Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	death_n	sin_n	wage_n	2,391	5	11.9240	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A95131	An answer to a letter written by the R.R. the Ld Bp of Rochester. Concerning the chapter of original sin, in the Vnum necessarium. / By Jer. Taylor D.D.	Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667.	1656 (1656)	Wing T286; Thomason E1683_1; ESTC R209161	32,605	117

to the trial This guilt that is in nature what is it Is it the same thing that was in the person that is is it an obligation to punishment If it be not I know not the meaning of the word and therefore I have nothing to do with it If it be then if this guilt or obligation to punishment remains in the nature after it is taken from the person then if this concupiscence deserve damnation this nature shall be damned though the person be saved Let the Objectors my Lord choose which they will If it does not deserve damnation why do they say it does If it does then the guilty may suffer what they deserve but the innocent or the absolved must not the person then being acquitted and the nature not acquitted the nature shall be damn'd and the person be saved But if it be said that the guilt remains in the nature to certain purposes but not to all then I reply so it does in the person for it is in the person after Baptism so as to be a perpetual possibility and proneness to sin and a principle of trouble and if it be no otherwise in the nature then this distinction is to no purpose if it be otherwise in the nature then it brings damnation to it when it brings none to the Man and then the former argument must return But whether it prevail or no yet I cannot but note that what is here affirmed is expresly against the words commonly attributed to S. Cyprian De ablutione pedum Sic abluit quos parentalis labes infecerat ut nec actualis nec Originalis macula post ablutionem illam ulla sui vestigia derelinquat How this supposing it of Baptism can be reconcil'd with the guilt remaining in the nature I confess I cannot give an account It is expresly against S. Austin Tom. 9. Tract 41. in Johan epist ad Ocean saying deleta est tota iniquitas expresly against S. Hierom Quomodo justificati sumus sanctificati si peccatum aliquid in nobis relinquitur But again My Lord I did suppose that Concupiscence or Original Sin had been founded in nature and had not been a personal but a natural evil I am sure so the Article of our Church affirms it is the fault and corruption of our Nature And so S. Bonaventure affirms in the words cited by your Lordship in your Letter Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae ita peccatum origiuis tribuitur ratione naturae Either then the Sacrament must have effect upon our Nature to purifie that which is vitiated by Concupiscence or else it does no good at all For if the guilt or sin be founded in the nature as the Article affirms and Baptism does not take off the guilt from the nature then it does nothing Now since your Lordship is pleas'd in the behalf of the objectors so warily to avoid what they thought pressing I will take leave to use the advantages it ministers for so the Serpent teaches us where to strike him by his so warily and guiltily defending his head I therefore argue thus Either Baptism does not take off the guilt of Original Sin or else there may be punishment where there is no guilt or else natural death was not it which God threatned as the punishment of Adam's fact For it is certain that all men die as well after baptism as before and more after then before That which would be properly the consequent of this Dilemma is this that when God threatned death to Adam saying On the day thou eatest of the tree thou shalt die the death he inflicted and intended to inflict the evils of a troublesome mortal life For Adam did not die that day but Adam began to be miserable that day to live upon hard labour to eat fruits from an accursed field till he should return to the earth whence he was taken Gen. 3.17 18 19. So that death in the common sense of the word was to be the end of his labour not so much the punishment of the sin For it is probable he should have gone off from the scene of this world to a better though he had not sin'd but if he had not sin'd he should not be so afflicted and he should not have died daily till he had died finally that is till he had returned to his dust whence he was taken and whither he would naturally have gone and it is no new thing in Scripture that miseries and infelicities should be called dying or death Exod. 10.17 1 Cor. 15.31 2 Cor. 1.10 4.10 11 12. 11.23 But I only note this as probable as not being willing to admit what the Socinians answer in this argument who affirm that God threatning death to the Sin of Adam meant death eternal which is certainly not true as we learn from the words of the Apostle saying In Adam we all die which is not true of death eternal but it is true of the miseries and calamities of mankinde and it is true of temporal death in the sense now explicated and in that which is commonly received But I add also this probleme That which would have been had there been no sin and that which remains when the sin or guiltiness is gone is not properly the punishment of the sin But dissolution of the soul and body should have been if Adam had not sin'd for the world would have been too little to have entertain'd those myriads of men which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of Increase and multiply which was given at the first Creation and to have confin'd mankinde to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen would have been a punishment of his innocence but however it might have been though God had not been angry and shall still be even when the sin is taken off The proper consequent of this will be that when the Apostle sayes Death came in by sin and that Death is the wages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not meerly the dissolution which is directly no evil but an inlet to a better state But I infist not on this but offer it to the consideration of inquisitive and modest persons And now that I may return thither from whence this objection brought me I consider that if any should urge this argument to me Baptism delivers from Original Sin Baptism does not deliver from Concupiscence therefore Concupiscence is not Original Sin I did not know well what to answer I could possibly say something to satisfie the boyes young men at a publique disputation but not to satisfie my self when I am upon my knees and giving an account to God of all my secret and hearty perswasions But I consider that by Concupiscence must be meant either the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of Concupiscence

it had been a gift still and of Adam though he had persisted in innocence it is true to say that without Gods Grace that is by the meer force of Nature he could never have arriv'd to a Supernatural state that is to the joyes of Heaven and yet it does not follow that if he had remain'd in Innocence he must have gone to Hell Just so it is in Infants Hell was not made for man but for Devils and therefore it must be something besides meer Nature that can bear any man thither meer Nature goes neither to Heaven nor Hell So that when I say Infants naturally cannot go to Heaven and that this is a punishment of Adam's sin he being for it punished with a loss of his gracious condition and devolv'd to the state of Nature and we by him left so my meaning is that this Damnation which is of our Nature is but negative that is as a consequent of our Patriarchs sin our Nature is left imperfect and deficient in order to a supernatural end which the Schoolmen call a poena damni but improperly they indeed think it may be a real event and final condition of persons as well as things but I affirm it was an evil effect of Adam's sin but in the event of things it became to the persons the way to a new grace and hath no other event as to Heaven and Hell directly and immediately In the same sense and to the same purpose I understand the word Damnation in the 9. Article But the word Damnation may very well truly and sufficiently signifie all the purposes of the Article if it be taken only for the effect of that sentence which was inflicted upon Adam and descended on his posterity that is for condemnation to Death and the evils of mortality So the word is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.29 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word but that it did particularly signifie temporal death and evils appears by the instances of probation in the next words For for this cause some are weak amongst you some are sick and some are fallen asleep This also in the Article Original Sin deserves damnation that is it justly brought in the angry sentence of God upon Man it brought him to death and deserv'd it it brought it upon us and deserv'd it too I do not say that we by that sin deserv'd that death neither can death be properly a punishment of us till we superadde some evil of our own yet Adam's sin deserv'd it so that it was justly left to fall upon us we as a consequent and punishment of his sin being reduc'd to our natural portion In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur The lesser sense of the word is certainly agreeable to truth and reason and it were good we us'd the word in that sense which may best warrant her doctrine especially for that use of the word having the precedent of Scripture I am confirm'd in this interpretation by the 2. § of the Article viz. of the remanency of concupiscence or Original Sin in the Regenerate All the sinfulness of Original Sin is the lust or concupiscence that is the proneness to sin Now then I demand whether Concupiscence before actual consent be a sin or no and if it be a sin whether it deserves damnation That all sin deserves damnation I am sure our Church denies not If therefore concupiscence before consent be a sin then this also deserves damnation where ever it is and if so then a man may be damned for Original Sin even after Baptism For even after Baptism concupiscence or the sinfulness of Original Sin remains in the regenerate and that which is the same thing the same vitiousness the same enmity to God after Baptism is as damnable it deserves damnation as much as that did that went before If it be replied that Baptism takes off the guilt or formal part of it but leaves the material part behinde that is though concupiscence remains yet it shall not bring damnation to the regenerate or Baptized I answer that though baptismal regeneration puts a man into a state of grace and favour so that what went before shall not be imputed to him afterwards that is Adam's sin shall not bring damnation in any sense yet it hinders not but that what is sinful afterwards shall be then imputed to him that is he may be damn'd for his own concupiscence He is quitted from it as it came from Adam but by Baptism he is not quitted from it as it is subjected in himself if I say concupiscence before consent be a sin If it be no sin then for it Infants unbaptized cannot with justice be damn'd it does not deserve damnation but if it be a sin then so long as it is there so long it deserves damnation and Baptism did only quit the relation of it to Adam for that was all that went before it but not the danger of the man * But because the Article supposes that it does not damn the regenerate or baptized and yet that it hath the nature of sin it follows evidently and undeniably that both the phrases are to be diminished and understood in a favourable sense As the phrase the Nature of sin signifies so does Damnation but the Nature of sin signifies something that brings no guilt because it is affirm'd to be in the Regenerate therefore Damnation signifies something that brings no Hell but to deserve Damnation must mean something lesse then ordinary that is that concupiscence is a thing not morally good not to be allowed of not to be nurs'd but mortifi'd fought against disapprov'd condemn'd and disallowed of men as it is of God And truly My Lord to say that for Adam's sin it is just in God to condemn Infants to the eternal flames of Hell and to say that concupiscence or natural inclinations before they pass into any act could bring eternal condemnation from Gods presence into the eternall portion of Devils are two such horrid propositions that if any Church in the world would expresly affirm them I for my part should think it unlawful to communicate with her in the defence or profession of either and do think it would be the greatest temptation in the world to make men not to love God of whom men so easily speak such horrid things I would suppose the Article to mean any thing rather then either of these But yet one thing more I have to say The Article is certainly to be expounded according to the analogy of faith and the express words of Scripture if there be any that speak expresly in this matter Now whereas the Article explicating Original Sin affirms it to be that fault or corruption of mans nature vitium Naturae not peccatum by which he is far gone from originall righteousness and is inclin'd to evil because this is not full enough the Article adds by way of explanation So that