Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	evil_a	good_a	see_v	2,875	5	3.5208	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01094	Foure sermons, lately preached, by Martin Fotherby Doctor in Diuinity, and chaplain vnto the Kings Maiestie. The first at Cambridge, at the Masters Commencement. Iuly 7. anno 1607. The second at Canterbury, at the Lord Archbishops visitation. Septemb. 14. anno 1607. The third at Paules Crosse, vpon the day of our deliuerance from the gun-powder treason. Nouemb. 5. anno 1607. The fourth at the court, before the Kings Maiestie. Nouemb. 15. anno 1607. Whereunto is added, an answere vnto certaine obiections of one vnresolued, as concerning the vse of the Crosse in baptisme: written by him in anno 1604. and now commanded to be published by authoritie	Fotherby, Martin, 1549 or 50-1620.	1608 (1608)	STC 11206; ESTC S102529	138,851	236

formerly shewed And therefore this obiection being but a consequent grounded vpon the former neede not to be confuted it falling of it selfe as Abiram did when his ground sunke vnderneath him I haue formerly shewed that it is not true that the vse of the crosse in witnessing vs Christians doth any thing detract from the sacrament of baptisme but rather addeth therevnto a more plaine explication For the signe of the crosse marked in our fore-heads in the nature of the signe doth more directly witnesse and more properly expresse that we are not ashamed to be counted his seruants that died vpon the crosse then the sprinkling of water vpon the fore-head doth And therefore in respect of this fit and oposite spiritual significatiō conspiring so fully with the sigfication of baptisme and expressing it so liuely that ceremonie can not so iustly bee counted idle as your insignificant ceremonies may Wherevpon no man can haue any iust cause to doubt whether such a religious vse of the crosse should be a taking of Gods name in vaine But rather it may very truely bee sayd that such vaine conceipts fathered vpon Gods name and such violent detorting wresting of Gods commandements from their purposes vnto ours is indeed a taking of Gods name in vaine The eight obiection Albeit the vse of this signe bee ancient and from things of common life were brought into the sacrament before Popery came in yet sithens consignatio crucis quae autiquitus sine superstitione fuit et tollerari tunc potuit patefecit aditum abominandae superstitioni et hyperduliae crucis horribilissimae my scruple is how that which was at first not euilly taken vp may now bee well continued Especially seeing the Cannon-law it selfe sayth Distinct 63. as it is cited by D. Reinolds against Hart if our predecessors haue done some things which at that time when they were first done were without fault and afterward bee turned into error and superstition wee are taught by Ezechias his breaking of the brazen serpent that posterity may destroy them without delay and with great authority Thus farre the Canonists Answere The vse of the crosse in the primitiue Church though some-times before washings feastings walkings and other such like actions of common life yet was alwaies vsed with a kinde of religion as it were to sanctifie such common actions by a religious ingresse but that not ex opere operato but ex opere operantis the signe of the crosse beeing tacita invocatio meritorum Christi and so vsed by antiquitie The abuse which afterward grew from thence if it grew from thence was rather an offence springing from mans naturall corruption prone vnto sinne then any necessarie consequent of such a religious custome as Beza whose words you cite would seeme to make it vsing therin a manifest Elench A non causa pro causa For with as great reason may he make the communion-bread to bee the cause of Popish artolatry as the crosse to bee the cause of their idolatry for the bread hath beene as grosly abused by them as the crosse hath And you may say as truely of the bread that patefecit aditum abominaendae superstitioni as you can of the crosse Your granting that this signe at the first was not euilly taken vp is a iustifying of our vse of it who reduce it now againe vnto the primitiue vse which was not euill Your reason why it ought to be abolished because it since hath beene abused is falty many waies and therefore would further be examined It may as I take it be reduced to this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer hath beene abused to idolatrie and superstition that ought to be destroyed But the signe of the crosse hath beene so abused ergo Your Maior you proue by a sentence out of the Cannon-law Your Minor by a sentence out of Bezaes Epistles Let vs therefore now examine as well your positions as your proofes First therefore as concerning your Maior proposition That whatsoeuer hath beene abused vnto idolatrie ought to bee destroyed it is vtterly false For if all things that haue beene so abused should be presently abolished we shold leaue our selues nothing that might bee rightly vsed So generall or rather indeed so transcendent hath this sinne of idolatry bin For there is none of all Gods workes nay there is none of mans workes but it hath in some place or other beene some way or other abused to idolatry So that if for other mens abuses wee should be forced to renounce the things so abused wee should depriue our selues of the principall helpes and muniments of our life The Caldeans did worship the fire for their God the Aethiopians the water Shall therefore we Christians be aqua and igni interdicti or because the Papists haue worshipped their bread may not Protestants vse bread you see what grosse consequents wil necessarily follow vpon your antecedent Therfore though your propositiō in ●ome sense may haue some truth in it yet is it not to be admitted in such a generallity as by you it is propounded That whatsoeuer hath vnto idolatry beene abused should by and by without further examination bee destroyed But vnto the abolishing of things so peruerted if by the law they be established wee must proceede with many cautions First Caluin telleth vs that wee must neither Temere nor Subinde nor leuibus de causis ad nouationem decurrere but in changing of things established we must vse great aduisement Secondly wee must with indifferencie consider whether their commodities or discommodities be the greater if the cōmodities then that sentence of the Comike is a rule of right reason That Cuius multa commoda sunt illius quo incommoda ferre decet If the euill bee greater then the good then must wee consider whether it be seperable or inseperable If seperable then is that a good rule which the orator giueth vs non minus probandam esse medicinam quae sanat vitiosas partes quàm quae exsecat If inseperable then yeeld we that counsell of the Poet to bee necessary that immedicabile vulnus ense recidendum est ne pars syncera tra●atur So that this abolishing of things of good vse for some abuse that hath growne vnto them is then only allowable when their euil is greater then their good or when it is incureable Both which points are far otherwise in the signe of the crosse as we see by experience And therefore no cause why for that abuse of it which hath beene in an other Church and is long agoe reformed in our Church so ancient a ceremony should now be abolished Ob. But you strengthen your proposition with two fortifications The one is a sentence of the Cannon law which cōmendeth vnto vs the abolitions of things abused vnto superstition The other is an example of Canonicall scripture which commendeth Ezechias for putting the same in practise Resp. First for that iudgement of the Canon law if wee were of some mens disposition we might allow

that periculosum as Bonauentura teacheth may either bee taken as Causa periculi or els but onely as Occasio periculi Now to apply this distinction vnto our purpose If you take Dangerous heere in the former sense for that which is properly and per se as cause of danger then yeeld I your proposition to be true that whatsoeuer in that sense is dangerous vnto idolatry it ought to bee auoided in the seruice of God But if you take this word Dangerous in the latter sense for that which casually and per accidens may bee an occasion of idolatry then I deny your proposition as vtterly false What greater shew of danger could there bee in any thing then to place the image of an Oxe in the temple of GOD especially amongst that people who had both seene an Oxe worshippied for the greatest GOD of Egipt vnder the name of Apis and who themselues had worshipped the image of an Oxe for their owne proper God But yet because the image of an Oxe was not naturally or necessarily dangerous vnto idolatry that old corruption being so long forgotten but onely casually and per accidens if any man by his owne corruption should renue it vnto himself therfore Salomon did not thinke himselfe tied by such an accidentall danger but that he might lawfully set the image of twelue Oxen in the very temple Neither doe wee read notwithstanding that probable feare which those images might haue ministred vnto scrupulous consciences yet that any man abused them vnto idolatry as no man hath likewise the signe of the crosse howsoeuer that bee feared where there is as little cause Therefore to the proposition of your former syllogisme I answere with Aquinas in an other like case Quando periculum nascitur ex ipso facto tum factum illud non est expediens Sed si periculum immineat a nostro defectu non desinet propter hoc esse expediens Sicut expediens est ascendere equū quamuis periculum immineat cadenti de ●quo alioquin oporteret cessare ab omnibus bonis quae etiam per accidens ex aliquo euentu possunt esse periculosa In which sentence of Aquinas I pray you marke these two things First that by such casuall danger no action is made so much as vnexpedient much lesse vnlawfull And secondly that if wee should giue place to such accidentall dangers we could not freely vse the best and most holy actions which are not to be intermitted for such fantastical feares Now for the assumptiō of your former syllogisme that the signe of the crosse as our church of England vseth it is dangerous to lead vs vnto idolatry that I simply deny It is neither naturally and per se nor yet casually and per accidens in it selfe any whit dangerous to lead vs to idolatry but only in defectu nostro as Aquinas distinguisheth after which manner there is nothing but it may ●e dangerous be it n●uer so good There is nothing so good but it is subiect to the abuse of euill and wicked men no not the scriptures themselues which is no sufficient reason why they may not bee well vsed of good and Godly men Ob. But you proue that the crosse is dangerous to lead vs to idolatry by this reason following Whatsoeuer is apt to breed a remembrance of that horrible idolatry cōmitted by it in the Synagogue of Rome that is dangerous to lead vs vnto idolatry But the signe of the crosse is such Ergo. Resp. In this argument both the partes are false First for the proposition there is no coherence betweene the anteceding and the succeeding part of it Doth euery thing that breedeth a remembrance of any thing abused vnto idolatry indanger vs to fall into the same idolatrie then were it dangerous to read in the scriptures the seuerall idolatries of the Iewes least by remembring them we might be indangered imitate and follow them Ob. But you will say that these be not pictures but scriptures which our Sauiour Christ himselfe commandeth vs to read Resp. I answere that this maketh nothing against our purpose but rather much for it For in that our Sauiour cōmandeth vs to read them his meaning is that wee should remēber them which remembrance he would neuer haue cōmended vnto vs if he had iudged it to be so dangerous for imitation as you affirme it is But to come to your exception against that kinde of remembrance which is procured by images or pictures The image of that golden calfe which the Israelites worshipped set forth in our Geneua Bibles cannot but breed a remembrāce of that horrible idolatrie which was cōmitted with it in the wilderness this you see is a picture not a scripture and yet those reuerend and worthie men who are the authors of that learned translation of purpose set out that picture in their edition thereby to imprint the remembrance of their sinne more firmely in our mindes neuer doubting that the remembrance of their idolatry would stirre vp our desire vnto like impiety Neither yet as I thinke hath any man beene found who either by view of that picture or remembrance of their practice hath beene led to imitate them in that vice So that remembrance doth not alwaies breed a liking of the thing so remembred but oftentimes a lothing There be monumenta odij as well as Amoris To goe no further for instance but to the signe of the crosse doe wee not see by experience that our remembring how the Papists haue abused it hath stirred vp in many men detestation of it whereby the hatred vp of their abuse hath so blinded their reason as to breede an abhorring euen of the lawfull vse of it Which euidently sheweth the notable incohaerence of your Maior proposition and that wee may well remember idolatry without any danger of falling into it Now for your assumption That the signe of the crosse is apt to breed a remembrance of the horrible idolatry which was committed by it in the Synagogue of Rome If that wee freely granted yet were not the cause preiudiced your Maior being so weakely founded For what if it gaue vs occasion to remember that ancient idolatry which by remembring wee abhorre doth this make it vnlawfull or doth it not rather make it good and profitable But I see no cause at all why wee should yeeld you so much For I pray you why should our crosse be thought to bee more apt to breed a remembrance of Popish idolatry then our Communion-bread is to breed a remembrance of Popish Artolatrie Or why should it be thought more powerfull to leade vs vnto the one then this is to lead vs vnto the other Especially the bread being a materiall a sensible body and remayning for some good space an obiect to the eye whereby it may more easily suggest vnto the minde how it hath in the Romish Church bene abused whereas the crosse being an immateriall and a vanishing

commandement But the signe of the crosse is a religious image Ergo It is forbidden in the second commandement For your Maior proposition if by religious images you had vnderstood onely such as are made to bee religiously adored wee should quickly haue agreed but you taking the name of Religious in a sense of such enormous largenesse viz. for any thing that any way may helpe vs in religion as appeareth in the exposition of your Minor I must needs require some better reason then your owne coniecturall conceipt that all such images are in that commandement forbidden Otherwise your proposition I deny as false and that for these reasons First because I dare not condemne all those famous and renowned churches which euen from Christs time vnto ours haue vsed the crosse to haue beene idolatrous nor those ancient learned and godly Fathers which haue thought and taught so reuerently of it to haue beene idolaters which absurdity must needs follow if either this obiection or your fourth haue any waight in them Secondly because I finde the whole streame of expositors to bee against you amongst whom I haue giuen instance both in Caluine and Beza and of our owne translators of the Geneua Bible pag. 21. Whose instances I wish you more deepely to consider of and how farre their iudgement differeth from your proposition Thirdly I finde the practise of God himselfe to be against you in commanding the Cherubines to bee placed in the Tabernacle which as Bishop Babbington truly collecteth must needes make GOD contrary vnto himselfe if all religious images were so simply forbidden in the second commandement as you affirme in your proposition Fourthly to come to our owne particular instance if the signe of the crosse were simply forbidden in the second commandement then were not only Gods practise contrary to his precept but also one precept were contrary to another For he commandeth expresly in the prophecie of Ezechiel to marke certaine men in the fore-head with the signe of the crosse which there he calleth Signum Tau which being by Character expressed as there it is commanded hath none other forme then the signe of the crosse as S Hierom expresly expoundeth that place Thau litera crucis haebet similitudinem quae in Christianorum frontibus pingitur Therefore this second commandement doth neither particularly forbid the signe of the crosse nor generally all kinds of religious images but onely in ordinatione ad cultum to which purpose the crosse is not vsed in our Church where as you know it is not worshipped Now for your Minor that our crosse is a religious image that is more false then the former was An image our crosse cannot be called but in a very constrained sence seeing that in making it we do not intend either to expresse or to honor that materiall crosse wherevpon our Sauiour suffered whose image you would insinuate that signe to be but onely to testifie by that outward signe that we are not ashamed of the sufferings of Christ. As for the outward scheme representation of the crosse it more properly may be called a character then an image as I shewed you before in the letter Tau whose character is the perfect forme of the crosse as is likewise the Romane T. as Tertullian obserueth seeing that we referre it not eiconically to represent the crosse of Christ but Symbolically to represent his passion by that character Now that characters and images bee of two diuerse natures the Turkes plainly shew vs who are most superstitious in auoyding of images yet they do willingly admit of characters as appeareth in their coines So that the crosse can no more propperly be called an image then the letter T. can Yea euen the Papists themselues deny it to bee an image as appeareth by their distinguishing of imago crucis from signum crucis which is much more true in vs whose signe of the crosse is made rather to represent the sufferings of Christ then the crosse whereon he suffered But if our signe were a perfect resemblance of that crosse yet as long as we vse it not in any such sense it ought not as an image to bee obiected vnto vs. The Hieroglyphiks of the Egyptians were in their shape and proportion the images of birds and beasts and other creatures amongst which was also the crosse as Ruffin reporteth vnder which they signified the life to come but yet because they vsed those figures but only as Characters they are there to bee reputed not as images but as letters And therefore the signification of images is stretched and strained very far when such a poore character cleane contrary to the vse of it yet is fetched within the compasse of them I haue beene the more carefull to vindicate the crosse from this opinion of beeing an image not that it would hurt or preiudice the cause any whit if it were granted to be one but because I do see that T.C. and his followers haue such an notable art in making of images idols that if they happen to myslike any thing whatsoeuer they can presently transforme the same into an idol make it as cōtrary vnto Gods commandement as it is vnto their owne priuate fantasie and conceipt In this place you make the crosse an image and in your 4. obiection you make it an idol So likewse T. C in one place maketh the surplice an idoll calling it a wouen image in an other place he calleth a Bride an idol because her husband saith with my body I thee worship And thus euery thing which they misconceipt is by and by mishaped into an idol Wheras it is most true that they make an idol of their owne idle fancy and priuate conceipt for the honor of which bable they despise magistrats violate lawes force the very scriptures themselues But to returne You cal the crosse not only an image but also a religious image and yet as you know we do not worship it nor place any holines or religion in it more then in other ceremonies neither make we it a substancial part of Gods seruice but onely circumstantiall vsing it only as an ecclesiasticall ceremonie appointed in our church by humaine authority and not inioyned by God vpon mere necessity And therefore whensoeuer our church whom wee ought dutifully to obey in all things as our mother shall cease to command vs the vse of that ceremony we may then cease it lawfully neither euer wil call for it as a matter of necessity but will truly professe with Minutius Felix nos crucem neque adoramus neque optamus In the meane season if we vse it whilest it is commanded wee do not offend against the second commandement but they which refuse it offend against the fifth of not honoring with obedience their lawfull magistrates The eleauenth obiection I desire to haue it opened vnto mee by the word of God how this signe can bee affirmed to bee an honorable badge