguments in defence of the Doctrine ; and how important the Doctrine must be, if true ; I say, when such circumstances as these are considered, I trust, the length of the following discourse will not be thought to exceed what the case really required. However, this must be left to the Judgment of the intelligent and candid Reader.