Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	action_n	effect_n	necessary_a	1,860	5	7.1073	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86586	An exercitation concerning the nature of forgivenesse of sin. Very necessary (as the author humbly conceiveth) to a right informaion [sic], and well grounded decision of sundry controversal points in divinity now depending. Directly intended as an antidote for preventing the danger of antinomian doctrine. And consequently subservient for promoting the true faith of Christ and fear of God, in a godly righteous, and sober life. / By Thomas Hotchkis, Master of Arts of C.C.C.C. and minister of Gods word at Stanton by Highworth in the county of Wilts. To which is prefixed Mr. Richard Baxters preface.	Hotchkis, Thomas.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1654 (1654)	Wing H2891; Thomason E1518_1; Thomason E1632_1; ESTC R208563	133,342	405

that as a reason of his following conjecture that hee thinks it beyond our understanding to know certainly that all Gods immanent acts are eternal * E.g. Whereas Mr. Kendal excepts against Mr. Baxter saying that acts have the respect not of an effect to its cause but of a cause to its effects Mr. Kendal might have done well to have more fully remembred for hee being an excellent Philosopher as well as a Divine doth know it very wel be difference betwixt cause causalitas causatum actions being to speake precisely causalitates which causalities as they do respect the effect wrought have the name and respect of causes but as they do respect the Agent they have the respect and name of effect herein the common saying in Logick being verified unaeademque respotest ad diversa referri argumenta More I think might justly be spoken to vindicate Mr. Baxter against what Mr. Kendal hath with such acrimony of stile written a gainst him but as they said concerning the blind man so may I well say in this place concerning one eagle-eyed Mr. Baxter is of age let him speake for himselfe For my owne part though I look upon Mr. Kendal as worthy of much honour not only as a very Godly and Learned Divine but as one also who hath deserved very well of the Churches of God for his great and worthy pains against Mr. John Goodwin neverthelesse I cannot but say of him as he said of Mr. Baxter viz. Mr. Kendal having told him that hee did ill consult his owne honour in opposing in some points those two famous Divines Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble that Mr. Kendal hath ill consulted his owne honor by writing in such a sort against Mr. Baxter in that sheet of paper as he hath done so much cause have the best among us to pray to God to take away the iniquity of our holy things and to praydaily Forgive us our trespasses known and unknown I shall adde no more but this That having read Mr. Kendals booke as I cannot but say that in dealing with Mr. John Goodwin Miscuit utile dulci so I cannot say that in dealing with Mr. Baxter Omne tulit punctum Craving excuse for this digression I shall now returne As for a transient action it is commonly said to be such as doth transire in subjectum externum seu extraneam materiem or is terminated in some subject from without But withal wee must know that this is a description of a transient action not in general or in its general nature but of transient actions of one sort or kind there being another kind of transient actions and so stiled because they do referre ad terminum seu eum producere qui sit extra causam agentem in which respect creation is justly accounted a transient action for although it doth not transire in praejacentem materiem quia actio creantis antevertit omne subjectum quia illa est ex nihilo yet is it such an action of God by which God produceth something not in but without himself Thus have I set downe what an immanent and what a transient action is and the difference betwixt them out of the aforesaid Author the one being terminated within the subject and working no reall change out of it as doth the other unto which though nothing more seemes needful to be added the said Author being among metaphysical Writers in my slender judgment verè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neverthelesse be cause there is a content and pleasure afforded by variety I shall therefore set downe another description out of Ludovicus Castaneus in his distinctions as followeth Actio immanens dicitur quae manet in eodem supposito et in eadem potentiâ à qua elicitur ut eligere velle Transiens est quae non recipitur in potentiâ à quâ producitur sive transeat in diversum suppositum ut illuminatio dimanans à sole in aerem sive in distinctam potentiam aut partem ejusdem suppositi ut calefactio qua manus manum calefacit These two actions in God may very fitly be resembled unto those two kind of actions in men which the Philosophers use to stile Elicite and Imperate the former being Actus voluntatis qui producitur immediatè ab ipsa voluntate et manet in ea ut velle diligere Deum velle redere debitum et ejusmodi Imperatus est ille qui producitur ab alia potentia tanquam à principio proximo et immediato sed voluntate illam potentiam movente ad exercitium ut quando voluntas movet intellectum ad intelligendum vel cum movet appetitum ad actum temperantiae aut fortitudinis et sic de aliis By the premises I suppose it will in some good sort appeare what actions of God are immanent and what are transient in special it will appeare that among Gods immanent or elicite actio●s are his knowledge volition bare will decrees purposes and of this sort is Gods decree will or purpose to pardon the finnes of his elect but of the latter sort viz. ransient imperate transitive or effective actions called by Philosophers Actiones actae are Gods ●eal performances and executions of what he hath from all eternity for known will'd decreed or purposed the former kind of actions depending upon or having reference unto the sole pleasure of God but the latter referring unto or depending upon the executive power of God transient actions being not effected but by the application of Gods power made by his wil and pleasure whereby to worke or effect the thing which God did will or purpose And that forgivenesse of sin is of this latter sort of actions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth seem to me sufficiently apparent by several reasons e.g. 1. Because datur externum subjectum in quod transit which said subject is the penitent believing and converting sinner 2 Because in the said Subject God doth producere aliquid extra esse viz. God doth actually remove those evils or punishments which were inflicted upon the sinner working in or upon the sinner a real change from what he was before And when I say a real change it comes into my mind to annex hereunto as a sixteenth Inference or Consectary viz. CHAP. XXIII That remission of sin quoad terminum remotum or as in execution is a real yea Physicall change What is said in this Consectary I mean concerning remission of sin in execution not of remission as barely disobliging to punishment which in the close of this consectary I do acknowledge to be but a change of our relation and not a change purely Relative as is commonly supposed CONSECT XVI 16. THat the difference betwixt Sanctification and Justification is not as hath been commonly said That that doth work a real change in a sinner but this a change barely and purely Relative for both of them viz. Gods sanctifying and Gods justifying or pardoning a sinner I say or Gods pardoning a sinner

and thing yet had not been continued under some new name e. g. Apollinis tripos Concessus Apostolicus Aarons Brest-plate Vrim and Thummim Englands Oracle The Church Vertual or the like Notio secunda as unto whom all dissenting persons and parties both in our own and in all the Nations throughout the world might have had recourse for resolution in the great things and truthes of God But seeing that it was concluded by themselves that their company so constituted was no longer profitable to the Commonwealth I believe that Mr. Eyre is now convicted that their longer sitting was not like to be profitable for the Church whereupon I shall conclude that it was for want of foresight that Mr. Eyre did so far luxuriate in their high praises as to say That of any company of men on earth they were the fittest to umpire in such Theological Disputes as are betwixt him and his old School fellow Mr. Benjamin Woodbridg Let the second Negative Proposition be this viz. No sin is actually pardoned till a person bee made capable of it or put into a capacity of receiving or enjoying it This Proposition carries its owne evidence in the body or bowels of it for nothing is before it can be I shall therefore immediately apply my self to the resolution of the following Question Quest When is a person capable of receiving the actual pardon of his sins Or When are the Elect capable of receiving or actually enjoying that pardon which was so long since purposed purchased promised to and for them Answ 1. When they need it Quest When do they need it Answ When they are or do become sinners have committed sin or are guilty of sin Till sin be past pardon is to come To pardon sin before it is committed is to pardon sin that is no sin it is to pardon that which is not which is a contradiction and a meere impossibility for where there is no guilt there can be no pardon As a man is not capable of an Almes till he be miserable and indigent so nor of pardon till he be peccant Or as a man is not capable of a cure by Physick and Chyrurgery till he be sick and wounded so nor of pardon till he be sick of sin and wounded by it These similitudes are the rather apt because Gods pardoning sin is said to be his taking compassion on us Mic. 7.19 Luke 18. 13. God compassionate me a sinner saith the Publican and his healing us Isai 53.5 Hos 14.4 This is a remote capacity The next particular doth declare and set forth the sinners proximous or immediate capacity of pardon 2. Then are the Elect capable of actual pardon when they are in Gods way fit or fitted for it Quest When is that Answ When they see their sins I speak of persons adult or of ripe age confesse them repent for them believe in Christ See Act. 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witnesse that whosoever beleeveth in him shall receive remission of sins Luke 24.47 And that repentance and remission of sin should be preached in his name among all Nations Acts 5.31 Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and remission of sin observe Repentance is given first and then remission As the ground is not capable of receiving the seed of the Husbandman till it be plowed so nor are the Elect capable of receiving the precious seed of pardon till the fallow ground of their hearts be plowed up by Repentance to speak in the metaphor of the Prophet Jeremy chap. 4.4 In this sense that saying of the Evangelist is most true according as by some it is interpreted John 1.16 Of his fulnesse we receive and grace for grace i. e. by reason of one grace we receive another even as the God of all grace doth give one grace in order to another e g. for or by reason of the grace of faith repentance and conversion all which were merited by Christ God gives us the grace of Remission according to that Proverbial saying among the Jewes and in this case appliable Habenti dabitur As God doth by Grace adapt or make us fit and meet for glory Col. 1.12 Giving thanks to the Father who hath made us meet for the inheritance among the Saints in light So by one grace God doth make us meet for receiving of another And as the Wedding Garment did fit and make meet the Guests for the Wedding Supper so doth Faith Repentance and new obedience being as the Wedding Garment fit or make meet the sinner for partaking in the pardon of his sins which is as the Wedding Supper This particular is the rather to be observed because it is useful as otherwise so specially for these two purposes 1. To prevent and redresse the presumption of impenitent and ungodly sinners who are apt to expect to reap where they have not sowed and to gather where they have not strawed I mean who do usually expect an harvest of comfort in the pardon of their sins and to reape in mercy when they have not sowen to themselves one seed the least mustard seed of grace or one graine of righteousnesse to speak in the phrase of the prophet Hos ch 10.12 2. It is useful whereby to obviate or answer the common objection of the Antinomians wherby they would involve us as guilty of impeaching the freedom of Gods grace in the pardon of our sins because we affirme with the Scriptures that pardon of sinne cannot actually be enjoyed without the performance of such and such conditions the performance of which said conditions is notwithstanding of and cannot be without Gods free grace given to us and enabling us for that end and purpose I shall close this particular with the words of that very Learned and godly man Mr. Anthony Burges in his book of justification p. 18. There goe more causes to the pardon of sin besides the meritorious cause faith the instrumental cause which is as necessary in its kind for this great benefit as the meritorious cause is in its kind that though Christ hath born such a mans sins yet they are not pardoned till he doe believe for as the grace of God which is the efficient cause of pardon doth not make a sinne compleatly forgiven without the meritorious cause so neither doth the meritorious without the instrumental but there is a necessity of the presence and the cooperation of all these Caution Though I have not expresly made mention of the merits of Christ through his bloud shed in order to a sinners being made capable of pardon Neverthelesse 1. I doe acknowledg and let it be knowne that the intervention of his merits are necessary to the said sinners capability of pardon Whether his merits be so absolutely necessary hereunto as that God could not have pardoned a sinner without it although that be a question in the resolution whereof Learned and Godly men doe differ Mr. Owen the Learned Deane of

worthy Author even as he seems to explicate himself saying p. 49. God pardeneth sin and removeth the guilt of it totally and perfectly so that a sin cannot be more pardoned then it is it is as absolutely forgiven as can be desired it can be no better pardoned then if we were in heaven But upon consideration I found a necessity to declare my dissent from him in that Proposition together with its explanations for the sins of the Elect are not in this life pardoned at all * Though the sins of the Elect are actually pardoned in this life yet not absolutely as to the continuance of their pardon the continuancewherof is not absolutely promised but upon condition of their Perseverance absolutely as to discharge from eternal damnation and therefore I see no just reason why any one should say with Mr. Burges That they are pardoned as absolutely as can be desired and if absolute and conditional do vary the degrees of perfection as for ought I know they do I see no warrant to say That when God pardons a sin he doth it perfectly It s true God doth it perfectly so far as upon grounds of reason and Religion the Saints can expect or desire to have it done in this life viz. conditionally upon their perseverance in Grace yet not so perfectly because not so absolutely as when they come to heaven And I have thought it my part the rather to professe my dissent in this particular because such a Position as this The Saints here are as perfectly and absolutely pardoned as can be desired doth give ground and countenance to those unwarrantable comforts which the Antinomians having spun out of their own fancies do frequently tender to their Disciples saying unto them in these words or to this effect Make not the least doubt of your Salvation you shal as absolutely go to Heaven as if you were already in heaven your sins are as absolutely pardoned as the sins of the Saints that do now reign with Christ in glory of which said Apocryphal and unwarrantable way of comforting the Saints I shall have occasion to speak somewhat more hereafter in a peculiar Consectary CHAP. XXII That forgiveness of sin is a Transient and not an Immanent Act in God proved and cleared Several Descriptions of Actions Immanent and Transient set downe Mr. Baxter vindicated in a passage about this distinction wherein Mr. Kendal hath as the Author thinks causelesly excepted against him Transient Actions are of two sorts and unto what sort of transient Actions forgivenesse of sinne is to bee reserred CONSECT XV. 15. IT followes That forgivenesse of sin is not an immanent action in God but a transient action I shal the rather endeavour to prove and to clear this inference for the following Reasons 1. Because some of our eminent Divines not minding to distinguish here as they use to do in other things betwixt Gods purpose to pardon and his actual pardon of a sinner have erroneously asserted That forgivenesse of sin is an immanent action in God 2. Because the aforesaid erroneous Assertion is of very ill influence and consequence it being as Mr. Baxter hath well observed and warnes us therefore of it one of the maine props and pillars of Antinomianisme 3. Because Mr. Baxter sayes in his Aphorismes of Justification p. 174. That albeit he is of opinion with others That forgivenesse of sin is a transient action neverthelesse as he saith he had never the happinesse to see that point cleared by any 4. Albeit Mr. Baxter himselfe hath endeavoured to clear it and it is not my purpose to contradict him in ought that he hath said in that behalf neverthelesse I think it expedient that there should more be added for clearing the point for Mr. Baxter defining remission of sin to be a dissolving or taking away the obligation to punishment not at all mentioning the effectual taking away of punishment it self but leaving that as I suppose his intent to be understood hath endeavoured to demonstrate the transiency of the act of forgivenesse barely with respect to the taking away of the said obligation to punishment Because hee speaks of Justification or Remission in Law sense and not in execution as being another distinct sort or part of pardon As his endeavour therefore hath been in that particular so I shall endeavour to cleer the transiency of the act of forgivenesse of sin as it respects the taking away the punishment it self which I shall desire to do with such modesty and sobriety as finding great cause to approve what Mr. Burges about this very Point doth speak in his entrance thereupon saying We are in meer darknesse and not able to comprehend how God is said to act or work Now for the better cleering of the point in hand I shall set down in the first place what an immanent and transient action is and what is the difference betwixt them and to that end it will bee expedient to have recourse unto what Phylosophical Authors in their metaphysical Divinity have said in the same and in special I shall set downe the Descriptions which the acute and learned Scheibler gives of them Met. lib. 2. p. 233 234 235. Actio immanens dicitur ab immanendo quod scilicet in agente maneat quod tamen intelligendum est non positive sed negative nempe Actio immanens qua talis est est in agente hoc sensu quia non transit ad patiens in ipso autem agente non est per modum adjuncti seu per positivam inhaerentiam in ipso sed simpliciter ad ipsum comparatur ut ad causam This Explication is the rather to be minded because in this sense only can wee attribute an immanent action to God viz. Negativè non Positivè because God or the Divine Essence is not capable as of other compositions so of this viz. of Subject and Accident such compositions being a against the absolute simplicity of the divine nature for which cause I think Mr. Baxter * And the rather because to speak precisely Actiones non habent modum essendi In sed modum essendi Ab. did very wel having said that those who speake of immanent acts in God by immanent in God must needs meane Negatively not Positively to adde this as the reason thereof saying for acts have not the respect of an adjunct to its subject but of an effect to its cause Where by the way let me crave leave to give notice to the Reader that I cannot but wonder at Mr. Kendals haste and oversight so much to mistake Mr. Baxter as to charge him for rendring that as a reason of one thing which hee plainly renders as a reason of another For Mr. Baxter having given it in as a reason why immanent acts cannot be ascribed unto God positively but negatively for acts have not the respect of an adjunct to its subject but of an effect to its cause Mr. Kendal doth argue against him as if hee had rendred