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
A44305	A survey of the insolent and infamous libel, entituled, Naphtali &c. Part I wherein several things falling in debate in these times are considered, and some doctrines in lex rex and the apolog. narration, called by this author martyrs, are brought to the touch-stone representing the dreadful aspect of Naphtali's principles upon the powers ordained by God, and detecting the horrid consequences in practice necessarily resulting from such principles, if owned and received by people.	Honyman, Andrew, 1619-1676.	1668 (1668)	Wing H2604; ESTC R7940	125,044	140

to the same All the question is whether such violent courses against Magistrates though miscarrying in some part of their duty be for Gods glory God is not glorified by mens sins but when his own Will is done it is an ordinary thing that men in their deep deceitfulness pretend God's glory when they are dishonouring him by disobeying his W●ll Is 66.5 Your Brethren that cast you out for my Names sake said let God be glorified c. But for the former anent Christian love and the obligation thereof to relieve the distressed that is surely a duty to love and relieve the distressed Brethren but that love in the external acts of it must be regulated by sound reason and by the Word of God Christian charity binds me not to relieve and assist a distressed brother in every manner of assistance but in that which is within the bounds of my calling and that which is agreeable to justice A man is not bound to forsake his own station or run beyond the limits of his calling to relieve a distressed brother No man is bound to steal that he may give almes or to defraud others of what he is indebted to them to exercise his charity to the indigent And doth not this man himself confesse that prudence should measure and regulate the exercise of love in assisting a distressed brother and that no man should put his own life in certain peril of losing in saving the life of another nor attempt for that end to use force where there is no probable capacity to carry the matter through If brethren be distressed by the Magistrate suppose unjustly we are bound to assist them in love by our Prayers to God for them by consolatory words if we may have accesse to them by giving counsel to them supplying their need as far as we may yea by intreaties and humble petitions to the Magistrate as we have opportunity with all dutiful respects to them But if nothing can avail for their relief private persons have discharged their duty in the point of the exercise of Christian love and are not oblieged to offer violence to the Publick Magistrate or violently to resist him in assisting others but in the case of their brethrens unjust suffering commit the matter to him who judgeth righteously possessing their Souls in patience as they ought also to do in the case of their own wrongful suffering But it opens a gap to all confusion to allow private persons if they think they have power enough to use violence upon the Magistrate for relieving their brethren whom they think oppressed Such pretences will not be wanting to the worst of men and the best Magistrate proceeding most Legally shall never have security from seditious parties unlesse they have visible power to crush them but they shall be resisted when any party thinks meet and from resistance there shall be a proceeding to revenge if might and power be sufficient as seldome or never is it seen that resistance of the Magistrate and revenge upon him when a party can have the upper-hand are separated in exercise and practice whatever be mens notions of the separableness of the same And the Principles of this man lead to both as hath appeared and will yet more 4. The Libeller holds out from Scripture one ground which he thinks should engage all to combine to relieve him and his party when they count themselves oppressed and that is Because of the ommission of this duty of relieving the oppressed or violation of it whole Kingdoms and Cities have been involved in the guilt of the oppression committed by one or few and fearful judgements have therefore overtaken them to their utter ruine and subversion And pag. 18. he asserts That for simple connivance and tolerance without active compliance with transgressors God avengeth the sins of Rulers onely or People onely or of any part of the People onely upon the whole body of Rulers and People and he cites Jer. 25.15 Deut. 13.12.13 14 15. Josh 22.17 18 19. and Achans case Josh 7. building also his tenet upon the Covenants expresse or implicit betwixt God and the whole People Rulers and Subjects c. And so is confident that if the violation of duty in not relieving the oppressed especially for Religion involve all failers in it in sin and destruction all and every private person is obliged to this duty to relieve and recover by violence oppressed ones out of the hand of the Magistrate as they would keep themselves pure from sin and hold off Wrath from themselves and from the place they live in Hence a question considerable comes to be resolved whether God imputes the sin of one man to another whereunto he is no way acccessory but that he tolerates what he cannot amend by any means within the bounds of his calling or whether he executes judgement upon any for the sins of others which they are not accessory to and cannot amend abiding in the bounds of their calling And particularly whether God imputes the sins of Rulers to People and punishes them for the same or imputes the sins of any part of a People to the whole or of the major part to the lesser and punishes them therefore when they cannot abiding within the bounds of their calling amend the same but are no otherwise accessory Not to dip into that question in the full latitude of it we do onely now enquire if in Divine justice a Prince is any time punished for the sins of the People at which he doth not connive and whereto he is not accessory in any degree or if a body of a People be punished for one mans sin whereunto they are not accessory or if private persons be punished for the sins of Rulers or of the body of the People whereunto they are not accessory but only with grief tolerates what they cannot amend abiding within the bounds of their calling this last is the point we must fix upon And herein against this Author it is asserted that first no man is involved in Divine judgements and punishments for the sins of others as the deserving cause of his punishment if he be no way accessory to these sins of others 2. That no private subject is accessory to the sins of Rulers nor involved in the punishments of the same meerly upon the account of his tolerating the sins or not violent resisting the Magistrate in his sinful courses A certain thing it is that setting aside the satisfactory suffering of Christ when he put himself under the stroke of Divine justice for the sins of others having no sin of his own God doth not properly punish any man but in reference to his own personal sin as the deserving cause of the punishment albeit he may and often doth take occasion in his Wise Providence to punish men for their own sins from the sins of others and in that only sense they may be said to be punished for the sins of others But every Soul suffers

Nec Samson saith he aliter excusatur quod seipsum cum hostibus ruina domus oppressit nisi quod latenter Spiritus sanctus hoc jusserat So he is accounted amongst heroick Believers Heb. 11.32 And of his fact Bernard saith lib. de precept dispensatione Si defenditur non fuisse peccatum privatum habuisse à Deo consilium indubitanter credendum est 2. Phineas had not only a large reward of his fact Numb 25.12 13. but an ample approbation of it Ps 106.31 It was accounted to him for righteousness i. e. as a righteous action both as to the intention of it Gods honour and as to the ground and warrand of it Gods direction God does not approve or remunerate any action which one way or another he doth not command there are none of these extraordinary actions mentioned in Scripture but either Gods stirring men up to the same or his approbation of the same one way or another is noted See Judg. 3.10 and 5.7 and ●0 23 and 3.9.15 and 2.16.18 he raised up stirred up mens spirits or afterward approved them expresly in these actions As for the private persons which this man will have to take the punishing Sword in their hand against all Magistrates as they cannot pretend extraordinary special commands So the real rebukes of God given them proclaims they have not his approbation 5. Divines have given it as a good rule Opera liberi spiritus non sunt exigenda ad regulas communes nec trahend● in exemplum vitae If once men come to make rules of the actions specially warranded beyond the common rule of the Word where will they stand As to instance this same example of Phineas If they will go on to presse the imitation of it 1. They must say that even when the Magistrate is godly and zealous and willing to execute judgement as Moses and the great Council were private persons may do it without them and not wait their warrand as they think Phineas did not 2. That any private person may go to mens Tents or Chambers and stab them without any legal Processe which Phineas they will say used not 3. That if such things be done inconsulto pro Magistratu such as Moses was yet the doer must not be challenged as Phineas was not challenged by Moses 6. The Libeller striving to parallel the Acts of his party which he justifies and incites unto with Phineas his act as he dare not say the acts which he justifies and instigates unto are extraordinary but only heroical so he asserts Phineas act was not extraordinary nor upon extraordinary warrant but heroical and imitable by others who may have such measures of zeal as he had He should in order to this laboured to have set some distinction betwixt heroical and extraordinary acts but this he doth not only labours to jumble the matter and speaks so confusedly that as others cannot understand him so he gives evience he did not understand himself in this matter only something he would gladly say to encourage men to irregular actions under the pretence of Phineas fact But the man if he would might have known the distinction betwixt extraordinary and heroical acts Philosophers and Divines too distinguish betwixt heroical vertues with the acts suitably thereto and common vertues and their acts 3● pars Thomae qu. 7 art 2ª ad 2 m ● and aggree in this that there is no difference between heroical vertues and virtutes communiter dictae nisi secundum perfectiorem modum A heroick act doth not deviate from the rule of a common vertue but only proceeds from a more intense disposition to a high pitch of vertue and of the acts thereof but yet keeps within the bounds of the ordinary rule of such or such a vertuous action But an extraordinary action goes beyond any ordinary rule of common reason or divine Word as that Abraham should kill Isaac without any hatred of him or cause in him was an act of extraordinary obedience to a special mandate of God Albeit the love that is due to God above all and the respect due to his Sovereignty should incline to obey whatever he enjoyns yet the particular act of slaying his harmlesse child meerly upon the declared will of God was an extraordinary act of obedience not comprisable within the lists of common vertues that direct our actings toward men under God Extraordinary actions are such as are done upon special mandate of God and are not within the compasse of ordinary acts of obedience according to the rule that is set Men may have heroick motions and actions within the bounds of an ordinary calling as sometimes though they have extraordinary calling they may want heroical motions Luther had no immediate nor extraordinary calling to reform the Church but within the bounds of ordinary calling he had special excitations of Gods Spirit and was elevated unto heroick actings for Gods glory in an exceedingly corrupt and collapsed state of the Church Peter had an extraordinary calling and immediate yet he wanted sometimes heroical motions and actions as when he dissembled Gal. 2. Phineas had not only excitations of zeal and heroical motions but supposing him a meer private Person he is to be looked upon as having extraordinary calling from God which is fully enough insinuated both by Gods approving and rewarding him Numb 25. and he rewards not our will-service nor approves it but what he hath enjoyned himself and also by Ps 106. where it is said emphatically it was imputed to him for righteousness though judging according to ordinary rules it might be imputed to him for sin supposing him a meer private man Yet having Gods warrand whose will is the rule of righteousness the deed was imputed to him for righteousness 7. Great gifts secret impulses heroical motions do not as this man suggests give men sufficient call to go beyond the ordinary rules God hath set to men in their callings though they dispose them to act eminently in their callings yet cannot give a new or another calling Every calling a man hath to any work God sets him about must be either mediate or immediate there is no midst betwixt these two as there is not between contradictories If men be not called to a work by the intervention of men and their allowance they must plead an immediate calling from God And we would gladly hear if this man will allow the private persons whom he instigates to insurrections against Magistrates an immediate calling by vertue of their secret impulses and excitations for we are sure they have no mediate ordinary calling If he will go on to say that great gifts of zeal c. great excitations and impulses allows people to desert their own calling and state like these spirits Jude 6. that kept not their first estate but left their own habitation and to intrude upon the Magistrates office alwayes when they think there is cause without an external vocation from men Where will he rest till he