Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	author_n	sin_n	will_n	1,685	5	6.8791	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13160	A challenge concerning the Romish Church, her doctrine & practises, published first against Rob. Parsons, and now againe reuiewed, enlarged, and fortified, and directed to him, to Frier Garnet, to the archpriest Blackevvell and all their adhærents, by Matth. Sutcliffe. Thereunto also is annexed an answere vnto certeine vaine, and friuolous exceptions, taken to his former challenge, and to a certeine worthlesse pamphlet lately set out by some poore disciple of Antichrist, and entituled, A detection of diuers notable vntrueths, contradictions, corruptions, and falsifications gathered out of M. Sutcliffes new challenge, &c.	Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629.; Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629. Briefe replie to a certaine odious and slanderous libel.	1602 (1602)	STC 23454; ESTC S117867	337,059	440

iustas And these heresies he affirmeth to be holden by Luther Caluin and Brentius and others But to cast some good colour vpon his accusation he hath made diuers grosse lies First the Eunomians taught not that no sins could hurt a man so he had faith but so he were partaker of that faith which he taught Haeres 54. Docebat Eunomius saith S. Augustine nihil obesse cuiquam quorumlibet peccatorum perpetrationem perseuerantiam modo eius quam ille docebat fidei particeps esset Secondly neither doth any of vs nor did Luther or Caluin or any true Christian euer holde that perseuerance in sinne doth hurt no man nay we say that he that beléeueth truely worketh also by charity Why then doth he charge vs so impudently with this error Thirdly we speake of a true faith and not of the heresie of Eunomius Fourthly not Simon Magus but the Apostle Paul taught that we are saued by grace As for the disciples of Simon they taught that men are saued by the grace of Simon Lib. 1. aduers haeres c. 20. Docebant saith Irenaeus seruari homines secundum gratiam Simonis non secundum operas iustas Fifthly we say anathema to all that beléeue to be saued by Simons grace or the Simoniacal Popes indulgences Are the papists then not ashamed to sée their champion ouerlash so farre in the report of these matters Finally we doe not deny but good workes are the way we are to walke in if we meane to attaine the kingdome of heauen though not the causes of obtaining that kingdome falsification 15 He saith further that as Florinus taught that God was the author of sinne Lib. de notis eccles c. 9. so Caluin did likewise teach Florini haeresis erat saith Bellarmine deum esse causam peccatorum And againe eadem sine vllo pudore docet Caluinus lib. 1. instit c. 18. § 2. Non solum permissu inquit sed etiam voluntate dei homines peccant c. lib. 3. c. 23. § 24. dicit non solum dei praeuisione permissione sed etiam voluntate in peccatum lapsum esse Adamum infra c. 24 § 14. quod inquit aliqui audire verbum dei contemnunt ipsorum est prauitas sed in hanc prauitatem à deo addicti sunt vt in eis potentiam suam seueritatem ostendat He doth say also that Luther Peter Martyr and Melancthon held the same opinion Dicit Melancthon in comment in c. 8. ad Romanos saith he ita fuisse opus dei Iudae proditionem ac Pauli conuersionem But here néedeth a fellow with a talye to score vp the Cardinals maine lyes For first Caluin doth expressely deny that God is the author of sinne as may appeare by his first booke of his institutions chapt 18. Secondly it came neuer in Luthers Peter Martyrs or Melancthons minde to holde any such wicked opinion as Bellarmine doth ascribe vnto them Thirdly Caluin hath not these wordes non solum permissu sed etiam voluntate dei homines peccare or that God is author or cause of sinne Nay he directly teacheth that the next cause of sinne is the deprauation of mans will Fourthly he forgeth lies where he saith that Caluin writeth that men are addicted to doe euill by God and that Adam did sinne by the will of God for neither of these points will be found in his third booke of Caluins institutions from whence Bellarmine would seeme to deriue thē Fifthly he doth impudently and without shame charge Luther and Peter Martyr with teaching that God is authour of sinne And if Robert Parsons be not able to alleadge their wordes out of which this may be proued he cannot deny but that the Cardinall is a lyar Finally he doth slander Philip Melancthon and without colour belye him for if Melancthon had taught any such wicked doctrine as he reporteth then would he neuer haue fayled to set downe his wordes Which not being done we will not fayle to charge him with vntruth which I doubt not but Rob. Parsons will discharge him of if he can falsification 16 Origenis fuit error saith Bellarmine infernum nihil esse nisi conscientiae horrorem teste Hieronymo in epistola ad Auitum Ibidem idem docet Caluinus lib. 3. instit c. vltimo § vlt. But he doth impudently belye Caluin for he neuer thought much lesse taught any such matter if he had done Bellarmine vseth not to conceale his wordes He belyeth also both Hierome and Origen as I haue shewed ●… the chapter ●…ing before falsification 17 He saith very impudently that in England a woman is our chiefe bishop Et iam reipsa saith he Lib. de notis eccles c. 9. Caluinistis in Anglia mulier quaedam est summus pontifex A shamelesse lye of the Popes chiefe parasite for albeit we giue her Maiesty supreme authority in ecclesiasticall ●am●es yet the same doth not include any power of ministeriall 〈◊〉 in preaching the word and administring the sacraments or vsing the keyes nor doth it comprehend more then doth belong to the French king and all other kings if they will take it and not suffer the same to be vsurped by Antichrist and his adherents His slandrous wordes where hee like a slaue of antichrist doth call vs Caluinists doth shew his had humor and howe without lying and rayling neither he nor his consorts can maintaine their credit falsification 18 Proclus Haereticus apud Epiphanium haeres 64. saith Bellarmine Ibidem dicebat peccatum in renatis semper viuere concupiscentiam enim verè esse peccatum nec tolli per baptismum sed sopiri per fidem quod idem docuerunt Meslaliani haeretici apud Theodoretum lib. 4. de haeret fabulis haec est ipsissima sententia Lutheri artic 2. 31. Item Philippi in locis communibus c. de peccato Originis Caluini lib. 4. instit c. 15. § 10. But to report somewhat that may tend to slander vs he hath reported a number of lies all vpon a heape for neither did Proclus say that concupiscence was sinne and that it was not taken away by baptisme but onely made dull by faith nor did the Messalians teach any such matter nor doth either Epiphanius say that of Proclus or Theodoret of the Messalians that Bellarmine reporteth nor doth either Luther or Melancthon or Caluin teach that sinne doth liue alwaies in the regenerat Proclus beléeued that the body was vinculum animae and that the soules were created before the body which was also the heresie of Origen But this which Bellarmine talketh of he neuer taught nor was any such thing condemned in him as an heresie Luther Melancthon Caluin and we all doe holde that euery christian man ought to mortifie his earthly members and concupiscences and that some doe it more some lesse Neither doth any man teach that concupiscence doth reigne or liue in the regenerat as this lying and slandrous mouth affirmeth falsification 19 Whereas Nouatus denyed reconciliation to such as had