A second part of The mixture of scholasticall divinity, with practical, in several tractates: wherein some of the most difficult knots in divinity are untyed, many dark places of Scripture cleared, sundry heresies and errors refuted ... Whereunto are annexed, several letters of the same author, and Dr. Jeremy Taylor, concerning Original Sin. Together with a reply unto Dr. Hammonds vindication of his grounds of uniformity from 1 Cor. 14.40. By Henry Jeanes, minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Somersetshire.

To his respected Freind Mr. T. C. these, &c.

Mr. C.

I thanke you for your letter, and friendly information os Mr Jeanes his exception; but is he had been as carefull to understand as he was forward to object, and mistake, he had cased you, and me of this little trouble. He objects that I say, that incli∣nation to sinne is no sinne, because it is accidentall, not intrinsecall, and essentiall: and he gives reasons why such a reason is absurd. To all which I returne this sost answer, that he sayes true, but nothing to the purpose. For the thing that I was to prove then, was the precedent word: [that every man is inclined to evill, some more, some lesse:] that is, that this inclination to evill is not regular and 〈◊〉〈◊〉,

and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not naturall, sor as sor the other clause] it is an effect or condition of nature, but no sinne properly] that was the lesse principall part of the proposition, and to it only the first reason 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, viz: [that which is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not a sin.) But if he had considered the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I was then 〈◊〉〈◊〉, he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 needs have seene that I was explicating that clause of the Church Article [and is inclined to e∣vill] which I was to say, was an inclination not naturall, not 〈◊〉〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉〈◊〉; but accidentall: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this thing I pursue, and to this all the other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 relate to the end of that section, and none of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the first only excepted, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 part of the proposition, which is I had lest out, and the reasons 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to it, the sense had been as compleat, and my argument not the worse, and my 〈◊〉〈◊〉 no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 4 last reasons, that is, all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the variety of our inclination to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, he will not only 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reason, but all the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Besides this if Mr Jeanes had so much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as he pretends to have Logicke, he would have perceived that sor me to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, what he sayes I 〈◊〉〈◊〉, had been the perfect destruction of all my 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and all my 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sor if I had sayd, that nothing could be a sinne, but what is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that not only some sinne, but all sinne had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Now my Thesis being, that no sin, properly such, is naturall; it cannot be imagined that I should meane what 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dreames of: it had not been to my purpose, either there or in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 que∣stion. But all the following reasons do so explicate, and sully manisest the meaning of the second; that I wonder hon Mr Jeanes is he be that person which he would be thought, could mistake, it, unlesse he be also that person he would not be thought: I could say many more things, but this being the truth of the businesse, and the reall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of my discourse, I need adde no more; but one thing I cannot but adde to Mr Jeanes, that is, since he instances in our B. Saviour, he must needs allow that 〈◊〉〈◊〉, taking it for those 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which are purely naturall, and concreated with us, cannot possibly bee a sinne: Because as Mr Jeanes rightly observes, whatsoever is naturall to man, was in Christ, because he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but he had, not our 〈◊〉〈◊〉; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nature hath no sinne: sor Christ was in all things 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to us, sinne only excepted, but he took 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him our nature, and nothing of that was excepted; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 our nature of it selfe is not properly 〈◊〉〈◊〉: nothing os our constitution is 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Sir, I have given you a saire and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. I pray let Mr Jeanes have 〈◊〉〈◊〉 much conveyed to him, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that part to which he 〈◊〉〈◊〉: and if he writes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thing against me, let him take notice os this my answer, or else all the World shall take notice of his impertinent, and uningenious dealing: I pray let not this letter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of your hand, because I have no copy os it, if Mr Jeanes should be troublesome: But if he be, it will be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to acquaint his neighbourhood with my 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 what he sayes shall goe no 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Sir, I hope you will 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this trouble I put you to in rea∣ding a long letter to my readinesse to doe you service, and as a returne os those great kindnesses by which you have obliged.

London July 4th. 1657.

Sir,

Your very affectionate friend to love and serve you 〈◊〉〈◊〉: TAYLOR.

Postscript.

I hope I have spoken clearly enough in the explicating, and untying this knot in the bul∣rush; but if it be not extreamly plaine, for your own satisfaction make but the second part of the proposition to be a Parenthesis; thus, beginning at (and it is an ef∣fect, &c: unto 2.) and then the thing is extreamely plaine, (or there the designe was on∣ly to say and prove that although man be (more or lesse, as it happens) inclined to sinne, yet his nature is never the more criminall for that: for it is besides his nature, it is accidentall to it, not but that it is naturall to be inclined to such objects; but that this should be sinfull is but in some cases, and it is accidentall, and it is because those objects were forbidden after our nature was given to us. Man is naturally inclined to some things, which are not naturally, but accidentally sinfull.