Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	good_a	law_n	transgression_n	4,529	5	10.4346	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38268	A defence and continuation of the Discourse concerning the period of humane life being a reply to a late answer, entituled A letter to a gentleman, &c. : to which is added, an appendix wherein several objections urged in private are considered, and Mr. Gales severe, but groundless charge is examined.	Allestree, Richard, 1619-1681.	1678 (1678)	Wing E27; ESTC R17144	30,062	111

health but I doubt if sickness does not alter there judgments It is indeed good company to see the most strict Stoick and those of that perswasion post away messingers for the Phisitian when under diseases which is evidence enough that they do not believe the truth of what they maintain That the Hypothesis we defend contradicts neither natural nor Sacred Philosophy has been plainly enough demonstrated in our former discourse neither doth Mr. Gale for all his promise urge it with any argument but in stead of doing so he himself seems to be guilty of that which he injuriously blames in others And thus I am led to the third thing proposed to be discussed namely that Mr. Gale may be justly charged with maintaining more dangerous opinions and to make good this charge I shall only because of the intended brevity mention two particulars The first is laid down in the Court of the Gentiles page 367. where distinguishing Gods Justice in Absolute and Ordinative he adds that God by his absolute justice and dominion can inflict the greatest torments even of Hell it self on the most innocent Creature This is indeed a morsel which sober men cannot well swallow it being so quite contrary to that common notion which all mankind entertain of God and to those excellent attributes of his glorious nature by which he has discovered himself to the world both by his word and workes That Almighty God is to be admired for his excellent power and works of wonder no sober man ever doubted but to admit an unlimitted power incompatible with the principle attributes and perfections of his Glorious nature such as his Goodness Holiness Mercy and Justice this were instead of exalting his excellent power a denying of a Deity or at least a making him who is altogether Holy merciful and Good seem it is horrid to speak it Savage and Cruel The Divine goodness truth and sanctity assure us that he can do nothing that is unbecoming his Glorious nature nor repugnant to his chiefe perfections displayed in his Sacred Word and dayly evident by his Workes Let us here appeal to judicious Mr. Calvin lib. de Etern Dei predest Sorbonicum illud dogma in quo sibi plaudunt Papales Theologastri detestor quod potentiam absolutam Deo affingit Solis enim lucem à calore evellere facilius erit quam Dei potentiam separare à justia and page 191. facessant ergo procul à pijs mentibus monstrosoe illoe Speculationes plus aliquid Deum posse quam conveniat veleum sine modo ac ratione quicquam agere c. Surely if to distroy the righteous with the wicked temporally was rejected by Abraham as a piece of injustice unbecoming the Divine goodness Gen. 18 25. That be far from thee to slay the righteous with the wicked Shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right how much rather may we say so when men tell us that God can inflict the greatest torments even of Hell it self on the most innocent Creature it were easie to answer all the silly instances brought in defence of this horrid Doctrin but I have said enough in the passing against it only I must add that this is a most dangerous opinion inclining men to entertain unworthy conceptions of a Deity Plutarch lib. de Superst discoursing of the folly of the Pagans to pacifie there offended Gods Sacrificed men and women to them adds that Diagoras and his Followers more reasonably maintained the Being of such Gods than those who confessed a God and believed they could be appeased by such Savage cruelty The Second particular I shall instance is laid down pag 483. and frequently else where God says he is the prime efficient cause of the material entitive act of Sin I know some others have undertaken the defence of this infamous Tenet but patronize it who will it is an uncouth opinion and chargeth the Holy Lord who is not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness with Mens Sins I confess I could never yet understand what more was asserted by those blasphemous Hereticks who boldly affirmed that God was the Author of Sin for which pious antiquity did jointly condemn them for if the evil or obliquity of Sin be as they say either privation or relation it is evident that they necessarily result from the placing of such actions and cannot but follow their acts It is indeed pity that our Reformed Divines should be all blamed for the faults only of a few who have imbibed this Dominican venom and I have often regrated to see the Iesuits so miserably baffle men maintaining this odd and uncouth notion and yet it is but unhandsom dealing to charge that notion upon all reformed Churches which has been alwayes condemned by the most Judicious Writers we have But to dispatch this as quickly as I can I shall only desire a satisfactory Answer to the few following Queries First If God be the prime efficient cause of the material entitive act that I may use his phrase of Sin does not God necessitate the Will to Sin since Man is hereby made the Instrumental cause and God the principal overruling efficient cause and do you think that the Instrumental cause can resist when the principle cause irresistably determins it to act Secondly Is not the act prescinded from the object A meer fancy and notion Can there be either Love or hatred when their is no object to terminate them upon Thirdly If the material act of Sin be Good is not every sinfull act Morally Good as well as Morally Evil. Fourthly When we enquire if there be any thing in the hatred of God that is good do we not Speak of a particular act terminat upon its object and not of a Chimerical act which can have no being Fifthly Is not that Sinfull which is prohibited but the act it self is forbidden Men or forbidden to do such and such things and their doing or acting makes them lyable to punishment Do not Men by doing or omitting that which the Divine precepts forbid become guilty Is not Sin a transgression of the Law and do not men transgress and violate the Divine precepts when they either commit or omit the forbidden action Hence is it that very many Learned Men rationally conclude that Sin is not a privation but a positive thing since the act is alwayes forbidden and therefore it must be formally evil and I confess it is a hard matter to conjecture what can be the foundation of that privation or if the act be placed how the obliquity does not necessarily result Sixthly To permit is properly a not hindring or impeding Men to act therefore the act is permitted for what can be hindered cannot be properly said to be permitted but the obliquity is such Seventhly If it were the obliquity and not the act that is permitted then neither Devils nor Men could tempt us to Sin for they cannot do any more but Intice and Allure us to the committing or omitting of the Acts which being placed the obliquity does necessarily result Eigthly Are Man any other waies said to be hindered from Sinning but because they are impeded from commiting the Act how then can the Holy Lord be the prime efficient cause of the substrate matter or material entitative Act of Sin I have indeed seen an excellent M. S S. where this odious opinion which has made our Church is solidly rejected till such time as that become publick these few Arguments I have pitched upon may be of use to convince us that Mr. Gale is in a mistake I should now have proceeded to the consideration of those Arguments he brings in defence of his opinion but I find this will be more pertinent afterwards when a more fit occasion may offer Now to conclude it is my hearty desire that we may not while we are disputing about the Period of our Lives forget our Mortality Ere it be long a Period will be put to our beings and is it not our greatest concernment to mind this in time that when this Life is ended we may be admitted into that glorious assembly of the Saints above who Live but can die no more FINIS Books Printed and are to be Sold by Enoch Wyer at the White Hart in St. Pauls Church Yard Folio CLARKS General Martyrology 1 l. 10 s. Baylii Opera Chronolog Hist. Amsterdam 1663. price 8 s. Twisse de scientia Media 1639. 7. s. Quarto Strodes Doctrine of Combination of Qualities price 1 s. 1677. The Life of Herod the Great Wherein his Inhumane Cruelties are briefly but Accurately related With an account of his fatal and miserable End Lightfoots Horae Hebraicae Talmudicae in Corinthios quarto Paris 1677 price 4 s. A Letter to a Gentleman in Answer to a late Book Entituled A discourse concerning the Period of Humane Life Apollonius Magnus Gregorianus Cardanus promotus à Tho. Baker now in the Press Octavo Galei Philosophia Generalis 1677. price 9 s. Eustathii Ethica 1677. price 1 s. A discourse concerning the Period of Humane Life whether mutable or immutable By the Author of the Duty of Man c. the Second Edition 1677. 1 s. A Short Compendium of Chirurgy containing the Grounds and Principles thereof collected out of the best Authors by J. S. M. D. Twelves A Description of the Islands of Foerooe in the King of Denmarks Dominions illustrated with Maps 1677. price 2 s. Martials Epigrams for the use of Westm. School 1677. price 1 s. 6d Galei Idea Theologiae 1676. price 3 s. 6 d.

All other animate Beings says he are determined Answ. To what and how are they determined I know they have a Being and that they are all dependent Creatures But do you seriously think that God from Eternity did by an absolute Decree determin the Period of every Creature Can you without a certain reluctancy say that the supream and adorable Being of whom we ought to entertain noble and becoming thoughts did by an absolute Decree determin the particular Period of every Flea Pray consider Sir what you say 3. Inanimate Beings says he are also limitted Answ. When God first Created the World he put every thing in a fit and convenient Station and so exactly ordered every piece of the Creation that it should be subservient to the whole Hence he set bounds to the Waters and appointed the Sun Moon and Stars to be for Signs and for Seasons and for Days and Years and according to the Primitive Precept every thing Angels and Men excepted stands according as he ordered But yet these inanimate things are not so fixed as that upon extraordinary occasions he cannot alter their course 4. Do we not says he read of the determined Period of Kings and Kingdoms Answ. Undoubtedly we do but what then Do you imagin that God by an absolute Decree did determin the Periods of particular Kings and Kingdoms Pray consider what the Majesty of Heaven hath said 1 Kings 9. 4 5 6 c. If thou wilt keep my Statutes and Iudgments then I will Establish the Throne of thy Kingdom upon Israel for ever but if you will not keep my Commandments and my Statutes then will I cut off Israel c. Surely the most High ruleth in the Kingdom of men he putteth down one and setteth up another and according as men obey his Statutes so he dispenseth his favours to them 5. It is a dangerous thing says he to grant that the most inconsiderable thing is exempted from the Hand of Divine Providence Answ. I am very far from thinking that the Author is an Enemy to the Divine Providence but truly of the two opinions that which he maintains seems to enervate it more than mine for if God has from Eternity absolutely decreed every thing then a particular providence whereby he superintends and governs all things seems not to have any place but the opinion I maintain puts all things in the hands of God who may do in Heaven and in Earth as he thinks fit He may shorten or prolong my life he may do with me as he pleaseth for he is our Maker and we the work of his own hands This encourageth me to wait and depend upon him because I know he is the Governour of the World and has so absolute a Dominion that none can stay his hand or say unto him what dost thou HENCE not only those things which sustain and uphold men in Being but also the Period of every man's life depends upon God As he may either give or deny those necessary things so may he also shorten or prolong our life And thus there is no need of running to the absolute Decree 6. It is says he an old and unquestionable Maxim of Philosophers cujusque contradictionis altera pars determinatè vera est altera falsa Answ. The Maxim is very true but not very pertinently applied For supposing there had never been a World and so no Decree concerning any thing future yet this had been true both parts of a contradiction cannot be true But now if the Author means that the operations of free Agents are all absolutely determined this he must prove by some other medium than that Philosophick Maxim which only infers that one part of the contradiction is true but leaves us ignorant which of the two AFTER all this he comes at length to Catechise me most severely Will ye says he have your recourse to a Stoical fate or Turkish necessity No good Sir I assure you I will not but I am afraid some others may Will ye plead says he from the fortuitous concourse of Epicurean Atoms Or Pray Sir hold for it is so long since I was last examined that I have almost forgot the trick of answering If I should permit you to proceed I could only say No to all your Questions and I believe you knew well enough that I was as much an Enemy to all these as your self BUT I see what you have yet said are but slender attempts and only in order to a more noble and grand design It is well your small Shot discharged in these light Skirmishes have not hurt us Come let us proceed and see the event of the fight If God says he has not by an absolute Decree determined the Period of every man's life how can the certainty of the Divine foreknowledge be defended Answ. Could the Author be contented with it as the Scriptures leave it there need be little debate in the case The Gentleman is pleased to say that I seem to be like a Ship tossed with a great Storm but he might have more truly said that I think that it is a bold enquiry which concerns not us to know the depths of the Divine Wisdom are too profound for Mortals to measure and since Sacred Writ calls it a depth I am sure it is safest to break out into that extasie of admiration with the Apostle Rom. 11. 33. O the depth of the Riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his Iudgments and his ways past finding out For who hath known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his Counseller IF God had ever designed that we should know those secrets he had certainly disclosed them in his revealed Word but since Scripture is silent it is our Wisdom to forbear a curious search into things which he hath reserved within his own peculiar Jurisdiction BUT I see this will not serve the Author's turn he will have the very manner of Gods knowledge of future things determined and if I cannot tell yet he can unfold this Secret by saying that God has from Eternity absolutely Decreed every thing therefore he certainly knows every thing And now because this is the grand Doctrin he always repeats I shall without being very tedious first shew him that we have no ground to believe that every future action is absolutely decreed And secondly I shall endeavour to shew that the Divine knowledge is notwithstanding certain and infallible 1. WE have no ground to believe that every future action is absolutely decreed because God does certainly know all sinful and criminal actions and yet we cannot rationally conclude that he has absolutely decreed those actions for this doth neither agree with the justice nor goodness of God Do you think that a just and good God who is the Judge of all the Earth would punish men with everlasting Torments if he had by an absolute decree determined that they should commit all these Sins Methinks if this were the case of

of the wicked nor does this Paraphrase any ways agree with the Psalmists intention 1. THE Psalmists intention was to shew that wickedness is the reason and cause of Mens short lives Now if he had only meant their hopes and expectation he needed not have made any mention of the wicked for this might have been applicable to the most part of Men both good and bad 2. IT agrees not with the Text for if their days be determined they live out their whole time let them dye whensoever So that he could never have said They shall not live out half their days And indeed this had been no great punishment inflicted upon the wicked for their Sins if it mean only their hopes for good Men may thereby be as well included and the wicked are not a whit more unhappy than others if the case be so THE Author is angry with me because I said That if we consult experience we shall find the Religious and Vertuous Men enjoy ordinarily far the longest lives Truly I see no reason to repent what I said nor does the wise Man's Observation any ways contradict this for all that he aims at there is to shew that a good Man's Righteousness will not be able to defend him from the malice and cruelty of the Wicked and that Wicked Men may pass on in their Sins without controll THAT the Divine promises are notable encouragements to live holy and devoutly is very plain and undoubtable But yet it may be questioned whether according to some Mens principles they be useful for the foresaid end A SECOND argument I did urge was taken from the pious and devout Prayers of the Righteous and their turning from their Sins by an hearty Repentance To this he Answers That the Divine Statutes although they be irrepealable yet do not exclude the use of Prayer because it is included in the Decree Reply I have already told if there be any condition the Decree is not absolute But because I find the Author has always recourse to this fancy I shall briefly evidence that the Author cannot make use of such an evasion Prayer and Repentance says the Author are conditions absolutely decreed and therefore they are necessary Reply The Stoicks may have recourse to this as well as you For Prayer and Repentance are hereby made necessary not because Men elicit those acts as parts of their duty but because they cannot do otherwise And thus the Prophet Daniel could not but pray that Gods anger should be removed from his people Israel because it was absolutely before decreed The like was David's case and others mentioned by the Author BUT by this means the promises of Scripture can be of no use to induce us to live holily for they are not conditional Thus if you obey the Divine Statutes ye shall live long and if ye rebel ye shall be punished But you shall obey the Divine precepts and live long and you shall live wickedly and have your days shortned THAT Prayer and Repentance have been the means of prolonging many Mens lives is obvious to experience some few instances to confirm so plain a truth I laid down in the first discourse I shall therefore now only examin the Author's Answer THE first instance was concerning the case of Nineveh where I told That their Repentance did prevent the Execution of the threatned Iudgment To this he answers 1. That Prayer and Repentance do not move God to change his Decree Reply We do not say that they do only we say there was no absolute but conditional Decree in the case 2. He says That their Repentance was from Eternity decreed Reply How then could the threatning be serious Do you think that a holy wise and just God would threaten to inflict a Judgment upon a people when he had absolutely decreed that such a Judgment should not be inflicted To this which he could not but take notice of he answers That such threatnings only imply that the nature of the crime deserved to be punished with this Iudgment Reply I know the merit of every Sin is death but this is no Answer to the difficulty for the threatning not only implies the demerit of the offence but also expresly declares that the Judgment threatned should be inflicted if they did not by their Prayers and Repentance prevent the Execution of it A SECOND instance I urged was Hezekiah's recovery c. To this he Answers 1. That we must distinguish between the threatnings and decrees of God Reply Well we shall observe this caution but upon this proviso that the Author will not make the threatning inconsistent with the Decree for if God had absolutely decreed that Hezekiah should not dye 'till the fifteen years were expired then how could the threatning Thou shalt surely dye and not live be serious But that the first was not absolutely decreed appears to be plain for otherwise how could the fifteen years be said to have been added to his life 2. HE says The denunciation of death was a conditional commination absolutely propounded inducing Hezekiah to Repentance having no respect to the absolute Decree Reply This Answer is not conformed nor agreeable to the Author's principles for he alledgeth that both the threatning and Repentance are absolutely decreed now if the threatning had been an argument to engage Hezekiah to Repentance we must suppose that Repentance was not absolutely decreed but a thing depending upon Hezekiah's will otherwise both the threatning and Repentance were slight and of no force Nay indeed since the commination was only a Moral act it might have been an inefficacious motive But since it had as the Author will say its efficacy from the internal operation of the holy Spirit hence is it that Repentance can be no condition required on Man's part since it is not in his power not to Repent when God works it in him And truly this makes the threatning ridiculous for how can it be a motive to induce to Repentance since Repentance is absolutely decreed and in time by a Physical predetermining act wrought in Man nill he will he HOW the Author will be able to absolve himself from having any respect to the two dangerous opinions he says we must by all means avoid I wish he would seriously consider I DO not well understand the meaning of one phrase the Author useth viz. That God did not Will that Hezekiah should dye when he threatned him only he willed that there should be such a threatning This is indeed pretty subtile but I know not for what end it was brought Sure it is not very pertinently alledged if he thinks hereby to prove that there is no opposition between the Decree and the threatning as may appear by what I have already said 3. WE must distinguish says he between the conjectural certainty of death inferred from the fatal events which frequently accompany dangerous Diseases and the infallible certainty of death inferred from the Decree Reply The distinction is without controversie good