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

Pierce, Thomas, 1622-1691.

Table of contents | Add to bookbag | How to cite

The general Contents of the several Chapters.

<< Previous section Next section >>

CHAP. III.

MR. Hick's chief strength from Mr. Barlow's youngest writings. Why first encountred. An accompt of Dr. Fields Reasons for the positive Entity of sin. The first Reason: the second Reason. The first Reason was never answer'd. The second answer'd by Mr. Bar∣low in his younger years. The Answer shew'd to be invalid in 5 Re∣spects. 1. by its granting what it pretendeth to deny. 2. by imply∣ing a contradiction. 3. by being offensive to pious mindes. 4. by of∣fending against the Rules of sense. 5. by the twofold unfitness of the Simile alledg'd. Gulielmus de Rubione vindicated by way of Reply to Mr. Barlows Answer. Mr. H's answer proved vitious in 3 respects. 1. by such a gross Fallacy, as by which he is proved no man, but either a beast or somewhat worse. 2. by such a shifting from the Que∣stion, as proves him convinced of maintaining a gross error. 3. by Blasphemy expressed, and Contradiction implyed. A third Reason ta∣ken from H. Grotius amounting to the same with Iacobus Almain. Mr. Barlows Answer; proved faulty in 7 respects. The words of Ca∣preolus make for me. Mr. Barlows plea out of Hurtadus proved faulty in 6 Respects. The Act of Hating God now, and of sin hereafter, unduly taken to be the same Act. A Denyal of Positivity betrayes its Owners to deny a Reality in Sin. A fourth Reason out of Ioan∣nes de Rada. Mr. Barlows answer proved invalid in 4 Respects. A 5 Reason out of Aquinas. A Reply to the Answer of Mr. Barlow, proving it faulty in 3 Respects. Mr. Hick. contradicted by his Ma∣sters and himself too. A sixt Reason is taken out of Franciscus de Mayron, and divers others. Not answer'd by Mr. Barlow. A Seventh Reason alledged by several Authors, partly cited by Dr. Field. Mr. Barlows answer proved faulty in 5 Respects. An eighth Reason gathered out of Fran. Diotallevius: confirmed by a ninth Argu∣ment, leading the Adversary (Mr. Hick.) to the most horrid Ab∣surdities to be imagined. A tenth Argument or Reason out of Car∣dinal Cajetan. A 11^th Argument collected from Episcopius. A 12^th and 13^th Argument urged by Dr. Stern in his Animi Medela. A 14 Argument out of D.R. Baron his Metaph. The arguments backt by the Authority of the most discerning: by the explicit and implicit Con∣f•ssions of the Adversaries. By ten several Confessions of Mr. Hick. himself.

<< Previous section Next section >>