XI. But it is farther Objected, that our Author

fpeaks of Sin or Evil, as if it were ibmething
n Subftantial. This however, even according to
the ° Cologne Divines, ought never to be Taken in
Such a Senfe, as favours in the lean: of the Mani-
chtean Herefy . For This he had an utter Averfion
to, and at times even takes occafion to Confute
its Tenets. The Senfe of this ExpreMion, thefe
Gentlemen think, is Metaphorical > as if by Sub-
fiance our Author, when fpeaking of Evil, meant
the Wealth, the Power, and Strength of Satan.
Others think it mould be taken P Spiritually, as
having its to etvocc y$ o-u/jtCs^x©^ allotted to it
by Dionyfius the Areopagite.

z. But perhaps to Solve the Difficulty with
more apparent Succefs, it ought to be Remem-
bred, that our Author's Language and Expreflion
is rather after the Mode of Plato's School than
AriftotUs. Sin and Virtue or Grace are confider' d
by our Author as Two Natures directly contrary

1 Horn. xv. and xliii. Concerning which Expreflion, fee be-
fides the Platonijis, Ongen. Op. Lat. Tom.i. p. iyo.exEd. Erob.
Chryfoft. in Ephef. v. 2 i . ex Edit. Savil. Theodoret. in Eph. v. 18.
ex Ed. Par. Cyrilli Hierofol. ex Ed. Oxon. Catech. xvii. §. 1 o, &c.

m Opufc.de Charitate, Cap. 1 j". p. ij6. apud Pr'ttinm.

n Hom.iv, vii, xv.

0 Ad Horn. xv. Bib PP. per Marg. leBigne. Tom.iv. p. 70.
B. C. p Tr'ibbechov'ms deOrtu Mali, p. 40 _,j 1 .

to

The Introduction. 6z

to each other. So too does the Scripture fpeak
of the Body of Sin and the Body of Death, of the R°m- v»-
Old Man, and of the New. Neither Scripture, 6.'
nor our Author feem fo much concerned about ~"vu' 2*
Abftracted Notions, as about Nature, Life, and
Practice. And if Sin is at any time fpoken of as
a Subftance in Senfu Concreto, as the Schools fpeak,
there is room rather for Candour than for Cavil.