Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	body_n	motion_n	soul_n	1,821	5	5.5524	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36500	De causa Dei, or, A vindication of the common doctrine of Protestant divines concerning predetermination i.e., the interest of God as the first cause, in all the actions, as such, of all rational creatures, from the invidious consequences with which it is burdened by Mr. John Howe in a late letter and postscript of God's prescience / by T.D.	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1678 (1678)	Wing D211; ESTC R5533	63,368	142

his leg the instrument of motion The Sun by his warmth makes the dunghill stink of which stink that that warmth is not the cause appears in that the very same influence draws forth a fragrant savour from a bed of Roses That the dunghill smells is from the Suns drawing forth the vapour● but that it smells ill is from the condition of the matter The upper-wheel of a Clock though by its motion it draws along with it an under-wheel that is irregular in its motion yet it is not the cause of that irregularity When a dexterous Pen-man writes upon sinking paper he makes pothooks as we say of children that begin to learn the art of writing blots rather than letters which yet is not his fault but the Papers Twisse Vind. Gr. l. 2. p. 1 a. p. 26. Reply 4. There must needs be a separation and therefore 't is possible to be between actions and the evil of them upon Mr. Howe 's own Hypothesis viz. That God does predetermine to all good actions which in the present state are but imperfectly good Here he must distinguish between the efficiency of God and man as to the same action and ascribe the action and grace of it to God and the evil that adheres to that action to man unless he will ascribe all to God Absit blasphemia verbo If Mr. Howe can extricate himself and not us with the same Answer or rather if he can excogitate any other Answer than by this exsibilated distinction erit mihi magnus Apollo and without an Irony sapientum octavus Reply 2. To the connexion I Answer That it infolds a twofold contradiction 1. For it supposes some actions to be intrinsecally evil and yet by our Hypothesis to be determined i. e. compell'd if Mr. Howe may be admitted our Interpreter whereas that is not sin which is not spontaneous neither is that spontaneous which is necessary i. e. violent or compell'd For violence is a Physical action upon the Patient in which sort of actions vertue or vice hath no place for the will is the principle of moral actions So the learned Camero de Scand p. 98. where note that I presume Camero denies not original sin imputed to be suo modo i. e. in its kind voluntary and so truly sin according to St. Austins sentiments nos omnes eramus ille unus homo i.e. we were all that one man Adam and so sinned in him This to prevent any misapprehension 2. It supposes sin to have an efficient cause whereas 't is a known Rule in Divinity Peccatum qua tale essentialiter est effectus moralis non habet causam Physicam i. e. Sin as such and essentially is a moral effect and hath no Physical cause Reply 3. Having given an Answer to Mr. Howe 's Antecedent and Connexion we shall now proceed to raze the foundation of his Hypothesis by proving that there are no actions of free agents evil in themselves or that no moral evil is positive but only privative which latter are the common terms of Philosophers and Divines in enquiring into the nature of moral evil And I shall borrow one Argument which will be instead of all from the most learned Dr. Barlow the now Renowned Bishop of Lincoln Arg. Every real and positive Being is from God the author and first cause of all Being But moral evil formally taken is not from God the author and first cause of all Being Ergo moral evil formally taken is not a real and positive Being The Minor is evident and acknowledged by the very Heathens in the appellation of Optimus the Best which they apply to their Jupiter together with Maximus the Greatest And will no doubt be owned by Mr. Howe who eo nomine for that very reason rejects Predestination of evil actions because in his apprehension it makes God the author of moral evil The Major let us hear the learned Bishop prove and the rather because it will much confirm our first Argument for Predetermination of all actions as such Proof Because it is impossible that there should be any finite and created Being which does not depend and hath its Being from an infinite and uncreated Being viz. God for it must needs be if there be any Being not caused by God that that Being be independent upon God as the first cause and consequently God shall not be the first cause in respect of that Being whence follow many absurdities c. whereof I shall only take the sum as himself hath given it us with an application to moral evil If moral evil i.e. any sin or breach of Divine Law be a real Being then 1. God shall not be the cause of that Being for of so deformed a birth divine goodness cannot be the Parent 2. This granted it will follow 1. That there is a secondary Being and a Being by participation such as every finite Being is supposed to be which does not partake of or receive its being from the first Being 2. That there is a finite Being independent upon God both as to production and conservation All which things we know and believe are contrary not only to Philosophy but Divinity Thus far the most acute Philosopher and Divine Exercit. metaph 2 a. de natura mali ad calcem Scheib met p. 32 33. Let us take notice of the instances of those sins which are supposed to be evil in themselves or positive Obj. 1. Sins of commission which are evil ex genere objecto whereof two are specially insisted on Adams eating of the forbidden fruit and by Mr. Howe the hatred of God are in themselves evil Answ 1. In general If all sins subsist in some actual motion of the soul body or both and this motion abstractively considered be the material part of every actual sin and hath God for the prime cause in whom we live and move and have our being then no sin can be assigned wherein this material part may not be found So the Learned Davevant sometime Bishop of Sarisbury Animadv on Hoard p. 174 175. Answ 2. As to the instances The first in eating the forbidden fruit the material part of the sin in regard of the Soul was the appetition thereof in regard of the body the mastication chewing and manducation eating and other bodily acts Separate these from the formal part which is modus appetendi the manner of desiring and containeth a repugnancy to Gods command and God was the prime author thereof The act of desiring and eating must of necessity be reduced to God without whom there neither is nor can be any motion of body or soul but the disorderly manner of desiring and eating contrary to the Law of God this is reducible as being a defect only to the defective will of man Davenant ibid. p. 175. As to the second instance hatred of God That the act terminated upon that object in complexo is evil and cannot be otherwise we deny not but then that is true of acts and undue

And that he may be found in every thing to have done as became him and most worthy of himself And what could be more so than to testifie his aversion to whatsoever is unholy his love of righteousness and complacency to be imitated herein together with his propension to make them happy who do imitate him p. 61. I take here but the sum of Mr. Howe 's words because they contain nothing controversal Reply Whether this Discourse affords us any new consideration or no yet we can claim the benefit of it in the fullest extent of it to Prescience as to Predetermination also 2. As to Gods sincerity the difficulty may still urge how it can stand with sincerity whereas that end also which fails viz. mans obedient compliance with Gods Declarations of his will p. 60. seems to have been most directly intended c. p. 65. To which Mr. Howe answers 1. That the publick Declarations of the Divine will do attain that very end in great part and as to many and are the successful means of obtaining it p. 66. Reply And so they do upon our Hypothesis who acknowledg God first infuses gracious habits into some and then determines the powers in which these habits reside to congenerous actions which yet excludes not the use of Gods Edicts as means of educing those actions which because they are vital and free passing from the Will upon a comparison made in the Vnderstanding between the Goodness of the Objects proposed to it do require a moral cause whereby the Agent may both understand the Object and by Arguments be induced to imbrace it as the Learned Parker observes Thes de Trad. Pecc ad vitam Th. 27. 2. Nor was it necessary that those who would obey should be sever'd from the rest and be dealt withal apart c. p. 67. Rep. This we also assent heartily unto 3. Nor was it necessary that effectual care should be taken that they should actually reach all and be applied to every individual person p. 67. Rep. Here is a strange loss we are put to for an Antecedent to the Relative They. The only one that I can meet with is publick declarations of the Divine will touching mans duty p. 66. and Divine Edicts p. 67. and I cannot fathom the reason of the denial of their necessity to their two ends by himself assigned Mans Obedience and the Decorum of the Divine Government at least if he means by them the Gospel as I gather from his after-discourse If he intends by his Relative They determinative influences to holy actions to which the nature of man is now viciously inclined as he elsewhere speaks Post p. 40 35 compar'd I cannot find that Antecedent in his whole Discourse foregoing yet the following passages might give a suspicious person some ground to pitch upon this latter for Mr. H's meaning And thus by messengers running from Nation to Nation some to communicate others to inquire after the tydings of the Gospel how easily and even naturally would the Gospel soon have spread it self through the world Let. p. 69. I confess that term naturally will not down with me for I have always seen cause to own Dr. Sibs's weighty observation in his Souls Conflict That though there are seeds of the Law yet there are none of the Gospel in man by nature But upon second thoughts to do Mr. H. all the right I can out of love to his person and the truth I find That the They refers to the Divine Edicts of the Gospel which he supposes not needful to be immediately by the Ministry but the transmission of it from those that have heard it published by them may suffice to others But to what end he expatiates upon this I do not know though I do what ill use Mr. John Goodwin in his Pagans debt and dowry makes of this very notion Sed meliora spero 4. Nor was it incongruous that God should provide by some extraordinary means that his gracious tenders might not finally be rejected by all Let. p. 74. Rep. Yet it seems not of such absolute necessity as I always conceived it to be if by the dispensations of God towards the whole community of mankind whereof he reckons instances and addes they might understand God to have favourable propensions towards them and that though they have offended him he is not their implacable enemy and might by his goodness be led to repentance Let. p. 75 77 compar'd For thus Mr. John Goodwin argues against the absolute necessity of the Gospel strictly taken And in Phrases so near that my fancy is ready to abuse me with a mistake that not J. H. but J. G. is now discoursing Rom. 2.4 The long-suffering of God and goodness of God are said to lead men to Repentance because they testifie according to a rational and clear interpretation a willingness and readiness in God to receive all such into grace and favour with himself who shall unfeignedly repent of their sins So Mr. Goodwin Pagans debt and dowry pag. 13. And he adds There is no other consideration but this at least none without this in respect whereof the patience and bountifulness of God can be said to lead i.e. to perswade or invite to repentance There is no motive or perswasive whereof sinners are capable unto repentance without hope of pardon upon repentance Id. Ib. And concludes you see it clear from the Scripture that even Heathen men and those that want the History of the Gospel have yet a sufficiency of means whereby to believe and so to prevent the wrath and indignation which is to come Mr. Goodwin Ib. p. 14. I must profess I am none of Mr. J. G's Proselytes who ever be nor was Mr. Obadiah Howe a most worthy person and kinsman of our Learned Antagonist who hath learnedly and largely confuted him in a Tract intituled significantly The Pagan Preacher silenced out of whom I shall transcribe his Answer to Mr. J. G's Explication of Rom. 2.4 of Heathens This second Chapter relates to the Jews whom he reprehends because by their Law they would condemn the Gentiles as sinners when they committed the same things But that the patience and goodness of God afforded to the Jews was without the word I think Mr. G. will not affirm which is the cause why the Apostle concludes the Jews under a great inexcusability because the ministry of the word superadded to the light of nature became not efficacious to restrain them from sin and from this very Argument he argues against the Jews v. 17 18. still supposing that these persons enjoying the patience of God v. 4. had the letter of the Gospel So far Mr. Ob. Howe p. 52. 5. As to those with whom Gods Methods succeed not well it is to be considered that he doth not apply himself to every or to any person immediately and severally after some such tenour of speech as this I know thee to be a profligate hopeless wretch and that thou wilt finally disregard