Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	believe_v	great_a	see_v	1,615	5	3.0323	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93884	The second part of the duply to M.S. alias Two brethren. Wherein are maintained the Kings, Parliaments, and all civil magistrates authority about the Church. Subordination of ecclesiasticall judicatories. Refuted the independency of particular congregations. Licentiousnesse of wicked conscience, and toleration of all sorts of most detestable schismes, heresies and religions; as, idolatry, paganisme, turcisme, Judaisme, Arrianisme, Brownisme, anabaptisme, &c. which M.S. maintain in their book. With a brief epitome and refutation of all the whole independent-government. Most humbly submitted to the Kings most excellent Majestie. To the most Honorable Houses of Parliament. The most Reverend and learned Divines of the Assembly. And all the Protestant churches in this island and abroad. By Adam Steuart. Octob. 3. 1644. Imprimatur Ja: Cranford.; Duply to M.S. alias Two brethren. Part 2.	Steuart, Adam.	1644 (1644)	Wing S5491; Thomason E20_7; ESTC R2880	197,557	205

Hereticall and go to the Devill But I answer 1. The Assumption is false for the Externall Coactive Power that A. S. grants unto the Civill Magistrate is onely to represse Hereticks and Schismaticks after that they are sufficiently convicted by the Church in an ordinary way or by others in an extraordinary way when the Church is negligent in her duty 2. Neither doth M. S. his Confirmation or Case of Conscience conclude any thing against that which A. S. sayes And as for his Supposition either that Conscience whereof he speaketh is right or erroneous If it be right the Civill Magistrate should not presse it against its light or if he happen to do so it is not by Power but by abuse of Power And in such a case he who hath his Conscience well informed must resolve himself to be quiet in case the Civill Magistrate oblige him not to be Actor in any thing against it But if such a man any other or others with him will rise up within the Kingdom or come from Forraign Countries and urge their Religion upon the State and establish it without permission of the Magistrate or against his Laws then their Consciences cannot be right for wherefore should the King Parliament and State be rather bound to admit such mens Religion without sufficient conviction then they to admit his Religion And in such a Case the Civill Magistrate so long as such persons as urge their Religion upon him convict not sufficiently his Conscience may with a good Conscience punish them severely yea with good Conscience cut off their Heads If such a mans Conscience be erroneous the Civill Magistrate doth him no wrong to endeavour that he who hath it be sufficiently convicted and if after sufficient conviction he will not be quiet especially when he is not obliged to be Actor in any thing against his pretended Conscience but will still trouble both Church and State wherefore on Gods Name should he not be punished 2. Is it not better that such a man should perish then that he should make thousands to perish 3. Ravalliack in France and the Monks and Fryers that kill Kings pretend evermore Conscience as the Independents do and yet the Civill Magistrate puts them to death 4. If any mans Conscience which God forbid should dictate him to kill the King and blow up the Parliament should such a man be tolerated under pretext of his tender Conscience 5. Is it not a sin to have an erroneous Conscience And is not he that hath it bound to reform it and to suffer for it in case he reform it not when he hath sufficient means to do it 6. But must every man that doth ill be presently believed when he saith that he hath such a Conscience 7. All this long Sermon of M. S. proveth not that the Magistrate directly and per se but rather that the man himself hardeneth his own Conscience for there is no created Power that directly per se and Physically can work upon a mans Conscience it can onely move it morally in propounding of Objects to it or in Reasoning and yet every true Christian hath a sufficient power to resist such motions which is sufficient to make him in-excusable 8. Neither can his erroneous Conscience excuse him unlesse that its Errour be Invincible Antecedent and he no wayes the cause of it but if it be Vincible Concomitant or Subsequent and he himself the cause of it then it excuseth him not but is a sin and aggravates the sin that proceedeth of it at least extensivè if not intensivè For in such a case it is not his erroneous Conscience that is the cause of the sinfull action of his Will but his sinfull Will that is the cause of his erroneous Conscience 9. The Civill Magistrates threatning per se and directly maketh not his Conscience erroneous but found it such 10. Neither is it the cause that he goes against it For whether ye consider the Civill Magistrates Intention his Iudgement or the Execution of it in such a case they cause no ill but good for his Intention is onely that they be gained to Christ and that they seduce not others His Iudgement condemneth onely their Opinion and commands a punishment answerable to their Sin whereby onely they are hindered to continue in their Heresies or Schisms or to seduce others No more doth the Execution of his Iudgement Ergo. 11. And I pray this new Casuist to tell me whether in some Cases it were not a lesser Sin for a man to go against his erroneous Conscience then to follow its Dictates Whether it were not better for him to sit at home against the Dictate of his Conscience then to go to a Pagan Church and there to adore a Crocodile or a Toad according to the Dictates of it So we see how licentious and detestable this Conscience is that Independents plead so much for that thinketh that it cannot sufficiently enjoy its liberty unlesse that all Schismaticks Hereticks Jews Mahumetans and Idolaters have a free liberty of their erroneous Consciences to adore a thousand Gods yea a thousand Devils a Jupiter a Bacchus a Venus a blinde Fortuna and to Preach such Abominations and that the Civill Magistrates power be ever curtaled or rather altogether taken away in matters in Religion I will not call this a madnesse but I am well assured that many are recommended to the Churches Prayers that are not half so sick either in Soul or Body as these men are in their Consciences Wherefore all that I have more to say unto them shall be onely this The Lord have mercy upon them Christian Reader HAving been desired by some Friends to give a short Discourse of the Independent Government I am resolved to present thee with this following Epitome which sundry have oftentimes required of me The Independent Church is so called because that no particular Congregation amongst them how small how Hereticall and vicious soever it be will depend upon or submit to the Judgement of any other Church yea not to that of all the Churches of the World how Orthodox and holy and how true and just soever their Judgement be They define it Coetus Fidelium a Company of Beleevers meeting in one place every Lords Day for the Administration of the Holy Ordinances of God to publike Edification So according to this Definition neither the Catholike Church which we beleeve in the Creed nor any Nationall Church can be a true Church since they cannot meet together every Lords Day in one place In the Efficient Cause of the Church I see no great Difference betwixt us and them save onely this That they hold it necessary to the Constitution of a Church and of every Member thereof that they all joyn in a particular Church-Covenant as they call it different from that of Grace revealed in Scripture wherein they all swear to live in the Faith and in subjection to all the Ordinances of God cleaving one to another as Members

A.S. Answ The Parliament hath power and a calling to judge Politicè about the Church and Church matters What Decisions and Constitutions of the Church Assemblies they will approve or disapprove what Religion Doctrine and Discipline they will admit or tolerate in the State But they have no calling or Directive Authoritative power in the Church to judge this or that to be the true Doctrine or Discipline this belongeth to Church-Officers Yet they have a private judgement of Discretion about such matters as other Christians and a publique Politicall Authoritative judgement and a coactive Politicall power to compell the Subjects to admit in the State such or such a true Doctrine or Discipline of the Church howbeit not to beleeve it or to love or approve it in their judgement or will M. S. Ob. 14. asketh Whether it be reasonable that the Apologists matters yet remaining undecided and unjudged between them and their Brethren should suffer as men convicted only because their Adversaries and Accusers the Brethren ye know of are more in number then they and will needs continue Adversaries to them A.S. Answ 1. Though yee vaunt evermore of your sufferings we have never seen them 2. These whom ye unjustly call your Adversaries have suffered much more then you and yet publish it not unto the World 3. It is absolutely false that ye suffer 4. And yet much falser that ye suffer as men convicted 5. And yet falser that ye suffer because your Adversaries are more in number And 6. falsest of all that only ye suffer for that 7. Men that suffer are not honoured as ye are neither receive they so great favours Presents and Benefices as ye doe 8. It is a great sufferance to the Church of God to be calumniated and upbraided by so contemptible a number of Ministers and to see so many Libels printed against her by those of your Sect. 9. It is false that ye are not condemned for the Church of England and all other Protestant Churches in approving the Presbyterian Government as we said heretofore could not but disprove and condemne you all who condemn it 10. Neither doth all this prove a Directive Ecclesiasticall power belonging to the Civill Magistrate 11. Ye have no Adversaries here but your False Opinions 12. Neither are your Brethren Adversaries to you but to your erronions Opinions which are a thousand times more your Adversaries then they 13. And both ye and any of us must legally suffer according to our demerits when we are sufficiently convicted and condemned by plurality of Votes in foro externo as ye are already in very many things for this is the way of all Civill and Ecclesiasticall Judicatories Neither can Independents change it 15. Ibid. M.S. reasoneth thus If our Saviours testimony concerning himselfe in his own cause was not valid how much lesse the testimony of any other yea of a thousand in any matter that concerneth themselves and consequently that of our Brethren in the Synod But the first is true Joh. 5.31 If I beare witnesse of my selfe my witnesse is not true i. e. it is not in a formall and Legall interpretation true but you may reasonably wave it A.S. Ans 1. Either Christ here speaking of his own testimony speaketh of himselfe according to his Divine to his Humane or according to both his Natures Item 2. Either he speaketh of its validity in it selfe or in respect of the Iewes to whom he did speak and who should have admitted of it Item 3. Either of his publique and judiciall or of his private testimony 1. If in the first Proposition we take our Saviour according to his Divine nature or according to both viz. as Mediator the Assumption is false for there Christ speaketh not of himselfe according to his Divine Nature or to both or as Mediator for under that notion he is Iudge of quick and dead and Christ sayes Ioh. 8.14 that if he testifie of himselfe his testimony is true 2. Or if he speak of himselfe under this notion then he speaketh not of his testimony as it is in it self but as it is in respect of them who received it not viz the Iewes and unbeleevers who received it not as the testimony of God or of the Mediator however it was such for they knew him not Ioh. 8.15.19 but they judged according to the flesh neither knew they him nor his Father And if they had known the King of Glory they had never crucified him And then the Proposition is false for it followeth not that if Christs testimony who is God was not acknowledged as valid by those who knew it not Ergo the testimony of a Presbytery or Synod should not be acknowledged by such as are subject thereunto and know it for by the same reason two or three idle fellowes should not beleeve the testimony of your Presbytery or Assembly 3. I retort then the Argument If Christs testimony was not legally valid in his own cause Ergo Yours in your Presbyteries and Assemblies is not legally true or valid in your own cause when ye judge in matters of Faith and and Discipline But the first is true Ergo the second also 4. If Christ be here taken according to his Humane Nature then either he is taken according to his Humane nature as it is in it selfe without sinne or as it was in the Pharises estimation If in the first way the Assumption is false for there the Pharises took Christ for a sinfull man and who can deny but that the testimony of a man in the state of integrity is valid 5. If it be taken in the second way I deny the first Proposition for the testimony of Iudges in judging according to Law in things that concerne not so much their persons as the Society that they represent in judgement as the Assembly and all Ecclesiasticall Iudges doe is to be preferred before the testimony of any particular man 6. And if this Maxime of the Independents hold the judgement of no Civill Magistrate yea not of the Parliament it selfe sh●ll hold if any of them or any D●linquent take the Parliament to party in any businesse The Parliament will doe well to take notice of such Independent Maximes 7. But this was the Arminians way at the Synod of Dort to the end they might decline the judgement of the Synod and he is an Arminian who propounds this Argument who of late is become an Independent I ●eare they mean to unite the two Sects in one 8. Christ was not here speaking of himselfe how far forth his testimony and judgement might hold in a judiciall way whereof we speak here but in a private way for this action was not judiciall but a particular discourse 9. Neither are the businesses now in hand at the Synod of particular but of publike concernment viz. the Church wherein the Church that is Iudge cannot be taken to party however ye call her a crowd wherein many particular persons are concerned M. S. Ob. 16. p. 37.

There was no other way in the Old or in the New Testament there is no other in Civill Judicatories there can be no other found in this world And to end this Argument I ask you What if a man be oppressed in one of your Churches as it is possible a man may be as well as in one of ours unlesse ye have the power of Piety in a more Independent degree yea beyond all flesh and blood in any juncture of time to come and afterward he complains to Neighbour Churches and they oppresse him by their Judgements What other remedy can he have but patience and to appeal to the Judge of quick and dead or else acquiesce to the sentence or at least suffer it For a man cannot sin in meer sufferance for actuall sin materially is ever more an action of the will or a voluntary omission of some action M. S. Ob. 30. p. 46. sect 2. What power is Intrinsecall to Religion it is Intrinsecall to the Church But the Civill Magistrates Power is Intrinsecall to Religion for A. S. sayeth That the Parliament pretends no Directive power in matters of Religion but an Executive power onely viz. In matters of Religion Ergo The Civill Magistrates power is Intrinsecall to the Church A. S. Answ What ever may be said of the Proposition I deny the Assumption and to the confirmation thereof I answer 1. That when I say the Civill Magistrate hath power in Religion the word in signifies about for Religion signifieth the object of the Civill Magistrate and so we speak ordinarily as when we say A rich mans heart is in his Money and Riches so in here signifieth not an Intrinsecall but an Extrinsecall Denomination as when I say The Sun is seen the Attribute in this Affirmative Proposition is said to be in the Subject not by any Intrinsecall Inherence or Denomination but by an Extrinsecall Adherence Attribution or Denomination This little Childish Sophistication is more worthy of some young smatterer in Logick then of a Divine or any Conscientious man It is not possible that M. S. could be ignorant of this and therefore in this Dispute if he have any power of Piety I desire more Conscience and Sincerity in him I may also say That the Civill Magistrate hath an Extrinsecall power in the Church if the word in there signifie a bare Attribution or Extrinsecall Denomination as it is ordinary amongst Divines Philosophers and common people and yet I confesse it is more properly said about Religion and about the Church as Apollonius observeth and as I have expressed my self but then there should have been a concurrence of in 's which would have made my Expression obscure for then I must have said The Civill Magistrate about matters of Religion hath an Extrinsecall power as also about the Church as this Professor of Eloquence would have me to speak which kinde of Expression I beleeve few or none could have understood If the Independent cause depend upon such ridiculous puntillio's and be so Independent upon good reason I know not of the two which is better Dependency or Independency M. S. Ob. 31. p. 46. sect 11. The power of Citation is Extrinsecall to the Church The power of Citation is Ecclesiasticall Ergo Some Ecclesiasticall power is Extrinsecall to the Church A. S. I distinguish the word power of Citation for it is either Ecclesiasticall which is proper unto the Church viz. In Church Officers gathered together in an Ecclesiasticall Assembly And this is both in and about the Church or Civill which is proper to the Christian and in some way to a non-Christian Magistrate where by his Civill power he maintaineth the Church and this is out of the Church in the Magistrate and yet about the Church which is its object And so I answer to this silly Argument That it is captious and grounded on an Equivocation for it taketh the power of Citation in one signification in the Major viz. For a Politicall power of Citation and in an other in the Minor viz. For an Ecclesiasticall power of Citation 2. Or if it be taken in both for an Ecclesiasticall power then the Major is false for Christ gave it to the Church to which it is Intrinsecall and not to the Civill Magistrate 3. Or if it be taken in both for a Civill power then the Minor is false for the Civill power of Citation is not in the Church but in the Magistrate neither ever gave Christ it as Mediator either to the Church or to the Civill Magistrate but God by Christ as God gave it onely to the Civill Magistrate And the Peece whereof the Presse as M. S. sayeth hath been lately delivered sayeth no other thing then I say if M. S. his Diana of Ephesus can permit him to understand it or he do not willingly dissemble his understanding of it M. S. If a Classis shall cite or excommunicate a Member of a Church against the judgement and consent of the Elders of that Church let all the World judge whether that be not an Act of Externall power without the Church A. S. This Argument is ridiculous 1. For it proveth not that which is in question viz. That the Civill Magistrate hath an Ecclesiasticall or Intrinsecall power in the Church 2. Onely it proveth that the Church hath an Authority that in some respect may be called Extrinsecall 3. But to take away this Equivocation and many others and to explain more fully this question note again 1. That the Church may be considered either according to its Reall and Naturall or according to its Morall being 2. That the Church according to its Morall being I speak of the Representative is either Particular of one Parish or Congregation or more Generall as a Classicall or Synodall Assembly 3. Note that the particular Church may be considered either Absolutely and in it self alone without any reference to a Classe or a Synod whereof it is a part or Relatively with a reference to the more Generall Church viz. a Classis or Synod whereof it is a part or in quality and under the notion of a part in so far forth as by some formall or virtuall Assent it hath once Covenanted to be a part of such a Classis or Synod and Stipulated to send its Commissioners to such Classicall or Synodall Meetings 1. If then we consider Citation or Excommunication with reference to the Church either more Generall or Particular according to its Naturall being it may be Extrinsecall to them both for the Act of Citation or Excommunication is not really produced or pronounced according to its Naturall being by the Church considered under the notion of its Reall being but by one man as all wise men will grant 2. If they be taken morally according to their Morall being grounded on some Covenant then the Acts of Excommunication and Citation are not Extrinsecall to the more Generall Church since they are exercised by Her power and consent 3. If they be considered with

Churches are Schismaticall for some diversity of Opinion for that belongeth rather to Heresie then to Schism Nor 2. that it is a Schism because that it is tolerated or not tolerated for Toleration is a Consequent of Schism and Extrinsecall to it The true Reason wherefore it is a Schism and they Schismaticall is because it is a breach of Charity in that they separate themselves from the Communion of the true Church yea and from all the true Churches in the World both in Sacramentall Communion and that of Discipline Neither is it a Schisme because that it is a separation from Presbyteriall Churches precisely under the notion of Presbyteriall but of true and Orthodox Churches which presse them no wayes to be Actors in any thing against their Consciences But M. S. in despite of all reason will prove that I cannot convict the Independents of Schisme and that by this his most seriall Argument which here I put in forme with all the force it can have He that knoweth not what is Schism cannot convict the Independents of Schism But A. S. knoweth not what is Schisme Ergo A. S. cannot convict the Independents of Schisme The Major is certain The Minor he proveth thus He that knoweth not what is the Church knoweth not what is Schisme or a rent of the Church For Rectum est Index sui et obliqui and entia privativa Cognoscuntur ex suis positivis c. But A. S. knoweth not what is the Church for he sayeth we know not wherein consists its Essence p. 21. Ergo A. S. I answer to the first Argument that the Minor is false as appeareth by the Difinition that I have given of it both in my Annotations upon the Apologeticall Narration in my Answer unto a Libell of C. C. and he retofore somewhere in this Booke against the which M. S. had nothing to reply To the confirmation of the Minor I answer that if by the word knoweth M. S. meaneth a distinct knowledge of the Essentiall parts of the Church the Major is false for Schisme is not a renting of the Essentiall parts of the Church or of its transcendentall or Metaphysicall Vnity but of its integrant parts and integrant Vnity for the first cannot be destroyed so long as it is a true Church And Schismaticall Churches may have their transcendent unity verity and goodnesse howsoever they loose their integrant unity verity and goodnesse If by the word knoweth he meane any knowledge of the Church either confused or distinct whereby we may know the Church by her externall Causes her integrant parts her Accidents c. The Minor is false for not onely A. S. but little Children at Schoole have such a knowledge of the Church which they learn in their Catechismes And by any such confuse or distinct knowledge of the Church by her Causes Accidents or Effects c. we may confusedly or distinctly know what is Schisme howbeit not Essentially As for the Confirmation of the Minor By my words I sayd not there that I knew not what the Church is confusedly or distinctly by her Causes integrant parts her Accidents c. But that we know not distinctly the Essences of things as distinguished from their Accidents as the Reader may see if he looke in my Booke for there in that page 21. I speake in formall termes of that which is Essentiall to the Church Now if M. S. pretend to any such profound knowledge of things we must confesse him to be an other Epistemon Doctor du Molin Professor in Divinity at Sedan holds the same Tenet in his Thesis de Summo Bono So did the other Professors of Divinity there for they say that no Creature neither in this life nor in the life to come yea not the very Angels know the Essence of any thing And from thence they conclude that we shall not see the Essence of God in the life to come The which Assertion howsoever I confesse it to be true de hominibus viatoribus yet can I not beleeve it to be true de Angelis viatoribus and much lesse de Angelis aut hominibus comprehensoribus M. S. should have done better to have Answered my Reasons that I bring there pag. 21. then so against the light of his Conscience to scratch at a known truth Neither can I beleeve him to be so ignorant as not to know and acknowledge the truth of it in himselfe however out of desire of Contestation he manifests the contrary But M. S. to the end he seeme not altogether impertinent proveth it by an Argument taken ab Exemplo or by an imperfect Induction if it be not a Pari or from them altogether I cannot beleeve saith he that he should perfectly know the nature of darknesse that is ignorant of what belongeth to the nature of light Nor that he should know what a Schisme or Rent meanes that knowes not what belongs to the nature of Vnity and Entirenesse of the Body for Rectum est index sui obliqui and Entia privativa cognoscuntur ex suis positivis A.S. We know not perfectly the nature of Light and consequently we know not perfectly the nature of Darknesse if to know perfectly be taken for a distinct knowledge of its Essence as distingnished from its Accidents onely we know light imperfectly by its externall causes by its effects by its subject adjuncts c. and not essentially And as for your first Maxime Rectum est index sui obliqui it is true sed non per distinctum aliquem conceptum sui essentialem as Philosophers say Your second Maxime whomsoever you imitate in that Expression is improper for Privations are not properly Entia privativa but Entium privationes not Essences or Beings but negations of Being neither is Darknesse any thing but a negation of something viz. of Light so Poverty is not a thing but a want of some thing viz. of Riches 2. But I will pardon him this mistake howbeit it were true yet followeth it not that if I know a Privation by the Positive Forme which it destroyeth that I know that Forme essentially by its Essence and in it selfe I know the Forme only accidentally or by its extrinsecall causes or by its Existence 3. Item So we conceive Privations under the notion of Negations or destructions of the Existences rather then of the Essences of things or at most as destructions of the Existence primario and of the Essence secundariò if they be destroyed by Privations Neither can I beleeve that the Fire burneth and destroyeth immediately the Essence of a Man or any part thereof for the Reasonable soule is spirituall and cannot be burnt so is the other part of his Essence viz. his materia prima incombustible yea naturally incorruptible and as for the Physicall essence of the whole man when M. S. shall declare wherein it consists I shall dispute with him But silly man with this babling Logick knows he not that Accidents are never defined by their Essentiall