who are of the other side doe and will disavow most of these consequences and so doe all the World all the evils which their adversaries say do follow from their opinions but yet all the World of men that perceive such evills to follow from a proposition think themselves bound to stop the progression of such opinions from whence they beleeve such evils may arise If the Church of Rome did believe that all those horrid things were chargable upon Transubstantiation and upon worshipping of Images which we charge upon the Doctrines I doe not doubt but they would as much disowne the Proposition as now they doe the consequents and yet I doe as little doubt but that we do well to disown the first because we espy the latter and though the Man be not yet the doctrines are highly chargable with the evils that follow it may be the men espy them not yet from the doctrines they do certainly follow and there are not it the World many men who owne that is evil in the pretence but many doe such as are dangerous in the effect and this doctrine which I have reproved I take to be one of them Object 4. But if Originall sinne be not a sinne properly why are children baptized and what benefit comes to them by baptisme I Answer as much as they need and are capable of and it may as well be asked Why were all the sons of Abraham circumcised when in that Covenant there was no remission of sins at all for little things and legal impurities and irregularities there were but there being no sacrifice there but of beasts whose blood could not take away sinne it is certaine and plainly taught us in Scripture that no Rite of Moses was expiatory of sinnes But secondly This Objection can presse nothing at all for why was Christ baptized who knew no sinne But yet so it behoved him to fulfill all Righteousnesse 3. Baptisme is called regeneration or the new birth and therefore since in Adam Children are borne onely to a naturall life and a Naturall death and by this they can never arrive at Heaven therefore Infants are baptized because untill they be borne anew they can never have title to the Promises of Jesus Christ or be heirs of heaven and coheir's of Jesus 4. By Baptisme Children are made partakers of the holy Ghost and of the grace of God which I desire to be observed in opposition to the Pelagian Heresy who did suppose Nature to be so perfect that the Grace of God was not necessary and that by Nature alone they could go to heaven which because I affirm to be impossible and that Baptisme is therfore necessary because nature is insufficient and Baptisme is the great chanel of grace there ought to be no envious and ignorant load laid upon my Doctrine as if it complied with the Pelagian against which it is so essentially and so mainly opposed in the main difference of his Doctrine 5. Children are therefore Baptized because if they live they will sinne and though their sins are not pardoned before hand yet in Baptisme they are admitted to that state of favour that they are within the Covenant of repentance and Pardon and this is expresly the Doctrine of St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concup cap. 26. cap. 33. tract 124. in Johan But of this I have already given larger accounts in my Discourse of Baptisme part 2 p. 194. in the great Exemplar 6. Children are baptized for the Pardon even of Originall sin this may be affirmed truly but yet improperly for so far as it is imputed so farr also it is remissible for the evill that is done by Adam is also taken away in Christ and it is imputed to us to very evill purposes as I have already explicated but as it was among the Jewes who believed then the sinne to be taken away when the evill of punishment is taken off so is Originall sinne taken away in Baptisme for though the Material part of the evill is not taken away yet the curse in all the sons of God is turn'd into a blessing and is made an occasion of reward or an entrance to it Now in all this I affirme all that is true and all that is probable for in the same sense as Originall staine is a sinne so does Baptisme bring the Pardon It is a sinne metonymically that is because it is the effect of one sinne and the cause of many and just so in baptisme it is taken away that it is now the matter of a grace and the opportunity of glory and upon these Accounts the Church Baptizes all her Children Object 5. But to deny Originall sinne to be a sinne properly and inherently is expressly against the words of S. Paul in the 5. Chapter to the Romanes If it bee I have done but that it is not I have these things to say 1. If the words be capable of any interpretation and can be permitted to signifie otherwise then is vulgarly pretended I suppose my self to have given reasons sufficient why they ought to be For any interpretation that does violence to right Reason to Religion to Holinesse of life and the Divine Attributes of God is therefore to be rejected and another chosen For in all Scriptures all good and all wise men doe it 2. The words in question sin and sinner and condemnation are frequently used in Scripture in the lesser sense and sin is taken for the punishment of sin and sin is taken for him who bore the evil of the sinne and sin is taken for legal impurity and for him who could not be guilty even for Christ himself as I have proved already and in the like manner sinners is used by the rule of Conjugates and denominatives but it is so also in the case of Bathsheba the Mother of Solomon 3. For the word condemnation it is by the Apostle himself limited to signifie his temporal death for when the Apostle sayes Death passed upon all men in as much as all men have sinned he must mean temporal death for eternal death did not passe upon all men and if he means eternal death he must not mean that it came for Adams sin but in as much as all men have sinned that is upon all those upon whom eternal death did come it came because they also have sinned 4. The Apostle here speaks of sin imputed therefore not of sin inherent and if imputed onely to such purposes as he here speaks of viz. to temporal death then it is neither a sin properly nor yet imputable to Eternal death so far as is or can be inplyed by the Apostles words 5. The Apostles sayes by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so that it appears that we in this have no sin of our own neither is it at all our own formally and inherently for though efficiently it was his and effectively ours as to certain purposes of imputation yet it could not be a sin to
18 19. verses of the 5. chapter to the Romans The sum of which as your Lordship most ingeniously sums it up is this As by one many were made sinners so by one many were made righteous that by Adam this by Christ. But by Christ we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just not by imputation only but effectively and to real purposes therefore by Adam we are really made sinners And this your Lordship confirms by the observation of the sense of two words here used by the Apostle The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a sentence of guilt or punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes because God punishes none but for their own sin Ezek. 18. 2. From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clear from sin so your Lordship renders it and in opposition to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendred that is guilty criminal persons really and properly This is all which the wit of man can say from this place of S. Paul and if I make it appear that this is invalid I hope I am secure To this then I answer That the Antithesis in these words here urg'd for there is another in the chapter and this whole argument of S. Paul is full and intire without descending to minutes Death came in by one man much more shall life come by one man if that by Adam then much more this by Christ by him to condemnation by this man to justification This is enough to verifie the argument of S. Paul though life and death did not come in the same manner to the several relatives as indeed they did not of which afterwards But for the present It runs thus By Adam we were made sinners by Christ we are made righteous As certainly one as the other though not in the same manner of dispensation By Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death reigned by this man the reign of death shall be destroyed and life set up in stead of it by him we were us'd as sinners for in him we died but by Christ we are justified that is us'd as just persons for by him we live This is sufficient for the Apostles argument and yet no necessity to affirm that we are sinners in Adam any more then by imputation for we are by Christ made just no otherwise then by imputation In the proof or perswasion I will use no indirect arguments as to say that to deny us to be just by imputation is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of the Socinian Conventicles but expresly dislik'd by all the Lutheran Calvinist and Zuinglian Churches and particularly by the Church of England and indeed by the whole Harmony of Confessions this I say I will not make use of not only because I my self do not love to be press'd by such prejudices rather then arguments but because the question of the imputation of righteousness is very much mistaken and misunderstood on all hands They that say that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification do it upon this account because they know all that we do is imperfect therefore they think themselves constrain'd to flie to Christ's righteousness and think it must be imputed to us or we perish The other side considering that this way would destroy the necessity of holy living and that in order to our justification there were conditions requir'd on our parts think it necessary to say that we are justified by inherent righteousness Between these the truth is plain enough to be read Thus Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us for justification directly and immediately neither can we be justified by our own righteousness but our Faith and sincere endevours are through Christ accepted in stead of legal righteousness that is we are justified through Christ by imputation not of Christs nor our own righteousness but of our faith and endevours of righteousness as if they were perfect and we are justified by a Non-imputation viz. of our past sins and present unavoidable imperfections that is we are handled as if we were just persons and no sinners So faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness not that it made him so legally but Evangelically that is by grace and imputation And indeed My Lord that I may speak freely in this great question when one man hath sin'd his descendents and relatives cannot possibly by him or for him or in him be made sinners properly and really For in sin there are but two things imaginable the irregular action and the guilt or obligation to punishment Now we cannot in any sense be said to have done the action which another did and not we the action is as individual as the person and Titius may as well be Cajus and the Son be his own Father as he can be said to have done the Fathers action and therefore we cannot possibly be guilty of it for guilt is an obligation to punishment for having done it the action and the guilt are relatives one cannot be without the other something must be done inwardly or outwardly or there can be no guilt * But then for the evil of punishment that may pass further then the action If it passes upon the innocent it is not a punishment to them but an evil inflicted by right of Dominion but yet by reason of the relation of the afflicted to him that sin'd to him it is a punishment But if it passes upon others that are not innocent then it is a punishment to both to the first principally to the Descendents or Relatives for the others sake his sin being imputed so far How far that is in the present case and what it is the Apostle expresses thus It was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 18. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 16. a curse unto condemnation or a judgement unto condemnation that is a curse inherited from the principal deserv'd by him and yet also actually descending upon us after we had sin'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the judgement passed upon Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was on him but it prov'd to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a through condemnation when from him it passed upon all men that sin'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes differ in degrees so the words are used by S. Paul otherwhere 1 Cor. 11. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a judgement to prevent a punishment or a less to forestal a greater in the same kinde so here the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass'd further the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was fulfilled in his posterity passing on further viz. that all who sin'd should pass under the power of death as well as he but this became formally and actually a punishment to them only who did sin personally to them it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Deus Justificatus TWO DISCOVRSES OF ORIGINAL SIN Contained in two Letters TO PERSONS of HONOUR Wherein the question is rightly stated several objections answered and the truth further cleared and proved by many arguments newly added or explain'd By Jer. Taylor D.D. LONDON Printed for Richard Royston 1656. Deus Justificatus OR A Vindication of the glory of the Divine Attributes in the Question of ORIGINAL SIN Against the Presbyterian way of Understanding it By JER TAYLOR D.D. Lucretius Nam neque tam facilis res ulla est quin ea primum Difficilis magis ad credendum constet LONDON Printed by R. N. for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivie-Lane 1656. TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE and religious Lady The Lady CHRISTIAN Countesse Dowager of Devonshire Madam WHen I reflect upon the infinite disputes which have troubled the publick meetings of Christendom concerning Original sin and how impatient and vext some men lately have been when I offered to them my endeavours and conjectures concerning that Question with purposes very differing from what were seen in the face of other mens designes and had handled it so that God might be glorified in the Article and men might be instructed and edified in order to good life I could not but think that wise Heathen said rarely well in his little adagy relating to the present subject 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mankind was born to be a riddle and our nativity is in the dark for men have taken the liberty to think what they please and to say what they think and they affirme many things and can prove but few things and take the sayings of men for the Oracles of God and bold affirmatives for convincing arguments and Saint Pauls text must be understood by Saint Austins commentary and Saint Austin shall be heard in all because he spake against such men who in some things were not to be heard and after all because his Doctrine was taken for granted by ignorant ages and being received so long was incorporated into the resolved Doctrine of the Church with so great a firmnesse it became almost a shame to examine what the world believed so unsuspectingly and he that shall first attempt it must resolve to give up a great portion of his reputation to be torn in pieces by the ignorant and by the zealous by some of the learned and by all the Envious and they who love to teach in quiet being at rest in their chaires and pulpits will be froward when they are awakened and rather then they will be suspected to have taught amisse will justifie an error by the reproaching of him that tells them truth which they are pleased to call new If any man differs from me in opinion I am not troubled at it but tell him that truth is in the understanding and charity is in will and is or ought to be there before either his or my opinion in these controversies can enter and therefore that we ought to love alike though we do not understand alike but when I finde that men are angry at my Ingenuity and opennesse of discourse and endeavour to hinder the event of my labours in the ministery of Souls and are impatient of contradiction or variety of explication and understanding of Questions I think my self concerned to defend the truth which I have published to acquit it from the suspition of evil appendages to demonstrate not onely the truth but the piety of it and the necessity and those great advantages which by this Doctrine so understood may be reaped if men will be quiet and patient void of prejudice and not void of Charity This Madam is reason sufficient why I offer so many justifications of my Doctrine before any man appears in publick against it but because there are many who do enter into the houses of the rich and the honourable and whisper secret oppositions and accusations rather then arguments against my Doctrine and the good women that are zealous for Religion and make up in the passions of one faculty what is not so visible in the actions and operations of another are sure to be affrighted before they be instructed and men enter caveats in that Court before they try the cause I have found that some men to whom I gave and designed my labours and for whose sake I was willing to suffer the persecution of a suspected truth have been so unjust to me and so unserviceable to your Honour Madam and to some other excellent and rare personages as to tell stories and give names to my proposition and by secret murmurs hinder you from receiving that good which your wisdom and your piety would have discerned there if they had not affrighted you with telling that a snake lay under the Plantane and that this Doctrine wich is as wholesome as the fruits of Paradise was inwrapped with the infoldings of a Serpent subtle and fallacious Madam I know the arts of these men and they often put me in mind of what was told me by Mr. Sackvill the late Earl of Dorsets Vncle that the cunning Sects of the World he named the Jesuits and the Presbyterians did more prevail by whispering to Ladies then all the Church of England and the more sober Protestants could do by fine force and strength of argument For they by prejudice or fears terrible things and zealous nothings confident sayings and little stories governing the Ladies consciences who can perswade their Lords their Lords will convert their Tenants and so the World is all their own I wish them all good of their profits and purchases but yet because they are questions of Souls of their interest and advantages I cannot wish they may prevail with the more Religious and Zealous Personages and therefore Madam I have taken the boldnesse to write this tedious letter to your Honour that I may give you a right understanding and an easy explication of this great Question as conceiving my self the more bound to do it to your Honour not onely because you are Zealous for the Religion of this Church and are a person as well of reason as of Honour but also because you have passed divers obligations upon me for which all my services are too little a return Deus Justificatus OR A Vindication of the Divine Attributes IN Order to which I will plainly describe the great lines of difference and danger which are in the errors and mistakes about this Question 2. I will prove the truth and necessity of my own together with the usefulness and reasonableness of it 3. I will answer those little murmurs by which so far as I can yet learn these men seek to invade the understandings of those who have not leisure or will to examine the thing it self in my own words and arguments 4. And if any thing else falls in by the bie in which I can give satisfaction to a Person of Your great Worthiness I will not omit it as being desirous to have this Doctrine stand as fair in
he was permitted to the power of his enemy that betray'd him and put under the power of his body whose appetites would govern him and when they would grow irregular could not be mastered by any thing that was about him or born with him so that his case was miserable and naked and his state of things was imperfect and would be disordered But now Madam things being thus bad are made worse by the superinduced Doctrines of men which when I have represented to your Ladiship and told upon what accounts I reprove them your Honour will finde that I have reason There are one sort of Calvins Scholars whom we for distinctions sake call Supralapsarians who are so fierce in their sentences of predestination and reprobation that they say God look'd upon mankinde onely as his Creation and his slaves over whom he having absolute power was very gracious that he was pleased to take some few and save them absolutely and to the other greater part he did no wrong though he was pleased to damn them eternally onely because he pleased for they were his own and Qui jure suo utitur nemini facit injuriam saies the law of reason every one may do what he please with his own But this bloody and horrible opinion is held but by a few as tending directly to the dishonour of God charging on Him alone that He is the cause of mens sins on Earth and of mens eternal torments in Hell it makes God to be powerfull but his power not to be good it makes him more cruel to men then good men can be to Dogs and sheep it makes him give the final sentence of Hell without any pretence or colour of justice it represents him to be that which all the World must naturally fear and naturally hate as being a God delighting in the death of innocents for so they are when he resolves to damn them and then most tyrannically cruel and unreasonable for it saies that to make a postnate pretence of justice it decrees that men inevitably shall sin that they may inevitably but justly be damned like the Roman Lictors who because they could not put to death Sejanus daughters as being Virgins defloured them after sentence that by that barbarity they might be capable of the utmost Cruelty it makes God to be all that thing that can be hated for it makes him neither to be good nor just nor reasonable but a mighty enemy to the biggest part of mankinde it makes him to hate what himself hath made and to punish that in another which in himself he decreed should not be avoided it charges the wisdom of God with folly as having no means to glorifie his justice but by doing unjustly by bringing in that which himself hates that he might do what himself loves doing as Tiberius did to Brutus and Nero the Sons of Germanicus Variâ fraude induxit ut concitarentur ad convitia et concitati perderentur provoking them to raise that he might punish their reproachings This opinion reproaches the words and the Spirit of Scripture it charges God with Hypocrisy and want of Mercy making him a Father of Cruelties not of Mercie and is a perfect overthrow of all Religion and all Lawes and all Goverment it destroyes the very being and nature of all Election thrusting a man down to the lowest form of beasts and birds to whom a Spontaneity of doing certain actions is given by God but it is in them so naturall that it is unavoidable Now concerning this horrid opinion I for my part shall say nothing but this that he that sayes there was no such man as Alexander would tell a horrible lie and be injurious to all story and to the memory and fame of that great Prince but he that should say It is true there was such a man as Alexander but he was a Tyrant and a Blood-sucker cruel and injurious false and dissembling an enemy of mankind and for all the reasons of the world to be hated and reproached would certainly dishonour Alexander more and be his greatest enemy So I think in this That the Atheists who deny there is a God do not so impiously against God as they that charge him with foul appellatives or maintain such sentences which if they were true God could not be true But these men Madam have nothing to do in the Question of Originall Sin save onely that they say that God did decree that Adam should fall and all the sins that he sinn'd and all the world after him are no effects of choice but of predestination that is they were the actions of God rather then man But because these men even to their brethren seem to speak evil things of God therefore the more wary and temperat of the Calvinists bring down the order of reprobation lower affirming that God looked upon all mankind in Adam as fallen into his displeasure hated by God truly guilty of his sin liable to Eternal damnation and they being all equally condemned he was pleased to separate some the smaller number far and irresistibly bring them to Heaven but the far greater number he passed over leaving them to be damned for the sin of Adam and so they think they salve Gods Justice and this was the designe and device of the Synod of Dort Now to bring this to passe they teach concerning Original sin 1. That by this sin our first Parents fell from their Original righteousnesse and communion with God and so became dead in sinne and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body 2. That whatsoever death was due to our first Parents for this sin they being the root of all mankinde and the guilt of this sin being imputed the same is conveied to all their posterity by ordinary generation 3. That by this Original corruption we are utterly indisposed disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evill and that from hence proceed all actual trangressions 4. This corruption of nature remaines in the regenerate and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified yet both it self and all the motions thereof are trulie and properly sin 5. Original sin being a transgression of the righteous Law of God and contrary thereunto doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the Law and so made subject to death with all miseries spiritual temporall and eternal These are the sayings of the late Assembly at Westminster Against this heap of errors and dangerous propositions I have made my former discoursings and statings of the Question of Original sin These are the Doctrines of the Presbyterian but as unlike truth as his assemblies are to our Church for concerning him I may say Nemo tam propè proculque nobis He is the likest and the unlikest to a Son of our Church in the world he is neerest to us and furthest from us and to all the world abroad
is an Eternal reward for evil ones And who would not deride this way of arguing As by our Fathers we receive temporal good things so much more do we by God but by God we also receive an immortal Soul therefore from our Fathers we receive an immortal body For not the consequent of a hypothetical proposition but the antecedent is to be the assumption of the Syllogisme This therefore is a fallacy which when those wise persons who are unwarily perswaded by it shall observe I doubt not but the whole way of arguing will appear unconcluding Object 6. But it is objected that my Doctrine is against the ninth Article in the Church of England and that I heare Madam does most of all stick with your Honour Of this Madam I should not now have taken notice because I have already answered it in some additional papers which are already published but that I was so delighted to hear and to know that a person of your interest and Honour of your zeal and prudence is so earnest for the Church of England that I could not pass it by without paying you that regard and just acknowledgment which so much excellencie deserves But then Madam I am to say that I could not be delighted in your zeal for our excellent Church if I were not as zealous my self for it too I have oftentimes subscribed that Article and though if I had cause to dissent from it I would certainly do it in those just measures which my duty on one side and the interest of truth on the other would require of me yet because I have no reason to disagree I will not suffer my self to be supposed to be of a Differing judgement from my Dear Mother which is the best Church of the world Indeed Madam I do not understand the words of the Article as most men do but I understand them as they can be true and as they can very fairely signifie and as they agree with the word of God and right reason But I remember that I have heard from a very good hand and there are many alive this day that may remember to have heard it talk'd of publickly that when Mr. Thomas Rogers had in the yeer 1584. published an exposition of the 39. Articles many were not onely then but long since very angry at him that he by his interpretation had limited the charitable latitude which was allowed in the subscription to them For the Articles being fram'd in a Church but newly reform'd in which many complied with some unwillingnesse and were not willing to have their consent broken by too great a straining and even in the Convocation it self so many being of a differing judgement it was very great prudence and piety to secure the peace of the Church by as much charitable latitude as they could contrive and therefore the Articles in those things which were publickly disputed at that time even amongst the Doctors of the Reformation such were the Articles of predestination and this of Original sinne were described with incomparable wisdom and temper and therefore I have reason to take it ill if any man shall denie me liberty to use the benefit of the Churches wisdom For I am ready a thousand times to subscribe the Article if there can be just cause to do it so often but as I impose upon no man my sense of the Article but leave my reasons and him to struggle together for the best so neither will I be bound to any one man or any company of men but to my lawful Superiours speaking there where they can and ought to oblige Madam I take nothing ill from any man but that he should think I have a lesse zeal for our Church then himself and I will by Gods assistance be all my life confuting him and though I will not contend with him yet I will die with him in behalf of the Church if God shall call me but for other little things and trifling arrests and little murmurs I value none of it Quid verum atque decens curo rogo omnis in hoc sum Condo compono quod mox depromere possim Nullius addictus jurare in verba Magistri Quo me cunque rapit tempestas deferor I could translate these also into bad English verse as I do the others but that now I am earnest for my liberty I will not so much as confine my self to the measures of feet But in plain English I mean by rehearsing these latine verses that although I love every man and value worthy persons in proportion to their labours and abilities whereby they can and do serve God and Gods Church yet I inquire for what is fitting not what is pleasing I search after wayes to advantage soules not to comply with humours and Sects and interests and I am tied to no mans private opinion any more then he is to mine if he will bring Scripture and right reason from any topic he may govern me and perswade me else I am free as he is but I hope I am before hand with him in this question I end with the words of Lucretius Desine quâ propter novitate exterritus ipsâ Expuere eo animo rationem sed magis acri Judicio perpende si tibi vera videtur Dede manus aut si falsa est accingere contrà Fear not to own what 's said because 't is true Weigh well and wisely if the thing be true Truth and not conquest is the best reward 'Gainst falshood onely stand upon thy guard The End MADAM I Humbly begge you will be pleased to entertain these papers not onely as a Testimony of my Zeal for truth and peace below and for the Honour of God above but also of my readinesse to seize upon every occasion whereby I may expresse my self to be Your Honours most obliged and most Humble Servant in the Religion of the H. Jesus Jer. Taylor The Stationers Postscript To the READER I Am not my self Ignorant having learned it from those whose words had in them reason and Authority too that the world is most benefited by those pieces which with greatest difficulty were gained from the modesty or severity or fears of their Authors The fruits that first drop from the tree are not the longest ere they rot and the corn that lies longest in the ground bis quae solem bis frigora most pleases the Husband-man I have some confidence the Reader who has yet given his name to no sect will by the excellencies of this discourse I have now presented be so fairly disposed to receive my excuse when I tell him that I publish it without the Reverend Authors consent that he will become rather a Patron than an Accuser of that great ambition he observes in me to offer something that may instruct him and please him too Because so many papers passe the Presse that deserve to finde it the place of their Burial rather than their birth I was persuaded my Charity
honour of God yet the very fear and affrightment which must needs seize upon every good man that does but behold it or hear the words of that angry voice shall and hath made me to pray not only that my self be preserved in truth but that it would please God to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived My Lord I humbly thank your Lordship for your grave and pious Councel and kisse the hand that reaches forth so paternal a rod. I see you are tender both of truth and me and though I have not made this tedious reply to cause trouble to your Lordship or to steal from you any part of your precious time yet because I see your Lordship was perswaded induere personam to give some little countenance to a popular error out of jealousie against a less usual truth I thought it my duty to represent to your Lordship such things by which as I can so I ought to be defended against captious objectors It is hard when men will not be patient of truth because another man offers it to them and they did not first take it in or if they did were not pleas'd to own it But from your Lordship I expect and am sure to finde the effects of your piety wisdome and learning and that an error for being popular shall not prevail against so necessary though unobserved truth A necessary truth I call it because without this I do not understand how we can declare Gods righteousness and justifie him with whom unrighteousnesse cannot dwell But if men of a contrary opinion can reconcile their usual doctrines of Original Sin with Gods justice and goodness and truth I shall be well pleased with it and think better of their doctrine then now I can But untill that be done it were well My Lord if men would not trouble themselves or the Church with impertinent contradictions but patiently give leave to have truth advanced and God justified in his sayings and in his judgements and the Church improved and all errors confuted that what did so prosperously begin the Reformation may be admitted to bring it to perfection that men may no longer go quâ itur but quâ eundum est The Bp of Rochester's Letter to Dr. Taylor with an account of the particulars there given in charge WORTHY SIR Let me request you to weigh that of S. Paul Ephes. 2. 5. which are urged by some Ancients and to remember how often he cals Concupiscence Sin whereby it is urg'd that although Baptism take away the guilt as concretively redounding to the person yet the simple abstracted guilt as to the Nature remains for Sacraments are administred to Persons not to Natures I confess I finde not the Fathers so fully and plainly speaking of Original Sin till Pelagius had pudled the stream but after this you may finde S. Jerom in Hos. saying In paradiso omnes praevaricati sunt in Adamo And S. Ambrose in Rom. 1. 5. Manifestum est omnes peccasse in Adam quasi in massâ ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores quiae ex eo sumus omnes and as Greg. 39 Hom. in Ezek. Sine culpâ in mundo esse non potest qui in mundum cum culpâ venit But S. Austin is so frequent so full and clear in his assertions that his words reasons will require your most judicious examinations and more strict weighing of them he saith epist 107. Scimus secundum Adam nos primâ nativitate contagium mortis contrahere nec liberamur à supplicio mortis aeternae nisi per gratiam renascamur in Christo Id. de verb. Apost Ser 4. peccatum à primo homine in omnes homines pertransiit etenim illud peccatum non in fonte mansit sed pertransiit and Rom. 5. ubi te invenit venundatum sub peccato trahentem peccatum primi hominis habentem peccatum antequam possis habere arbitrium Id. de praedestin grat c. 2. Si infans unius diei non sit sine peccato qui proprium habere non potuit conficitur at illud traxerit alienum de quo Apost Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum quod qui negat negat profectò nos esse mortales quoniam mors est poena peccati Sequitur necesse est poena peccatum Id. enchir c. 9. 29. Sola gratia redemptos discernit à perditis quos in unam perditionis massam concreverat ab origine ducta communis contagio Id. de peccator mer. remiss l. 1. c. 3. Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis Quid potest aut potuit nasci ex servo nisi servus ideo sicut omnis homo ab Adamo est ita omnis homo per Adamum servus est peccati Rom. 5. Falluntur ergo omnino qui dicunt mortem solam non â—peccatum transiisse in genus humanum Prosper resp ad articulum Augustino falsò impositum Omnes homines praevaricationis reos damnationi obnexios nasci periturosque nisi in Christo renascamur asserimus Tho. 12. q. 8. Secundum fidem Catholicam tenendum est quod primum peccatum primi hominis originaliter transit in posteros propter quod etiam pueri mox nati deferuntur ad baptismum ab interiore culpâ abluendi Contrarium est haeresis Pelag. unde peccatum quod sic à primo parente derivatur dicicitur Originale sicut peccatum quod ab animâ derivatur ad membra corporis dicitur actuale Bonavent in 2. sent dist 31. Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae it a peccatum originale tribuitur ratione Naturae corpus infectum traducitur quia persona Adae infecit naturam natura infecit personam Anima enim inficitur à carne per colligantiam quum unita carni traxit ad se alterius proprietates Lombar 2. Sent. dist 31. Peccatum originale per corruptionem carnis in animà fit in vase enim dignoscitur vitium esse quod vinum accescit If you take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity it may conduce to the satisfaction of those who urge it for a proof of Original Sin Now that the work may prosper under your hands to the manifestation of Gods glory the edification of the Church and the satisfaction of all good Christians is the hearty prayer of Your fellow Servant in our most Blessed Lord Christ Jesu Jo. Roffens My Lord I Perceive that you have a great Charity to every one of the sons of the Church that your Lordship refuses not to sollicite their objections and to take care that every man be answered that can make objections against my Doctrine but as your charity makes you refuse no work or labour of love so shall my duty and obedience make me ready to perform any commandement that can be relative to so excellent a principle I am indeed sorry
if the first Concupiscence be a sin Original Sin for actual it is not and that this is properly personally and inherently our sin by traduction that is if our will be necessitated to sin by Adam's fall as it must needs be if it can sin when it cannot deliberate then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil then to understand it and how does that which is moral differ from that which is natural for the understanding is first and primely moved by its object and in that motion by nothing else but by God who moves all things and if that which hath nothing else to move it but the object yet is not free it is strange that the will can in any sense be free when it is necessitated by wisdome and by power and by Adam that is from within and from without besides what God and violence do and can do But in this I have not only Scripture and all the reason of the world on my side but the complying sentences of the most eminent writers of the Primitive Church I need not trouble my self with citations of many of them since Calvin lib. 3. Instit. c. 3. § 10. confesses that S. Austin hath collected their testimonies and is of their opinion that Concupiscence is not a sin but an infirmity only But I will here set down the words of S. Chrysostome Homil. 13. in epist. Rom. because they are very clear Ipsae passiones in se peccatum non sunt Effraenata verò ipsarum immoderantia peccatum operata est Concupiscentia quidem peccatum non est quando verò egressa modum foras eruperit tunc demum adulterium fit non à concupiscentia sed à nimio illicito illius luxu By the way I cannot but wonder why men are pleased where ever they finde the word Concupiscence in the New Testament presently to dream of Original Sin and make that to be the sum total of it whereas Concupiscence if it were the product of Adam's fall is but one small part of it Et ut exempli gratia unam illarum tractem said S. Chrysostome in the forecited place Concupiscence is but one of the passions and in the utmost extension of the word it can be taken but for one half of the passion for not only all the passions of the Concupiscible faculty can be a principle of sin but the Irascible does more hurt in the world that is more sensual this is more devillish The reason why I note this is because upon this account it will seem that concupiscence is no more to be called a sin then anger is and as S. Paul said Be angry but sin not so he might have said Desire or lust but sin not For there are some lustings and desires without sin as well as some Anger 's and that which is indifferent to vertue and vice cannot of it self be a vice To which I add that if Concupiscence taken for all desires be a sin then so are all the passions of the Irascible faculty Why one more then the other is not to be told but that Anger in the first motions is not a sin appears because it is not alwaies sinful in the second a man may be actually angry and yet really innocent and so he may be lustful and full of desire and yet he may be not only that which is good or he may overcome his desires to that which is bad I have now considered what your Lordship received from others and gave me in charge your self concerning concupiscence Your next charge is concerning Antiquity intimating that although the first antiquity is not clearly against me yet the second is For thus your Lordship is pleased to write their objection I confess I finde not the Fathers so fully and plainly speaking of Original Sin till Pelagius had pudled the stream but after this you may finde S. Jerom c. That the Fathers of the first 400 years did speak plainly and fully of it is so evident as nothing more and I appeal to their testimonies as they are set down in the papers annexed in their proper place and therefore that must needs be one of the little arts by which some men use to escape from the pressure of that authority by which because they would have other men concluded sometimes upon strict inquiry they finde themselves entangled Original Sin as it is at this day commonly explicated was not the Doctrine of the primitive Church but when Pelagius had pudled the stream S. Austin was so angry that he stampt and disturb'd it more and truly my Lord I do not think that the Gentlemen that urg'd against me S. Austin's opinion do well consider that I profess my self to follow those fathers who were before him and whom S. Austin did forsake as I do him in the question They may as well press me with his authority in the Article of the damnation of Infants dying unbaptized or of absolute predestination In which Article S. Austin's words are equally urged by the Jansenists and Molinists by the Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants and they can serve both and therefore cannot determine me But then My Lord let it be remembred that they are as much against S. Chrysostome as I am against S. Austin with this only difference that S. Chrysostome speaks constantly in the argument which S. Austin did not and particularly in that part of it which concerns Concupiscence For in the inquiry whether it be a sin or no he speaks so variously that though Calvin complains of him that he cals it only an infirmity yet he also brings testimonies from him to prove it to be a sin and let any man try if he can tie these words together De peccator mer. et remission l. 1. c. 3. Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis Which are the words your Lordship quotes Concupiscence is a sin because it is a disobedience to the Empire of the spirit But yet in another place lib. 1. de civit Dei cap. 25. Illa Concupiscentialis inobedientia quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis It is a sin and it is no sin it is criminal but is without fault it is culpable because it is a disobedience and yet this disobedience without actual consent is not culpable If I do beleeve S. Austin I must disbeleeve him and which part soever I take I shall be reproved by the same authority But when the Fathers are divided from each other or themselves it is indifferent to follow either but when any of them are divided from reason and Scripture then it is not indifferent for us to follow them and neglect these and yet if these who object S. Austin's authority to my Doctrine will be content to subject to all that he saies I am content they shall follow him in this too provided