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
A15733	An ansvvere to a popish pamphlet, of late newly forbished, and the second time printed, entituled: Certaine articles, or forcible reasons discouering the palpable absurdities, and most notorious errors of the Protestants religion. By Anthony Wotton	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.; Wright, Thomas, d. 1624. Certaine articles or forcible reasons.	1605 (1605)	STC 26002; ESTC S120304	112,048	194

and most effectually intended their sinnes For he that intendeth any effect wherewith an other effect is necessarily conioyned consequently intendeth it as for example He that intendeth to burne a ship in the middest of the sea intēdeth cōsequently the death of all the men which be in her In like m●ner if God intended that Iudas should sell Christ vnto which action sinne was necessarily adioyned consequently God intended the sinne as well as the selling C. Cal. lib. 1. institution C. 18. §. 1. The Minor is to to euident for the Protestants deride Gods permission they say that all his actions are energetical or effectual they desperatly auerre that Pauls conuersion Dauids adultry were in like maner the works of God and as he elected some to Glory before the preuision of workes so he reiected some from glory before the preuision of sinnes Here hence I inferre that according to the Protestants principles God is most properly the author of sinne because he impelleth most effectually thereunto Next that he is the only author of sinne for that he inforceth D. men vpon necessity to sinne and they as instruments follow the motion of their first cause Againe that man sinneth not For where there is necessitie of sinning there is no sinne For sinne is free or no sinne Besides how can man sinne in conforming his will to Gods will Finally God is worse then the diuell For that the wickednes of the diuell principally consisteth in the mouing perswading and inducing of men to sin the which by the Protestants confession God performeth more effectually then the Diuell because the motions of God are more forcible lesse resistable then the illusions or suggestions of the diuell Many sinnes moreouer are acted without the temptations of the diuell some of ignorance some of passion but none without the motions of God so that God is worse then the Diuell both in causing greater multitude of sinnes then the diuell and in the forcible maner of causing sinnes Which the diuell cannot attaine vnto The which doctrine is as good a ground for Atheisme as euer hell could deuise for were it not much more reasonable to saye there were no God at all then to beleeue there were such a God as commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth men to sinne and yet for the same sinnes will torment them with the inexplicable paines of hell Protestant Whosoeuer defends that God Commaunds perswades vrges A. impells to sinne makes God the cause of sinne Of this proposition there is no question betwixt the Papists and vs. Yet I hold it necessary to speake a word or two of it not by way of refutation but of explication If a man commaund vrge c. to that which is euill and the effect ensue therevpon he is iustly to be charged with that sinne as the Author of it In Gods Commaunding it is otherwise For that which he B. commaunds being otherwise euill chaunges the nature by his commaundement so that neither he that commaunds nor the partie that obeies commit any sinne in commaunding or obeying For example it is vnlawfull for a man to offer vp his Child for a burnt sacrifice yet God commaunds Abraham to do so and Abraham is ready to fulfill the comm●undement Both without sinne because the will of God is the rule of righteousnes and he that gaue man a lawe hath reserued authoritie to himselfe to dispence with that lawe when and as it pleaseth him and as this Papist saith truely Euery man is bound in Conscience to Conforme his will to the will of God But yet this is not simply true For admit that Iudas had knowne that it was Gods will that our Sauiour should be betraied to the Iewes by him might he therefore the doing of it At no hand for he was to haue receaued a warrant for it that it might be lawful wheras he had the contrary charge in the 6. Commaundement Thou shalt not kill But if God had geuen him commission to do it as he did to abraham for the offring of his sonne then he had bin bound to yeeld obedience to this commaundement of God and had not sinned in obeying So much doth it concerne a man to liue in obedience to those lawes which God hath prescribed to all and euery man generally and particularly Abraham hath a commaundement not to kill if it be Gods wil he should kill without sinning therby God wil giue him warrant and charge to kil without which howsoeuer Gods wil stand Abraham cannot do it lawfully And therefore it had not ben warrantable for Iudas Pilate or the Iewes intending that good end which God intended to haue done contrary to the generall commaundement of God without a speciall commission to that purpose which is more then a knowledge that God would haue it done This being vnderstood we disclayme as needelesse all such excuses for God as this Papist seemeth to make on our behalfe For we say not that God moued them for a good end but that he did not moue them at all and yet there is a great deale of difference betwixt mouing and commaunding perswading vrging impelling since he may truly be said to moue a man that offers him the outward occasions whereby he may be prouoked to the doing of any thing which I suppose God doth and you will graunt may do without being guilty of sinne for so doing But if we would maintaine that God moued them it it were no hard matter to answer your strong proofe For neither doth God binde him selfe to those lawes which he giues to man and his will being the rule of Iustice that which he will haue done by his willing of it ceasses to be euill So that he cannot doe any euill though he may commaund that to be done which till he commaunded it could not be done without sinne But you vrge vs further that God indirectly and most effectually intended their sinnes Of his effectuall intending by and by in answere to the Assumption Now only of his direct intending which we are so farre from denying that we hold it absurd to make any question of it For what is more plaine in the scripture then that 2 Sā 24. 1. God would haue Dauid sinne to the end that he might by his sinne haue occasion to punish the people as he did Doth not Michah professe that it was Gods purpose 1. Reg. 22. 22. 23. that Achab should fall at Ramoth Gile●d by hearkening to the false prophesies of them whom a lying spirit was to seduce Goe saith God thou shalt preuaile And to come to your owne example did not God intend decree that our sauiour Christ should be treacherously betrayed by Iudas falsely accused by the Priests vniustly condemned by Pilate If he did not certainly determine these things so that the euen could not but ensue thereupon he did not certainly prouide for the saluation of his children because it might haue come to passe that Christ should not haue bene betrayed

that euer was cōmitted And because of many other such reasons aleadged by our diuines heretofore whereof this of his is none being indeed without all shew of likelihood For how doth the bodily presence of Christ deterre any man from sinne and wickednesse nay rather it incourages him thereto For who would feare or respect such a God as hath neither eye to see nor eare to heare that is crusht vp togeather into the compasse a baggage Wafer cake which he may and must eate and if he be afraide of any displeasure by it he may throw it to the Dogges or cast it into the fire as one of your Popes did Miserable Idolaters that worship such a breaden created God! But I pray you what aduantage get we by remouing Christs bodily presence from the Sacrament as long as we confesse that both God-head and manhood are truely receiued of all faithfull beleeuers in that blessed communion How vnreasonable an absurditie were it to imagine that the bodily presence of Christ can worse consort with sinfull liues then his spirituall Whereas we are sure that while he liued he was bodily present with sinners and Publicans but spiritually neuer had any communion or conuersation with any such vntill his grace had in some measure purged them Papists indeed absurdly dreame that the wicked receiue Christ in the Sacrament and yet haue no benefit by Christs being in them For what cause saith he haue they coyned a new negatiue Religion First proue they haue and then require an answere But that is vnpossible vnlesse your skill will serue you to perswade men that the Scriptures are newly coyned and as true is your charge that our religion is negatiue otherwise then the Scriptures are which are profitable to teach to cōuince 2. Tim. 3. 16. to correct to instruct in righteousnesse But what a toye is this to obiect that to vs in disgrace of our Religion which the Iewes with as good reason might haue obiected to our Sauiour and the Gentiles to his holy Apostles for did not he and they vtterly take away the Sacraments ceremonies rites lawes customes of the Iewes and all heathenish points of the Gentiles superstition and Idolatry you deale with vs in this case as a man would deale with the right heire to lands which he iniuriously deteyned You haue forged new deeds conueiances whē we come to demand our right you tel vs our plea stands vpon negatiō of euidences deeds conueiances whereas we bring the most ancient record of Scripture to proue our title as our proper plea and deale with your forgeries no further then the necessitie of cleering our right and the truth enforceth vs. which also driues me at this time to make a short answere to your slaunders How doe we bring in Feasting for fasting When neither you Papists haue any true fasts among you neither do we ordinarily vse any feasting vpon those dayes which being superstitiously left to vs by you are Ciuilly retained by vs with more moderation then your selues vsed Saue only that we make it no matter of conscience to forbeare flesh at such times appointed In steed of galloping ouer Pater nosters Aue maries and Creeds with many Idolatrous some blasphemous adiurations without vnderstanding or affection we haue restored the true vse of praying which is to confesse our sinnes and with hearty sorrowes to craue pardon of God in the name of Iesus Christ for his sake and in his only mediation That is popish deuotion the dissolution whereof in deed we haue by all meanes procured and by the gracious mighty prouidence of God performed Not to make men more vainely secure but more religiously deuout in geuing the honor to God only which Papists rob him of to worship their owne Idolatrous inuentions this we continually teach and vrge not without zeale in verball sermons how glad would you be if it were so and how well would you like such sermons But with euidence of truth prouing by the scriptures that the Pope is that very great Antichrist prophecied of by Paule and Iohn That popery is an Idollatrous seruice patcht vp togeather by little and little as the diuill could from time to time deuise and procure allowance of such points as were fitt for the aduanc●ng establishing of his eldest sonne Antichrist But if any of our sermons be verball they are those that are botcht vp out of your postills foaming vp a little froath of carnall wit withour zeale in the speaker or cōscience in the hearers that are delighted with such vanities neither of which seemes to haue any sufficient knowledge or feeling of the true course and vse of preaching Article 5. Papist The Protestants make God the Author of sinne the only cause of sinne that man sinneth not that God is worse then the diuell Protestant The Protestants make the diuill and man the onely Authors and committers of all sinne and namly of these heresies and slaunders wherewith you haue stult this malicious pamphlet Papist Whosoeuer defendeth that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth to sinne maketh God the cause of sinne But all Protestants say that God commaundeth perswadeth Calu lib. 1. instit c 17. sect 11. c 18. sect 4 li. 3. c. 23. sect 7. 8. 9. Zuingl serd prouidentia Beza aphoris vrgeth impelleth to sinne Ergo. The Protestants make God the cause and author of sinne The maior I proue for if God perswade or impell men to sinne as for example Iudas to sel Christ Saint Peter to deny Christ the Iewes to crucifie Christ questionles he intended the sacriledge of Iudas the negation of Peter the murder of the Iewes and this much more effectually then Iudas Peter or the Iewes for who can resist his impulsion or who can frustrat his intention Voluntati euis quis resistet who is able to oppose himselfe against his wil yea what mā is he that in conscience were not bound to cōforme his will vnto the wil of God who is the author of al good wills the first rule square of al regular wils Iudas Peter the Iewes if they had followed the motions of God who could haue blamed them for following him who could not erre in impelling nor sinne in perswading them But some will say God moued them for a good end videlicet the redemption of man and they intended an ill end to wit lucre reuenge or some other sinister effect Yet this Ad Rom. 3 v. 8. snift will not salue the soare For euill may not be done that good may follow Non su●t facienda mala vt inde veniant bona For otherwise a man might steale to giue almes be drunke for a meriment commit adultrie to beget Children Moreouer why might not Iudas Peter or the Iewes intend that good end that God intended and haue sold denied and crucified Christ conforming their intentions to his they being instruments and he the first mouer Agane it cannot be said but that God indirectly

The most points wherein the protestants dissent from Catholickes tend to loosnesse of life and carnall liberty If the 〈◊〉 points following tend to loosnesse of life carnall 〈◊〉 then the most points wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholicks do so But the seauen points following tend to loosenesse of life and carnall liberty Therfore the most points wherein the Protestants dissent from Catholicks tend to loosnesse of life and carnall liberty Protestant First I answere to the whole syllogisme that if the Protestants teach nothing in these points of dissent which is not warranted by the Scriptures then it skils not what in the corrupt iudgement of man may be argued to ensue Rom. 6. 1. 9. 19. therevpon Secondly I say the consequence of the proposition is false For these seauen points are not the seauenth part of those wherein we dissent from the papists Thirdly I deny that any of these points tends to loosenesse of life Papist If man haue not free-will to do good he may be negligent in preparing his soule to serue God But man hath not free-will as the protestants teach Therefore he may be negligent in preparing his soule to serue God Protestant I deny the consequence of the proposition For God that commaunds a man to be carefull in preparing his soule to serue him must be obeyed simply though we see not the particular reason of the commaundement But indeed wee deny not but men freely both prepare their soules and receaue Gods grace but we say that it is God which makes difference betwixt the beleeuers and vnbeleeuers yet not without their owne labour and willingnesse to which they are stirred vp in respect of the euent necessarily Papist The doctrine of Iustification by faith onely tends to loosenesse of life You would neuer say so if you knew that we beleeue and teach that no man is iustified but he that is also sanctified and no man is sanctified but he that walkes in obedience to God We hold a necessity of workes but not to iustification and we looke for a reward of workes but not vpon desert Wherein we dissent from the Papists without preaching carnall liberty Wherefore though faith once had can neuer be lost yet where there is no holinesse of life there neuer was faith and where there is not a conscience of refraining all sinne there is no holines●e a● all Therefore he that is giuen to carnall liberty hath no faith to loose Neither doth our want of liberty to keepe the commaundements euer a whit discourage or withdraw vs from indeuouring to doe well since that God both accepts of our willingnesse and we acknowledge our selues bound to perfect obedience which we must striue to so much the more by how much the lesse we can attaine to it The sacrament of penance we refuse because it is a patch of Antichrist because it brings a s●auery and s●are vpon mens consciences because it makes men cease to trust in Christs satisfactions and trust to their owne because it breedes securitie in them that receaue Popish absolution Wee deny the carnall presence in the Sacrament because there is neither Scripture nor reason to prooue it because it is an occasion of most senslesse Idolatrie and surely it is so farre from restraining men from sinne that rather it encourages them to despise such a God as is crusht vp into a bagage Cake and whom if they should be afraid of him they might cast into the fire and burne as one of your Popes did Lastly wee neither haue coyned any Religion nor 7. haue a negatiue religion but we hold the truth of God reuealed in the scriptures and reiect your popish errors contrary thereto The Iewes by the same reason condemned our Sauiour Christ and the Gentils accused his Apostles for bringing in a new Religion whereby they denyed and abollished the heresies of the one and the Idolatry of the other Article 5. Papist The Protestants make God the author of synne the onely cause of synne that man synneth not that God is worse then the Diuil Whosoeuer defendeth that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth to sinne maketh God the author of synne But all protestants say that God commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth and impelleth to synne Ergo the Protestants make God the author of synne Protestant The proposition in the 3. latter points is altogeather true in the former thus it is to be conceiued of that if God commaund that which by some law of his owne is sinne as that Abraham should kill his sonne he is not the Authour of sinne but onely so farre as he commaunds that which of it selfe without that speciall dispensation of his were sinne but by that it ceaseth to be sinne The assumption is false no Protestant defends any such thinge howsoeuer we all acknowlege that it was Gods will that Iudas should betray Christ c. But we deny that either Iudas had any commaundement or warrant from God or that God put that wicked thought into his heart or that he inclined him to the liking of it Neither do wee deride any permissiue will in God but that which makes him an Idle beholder of things without any determination of their being or not being but onely such as d●pend●s wholly or principally vpon the creature We beleeue and professe that God workes otherwise by the wicked then by the godly in these by putting in good thoughtes and bringing thē to effect by their wil labour In the wicked he doth not worke but onely by them bringing his owne purpose to passe without commaunding perswading vrging or impelling to sinne this latter you may if you will call permission without feare of being derided by any Protestant yea with the good liking of all Protestants so you acknowledge a necessity of euent Article 6. Papist That faith once had may be lost Whosoeuer looseth his charity looseth his faith But Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his charity Ergo Dauid when he killed Vrias lost his faith Protestant As before so here also he leaues out the principall syllogisme which I thus supply If Dauid l●st his faith then faith once had may be lost But Dauid lost his faith Therefore faith once had may be lost The assumption is false which he labours to confirme notwithstanding by the reason afore rehearsed To the which I answere first by distinguishing on the proposition whosoeuer leeseth his charity altogeather that there remains no grace of sanctificatiō hath no faith but it is not true that whosoeuer commits some greeuous sinne against the law of Charity thereby leeseth his faith I deny your assumption Dauid lost not his charity because he was still sanctified though he fell grie●ously Papist Whosoeuer remaineth in death is without charity But Dauid when he killed Vrias remained in death Therefore Dauid when he killed Vrias was without charity Protestant I distinguish againe vpon your proposition hee that remaines in death is so farre without charity as he remaines in death But a man may in respect of some sinfull actions be in death and for all that be truely sanctified though not throughly as the hand may be dead to any motion towards the head and yet aliue to all motions downward The proofe is both false and absurd For if there be any life in the Heb. 10. 38. soule abiding in it as a quality that must be faith Some Papists call chairty the life of faith but none that euer I read or heard of the life of the soule The assumption not only may be but must be denyed because it is vntrue 1. Ioh. 3. 14. is to be expounded by the 17. where it is said He that sh●●s vp his bowels of compassion from his brethren that hath need hath not the lo●e of God in him And yet no Papist wil say that a man is void of the loue o● God vpō the refusal at somtimes to giue almes to him that stands in need He that is quite without loue that is he that hath not in him the loue of his neighbour is without sanctification and Iustification but this a man may haue and Dauid had in some good measure though he faile as he did in that one particular of loue towards Vria● When you bring any proofe out of that place of Ezechiell 18. 24. you shall haue an answer to it In the meane while I say no more but this that conditionalis nihil p●●it in esse a thing is not proued to be because if it be such or such an euent shall follow therupon Article 7. Papist The Protestants shall neuer haue life euerlasting Because they will haue no merits for which euerlasting life is giuen Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for workes But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Therefore the kingdom● of heauen is giuen for workes Protestant Any man may easily perceiue that the question is not concluded in this syllogisme But I will not in this short answer trouble my selfe with any more then answering to the point Papist Whatsoeuer is giuen as wages is giuen for workes But the kingdome of heauen is giuen as wages Ergo the kingdome of heauen is giuen for workes Protestant If we graunt him the whole syllogisme he gets nothing by it vnlesse he can proue that workes and merits are all one which is vtterly false I deny your assumption which none of these places you bring doth proue the first is a parable signifying that the Gentiles shall haue place in heauen aswell as the Iewes though they came later to the knowledge of the truth The other two mention reward but not wages and these two are your common ●rrors in most of your arguments concerning the question o● workes that you without all authority of Scripture or reason confound workes with merits and reward with wages Which you professing a schollerlike disputation should not haue done without some speciall proofe of their being all one especially since you can hardly be ignorant that we alwaies distinguish the one from the other not without reason as we surely perswade our selues FINIS