Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	action_n	effect_n	necessary_a	1,860	5	7.1073	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A11363	A treatise of Paradise. And the principall contents thereof especially of the greatnesse, situation, beautie, and other properties of that place: of the trees of life, good and euill; of the serpent, cherubin, fiery sword, mans creation, immortalitie, propagation, stature, age, knowledge, temptation, fall, and exclusion out of Paradise; and consequently of his and our originall sin: with many other difficulties touching these points. Collected out of the holy Scriptures, ancient fathers, and other both ancient and moderne writers.	Salkeld, John, 1576-1660.	1617 (1617)	STC 21622; ESTC S116515	126,315	368

eternall God not carnally as carnall men dreame but spiritually in the bread of life as hee himselfe doth affirme of himselfe As therefore he who is the tree of life or rather the author of life or to speake more properly life it selfe euen as he is in the Sacrament of life doth heere truly in this miserable life produce in vs the life of grace as a present pawne of our future glory so it seemeth most probable that the other tree of life as a most perfect figure of this planted in the terrene Paradise had the like inherent vertue for to perpetuate or at least to prolong the liues of Adam and his posteritie as long as they were to liue in that terrene Paradise But whether this fruit of the tree of life was sufficient to perpetuate our life or only to prolong it for some determinate time Abulensis super Genes c. 13. quaest 175. Scotus li. 2. sent dist 19 quaest 1. Aquinas 1 p. q. 9.7 art 4 Caiet ibid. many dispute probably for both opinions Tostatus vpon the 13. chapter of Genesis q. 175. is most peremptorie for this perpetuitie Scotus Thomas Caietan and Durand for a very long time but not for eternitie because that is the naturall measure of nature this the supernaturall of him who is aboue all nature Secondly seeing the power of the tree of life was a naturall power and cause the effect could not bee supernaturall for though effects be often inferiour to their causes yet neuer the causes vnto the effects the reason because no cause can giue that which it hath not neither any effect haue any excellencie or perfection not proceeding from the cause wherefore if the tree of life was as without question it was a naturall tree as the Laurell Cypresse and other trees be it could not haue as connaturall the supernaturall effect of making eternall the life of man Moreouer it is a principle euen in naturall philosophie that omne agens physicum in agendo patitur debilitatur that euery naturall cause doth suffer some detriment euen in and by his owne action consequently therefore though our naturall heat and vigour might bee very long conserued by the vertue of this excellent fruit yet at length it should haue failed and thence finally mortalitie should haue followed as a necessary effect of so forcible a cause Lastly it is not likely that God who is the author and first rule of nature doth produce any thing frustrate in nature seeing therefore the fall of man was patent vnto him euen from all eternitie to what end should he prouide an eternall cause for a temporary effect But if this argument had any force it should force also our aduersaries to the like if not a greater inconuenience for who doubteth but that God knew also the little time that man was to persist in his grace and yet neuerthelesse he gaue him that fruit which was sufficient for the preseruation of his life for many a yeere as our aduersaries hold why then might hee not likewise for all eternitie is it because of the impossibilitie at non impossibile Deo omne verbum to God nothing is impossible which doth not imply contradiction but what contradiction is in this is it that here naturall philosophie is contradicted omne agens in agendo patitur debilitatur euery agent doth decay euen by his owne action but seeing the author of nature is aboue nature why might hee not here worke that which is aboue nature or though in the compasse of nature yet beyond our naturall capacitie which is so small that wee scarcely or very imperfectly vnderstand things of farre inferiour degree yea such as are within our selues why therefore shall wee deny vnto God that which we doe not vnderstand in our selues My resolution therefore is that of Abulensis Propterea dictam esse arborem vitae quòd fructus eius vim haberet seruandi hominem à morte in omne tempus faciendi eum immortalem that this tree was therefore called the tree of life because it had vertue to perpetuate our naturall life and the vnion of the body and soule for euer if we had not lost the supernaturall grace which was the vnion of our soules with God but seeing wee wilfully separated our selues from our supernaturall life it was most iust that wee should also be depriued of the naturall hence therefore is that which Paul so often preacheth mortem in mundum intrasse propter peccatum that death entred into the world by the doore of sinne which doore if we had debarred to sinne the grace of God should haue beene a perpetual vnion betweene God and vs and the tree of life should haue caused the like betweene our bodies and soules and this of his owne nature eternally though de facto wee needed it but only temporally both supposing our fall as likewise not supposing any at all for if we had not fallen or sinned in our first father wee should certainly after some number of yeeres haue been translated from that terrene Paradise which was our first though temporary habitation vnto a more excellent and perpetuall in the kingdome of heauen and this should haue heene without any assault of death because we had alwaies liued in God who as hee would then haue preserued vs by his grace from the corruption of sinne would also haue preserued vs from this corruption which was only the effect of sinne according to that of the Apostle The wages of sinne is death the wager being the deuill our soules are bought and sold sold away for nothing sinne being nothing but a priuation of being but bought againe by the death of the most precious of mortall liues which in no wise should haue beene necessary if wee had not beene lost or fallen from our first grace and innocencie But as that poeticall fiction of the Nectar and Ambrosia seemed to Aristotle of small ground so this for the like reason may seeme to bee as fabulous for as Aristotle argueth against the former either the Gods vsed this Ambrosia and Nectar for pleasure only or also for necessitie if only for pleasure how then could Ambrosia and Nectar be any necessary cause of their immortalitie againe if for necessitie certainly the Gods then had not beene immortall by nature and consequently no Gods seeing that that which hath need of any thing for his preseruation must necessarily be mortall After the same manner we may argue against this fruit of this tree of life which is said to be sufficient to cause an eternitie of life à parte post as the Philosophers speake for if our immortalitie was onely to be from the tree of life then questionlesse without it wee had beene mortall and subiect to death contrary to that of the Apostle Stipendium peccati mors the wages of sinne is death for whether wee had sinned or persisted in our primatiue grace all had beene one wee should naturally haue tasted of death if wee

parent Adam neither our immediate parents now regenerated in Christ haue in any wise the guiltinesse of originall sinne at the time of our generation how can it therefore possibly come to passe that any such guilt of originall sinne should proceed from them vnto vs Certainly this could not proceed from any matrimoniall act seeing that was and is lawfull in all lawes both of nature Moses and grace how therefore could that which is a sinne and consequently vnlawfull proceed from that which is altogether lawfull Thirdly the actions of our externall powers as of seeing smelling tasting and the like are in no wise voluntary or so tearmed but outwardly only or as the Philosophers tearme is by an extrinsecall denomination or name deriued from our will and this because they haue no freedome or libertie in themselues inwardly but only as they are directed from the inward facultie of the will and therefore as they haue no libertie or free will but only by an externe denomination so neither haue they any sinne inwardly inherent but onely as they are commanded or proceed from the will Therefore after the same manner seeing the soules and willes of the infants haue no libertie or freedome of choice but only by an externe denomination outwardly deriued from the will of Adam now altogether past and of his sinne now forgiuen it must needs follow that they cannot in any wise bee said to haue contracted any sin but only by an externe denomination proceeding from the sin of Adam Fourthly that which in it selfe is according to Gods law neither in any wise contradicting the same cannot be the cause of that which is against the law of God wherefore seeing that matrimonie or the matrimoniall act is according to Gods law it cannot bee the cause or occasion of originall sinne in the infant which is against Gods law Fiftly originall sinne cannot proceed from Adam vnto his posteritie neither as from the morall cause thereof neither as from a physicall naturall or reall cause not morally because as death did proceed from sinne so life if he had perseuered should haue proceeded from grace and originall iustice which was a gift giuen vnto all our nature in Adam not per modum meriti by way of merit as some haue dreamed but gratis otherwise as the Apostle argueth Romans the 11. chapter grace should haue been no grace Now therefore consequently neither doth originall sinne passe vnto vs his posteritie by way of demerit or as a morall effect of sinne seeing that the same reason which doth vrge for the transfusion of this demerit or sinne vnto vs doth also vrge for the transfusion of grace Wherefore seeing he could not be the meritorious cause of our grace because it doth implie contradiction to be deserued and yet to be grace a free gift and graciously giuen neither can he be consequently the morall cause of our originall sinne Neither finally can the sinne of Adam bee the reall or physicall cause of our sinne seeing that his sinne whereof ours should proceed is now neither actuall nor virtuall not actuall because it is forgiuen not virtuall for that then it should be latent in the generatiue power or seed which cannot possibly bee because then it should be attributed to God who is cause of the generatiue power seeing as the Philosophers say causa causae est causa effectus illius secundae causae the cause of any second cause is the cause of the effect proceeding from the second cause Lastly there cannot bee assigned any time or moment in which the sonnes of Adam doe or can contract this originall sinne therefore both according to true Diuinitie and Philosophie it cannot be that we doe really and inwardly in our soules contract any such sinne but rather wee are called sinners in Adam and are said by the Apostle to haue sinned in Adam by reason onely of his fall who was our head The antecedent seemeth certaine because this sinne can neither infect our soules in the first instant of their creation or infusion otherwise the soule should haue it from her creation and consequently it might bee attributed to Almightie God as to the author thereof seeing that as true Philosophie teacheth operatio quae simul incipit cum esse rei est illi ab agente à quo habet esse the action which beginneth iointly with the being of the effect is from that cause from which it hath being And hence Aquinas holdeth as impossible Aquinas 1 parte q. 63. art 15 in corpore Angelum in primo instante creationis suae peccasse quoniam peccatum illud tribueretur Deo that Lucifer sinned in the first instant of his creation because that sinne should haue beene attributed to God which were blasphemous Neither could this sinne bee contracted by vs in the instant in which our soules were infused into our bodies seeing that the immediate subiect of sinne is not the body but the soule or some of the powers of the soule seeing therefore no instant can be assigned in which the sonnes of Adam are infected with this originall crime it followeth necessarily both according to the grounds of reason and Scripture that there is no such infection or corruption inherent in our soules For the better vnderstanding of this fundamentall point so controuerted in all ages we must note first that originall sinne is called peccatum naturae the sinne of nature according to that of Paul Ephesians 2. Wee were by nature the sonnes of wrath because sinne did spot defile or rather corrupt the whole masse of humane nature in our first father Adam from whom as first head and fountaine it hath beene and is deriued Secondly this sinne is called the sinne of the world Iohn chap. 1. Behold the Lambe of God which taketh away the sinne of the world because all men were defiled with this one onely excepted God and man by whom al others were redeemed Thirdly it is also tearmed peccatum humanae conditionis the sinne common to all humane nature because there is not any Christ only excepted which doth not vndergoe this yoke So Ierome explicating that of the 50. Psalme Behold I am conceiued in iniquities saith Hieron super cap. 4. Ezechiel not in the iniquities of my mother but in the iniquities of humane nature which are generall to all humane nature or which hath defiled all mankinde Fourthly the sinne of Adam is called peccatum radicale the radicall sinne or root of sinne because wee being now depriued by it of originall iustice which as it was in Adam so should it also haue beene in vs an antidote against all inordinate desires but now our inordinate appetite and concupiscence which is the root of all euill is let loose to the ouerthrow of all true libertie Lastly wee must note this difference betweene the originall and the actuall sinne of euery particular man besides Adam that the actuall sinne is committed by the actuall will and consent of euery sinner but the

arguments of the contrary opinion but seeing they may be easily answered with one and the same distinction I will onely expresse that and so conclude this question which hath so troubled the Church of God in former ages The distinction is this that wee must vnderstand the difference and distinction of a twofold sinne the first is actuall the second originall the first from our selues the second from Adam though in our selues the first we grant could neuer be in the afore-said infants as which neuer came to the vse of reason and consequently neither could euer abuse it the second which is originall sinne might be and was in them as is manifest by the authorities and reasons aboue alleadged both of Scripture and Fathers and by this distinction we may vnderstand all those authorities which seeme in any sort to fauour the Pelagians in this point which therefore I conclude with S. Austine serm 7. de verbis Apostoli circa finem Ecce infantes in suis vtique operibus innocentes sunt nihil secum nisi quod de primo homine traxerunt habentes quibus propterea est Christi gratia necessaria vt in Christo viuificentur qui in Adamo mortui sunt vt quia inquinati sunt generatione purgentur regeneratione behold saith he the infants be innocent in their owne workes hauing no sinne but that which they haue by descent from their first father to whom notwithstanding the grace of Christ is therefore necessarie that they may be receiued in Christ who died in Adam to the end that being defiled by generation they might be purged by regeneration in his blood who died for all CHAP. LVII Wherein are solued diuers difficulties against the former doctrine MAny obiections are wont to bee made against the doctrine of the precedent Chapters of which these following are the principall yea all may be reduced vnto them First that if the concupiscence or fomes peccati which is left after our baptisme in vs were sinne it would follow that God were the author of sinne seeing he is the author of our nature and therefore hee must needs be the author of that which necessarily followeth nature as who is the cause of the fire is also of the heat proceeding from the fire wherefore seeing that God was the author of nature hee must also be the author of this fomes peccati and concupiscence which necessarily floweth from the same nature if therefore our originall sinne consist in this concupiscence which floweth from nature he who is the author and cause of nature must also be of the sinne which floweth from nature which both seeme no lesse blasphemous then absurd I answer that this fomes peccati or concupiscence with which Adam was created and wee all borne was first in him and should also haue beene in vs though we had persisted in originall iustice yet had it not beene any sinne in any of vs if Adam had not sinned and we in him because this was as it were extinguished and ouercome by original iustice in Adam and should haue beene in vs also by reason that the like grace and iustice which was infused into Adam should also haue beene deriued vnto vs by Adam But seeing Adam lost this grace both for vs and himselfe both this priuation of grace is attributed vnto vs as also the concupiscence reviued in vs by reason of Adams sinn true it is that the guilt thereof is taken away in the regenerate by baptisme and so it is not imputed by reason of our regeneration But hence peraduenture it may bee further vrged that though God be not the author of this concupiscence as it hath the force and malice of sinne yet that he is the author of the same thing that is originall sinne to wit of that fomes peccati fewell of sinne concupiscence or inclination vnto sinne which also is no small absurditie I answer that this is no absurditie but necessarie no heresie but catholique doctrine so that it be not granted that he is author of it as it is sinne but of that materiall or thing which by mans wickednesse is made sinne yea which is good as proceeding from God though euill and wicked as flowing from man Gods concourse being altogether good mans determination euill as detorting it to euill as the light of the Sunne of it self pure and good is oftentimes vsed and abused to euill yea of this we haue infinite examples in which our aduersaries are driuen to auerre the like For who doubteth but that Almighty God qui operatur omnia in omnibus who worketh all reall actions in all things whatsoeuer is also the vniuersall cause of euery reall action and habit of sinne and yet neuerthelesse no man will be so blinde and blasphemous therefore to attribute to his infinite goodnes that which hath infinite malice in it as it is against that infinite goodnes The reason therefore why it is rather to be attributed vnto man as second cause of it then vnto God who is the vniuersall cause of all is because man hauing the vniuersall concourse of God vnto good determineth it according to his euill inclination vnto naught and so committeth that nothing which in it selfe is sin and priuation of good Secondly it may be obiected against originall sinne that if that priuation of originall iustice which ought to haue beene in vs and of which we were depriued by Adams fall were in any wise to be tearmed originall sinne it would follow that there were not one onely originall sinne in euery one of vs but many for seeing that there is not one onely culpable priuation of that originall iustice which Adam had in Paradise but also of faith hope charitie and of all other graces consequent vnto the fore-said originall iustice why should there not be by the like reason as many originall sinnes as there bee priuations of supernaturall gifts and graces The answer is easie for that all these depriuations of graces are deriued of one which is of our originall iustice which should haue beene the roote and fountaine of them all The third obiection may be that seeing that it is not in the power of any to attaine to the grace of God being in originall sinne consequently the formall of originall sinne cannot be any priuation of grace but rather a negation I answer that because once it was in the power of Adam supposing the couenant made by Almighty God with him that the said supernaturall forme of originall iustice should haue beene by his perseuerance passed vnto his posteritie hence it is that this absence of originall iustice in Adam and his posteritie is rather a priuation then negation Fourthly it may be obiected that as in the opinion of Scotus whensoeuer the act of sinne is past the sinner may truly be called a sinner only by reason of the relation of the act past which is not as yet forgiuen so it seemeth that the same might be said in originall sin that though the act of Adam

forbidden fruit could make mortall nor the abstinence from it immortall Hence therefore they are imboldned to affirme that wheresoeuer the Scripture maketh mention of Adams sinne as cause of his corporall death that it is to bee vnderstood figuratiuely not that Adams sinne was properly the cause or the occasion of his death but that the Scripture vseth this phrase to the end that when Adam should heare of so seuere a punishment as the death of both body and soule he might bee terrified thereby from the committing of sinne The Scripture vseth the like manner of speech in diuers occasions as in the 22. chapter of Genesis God tempted or tried Abraham which place must needs be vnderstood figuratiuely for God who seeth all things as well future as present or past hath no need of any triall or experience The like kinde of threatning wee haue in the fourth chapter of Exodus where it is said that God would haue slaine Moses which places are not to bee interpreted literally as they sound but figuratiuely as all other places of Scripture according to the rule of S. Austine when otherwise they signifie any absurditie as this of the death of Adam doth because it contradicteth the decree of God concerning his immortalitie Neuerthelesse the contrary exposition is most firmly to bee holden as concerning the immortalitie of man before his fall and mortalitie after and by his transgression not that there was any mutation in God but transgression in man God predetermined according to his foresight man sinned according to that foresight not that the foresight was cause of mans fall but rather mans fall was the obiect of Gods foresight insomuch that God had not foreseene mans fall if man had not beene to fall neither man had fallen if God had not foreseene his fall so that though it bee necessary that God foresee that which is future yet that is not necessarily future which God doth foresee for so seeth hee things future as they are future not imposing any necessitie in things not necessarily future by his foresight which as it is necessary in regard of things necessary so is it contingent in regard of things contingent contingent I say in respect of the obiect though necessary in respect of his owne entitie and being or as the Schoole-Diuines doe explicate it ad intra necessary ad extra contingent insomuch that all the mutation is in the outward and created obiects nothing at all can reflect or redound vnto God Wherefore though Almighty God had eternally decreed the immortalitie of man in his first creation yet was there no mutation in God because vpon his transgression he made him mortall and subiect to death for as both the degrees were eternall so the foresight of the euent of both was likewise eternall the mutation issued onely from the obiect and remained in the same immutabilitie was alwayes and remaineth in God because as hee had foreseene so he determined and as he determined so likewise he foresaw Lege ad Rom. cap. 5. 7. Hence it is is that seeing the Scripture so often witnesseth that death was the effect of sinne and that if sinne had not raigned in our soules neither should death haue destroied our mortall bodies questionlesse though man was created immortall by grace yet is hee iustly depriued of that immortalitie and become subiect to death through his transgression Now as touching the absurdities so ignorantly if not blasphemously inferred vpon the foresaid doctrine I answer that though God doe reproue that ancient prouerbe of the Iewes and their comparison of the sowre grape with other the like contestations of sillie wormes with their Creator that these I say are principally to bee vnderstood in regard of actuall sinne as is plaine out of the text it selfe and not habituall or originall of which the text speaketh not But if it bee referred as some haue done euen vnto originall sinne yet neither can the iustice of God bee any whit impeached thereby for though wee eat not the sowre grape neither taste the forbidden fruit in our selues yet did we both taste and eat in Adam who was our head yea though wee tasted not the fruit it selfe in our selues yet we contracted the sowrenesse thereof and the effect of the sinne yea the sinne it selfe in our soules for though the action was onely in our head yet the passion and effect was in all the members as is more largely explicated aboue in the question of the manner nature and essence of this sinne in which all the difficulties concerning this and the like points are answered Neither can it bee inferred hence that God doth punish the iust for the vniust or reuenge the fathers wickednesse in the sonnes which neuerthelesse were no iniustice seeing the sonnes are in some sort deemed as parts of the fathers and consequently may iustly be punished for their fathers offences but rather that euery man is punished for his owne originall sinne which though it bee contracted from Adam yet it is inherent in euery mans owne nature Againe seeing Adam of his owne nature was created mortall and by grace onely was to bee preserued immortall there was no iniustice in God towards Adams posteritie in that they were depriued of originall iustice but this proceeded from Adams demerit for himselfe and his posteritie Especially seeing that the couenant was so concluded betweene GOD and Adam that qua die comederet moriretur that his eating should be his death his abstinence life with this difference that death should be onely from himselfe as sinne had beene onely from his will but life should haue beene onely from God and the preseruation from sinne from Gods grace onely Hence wee may vnderstand how there is no iniustice or vnrighteousnesse in God that although Adam was created immortall yet we should be borne of Adam mortall and subiect to death seeing hee was iustly depriued of immortalitie by his sin and we by him Lastly if we read the sacred text we shall finde it neither to be iniustice or any nouelty that the sonnes be punished for their fathers offences for so it is in the 1. of Samuel the 15. because I remember that which Amalech did vnto Israel going out of Aegypt goe thou Saul and fight against Agag and his people and the 2. of Samuel 18 it is said that the wiues of Dauid should be defiled for Dauids sinne againe in the 2 of Samuel the 21 it is written how Dauid hanged the sonnes of Resphe for the Gabaonites sake Moreouer if it were true that which the Poet sang vnto his friend delicta maiorum immeritus lues thou shalt beare the offences of thy fore-fathers without thine owne deseruings then certainely the question B. King vpon Ionas cap. 1. v. 7. as a reuerend and learned Prelate well noteth were more difficult but who is able to say my heart is cleane though I came from an vncleane seede though I were borne of a Morian I haue not his sinne though an Amorite were my father and my mother a Hittite I haue not their nature though I haue touched pitch I am not defiled I can wash my hands in innocencie and say with a cleare conscience I haue not sinned but if this be the cause of all that there is not a soule in the whole cluster of mankinde that hath not offended though not as principall as Achan in taking the cursed thing Choran in rebelling Dauid in numbring the people yet as accessarie in consenting and concealing if neither principall nor accessarie in that one sinne yet culpable in a thousand others committed in our life time perhaps not open to the world but in the eyes of God as bright as the Sunne in the firmament for the Scorpion hath a sting though hee hath not thrust it out to wound vs and man hath malice though hee hath not outwardly shewed it it may be some sinnes to come which God fore-seeth and some past which he recounteth shall we stand in argument with God as man would plead with man and charge the iudge of the quicke and the dead with iniurious exactions I haue paied the things that I neuer tooke I haue borne the price of sinne which I neuer committed You see already the ground of mine answere We haue all sinned father and sonne rush and branch and deseruedly are to expect that wages from the hands of God which to our sinne appertaineth Besides it cannot be denied but those things which we part in our conceipts by reason that distance of time and place haue sundered them some being done of old some of late some in one quarter of the world some in another those doth the God of knowledge vnite and view them at once as if they were done together out of all which conceiued together as the all-vnderstanding wisdome of God doth conceiue and vnite them we may well inferre that the iudgements of God bee as iust and his waies as right as his mercy and goodnesse and prouidence extended to all that as there is no worke of man not fully recompenced or rewarded with ouerplus so there is no sinne whether actuall or originall not iustly punished citra as the Diuines hold but neuer vltra condignum lesse I meane then the sinne doth deserue neuer more then the fact doth require Gods mercy being as the Scripture witnesseth ouer all his workes and alwaies in some sort more extended then his iustice for though it be true that as his iustice is included in his mercy euen formally as most Diuines hold so like wise his mercy is included in his iustice and so both equall in nature and being yet such is the goodnes of our infinite good God that in the execution ad extra as the Diuines tearme it his mercy should alwaies be extended further then his iustice and his iust iudgements alwaies in somewhat at least deteined or after a sort restrained by his mercy Wherefore as we are wont to say of famous worthy and excellent men in caeteris vicit omnes in hoc seipsum in other things hee exceeded all men in this hee ouercame himselfe The like wee may affirme of God that hee is incomparable in all attributes and workes but in this hee exceedeth himselfe To him therefore as infinite mercifull and euerliuing God three persons and one indivisible deitie bee ascribed all honor power maiestie and dominion now and for euermore AMEN FINIS