Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	king_n	lord_n	people_n	4,953	5	4.9858	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41639	The court of the gentiles. Part IV, Of reformed philosophie. Book III, Of divine predetermination, wherein the nature of divine predetermination is fully explicated and demonstrated, both in the general, as also more particularly, as to the substrate mater [sic] or entitative act of sin.; Court of the gentiles. Part IV. Book III	Gale, Theophilus, 1628-1678.	1678 (1678)	Wing G143; ESTC R16919	203,898	236

we follow the commun interpretation it appears that the same fact is ascribed to God and Satan and therefore it must be on a different account and here also the varietie in the end and mode makes the unspotted Justice of God to shine forth and the malice of Satan and pravitie of man to discover itself For 1 the action of numbering the people was not in itself evil 2 Divines distinguish between tentation of probation and seduction 3 Here the sane things concur which were before explicated of the same sense whereby God is said to incline to evil namely the permission and laxation of the reins to Satan the oblation of occasions and irritaments impediments being removed and the suspension of Divine Grace which things concurring with the pravitie of nature sin necessarily follows 1 We grant that the same fact is ascribed to God and Satan on different accounts God put the thought entitatively considered into Davids heart but Satan stirred up his heart to the act of numbering the people God in judgement gave over David to this sin that it should be at this time when God was angry with Israel There is a special providence of God even in the ebullitions of lusts in the hearts of his own people Thus also in the wicked who put that thought of murder considered materially into the heart of Esau When my father is dead I wil slay my brother Jacob Was it not from God Whence came that motion into the heart of Judas to betray Christ with al the circumstances materially considered referring thereto were they not from God Thus here God put the entitative thought of numbering the people into the heart of David albeit Satan stirred it up and God was the Orderer albeit Satan the Abettor and in some sense the Author of it for God is only the prime physic cause of the natural entitie but Satan the moral cause or Author of the vitiositie again the concurse of God to the natural entitative act is immediate efficacious and predeterminative but Satans concurse only mediate objective and suasive though with more or lesse degrees of moral efficacitie as Eph. 2. 2. Again 2 we grant that the different ends and modes of operating make Gods unspotted Justice and mans pravitie to shine forth 3 We are glad that Strangius wil grant the action of numbering the people not to be in itself evil Whence by a paritie of reason we argue That no action though never so intrinsecally evil is in itself i. e. as considered in its physic entitative act and according to its substrate mater sinful for certainly if Davids numbering the people which was a sin attended with so much pride vain-glorie and confidence in an arme of flesh with other aggravations which so greatly provoked God were not in itself evil no other sin considered in its mere entitative and physic act is such Yea I as yet see no reason why this sin of David considered in its individual circumstances and moral relation to its object and principes may not be estimed a sin intrinsecally evil as wel as Shimei's cursing David But 4 Strangius's summary conclusion That Gods concurse to Davids sin was only an idle permission laxation of the reins to Satan and oblation of occasions with suspension of Divine Grace is very contradictory both to the letter and mind of the Text which saith positively that God moved or excited and stirred up the mind of David not morally but physicly to the entitative act of numbering the people Certainly when the Scripture speakes so categoricly and positively of Gods moving the wil to its act to restrain such moving influences and causalitie only to mere idle permission or objective oblation of occasions or negative suspensions of Divine Grace what is this but to make the Scripture contradictory to itself or affirmation and negation applicable to the same words How easily might an Atheist hence take advantage to elude al Scripture But to passe on to other Texts that clearly expresse Gods immediate predeterminative concurse to the substrate mater of sinful acts 1 Kings 11. 31. the Lord saith I wil rend the kingdome out of the hand of Solomon So vers 37. to Jeroboam I wil take thee and thou shalt reigne c. Whence 1 Kings 12. 15. it 's said that the cause why Rehoboam hearkened not unto the people was from the Lord that he might performe his saying c. So vers 24. God saith expressely The thing i. e. the revolt of Israel is from me So of Jehu God saith 2 Kings 9. 3. I have anointed thee King and chap. 10. 30. Jehu is said to do unto the house of Ahab al that was in Gods heart From these Texts it's most evident that the holy God assumes to himself the production of such entitative natural acts which had sin necessarily appendent to them Now let us examine what response Strangius gives hereto l. 4. c. 4. p. 793. rejecting the answer of Bellarmine which to me is as good as his yea not really different he answers It is not unlikely but that Jeroboam and Jehu albeit in taking the Kingdome they sinned not as to the thing itself and substance of the act because instructed by Gods-command yet in manner of acting as they were profane men they variously sinned by mingling their own ambition and depraved affections with the worke of God Thence he concludes That whatever their sins were yet the justice of God sufficiently shines forth in the whole of this Administration because God used both the Kings and people in this worke only as instruments to execute his just judgements c. To give a brief replie hereto it is very evident that al that Strangius hath given us in answer to these Texts doth but more confirme us in the true sense we give of them For 1 it is manifest that Jeroboam and Jehu with the Revolters their Adherents sinned not only in the mode or manner but in the very substance of their acts For is not High treason against a lawful King an act sinful as to its substance And were not Rehoboam and Ahab both lawful Kings Was not Rehoboam Solomons Son whom God made King It 's true Jeroboam and Jehu had private prophetic Instructions and Unctions but yet those gave them no real title before the people but only secret intimations what God would in his providence bring to passe David had a promise of the Kingdom and also Divine Unction and yet he confesseth that God gave him no actual title to the Kingdom in the eyes of men but he stil ownes Saul as his Soverain King and the Lords Anointed and so ought Jeroboam and Jehu their lawful Soverains til God had given them a legal title before men 2 But suppose Jeroboam and Jehu's sin were only in the manner not in the substance of the act yet certain it is that the peoples sin before God had declared his soverain wil to them was high Treason and so substantially

much malice murder and hatred of God and his People annexed Yea God did not only send Nebuchadnezar to afflict Israel but also give him a reward for his service as Jerem. 27. 6. And now have I given al these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezar the King of Babylon my servant God gives him the neighbor Nations as a reward for his service against Israel The like Jer. 43. 10. Multitudes of Texts might be added to shew how God makes use of wicked Instruments in the punishment of his sinful people and in a providential way efficaciously concurs to and predetermines al their actions materially and naturally considered and yet is no way the Cause or Author of their sin 2. To mention one or two Scriptures which speak of Gods using wicked Instruments in afflicting his innocent People So Job 1. God makes use of the Sabeans and Caldeans yea of Satan himself to afflict Job and yet he saith v. 21. The Lord taketh away He saw by faith Gods hand moving yea predetermining the hearts and hands of his adversaries to every act of theirs materially considered albeit not to the vitiositie So Psal 105. 25. He turned their heart to hate his people to deal subtilely with his servants Here it 's said expressely that God turned i. e. efficaciously moved and predetermined the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his People Israel God's turning their hearts doth expressely and formally denote his efficacious predeterminative concurse to the entitative material natural act of hatred albeit not to the vitiositie and malignitie thereof So much also the next clause importes and to deal subtilely with his servants i. e. al their subtile strategems machinations and politic contrivements for the extirpation of Israel by putting to death their Males oppressing them with hard labors c. al these were as to their substrate mater and physic entitative acts from God who turned their hearts thereto And what could be more nakedly and evidently said to demonstrate Gods efficacious predeterminative concurse to the substrate mater of sin Let us now see what our Opponents replie to these Scriptures and our Arguments drawen thence Strangius l. 4. c. 4. p. 791. evades the force of this last Text thus What is said Psal 105. 25. that God turned their hearts to hate his people it must be understood that God did it not by perverting the hearts of the Egyptians but by doing good to his people whence the Egyptians took occasion of hatred 1 We say not that God perverted the hearts of the Egyptians that 's the commun odiose consequence which our Adversaries impose on us But 2 We avouch that God did more than give occasion to the Egyptians of hating by his doing good to his people Is not this a strange Comment God turned their heart to hate his people i. e. gave occasion of hatred by doing good unto his people Doth not Gods turning the heart in Scripture Phraseologie always import his effica●… predeterminative concurse in applying the wil to its act 〈◊〉 it 's said Prov. 21. 1. God turneth the heart whithersoever he w●… is it not meant of an efficacious concurse Do not also the following words Psal 105. 25. to deal subtilely with his servants clearly implie an efficacious act of God upon their hearts predetermining them to their act Certainly such Comments are very poor evasions to elude such clear Texts As for the other Texts Strangius's general answer p. 774 775. is That God is the Cause of the act in those sins but not of the pravitie of the Instruments c. And what do we say or desire more But yet there lies a sting in this very concession of his for he addes p. 774. That God hath decreed nothing by his Wil of good pleasure but what he approves as Good i. e. God hath not absolutely decreed to permit sin because he doth not approve of it Wherein note 1 How he doth with the Pelagians and Arminians confound Gods Decretive Wil with his Approbative complacential Wil. 2 We denie not but God approves of al his own Acts but the Question is touching objects Whether God approves of al objects which by his Decretive Wil he decrees to permit This we peremptorily denie and no way dout but to make good our denial in its place § 4. Another Head of Arguments contains such Scriptures as mention Gods own immediate hand in those Acts whereunto sin is appendent We begin with 2 Sam. 12. 11. where God tels David by Nathan that for his folie committed with Vriah's wife and murder Behold I wil raise up evil against thee out of thine own house and I wil take thy wives before thine eyes and give them unto thy neighbour c. This threat we find fulfilled 2 Sam. 16. 22. And Absalom went in unto his Fathers Concubines in the sight of al Israel What could be more plainly and distinctly expressed to demonstrate Gods immediate concurse to that entitative act of Absalom's Sin Here Strangius l. 4. c. 4. p. 789. acknowledgeth 1 That Absalom's Incest in violating his fathers bed is by God owned as his own Fact But 2 then he answers that this was acknowledged for the reason above-mentioned namely by reason of Gods efficacious Gubernation Moderation and Direction which he afforded according to the modes already explicated about the sinful Wils of Absalom and Achitophel and their actions in this wickedness which fact is related 2 Sam. 16. 20 c. For this is usual that the effect which ariseth from two causes whereof the one is effective and the other directive be ascribed to both but in a different respect c. This is the commun answer which he and his Sectators give to such Scriptures which speake Gods immediate hand in the entitative acts of sin let us therefore a little examine the force of this answer 1 Take notice that he allows Gods Gubernation Moderation and Direction of the Act whereto sin is annexed but not the production of the act This is evident by the Conclusion wherein he makes the Sinner to be the effective cause but God the directive only But I replie how can God efficaciously Govern Moderate and Direct the Act unless he be also the effective Cause thereof Take his own instance the sinful wils of Absalom and Achitophel how is it possible that God should efficaciously govern and direct those immanent acts of their sinful wils but by influencing their wils and efficaciously predetermining them to act If God did as he grants efficaciously govern moderate and direct their sinful wils in those immanent acts of Lust certainly he must necessarily produce those acts 2 Neither wil this answer at al solve the Difficultie for suppose we grant that God doth only efficaciously govern moderate and direct the sinful act not produce the entitative mater thereof yet this efficacious directive influence doth as much make God the Author of sin as our effective predeterminative concurse For Gods

what follows touching Bradwardine I now come to Thomas Bradwardine our pious learned and profound Bradwardine whom might I be allowed my libertie I should rather reckon among our first Reformers than among the Sons of Antichrist for indeed he was a zelose Patron of and stout Champion for the fundamental points of the Reformed Religion specially efficacious free Grace which he with so much courage strength of argument and flaming zele defended against the Pelagians of those days This Thomas Bradwardine borne at Hartfield in Sussex flourished about the year 1350. He was a person of prodigiose natural ingenie which he greatly polisht by al manner of acquired Sciences specially the Mathematics and scholastic Theologie He was a great Affecter and Admirer of metaphysic Contemplations which in his first studies he greedily drank in even to the neglect of the holy Scriptures because they favored not of a metaphysic style as he himself informes us in his Book de Causa Dei When saith he in the state of my unregeneracie I came into the Scholes and heard Lectures on Pauls Epistles of free Grace c. it did no way relish with me quia non sapit stylum metaphysicum because it savored not of a metaphysic style It was with me as it was with Augustin of old nothing would please but scholastic discourses for free wil c. But after his Conversion he was as another Augustin the greatest Champion for free efficacious Grace Balaeus de Script Brit. cent 5. cap. 87. tels us That John Baconthorp that famose Divine and English-man returning from Paris had a great contest with Bradwardine about the points of Gods Prescience and Predestination to whom at last Bradwardine assents in al those points as the same Baconthorp declares in Sent. lib. 4. Dist 1. q. 4. Afterwards he was called to be Confessor to King Edward III. and thence made Archbishop of Canterbury without any desire of his own thereto He was indeed a good Mathematician a great Philosopher and excellent Divine being communly stiled Doctor profundus the profound Doctor Neither was he lesse renowned for his Pietie and Zele in the Cause of God against the Pelagians which he defended with great fervor as wel as acumen of spirit which also is greatly illustrious in his defence of Gods efficacious Concurse and Providence about the substrate mater of sinful acts This he frequently inculcates in his most excellent Book de Causa Dei specially lib. 1. c. 30 31 32 33 34. He demonstrates 1 That al voluntary actions are governed by the Laws of Divine Providence cap. 30 31. p. 271 c. 2 That althings which have any natural Entitie or Being procede from Gods Providence actually and efficaciously disposing them and not merely permitting Which he demonstrates many ways as 1 Because there is no act simply evil and inordinate by any inordination precedent to the divine wil. 2 Because otherwise the whole Vniverse would not be disposed in the best manner 3 Because the Scriptures both of Old and New Testments ascribe to God in his Providence about Sin active Names Thus cap. 32. p. 288. 3 That about whatever Gods Permission is his actual Volition is also employed about the same And he gives this demonstrative reason hereof For albeit those things that are evil as evil are not good yet it is good that there should be not only good things but also evil For unless it were good that evils be the Omnipotent good would not suffer them to be as Cap. 33. Hence 4 He comes l. 34. to the state of the controversie How God wils sin and how he wils it not 1 He proves p. 294 295. That God must necessarily wil the existence of Sin because he permits it also God doth voluntarily provide for yea act al the voluntary acts of the wil both good and evil with al their positive circumstances which necessarily import sin Again This Proposition Sin is is true and therefore there must be some cause of its truth which can be no other than the divine wil from which al complexe beings as wel as incomplexe have their origination Again ` Whatever is good must procede from the first good but that Sin existe is good according to Augustin So Hugo saith That God wils that sins existe because this is good Moreover he brings in Hugo speaking thus which deserves a great remarque If it be said God wils sin this seems harsh and scandalous to the ear and therefore some pious mind doth refute this not because that which is spoken is il spoken but because that which is wel spoken is il understood 2 Thence Bradwardine procedes to refute Lombard who asserts That God wils sin as a punishment not under this reason as it is sin i. e. materially or entitatively considered which Hypothesis of Lombard he refutes by shewing That the punishment of sin is necessarily conjoined with the Sin so that if God wils sin as a punishment he must necessarily wil the existence of sin Also whoever knows two things to be necessarily and inseparably conjoined and wils that they should be so conjoined and knowingly and rationally wils one the same person wils also the other specially if about both he employ an act of his wil But now God knows and wils that those two Sin and Punishment be conjoined together and rationally wils the one namely the punishment of sin therefore also the sin Again he that wils an Antecedent wils also the Consequent at least in an universal albeit not in a particular for he that wils a whole wils al the parts necessary thereto 3 Thence he procedes p. 300. to shew how God wils sin God saith he doth no way wil Sin simply but only in some limited respect For to say that God wils something simply is according to the commun manner of speech to say that he loves it and approves of it as good Yea addes he may it not be said that in the whole Universe there is no such thing as Inordination Deformitie or Sin simply considered but only Sin in some respect Because in regard of the prime and supreme Cause al Beings both positive and privative are sweetly disposed with the highest wisdome beautie and justice Whence 4 He gives us the difference between Gods Concurse to sinful acts and to such as are good p. 302. God saith he is not the Author of sin as of that which is done wel For of this he is the Author so as that he alone doth supernaturally create and give to the wel-doer Faith Hope and Love c. But it is not so as to sin i. e. As to good God produceth not only the natural act but also the moral Bonitie but as to Sin he produceth only the natural entitative Act. 5 He thence p. 302. explicates how the Apostle Paul and the Fathers denied that God wils Sin When saith he Augustin and the other holy men denie that God wils Sin the cause of this negation seems