Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	consist_v	whole_a	3,665	5	5.7620	4	false

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

of the Gospel being positive is very good and from God which yet he must or he must sing his Recantation In a word It can no more be proved that sin is a privation and nothing else from the saying of St. Iohn that sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Transgression of the Law 1 Iohn 3.4 then that Christ himself is not positive from the tropical saying of St. Paul that Christ was made sin 2. Cor. 5.21 or that darknesse is as positive as iron because the Angels were delivered to chaines of darknesse 2 Pet. 2.4 And whether it is not indeed a sin without any such figure or catachrestical way of speaking to ravish Virgins and lye with beasts to hate God and to love the Devil which are confessedly as positive as any actions that can be named I appeal to the usage of the word Sin in the common experience of all mankind § 16. His last argument as he calls it is very rare Original sin is not positive ergo sin as sin is not positive p. 8● First for the manifold Absurdities as well as guilt into which he falls by his reduplication sin as sin I briefly refer to every part of my second chapter especially § 8 9 10 11 12 c. Next for what he saith of Original sin I refer to all I have produced from the Antient Fathers and learned modern Divines who held it to be a posi●ive quality in the third and fourth Sections of the fifth Chapter of this Book and also in the 3. Ch § 23. But thirdly as I never yet said so neither a● I concerned to say that all sins are positive It is enough that some are and those the worst to be imagined Nay Mr. H must be concluded a strange kinde of Blasphemer in saying all things positive are either Gods Creatures or God himself although there were but one sin that had a positive being such as was the Angels pride and the Divels hatred of God Almighty or the lusts of the Devil Joh. 8.44 Yet now to speak more of Original sin as that doth signifie the proneness of the will to evil after the image of Adams will from after the time of his Depravation it must needs be also positive to wit a conversion to the creature And why might not Adam acquire by his sin the image of Satan unto himself and offspring too as well as sin-away the Image of God But this is not that upon which I am obliged to lay a stresse Nor shall this be the subject of new disputes whether a man doth beget a man as much as a Horse begets a Horse It may be argued for ever on either side but I believe with greatest force for that part of the question to which St. Austin was most inclined and all that is said by Mr. H. doth but help to disprove Original sin for which Pelagians and Socinians may chance to thank him I know St. Paul held that the whole of man doth consist of three things Body Soul and Spirit concerning which Dr. Hammond hath a most profitable Discourse with a Reference to which I will shut up this Section see his Annotation upon 1 Thess. 5.23 § 17. Having seen his Reasons let us see what he saith to some few of mine or rather how guiltily he sneaks from the whole duty of a respondent p. 90. For though he knew what I had said to wit that Sins in Scripture are called works works of Darknesse works of the flesh works of mens hands and works of the Devil as it were on purpose to shew that they are positive things yet he passeth by that as if the word works had been of no consideration and onely nibbles at my saying That that was positive that Christ came to destroy concealing also from his Reader what I had cited from St. Iohn of Christs being manifested in the flesh that he might destroy the works of the Devil 1 Iohn 3.8 nor taking notice of what I said about vacuum vacui implying locatum as the privation of a privation implyeth position by all confessions I shewed it implyes a contradiction to say an habit is a privation because it is called by a Catachresis the privation of a privation when after a losse it is recovered from hence I argued that if the works of the Devil which are also called the Lusts of the Devil Joh. 8.44 had been meere privations the destruction of them could have been none But Mr. H's very weaknesse doth serve him here instead of strength for not considering that Death is said to be capable of destruction 1 Cor. 15.16 by the same catachrestical way of speaking whereby it is said in other places to have a body and a sting and so I might prove it at least to him to have a positive entity he urgeth his ignorance for a proof that of a meer privation there may be properly a privation How much better might I prove that death it self hath a positivity from Rev. 21.8 where to be burning in a lake of fire and Brimstone is expressed by the name of the second death But the work of the Devil is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so called and therefore positive The words of St. Iohn are even litterally true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joh. 3.4 and lusts are qualities Iohn 8.44 § 18. To the Argument which I urged from sins habitual or habits of sin such as Drunkennesse in a man who is seldom sober it seemes he knew so exactly that no good answer was to be given as to resolve to supply it with meer scurrility and impertinence p. 91. He is fain to say that I intended a Sori●es or rather seemed to intend it that he might seem to have something at which to nibble But no such thing as a Sorites was any more in my thoughts then in my mention And therefore this is so vile a practice as may be used by any Atheist who hath a minde to calumn●ate any passage of any writer It i an easy thing to say that such an Author makes a face as if he intended this or that which we have reason to believe he could not possibly intend But what saith the Rhapsodist to my Argument that vices are habits as well as vertues and therefore positive Qualities as well as Vertues He doth not deny that some sorts of vices indeed are Habits for he cannot think that an act of Drunkenn●ss is a vice and that an habit of Drunkennenss is none at all nor can he think it impossible to be habitu●lly drunk and that an habit is a thing positive he is so far from denying that he affirmes it he pr●fesseth not to doubt of it p 92. so that now there is no question whether Drunkennesse when an habit is positive or not But whether or no it is a sin or whether it is not from God in Mr. Hickman's judgement one of the two we are assured by hims●lf is his

inevitably import the whole complexum viz. that very act in conjunction with that very object that it cannot so much as be conceived to be the sin of hating God when the act is supposd to be divided from the object To shew him the fruit of his Distinction I will put the case into other colours Let him prove he is a man by the best medium that he can use and I will prove ad hominem he can be none For man is complexum quid and must not be spoken of as One there is something in him material and something formal The Animal is one thing the Anima rationalis is quite another And M. Hickman being either without the other may be a Brute or an Angel but not a man And being for certain not an Angel of light he must if an Angel be one of darkness This is every way as pertinent and as tolerably applyed as what is spoken by M. Hickman against the positive being of hating God If this Coin is not currant let him not pay it to other men And if it is let him accept it when it is paid Secondly He so shamefully flyes from the thing in Question to that which he knew neither was nor can be as to discover the mean opinion which he really hath of his own Tenet and to prove his Book written against nothing so much as his own conscience 1. He knew it was not the Question whether hatred without relation to God as its object is a sin or whether any thing without hatred is the sin of hating God But he knew by what I had said in my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the thing in Question was the hating of God in sensu composito For I had said in the plainest terms That to hate God is a sin or a sinful act two expressions for one thing That the sinfulness consisteth neither in God without hating for he is purity it self nor in hating without God for hatred in it self is a thing indifferent and apt to be good as well as evil God himself hating sin with a perfect hatred but in the union and application of that act to that object As the nature of man consists not in a body onely nor onely in a soul but in the union of the one with the other p. 13. 2. He knew it could not be a Question whether hatred is a sin when taken per se without an object or whether the pravity of hating God can be any thing at all without the act of hating God or whether there can be possibly any act when there is none And yet his answer is as impertinent as if one of these had been the Question Thirdy In saying such works as the hating God are from God which the Scripture calleth the works of the Devil he speaketh Blasphemy And in saying the sin of hating God is complexum quid which must not be considered of as One he contradicts his other sayings that sin and sinfulness are the same that is a meer abstract and which cannot else be considered as sin So that here I must ask him a second time and challenge him to give me a Categorical Answer can the hating of God be conceived to be a sin or can it not when he answers I will reply But for his Blasphemies and self-contradictions let him read my letter to Dr Heylin p. 265. to p. 270. § 7. Having insisted thus largely on my Reply to those Answers which appear to shew us the very utmost that can be pleaded in the defence of so gross an Error and having detected the obvious Fallacies in which the whole force of the answers lyeth I shall study to be the briefer in all that follows without the least fear of being thought to be obscure by my plainest Reader To Dr. Field his 2. Reasons above recited A Third Reason may be added from HUGO GROTIUS who saith that some things are evil without the Law and that the Law being continuing to oblige it is naturally evil to procure any man's acting against the Law or to make a Law to the contrary and therefore repugnant to the Nature of God From whence there follow 2. things 1. that some whole acts are immutably evil and 2. That they cannot have any being from the Almighty IACOBVS ALMAIN giveth an instance in the hating of God and in Adultery and saith they could not but be forbid To whom 't is answered by Mr. Barlow that if God did not forbid theft it would not be a sin and that he may dispense with his Law as when he said to Abraham go kill thy son But I reply 1. That he speaks not to the Instances brought by Iacobus Almain It had been ill to hate God had it been possible that God had not forbid it 2. Theft is not of those things which are onely evil because forbidden as the eating swines flesh among the Jews but of those other things which are on●ly forbidden for being evil And therefore 3. It was not possible that God should never have forbidden all manner of injustice of which theft is one species 4. God did not say to Ab●aham Go kill thy son but go and offer him up which he also did without killing 5. Had he done it he had not dispensed with his Law which onely forbiddeth such a killing as ipso facto becomes a Murder not such as ipso facto becomes a sacrifice else a thief could not be hanged for the fulfilling of one Law without the breach or dispensation of another The prohibition of murder comprehends not killing by commission from God who may as lawfully take away Isaacks life by Abrahams hand as by a Feaver 6. If the act of stealing or hating God be affirmed to be good and so a positive entity abstractly considered from Gods forbidding it must be granted to be such when it is forbidden I mean a positive entity although not good and so the Answer destroyes its end Mr. Barlow's words are si illud mandatum abfuisset idem numero actus horrendum fuisset homicidium p. 66. Had it been murder it had been sin for murder cannot but ●e sin and so we have his confession that sin may be a positive act But 7. It does imply a contradiction to say the same numerical act can be forbidden and not forbidden which I therefore leave to consideration § 8. What Mr Barlow calleth a concession in his behalf I call an argument against him viz. That if God could produce that act of hating God in respect of the substance of the Act then it would not be evil but say I that act is proved by me and others yea and confessed by Mr. H. to be wholy because intrinsecally and essentially evil evil ex genere objecto and antecedently to the Law therefore it cannot be Gods production for all its having a positive Enti●y This I retort to Mr. B. his p. 66 67. and it pincheth Mr. H. more

predetermining of mens wills and actions 2. The positive entity of sin 3. Gods concurrence to the sinfull actions of men 5. For the first of which the Doctor saith That he is so farr from believing that God predetermineth the will to evil actions that he dares not without farther assurance then he can yet find warranty for affirm positively that God at all physically determineth any mans will either to good or evill It being hard to his seeming to suppose such a determination without destroying the nature and liberty of the will Nor doth he find himself obliged to say or believe That God hath predetermined or eternally decreed all actions events and things if any more be understood thereby then this viz. That God ab aeterno knowing all both future and possible things hath eternally decreed to permit the creature to act that is not to with-hold from it the concurrence of that his power without which it could not act in such sort as that the event which he foresaw future should certainly come to pass and the event foreseen as possible but not future should certainly not come to pass 6. For the second the positive entity of sin although taking a reall entity as opposite to meer nothing even sins of omission also may be said to have a real entity as all privations and other Entia rationis have yet the chief contest being about sins of commission as appeareth both by the distinction so frequently used in this controversie between the act and the obliquity and by the particular instances the hating of God the murthering of an innocent the ravishing of a woman c. the sins of omission set a side as less pertinent to the present debate he saith he wondreth with what pretence or by what subtility of distinction any man that acknowledgeth a sin of commission so to consist of an act as the materiall part and the obliquity of the said Act as the formall part that if either of both be wanting it cannot be a sin for without supposal of an act there can be no obliquity and an act without obliquity is no sin and acknowledgeth withall the one part viz. the materiall to be a positive entity can deny the totum compositum to be a positive entity It seemeth to be all one as if a man should deny Socrates consisting of a body and a soul to be ens quantum because his soul his formal part is not ens quantum For no more can the accession of the obliquity to the presupposed Act whereunto it adhereth make that act cease to be a positive entity then the infusion of the soul into a body that hath dimensions can make that body cease to be a quantita●ive entity The Doctor acknowledgeth that in a sinfull action the act may be Metaphysically abstracted abstractione praecisionis and per primam operationem intellectus from the obliquity that is to say it may be considered precisely as it is a motion of the creature or an exercise of that naturall power wherewith God hath endued the creature without considering at the same time the object about which it is conversant the end whereunto it is directed or the circumstances appending And that the Act so abstractedly considered hath a distinct essence of its own whereby it essentially differeth from them otherwise the act and the object should be the same thing But yet for as much as no such act can de facto in regard of actual existence extra intellectum be really abstracted from those things without which though extrinsecal to its essence it cannot exist and by the occasion whereof it first becometh morally good or evil for no act is morally evil in its own abstracted essence nor otherwise a sin then as is vitiated by the co-existence of some undue object end or circumstance it must necessarily follow that the totum compositum the vitiated act and that is the sin act and obliquity joyntly together is a positive real ●ntity and morally evil A positive reall entity from the existence of the act and morally evil from the co-existence of those aforesaid vitiating relations which are accidentall to the act as to the essence of it but by adhering to it make it formally a sin 7. For the third point Gods concurrence to a sinful action the Doctor thinketh that what he hath now last said will sufficiently clear from misconstruction not onely that phrase of actuating the power p. 279. if Mr. Hickman have hoped for any advantage to his cause therefrom but that other short passage also pag. 29. wherein is acknowledged the effectual concurrence of Gods will and power with subordinate agents in every and therefore even in sinfull actions also Especially if the two Texts of Scripture quoted in the margin viz. Act. xvii 28 and Esa. x. 12 be withall taken into consideration For it is manifest that by the concurrence signally grounded upon those two Texts there cannot rationally be understood any other concurrence then such as is according to the importance of those texts which from Act. 17. is briefly this As whilest we have any being we have it by vertue of that his concurrence which if he should withdraw or withhold from us we should cease to be so long as we live we live by vertue of that his concurrence which if he should withdraw or withhold from us we could not live so as oft as we act and move a hand or a foot or a thought we act and move by vertue of that his concurrrence which if he should withdraw or with-hold from us we could not act or move hand foo● or thought That is to say we cannot actually exercise any of those natural powers God hath endowed us withal without that generalis concursus causae universalis as the Schoolmen call it which hath such an influence upon all the motions of inferiour subordinate agents and second causes that if God be pleased at any time to with-hold from them that concurrence although the natural power remain the same it was still yet can they not exsert or actually exercise that power to the producing of any effect As when God with-held from the fire Dan. iii. his concurrence it could not put forth that natural power it had of burning so as to have any operation upon the bodies of the 3. young men that were cast thereinto If an ungratious son should be so wickedly disposed as to cut his own fathers throate he could not take the knife into his hand nor move his arme to do that foule deed if God should withhold his concurrence thereunto and not suffer him to exercise his natural power of reaching out his arme to cut In which horrible and sinful act all the concurrence imputable to God at the most is but the affording that is to say the not with-holding of that his general influx into the loco-motive faculty of his creature without which he could not exercise that faculty so far as

himself as shall be shew'd his making a distinction without a difference As betwixt the act of hating God which is granted to be the sin and the sin of that act which is granted to be that very act of hating God For to hate God is 1 a sin 2 a whole sin and 3 nothing but a sin to which three clauses I challenge M. Hickman to make some Answer That if he thinks there is something in hating God which is not sin but very good as being one of God's Creatures which he sufficiently intimates by distinguishing the sin of the act from the sinful act as if the very act of hating God were not a sin the world may know him to be a Libertine without the protection of his disguise Had he for●seen that challenge to which I call'd for his Answer in my Letter to Doctor Heylin pag. 266. I had not met with an occasion for this last Section § 13. But because he seems in this place to use the word sin for sinfulness I will first intreat him to remember how sin is taken in holy Scripture by D. Twisse by M. Whitf by M. Barlee and by himself as I have shewd in this chapter § 1.6.7 Next I will help him to understand what is the sinfulness of sin and wherein it lyes It is granted I think by all that sin is that whole or complexum which doth consist of two parts material and formal so as neither part singly can either be or be conceived to be a sin And it is granted I think by all that the materiall Part of sin is positive it being an action or quality and when a quality an act or habit as hath been shew'd The onely privative Part of sin mark the emphasis which lyes on Part is the defection from the Rule which yet is founded in a positive act of which the other is onely a superadded relation unavoidably resulting by the positive acts application to the Rule Thus I think we are to speak if we may rightfully distinguish the two parts of sin which D. Field will not allow nor indeed is it possible so to distinguish the one from the other as to intitle God to the one without the other and that I suppose is the Doctors meaning But now for the abstract of this concretum it is that which resulteth from both united For after the manner that inequality doth arise from the Relation of a Bicubitum to a cubit so the sinfulness of a sin to wit of the action of hating God or of Cain's killing Abel doth arise by resultance from these two things God 's forbidding it to be done and its being done when thus forbidden so then The positive action of hating God as the materiall part which carries with it a defection from the rule of God's Law as the formal part is that complexum or whole sin which I have proved and shall prove to have a positive being The meer defection from the rule or repugnance to it without the action of hating God is not the sin but the formal part onely The meer action of hating God without its defection from the rule which for once I will suppose docendi gratiâ would not be the very sin but the material part onely But the sin as I said is both united viz. The action of hating God in a repugnance to or defection from the rule of God's law whereas the sinfulness of this sin that is the abstract of this concrete is not both parts united for then it would be concrete and so Identical with sin but that which resulteth from both united As the humanity is not the man made up of a body and a rational soul any more then the man is either of the two without the other but that which onely resulteth from both united whereas the man is both united § 14. But now for a while let us admit that the Question were of moral evil as such It would then be comprehensive of all moral evil For à qua●enus ad omne valet consequentia by his own confession p. 85. what then mean's he by a privation when he saith that sin or moral evil as such is a privation unless he means a meer privation and nothing else he speaks not against the posi●ivity of sin which even they who do assert do also hold there is a want of such a rectitude as is due but they say there is something besides that want As in walking to kill a neighbour there is something positive besides the want of a good end to which the walking should be directed And if any thing could be due to the hating of God to make it good as nothing can be there would be an action besides the want of that due as M. Hickman confesseth p 94. Nay in saying that that action is essentially evil ibid. he confesseth the very action to be the sin And taking sin in the right sense for complexum quid as he confesseth p. 95. we may allow him his own way of stating the Question to his undoing § 15. Again he is ruin'd by his preservative as may appear by this Dilemma Does he think that privation is a thing real or onely nominal something or nothing If nothing then for M. Hickman to filt●h and plunder is but a sin and therefore nothing in his opinion and so is a Carneadist If something then he thinks it Gods Creature or not his creature If his creature then he thinks that God is the Authour of sin and so he must think that sin is good or not good if he thinks it to be good he will scruple to commit it If not good he thinks that God can create what is peculiar to the Devil as Master Calvin inferreth against the Libertines If he thinks it not Gods Creature though something real then he must eate up his former saying viz. That it belongs to the universality of the first cause to produce every Real Being pag. 95. § 16. I shall conclude this Chapter with the Concession of Bonaventure that the sin of Concupiscence imports two things to wit an appetite and an excesse of that appetite In which excesse he confesseth there seemes to be a Position though he endeavours by a simile which doe's not run upon all its feet to make it seem a privation rather Which however it may infer yet it cannot wholy be without implying a contradiction And if either of the two is something positive the act of the appetite it self or the excesse in the act sure that which consisteth of both together I mean concupiscence cannot be lesse then either of them CHAP. III. § 1. HAving hitherto cleared and in the doing of that accidentally proved the thing in question I might immediately proceed to shew the littleness of the Tricks in which our Gamster is wont to deal but that I think it incumbent on me to effect that first which is most material and of which most Readers

confession of Learned VOSSIUS That the greatest part of the Amients do so speak as if they thought Original sin to be som●thing positive to wit either a Habit or some other Quality I call it the confession of GERARD VOSSIUS because I find it is none of his own opinions that Original sin is something positive whatever he speaks of actual sins And I think his confession to be of the greater consideration because of his being so very conversant in Antient writers and because or his abilitie to understand their true meaning and lastly of his unwillingness to understand them against himself Nay when he speaks of those Antients who were otherwise minded he takes their meaning to have been not so much that this sin was a meer defect of Original Righteousnesse as that it was rather an habitual aversion from God proceeding from the defect of Original righteousness They that held it to be a quality could not otherwise hold it in his opinion then by holding also that the soul was begotten with the body and sin begotten with the soul or that the spirit being created was at least infected by the flesh some thought that the soul was as it were kindled by the soul in generation and that the Leprosie of sin in childrens souls was by infection from the leprosy with which their parents had been infected Of which Opinion was TERTVLLIAN APOLLINARIVS and the greatest part of the Eastern Fathers Quomodo corpus ex corpore sic animam nasci ex animâ TERTVL Apoll. maxima pars Orientalium autumavit uti scribit Hieronymus ad Marcellinum Anapsychiam Epist. 45. RUFFINUS also and AUGUSTIN are cited for it But because of the latter t is said by VOSSIUS that he durst not publickly avow what was privately his opinion His words are the worthier to be observed For thus he writeth to OPTATVS se neque legendo neque orando neque ratiocinando invenire potuisse quomodo cum animarum Creatione peccatum Originis defendatur And for more to this purpose the Reader is referred to other places as Epist. 28. ad Hieronymum Lib. 10. in Genes ad lit cap 23. lib. 1 Retract c. 1. Nay even then when he is doubtful of the souls extraction whether created or begotten he still adheres to his opinion that it is infected by the flesh with some positive Quality as wine grows sowre by being put in a sowre vessel And VOSSIVS himself doth so explain him Haec enim mens est verborum Augustini profecto aut utrumque vitiatum exhomine trahitur aut alterum in altero tanquam in vase vitiato corrumpitur ubi occulta justiti● divinae legis includitur Quid autem horum sit verum libentius disco quàm dico ne audeam dicere quod nescio It seemes he doubted whether the soul were ex traduce or not although unlesse it were ex traduce he knew not how to defend Original sin But that he concluded it had a positive entity appears as by all that hath been spoken so by the motus bestialis bestialis Libido by which he expresseth the sin of Adam § 4. As the most of the Antients so the most eminent of the MODERNS have held the soul to be ex traduce and Original sin a positive entity two of which number are commended by learned Vossius but just now cited for men of Excellency and Renown And Vossius himself in divers places doth sufficiently ass●rt the positivity of sin not so much when he saith of Original sin that it inclines the minde to vitious acts so that it may and is wont to be called a Habit as when he saith of its effects which ar● Actual sins that they are grown over the soul as a spiritual Rust that carnal Concupiscence is wholy vitious as being a deflextion of the appetite from the Law of its Creation from whence ariseth a disposit●on and propensity to R●bellion that Morally vitious Acts are freely drawn out from that propensity that by the custom of such a●ts there is ingendered in the sinner a vitious Habit. Cùm affectus sic effraenis lascivit ut rationis imperium antevertat plurimùm adversus rationem insurgat ac nisi diligenter à ratione valletur facile aurigam rationem curru excutiat In graviori tentatione semper sit superior nisi ratio speciali juvetur Dei Judicio 2. And as they who affirme the propagation of the soul so also they who deny that God doth concur to the act of sin do eo ipso hold sin to have a positive being such as LOMBARD BONAVENTVRE ALEXANDER ALENSIS ASOTO DVRAND AVREOLVS the learned ARMACHANVS and others cited by Dr. STEARN in his Animi Medela p. 256 257. And though the Master of the sentences doth seem to some not to define which is truest the negative or the affirmative of G●ds concurrence to acts of sin but leaves the Reader to judge of both tenets to Dist. 37. yet he is cited by CAMERACENSIS l. 1. q. 14. for the defence of the Negative Because according to his opinion God doth only permit those evils which are sin as saith our learned Dr. FIELD p. 128. 3. HEMMINGIVS the Scholar of Melanehthon and known to be of his minde defineth sin in general by disobedience against God and affirmes Disobedience to import four things in holy writ Defect corruption inclination and action Original sin he defines to be a propagated corruption of humane nature in which there is a material and formal part The Material saith he containeth both a defect in the intellect and a concupiscence in the heart In the fal of Adam there was a concurrence of these 8. sins 1. A doubting the truth of Gods word 2. A loss of faith or incredulity 3. Curiosity 4. Pride 5. Contempt of God 6. Apostacy 7. Ingratitude 8. A murdering of himself and his posterity And is expressed in Scripture by divers names Concupiscence Flesh the old man the Law of sin sin dwelling in us Rebellion the law of the members and sometimes sin without any epith●t Actuall sin he defines to be something done omitted said or thought fighting with the law of God Or as he puts it in other tearmes Actual sin is every action committed against the Law both in the Intellect and the will and in the heart and the outward members Thus that Regius Professor famous for learning and moderation 4. GREGORIE MARTIN of Silesia stating the sin of our first parents begins to expound the word Lapsus which he saith importeth a vitious act with which a man does any thing ill and is the same with peccatum Then coming to speak of the term originall sin he professeth to take the word for the positive act of eating the fruit which was forbidden And so the expression of Original sin he faith doth also include an actual From the importance of the word he comes to speak of the thing signified Which first he

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

Statutes of each have defined hath been also the Plea of the Heads of our Colledges in the name of their severall Societies And for this and nothing but this that is in plain words because they have with all civility to the two Houses and to the persons sent by them refused to incur that damning sin of perjury which hath already helpt to bring such heavy judgements upon this Nation the Governours of the University are displaced and some imprison'd and Master Reynolds a V●si or put into the office of Vice-chancellour and into the D●anary of Christ Church two places of the greatest dignit● and powe● one of the greatest profit in the Vniversity And in like manner the Heads of the Colledges and the Prebendaries of Ch●ist-church have many of them already faln under the same punishments and the rest expect their turns and severall of the Visitors also are put into their pl●ces And now the slaughter hastens to the door of every of the ancientest or youngest Student Fellow Scholar Commoner or other member of the whole Vniversity and the speed is so great the pursuit so vehement that four whole Colledges have been in one day summoned to ●ppear before them without any delay to give positive Answer to this one Question Whethey will submit or n● By this 't is apparent to us that as the state of things now stands we have an easie though unhappy choice proposed to us viz. Whether we will prefer the preservation of our Estates or of our Souls by admitting perjury or ruine And in the making of the choice God hath given the whole University such an uniform constancy and contempt of the world that we hear not of above three men that have considered their profit so much as to yield this submission And that it may be also apparent to all others that this is the choice I shall give you the plain words of our Oaths by which we are withheld from submitting that the Honourable Houses may judge if they please whether it be probable that conscience hath by us been hypocritically pretended to destroy our selves as it hath sometimes been made use of by others for their visible advantages Thi● I shall set down first as far as our obligation is founded in our Oathes to the University and then to our severall Colledges The Oath of the University to every man is this T is jurabis te observaturum omnia Statuta Libertates Privilegia Co●suetudines istius universitatis Thou shalt Swear to observe all the Statutes Liberties Priviledges and customes of this Vniversity The Scholar answers Iuro I swear and this he renews and repeats as often as he takes any degree in the University From hence we conclude that for any man wilfully to betray any one of the Privil●dges or Liberties as well as to break the Statutes or customes of the University can never be excused from the guilt and charge of down-right Perjury for which we must be banished the Vniversity if ever we be called to account for it by any just power And that one of our Priviledges is that we be visited by none but the King or those that are sent by Him as we are verily perswaded so have we never heard ●f any other title or pretension of any which is thought even by our enemies to have any shew of Ground in our Charters or Customes against our Plea save onely that of the Archbishop of Canterbury the Metropolitan to which our Answer is so clear and punctuall viz. that in the vacancy of the Arch-bishops Sea all power that can be thought to belong to him must needs be acknowledged to devolve to the King the fountain of his power and so the Arch-bishop having been long dead this power of Visiting us if any such belong to the Arch-bishop must now needs be onely in the King that we profess never to have heard of any word of satisfaction that hath been offered to this enforcement of our Plea but are rather told that the Commission for this Visitation coming under the name of our Soveraign Lord Charles c. is a Commission issued out by the King which as it seems to us an acknowledgement of the truth of all our pretensions so is it the imposing upon us the belief of that which we know to be otherwise having certain knowledge that the King never consented to the issuing of this Commission and so having no excuse of ignorance in case we should yield submission to that Visitation as proceeding from him which is acknowledged by all to involve us in Perjury if it come not from him To this we may add one obligation more that as 't is one of the Vniversities Priviledges to be exempt without al controversie as long as the Arch-bishops Sea is vacant from all power but that of the King so 't is one of the Kings Priviledges and preeminencies to have this full and at this time sole power over us And then that branch of the Oath of Supremacy that obligeth all Subjects in these express words to assist and defend to our power all Priviledges and Preeminencies and Authorities granted and belonging to the Kings Majesty or annexed to the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdome doth certainly bind us to defend this as far as it is in our power to do it For the obligations of Colledge Statutes which name us particular Visitors and exclude all others from that employment I shall shorten your trouble and yet not fail in giving you and all men a perfect satisfaction by setting down a few plain words out of some of them In the Statutes of New Coll. Magdalen Coll. Corpus Christi and St. Iohn's in each of these without any considerable alteration these are the words Statuimus ordinamus volumus ut liceat Duo Episc Winton Dioc qui pro tempore fuerit nulli alii nec aliis c. per se vel suum Commissarium specialem quem duxerit deputandum praeterquam per Cancellarium Vniversitatis seu ejus Commissarium generalem seu procuratores Univers Oxon. c. ac praeterquam Custodem aut aliquam personam nostri Collegii aut alios quoscunque in Vniversitate per unam quind●nam anno proximo cum visitationem praecedente Studentes c. per quos aut ipsorum aliquem haec nolumus qu●m●dolibet exerceri ad Collegii hujus visitationem liberè accedere Custodem ac alios singulos socios c. nostri Collegii in Sacellum ejusdem convocare From whence these few things are distinctly concluded by the Statu●es of those Colledges 1. That the Bishop of Winchester by himself or some body deputed by him is the onely lawfull Visitour of those Colledges and all other person or persons in direct words nec alii nec aliis praeterea nemini are excluded by the Statutes 2. That it is not lawfull for the Bishop himself to depute any of those persons which are there excepted viz. the Chancellour or Vice-chancellour or Proctours of