Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	action_n	common_a	error_n	1,557	5	7.5998	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A90680	Autokatakrisis, or, Self-condemnation, exemplified in Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Barlee, and Mr. Hickman. With occasional reflexions on Mr Calvin, Mr Beza, Mr Zuinglius, Mr Piscator, Mr Rivet, and Mr Rollock: but more especially on Doctor Twisse, and Master Hobbs; against whom, God's purity and his præscience ... with the sincere intention and the general extent of the death of Christ, are finally cleared and made good; and the adversaries absurdities ... are proved against them undeniably, out of their own hand-writings. With an additional advertisement of Mr Baxter's late book entituled The Groatian religion discovered, &c. By Thomas Pierce rector of Brington in Northampon-shire.	Pierce, Thomas, 1622-1691.	1658 (1658)	Wing P2164; Thomason E950_2; ESTC R210640	233,287	279

Tremendous mistakes of the Texts above mentioned Rom. 1.24 26. 2 Thes 2.11 and of the greatest part of the ninth Chapter to the Romans to name no more may serve for a warning to the ignorant and seduced people of the Nation not to presume on such places without an Interpreter at their Elbow I mean a qualified authentick uncontroulable Interpreter and such as may easily be had and be as easily used by English Readers that is in a word Doctor Hammond's Annotations upon the whole New Testament Sect. 5. 1. Mr. W. either means that God hath a hand in evil because in the contrary Mr. W. incurs another danger which he also calls an other Argument Some will laugh I am sure but others I hope will rather weep at it His words are these That God hath some hand in the Acts of sinful men appears because the substratum or subject of sin namely the natural motion or action whereunto the sin cleaveth is that whereof he is the proper cause and efficient therefore he must needs have some efficiency in it p. 24. If by the Substratum he means the man who is the subject of sin Look forward on c. 3. sect 14. God indeed is the cause of man but man is not a motion much less a sin If by Motion Act and Action he means that which is natural as the act of walking eating digesting speaking thinking and the like God again is the cause of these but not of any thing that is sinful it being no more sinful to walk eat speak or think then to be as God made us not onely moveables but men So that if Mr. W. doth mean no more he speaks not a syllable to the purpose but plainly deserts his undertaking And to prove that God hath a hand in evil because he hath a hand in that which is good is to say a thing is because it is not or that it is thus because it is quite otherwise By such Logick as this he may say that the Devil hath a hand and efficiency in good giving this for his reason because he is the efficient and proper cause of evill And indeed it is much less impious to ascribe something of Nature to that perverter of nature then the least perversion of nature to the God of all grace 2. Or that the Act of sin is not the sin But 2. It appears by the scope and tenour of his Book that when he saith God hath a hand in the Acts of sinful men he certainly means the sinful Acts which sinful Acts are the Acts of sin or to speak it in other words the sins themselves for that these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three expressions of the same thing will be made undeniable by this example The act of sinful David was the Act of lying with Bathshebah The Act of lying with Bathshebah was the sinful Act to wit the Act of Adultery and so the sin For whether we say that his lying with Bathshebah was his Adultery or his Act of Adultery we say the same thing and we find them promiscuous in all men discourses of the thing Now that his Adultery or his Act of lying with Bathshebah was the sin it self which he committed not the Substratum or Subject of his sin distinguishable from it tanquam accidens à subjecto aut res à re I am confident Mr. W. will not dare to deny It being granted by men of all sides that to pollute another mans Wife is Adultery it self and that Adultery is the sin it self which is called by that name and by that distinguished from other sins 3. Or that God is the proper cause and efficient of sin and this proved by a Dilemma 3. From whence it followes unavoidably that Mr. W. affirms God to be the proper cause and efficient of sin it self Nor can he escape it let him go which way he will to the negative or the affirmative of what I said just now For let him answer to my Dilemma Was David's lying with Bathshebah by which she was impregned the meer substratum or subject of his sin of adultery or the very sin of adultery it self If Mr. W. shall say the first then it is cleerly his Doctrine that God was the proper cause and efficient of David's lying with Bathshebah for 't is his positive assertion that of the motion or action to which the sin cleaves God is the proper cause or efficient And if Mr. W. shall say the second then he must run into the very same mischief or yield me up the whole cause and bid particular defiance to Mr. Barlee and Mr. Hick which will soon appear by this other Dilemma Was Davids lying with Bathshebah which is granted to be the very sin of Adultery in the second member of the first Dilemma an Act or an Action or a Motion or a positive thing or was it none of these four If he shall say it was an act an action or a motion then again he calls God the proper cause or efficient of the sin it self Davids lying with Bathshebah for if the Reader will look back he shall find all three in the subject of this Section and withal it implies a grosse contradiction to say that that is the sin it self which was said before to be the subject onely of sin to which the sin cleaves If he shall say that Davids lying with Bathshebah was a positive thing which he cannot but say if he shall say it is the other three then either he must acknowledge that Mr. Barlee and Mr. Hick are blasphemers in grain for having said expresly that * Mr. Hick's words in a letter to Mr. B. printed by Mr. B. ch 3. p. 112. whatever positive thing is not from God is God or else he must say it was the creature of God or else he must say it was God himself For so it follows in the two brethren † Ibid Look forward on ch 3. Sect. 18. there is no medium betwixt Deus Creatura making no distinction betwixt Gods creatures and the Devils but concluding that Davids lying with Bathshebah if a positive entity was as much Gods creature as David himself was But if to avoid these rocks Mr. W. shall throw himself on the later horn of the Dilemma and say that Davids lying with Bathshebah was no act action motion or positive thing that will tosse him out of all reason not onely set him at enmity with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common maximes of all mankind and even the judgment of common sense but also infer that sin is nothing and so that sinners are either not damned at all or damned for nothing or damned for something besides their sins 4. Humane learning a good foundation for a Divine 4. I will not here exagitate his wants of knowledge in Physiologie which would administer occasion of much discourse because his errors in Divinity are too apt of themselves to make me tedious I

not say † Ib. 45. that in all the sins which are committed by men God hath a secret working hand and in this his last Book he chief hand too p. 27. Thus I convince him out of his own mouth and Mr. W's 3. He is convicted out of his own and Dr. Twiffe his words also 3. I will next convince him out of his own and Dr. Twisse his mouth also First for his own part he professeth that he maketh God the soveraign Author of the material part of sin p. 11. Now because from Dr. Twisse he learn'd his distinction betwixt the material and formal part of sin and because I well remember what the Doctor saith of it let us next consider that Doctors words * Futtum omne duo netat viz. actum contrect●ndi sive surripiendi ●es alienas actus hujus deformitatem quatenus sc lege divinâ nobis interdi●itur rebu● alienis sur ipiendis Sic Homicidium duo consignifica● actum interficiendi hominem illicitam ejus conditionem sive cum lege Dei repugnantiam Similiter Adulterium duo connotat nimirum actum c ncumbendi cum alienâ atque hujus actus turpitudinem Twiss Vin. Gra. l. 2. par 1. D●gr 2. cap. 14. p. 155. Theft doth note two things the act of snatching away another mans goods the material part of the sin and the deformity of this act in as much as we are forbid by the law of God to snatch away another mans goods the formal part of the sin So also Murder doth signifie two things at once the act of killing a man and the illegal condition of that act which is its repugnance with the law of God Likewise also Adultery doth connotate two things to wit the act of lying with another mans wife and the flagitious turpitude of this act These three are the examples which the Doctor gives us of his distinction betwixt the material and formal part of sin Compare these words with Mr. B's above cited and with the Doctors in divers places of his Books and Mr. B. must confess his printed Profession to be this That God is the soveraign Author of any mans robbing his Neighbours goods of any mans destroying his Neighbours person and of any mans lying with his Neighbours wife Or to instance in particulars it is the publick profession of Mr. B's Faith a special Article of his novel Creed That God was the soveraign Author of Achan's stealing the golden wedge of David's lying with Bathshebah and of Cain's killing Abel Now since 't is granted by all the world that the first was Theft the second Adultery the third Murder God is affirmed by Mr. B. to be the soveraign Author of Theft of Adultery and of Murder And because 't is also granted by men of all sides That Theft is a sin Adultery a sin and Murder a sin God is affirmed by Mr. B. to be the soveraign Author of the first sin of the second sin of the third sin and so by a parity of reason of all the sins in the world 4. He is convicted out of his own and Mr. Hobbs his mouth Mr. Hobbs his words being justified by Mr. W. 4. In the last place I will condemn him not onely out of his own mouth but out of Mr. Hobbs his also First Mr. B. as I shewed before doth make his Confession of Faith in the first person singular and speaks dogmatically thus I make God and what is it that he makes him he tells us in the next words I make God to be the soveraign Author But of what doth he make him the soveraign Author He tells us that in these words of the material part of sin And what doth he mean by the material part of sin he tells us distinctly in the same breath either the doing or the leaving undone some positive Natural or MORAL Act p. 11. What moral Act for example he tells p. 12. the Act of Adultery And how makes he God the Author of that Act he tells us in the same breath by exciting men to it What kind of excitation or stirring up doth he mean he told us that in his first appearance upon the stage even as a man pu●s spurs to a dull Jade Correp Corr. p. 61. Now let us compare Mr. Hobbs his words who is as able a Calvinist as to these points as their party hath lately had He after all his meditation * Mr. Hobbs of Liberty and Necessity p. 23 24. cannot find any difference between an Action and the sin of that Action as for example between the killing of Uriah and the sin of David in killing Uriah nor when one is the cause both of the Action and of the Law how another can be the cause of the disagreement between them no more then how one man making a longer and a shorter garment another can make the inequality that is between them Whether Mr. Hobbs doth argue thus from his heart as being really seduced by Mr. Barlee's principles which he defends or doth onely talk it from his Teeth outward as playing the Drole with Religion upon the grounds which are given him by rigid Presbyterians I leave each Reader to pass his own judgement But sure his deduction is duly made from the error of absolute praedestination of praedetermination antecedent to praescience and so the necessitation of all events And I wonder if any of that patry who have granted and given him his premisses will adventure publickly to deny his conclusion Well we have the Confession of Mr. Hobbs what that Doctrine doth unavoidably infer which is common to him with Mr. W. and Mr. B. But because Mr. B. hath given him an Epithet and a Praenomen and expressed his detestation by calling him * c. 3. p. 7. Monstrous Leviathan Hobbs I will adde to his the like confession of Mr. W. That if 't is impossible to separate the sin from the action Look back onth 2. sect 10. then he that is the Author of the Action must needs be the Author of the sin also which is inseparable from it p. 25. Sect. 13. Notwithstanding all which hath been proved 1. Mr. B's 10000 curses upon himself and his masters And his implicit confession that that is blasphemy which I have called by that name Look forwards on Sect. 27. Num. 2 3 4 5. of this Chap. where Mr. B. confesseth tryes to justifie what here he poureth his curses on and will be proved yet farther from the printed words of Mr. B. that God is made by him to be the Fountain and Cause of sin yet like a desperate Malefactor he falls a cursing in these words I wish miriads of Anathematismes to light upon him who holds it be he who he will be if he repent not the sooner p. 54 55. One Miriad had been enough if he who writ Myriad and did not mend it in the Errata understood what it meant it being no less then 10000. yet more