Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	body_n	member_n	sin_n	4,796	5	5.1191	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46697	Certaine letters of Henry Jeanes minister of Gods word at Chedzoy and Dr. Jeremy Taylor concerning a passage of his, in his further explication of originall sin.	Jeanes, Henry, 1611-1662.; Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667.	1660 (1660)	Wing J504; ESTC R202621	45,871	48

his members warring against the law of his mind vers 23 the body of this death from which be desired to be delivered vers 24 And methinks he should be affraid to ascribe this concupiscence unto Jesus Christ who was the Lambe of God without blemish and without spot 1 Pet. 1.19 holy harmelesse undefiled separate from sinners Heb. 7.26 And thus I have according unto the Doctor 's desire taken notice of his answer and shall not be so hasty as to write any thing against him but that I shall stay a convenient time to heare the uttermost that he can say and when our Paper shall be made publicke unto all the World I doe not doubt but there will be more that will accuse him of incogitancy than me of impertinency Many ingenious and learned men and some that otherwise admire the Dr have made the same construction of his words that I have and thought that he here forgat himselfe I am informed that the Dr in a letter unto you tels you that he desires not to bee troubled with my trif●ng Logicke I hope he reviles not Logicke as trifling for then I know in what herd of writers to ranke him and should decline him as an irrationall adversary who is an enemy to the very art of reason But it is not Logicke it selfe I believe but my Logicke that he thus bespatters and if it be so I shall returne nothing unto this his censure but leave you and others his admirers to judge of the humility and ingenuity thereof I have heard that the Dr hath printed a very good Grammar if he will also publish a Logicke for the better information of such triflers as my selfe I doe assure you that I will very diligently peruse it and if it be more solid weighty and serious than those which I have hitherto read give him many thankes for it As for his last letter I have not yet had the leasure fully to peruse it but by that cursory view which I have taken of it I find it to be as empty of reason though fuller of passion as the former you have given it out that it is unanswerable but I shall desire you to have a little patience and if I doe not give it a satisfying answer I shall submit unto what penance you will injoyne me In great hast I rest Your affectionate freind and servant HENRY JEANES Chedzoy August 31. 1657. Mr C. thought that the Doctor 's letter would supersede all further disputation but perceiving that I was unsatisfied and that I intended a replication he conveyed my objections unto the Doctor which begat a very angry letter from him unto which he would not vouchsafe so much as a superscription but I saw the Contents concerned me and therefore unto thee I shall present it together with my answer thereunto submitting both unto thy censure and so shall rest Devoted to thy spirituall service HENRY JEANES Sir I understand by my very good freind Mr T. C that you are very much troubled at a passage in my further explication of originall sin pag 496 The words are these that every man is inclined to evill some more some lesse but all in some instances is very true and it is an effect or condition of nature but no sinne properly The offence you conceive is because one of the reasons I bring to prove it is because it is accidentall to nature not intrinsecall and essentiall upon this you fancy that I intend that all sinne is intrinsecall and essentiall to nature which indeed if I had said I had been as very a sool as you conceive me and worse for besides the reasons you are pleas'd to object which I am no way by this concern'd to examine I had destroyed my maine intention nay that which I was proving in that very place for my worke there was to prove that no sinne is or can be naturall Now then although I know you could easily have understood what I did and must meane there yet because you are pleased not to doe it I will point in out to you To be inclined to evill is an effect or condition of nature but no sinne properly vizt of nature for that is the subject of the Question whether inclination to evill be an effect of nature or an inherent principle of evill a sinne naturall and necessary Now that it is not this I doe suppose that reason which you so misconstrued competent viz It is not a naturall or necessary sinne not a sinne of our nature because it is accidentall to nature not int●insicall not essentiall If it be in our nature it must be naturally inseperable it must be at first it must be in all persons that have our nature And this is my meaning and that you may not be troubled at the word essential I meane it not in the strict physicall but in the morall sense that which is not aster our nature but together with it in reall being and I explicate it by intrinsecall I oppose it to accidentall in this reason and to superinduc'd in the next Sir I did give an account to Mr C. in a letter to him which I know was sufficient and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for cujus est loqui ejus est interpretari I told you perfectly what is my meaning it is very plaine by the whole designe of that that it must be my meaning it is also cleare enough an very easy in the expression and therefore I now appeale to your ingenuity whether you ought to have made such tragedies with that which common sense would have made plaine to you unlesse you had received a prejudice And now Sin to your two syllogismes be pleased to the subject of the two majors to adde but this qualification naturall and try if those horrid consequents will follow which you affixed to your own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I shall for this once consider the particulars 1. You charge it with nonsense but with your favour you prove it most pitifully your reason is that to say essentiall is predicated of sin in either of the two wayes dicendi pe● se is such pitifull and prodigious nonsense that you thinke it not worthy of any serious resutation so that this is your argument to say that sin is essentiall is prodigious and pitifull nonsense g. it is prodigious and pitiful nonsense surely a good argument or thus that which is such nonsense that you thinke not worthy of refutation is certainly nonsense but to say that sinne is essentiall is such nonsense that you thinke not worthy of refute therefore it is nonsense I doe not say your argument is nonsense but I am sure it is no argument unlesse a bold affirmative be a sufficient proofe in your Logicke But to the thing that sinne is essentiall is indeed false to say but to say so is not nonsense And whereas you will suppose me to say so you are uncharitable and something unreasonable in it for I was to prove

Alderman in Oxford that upon the reading of some records touching something controverted betwixt the Town and University he brake out into this expression unlesse we can prove King Henry the 8th to be before King Henry the seventh the University will have the better of us But if we can make it good that King Henry the 8th was before King Henry the 7th then there is no doubt but that we shall in this particular have a full Conquest over the Schollars I take this to be a fable But however give me leave to make application of it unto my present purpose All the wrong that the Dr can pretend that I have done him is because I did not place secondly before firstly and if he can make it good that I ought to have placed secondly before firstly then I must needs confesse I have done him a great deale of Injury and shall be ready to aske his pardon and unlesse such proofe can be made he must lay the blame upon the Confusion and disorder of his own discourse But to goe on The Dr tels us that this clause it is an effect or condition of nature but no sime properly is the lesse principall part of the proposition both clauses then according unto him make but one proposition and this is a great failing against that Logicke which the learned have hitherto used for by that these two clauses are not parts of one proposition but severall intire distinct propositions But perhaps he may say that they make one compounded proposition Unto this I shall reply 1. That a compounded proposition consists ever of simple propositions Now the last of these clauses to say nothing of the first is a compounded proposition it selfe for it is an adversative preposition and therefore though these two clauses may make an aggregation of severall propositions yet they can never concurre to the Composition of one 2. If both clauses make one compounded proposition then it is a copulative proposition because they are knit together by a copulative conjunction Now a copulative proposition is not true unlesse all parts be true and consequently it is not proved to be true unlesse all parts be proved to be true Now the Doctor for the proofe of this pretended copulative proposition jumbleth together 6 reasons without any note of distinction to direct the Reader unto which part of the proposition as he cals it he should apply the severall reasons and whether this proofe of a copulative proposition be not illogicall I appeale unto any man that knowes any thing in Logicke He informes you that the first reason is apportioned to be unto the latter part of the proposition as he cals it and the 5 other reasons unto the first part of the proposition But what precept of Logicke or Grammar I have transgressed in not making such a distribution or application of his reasons he doth not acquaint you But the Doctor directs you unto two wayes for the finding out of his meaning The First to leave out the second clause and the reason relating unto it If I had saith he left out the latter part of the proposition and the reasons relating to it my sense had been as compleat and my argument not the worse and my discourse no lesse pertinent But the second clause being left in perturbeth and confoundeth the sense and occasioneth the mistake and who I pray is to be blamed the Dr for putting it into the Synthesis or I for still keeping it in the Analysis of his words It would be a strange and unheard of way of analysing that a Reader should loppe off two lines at a time of an authour But it should seeme wee are to make such defalkations to make your great Dr speake sense only I would know by what warrant and obligation A second way which will make it extreamly plaine as he tels you in the postscript is to make the second part of the proposition as he termes it and the reason relating unto it to be a Parenthesis But 1. that this was not brought in by way of Parenthesis who is in the fault Againe 2. The Dr hath told us that it is the second part of the same proposition with the foregoing clause and if so then it cannot be inserted as a Parenthesis betwixt it and the following proposition And besides 3. If he bring in the words only by way of Parenthesis I would faine know what is to be done with 2ly in this case he must new figure and number his reasons That which he figureth to be the second reason must be the first and his six reasons will prove to be but five The second thing that he chargeth me with is disingenuity Besides this saith he if Mr Jeanes had so much ingenuity as he pretends to have Logicke he would have perceived c. 1. As what he speakes of my pretending unto Logicke I thinke unworthy of any answer and shall leave it unto the Reader to judge of the wit and ingenuity thereof 2. It is no disingenuous part in me to charge the Dr with a conclusion that I prove his words to be guilty of For as for his meaning I cannot guesse at it but by his words but I believe the unpartiall Reader will judge it a very high point of disingenuity in the Dr not to acknowledge the incommodious structure of his words But let us heare wherein my disingenuity consists If Mr Jeanes saith he had so much ingenuity as he pretends to have Logicke he would have perceived that for me to meane what he sayes I meane had been the perfect destruction of all my discourse and all my intention If this be all The Dr hath no reason to charge me with want of ingenuity in this particular for I doe very well perceive that for him to meane what I say his words hold forth for as for any secret and reserved meaning I have nothing to doe with had been the perfect destruction of all his discourse c. But I believe the Docto'rs meaning is that it is an ingenuous part in me to think it possible or probable for him to assert any thing that is the perfect destruction of all his discourse and all his intention Now this I utterly deny I have no such apprehension of the Doctor 's infallibility but take him to be a man as likely to contradict himselfe as other mortals There is one thing more that the Dr add's concerning our blessed Saviour that concupiscence taking it for those desires which are purely naturall and concreated is no sinne because it was in Christ Unto which I answer that this is nothing unto the purpose for the concupiscence in controversy is prerternaturall and never created or concreated by God It is an inclination unto evill and therefore irregular and disorderly it is that which the Apostle termeth the sin that dwelleth in him Rom. 7.17 which made him doe that evill which he would not vers 19 which he hated vers 15. The law of