Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	evil_a	great_a	sin_n	2,789	5	5.0653	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67166	Folly detected or, Some animadversions on a b[ook] called, A brief discourse [con-]cerning singing in the pub[lic] worship of God; put forth by one Mr. Isaac Marlow 1690, and an appendix printed 1691 Wherein the weakness of his arguments against singing God's praises, the dangerousness of his assertions, and his unaccountable confidence is laid open; and singing of Psalms, &c. in God's worship proved a Gospel-ordinance. By Joseph Wright.	Wright, Joseph.; T. W. Appendix: or, A brief answer to Mr. Marlow's notion of the essence of singing.	1691 (1691)	Wing W3704; ESTC R221057	43,280	88

and Errors which whilst you have militated against the Truth you have run into and to remove that Stumbling-block you have laid before the Weak and shall not trouble my self at present to trace you in all your Mistakes that are out in Print because that hath been done by other Hands but shall with all convenient brevity shew your Mistake and Error about that which you call the Essence of Singing Sin and Prayer desiring the Lord to bless it to your Conviction What I shall at present take notice of shall be in Answer to this Question Whether the Essence of Sin Prayer and Praise consists only in the Heart or in an inward spiritual Exercise of the Soul or Mind of Man as Mr. Marlow endeavours to prove Pag. 5 6 7 of his Book of Singing § I shall first of all endeavour to explain the Term Essence to see what it imports in its proper Notion and then apply it to the above Particulars The Essence of a Thing is the Nature and Being thereof Est totum per quod res in proprio esse intrinsicè constituitur saith the Author of Ars sciendi Sive est totum illud per quod res est id quod est 'T is that which gives Being to a Thing it denotes the bare Nature of a Thing abstract from all Modes and Accidents Whatever may be separated from the Nature of a Thing and yet the Thing still remain this doth not appertain to the Essence of it This term Essence as I humbly conceive belongs primarily and properly Entibus realibus to real Beings in opposition to Non-entia entia rationis for all Modes Accidents Entia rationis tho they have Existence yet have no Essence properly so called because Essence as Schuler speaks is formale Entis the very Nature of a positive Being and therefore real positive Beings alone are said to have Essence But in a large Sense and borrowed Acceptation 't is sometimes applyed to Modes and Accidents whether they be Actions Relations or Privations c. and so denotes their Nature and Being such as it is But so much for the term Essence which properly denotes the Quiddity the Nature and Being of a Thing Now whether the Essence of Sin Prayer and Praise does consist in the Heart Mind or Spirit I conceive will be easily made appear by opening the true Nature of these Things because the Essence of a Thing and the Nature of it as before minded is all one § 1. First then as to the Nature of Sin I humbly conceive it lies here 'T is the want of that Rectitude and Conformity to the Law whether it be of Nature Quality or Action that ought to be found in a rational Creature I say rational Creature because 't is the Property or Adjunct of reasonable Creatures Brutes are not under a Law properly so called and consequently are not Subjects capable of Sin I place its Nature in the want of Rectitude with relation to the Law because 't is a privative not positive Being All positive Beings are derived from God and if Sin hath properly an Essence God must be the Creator of it which is Blasphemy to assert And from this very Notion that Sin hath a positive Essence the Manichees fell into the Heresy of two first Principles They taught there were two chief independent Beings namely a good God and a bad One from whom they derived all Good and Evil Into which Heresy Austin is reported to have fallen in his first Days concluding that Sin if it was a positive Being must certainly have an efficient Cause But afterward better understanding its Nature he bewales his Errour and rejects the Notion with great Abhorrence as may be seen in his Confessions Sin therefore I conclude hath no positive Being neither hath it an efficient but rather if I may so call it a deficient Cause 'T is the want of that Rectitude which should be in the Creature with reference to God's Law And so St. John defines it 1 John 3.4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Sin is the transgression of or the want of due conformity to the Law of God Hence the Learned Turrettine defines it thus saith he Hinc sequitur rationem formalem peccati in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privatione consistere quae notat carentiam rectitudinis seu bonitatis secundùm prescriptum Legis debitae inesse Creaturae rationali sive ea naturae sit seu qualitatum sive actionum c. Lib. 1. P. 651. And others thus 'T is an Inclination Action or Omission opposing the Law of God or wanting that due legal Rectitude it ought to have § 2. But so much for the Nature of Sin in general which is usually divided into Original and that either Inherent or Imputed and Actual and that either of Thought Word or Action Original Sin respects Man's Person and Nature of which he is guilty as soon as born For first of all we are born without that original Righteousness wherewith Adam was created and which the Law of God requires should be in us because we were in Adam as a publick Person whose Duty it was to have kept himself in the Estate wherein God made him so in this respect we have not due conformity to the Law of God even in our very Natures and Qualities Now this very want of original Righteousness is properly Sin because it is the want of what ought to be in us We have not that moral Image of God consisting in Knowledg Righteousness and Holiness which God gave us in our first Parents Our Natures are deprived of original Righteousness and those moral Perfections wherewith Adam was created and are now propense and prone to all Sin and this is that we call Original Sin and of which we read in Scripture especially Psal 51.5 Eph. 2.1 Job 14.4 c. 2ly We are born guilty of Adam's actual Transgression which he first committed which by just imputation becomes ours because then Adam stood not as a private but as a publick Person all were to stand and fall in him he being the Root and Representative of Mankind Adam therefore being made our Head in that first Covenant by Divine Ordination therefore his Transgression is accounted ours we sinned in him as our publick Head and fell with him as the Branches fall with the Body of the Tree according to that of the Apostle in him all sinned and all died Rom. 5.12 But thus much for Original Sin § 3. Now Mr. Marlow in his description of the Essence of Sin as he improperly and confusedly is pleased to call it seems wholly to exclude Original Sin tho I am apt to believe he is no Arminian for when in Pag. 6. he saith The Essence of Sin is in the Spirit 1. Either by this Expression he means the same as he did before Pag. 5. when he spoke of Singing The Essence of Sin is in the Spirit that is it consists in an inward spiritual Exercise of the Soul or

Mind of Man And if so then he wholly excludes Original Sin which doth not consist in the Act or Exercise of the Mind but is born with us and speaks only of Actual Sin and neither doth he speak of all Actual Sin but only of one Species or Kind namely of Heart and Thought and if he takes the term Essence in its proper signification it belongs to no Sin which as I said before is a privation unless he is running himself and would have others follow him into the old exploded Error of the Manichees And lastly neither is it a description of the Essence of actual Sin in the Thoughts for let him mean what he will by Essence of Sin 't is certain that Actual Sin in the Thoughts doth not consist in an inward spiritual Exercise of the Mind or Spirit this in it self is no Sin but a natural Act of a reasonable Creature the being therefore of this very Species of actual Sin consists not in the Exercise of the Soul or Mind considered in it self but as it relates to God's Law and wants such due conformity to it as it should have Therefore I am perswaded that either Mr. M. is under some pernicious Error in Judgment concerning Sin or else that he doth not understand what he asserts I hope the latter The word Essence is a hard Term especially when we talk of the Essence of Sin and I have too much cause to fear from mine own knowledg that by this means he hath laid a Stumbling-block before the Weak to cause them to err in Judgment concerning Sin and other things that his Notions lead to I hope the Lord will make him sensible of it and give him Repentance § 4. Or secondly by the Essence of Sin in the Spirit he means 't is in the Soul or Spirit as its Subject and in this sense 't is in part true tho the word Essence in a proper sense must not be allowed for the Soul of Man is the proper Subject of Sin yet not exclusive of the Body for the whole Man which consists of Body and Soul is the Subject of Sin But if he means thus 't is in the Spirit as its Subject tho 't is true in part yet 't is nothing to his purpose for here is no description of the Nature of Sin wherein it consists which is the very thing he pretends to declare but only a relation of what Subject it is in all one as if a Person should ask me What is the true Nature and Essence of Whiteness And I reply thus Whiteness is in the Wall you may very well answer so it is in Milk and in a Man's Body c. But what is this to the Nature of it And the same I reply to Mr. M. Actual Sin is in a Man's Words and Actions as well as in his Thoughts and Spirit But I suppose he takes not that Expression in this latter sense viz. the Essence of Sin is in the Spirit as its Subject but in the former 't is in the Spirit as it consists in an inward spiritual Exercise of the Soul or Mind of Man which he intimates to be his meaning in the words just preceding that particular for saith he Pag. 6. The Scriptures do clearly witness that the Essence of Prayer and Praise and of Sin do all consist in an inward Exercise of Soul or Spirit And then proceeds to prove each in particular viz. First saith he The Essence of Sin is in the Spirit This plainly shews he takes the Expression in the former sense which we examined above But in my Judgment he speaks one thing for another for there is a great deal of difference between the Essence of Sin as in the Spirit and the Essence of Sin consisting in an inward spiritual Exercise of the Soul or Spirit But in such dark Shades do Men wander when they oppose the Truth of God which they should love and honour But hitherto of the Nature of Sin § 5. As for the Nature or Essence of Prayer I conceive it thus Prayer is a Duty we owe to God and an Action of a reasonable Creature whereby he expresseth his Mind to the Lord sometimes with words and sometimes without words in petitioning for things agreeable to his Will Prayer is therefore either Mental or Vocal these are two Species of Prayer in general Now to say Vocal Prayer is not Prayer because Mental is is all one as to say two Species cannot agree in one Genus or that a Man is not an Animal because a Brute is but such Absurdities are unworthy Confutation The Essence therefore of Prayer consists not in the Mode of performance whether it be done with the Mind only or with the Voice also Therefore when Mr. M. saith Pag. 6. The Essence of Prayer is in the Heart or Spirit This is true in the general of one Species of Prayer namely Mental but not of Vocal Prayer for the Nature and Essence of this consists in the Voice as well as in the Mind and tho God will be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth Joh. 4. yet who doubts but Spiritual Worship may be performed by bodily Organs As to the other Scriptures he mentions to prove his lame definition of Prayer they relate only to Mental Prayer and the Scripture is as plentiful in other Instances for Vocal Prayer had he been willing to collect them but this indeed would have shewed him that the Essence of Prayer is not only in the Spirit § 6. As to the Nature of Singing I conceive it lieth here 'T is an Ordinance of God and an holy Action of a reasonable Creature wherein by a fit Modulation of Voice sutable to the nature of the Matter sung they sound forth God's Praises 'T is a Mode of speaking 't is a solemn or melodious way of sounding forth the Praises of God And how this which is a mode of speaking can consist in the Heart and Spirit i. e. in an inward exercise of the Soul where there is no speaking at all for my part I cannot understand unless Accidents may exist separate from their Subjects which is contrary to the Rules of all Logick Whereas therefore Mr. M. Pag. 7. thus argues If the Essence of Prayer be inwardly in the Spirit why not of Singing also Not to repeat what I have said of Prayer I reply for very good reason Because Prayer may be performed by the Mind without the Voice mental Prayer is an Action and Accident of the Mind this is not separate from its subject though the Voice be wanting But Singing is a Mode and Adjunct of the Voice and therefore when we speak of proper not Metaphorical Singing it always presupposeth the Voice as its Subject and can in no wise be performed without it 'T is true a Man may praise God with his Heart and Mind for there is mental Praise though no mental Singing as well as mental Prayer but vocal Praise whether by Speaking or Singing cannot be performed without