Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	ecclesiastical_a	law_n	1,550	5	5.5075	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15733	An ansvvere to a popish pamphlet, of late newly forbished, and the second time printed, entituled: Certaine articles, or forcible reasons discouering the palpable absurdities, and most notorious errors of the Protestants religion. By Anthony Wotton	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.; Wright, Thomas, d. 1624. Certaine articles or forcible reasons.	1605 (1605)	STC 26002; ESTC S120304	112,048	194

Supreame head of the Church which title being taken from the Pope and giuen to the King seemed to inuest that whole power in the Kings person which the Pope had vsurped ouer the church Secondly Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester affirmed at Ratisbon that it was lawfull for the King to forbid eating of flesh vpon this or that day to forbid Priests to marry to take from the people the vse of the Cup in the Supper of the Lord The later two whereof are simply vnlawfull the first only so farre as it concernes putting religion in such abstinence of which anon And in that sense onely did Caluin denie the Kings supremacie in this point taking it to be all one with the Popes What opposition the Presbyterie of Scotland hath made against the King I neither know nor haue now leasure to seeke But if they haue done any thing whereby it may iustly be suspected that they thinke the king hath nothing to do with the kirke they haue gone beyond their bounds and shall neuer haue eyther approbation or excuse by my defense As for the Ministers and people which doe not yeeld to subscription and conformitie I must needs labour to cleere them of this imputation To which purpose I desire it may first be obserued that they acknowledge both by word and writing and that ex animo not like you Papists with I know not what aequiuocations that the Kings Maiestie vnder God is the onely supreame Gouernour of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse dominions and countries as well in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall that no forraine Prince person state or Potentate hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within his Maiesties said Realmes dominions and countries according as the statute agreeablie to the law of God requireth Secondly they professe with the rest of their Fathers and brethren Protestants that his Maiestie hath authoritie to commaund or forbid in all matters whatsoeuer necessarie or indifferent and that in both these he is to be obeyed vpon conscience Of his authoritie in matters commanded by God we are wholy of one minde About the matters in question there are these two differences Whether they be indifferent or no whether supposing them to be indifferent they may be commaunded and done in case they be thought to nourish superstition in many and to be an occasion of stumbling and destruction to many a one for whom Christ hath dyed And these are the reasons why they dare not as they say approue some things in our church by subscription and practise otherwise professing not onely a willingnesse but a desire to yeeld if they might satisfie their owne consciences in these doubts So that indeed they no way deny the Kings supremacie either by attributing that to any forrain potētate or prelate or any presbytery at home which lawfully belōgs vnto him or by denying his authority in things indifferent Concerning the authoritie of Bishops it is not an essentiall point of faith and besides the best protestant diuines holde that the forme of gouernment is left to the discretion of euery church to be framed as the ciuill estate may beare it and therefore it is not denyed I thinke that there may be a Presbytery but that a Presbytery is fit for a Monarchie So that the abolishing of Bishops in some Churches is not a confounding of Christs church but a dissoluing of one outward forme of gouernment Essentiall points of faith are matters of doctrine wherein a man may be sound and yet faile in some parts of obedience If therefore by not obseruing you meane not thinking it lawfull to obserue or appoint holy daies I say it is no essētiall point of faith to doubt of or deny this authority though the Puritans generally hold such deniall to be an error If it be your meaning to charge the Puritans with neglecting the obseruation of such daies I dare be bold to say that all Puritans do more religiously obserue them then any Papist doth the Lords day or Sunday which I auowe both of Ministers and people That it is vnlawfull for the church or magistrat to appoint fasts for the religious humbling of men vpon iust occasions it is a foule error for any man to hold but not against any essentiall point of faith required to the being of a christian either in truth or profession Both Protestants Puritans agree generally about this point as for the weekly fish daies Lēt the 4. ember weeks our church and state disclaime the appointing of them for any vse of religion and keepe them only as meanes to prouide for the encrease of cattell and mainteinance of shipping Mariners Fishermen and Fishmongers Neither is this doctrine of Christs suffrings any essentiall point of faith nor blasphemy on the one part or other as I haue s●ewed before in the fourth article This makes no difference betwixt Protestants Puritants because many on either side are of this opinion many of the contrary Of this I say as of the former that taking it in such a sense as this Papist doth it is no essentiall point of faith but in the true meaning of the article it is for it belongs to to the truth of Christian Religion as a substantiall point to hold that our Sauiour Christ was wholly in the estate of the dead both for soule and bodie Of this matter alsoe there is diuersitie of opinion betwixt Protestants and Protestants Puritans and Puritans and therefore it is fondly and falsly set downe as a point of dissent betwixt protestants and Puritans The like answere is to be made to this also saue onely that it may be doubted whether any Protestant agree with the Papists in this point or no generally I am sure the Puritans and the Protestants are of one opinion in this matter To hold that Christ is God of God the naturall sonne of God coessentiall Coēternall to his father is a matter of necessitie at the least so that the Contrary ouerthrowes religion But for my part I dare not affirme that the distinct knowledge of all such points is of necessity to saluation And surely sauing other mens better iudgment I am of opinion that those Clauses of Athanasius Creed which seeme to shut all men out of heauen that beleeue not those articles of the Creed are to be vnderstood of some of them onely or of the Contrary to the truth The holy and learned man spake according to the occasion the heresie of Arrius hauing made a maine difference betwixt the true and false Christians But of these three last points see The fourth Article Thus much of the maine differences which this Papist ●oats now followe the petty ones as hee calls them The first whereof is as true as the former seauen For our agrement in the matter of Baptisme may easilie be knowne by our ioynt consent to the articles of Religion 1562. according to

the subscription required by statute Neither do the Puritans deny that Baptisme washeth away all sinnes as a Sacrament and seales vp the forgiuenesse thereof Neither do the protestants beleeue any other thing of it or ascribe any other vertue to it The Puritanes do not Condemne the communion booke as irreligious but acknowledge it lawfull to bee vsed and both haue vsed it heretofore and are readie to vse it againe howsoeuer they desire to be forborne in the vse of some things in it which to them seeme vnwarrantable They entreate to be spared for the Crosse in Baptisme And whereas diuers of late haue yeelded to it the ground of their yeelding is that it is no significant Ceremonie but onely a signe betwixt man and man and so indifferent as they thinke That there are some differences betwixt vs we deny not nor that this is one of them concerning the signe in Confirmation But this is farre from being an essentiall point of faith And so is this of vsing Vestiments Musicke c. wherein also there are diuers opinions on either side but I thinke there is no man condemns all these as will worship and superstitious Yea there are some called Puritans that take none of them all to be either will worship or superstitious and yet they hold them vnlawfull In a word there is not any difference to my knowledge betwixt vs which may either depriue vs of saluation by the death of Christ or barre vs from lyuing brotherly and christianly as members of one and the same Church And thus wee haue heard the strong arguments of this popish replyer Who it should seeme not resting much vpon his owne proofe in the end of this first parte lookes to heare some reasons from vs whereby we may approue our selues to be the true Church But that hath bin often donne by our Diuines so far as we professe of our selues For none of vs euer vndertooke to proue that we are the true Church as the Papists dreame of the Church Wee are by the blessing and grace of God a part or member of the true Church of Christ not the whole church Yea we acknowledge that diuers particular churches may refuse communion with vs. and yet both they and we remaine members of the same true church though not without some fault either on both sides or at least the one But the papists so take to themselues the name of the church that they condemne all for schismatickes yea for Heretikes that acknowledge not themselues to be members of the catholicke Romish church in subiection to the Pope of Rome The sum of our proofe is that we professe that religion which our sauiour Christ hath commended vnto vs in the scriptures of which it should seeme this man was not ignorant For in this very place he excepts against this reason because it is no other then that which all heretikes wil bring to condemne the church of Christ This answere is insufficient vnlesse we shall grant that our sauiour brings no good Mat. 4. 4. 7. reason against the Diuill in alledging scripture because Sathan himselfe in his temptation replies against him by scripture Who knowes not that in all controuersies reasons must be drawen from the arts of which the controuersie is as for example what Lawyer will offer to defend a bad cause but he will quote lawe for his purpose and shall this either bar him that pleads against him from alleging his bookes or make his plea of no force nay rather any man of meane discretion will readily distinguish and say the one makes a shew of law but the other hath law indeed so is it in these points of controuersie The Papists and other heretikes pretend that the scriptures make for them but this may not preiudice the authority thereof in deciding matters of controuersie neither shall any true christian need to be ashamed of seeking to ground his faith vpon the scriptures because Heretikes abuse them to their wicked purposes no more then our sauiour was to alleage them though the Diuill had drawen them to abett his horrible temptation Nay if the Papists were not too willfull they would in dyuers points acknowledge the voice of God in scriptures it being plaine as these allegations of our Sauiour Christ And if they had bin then in the Diuils steed they would not haue taken those places for satisfaction but would haue come vpon our sauiour with a second reply of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and haue charged him with falsifying the text for putting in Onely Therefore we acknowledge this to be our onely hould that by the Scriptures we are proued to be the Church of God Let the Arrians comtemne Councills We beleeue and professe that they are excellent meanes allowed by God for maintaining and searching out the truth only we refuse to match them in Authoritie and accompt with the vnfallible truth of the almighty God Will any absurd and base flatterer affirme that he despises Magistracy and Princes who denyes that they haue an absolute and infinite Authoritie But I thinke it would shrewdly trouble you to proue that the Arrians contemned Councills Sure it is not likely since themselues within the compasse of 30. yeares held 10. Councills at the least for the establishing of their wicked heresie True it is that they reiected the councill of Nice wherein their heresie was iustly and holyly condemned but that therefore they regarded not Councills at all it is not proued But consider I pray you with what conscience or rather with what malice you write The Arrians are blamed by you for not regarding Councils we are charged to contemne them Where as you know in your owne conscience that we receaue both that Councill which the Arrians refused and all the other generall and particuler councills saue those that as we are perswaded conteyne in them apparaunt falshood and impietie If it bee a fault not to receaue all who shall excuse you Papists that haue wholly reiected seauen generall Councills held at Antioch Millaine Ariminum Ephesus the second two at Constantinople against Images and one at Pisa and in part sixe other at Sardis at Syrmium at Constantinople in Tr●llo at Frankeford at Constance at Basill how iustly all or some of these are reiected I dispute not once it is euident they are reiected neither haue we any reason to regard your shifting defences concerning the Popes authority in whom for sooth it lies to allow or disallowe of Councils For this is but to beg the question Therefore to make short we willingly and reuerently embrace all Councils and all Canons and articles of all Councills so far forth as they agree with the word of God not because of their authority but by reason of the truth of those things which according to the scriptures is in them declared commended to all christians Neither do we hereby challenge to our selues the true interpretation of scriptures as if it were appropriated

you will say they may keepe them though they doe not I would beleeue it if you could shew me an example of any that euer did it But these places I alledged a little before manifestly proue that they that are renowned for holinesse were priuie to their owne vnrighteousnesse Nay what Saints story haue you any thing largely set downe in the Scriptures whose life is not tainted with some disobedience did those worthies faint sometimes and can we stand without snaking It is more honourable to God and comfortable to Christians truely to acknowledge the imperfection of their owne workes and the perfection of Gods mercy who vouchsafes a reward to those poore endeuours which of themselues by reason of the corruption wherewith they are defiled deserue in the rigour of his iustice euerlasting condemnation There needs no farther examination of the proofe of his syllogisme Article 4. Papist The most points wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholikes tend to loosenes of life and carnell liberty Protestant If the pointes we hold Be warrantable by the scriptures feare of what may follow thereupon must not make vs prouide for conceited holinesse by denying a certaine truth Papist This article may be proued by a generall induction in all Luther in asser art 36. Melanc in locis communibus Perkins in his reformed catholike the 1. controuersie such matters as now the Protestants cal in questiō First they say that man hath no free wil to do good but all goodnesse proceedeth so frō grace that it lieth not in his power neither to haue it nor resist it but of necessitie ●tmust haue effect To what other end tendeth this senselesse doctrine and fatall fancy but to make men negligent in disposing and preparing their soules to receaue Gods grace and to rouse it vp and put it in execution after they haue it making man not much vnlike a sicke asse who neither can dispose nor prepare himselfe to seeke for his medicine but of necessitie must expect till his Maister thrusteth it into his throat neither after he hath druncke it can cause it cure his disease but carelesly letteth it worke as it will Secondly they defend that men be iustified by faith alone C. The which solifidian portion ouerthroweth flatly true repentance sorrow for sinnes mortification of passions and all other vertues which tend to the perfect reconciliation of the soule with God causing men onely to procure a certaine false fantasticall apprehension of Christs death and passion the which faith although they erroneously auerre cannot be seuered from charity vertues good workes yet both experience teacheth that it may or else 1. Cor. 13. Whitacherus contra camp aut fides perpetua est aut nulla est And it is one of the 11. art enacted and decreed of by the bishops at Lamber ● some 4. yeares ago few or none of them haue faith because few or none of them haue these workes and the Scriptures playnely proue that all faith yea and the most noble faith which hath force to remoue mountaines may be without charity D. Thirdly they assure vs that faith once had can neuer be lost the which vaine security openeth the gappe to al libertine sesuality for if a man be certaine that he hath true faith if it be impossible he should loose it if he be secured that by it alone he shal be saued why may he not wallowe in all licencious pleasures in this life neuer doubt of glory in the other Could euer Epicurus haue found a better ground to plant his Epicurisme Could euer Heliogabalus haue better patronized his sensuality Could Bacchus or Venus haue euer forged better reasons to enlarge their Dominion Fourthly they say a man can not keepe all the commaundements ● for what other cause I pray you but thereby to make men negligent in the keeping of them to pretend an excuse of impossibility whensoeuer they transgresse them F Fiftly why deny they the Sacrament of penance but to make men carelesse how they liue and neuer regard the avoyding of sinnes as though they were neuer to render an account of them To hinder that shame and blushing which men conceaue in discouering their sinnes the which are most excellent meanes to deterre men from sinning another time to shuffle vp Restitution satisfaction of iniuries committed against our neighbours to drawe men from remorse of conscience by burying their sinnes in eternal obliuion the soares whereof Confession rubbeth and causeth remembrance Sixtly why exclude they the true and reall body of G Christ from the blessed Sacrament of the Altar but for that they perceaued how by the presence thereof they were deterred from sinne and wickednesse For they knew well that sinnefull liues consorted not with those sacred mysteries and therfore they rather resolued to banish Christ from the Sacrament then sinne from their soules Finally for what other cause haue they coyned a new negatiue H. religion wholly standing vpon Negation of Sacraments Ceremonies Rites Lawes Customes and other principal points of the Catholicke Church but for Fasting to bring an Feasting for Praying Playing for Deuotion Dissolution for Religious feare of God vaine Security for zeale and mortification a number of vaine verball sermons and to conclude for a positiue working a flat denyall almost of all points of faith and religion A. Protestant In deed a generall or rather a particular induction of all matters that Protestants call in question is of necessity to the proofe of this Article But neither if such an Induction were made could any such thing bee done and that not being done there is not so much as any reasonable course taken for the proofe of it for what if all these points here set down tend to loosenesse of life Alas 7. are neither all nor the most part nor any thing neere the most part of those points wherein we dissent from the Papists So that if it it were true of euery one of these as it is of neuer a one of them that they tend to loosenesse yet were this authour as farre from proving that he hath vndertaken as 7. is from seauen score that I may be sure to speake within my compasse what shall we iudge then of this proofe where from the first to the last there is not one true point as by speciall examination it will appeare They say that man hath not free will B. Nay more then that wee say that free will is a mere fancie a bare name without any thing answerable vnto it in the nature of man at the least since his fall in Adam But if it be his meaning to charge vs with a purpose to bring in loosenesse of life and carnall liberty by the teaching of this Doctrine we appeale from this vniust slaunderer First to the iudgement of God that searcheth the hearts and the raines then to the testimony of our conscience and lastly to the preaching of our Ministers and conuersation of our people

and most effectually intended their sinnes For he that intendeth any effect wherewith an other effect is necessarily conioyned consequently intendeth it as for example He that intendeth to burne a ship in the middest of the sea intēdeth cōsequently the death of all the men which be in her In like m●ner if God intended that Iudas should sell Christ vnto which action sinne was necessarily adioyned consequently God intended the sinne as well as the selling C. Cal. lib. 1. institution C. 18. §. 1. The Minor is to to euident for the Protestants deride Gods permission they say that all his actions are energetical or effectual they desperatly auerre that Pauls conuersion Dauids adultry were in like maner the works of God and as he elected some to Glory before the preuision of workes so he reiected some from glory before the preuision of sinnes Here hence I inferre that according to the Protestants principles God is most properly the author of sinne because he impelleth most effectually thereunto Next that he is the only author of sinne for that he inforceth D. men vpon necessity to sinne and they as instruments follow the motion of their first cause Againe that man sinneth not For where there is necessitie of sinning there is no sinne For sinne is free or no sinne Besides how can man sinne in conforming his will to Gods will Finally God is worse then the diuell For that the wickednes of the diuell principally consisteth in the mouing perswading and inducing of men to sin the which by the Protestants confession God performeth more effectually then the Diuell because the motions of God are more forcible lesse resistable then the illusions or suggestions of the diuell Many sinnes moreouer are acted without the temptations of the diuell some of ignorance some of passion but none without the motions of God so that God is worse then the Diuell both in causing greater multitude of sinnes then the diuell and in the forcible maner of causing sinnes Which the diuell cannot attaine vnto The which doctrine is as good a ground for Atheisme as euer hell could deuise for were it not much more reasonable to saye there were no God at all then to beleeue there were such a God as commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth men to sinne and yet for the same sinnes will torment them with the inexplicable paines of hell Protestant Whosoeuer defends that God Commaunds perswades vrges A. impells to sinne makes God the cause of sinne Of this proposition there is no question betwixt the Papists and vs. Yet I hold it necessary to speake a word or two of it not by way of refutation but of explication If a man commaund vrge c. to that which is euill and the effect ensue therevpon he is iustly to be charged with that sinne as the Author of it In Gods Commaunding it is otherwise For that which he B. commaunds being otherwise euill chaunges the nature by his commaundement so that neither he that commaunds nor the partie that obeies commit any sinne in commaunding or obeying For example it is vnlawfull for a man to offer vp his Child for a burnt sacrifice yet God commaunds Abraham to do so and Abraham is ready to fulfill the comm●undement Both without sinne because the will of God is the rule of righteousnes and he that gaue man a lawe hath reserued authoritie to himselfe to dispence with that lawe when and as it pleaseth him and as this Papist saith truely Euery man is bound in Conscience to Conforme his will to the will of God But yet this is not simply true For admit that Iudas had knowne that it was Gods will that our Sauiour should be betraied to the Iewes by him might he therefore the doing of it At no hand for he was to haue receaued a warrant for it that it might be lawful wheras he had the contrary charge in the 6. Commaundement Thou shalt not kill But if God had geuen him commission to do it as he did to abraham for the offring of his sonne then he had bin bound to yeeld obedience to this commaundement of God and had not sinned in obeying So much doth it concerne a man to liue in obedience to those lawes which God hath prescribed to all and euery man generally and particularly Abraham hath a commaundement not to kill if it be Gods wil he should kill without sinning therby God wil giue him warrant and charge to kil without which howsoeuer Gods wil stand Abraham cannot do it lawfully And therefore it had not ben warrantable for Iudas Pilate or the Iewes intending that good end which God intended to haue done contrary to the generall commaundement of God without a speciall commission to that purpose which is more then a knowledge that God would haue it done This being vnderstood we disclayme as needelesse all such excuses for God as this Papist seemeth to make on our behalfe For we say not that God moued them for a good end but that he did not moue them at all and yet there is a great deale of difference betwixt mouing and commaunding perswading vrging impelling since he may truly be said to moue a man that offers him the outward occasions whereby he may be prouoked to the doing of any thing which I suppose God doth and you will graunt may do without being guilty of sinne for so doing But if we would maintaine that God moued them it it were no hard matter to answer your strong proofe For neither doth God binde him selfe to those lawes which he giues to man and his will being the rule of Iustice that which he will haue done by his willing of it ceasses to be euill So that he cannot doe any euill though he may commaund that to be done which till he commaunded it could not be done without sinne But you vrge vs further that God indirectly and most effectually intended their sinnes Of his effectuall intending by and by in answere to the Assumption Now only of his direct intending which we are so farre from denying that we hold it absurd to make any question of it For what is more plaine in the scripture then that 2 Sā 24. 1. God would haue Dauid sinne to the end that he might by his sinne haue occasion to punish the people as he did Doth not Michah professe that it was Gods purpose 1. Reg. 22. 22. 23. that Achab should fall at Ramoth Gile●d by hearkening to the false prophesies of them whom a lying spirit was to seduce Goe saith God thou shalt preuaile And to come to your owne example did not God intend decree that our sauiour Christ should be treacherously betrayed by Iudas falsely accused by the Priests vniustly condemned by Pilate If he did not certainly determine these things so that the euen could not but ensue thereupon he did not certainly prouide for the saluation of his children because it might haue come to passe that Christ should not haue bene betrayed