Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	faith_n	word_n	work_n	3,143	5	6.0877	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A02400	The Romish chaine. By Edmund Gurnay, parson of Harpley	Gurnay, Edmund, d. 1648.	1624 (1624)	STC 12530; ESTC S121205	26,705	112

of the Body which is most preposterous and also in case no such head growes vp for that either the Body must remaine without a head which will still be monstrous or some other member must supply the heads place which will be miserably ridiculous For when the inferiour members which cannot discerne a Head from a Hand or a Foote but only by the outward shape and figure therof shall see suppose a hand or at least that which is like a hand to be in the place of the head they must needs a great while take it for but a fellow member and so not doe it that respect and obedience which to the Head is due and then when at length after many admonitions they haue learned to see the power of an Head vnder the shape of an hand yet withall when they shall also learne how that hand came there namely by cutting off the vnsound or foolish Head what remaines but that they thinke it necessary at least lawfull for them to obserue whether that Hand be found or whether some fit of a Chyragra be not growing vpon it which if they finde what else but that some other member be thought of for the place and then who perhaps so likely to put forward as the Foote which if it attaines to the place of the Head as it must needs be a miserable shame and confusion to the Domesticke members so how can it bee otherwise then a most horrible scorne vnto the forraigne enemies and as good sport as the walking of men with their heeles vpwards is to idle beholders Yea what more vniust euen in the eies of common Sense then that the Master-builder should bee at this passe either to giue account of the soundnesse of his worke vnto those which are beneath him or else to be at their mercie to haue the Stage pulled from vnder him But Christian Reader I feare mee you thinke I haue committed an excursion and yet I pray suffer mee to answer one Obiection more which is thought to be of Demonstratiue force for the Intitling the Spirituall man to the Throne before any and it is this The first Adam vpon his fall did forfeit all the domini and titles which the Lord vpon his Creation had set him in Such therefore as haue no other birth but from the first Adam can haue no title to dominions or authorities whatsoeuer and therefore they which are borne of the second Adam vnto whom the first Adams inheritance must lapse vnto must be the only true Heires thereof and consequently as men are more or lesse borne of the second Adam that is as they are more or lesse Spirituall they shall more or lesse haue titles to Kingdomes Lordships properties or capacities whatsoeuer and no otherwise Wherevnto wee answer first that though Adam vpon his fall did loose the sweetnesse of his dominions the curse of God inuading it yet does it not follow but that he might still retaine the state and title thereof euen as a rich man when hee falls into some tormenting desease and so hath no ioy of all his riches yet still remaines seazed and possessed of his riches neuerthelesse Secondly the estate and dominion which God gaue vnto Adam though it might be a ioy dignitie vnto him yet was it principally to bee taken in the nature of a charge which charge it was not in Adams power to auoid or forfeit vpon his trespasse and fall but rather to double and increase it thereupon a mans voluntary dashing his abilities being no dispensation for his duties negligence being of no more force to discharge vs then voluntary ignorance is to excuse vs. Thirdly that the Lord did make vnto the first Adam a generall grant of vniuersall propriety and dominion we expresly find Gen. 1.28 c. but that hee did reuoke the same we finde not Paradise indeed both the heauenly the fruition of God and also the earthly the Garden of Eden we find expresly that it was taken from him but wee also finde as expresly that it was giuen him only vpon condition of his obedience whereas the donation of vniuersall dominion had no such condition annexed vnto it Fourthly had Adam apprehended that superiority and dominion should vpon his Fall be conueyed vnto men by the course of Grace and not by the course of Nature hee would neuer haue intitled his vngracious first borne vnto all his possessions as the name Cain signifies and left nothing for his best-borne but the younger brothers portion vanitie as the name Abel signifies Fiftly the Lord euery where so establishing the Hethen Princes in their States and Kingdomes as Pharaoh Nabuchadnezar Cyrus Ahashuerosh Darius Caesar c. who had no kind of right therunto but by the Law of Nations which hath his originall only from consecrated reason the Law of the first Adam of whom only they were discended the second Adam being to them vnknowne it may sufficiently teach that no reuocation of originall Dominions did follow vpon the fall But finally and principally and in stead of all may be this for that the second Adam and his line vnto whom only such supposed forfeiture was to extend did neuer make the least title or claime thereunto either when he was first promised or when he was first made manifest in the flesh For as concerning the time when hee was first promised so farre was hee then from taking any vantage of the Fall as that the first mention of him did promise a Succour against our Enemie that gaue the Fall in these words The seede of the Woman shall bruise the Serpents head Likewise his first-borne Abel who by faith in him offered the the good Sacrifice was so farre from attayning any superiority by vertue of his being borne of him as that it proued the only cause of his earthly ruine his Brother therefore hating him because his works were good and his works wee know being therefore only good because he was borne of him So also the Patriarkes and holy men in their times did they not alwaies account themselues rather loosers then gainers by this second birth they euery where vndergoing tributes and bondages more willingly and more faithfully then any And as for the time of the second Adams manifesting himselfe in the flesh so farre was he then also from claiming any of the first Adams rights as that vpon all occasions hee professeth the maine intent of his comming to be for the restoring of his losses euen though it were with the losse of his owne life euery where styling himselfe no better then The Sonne of Man which the meanest of Adams Race might assume as well as hee and finally as often telling vs that his Kingdome was not of this world that he came not to be ministred vnto but to minister that he had not whereon to lay his head and refusing so much as to arbitrate a matter betwixt two brethren which the most priuate persons that are may be allowed to doe least he

Finally for as much as the Lord hath told vs that many shall come from the East and from the West and sit with Abraham Isaac and Iacob and the children of the Kingdome shall bee cast out as also that whosoeuer heareth his Word and keepeth it the same is his Brother and Sister and Mother and that it should not profit the Iewes for that they had Abraham to their Father Hee telling vs also in the Old Testament by his Prophet that an vngodly Sonne should fare neuer the better for his godly Father nor a godly Sonne any thing the worse for his vngodly Father the course also of the times declaring vnto vs how holy Kings had vnholy Sonns to succeede them and on the contrary as good King Iotham hauing a wicked Sonne Ahaz for his Successour and he a good Son Hezechia for his Successour and hee a wicked Son Manasses for his Successour and hee a good grand-child Iosiah for his Successour and hee a wicked Sonne Iehoahaz for his Successour It may sufficiently resolue a Christian mind how farre it is from the purpose of God that his gifts and graces should goe by succession For though often times a good and godly Father had a good and godly Son to succeed him yet was not that by vertue of Succession but by vertue of Gods grace immediately directing the Son as well as the Father euen as to day may be as faire a day as yesterday and yet not because it succeeds yesterday but because the Sunn shines as immediately vpon it as it did vpon yesterday Finally for a conclusion whosoeuer challengeth Supremacy in the Church by vertue of Succession does plead no lesse then flat contradiction For whosoeuer is Supreame Head of the Church must bee immediate vnto God himselfe But whosoeuer claimeth any thing by vertue of Succession does of necessity imply that there is a person betwixt him and the Lord namely his predecessor from whom his vertue is deriued The next Linke of the Chaine is this that Only the Bishops of Rome were the Successours of Peter in their times Whereunto we answer First that no diuine record does auouch so much or so much as mention any by the name of Bishop of Rome and therefore the knowledge of any rites concerning that Sea can not bee materiall vnto a point of faith Secondly as it is not certainely agreed vpon who that Bishop was which immediately Succeded Peter some affirming Liuius some Clemens and some Clitus to bee the man so can there be no cause shewne why som Bishop of Rome must needs be he For first if holinesse of life were sufficient to make a Successour so euery Christian might be Peters successor as wel as any Bishop of Rome Secondly if besides holinesse of life there must also concurre soundnesse of Doctrine yet so also any Pastor may as well be his successour Or if yet further such a quantitie of charge as Peter had bee requisite vnto the constitution of his Successour yet so also euery ordinary Diocesan is able to be his successor Or if yet further the foure fold qualifications Apostolicall namely Immediate calling Generalitie of commission Infallibility of Iudgement and Vniuersality of Languages must concurre to make such a Successour yet as the first Bishops of Rome are no where avouched to bee thus qualified more then others if so much especially if they knew no Language but the Latin and came to their places by Election which is no immediate Calling So neither will such quallification make a Successor vnto Peter more peculiar then vnto the rest of the Apostles vnto whom such foure-fold qualification was common wherein then shall consist the marrow and quiddity which makes the Roman Bishops the peculiar Successours of Peter For should it be supposed that some peculiar imposition of hands did passe from Peter vpon the first Bishop of Rome wherewith the Holy Ghost was giuen in the time of the Apostles or some portion of Peters spirit was giuen to that first Bishop as the spirit of Moses was vnto the Seauenty or that Peters garments were put vpon him as the garments of Aaron were vpon his Successours or some such like Rite of conueyance yet for as much as those kinde of ceremonies when they were vsed had no vertue in themselues but were diuised by the wisedome of God for the shaddowing and concealing his owne miraculous and immediate operations as our Sauiour and the Apostles vsed Spitle and Clay and Hemmes of garments Napkins Partlets Shaddowes the intitling any Bishop of Rome vnto Peters vertue spirit or priuiledge by means of any such outward passage which hath no diuine record to specifie it is no lesse presumptuous then superstitious and ridiculous Finally concerning their argumēt from Peters being the first Bishop of Rome their cardinall argument in this point that therfore only the Bishops of Rome are his Locall and so consequently his most proper Successours wee answer that neither is locall succession of force to attaine to the vertue of the predecessour there being no kinde of place whether natural ciuill or mysticall but which is capable euen of contrarieties euen the Soule of man the purest vessell and continent that is being a receptacle of Sinne as well as grace and the Temple of God being destinated for the Seate of Antichrist as well as for Iesus Christ Nor againe can the Bishops of Rome be proued at least in any peculiar manner so much as his Locall successours both for that other Bishops as namely of Ierusalem and Antioch had Peter for their Predecessour that euen by Scripture inference as also for that no diuine or approued writer does auouch either that Peter euer was the Bishop of Rome or that hee was personally present at Rome For whereas vpon Peters dating one of his Epistles from Babylon it is argued that he was then at Rome for that mystically hee might account that City Babylon yet considering how there were three Locall Babylons namely in Syria Caldea and Egypt which were farre more neerly situate vnto Peters Prouince then Rome was there coniecture that Peter meant Rome by Babylon in that Text hath three to one against it But if coniectures and good probabilities may be allowed to carry any sway in this businesse it is easie to produce them abundantly and that out of Scriptures that Peter neuer was but as euery Apostle was any Bishop of Rome For first it is apparant that Peter by the speciall appointment of the Spirit was confined vnto them of the Circumcision whereof Rome was no part Secondly it was well nigh twenty or thirty yeeres after our Sauiour gaue Peter the charge of feeding his Sheepe that Peter aboad about Ierusalem Antioch Ioppa and those quarters Thirdly Paul in his Epistle to the Romans does tell them that hee alwayes had a speciall care not to build on anothers foundation then the which Text what more faire argument can bee framed that Paul neuer esteemed the