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	good_a	work_n	2,753	5	6.1002	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42882	Stimluus [sic] orthodoxus, sive Goadus redivivus A disputation partly thological, partly metaphysical, concerning the necessity and contingency of events in the world, in respect of Gods eternal decree. Written above twenty years since by that reverend and learned divine, Thomas Goad, doctor of divinity, and rector of Hadleigh in Suffolk.	Goad, Thomas, 1576-1638.	1661 (1661)	Wing G904; ESTC R216465	22,144	30

of sins questionless they make God according to their own Argumentation the cause of sins But they have a limitation for this Rule and say that it holdeth in causis essentialiter subordinatis as they say that God is the cause of all those things which are essentially and districtly done by our wills but sins proceeding from the depravation of our wills are effects of a cause not directly subordinate to God The limitation is sound but not applicable to their instance yea the limitation it self quite spoileth them For 1. While Adam's will was yet sound they teach that God decreed that Adam should eat the forbidden fruit now at that time they cannot say but that Adam was a cause essentially subordinate to God 2. They teach that God is a cause not onely of our actions but also of our volitions as I may say then these being the causes of our sins are directly subordinate to him 3. Let us consider not onely the subordination between God and our wills but also between our actions and their moralities and we shall perceive that according to the abuse of these Rules they make God the cause of our sins For that Rule Causa causae est causa causati is infillibly true expounded thus The cause of any effect is the cause of all such events as necessarily follow that effect Now then if as they say God be a necessary cause of all our particular actions seeing our actions in reference to such and such objects must needs be sinful it is manifest what followeth For example Though to take money in general be no sin yet to take this or that money being none of our own is a sin Now then if God be a cause of this action in reference to this object as he is if he be the cause of this particular action it is impossible their Doctrine should excuse God from sin Eating in reference to the forbidden fruit was a sin but according to them God was a principal cause of eating the forbidden fruit Ergo. Minor prob They say he was the necessitating cause of this particular action Eating was a natural action the individuation of this eating by an unlawful object was a moral obliquity But God was the cause of this individual Ergo. The like may be said of all our sinful actions When I have drunk sufficiently both for the necessity and comfort of nature to drink a cup more is sin But our Opposites teach that I cannot take up this superfluous cup without Gods speciall determination Ergo. This Doctrine is enough to make ones hair stand an end making God whatsoever they say the cause not onely of our actions but also of our obliquities for what are the obliquities of our actions but the placing of them upon wrong objects If therefore they make God the principal cause of all our particular actions most of which are particularized by bad objects what do these men make of God But Recrimination is no answer Hitherto I have shewed though perhaps without method yet I hope not without profit how our Opposites are wounded with their own weapons Now I will take their weapons out of their hands and teach them the right use of them shewing how God is the cause of all things onely not the cause of sin a cause of all good things yet so as that many good things are contingent also We have shewed in the third Argument how God hath ordained that all sorts of Inferior or second causes should work according to their proper kinds that voluntary Agents should work voluntarily c. God then is the first cause that all things do work and that they do work in certain kinds If so then God is the cause that many things are done contingently one of the chiefest sorts of second causes by this appointment working voluntarily and therefore contingently which connexion we have formerly justified This being well understood will instruct us not onely that it may be so but also that it must be so That God being the necessary cause of all good things yet all such things are not necessary effects of Him For example It is impossible that man should do any thing without God therefore God is a cause necessary to the being of all things effected by him yet because many things done by the free choice of man might as well have been omitted God no ways constraining him to them these are not necessary effects of God The Reason of this is because God hath decreed that man should work voluntarily having liberty to do as well one thing as another yet so that God giveth him the strength to do whatsoever he chooseth to do and ability to choose what he will without limitation of his choice ☜ for this were else to take it away and to make man an involuntary Agent For example God hath given thee strength of body he hath given thee also ability to choose in what exercise thou wilt employ it thou choosest to Ring or Dance God then the Author of thy strength is the chief cause of these exercises yet so as they are contingent in respect of Him because thou mightest have omitted them hadst thou pleased By this we may plainly see how God is the principal cause of all things of which he is capable to be a cause and yet many things are contingent in respect of him This being cleared we may with more facility conceive how and in what sense God is the cause of all we do and yet we onely the cause of sin God sustains us when we are about our sins even then in Him we live and move and have our being as well as when we are better busied God giveth that strength by which we commit any sin yet because he doth not necessitate or incline unto it but we of our selves abuse it to wickedness God hath still the part of a Creator we onely are sinful An example will make this clear Suppose a King delivereth to his Subject Men Weapons Mony and Warlike provision that he may fight for his Honor against his enemies his Subject proves a Traitor and useth all his Soveraigns strength against himself His Soveraign here is a cause that he hath the command and doth the Office of a Captain but he is no cause of his Treachery the offence is onely the Captains and the wrong is onely the Soveraigns This is just the case between God and us God hath given us many excellent faculties both of body and soul which he intended we should use to his Glory in obedience to his commandements and resist His and our enemy the Devil we most traiterously siding with Satan have abused His gifts to His Dishonor God did the part of a Creator we of Rebels A man lives intemperately God gave him not strength to this purpose he necessitated not the man to this intemperancy Man therefore onely sinned God is dishonoured The King made his Subject able to rebel against him by delivering his military furniture

I need not use means to avoid it But also if I must use means I must if I must not I must not Seeing Gods decree necessitateth as much to use or omit the means as to obtain or lose the end For if their opinion be true all things whatsoever end or means of little or great moment come to passe necessarily and unavoidably by reason of Gods eternal Decree Here they have two Evasions Evasio 1 The first is this Albeit say they God hath most certainly determined what shall or what shall not be done concerning us yet his Decree is hid from us and we must use lawful and ordinary means for the obtaining of such and such good Ends keeping on the ordinary course which he hath revealed to us Confutatio See the vanity of this shift our Opposites teach that whatsoever God hath decreed shall be done and whatsoever is omitted shall be undone If therefore God hath determined that we should not use such and such means it is impossible for us to use them if he hath decreed that we should it is impossible that we should omit them And therefore it is more than ridiculous to say that although God in his secret will hath determined that we should not do such a thing yet we are to do it seeing his decree though it be secret yet it will have its effect and it is absolutely impossible we should do that which God hath determined we shall not do Evasion 2 Howsoever say our Opposites our opinion is far from Stoicism for the Stoicks thought that all things came inevitably to pass by reason of an indissoluble Chain and Connexion of natural causes but we teach that all events are irresistably necessary by reason of Gods everlasting decrees and His Omnipotency daily executing them ConFutation This reason is so poor a one and yet so much made on by some worthy men that I am more troubled to wonder at it than to confute it yet that I may satisfie it distinctly I will divide the opinion of the Stolcks into two particular Tenets 1. They hold that all things come to pass inevitably 2. They thought the reason of this inevitablenesse of events to be an unchangeable connexion of natural causes Our Opposites stisly maintain the former of these Tenets Now let the Reader observe that the most prodigious absurdities accompanying this Stoical error follow the first part of their opinion though sequestred from the second For if all things come to pass unavoidably what need I care what I do yea if I shall care I shall care whether I will or no and a thousand the like horridconceits follow the opinion of the necessity of events whatsoever we make to be the cause of this necessity It is a great point of Turkish Divinity at this day that all things are done unavoidably and they with our Opposites make Gods will to be the cause of this unavoidableness and therefore they judge of Gods pleasure or displeasure by the event Yet there is no Christian but abhorreth this Turcism and gives it no better entertainment than Anathema Mararatha It s too apparent therefore that albeit our Adversaries are true Christians yet in this point their opinion is guilty by reason of its consequence both of Stoicism and Turcism Again if we consider the second part of the Stoicks opinion we shall perceive that the opinion which we confute cannot be minced but that it will be compleat Stoicism The Stoicks thought the connexion of causes to be the cause of the necessity of events its true but what did they think to be the connexion of causes doubtless the eternal Laws of Nature which they supposed to be a Deity It is very probable they thought the Fates to be but Natures Laws but whatsoever they meant by the Fates its evident they made their decrees to be the cause of the connexion of causes How often read we both in Philosophers and Poets of Fatorum Decreta Parcarum Leges c. Yea the word Fatum it self is as much as a Decree as Edictum from Edicere so Fatum from Fari Quid aliud est Fatum quam id quod ' Deus de unoquoqut fatur saith Minutius Well then to apply Do not our Adversaries in this point suppose an inviolable linking of all things together one necessarily following in the neck of another Do they not make the cause of this linking to be Gods irresistable decree Do they not defend compleat Stoicism What part of Stoicism do they disclaim Do they not maintain inevitable necessity Do they not teach an indissoluble connexion of all things Do they not believe divine decrees to be the cause of this connexion Certainly they must needs confess themselves Stoicks in this point unless we will give them leave to grant the premises and deny the conclusion I know the Stoicks had mis-conceits concerning the Deities as accounting those to be Deities which are not whose decrees they made the causes of all things but they were the common errors of Paganism and are beside the point in hand And truly these set aside I see not wherein our Adversaries differ from the Stoicks I have prosecuted this Argument more copiously because it includeth many others I mean all those which Scripture or Reason furnish us with against the error of the Stoicks and they are many for I think verily there are few opinions which have a greater retinue of ridiculous and erroneous consequences than this of the un avoidable necessity of events Some of them may make one laugh and some of them may make one tremble I omit the former because they are obvious to every mans conceit and I would not willingly make sport of so serious a matter Of the last sort I will specifie one in a second Argument Arg. 2 That opinion which being admitted maketh God the Author of sin is gross and erroneous that I may say no worse but so I speak it with horror doth the Opinion of our Opposites I know they are renowned Christians and as they abhor Stoical errors so they hold this damnalbe doctrine which is worse See this Argument confirmed in the Answer to the 4th Objection than ever any Heretick held which transformeth God into a Devil to be most accursed yet so the case standeth that as the error of fatal necessity so this of the cause of sin fatally followeth their opinion which I prove thus They teach That nothing is done in the world not can be done but what God hath decreed to be done Now it 's too certain that three quarters of the things which are done in the world are sins therefore according to this opinion God is the principal cause of sins Devils and Men are but His Instruments Evasio The usual Answer is That God is the cause of all the actions that are sinful but not of the sinfulness of the actions of all our works but not of our obliquities and imperfections As one that rides upon a halting Jade