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	sin_n	will_n	1,909	5	6.8826	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79884	Of scandal together with a consideration of the nature of Christian liberty and things indifferent. Wherein these weighty questions are fully discussed: Whether things indifferent become necessary, when commanded by authority? Neg. Whether scandalous things, being enjoyned, may lawfully be done? Neg. Whether a restraint laid upon things indifferent, without a reasonable ground, be not an infringement of Christian liberty? Aff. Who is to be judge, whether there be a reasonable ground or no, in such cases? How far forth we are bound in conscience to obey humane laws.	Clark, Samuel, 1626-1701.; Alsop, Vincent, 1629 or 30-1703, attributed name.	1680 (1680)	Wing C4495; ESTC R231493	83,945	180

of evil and scandal in these indifferencies that in the former it 's enough quòd de sui ratione habent quòd sint inductiva ad peccandum 22 ae q. 43. a. 1. as Aquinas speaks The possibility of Scandal subsequent does aggravate their evil and sinfulness though scandal does not actually follow as we see in that of Christ to Peter Mat. 16.23 Thou art an offence to me He does not say I am offended with thee but Thou art an offence He checks him for laying a stumbling-block in his way though he could not was not capable of being offended and stumbling at it yet this did not excuse him His sin was never the less but every whit as great as if the effect had followed But now in these Indifferencies it is only actual scandal following thereon that renders a man culpable and therefore I am not bound to forbear such an action except I know that it doth give offence 9. occasion The word or action or omission of one man can but occasion or be an imperfect cause or cause by accident of the sin of another for nothing is properly the cause of a man's sin but his own will Thus Aquinas Nihil potest esse homini sufficiens causa peccati nisi propria voluntas Et propter hoc non dicitur dans causam ruinae sed dans occasionem 22 ae q 43. a 1. 10. either to sin himself This seems to me to be that wherein the formality or at least the principal notion of Scandal in things indifferent doth consist and which mostly if not only renders culpable whenas another takes occasion thereby to sin For 1 The Scripture-use and acceptation of the word runs generally in this channel as was shew'd before and those effects attributed to it by the Apostle imply no less as wounding their weak conscience 1 Cor. 8.12 i. e. not only with a natural wound by grief but a moral spiritual wound by sin Verberatur alterius conscientia saith P. Martyr inloc quando malè aedificatur ad ea impellitur agenda de quibus aliter sentit which is a sin Rom. 14.23 and destroying Rom. 14.20 or causing to perish 1 Cor. 8.11 viz. morally too by inducing into sin which is the ruine and undoing of the soul 2 In this also agree all Divines that I have met with both ancient and modern Tertullian aedificans ad delictum Aquin. praebens occasionem ruinae Spiritualis c. 22ae q. 43. a. 1. quae est peccatum as himself explains it a. 2. quod aliis spiritualem perniciem affert Ames Medul l. 2. c. 16. sect 53. quo alii possint vel excitari ad peccandum vel impediri aut retardari à benefaciendo id fect 44. quo impeditur Evangelii cursus P. Martyr in 1 Cor. 8.8 quo alius deterior redditur Polan Synt. quo aliquis possit à pietate salute vel revocari vel impediri Lucas which is or may be the occasion of another man's halting or falling into sin or swerving from the straight way of righteousness Gillesp He only gives scandal who induces his Brother directly or collaterally into sin Dr. Jer. Tail 3 Because to be scandalized is sinful So Aquin. 22 ae q. 43. a. 2. Scandalum passivum semper est peccatum in eo qui scandalizatur non enim scandalizatur nisi in quantum aliqualiter ruit spirituali ruirâ quae est peccatum Now the particular sin which Scandal in things indifferent does occasion is ordinarily one of these two with their concomitants and consequents viz. Either 1 A like speech action or omission but with a condemning or at least with a doubting conscience Every example does animate and encourage him that observes it to do the like The eye affects the heart saith Jeremy Lam. 3.51 But if he that is scandalized either think it unlawful or be not satisfied of its lawfulness and yet takes example by the other he falls into sin This the Apostle calls being made weak Rom. 14.21 i. e. apt to fall brought into danger of sin This was the case Rom. 14. It was before the plenary promulgation of the Gospel and destruction of the Temple lawful to observe Jewish Festivals and distinction of meats and yet not necessary but indifferent v. 14. I know and am perswaded that nothing is unclean of it self because Christ was come in the flesh yet many of the New-Convert-Christians were not so fully acquainted with and satisfied about their Liberty in these things but did still esteem one day above another v. 5. and some meats unclean v. 14. and consequently did condemn or at least scruple the non-observation of those days and the eating of those meats Now such by seeing others which were higher Scholars perhaps in Christ's School than themselves to neglect those days and that distinction of meats were apt to be drawn to act against their own consciences and judgements which was a great sin for every man should be fully perswaded in his own mind v. 5. but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean to him it is unclean v. 14. and therefore such an one is damned or condemned by his own conscience if he eat v. 23. which was scandalizing and a heinous sin in those that did occasion it Neither was the case much unlike among the Christian Corinthians It was lawful to eat any meat bought in the shambles or set before them at their neighbours table 1 Cor. 10.25 27. yet sometimes some might be scandalized thereby which was when they did not think it lawful yet by another's example were emboldened to eat as the Apostle speaks c. 8. v. 10. 2 The other sin which the use of Liberty in things indifferent does occasion is Censuring such a word action or omission as unlawful and the person as licentious which because there is no ground for in the nature of the thing it being as I said indifferent it is the sin of rash judging condemned by Christ Mat. 7.1 That this is one way whereby the person scandalized may fall is evident by the Apostle's words 1 Cor. 10.29 Why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience q. d. I do culpably scandalize another by doing such a thing that I have otherwise liberty to do or not to do if another judges or censures me for it fo v. 30. For if I by grace be a partaker why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks i. e. though I may lawfully and comfortably make use of my liberty yet if another take occasion to reproach or condemn me for it I do ill therein I ought not to do it And Rom. 14.16 Let not your good be evil spoken of Thus we use to say There is a scandal lies upon such a man for such a thing i. e. he is evil spoken of for it he is censured and condemned for it as a loose and ungodly person or at least as one that does amiss in that particular The case is

93. a. 3. dependance upon the Will of God nor coherence with it for then that would be a good and sufficient reason or is no way agreeable to the Will of God either in general or particular and therefore has no obligation following upon it for that (b) Leges humanae obligant homines in foro conscientiae ratione legis aeternae à qua derivantur Id. q. 96. a. 4. Obligation of a Law which we speak of is nothing but the necessity of obeying under pain of sin against God That is an excellent notion of Petrus de Alliaco for which I am beholding to a Reverend and Learned Divine Gilbert's Assize Serm. on Jam. 2.12 p. 12. That as the will of God exerting and putting forth his natural power or strength is in natural things the first efficient Cause so the will of God exerting his moral power or authority is in moral things the first obliging Rule And as all things in nature act dependingly upon the will of God putting forth his natural power as the first efficient cause so in Morality all Laws oblige dependingly upon the will of God putting forth his Moral power as the first obliging Rule Whence I infer That where there is no intimation of God's Will neither express nor implicit in the nature of the thing nor in any circumstance there can no obligation arise 3 That command which has no Conformity to the rule and end of all Laws the * Necesse est legem semper ad bonum commune ordinari Aqu. 12ae q. 90 a. 2. publick good can have no obligation at all following upon it for the due matter of a Law is wanting but such a command has no Conformity c. Ergo. 4 That the Command of Authority does not render such an indifferent thing necessary may be proved I think undeniably from that passage mentioned Matth. 15 1-9 Mark 7 1-13 concerning the Disciples eating with unwashen hands for which they are complained of by the Scribes and Pharisees those great Masters of Ceremonies to Christ as transgressors of the Tradition of the Elders But Christ is so far from condemning that he justifies and vindicates them for it and on the contrary condemns their Antagonists for standing so strictly and laying so much stress upon such unnecessary trifles Here I observe First That the Rite or Ceremony in question was in it self indifferent i. e. neither commanded nor forbidden by any Law of God and so far from being unlawful that it seems rather a matter of civil decency and good manners Secondly This was commanded by a lawful Authority for 1 the Scribes and Pharisees who here urged it and stickled for it sate in Moses's seat Mat. 23.2 i. e. were the Rulers of the people or some of them at least who did succeed Moses in the ordinary office of Teaching and Ruling the people And 2 it was a Tradition of the Elders Now the Elders were the Sanhedrim that is the Supreme Authority of the Nation and a Tradition of the Elders is a Resolution Constitution or Determination of such a case made by them who therefore are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domini constitutionum juridicarum Thirdly This constitution of Authority did not render this indifferent practice or usage necessary as is evident from the whole drift and scope of our Saviour Christ's discourse here From all which the conclusion or inference holds firm and strong That an indifferent thing commanded by lawful Authority is not thereby made necessary For the further clearing hereof I shall pass from one end of my thoughts to the other by these steps having first prepared the way by these Distinctions First I distinguish between the Matter and the Form of a Command or between the thing commanded and the stamp of Authority set upon it to make it currant The ground of this distinction is plain in reason Secondly I distinguish between an Intrinsecal and an Extrinsecal Indifference as before Thirdly I distinguish between unlawful and inconvenient This I ground upon the Apostles words 1 Cor. 6.12 All things are lawful for me but all things are not expedient Where he supposes that things may be lawful in some respect but inconvenient or inexpedient in others Whence I gather 1 That unlawful and inconvenient are not the same no more than lawful and convenient for Contrariorum eadem est ratio 2 I further gather the nature of inconvenient or inexpedient and how it differs from unlawful viz. That inconvenient or inexpedient is only an irregular circumstance of something in its own nature lawful He is there speaking of indifferent things and tells us That though in their own nature these be all lawful to make use of yet they may be so circumstantiated as to render them inconvenient or inexpedient Which circumstantial irregularity puts on such a kind of evil as the good or rule it offends against is of if it be only against some debitum natura then 't is malum physicum or naturale as to fast to the detriment of a mans health to eat that which agrees not with his constitution If against good manners then 't is malum morale as to be slovenly in eating either of these irregularities render a thing but inexpedient But if it be against any Command of God then 't is malum Theologicum or peccatum and so falls in with unlawful Fourthly I distinguish between a particular inconvenience which is only so to some particular persons or at some particular time and a general inconvenience which is alike inconvenient to all persons at all times and in all places This distinction has common experience to warrant its validity Fifthly I distinguish between submission for wrath and for conscience-sake i. e. meerly for fear of the penalty or else for fear of sin and to avoid that which he should be guilty of in case of disobedience and non-submission This distinction the Apostle makes to my hand Rom. 13 5. Sixthly I distinguish between an arbitrary and a necessary submission where there is no sin in the submission and yet 't is not a duty but free and arbitrary and where there is sin in the non-submission and submission is a duty and necessary The ground of this distinction will appear afterwards Now these distinctions I apply thus Prop. 1. It is certain that the Command of lawful authority That Magistrates ought to be obeyed in things good and lawful does not arise from the authority vested in themselves but from the immediate command of God that in such things they ought to be obeyed Discourse conc Liturg p. 55. quatenus command i. e. the form of the Command doth not necessarily bring an obligation to obedience along with it The obligation does not arise meerly from the form for then every command or every thing having the stamp of Authority upon it should oblige which none will say Therefore 2. The Matter of the Command must have some influence into the obligation thereof There being only