Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	body_n	heaven_n	soul_n	16,244	5	5.2792	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54842	An impartial inquiry into the nature of sin in which are evidently proved its positive entity or being, the true original of its existence, the essentiall parts of its composition by reason, by authority divine, humane, antient, modern, Romane, Reformed, by the adversaries confessions and contradictions, by the judgement of experience and common sense partly extorted by Mr. Hickman's challenge, partly by the influence which his errour hath had on the lives of many, (especially on the practice of our last and worst times,) but chiefly intended as an amulet to prevent the like mischiefs to come : to which is added An appendix in vindication of Doctor Hammond, with the concurrence of Doctor Sanderson, Oxford visitors impleaded, the supreme authority asserted : together with diverse other subjects, whose heads are gathered in the contents : after all A postscript concerning some dealings of Mr. Baxter / by Thomas Pierce ...	Pierce, Thomas, 1622-1691.	1660 (1660)	Wing P2184; ESTC R80	247,562	303

take res to signifie a substance and express an accident by nihil or non existens meaning non per se subsistens Which as I have hinted by some examples already given so now I will make it undeniable by one taken out of Saint AVSTIN Who saith of the very act of sin which is acknowledged by all to have a positive being that it is not any thing Actus peccati non est Res aliqua To which Aquinas makes Answer that by res he means substantia which is res simpliciter not intending to deny that it is an Accident which with Aquinas is res secundum quid And therefore GROTIVS in imitation of the Antients opposeth such accidents as actions are to things which have a true subsistence Cum diximus Deum omnium esse causam addidimus eorum quae ve●è subsistunt Nihil enim prohibet c ut superius paulo cit so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Maxim on Dionys. p. 317. 9. Again it must alwayes be carried in mind that all those expressions of the Non-entity of sin were taken up in opposition to SCYTHIANVS and MARCION and the following crue of the MANICHAEANS who ascrib'd to evil a being of it self and by it self and that eternal no less then God Nay duos Deos adfert saith Tertul. of Marcion tanqnam duas symplegadas naufragii s●i Scythianus before Manes composed four books in which he asserted two distinct and coequal principles of things to wit of white and black of moist and dry of body and soul of heaven and earth of just and un●ust of good and evil Now however this Heresie is very worthily exploded by all true Christians yet right may be done upon a very wrong ground And so it is if all the ground be the Non-entity of sin which yet the Fathers did onely use by a catechresis in opposition to that substance or self-subsistence which that many-headed-sect ascrib'd to evil And this I say in Iustification of the Fathers and Schoolmen from those mistakes of their meaning by which the mistakers would make them fall from a great errour into a greater It being worse of the two to think that sin hath no being or that God is the Author if it hath any than to think that good and evil did proceed from two fountains and both eternall 10. I am exceedingly confirmed in what I say touching the Fathers and their acception of the word nature res and aliquid by what I find to be the judgement of learned VASQVEZ whose words I think wo●thy to be inserted somewhat at large Observandum est inquit Patres fere omnes Doctrinam Manichaei obiter aut ex professo refutare voluisse qui ass●rebat substantiam aliquam in se ex se malam esse omnem autem substan●iam naturam appellabat aliquid rem sicut Aristoteles in Categor c. de substantiâ omnem substantiam dixit esse hoc aliquid Quare nomine Naturae quoties S. Patres disputant cum Manichaeo de hac re non com●le●tuntur operationem accidentia quae aliquam habea●t naturam sed solam substantiam secuti sententiam Aris●otelis 2 phys c. 1. 5. Metaph. c. 4. qui solùm materiam formam naturam appellat Immo ex his proprie solùm formam materiam autem mataphori●è tantùm Contendunt igitur Patres nullam esse naturam substantiae malam quatenùs substan●ia natura est De actu verò non loquuntur Concedunt enim malum esse opus arbitrii nostri actum Sicut Augustinus l. de perfect iustit qui ratiocinatione 4. quaerit quid sit peccatum Actusne an Res. Quia ●i res est inquit habeat Auctorem si Auctorem habet jam alter erit auctor quam Deus alicujus rei Quod si hoc impium est necesse est dicere peccatum esse actum non rem Patres non tam curarunt propriam rationem vitii peccati in genere moris exprimere quàm per aliquid conjunctum nobis magis notum eam desc●ibere Quare cùm per boni privationem peccatum definierunt non sunt ita intelligendi quasi sit ipsa essentia ratio formalis peccati sed quia est necessario peccato conjuncta Christianis maximè nota Multò enim faciliùs per negationem intelligimus 11. To this let me add what does just now occurr to my present purpose That substantia with many FATHERS as wel as with GROTIUS and other MODERNS hath often carried away the name of ens because ens is Analogum as every smatterer in logick know's though Masters in it sometimes forget and the common Rule is here verified Analogum per se positum pro famosiori stare praesumitur Whosoever therefore is found to say Peccatum est non ens must be known to mean that it is not substantia unless he be one who dares add that it is not an accident And so if any is found to say that every finite en●ity is produced by God he must be charitably concluded to understand every substance unless he shall dare to add also That God produceth as well the worst as the best of actions It being granted by all the world that the former are accidents no whit less then the latter 12. Some perhaps in good earnest do think the best way to confute the Manichees is by saying that sin is nothing reall Because denying it such a being as Manes gave it and yet allowing it a being although not that it must needs have a being either from God or some Creature If they shall dare to say from God they sadly fall into the Blasphemy which Manes or rather Scythianus devised his principle to avoid If they say from some creature they make that creature a kind of Creator in making it able to give a being where God himself doth give none But omitting that this last were the safest errour if it were any these men do not consider that God was able to make a creature with such a light of understanding and such a liberty of will as to be fitly left in the hand of his own counsel and to be a self-determiner to this or that object which lyes before him And so to be an Artificer of such unclean works by abusing the liberty of his will as could not by any possibility have been produced by his Creator God made man upright but he hath found out many inventions And if it be in the power of man to give being unto any thing most easily may he be thought to give Being unto s●n sin it self being no more then what is displeasing to God Almighty and no where else to be imagined much less to be but in the voluntary actings of created Agents in contrariety to the law which they receive to act by That so it is is very evident by