Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	adam_n	nature_n	sin_n	2,126	5	5.5892	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77854	Vindiciæ legis: or, A vindication of the morall law and the covenants, from the errours of papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians. In XXIX. lectures, preached at Laurence-Jury, London. / By Anthony Burgess, preacher of Gods Word.	Burgess, Anthony, d. 1664.	1646 (1646)	Wing B5666; Thomason E357_3; ESTC R201144	253,466	294

be manifested to be obedience For as Austin speaking of himselfe in confessing his wickednesse that though he had no need or temptation to sin yet to be a sinner he delighted in that Nulla alia causa malitiae nisi malitia so on the contrary it 's an excellent aggravation of obedience when there is nulla alia causa obedientiae nisi obedientia so that the forbearing to eate was not from any sin in the action but from the will of the law-giver And Austin doth well explaine this If a man saith he forbid another to touch such an herb because it 's poyson this herb is contrary to a mans health whether it be forbidden or no Or if a man forbid a thing because it will be an hinderance to him that forbiddeth as to take away a mans mony or goods here it 's forbidden because it would be losse to him that forbiddeth but if a man forbids that which is neither of these waies hurtfull therefore it 's forbidden because bonum obedientiae per se malum inobedientiae per se monstraretur And this is also further to be observed that though the obedience unto this positive law be far inferiour unto that of the morall law because the object of one is inwardly good and the object of the other rather a profession of obedience then obedience yet the disobedience unto the positive law is no lesse hainous then that to the morall law because hereby man doth professedly acknowledge he will not submit to God Even as a vassall that is to pay such homage a yeare if he wilfully refuse it doth yearly acknowledge his refractorinesse Hence the Apostle doth expresly call Adams sin disobedience Rom. 5. not in a generall sense as every sin is disobedience but specifically it was strictly taken the sin of disobedience he did by that act cast off the dominion and power that God had over him as much as in him lay and though pride and unbeliefe were in this sin yet this was properly his sin 3. Why God would make this law seeing he fore-knew his fall and The proper essentiall end of the positive law was to exercise Adams obedience abuse of it For such is the profane boldnesse of many men that would have a reason of all Gods actions whereas this is as * Altitudinem consilii ejus penetrare non possum longè supra vires meas esse confiteor August if the Owle would look into the Sun or the Pigmee measure the Pyramides Although this may be answered without that of Pauls Who art thou O man c. for God did not give him this law to make him fall Adam had power to stand Therefore the proper essentiall end of this commandement was to exercise Adams obedience Hence there was no iniquity or unrighteousnesse in God Bellarmine doth confesse that God may doe that which if man should doe he sinned as for instance Man is bound to hinder him from sin that he knoweth would doe it if it lay in his power but God is not so tyed both because he hath the chiefe providence it 's fit he should let causes work according to their nature and therefore Adam being created free he might sin as well as not sin as also because God can work evill things out of good and lastly because God if he should hinder all evill things there would many good things be wanting to the world for there is nothing which some doe not abuse The English Divines in the Synod of Dort held that God had a serious will of saving all men but not an efficacious will of saving all Thus differing from the Arminians on one side and from some Protestant Authours on the other side and their great instance of the possibility of a serious will and not efficacious is this of Gods to Adam seriously willing him to stand and withall giving him ability to stand yet it was not such an efficacious will as de facto did make him stand for no question God could have confirmed the will of Adam in good as well as that of the Angels and the glorified Saints in heaven But concerning the truth of this their assertion we are to enquire in its time For that errour much spreads and the Antinomian cannot by his principles avoid that Christ intentionally died and so offereth his grace to all But for the matter in hand if by a serious will be meant a will of approbation and complacency yea and efficiency in some sense no question but God did seriously will his standing when he gave that commandement And howsoever Adam did fall because he had not such help that would in the event make him stand yet God did not withdraw or deny any help unto him whereby he was inabled to obey God To deny Adam that help which should indeed make him stand was no necessary requisite at all on Gods part But secondly that of Austins is good God would not have suffered sin to be if he could not have wrought greater good then sin was evill not that God needed sin to shew his glory for he needed no glory from the creature but it pleased him to permit sin that so thereby the riches of his grace and goodnesse might be manifested unto the children of his love And if Arminians will not be satisfied with these Scripture considerations we will say as Austin to the Hereticks Illi garriant nos credamus Let them prate while we beleeve 5. Whether this law would have obliged all posterity And certainly The positive law did lay an obligation upon Adam posterity we must conclude that this positive command was universall and that Adam is here taken collectively for although that Adam was the person to whom this command was given yet it was not personall but to Adam as an head or common person Hence Rom. 5. all are said to sin in him for whether it be in him or in as much as all have sinned it cometh to the same purpose for how could all be said to have sinned but because they were in him And this is also further to be proved by the commination In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye now all the posterity of Adam dyeth hereby Besides the same reasons which prove a conveniency for a positive law besides the naturall for Adam doe also inferre for Adams posterity It is true some Divines that doe hold a positive law would have been yet seem to be afraid to affirme fully that the posterity of Adam would have been tryed with the very same commandement of eating the forbidden fruit but I see no cause of questioning it Now all this will be further cleared when we come to shew that this is not meerly a law but a covenant and so by that meanes there is a communicating of Adams sin unto his posterity And indeed if God had not dealt in a covenant way in this thing there could be no more reason why Adams sin should be made ours

and loved him and said he was not farre from the Kingdome of heaven that is the life hee lived was not farre from the Kingdome of heaven yet this was no preparation in it selfe to it nay he may be further off as two high hills may be neere in the tops to one another but the bottomes some miles asunder And this is so great a matter that great sins are made by God a preparation to some mans conversion which yet of themselves they could never be As a childe whose coat is a little dirty hath it not presently washed but when he falls wholly all over in the dirt this may be the cause of the washing of it so that they are preparations only so far as God intendeth them 6. All determination to one doth not take away that naturall liberty Determination to one kind of acts takes not away liberty This will further cleere the truth for it may be thought strange that there should be this freedome of will in a man and yet thus determined to one sin onely whereas it 's plaine a determination to one kind of acts good or evill doth not take away liberty God can onely will that which is good and so the Angels and Saints confirmed in happinesse yet they doe this freely and so the Divels will that which is wicked onely It 's true some exclaime at such passages but that is onely because they are prepossessed with a false opinion about liberty for a determination to one may arise from perfection as well as naturall imperfection It is from Gods absolute perfection that he is determined to will onely good and when Adam did will to sin against God it did not arise from the liberty of his will but his mutability There is a naturall necessity such which determineth a thing to one and that is imperfection but a necessity of immutability in that which is good is a glorious perfection The Learned speak of a three-fold liberty 1. From misery A three-fold liberty such as the Saints shall have in heaven 2. From sin to which is opposed that freedome to righteousnesse of which our Saviour speaketh Then are ye free indeed when the Son hath made you free and of which Austin Tunc est liberum quando liberatum 3. From naturall necessity and thus also man though he be necessarily carried on to sin yet it is not by a naturall necessity as beasts are but there is Reason and Will in him when he doth thus transgresse onely you must take notice that this determination of our Will onely to sin is the losse of that perfection wee had in Adam and doth not arise from the primaeve constitution of the will but by Adams fall and so is meerly accidentall to it 7. Nor doth it take away that willingnesse or delight in sin which Determination to sin takes not away that delight in sin which man is inevitably carried out unto we are inevitably carried out unto For now if man were carried out to sin against his will and his delight then there might be some shew of pleading for him but it is not so he sinneth as willingly and as electively in respect of his corrupt heart as if there were no necessity brought upon him Therefore that is good of Bernards The necessity takes not away the willingnesse of it nor the willingnesse of it the necessity It s both an hand-maid and so free and which is to be wondered eoque magis ancilla quò magis libera Hence therefore no wicked or ungodly man can have any excuse for himselfe to say the fates or necessity drove him for besides that by his fault he hath cast himself into this necessity and so is as if a man in debt who was once able to pay but by his willfull prodigall courses hath spent all should think to be excused because he cannot pay Besides I say this just and full answer this also is to be said that no man sins constrainedly but every one is carried on with that delight to sin as if he were independent upon any providence or predefinitive permissive decrees of God or any such corrupt necessity within him Hereby he pitieth not himselfe hee seeth not his undone estate nihil miserius misero non miserante seipsum Hence it is that a mans whole damnation is to be ascribed to himselfe Wee our selves have destroyed our owne soules we cannot cast it upon Gods decrees And this is necessarily to be urged because of that naturall corruption in us with Adam to cast our sinne upon God 8. A man may acknowledge grace and give much to it and yet Much may be ascribed to grace and yet the totall efficacy not given unto it not give the totall efficacy unto it This is amaine particular to consider for Pelagius and Arminius and Papists all doe aknowledge grace Pelagius it s noted of him that hee did foure times incrustate his opinion and held grace in every one of them He did gratiae vocabulo uti ad frangendum invidiam yea by this meanes hee deceived all the Easterne Churches and they acquitted him when he said thus If any man deny grace to be necessary to every good act wee doe let him be an anathema So Papists and Arminians they all acknowledge grace but not grace enough Gratia non est gratia nisi sit omni modo gratuita As for example First they acknowledge grace to be onely as an universall help which must be made effectuall by the particular will of man so that grace is efficacious with them not by any inward vertue of it selfe antecedaneous to and independent upon the Will but eventually only because the Will doth yeeld and therefore Bellarmine compareth it to Sol homo generant hominem one as the universall cause the other as the particular cause Thus grace and free-will produce a good action grace as the generall cause and free-will as the particular but how derogatory is this to grace how can our actions be said to be the fruit of grace For if I should aske Who is the father of such a man it would be very hard to say The Sun in the firmament so it would be as absurd to say Grace regenerated and converted this man Againe they make grace a partiall cause onely so that it stirreth up our naturall strength to worke this or that good thing and therefore we are synergists or co-workers with God in the worke of conversion but this supposeth us not dead in sinne 9. Men may naturally performe the outward act of a commandement The outward act of a commandement may be performed by the power of Nature Now though we be thus corrupt yet for all that men by nature may doe that outward act which is commanded by God or abstaine from the matter prohibited Thus Alexander abstained from the Virgins he took captives which is so much related in stories and many other famous instances of the Heathens though some indeed think

only a passive There is a power to be converted to God which is not in stones or beasts they say there is a power to convert or turn to God here is a great difference Besides we may consider these degrees in the creatures 1. There is an inclination to such an act as in the fire to burne 2. A spontaneous inclination to some acts accompanied with sense and sensible apprehensions as in beasts 3. A willing inclination accompanied with reason or judgement and this is in man Now because man is thus affected therefore God in converting though he doth it by a potent work yet by arguments which we never use to horses or brute beasts and although man hath lost that rectitude in his will and mind yet he hath not lost the faculties themselves therefore though he be theologically dead yet he is ethically alive being to be wrought upon by arguments Hence is that saying To will is of nature To will well of grace To will ill of corrupt nature Hence we may grant those objections that if a man had not this free-will if you do not extend it to good things there could be no conversion or obedience for grace doth not destroy but perfect nature 2. This putteth men upon speaking and preaching contradictions To presse a duty and yet to acknowledge Gods grace or gift to do it is no contradiction For so some have said that the Calvinists though they be Calvinists in their Doctrines yet they are Arminians in their Uses And they say How incongruous is it to tell us we can doe nothing of our selves and then to make this use Therefore let us seek out for the grace of Christ But to answer 1. This contradiction may be cast as well upon Christ and Paul Take Christ for an instance John 6. in that Sermon he bade the Jewes labour for that meat that perisheth not and yet at the same time said None can come unto mee except my Father draw him Might not the Arminian say How can these two things stand together So John 15. our Saviour telleth them Without him they can doe nothing and yet at the same time he exhorteth them to abide in him and keep his commandements So Paul take two instances from him Rom. cap. 9. cap. 11. The Apostle there sheweth God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and that it is not of him that runneth or willeth but of God that calleth yet he bids them that stand take heed lest they fall and Be not high-minded but feare So Phil. 2. 12 13. Work out your salvation with feare and trembling for it 's God that worketh in you both to will and to doe This reason in their sense would quite overthrow the former Nay say they it being attributed thus to God and to man it seemeth both doe it How this may be answered we shall see anon But to make us speak contradictions because we presse a duty and yet acknowledge Gods grace or gift to doe it is to make a perpetuall discord between precepts and promises For the same things which God commands us to doe doth he not also promise to doe for us as to circumcise our hearts and to walk in his commandements How much better is that of Austins O man in Gods precepts acknowledge what thou oughtest to doe in his promises acknowledge that thou canst not doe it But 2. we may returne upon them that their Sermons and Prayers are contradictions they say they can doe it and then they pray God they may doe it They say the Will may receive the grace of God and may obey God calling and then they pray God would make them obey his calling as much as to say O Lord make me to obey if I will 3. This evacuateth the whole nature of Gods precepts and commands Mans inability to observe Gods precepts maketh not void the nature of the precepts because this inability proceeded from mans owne fault A thing said to be impossible three waies For say they Is not this to make God mock us as if wee should bid the blind man see or tell a dwarfe if he would touch the heavens with his finger he should have so much mony Now to this many things are to be said as first If these things were absolutely and simply impossible that which they say would be true but a thing may be said to be impossible three waies 1. Simply and universally even to the power of God and so all those things are that imply a contradiction and this impossibility ariseth from the nature of the thing not from any defect in God Yea we may say with one Potentissimè-hoc Deus non potest 2. There may be a thing impossible in its kind as for Adam to reach the heavens for a man to work above naturall causes 3. That which is possible in it selfe to such a subject but becomes impossible accidentally through a mans fault Now for a man to be commanded that which through his owne fault he becometh unable to doe is no illusion or cruelty If a creditor require his debt of a bankrupt who hath prodigally spent all and made himselfe unable to pay what unrighteousnesse is this Therefore they are but odious instances of touching the skies of bidding blind men to see for this Rule observe Whatsoever is so impossible that it is extra officium debitum and potentiam unquam datam that indeed were absurd to presse upon men Again consider that the commands of God doe imply if any power then more then they will acknowledge for they suppose a man can doe all of himselfe without the grace of God and therefore indeed the old Pelagian and the new Socinian speak more consonantly then these that divide it between grace and the power of man Lastly The commands of God are for many other ends as to convince Gods commands though they be not a measure of our power may serve to convince humble c. and humble though they be not a measure or rule of our power That place Deut. 30. 11. is much urged by the adversary where Moses seemeth to declare the easinesse of that command and certainly it hath a very great shew for as for that answer That Moses speaketh of the easinesse of knowing and not fulfilling Calvin doth not stand upon it and indeed of our selves we are not able to know the Law of God The answer then to this may be taken out of Rom. 10. 11. That howsoever Moses speaks of the Law yet Paul interprets it of the Gospel What then Doth Paul pervert the scope of Moses Some doe almost say so but the truth is the Law as is to be shewed against the generall mistake if it was not in it selfe a covenant of grace yet it was given Evangelically and to Evangelicall purposes which made the Apostle alledge that place and therefore the Antinomian doth wholly mistake in setting up the Law as some horrid Gorgon or Medusa's head as is

eternall life nor nothing of the Spirit of God till Christ came Hence they say the Gospel began with Christ and deny that the promise of a Christ or Messias to come is ever called the Gospel but the reall exhibition of him only This is false for although this promise be sometimes called Act. 7. 17. Act. 13. 32. the promise made to the fathers yet it is sometimes also called the Gospel Rom. 1. 2. Rom. 10. 14 15. And there are cleare places to confute this wicked errour as the Apostle instancing in Abraham and David for justification and remission of sinnes which were spirituall mercies and that eternall life was not unknown to them appeareth by our Saviours injunction commanding them to search the Scriptures for in them they hope for eternall life John 11. 39. Thus also they had hope and knowledge of a resurrection as appeareth Act. 24. 14. therefore our Saviour proved the resurrection out of a speech of Gods to Moses And howsoever Mercer as I take it thinke that exposition probable about Jobs profession of his knowledge that his Redeemer liveth and that he shall see him at the last day which make his meaning to be of Jobs perswasion of his restitution unto outward peace and health again yet there are some passages in his expression that seeme plainly to hold out the contrary Though therefore we grant that that state was the state of children and so carried by sensible objects very much yet there was under these temporall good things spirituall held forth Hence the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. maketh the Jewes to have the same spirituall matter and benefit in their Sacraments which we partake of In the next place let us consider the false difference of the Papists 2. Of Papists and they have the Socinians also agreeing with them in some things First they make this a great difference that Christ under the 1. That Christ hath added more perfect Lawes under the New Testament New Testament hath added more perfect Lawes and sound counsells then were before as Wilfull poverty Vowed chastity and the Socinians they labour to shew how Christ hath added to every precept of the Decalogue and they begin with the first that he hath added to it these things 1. A command to prayer whereas in the Old Testament though godly men did pray yet say they impudently there was no command and then Christ say they did not onely command to pray but gave a prescript forme of prayer The second thing added say they is to call upon Christ as a Mediatour in our prayers which they in the Old Testament did not And thus they goe on over all the Commandements shewing what new things Christ hath added Smal. refut Thes pag. 228. But I have already shewed that Christ never added any morall duty which was not commanded before The second difference of the Papists is to make the Law and 2. That the Law and Gospel are capable of no opposite consideration the Gospel capable of no opposite consideration no not in any strict sense but to hold both a Covenant of workes and that the Fathers under the Old Testament and those under the New were both justified by fulfilling the Law of God And herein lyeth that grosse error whereby Christ and grace are evacuated But the falshood of this shall be evinced God willing when wee speak of the Law and Gospel strictly which the Papists upon a dangerous errour call the Old Law and the New Lastly the Papists make a third difference that under the 3. That the Fathers that died under the Old Testament went not immediatly to heaven Old Testament the Fathers that dyed went not immediately to heaven therefore say they wee doe not say Saint Jeremiah or Saint Isaiah but after Christs death then a way was opened for them and us Hence is that saying Sanguis Christi est clavis Paradisi but this is sufficiently confuted in the Popish controversies I come therefore to the Antinomian difference and there I 3. Of Antinomians That God saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament not of the New find such an one that I am confident was never heard of before in the world It is in the Honey-comb of Justification pag. 117. God saith hee saw sinne in the beleevers of the Old Testament but not in these of the New And his Reason is because the glory of free Justification was not so much revealed the vaile was not removed What a weak reason is this Did the lesse or more revelation of free Justification make God justifie the lesse freely It had been a good argument to prove that the people of God in the Old Testament did not know this doctrine so clearly as those in the New but that God should see the more or lesse because of this is a strange Consequence The places of Scripture which hee brings Zech. 13. 1. Dan. 9. 14. would make more to the purpose of a Socinian that there is no pardon of sinne and eternall life but under the Gospel rather then for the Antinomian and one of his places hee brings Jer. 50. ver 20. maketh the contrary true for there God promiseth pardon of sinne not to the beleevers under the Gospel but to that residue of the Jewes which God would bring backe from captivity as the context evidently sheweth so the place Heb. 10. 17. how grosly is it applyed unto the beleevers of the Gospel onely for had not the godly under the Old Testament the Law written in their hearts and had they not the same cause to take away their sinnes viz Christs bloud as well as we under the Gospel His second reason is God saw sinne in them because they were children that had need of a rod but he sees none in us because full growne heires What a strange reason is this for parents commonly see lesse sinne in their children while young then when growne up and their childishnes doth more excuse them And although children onely have a rod for their faults yet men growne up they have more terrible punishments Hence the Apostle threatens beleevers that despise Christ with punishment above those that despised Moses His third Reason is because they under the Law were under a School-master therefore he seeth sinne in them but none in us being no longer under a School-master But here is no solidity in this Reason for first the chiefest worke of a School-master is to teach and guide and so they are said to be under the Law as a School-master that so they may be prepared for Christ and thus it is a good argument to Christians under the Gospel that their lives should be fuller of wisedome and grown graces then the Jewes because they are not under a School-master as children As if one should say to a young man that is taken from the Grammar-schoole and transplanted in the University that he should take heed he doth not speak false Latine now for hee is not in