To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
To the Preface which he makes to his more particular Discussion, wherein he onely takes occasion to call it a horrible opinion, that sin as sin in respect of its obli∣quity, hath a positive entity and efficient cause, p. 112. lin. 9, 10. I have but three things to say. 1. That if it were so indeed, he would be utterly unexcusable for having em∣braced that opinion in that part of his Prints so lately ci∣ted; or for railing at an opinion which himself confessed
to be true: or if he hath since seen his error, why was not his second volume a Recantation of his first? And what will he do to Mr. W. for saying that God had a hand in ef∣fecting sin, whereby he inferred, that sin had an effective or efficient cause? 2. He cannot say he speaks of the for∣mal part of sin as sin, and not of the whole sin, because he speaks of sin in respect of its obliquity, which he is wont to call the formal part of sin. And 'tis non-sense to say, that sin as sin in respect of its sin, or that obliquity as obliquity in respect of its obliquity, hath not a positive entity, or ef∣ficient cause. So as he dares not deny, but that sin doth signifie the integrum peccati, or whole filthy act (such as Cains killing Abel, or David's lying with Bathshebah) whose repugnance with Gods Law is called obliquity. And because that sin is an oblique, or crooked, or irregular acti∣on, Mr. B. concludes it no positive Entity. 3. But to rest on him to sobriety and common sense, I shall need only to ask him, whether Rectitude is not a positive Entity. If he saith yes (as I am sure he needs must) what shew of rea∣son can he pretend, why obliquity is not as much so as Rectitude? how much more that whole sin, of which obli∣quity is accounted the formal part? Is not a Circle, quà talis, as positively a figure, or a round figure, as a right line is a right line? Is not crookedness or gibbosity in any mans shape as positively such, as streightness or clean ma∣king? When a crooked parent begets a child which is also as crooked, is he less a positive and efficient cause, then if he and his child were both well shaped? When Adam be∣gat Cain in a state of sin, (with Satans image in stead of Gods, as some of the Fathers have expressed it) was not the cause and the effect too, as truely positive, as if they both had been sinless? An action flowing from an Agent hath as positive an Entity, as the Agent himself from whom it flowes. The sin of Murder is an Action; as Cain's kil∣ling Abel: So is the sin of Adultery; as David's lying with Bathshebah. Nor any whit the less such, in respect of their being irregular actions; any more then a wicked man is the less a man for being wicked. David's lying with
Bathshebah before she was his wife, was as positive an En∣tity, and had a cause as efficient, as David's lying with Bathshebah after she was his wife; which alone is suffi∣cient to fill Mr. B. and Mr. Hick. with confusion of Face, and to compel them to Recantations, unless they will shelter themselves under Rantism and Libertinism, by saying that David's lying with Bathshebah was no adul∣tery, or such an adultery as was no sin, or that it was a ve∣ry good sin, because a positive Entity, and that which had an efficient cause. For Mr. B's. first Argument doth fol∣low thus: