Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	know_v	zeal_n	zealous_a	23	3	8.5201	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63754	Deus justificatus. Two discourses 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.	Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667.; Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667. Deus justificatus, or, A vindication of the glory of the divine attributes in the question of original sin.; Taylor, Jeremy, 1613-1667. Answer to a letter written by the R.R. the Ld Bp of Rochester.	1656 (1656)	Wing T311A; ESTC R220790	75,112	280

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

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

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 odiesis 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 the flesh lusteth against the spirit that is it really produces a state of evil temptations it lusteth that is actually and habitually it lusteth against the spirit and therefore deserves Gods wrath and damnation So the Article Therefore for no other reason but because the flesh lusteth against the spirit not because it can lust or is apta nata to lust but because it lusteth actually therefore it deserves damnation and this is Original Sin or as the Article expresses it it hath the nature of sin it is the fomes or matter of sin and is in the original of mankinde and deriv'd from Adam as our body is but it deserves not damnation in the highest sense of the word till the concupiscence be actual Till then the words of Wrath and Damnation must be meant in the less and more easie signfication according to the former explication and must only relate to the personal sin of Adam To this sense of the Article I heartily subscribe For besides the reasonableness of the thing and the very manner of speaking us'd in the Article it is the very same way of speaking and exactly the same doctrine which we finde in S. James Jam. 1. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concupiscence when it is impregnated when it hath conceiv'd then it brings forth sin and sin when it is in production and birth brings forth death But in Infants concupiscence is innocent and a virgin it conceives not and therefore is without sin and therefore without death or damnation * Against these expositions I cannot imagine what can be really and materially objected But my Lord I perceive the main outcry is like to be upon the authority of the Harmony of Confessions Concerning which I shall say this that in this Article the Harmony makes as good musick as bels ringing backward and they agree especially when they come to be explicated and untwisted into their minute and explicite meanings as much as Lutheran and Calvinist as Papist and Protestant as Thomas and Scotus as Remonstrant and Dordrechtan that is as much as pro and con or but a very little more I have not the book with me here in prison and this neighbourhood cannot supply me and I dare not trust my memory to give a scheme of it but your Lordship knows that in nothing more do the reformed Churches disagree then in this and its appendages and you are pleased to hint

something of it by saying that some speak more of this then the Church of England and Andrew Rivet though unwillingly yet confesses de Confessionibus nostris earum syntagmate vel Harmonia etiamsi in non nullis capitibus non planè conveniant dicam tamen melius in concordiam redigi posse quàm in Ecclesia Romana concordantiam discordantium Canonum quo titulo decretum Gratiani quod Canonistis regulas praefigit solet insigniri And what he affirmes of the whole collection is most notorious in the Article of Original Sin For my own part I am ready to subscribe the first Helvetian confession but not the second So much difference there is in the confessions of the same Church Now whereas your Lordship adds that though they are fallible yet when they bring evidence of holy Writ their assertions are infallible and not to be contradicted I am bound to reply that when they do so whether they be infallible or no I will beleeve them because then though they might yet they are not deceived But as evidence of holy Writ had been sufficient without their authority so without such evidence their authority is nothing But then My Lord their citing and urging the words of S. Paul Rom. 5. 12. is so far from being an evident probation of their Article that nothing is to me a surer argument of their fallibility then the urging of that which evidently makes nothing for them but much against them As 1. Affirming expresly that death was the event of Adam's sin the whole event for it names no other temporal death according to that saying of S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. In Adam we all die And 2. Affirming this process of death to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is and ought to be taken to be the allay or condition of the condemnation It became a punishment to them only who did sin but upon them also inflicted for Adam's sake A like expression to which is in the Psalms Psal. 106. 32 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife so that he punished Moses for their sakes Here was plainly a traduction of evil from the Nation to Moses their relative For their sakes he was punished but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as Moses had sin'd for so it followes because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips So it is between Adam and us He sin'd and God was highly displeased This displeasure went further then upon Adam's sin for though that only was threatned with death yet the sins of his children which were not so threatned became so punished and they were by nature heirs of wrath and damnation that is for his sake our sins inherited his curse The curse that was specially and only threatned to him we when we sin'd did inherit for his sake So that it is not so properly to be called Original Sin as an original curse upon our sin To this purpose we have also another example of God transmitting the curse from one to another Both were sinners but one was the original of the curse or punishment So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam 1 King 14. 16. He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin Jereboam was the root of the sin and of the curse Here it was also that I may use the words of the Apostle that by the sin of one man Jeroboam sin went out into all Israel and the curse captivity or death by sin and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men of Israel have sinned If these men had not sinned they had not been punished I cannot say they had not been afflicted for David's childe was smitten for his fathers fault but though they did sin yet unless their root and principal had sinned possibly they should not have so been punish'd For his sake the punishment came Upon the same account it may be that we may inherit the damnation or curse for Adam's sake though we deserve it yet it being transmitted from Adam and not particularly threatned to the first posterity we were his heirs the heirs of death deriving from him an original curse but due also if God so pleased to our sins And this is the full sense of the 12. verse and the effect of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But your Lordship is pleased to object that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does once signifie For as much as yet three times it signifies in or by To this I would be content to submit if the observation could be verified and be material when it were true But besides that it is so used in 2 Cor. 5. 4. your Lordship may please to see it used as not only my self but indeed most men and particularly the Church of England does read it and expound it in Mat. 26. 50. And yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with in or by if it be rendred word for word yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the Scripture signifies for as much as as you may read Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 2. 18. So that here are two places besides this in question and two more ex abundanti to shew that if it were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but said in words expresly as you would have it in the meaning yet even so neither the thing nor any part of the thing could be evicted against me and lastly if it were not only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that that sense of it were admitted which is desired and that it did mean in or by in this very place yet the Question were not at all the nearer to be concluded against me For I grant that it is true in him we are all sinners as it is true that in him we all die that is for his sake we are us'd as sinners being miserable really but sinners in account and effect as I have largely discoursed in my book But then for the place here in question it is so certain that it signifies the same thing as our Church reads it that it is not sense without it but a violent breach of the period without precedent or reason And after all I have looked upon those places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to signifie in or by and in one of them I finde it so Mar. 2. 4. but in Act. 3. 16. Phil. 1. 3. I finde it not at all in any sense but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is used for in or by in that of the Acts and in the other it signifies at or upon but if all were granted that is pretended to it no way prejudices my cause as I have already proved Next to these your Lordship seems a little more zealous and decretory in the Question upon the confidence of the 17