Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	body_n	soul_n	union_n	2,456	5	9.5499	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43716	Patro-scholastiko-dikaiōsis, or, A justification of the fathers and the schoolmen shewing, that they are not self-condemned for denying the positivity of sin. Being an answer to so much of Mr. Tho. Pierce's book, called Autokatakrisis, as doth relate to the foresaid opinion. By Hen: Hickman, fellow of Magdalene Colledge, Oxon.	Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.	1659 (1659)	Wing H1911A; ESTC R217506	59,554	166

diab c. 10. So that we are but where we were at the first setting out For the actions in which the evill of sin is subjected I 'le grant to be positive but from God as well as the creature the evill of sin from which they are denominated sinfull is but a privation and requireth no proper efficient cause at all such as it hath man is and not God But I have obstructed his good nature in working Pag. 157. He goes on further to tell me that res in Metaphysicks hath three acceptions in the first of wich it comprehendeth entia rationis as opposed to nihil Before he tell what the other two acceptions are he corrects himself my design is to convert and not confound him this charity as is more than probable did both begin and end at home had any benefit been intended to me by it you should have ceased sooner For I was confunded before that politick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made For let any one tell mee how this discourse about ens rationis is here brought in First was it to let the World understand that our Author knew what ens rationis meant That 's but a low design and yet he cannot accomplish it neither for he placeth the model of an house to be built hereafter among entia rationis yet that is as far from being onely objective in intellectu from not being longer than it is thought on as the East is from the West Secondly hath he a mind to insinuate that sin is ens rationis if so it must either be privatio which is that he all along denieth or a negation against which his arguments militate with more strength or a relatio rationis which is affirmed by Vasquez but against all good reasons as I shall soon shew him if forced to so great severity by his owning such a paradox Thirdly was it his businesse to intimate that all the entia rationis are so the works of men as that God cannot be termed the cause of those actions by which they are made I will not torture his ingeniolum with that perplexed question whether the Divine intellect do fabricate ens rationis but without all peradventure the action of the understanding though not the imperfection is from God are not all our notiones 2 ae in Logick entia rationis yet is the act of the understanding causing them so far from not being from God that God hath indeed a more than ordinary common concourse to it The privative nature of sin may be thus further evicted If a thing be therefore sinfull because it wants some perfection that it ought to have and cease to be sinful when it hath all the perfection which it ought to have than is sin a privation but a thing is therefore sinfull c. Ergo the consequence of the proposition is as clear as the noone day light the assumption also needs rather explication than confirmation ther 's not a novice but knows the old rule bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex quolibet defectu To make an action good there must be a concurrence of all the three goods object end circumstances the mere want of any of these three makes the action sinfull because the Law requires that all the three goodnesses should be in the action the want of that which the Law requires to to be in any subject is a sin or else we must reject not onely Aristotle but the Apostle who saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This argument is used by Greg. Arim. a noble and ancient Schoolman and largely insisted upon by Faventinus the most acute Scotist I 'me not ignorant that various replies are made to the argument but answers also are commonly given to those replies which to transcribe would be a matter of more trouble than profit My fourth and last argument against the pretended positivity of sin I dispose in this enthymem Original sin is not positive ergo sin as sin is not positive The consequent I conceive will be yeelded sine sanguine sudore otherwise the old Canon a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia would soon command it as to the antecedent I deny not but our Protestant Divines in their disputes against the Papists doe make a positive as wel as a privative part of original sin but how that terme may be understood so as not to prejudice my assertion in the least is largely shewed by Gisber Voetius in his accurate discourse de propagatione peccati originalis He that calls it a privation of Gods image saith the whole nature of it is a sentence of Mr. John Calvin That I may prove original sin not to be positive in the sense we now use the word positive I must lay down this as a postulatum That the soul is not by propagation or ex traduce as they speak but immediately created by God If this postulatum should not be granted me I should not fear the demonstrating of it by evidence of Scripture and strength of reason to any gain sayer but such my charity forbids mee to think Mr. P. This supposed I thus argue If original sin be a thing positive 't is either the soul it self or some of its faculties or some accident or adiunct agreing immediately to the faculties mediatly to the soul it self but none of all these ergo To say with Flaccius Illyricus that it is the soule it self were with more than heathenish impiety to calumniate the goodnesse of our Creator and the like absurditie will follow if we assert it to be one of the faculties of the soul If we say it is an accident inhering in the faculties of the soul then it was either put into them by God which will make God the Author of the worst of sins or else it is caused in them by the souls presence in and union to the body or from some action of the soul it self Not by any action of the soul it self for it's faculties are sinfull before it put forth any one act of reason Not from its presence in or union to the body for who can imagine how the soul which is spiritual and immaterial should be defiled by being joyned to a body which thoughfull of naturall imperfections is not sinfull and if it were sinfull could nor communicate its sinfullnesse to the soule that informes it But now holding original sin to be a privation in an active subject we do avoid all these inconveniences by saying that Adam by his first transgression did sin away the image of God from himself and his posterity who were in him not onely as a naiurall but as a federal head also and so God createth the souls of men void of his image and yet justly looks on them as sinners for wanting this image because they ought to have it and by their own folly deprived themselves of it As for the reasons Mr. P. hath against the privative nature of sin he hath so slipt glided them