Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	evil_a	good_a	work_n	6,191	5	6.9192	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43716	Patro-scholastiko-dikaiōsis, or, A justification of the fathers and the schoolmen shewing, that they are not self-condemned for denying the positivity of sin. Being an answer to so much of Mr. Tho. Pierce's book, called Autokatakrisis, as doth relate to the foresaid opinion. By Hen: Hickman, fellow of Magdalene Colledge, Oxon.	Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.	1659 (1659)	Wing H1911A; ESTC R217506	59,554	166

be the want of conformity in this action to the Law of God and so they labor to shew or rather to feigne some conditions in the concurrence whereof such an act is seperated from it's pravity Let the Reader if he please to satisfie his curiosity consult Greg. valent 2. Tom. in Tho. dis 6. q. 9. puncto 1. Or Bradwardine lib. 1. cap. 26. I recite not their words because I need not their helpe and because they seem to make impossible hypotheses as if the hatred of God were produced by God in a stone whereas it cannot be that there should be the hatred of God in a stone which neither hath nor can have any knowledge nay the beasts though they have love and hatred yet cannot be said to hate God of whom they have no knowledge or representation I say therefore that the hating of God is complexum quid and must not be spoken of as if it were one the vital action of hatred is a thing positive but the undue referring or terminating of that act to such an object which is altogether lovely that 's the sinfulnesse of the action and not positive but privative indeed omne esse morale est valde jejunum diminutum moral goodnesse and evill are rather modi entium than entia which made Vasquez though otherwise a very acute Doctor place them as I noted before among entia rationis Yet because it belongs to the Universality of the first cause to produce not onely every reall being but also the reall positive modifications of beings Therefore we say that in good workes both the workes themselves and their rectitude are positive and are from God in evill workes there are also two things considerable the workes themselves and their pravity the workes themselves we doubt not are positive and from God as all other positive things but their pravities adde no new entities to them but consist in a meer privation in those things which are to be done according to a rule good consists in a conformity to and convenience with the rule but evill in a difformity or discrepance from the rule conformity is positive difformity is privative And in this Answer I am very much confirmed by the sayings of Anselm and Twisse Thus Anselm deconc Praedest liberi arbitrii cap. 1. God caused all things which are done either with a just or injust will that is good workes and evill in good workes he both causeth that they be and that they be good in evill he onely causeth that they be not that they be evill adding this reason of the difference because to be evill is to be nothing Dr. Twisse vind lib. 2. There is a twofold actual concourse of God one of Generall influence the other of speciall grace the concourse of generall influence is necessarily required to every action whether good or evill but the concourse of speciall grace is onely required to a worke throughly good every good work therefore needs a twofold help one of generall influence as it is a work another of speciall grace as good but an evill work requires onely the concourse of generall influence as it is a work but that it be evill no more is required than the denyall of speciall grace Thomas speak to the same purpose 2 Senten dist 37. art 2. p. 2. A 5. thing which Mr. P. would fain have to do the office of an argument is this if every sin be privative than there will be no difference betwixt sins of omission and sins of commission but a difference there is betwixt them therefore c. I suppose those words Pag. 167. Would if reduced to mood and Figure appear before us in such a form as I have now represented he makes no difference betwixt not blessing and cursing God betwixt ceaseing to give almes and grinding the faces of the poor betwixt not saving and killing another man Answ Sins of omission and commission are sufficiently distinguished notwithstanding they be both made to consist in privation Omission will be the transgressiō of an affirmative precept commission the trangression of a Negative precept 2ly They differ in respect of their immediate foundation the fundamentum proximum of a sin of commission is some act or habit but these are not the fundamenta proxima of a sin of omission it vexeth me that I am forced to inculcate these so vulgar and obvious things which none are ignorant of but those who never learned the A B C. of Philosophy To the same Cluster I may reduce what he hath P. 146. Murder must have something in it of positive to distinguish it in specie from all other sins But Scotus in 2. dis 35. will tell him that the specifical distinction of sin is taken from the different privation of different rectitude Joh. Rada will tell him that there is no reall difference betwixt Thom. him in this deafnesse and blindnesse are privations yet speeifically distinct because one is the privation of the power of seeing the other of the power of hearing But how then are the two extreme vices distinguished e. g. Covetousness prodigality seing they are privations but of the same habit of liberality Answ Because covetousnesse is a privation of liberality as it puts a man upon honest spending prodigality is a privation of liberality as it doth incline a man to avoid superfluous spending Thus I have eked out my adversaries argument which was somewhat short and scanty this made him seek to peece it with a patch of Grammar for so it follows some are not onely positively but superlatively evill the jest lieth in positive and superlative I am content he should thus use his wit with out any rival But I have been told that some years since there was one T. P. lived near the Schools who would have made such clenches with him and given him 3. for one A 6. argument that he will needs presse to fight for the positivity of sin is taken from those Scriptures which do speak of greater and lesser sins Pag. 163. At this I would strike with my Answer if I could find where the veine of proof did lye if I may ghesse it lyes in this that there can be no degrees in a privation but this is a meer mistake Among privations some are greater some lesse with relation to that forme unto which they are opposed if the forme have degrees of intention that may Physically be accounted the greater privation which removes more degrees of the Form from the Subject that the lesse which removes fewer if we reckon morally then we may also calculate the degrees of privation from the greater or lesse obligation that the subject is under to have that form which for the present he wants A. 7. If sinne be a privation how are actions and operations ascribed to it How doth the Apostle say sinne wrought in him all manner of concupiscence Rom. 7.8 Answ In such speeches sin signifies not abstractly and formally but it

by every one of those 7. writers that undertook the answer to Mr. Mountagues appeal yet they never thought it incumbent upon them to alter their minds Mr. Mountague saith both in his Gag appeale that our Church hath left this undecided and in the conference at Hampton-Court I find Dr. Reynolds moving that the words totally and finally might be added for explication of the Article and that the Lambeth Articles might be in serted The King then unacquainted with the Lambeth Articles thought not meet to put them in But liked it well enough in his Clergy of Ireland that they took them into their confession Dr. Overall said something touching an opinion of his about which he had been questioned by some but concluded that the elect do never fall away totally or finally The Bishop of London said he knew there were some that did make an ill use of the decrees But had before the conference agreed to the Lambeth Articles and after the conference when he was Archb. his Chaplain with his good liking and approbation published the exposition and Analysis of our Articles in which he gives the Calvinist as fair quarter as could be wished And now I would faing know why I am sent to the conference at Hampton-Court Mr. Hooker had I warrant you read Artic. Homilies forme of Baptism and seeing he could scarce tell how to speak not judiciously we will consult him the rather because it seems this Author was by the late King commended to his Children as an antidote against the poison of Popery Disc of justifi p. 506. As Christ beeing raised from the dead dyeth no more death hath no more power over him So the justified man beeing allyed to God in Iesus Christ our Lord doth as necessarily from that time forward allwayes live as Christ by whom he hath life liveth allway I might if I had not other where largely done it allready shew by many and sundry manifest and cleer proofs how the motions and operations of this life are sometimes so in discerneable and so secret that they seem stone dead who are notwithstanding still alive unto God in Christ For as long as that abideth in us which animateth quickeneth and giveth life so long we live and we know that the cause of our faith abideth in us for ever If Christ the Fountain of life may flit and leave the habitation where once he dwelleth what shall become of his promise I am with you to the end of the World If the seed of God which containeth Christ may be first conceived then cast out how doth St. Peter terme it immortall How doth St. John affirme it abideth If the Spirit which is given to cherish and preserve the seed of life may be given and taken away how is it the earnest of our in heritance untill redemption Anno 1625. one Mr. Damport did answer on this Question An renati possint totaliter finaliter excidere à gratiâ His opponent one Mr. Palmer of Lincolne Colledge urged out of Mr. Mountagues appeal the Article of our Church the Homilies the book of Common prayer the Dr. of the Chair handled the Appellator shrewdly saying he was Merus Grammaticus a fellow that studied Phrases more than Matter that he understood neither the Articles nor the Homilies or at least perverted both And what thinkes Mr. P. of the University of Oxon did not shee know the opinions of the Church of England or would she countenance any thing that had so much as the appearance of contrariety to our Church How came it then to passe that her congregations appointed questions to be disputed of at the publick acts in which are the greatest confluence of the of Sons of Levi. That proceeders maintained in a Calvinistical way How many are now alive that can remember this Question an ex Doctrina reformatorū sequatur Deū esse autorē peccati held Neg. And maintained to the satisfaction of the hearers the Arminian Doctors mean while shewing themselves rather angry than able opponents Let any one who questioneth the truth of what I now say consult the Act Papers that are printed as often as those Academical solemnities are celebrated What should I say more we know when Arminianisme began under whose wings it was sheltered viz. the D. of Buck. and Bishop Laud of whom the first had so much of an Herod in him as would not have suffered him so long to continue friendship with the latter if he had not had too little of a St. Ioh. Baptist whilest they did rule not before nor since passages in books against Arminianisme were blotted out reflections in Sermons upon Remonstrants were disliked by Bishop Lauds meanes Dr. Downhams book against the Totall finall Apostasy of the saints from grace was called in in his dayes Mr. Ford of Mag. H. Mr. Thorn of Baliol Mr. Hodges of Exeter were censured but let it be observed that the ground of the Censure was not their having preached any thing contrary to the Doctrine of the Church which is the forme of the censure possed upon Arminians by the ancient Protestants but onely their going against the Kings Declaration which determined nothing but onely injoyned silence in these points Now I hope the Church did not live and dye with B. and C. Nay their flourishing was the decaying and languishing of Church and State too nor could either body vell recover but by spewing out such evill instruments Obj. The Church of England is for universal redemption the Calvinists that are Antiarminian are against it Ans Mr. P. indeed is hugely confident that it we grant him universall redemption the cause is yeelded to him But I am all most as confident that to grant him universall redemption is to grant him just nothing at all for what though Christ did so far die for all as to procure a salvation for all upon the conditions of faith and repentance what 's this to the absolutenesse of Gods decrees or to the insuperability of converting grace or to the certain infallible perseverance of Gods elect after conversion King Iames understood these controversies far better then either Mr. P. or I. and yet he even at that very time when he sent his Divines to the Synod of Dort to determine against the Arminianisme that was then growing in the Low Countries gave it them in charge not to deny that Christ died for all as I my self was told by Bishop Vsher the first time I had the happinesse to have any personall discourse with him who also further then told me that he gave in his own judgement to Dr. Davenant for universall redemption but withall added that there were a certaine number upon whom God absolutely purposed to bestow his Spirit taking away the heart of stone and giving them an heart of flesh and we know that Dr. Davenant in that very dissertation in which one conclusion is Mors sive passio Christi ut universalis causa salutis humanae deum patrem

diab c. 10. So that we are but where we were at the first setting out For the actions in which the evill of sin is subjected I 'le grant to be positive but from God as well as the creature the evill of sin from which they are denominated sinfull is but a privation and requireth no proper efficient cause at all such as it hath man is and not God But I have obstructed his good nature in working Pag. 157. He goes on further to tell me that res in Metaphysicks hath three acceptions in the first of wich it comprehendeth entia rationis as opposed to nihil Before he tell what the other two acceptions are he corrects himself my design is to convert and not confound him this charity as is more than probable did both begin and end at home had any benefit been intended to me by it you should have ceased sooner For I was confunded before that politick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made For let any one tell mee how this discourse about ens rationis is here brought in First was it to let the World understand that our Author knew what ens rationis meant That 's but a low design and yet he cannot accomplish it neither for he placeth the model of an house to be built hereafter among entia rationis yet that is as far from being onely objective in intellectu from not being longer than it is thought on as the East is from the West Secondly hath he a mind to insinuate that sin is ens rationis if so it must either be privatio which is that he all along denieth or a negation against which his arguments militate with more strength or a relatio rationis which is affirmed by Vasquez but against all good reasons as I shall soon shew him if forced to so great severity by his owning such a paradox Thirdly was it his businesse to intimate that all the entia rationis are so the works of men as that God cannot be termed the cause of those actions by which they are made I will not torture his ingeniolum with that perplexed question whether the Divine intellect do fabricate ens rationis but without all peradventure the action of the understanding though not the imperfection is from God are not all our notiones 2 ae in Logick entia rationis yet is the act of the understanding causing them so far from not being from God that God hath indeed a more than ordinary common concourse to it The privative nature of sin may be thus further evicted If a thing be therefore sinfull because it wants some perfection that it ought to have and cease to be sinful when it hath all the perfection which it ought to have than is sin a privation but a thing is therefore sinfull c. Ergo the consequence of the proposition is as clear as the noone day light the assumption also needs rather explication than confirmation ther 's not a novice but knows the old rule bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex quolibet defectu To make an action good there must be a concurrence of all the three goods object end circumstances the mere want of any of these three makes the action sinfull because the Law requires that all the three goodnesses should be in the action the want of that which the Law requires to to be in any subject is a sin or else we must reject not onely Aristotle but the Apostle who saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This argument is used by Greg. Arim. a noble and ancient Schoolman and largely insisted upon by Faventinus the most acute Scotist I 'me not ignorant that various replies are made to the argument but answers also are commonly given to those replies which to transcribe would be a matter of more trouble than profit My fourth and last argument against the pretended positivity of sin I dispose in this enthymem Original sin is not positive ergo sin as sin is not positive The consequent I conceive will be yeelded sine sanguine sudore otherwise the old Canon a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia would soon command it as to the antecedent I deny not but our Protestant Divines in their disputes against the Papists doe make a positive as wel as a privative part of original sin but how that terme may be understood so as not to prejudice my assertion in the least is largely shewed by Gisber Voetius in his accurate discourse de propagatione peccati originalis He that calls it a privation of Gods image saith the whole nature of it is a sentence of Mr. John Calvin That I may prove original sin not to be positive in the sense we now use the word positive I must lay down this as a postulatum That the soul is not by propagation or ex traduce as they speak but immediately created by God If this postulatum should not be granted me I should not fear the demonstrating of it by evidence of Scripture and strength of reason to any gain sayer but such my charity forbids mee to think Mr. P. This supposed I thus argue If original sin be a thing positive 't is either the soul it self or some of its faculties or some accident or adiunct agreing immediately to the faculties mediatly to the soul it self but none of all these ergo To say with Flaccius Illyricus that it is the soule it self were with more than heathenish impiety to calumniate the goodnesse of our Creator and the like absurditie will follow if we assert it to be one of the faculties of the soul If we say it is an accident inhering in the faculties of the soul then it was either put into them by God which will make God the Author of the worst of sins or else it is caused in them by the souls presence in and union to the body or from some action of the soul it self Not by any action of the soul it self for it's faculties are sinfull before it put forth any one act of reason Not from its presence in or union to the body for who can imagine how the soul which is spiritual and immaterial should be defiled by being joyned to a body which thoughfull of naturall imperfections is not sinfull and if it were sinfull could nor communicate its sinfullnesse to the soule that informes it But now holding original sin to be a privation in an active subject we do avoid all these inconveniences by saying that Adam by his first transgression did sin away the image of God from himself and his posterity who were in him not onely as a naiurall but as a federal head also and so God createth the souls of men void of his image and yet justly looks on them as sinners for wanting this image because they ought to have it and by their own folly deprived themselves of it As for the reasons Mr. P. hath against the privative nature of sin he hath so slipt glided them