Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n adultery_n fornication_n wife_n 1,652 5 7.9309 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A06106 A retractiue from the Romish religion contayning thirteene forcible motiues, disswading from the communion with the Church of Rome: wherein is demonstratiuely proued, that the now Romish religion (so farre forth as it is Romish) is not the true Catholike religion of Christ, but the seduction of Antichrist: by Tho. Beard ... Beard, Thomas, d. 1632. 1616 (1616) STC 1658; ESTC S101599 473,468 560

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

not onely the worshippers of Idols themselues but they that should entice or perswade any to Idolatry The execution of which Lawes wee see put in practice vpon the Israelites Gods owne people in the 32. of Exod. and 23. of Numbers Thirdly and lastly in respect of the nature of the sinne which is first a senslesse sinne full of folly contrary to the very light of reason and nature as both the Prophet Dauid and Esay at large proue And secondly a sinne full of impiety because they that worship an Idoll worship the Deuill as S. Paul affirmeth 1. Cor. 10. 20. And lastly a sinne most opposite to the glory of God and consequently sooner procuring the vengeance of God then any other for it is called in the Scripture spirituall forn●cation and adulterie because the Idolater forsaketh God and prostituteth himselfe to an Idoll and that in Gods presence And therefore as corporall fornication is the onely cause of diuorce betwixt man and wife so this sinne onely causeth God to diuorce himselfe from his Church and to take from her all her ornaments and Iewels that is his Word and Sacraments and to giue her ouer into the hands of her enemies Thus the greatnesse of this sinne of Idolatry is manifest and from thence I may conclude my first proposition that that Religion which maintayneth and commandeth this sinne so full of folly impiety and contrariety to God is worthy not onely to be suspected but euen abhorred and detested of all men 4. But let vs come to the examination of the second proposition to wit whether the Church of Rome bee guilty of this great sinne or no. The Romanists mainly denie it as they haue great reason for if their Religion bee proued to maintaine Idolatrie they know that it must needes fall to the ground and therefore they deuise all manner of shifts to deliuer themselues from this imputation But we on the other side confidently affirme it and that the world may see wee doe it not without great reason wee confirme our affirmation with this strong argument Whosoeuer ascribeth diuine honour to any creature is an Idolater but the Romanists ascribe diuine honour to many creatures therefore they are Idolaters and lest any should thinke this to bee the errour of priuate persons and not the heresie of their Religion I adde vnto the Minor that all the Romanists doe this from the very grounds of their faith and that in so doing they are warranted from their Religion it selfe 5. They deny both the Maior and Minor proposition in this argument and in denying them especially the Maior they giue iust cause of vehement suspition if not of plaine demonstration that they are guilty of the crime whereof wee accuse them for if a thiefe standing at the barre being accused of a robbery by the high way side should answere that to take money from a man by the high way side at Noone-day was not theft all men would thinke that hee was guilty of the robbery and so the Iurie would finde him then certainely the Romanists by denying this to be the true definition of Idolatry which is propounded in the first proposition bewray their owne guiltinesse and giue vs more cause to suspect them then we had before 6. But let vs heare their shifts they principally are two one of Bellarmine the other of Valentia two maine posts in the house of Popery Bellarmine would faine vndermine this proposition to giue to creatures diuine honour is Idolatry by a distinction betwixt an Idol and an Image affirming that an Image is the similitude of a thing that hath a true being but an Idol of a sained thing that indeed is not and therevpon he seemes to conclude that to ascribe diuine honour to some Images is not Idolatry because euery Image is not an Idoll In the proofe of this distinction he labours much and profits little for like the heedlesse fish hee leapes out of the Frying-pan into the fire and tyes the knot faster which he would seeme to vntie for first all the Idolatry of the Church of Rome consisteth not in worshipping of Images but in many other things as shall appeare in the Discourse following Secondly if to worship the Image of a true thing be not Idolatry then the Gentiles were not Idolaters in worshipping the Image of Iupiter and Mars and Diana and Romulus and Aesculapius and the Sunne because as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth all the Idols of the Gentiles were the statues of men And Saint Augustine also affirmeth That the Gentiles did worship those things which were in being but were not to bee worshipped and then the Israelites did not commit Idolatry in the Wildernesse when they adored the golden Calfe nor was that Calfe an Idoll contrary to the expresse Text of Scripture Acts 7. 41. because it was a representation of a true thing namely of the true Iehouah as it is euident Exodus 32. 5. Thirdly let it be graunted that an Idoll is onely the similitude of an imaginary and fained thing yet will not this acquite them of Idolatry seeing they worship in the Romish Church the Images of things which either neuer were or were not such as they are taken to bee as the Image of S. Katharine and Saint Christopher and Saint George and such others the truth whereof they are not able to proue by any approoued Historie Nay it is confessed that many are worshipped in the Church as Saints which are tormented in hell fire for their sinnes This shift therefore of Bellarmine to wipe off the blot of Idolatry is but a silly one and blurres them more then they were before 7. Gregory de Valentia labours to creepe out at another hole to wit not by a distinction but by addition for hee would adde vnto the definition of Idolatry these words sicut Deo as to God and so Idolatry should bee not a giuing of diuine honour to a creature but when it is so giuen to the creature as vnto God Wherein as he vnmannerly crosseth his fellow Iesuite in calling the Images of Christ Idols and saying that they are to bee worshipped latria with diuine honour the one whereof Bellarmine simply and absolutely denyeth and the other he alloweth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respectiuely so likewise ●e crosseth reason Scripture Fathers and consequently all sound diuinity 8. For Reason If an adulteresse woman being taken in b●d with another man should excuse her selfe thus I am not guilty of adultery because though I lent the vse of my body to a stranger yet I did it not to him as vnto my husband would this excuse her no it would rather adde vnto her crime So the Romish harlot committing spirituall fornication with her Idols when shee goeth about to colour her crime with t●is vermillion I giue diuine honour indeed to Images but yet not as vnto God What doth shee else but adde car●all impudency vnto spirituall vnchastitie A filthy stopple
him my grace is sufficient for thee And besides what is it but a tēpting of God to refuse the ordinary remedy which God hath ordained which is marriage and to flye to extraordinary meanes as if a man should refuse all bodily sustenance on earth in hope that God will feed him extraordinarily from heauen at his deuout request because he hath promised that those which feare him shall want nothing and whatsoeuer we aske in the name of Christ shall be graunted Let Saint Augustine determine this doubt whose resolution is this concerning all things which men pray for which are not necessary to saluation Aliquando Deus iratus dat quod petis Deus propitius negat quod petis Sometimes God granteth in anger and sometimes denyeth in mercie that which thou desirest And let Origens practice put it out of all doubt who to auoid incontinencie and to quench the fiery lusts of the flesh offered violence to his own flesh by cutting off those parts wherin concupiscence raigneth If he had beene pers●aded that by fasting and prayer he could haue obtained that gift from heauen surely he would haue macerated his body with the one and brawned his knees with the other rather then to haue fallen to that desperate and vnnaturall remedy 28. But to leaue this their vaine obiection and to come a little neerer to the poynt how can that doctrine choose but lead to loosenes which crosseth not onely the ordinance of God who was the first ordainer of Marriage but also the instinct of nature for this was naturally instilled into all liuing Creatures especially Man at the first creation that he should encrease and multiply by vertue of which institution of nature a desire is engrafted in all the posterity of Adam of the propagation of their kind that they may as it were liue in their succession And whereas Bellarmine obiecteth that these words Encrease and multiply containe not a precept but an institution of nature and a promise of fecundity because the same words are vttered to other Creatures which are not capable of precepts and also because if it were a precept it should bind all to encrease and multiply and so imurie should be offered to Christ to Marie and other holie virgines I answere that a●beit one member of his reason is vnsound to wit that beasts are vncapable of precepts for God spake to the Fish and it cast vp Ionah on the dry land which sheweth that beasts in their kind vnderstand Gods precepts and obey yet we do not say that this is an absolute precept binding all without exception to marriage but onely a liberty granted to all that will to marrie that thereby mankind may be still propagated and therefore they which take away this liberty from all ecclesiasticall persons and monasticall Votaries offer iniury to nature and tyrannize ouer the bodies and soules of men For whence ariseth this necessary conclusion that the vow of single life is repugnant to nature and therefore none may take it vpon them but those either in whome nature is defectiue which our Sauiour saith were borne chaste from their mothers belly or that are endowed with a supernaturall gift as our blessed Sauiour the blessed Virgin his mother and other holy men and women and so by consequent it followeth because this gift is rare and extraordinary that most of them which by a rash vowe binde themselues from marriage should fall into fornication and promiscuous lust The course of nature in man-kind is like the source of a running streame which by no dammes nor artificiall barres can bee stopped but it will runne either the naturall course in the channell or some other by-passage and that the more it is stopped the more violently it rageth except the fountaine and spring be dryed vp So except the fountaine of concupiscence in incontinent persons be dryed vp by a supernaturall and extraordinary worke the more it is interrupted the more outragiously it fometh Therefore if the ordinary channell of marriage be dammed vp it must needs burst ouer the bankes of lawfulnes and spread it selfe ouer the pastures and medowes of adioyning neighbours This is the very case of our Romish shauelings being barred from marriage they burst sorth like wilde Bulls into other mens grounds and defile their beds by adultery and fill their houses with bastardy 29. If they challenge to themselues the supernaturall gift of continency experience sheweth that their challenge is vaine for not one of an hundred of them liueth chastly and besides as God hath giuen that gift often to the heathen and reprobate as Histories report so very often yea most ordinarily doth he deny it to his own children for ordinary grace doth not abolish but sanctifie nature so that this i● no gift of ordinary sauing grace but a superordinary worke aboue grace and that also many times without grace If then it be not in the power of any to quench the instincts of nature if ●t be not a worke of ordinary grace to abolish nature but it requireth extraordinary grace for the effecting thereof if the course of nature be stopped one way it will burst forth another then we may by sound reason conclude that the vowe of chastity and single life and the prohibition of marriage in the Church of Rome doth open a wide gappe to all loose and licencious liuing 30. Lastly that all this is true let the lamentable effects and fruits of this their doctrine stand vp for witnesse and vmp●ers in this matter for how shall a man better iudge of the goodnesse of the cause then by the effects a good ●ree cannot bring forth euill fruite nor an euill tree good fruit euery tree is knowne by his fruit and albeit often that which is not the cause is put for the cause and by the accidentall failing of the medium or instrument the cause may misse of his proper effect Yet when the effects are not rare but frequent yea infinite and such as are so like that they seeme as it were of one stampe and as it were all egges of one bird then it must needs follow that parentem sequitur sua proles like childe like parent such as the effect such must the cause needs be To beginne with Nicholas one of the seuen Deacons the prime Authour of the sect of the Nicholaitans condemned by Saint Iohn Apoc. 2. Let Epiphanius tell vs what his opinion was and what fruites issued there-from This Nicholas hauing a beautifull wife when hee sawe others in admiration for their single life that he might not seeme inferiour to them vtterly renounced the company of his wife and determined neuer to haue fellowship with her againe But when hee was not able to represse any longer the flame of concupiscence and being ashamed to returne to his wife lest he should be condemned of inconstancy he chose rather to giue ouer himselfe to all manner of vnlawfull lust yea to that which