Selected quad for the lemma: world_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
world_n	catholic_a	church_n	universal_a	3,985	5	9.1776	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42503	Sapientia justificata, or, A vindication of the fifth chapter to the Romans and therein of the glory of the divine attributes, and that in the question or case of original sin, against any way of erroneous understanding it, whether old or new : more especially, an answer to Dr. Jeremy Taylors Deus justificatus / by John Gaule ...	Gaule, John, 1604?-1687.	1657 (1657)	Wing G378; ESTC R5824	46,263	130

here so insensible we see it may easily come to passe through natural ignorance and ill habits without this diminishing glass of a Metonymical spectacle Conseq. there are some whole Churches which think themselves so little concerned in the matter of Original Sin that they have not a word of it in all their Theologue Inconseq That they have not a word of it their Theologue is defective to them that they think themselves not concerned in it they are defective to their Theologie I could tell him of some Churches that in their Theologie make no mention of the Decalogue do they therefore think themselves but little concerned in it again some Churches think themselves so much concerned in Original Sin that they beleeve Souls as well as Bodies to be propagated from Adam I spake this of the Ethiopians and the Russians no Church but is bound to have such a body of Divinity as may comprehend the whole principles of Faith and Religion yea and to unfold them and confess them so far as they are revealed in the word of God but what is it to object some obscure and confused Churches to the Catholique universal to the most orderly and eminent Churches of the World Conseq. The height of this imagination hath wrought so high in the Church of Rome that when they would doe great honour to the Virgin Mary they were pleased to allow unto her an immaculate conception without any Original Sin Inconseq So far as the Church of Rome seemed to joyn with the Primitive Churches in the point of Original Sin so far also have the Reformed Churches joyned with them as namely That Original Sin is That it is properly and inherently a Sin That it descendeth by natural propagation not by imitation That it hath in both a stain and guilt That it subjected to misery and death in all senses and significations That we are redeemed therefrom by the merits of Christ These are heights indeed but not heights of imagination but sound Doctrine And these she pretended to hold forth against all those who affirmed That Adam lost Original righteousnesse only for himself and not for us his posterity and that by Adams disobedience sin descended not upon Mankind but only a bodily death or punishment Indeed here she hath also some heights of imagination as That Original sin is not only remitted by Baptism but utterly abolished and quite taken away That the concupiscence remaining in the regenerate is no sin That Original Sin is only in the inferiour and not in the superiour faculties That the blessed Virgin was conceived and born free from Original Sin yea and many more heights of imagination they have much disputed on among their Scholasticks so that they owe their errors not to the simple profession of Original Sinne but to their subtle disputation about it As for their opinion of the blessed Virgins immaculate conception it arose from no other height but that o● their own superstition which is too notorious in all they can feign or imagin● for her say of her or doe to her But I pray God this low imagination o● slender and slight conceit of a Metonymical juridical external collateral nay equivocal abusive phantastical imputation serve not to be get a conceit or presumption of an immaculate conception in us all I have read of one that would needs deny the immortality of the Soul with intent to disprove the Popish purgatory but there are other ways to refute this Error of the immaculate conception than by abating the truth or utmost truth of Original Sin One thing more he saith I am to observe before I leave considering the word of the Apostle This one thing is not so much a consequent of what he would say for himself as an argument against all such as would argue against him The ground betwixt both is laid in these last words of the Apostle As by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Some saith he from hence suppose they argue strongly to the overthrow of all that I have said Thus As by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really sinners This we acknowledge not only to be our Argument but our way of Augmentation and if this standing good be sufficient to overthrow all that he hath said then it is easie to be observed to what purpose he hath spoken all this while but to this he hath spoken in his Addresses and to them we can say nothing till we see them But besides saith he I have something very material to reply to the form of the Argument which is a very trick and fallacy Strong reason may be spoken very often without a formal Syllogisme and where the matter cannot be denied to be true and good 't is but a kind of sophistical fallacy to stand too pedantically upon the form But to argue from hence as by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really sinners is saith he to invert the purpose of the Apostle The reciprocation or conversion of propositions is no inversion of their purpose where they may truly praedicate either way Neither is the inverting of words in their order always a perverting of them in their intent But the Apostle argues from the lesse to the greater Indeed the Apostle in his comparison proceeds after such a manner as from Adam to Christ from Sin to Grace from Death to Life now Comparates Ianus-like look {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} forwards and backwards and may argue mutually from one to another Nay they must doe it else could they not be Comparates now though the Apostle argue from the lesse to the greater by way of Amplification yet he forbids not to argue from the greater to the lesse for matter of reallity and that is all our Argument But we saith he make it conclude affirmatively from the greater to the lesse in matter of power Will he allow us to doe it negatively why that will serve our turn sufficiently Thus As Christ's righteousnesse was not imputed only so neither was Adams sin or thus As our righteousness by Christ was not a Metonymical righteousnesse so our sin by Adam was not a Metonymical Sin But by his leave we may take liberty to argue affirmatively as before yet offend against no Logical Law or Canon of Comparates nay and the consequence shall be of great force even affirmatively as Thus As Christ did and suffered his Fathers will so ought we to doe and suffer the same As God charged his Angels with Folly how much more may he us mortal men and from the Apostle in this place As the Life was a real life so the Death was a real Death As the Grace was real Grace so the Sin was real Sin But he now assumes the trick or fallacy himself taxing us for concluding affirmatively from the greater to the lesse in matter of power as what a

verse only there was the Disparity and excess betwixt the Sin and the Grace here betwixt the Gift and the person sinning There it was said to be more plentifully abounding here more powerfully effecting There by what Authors here to what Ends There the Free gift was opposed to the Sin but here to the Judgement For the Iudgement was by one to condemnation By the Judgement we understand not only the Decree on God's part but also the desert on our own In as much as the word in Scripture notes both the Act and the power of Judgement as likewise the cause and thing judged And if we did but truly consider this then durst we not be so bold in questioning the Divine Attributes in regard we are taught to apprehend it as a thing not only of his severity but of our own impiety also So by Condemnation we understand both the Sentence and Execution the threatning against as well as the inflicting on likewise we take the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the Neuter as wee doe the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in the Masculine yea and from the diverse preposition we note some distinction namely of the matter and subject as well as of the cause and instrument and thereupon we doe not confound them as he doth by One Man sinning one sin but somewhat more distinctly by one sinning or that sinned we understand the Act with relation to Adams person but by the one sin we understand the thing it self with relation to our whole Nature even Original sin it self to note that one sin original sin in us is under the same judgement unto condemnation as was that one sinning in Adam and that in the very Act of his sinning we sinned as he seems to grant ve●y much And moreover to that sinned which he grants not as bad as he that not only because of the likeness of Nature and of sin as he says but because of the very identity and sameness thereof in the main substance though not according to every circumstance For we Descendents from Adam were perfectly like him in nature his own real natural production and so we sinned as himself says well and now if he himself thinks there is so great a parity of reason that the evil he means this judgement unto condemnation should descend upon us then in all reason he ought to yeeld not only a likeness but also a parity of Sin Yet whereas he says the evil was threatned to Adam and not to his Children Then was it not judgement unto condemnation for judgement implies the Sentence and Commination as Condemnation does the Execution or effect But what not threatned and yet descending will the Lord strike before he warns I say no more but for Gods sake what kind of Vindication call you that to urge the evil or punishment so oft and admit so little of the fault or sin is I think verily the wrong way to a Vindication of the Divine Attributes But the Free gift is of many offences unto justification To prevent all our murmuring and censuring that judgement should be to condemnation by one man or person the Apostle bids us construe him rightly and says he means it by one Sin or offence for we shall never think Gods ways equal in this case till we can look upon it with a right Eye not only as the Sin of one man and so the Sin of another But as one sin of all men and so our own But the Sin of one and one Sin if this satisfie not yet this makes amends for all abundantly that the Free gift is of many offeuces unto justification For mark how it answers to every opposite the Free gift to the offence many to one and justification to condemnation The first shews how benignly the next how bountifully the last how beneficially the recompense is vouchsafed as it is the Free gift to the offence so it signs Grace in us not to be natural as the sin is As it is many to one so it betokens a liberal condonation of many actuals as well as that one Original As it is Iustification against condemnation so it signifies a making holy as well as happy against both the sin and the punishment Since then what God in Christ hath here done is to justifie let God in Christ be justified by all and in all Verse 14. For if by one mans offence Death reigned by one much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of Righteousness shall reign in life by one Iesus Christ FOr if by one Man's offence Death reigned by one It is of no small note that a mutual construction is here to be made of one Mans offence and one offence The diverse reading shews a coincidence and however the repetition seems as the note upon their narrow conjunction nothing has done more prejudice to the truth of this point and to the Divine Attributes as they are therein concerned than a dividing separating or over-severe and too nice distinguishing between the one man and the one offence For though the natural corruption may be distinguishd from the personal Act according to some circumstances yet in substance they are to be considered as one and the same because it was for the main substance the same sin that Adam committed that entred into the world by him and well might the same sin passe from the whole or head into all the parts members though not in the particular Act yet in the universal guilt so that in his very sin we might not amiss be said to sin originally although not actually The Apostle more than once expresly intimates it to be translated indifferently either the Sin and offence of one man or one sin and offence We should do well therefore to accept it so equally as he hath been pleased to expresse it But we look askew upon it in the personal Act only as that one mans sin and no more and so we ascribe and impute all to him most presumptuously and seek in like manner to shake it off from our selves Strange it is we dare not deny that God imputes it to us and yet we dare be bold to impute it solely to him For so the Paraphrast seems to do The Sin of Adam alone whereas in truth we ought humbly to conceive and consider it as one Sin both in him and us one Sin in our Nature one Sin in our kind and so coming to be but one Sin even in the persons of us all They that goe the first way are quite out of the way to vindicate the Divine Attributes For how is it possible to make it anothers sin alone and not our own in any proper respect and yet not give occasion to murmurers and repiners at the imputation to any purpose whatsoever Whereas if instead of imposing it altogether upon another we would be convinc'd and content to take what is our own unto our selves That heavy yoak which