Answ. There are two distinct acts of God here that I call Transient. The first is the Enacting of this Law, or giving this promise. If this were not Gods act, then it is not his Law or promise. If it be his act, it is either Transient, or Immanent. I have not been accustomed to believe that Legislation, Promising, &c. are no acts, or are Immanent acts. The second is the continued Moral Action of the Word, which is also Gods Action by that Word as his Instrument: As it is the Action of a written Pardon to Acquit, and of a Lease to give Title, &c. And so the Law is said to absolve, condemn, command, &c. What it saith, it saith to them that are under the Law: And to say, is to Act. Though physically this is no other Action, then a sign performeth in signifying, or a fundamentum in producing the Relation, which is called the nearest efficient of that Relation. Now either you think that to oblige (the most essential act of Laws) to absolve, condemn, &c. are Gods acts by his Word, or not. If not, the mistake is such as I dare not confute, for fear least by opening the greatness of it, I offend you. If yea; then either it is Gods Immanent act, or his Transient. The former I never to this day heard or read any man affirm it to be. That which is done by an Instrument, is no Immanent act in God: To oblige to duty, to give right to Impunity and Salvation, &c. are done by Instruments, viz. the Word of God, as it is the signifier of his will: therefore they are not Immanent Acts. Moreover, that which is begun in time, and is not from Eternity, is no Immanent Act. But such are the fore-mentioned: because the word which is the Instrument, was indited in time. Lastly, that which maketh a change on the extrinsic object is no Immanent act, but such are these Moral acts of the Word: for they change our Relations, and give us a Right which we had not before, &c. therefore they are certainly transient ⟨p. 91⟩acts. A thing that I once thought I should never by man have been put to prove.
Answ. There are two distinct acts of God here that I call Transient. The first is the Enacting of this Law, or giving this promise. If this were not Gods act, then it is not his Law or promise. If it be his act, it is either Transient, or Immanent. I have not been accustomed to believe that Legislation, Promising, &c. are no acts, or are Immanent acts. The second is the continued Moral Action of the Word, which is also Gods Action by that Word as his Instrument: As it is the Action of a written Pardon to Acquit, and of a Lease to give Title, &c. And so the Law is said to absolve, condemn, command, &c. What it saith, it saith to them that are under the Law: And to say, is to Act. Though physically this is no other Action, then a sign performeth in signifying, or a fundamentum in producing the Relation, which is called the nearest efficient of that Relation. Now either you think that to oblige (the most essential act of Laws) to absolve, condemn, &c. are Gods acts by his Word, or not. If not, the mistake is such as I dare not confute, for fear least by opening the greatness of it, I offend you. If yea; then either it is Gods Immanent act, or his Transient. The former I never to this day heard or read any man affirm it to be. That which is done by an Instrument, is no Immanent act in God: To oblige to duty, to give right to Impunity and Salvation, &c. are done by Instruments, viz. the Word of God, as it is the signifier of his will: therefore they are not Immanent Acts. Moreover, that which is begun in time, and is not from Eternity, is no Immanent Act. But such are the fore-mentioned: because the word which is the Instrument, was indited in time. Lastly, that which maketh a change on the extrinsick object is no Immanent act, but such are these Moral acts of the Word: for they change our Relations, and give us a Right which we had not before, &c. therefore they are certainly transient ⟨p. 91⟩acts. A thing that I once thought I should never by man have been put to prove.
