Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	necessary_a	produce_v	sufficient_a	2,945	5	8.9424	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A11363	A treatise of Paradise. And the principall contents thereof especially of the greatnesse, situation, beautie, and other properties of that place: of the trees of life, good and euill; of the serpent, cherubin, fiery sword, mans creation, immortalitie, propagation, stature, age, knowledge, temptation, fall, and exclusion out of Paradise; and consequently of his and our originall sin: with many other difficulties touching these points. Collected out of the holy Scriptures, ancient fathers, and other both ancient and moderne writers.	Salkeld, John, 1576-1660.	1617 (1617)	STC 21622; ESTC S116515	126,315	368

is common to all the blessed Spirits and Saints of heauen to euery one according to their degree of glory correspondent vnto the measure of their faith heard here in earth or while they were in the way to this supernaturall blessednesse CHAP. VIII Whether there was euer any such tree in Paradise as the tree of life or rather that which is written of it in the Scripture is onely to be vnderstood spiritually or figuratiuely AS now in this deluge of miseries which haue ouerflowne the world there be many which in outward shew and words pretend so much spirit that they leaue nothing for the inward but acts of carnalitie so there wanted not these kindes of monsters in former ages who though they were neuer so farre plunged in the depth of hell as ours be yet were they not farre inferiour in the fictitious morallizing of Scripture or rather wresting from the true sense the word of God such were Origines and his fellowes Allegorici so tearmed because they wrested the Scripture beyond all truth and sense only to a spiritual and allegorical sense especially those places which speake of Paradise and the tree of life some thinking it to bee our Sauiour Christ or word of God incarnate others the sole attribute of the eternall wisdome of God some againe our euerlasting happinesse in the kingdome of heauen according to that of S. Iohn Reu cha 2. vers 2. To him that ouercommeth will I giue to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the Paradise of my God that is as Eugobinus in his Cosmopoeia holdeth not our essentiall blessednesse in the sight of God as the former opinion is but a proprietie necessarily annexed thereunto to wit immortalitie which God had promised to Adam and his posteritie if they had persisted in their first state of innocencie wherein Adam was first created Here be many fictitious propositions ill grounded and which of themselues are sufficient to ouerthrow themselues the truth and the common opinion as well of Schoole Diuines as of Expositours of the holy Scriptures and Fathers is that as the historie of the tree of life and the rest of Paradise may well be interpreted in an Allegoricall sense without any contradiction to the true meaning of the historie so to vnderstand it only thus excluding the historie is a manifest iniurie done to the Scripture So S. Austine in his 13. booke of the city of God chap. 21. saith that we may vnderstand by Paradise the blessed life of the Saints of God likewise by the foure riuers of Paradise the foure cardinall vertues prudence fortitude temperance iustice by the trees all profitable Arts and disciplines by the fruit of the tree the good workes of the godly by the tree of life wisdome the mother of all goodnesse finally by the tree of knowledge of good and euill the experience of the commandement transgressed These things likewise may be vnderstood of the Church as prophesies proper vnto her future estate So that by Paradise wee may vnderstand the Church according to that which wee reade of her in the Canticles Moreouer by the foure flouds the foure Gospels by the fruitfull trees the Saints whose fruits bee their workes by the tree of life the Saint of Saints Christ our Sauiour lastly by the tree of the knowledge of good and euill our owne morall and ciuill actions not the supernaturall in which wee are more passiue then actiue These and the like of Origenes and others of the Fathers are questionlesse most excellent Allegories yet not such as may be taken for sole verities excluding the plaine historie of Moses and literall sense which is the second part of my assertion deduced also out of S. Austine in the place aboue alleaged where he concludeth thus Haec siquae alia These and the like may be spiritually applied vnto Paradise so that the truth of the historie be faithfully kept and no iniurie offered to the word of God for if once we giue a sole and generall passage to this kinde of Allegoricall exposition wee shall soone bee brought to many fond definitions in matters of faith CHAP. IX Why the tree of life was so called and whether it had truly the propertie of making a man immortall AS it is truly said of the bread of life the Sacrament I meane of the Lords Supper that it doth not concurre physically with any real influence vnto the grace of God inherent in our soules in this life or to the eternitie of blessednesse in the life to come but that it is only a signe of the one and a pawne and pledge of the other to wit of grace in this life of an eternall poies of glory in the other so many holding the tree of life to be a figure or type of the bread of life haue with proportion held of them both to wit that neither of them were physicall and reall causes of their effects but onely morall Hence it is that Eugubinus aboue alleaged in his Cosmopoeia thinketh that it was called the tree of life non effectiuè quòd vitam faceret immortalem not because it did really cause or should haue caused immortalitie in man sed significatiue tantùm because it should haue beene a signe and token only of immortalitie if he had not transgressed the commandement of his Creator a probable opinion certainly or which cannot easily bee refuted for although all almost Writers and Fathers both of the Greeke and Latine Church doe agree that the effect of this fruit was immortalitie yet in the manner how they doe not agree So therefore if wee agree of the thing it is not materiall how wee hold of the manner of concourse As in like manner wee doubt not to say of the bread of life the Sacrament of the Lords Supper that certainly it containeth the cause of life Christ but how it containeth him who can expresse This exceedeth the naturall capacitie of Angels the other of the type also the reach of man Agreeing therefore about the things why should wee so contend to expresse the manner which in no wise can be expressed because it is not expressed in the booke of life and therefore cannot be necessary to eternall life Neuerthelesse if I may coniecture in things so hidden I deeme the contrary much more probable to wit that this tree of life was not onely a type or token of immortalitie but that really it was a cause sufficient to haue produced immortalitie my reason or rather congruence because no concludent reason can be giuen in this point is because it was the most perfect figure as the Fathers affirme of that most excellent tree which for all eternitie is planted in the celestiall Paradise to wit of Christ who saith of himselfe Apoc. 2. cap. Vincenti dabo edere to him that ouercommeth to wit himselfe I will giue to eat what will he giue himselfe to eat of the tree of life which is in the Paradise of the

eternall God not carnally as carnall men dreame but spiritually in the bread of life as hee himselfe doth affirme of himselfe As therefore he who is the tree of life or rather the author of life or to speake more properly life it selfe euen as he is in the Sacrament of life doth heere truly in this miserable life produce in vs the life of grace as a present pawne of our future glory so it seemeth most probable that the other tree of life as a most perfect figure of this planted in the terrene Paradise had the like inherent vertue for to perpetuate or at least to prolong the liues of Adam and his posteritie as long as they were to liue in that terrene Paradise But whether this fruit of the tree of life was sufficient to perpetuate our life or only to prolong it for some determinate time Abulensis super Genes c. 13. quaest 175. Scotus li. 2. sent dist 19 quaest 1. Aquinas 1 p. q. 9.7 art 4 Caiet ibid. many dispute probably for both opinions Tostatus vpon the 13. chapter of Genesis q. 175. is most peremptorie for this perpetuitie Scotus Thomas Caietan and Durand for a very long time but not for eternitie because that is the naturall measure of nature this the supernaturall of him who is aboue all nature Secondly seeing the power of the tree of life was a naturall power and cause the effect could not bee supernaturall for though effects be often inferiour to their causes yet neuer the causes vnto the effects the reason because no cause can giue that which it hath not neither any effect haue any excellencie or perfection not proceeding from the cause wherefore if the tree of life was as without question it was a naturall tree as the Laurell Cypresse and other trees be it could not haue as connaturall the supernaturall effect of making eternall the life of man Moreouer it is a principle euen in naturall philosophie that omne agens physicum in agendo patitur debilitatur that euery naturall cause doth suffer some detriment euen in and by his owne action consequently therefore though our naturall heat and vigour might bee very long conserued by the vertue of this excellent fruit yet at length it should haue failed and thence finally mortalitie should haue followed as a necessary effect of so forcible a cause Lastly it is not likely that God who is the author and first rule of nature doth produce any thing frustrate in nature seeing therefore the fall of man was patent vnto him euen from all eternitie to what end should he prouide an eternall cause for a temporary effect But if this argument had any force it should force also our aduersaries to the like if not a greater inconuenience for who doubteth but that God knew also the little time that man was to persist in his grace and yet neuerthelesse he gaue him that fruit which was sufficient for the preseruation of his life for many a yeere as our aduersaries hold why then might hee not likewise for all eternitie is it because of the impossibilitie at non impossibile Deo omne verbum to God nothing is impossible which doth not imply contradiction but what contradiction is in this is it that here naturall philosophie is contradicted omne agens in agendo patitur debilitatur euery agent doth decay euen by his owne action but seeing the author of nature is aboue nature why might hee not here worke that which is aboue nature or though in the compasse of nature yet beyond our naturall capacitie which is so small that wee scarcely or very imperfectly vnderstand things of farre inferiour degree yea such as are within our selues why therefore shall wee deny vnto God that which we doe not vnderstand in our selues My resolution therefore is that of Abulensis Propterea dictam esse arborem vitae quòd fructus eius vim haberet seruandi hominem à morte in omne tempus faciendi eum immortalem that this tree was therefore called the tree of life because it had vertue to perpetuate our naturall life and the vnion of the body and soule for euer if we had not lost the supernaturall grace which was the vnion of our soules with God but seeing wee wilfully separated our selues from our supernaturall life it was most iust that wee should also be depriued of the naturall hence therefore is that which Paul so often preacheth mortem in mundum intrasse propter peccatum that death entred into the world by the doore of sinne which doore if we had debarred to sinne the grace of God should haue beene a perpetual vnion betweene God and vs and the tree of life should haue caused the like betweene our bodies and soules and this of his owne nature eternally though de facto wee needed it but only temporally both supposing our fall as likewise not supposing any at all for if we had not fallen or sinned in our first father wee should certainly after some number of yeeres haue been translated from that terrene Paradise which was our first though temporary habitation vnto a more excellent and perpetuall in the kingdome of heauen and this should haue heene without any assault of death because we had alwaies liued in God who as hee would then haue preserued vs by his grace from the corruption of sinne would also haue preserued vs from this corruption which was only the effect of sinne according to that of the Apostle The wages of sinne is death the wager being the deuill our soules are bought and sold sold away for nothing sinne being nothing but a priuation of being but bought againe by the death of the most precious of mortall liues which in no wise should haue beene necessary if wee had not beene lost or fallen from our first grace and innocencie But as that poeticall fiction of the Nectar and Ambrosia seemed to Aristotle of small ground so this for the like reason may seeme to bee as fabulous for as Aristotle argueth against the former either the Gods vsed this Ambrosia and Nectar for pleasure only or also for necessitie if only for pleasure how then could Ambrosia and Nectar be any necessary cause of their immortalitie againe if for necessitie certainly the Gods then had not beene immortall by nature and consequently no Gods seeing that that which hath need of any thing for his preseruation must necessarily be mortall After the same manner we may argue against this fruit of this tree of life which is said to be sufficient to cause an eternitie of life à parte post as the Philosophers speake for if our immortalitie was onely to be from the tree of life then questionlesse without it wee had beene mortall and subiect to death contrary to that of the Apostle Stipendium peccati mors the wages of sinne is death for whether wee had sinned or persisted in our primatiue grace all had beene one wee should naturally haue tasted of death if wee

had not eaten of the tree of life Againe if it was onely ad melius esse for a better preseruation of our immortalitie due vnto that estate and not absolutely necessary for that effect then consequently it was not the tree of life in the sense which the Scripture insinuateth but an antidote onely against death and not a necessary cause of eternall life I answer that though the argument of Nectar and Ambrosia doth euidently ouerthrow the deitie and immortalitie of the heathen gods yet doth not the simile or comparison any thing impeach the immortalitie and deitie of the true God as neither the immortalitie of our first parents due onely vnto them in their estate of innocencie and which did principally proceed from the true and only immortall God because that immortalitie of life proceeding from the fruit of life was to endure no longer with man then man perseuered in the grace of God which was giuen him as a pawne of eternall life Neither doth this contradict that of the Apostle the wages of sinne is death for though death be due vnto man euen without sinne according to nature yet this debt was to bee remitted by originall grace and the naturall pronenesse thereunto to be redressed by the fruit of life Wherefore though the immediate cause of our immortalitie in Paradise should haue beene the tree of life yet the primarie and principall of all to which the other was consequent was originall grace whose immediate effect was our spirituall life and thereto secondarily followed the freedome from any corporall harme or death yea and this for euer of his owne nature though wee had not beene translated thence to a better life for so it is said of Adam that therefore hee was banished out of Paradise and interdicted the entrance vnto the tree of life lest eating of it hee should liue for euer Genes 3. chap. 22. v. And the Lord God said behold the man is become as one of vs to know good and euill and now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and liue for euer therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken Hence I conclude with Abulensis and others esum illius arboris sufficientem habuisse virtutem vt vitam homini praestaret aeternam that this tree of life had sufficient vertue to prolong a mans life for all eternitie The which also is the opinion of S. Austine Aug. li. 13. de ●iuitate Dei cap. 20. 23. Chrys hom ●3 in Gen. Rupertus ●ib 3. de Trinitate cap. 30. Chrysostome and Rupertus lib. 3. de Trinitate cap. 30. where hee addeth this more then other Doctors quòd semel sumptus vitam praestitisset immortalem that this fruit of life had beene sufficient to haue caused immortalitie of its owne nature though it had beene but once receiued the which though it may seeme improbable to humane reason yet considering the omnipotence of God and his infinite loue to man in that estate it cannot at leastway appeare impossible CHAP. X. Whether the vertue of the tree of life to preserue man immortall was naturall vnto it or supernaturall LEst wee erre in the resolution of this question by any equiuocation of words as it falleth out often in the like difficulties of naturall and supernaturall obiects I will first declare how the Diuines vse this distinction and then how it is to be taken here Naturall as farre forth as is necessarie for our present purpose is that which floweth from the principles of nature to wit matter and forme of which as of their only compacts all naturall and corporal substances are composed Supernaturall is that which is aboue all nature or rather cannot in any wise proceed from the principles of nature but as it is aboue all nature so it floweth from that sole principle which is aboue all nature if not only yet principally Secondly naturall oftentimes is taken pro congenito for that which is originally produced with any other thing though it flow not in any wise from the principles of nature or bee not due thereunto so no doubt but if an Angel were created with the light of glory or beatificall vision of Gods essence both the light of glory and the vision of God should be in that sense naturall or rather connaturall vnto the Angell because it was produced together with his naturall substance or essence And the same oftentimes is auerred by the Fathers of man in regard of his originall iustice in which hee was created for though this original iustice did not flow from the principles of nature yet neuerthelesse because it was produced with nature by Almightie God and infused into mans nature as due vnto it in that happy estate therefore it is and may well be termed naturall though in its owne essence it was supernaturall Now by these two distinctions of things naturall wee may euidently inferre what is supernaturall namely that which is aboue both these kindes of acceptions or distinctions of naturall obiects that is which neither floweth from the principles of nature neither is any way due vnto nature as originall iustice was due vnto vs in Adam before our fall and corruption of nature This distinction presupposed the difficultie consisteth in this whether the vertue of the tree of life for to preserue man from corruption may bee called naturall or rather is to bee deemed supernaturall Strabo answereth Strab● in Gen. Lignum vitae hanc naturaliter habuisse virtutem that the tree of life had naturally this vertue that he who did eat of that fruit should be endued with perpetuall health neither should bee touched with any infirmitie wearinesse or irksomenesse which are wont to be the companions of age Hugo de Sancto Victore addeth Lignum vitae habuisse in se naturam vt perpetuaret homini vitam si competentèr ederetur that the tree of life had that vertue in it to perpetuate our life if it were taken competently For man saith he was made mortall and immortall immortall because hee could not die by reason of that immortall food mortall because he might haue died by outward violence But God had so inwardly fortified him by the tree of life and outwardly by his diuine power that hee could not die Againe because hee had shut vp within him the gate of negligence by the vigilance of humane reason outwardly also the gate of violence by the diuine protection insomuch that vnlesse man abusing his reason should open the gate of negligence neuer any harme should enter into him by the gate of violence But because hee was not carefull to keepe the charge committed vnto him God therefore forsooke the custodie and care he had ouer him S. Austine on the contrary side thinketh that the vertue of this tree of life was supernaturall for so he saith in his 8 booke de Gen ad literam cap. 5. That though

infectious quality was naturally produced in our appetite and thence transfused into our wils or supernaturally the first is impossible because sinne had no such naturall force or power in Adam otherwise it should haue had the same effect likewise in all the posterity of Adam which euen our aduersaries doe deny seeing there is no reason why it should bee so auerred of one more then of all Or peraduenture this quality was not produced by naturall means but by supernaturall not by any naturall power of man but by the supernaturall of Almighty God and as some hath aduentured to pronounce ex sola Dëi voluntate meerly by the will of him to whom nothing is impossible cui non est impossibile omne verbum to whose will all doe obey But certainely if wee waigh this answer either in the naturall principles of true philosophy or supernaturall of grace we shall finde the aforesayd position and solution to bee most dissonant to both seeing that both doe euidently demonstrate vnto vs the repugnance and contradiction of this that hee who is the fountaine of all goodnesse or rather goodnesse it selfe should bee the particular and naturall efficient or morall cause of that which is summum malum the greatest euill nothing more distant then summum bonum and summum malum nothing so vnlike in their being so nothing so improportionate in their causalities and effects Wherfore as it is impossible for goodnesse it selfe not to be good so is it no lesse contradiction to the particular cause of euill and consequently seeing that sinne is summum malum the greatest euill possible and seeing likewise of all sinnes this in some sort is the greatest as which is the originall and fountaine of all other actual sinnes as it doth imply contradiction that God should be the particular cause of other actuall sinnes so it doth à fortiori imply the same that he should be in any wise of this originall yea euen natural reason was a sufficient light of this vnto the very Heathen Philosophers So Plato in his second booke De Republica saith Omnibus modis pugnandum est ne Deus qui bonus est dicatur esse malorum causa alioqui secum Deus pugnaret qui suis legibus contrarium fieri mandauit Wee must by all meanes endeauour saith this diuine Philosopher lest God who is altogether good be said to be the cause of euill otherwise God should bee contrary and repugnant vnto himselfe seeing that hee hath commanded the contrary in his lawes whose eyes as Abacuc saith are so dimme Abacuc 1. that they cannot see euill neither can they behold any iniquity Not that really hee doth not perfectly view and comprehend with his all-knowing science the secretest and most hidden and abhominable action or most inward cogitation and that from all eternity euen before it bee conceiued or thought of by the sinner himselfe but he is said not to see it or not to know it scientia approbationis that is he doth not approoue it but reprooue it not allow it but condemne it and in this sense that is to be vnderstood which the Gospell saith shall be pronounced vnto the vnrepenting sinners nescio vos I know you not not that our Sauiour either according to his humanity much lesse in his diuinity was or is ignorant of any good or bad action according to which hee is to reward in his iudgement but that he did not see or know them so as that hee did deeme them as worthy of the diuine knowledge and approbation or of any reward but onely of eternall fire prepared for the Diuell and his Angels Albertus Pighius Catharinus de originali peccato Albertus Pighius and Catharinus flying the inconueniences of the aforesayd opinions fell into another extreame to wit that there was no other originall sinne in Adams posterity then the sinne of Adam by which he first of all then all his discendence were reputed sinners hee inwardly they outwardly and as the Schooles terme it by an outward denomination to wit by Adams sinne inward to Adam imputed onely to them as though it had been really their own and actually committed by them whereas in very deede they had none proper or inherent but Adams onely by imputation not by reall appropriation Which opinion may fitly bee declared by the example of a man who being adopted by a King as his sonne and heire apparant to the Crowne should haue granted vnto him and to his posterity all the priuiledges annexed vnto his adoption and principality but yet with this condition that if this Prince so adopted should commit any treason against his father both he and his posterity should not onely lose the aforesayd titles and priuiledges but also should be accounted traytours vnto the Crowne In which cause although the posterity of this man had not committed any fault in themselues yet were they to be reputed morally as traytours and to haue committed high treason in their head and pregenitor After the same manner as the Doctors of this opinion auerre was the compact made betweene God and our first father Adam so that if hee had not transgressed the commandement of his Creator eating of the forbidden fruit he and his should haue beene translated out of the terrene Paradise vnto the kingdome of heauen But this compact being broken by our first father both he and wee lost our right vnto the blessednesse for which wee were created he in himselfe and we in him Not that as he had inherent in him the spot and blemish of originall sin wee also should haue it but only by an externe denomination as the Diuines terme it because we had really the effects thereof our first father in whom we were all contained had really both the cause effect the sin I meane of disobedience and the priuatiō of originall iustice together with all other effects therupon ensuing This opinion is gathered out of Paul Rom. 5. In whom to wit in Adam all haue sinned as who would say wee had not sinned originally but onely in Adam wee haue not therefore originally sinned in our selues consequently if wee haue not sinned in our selues but only in Adam our sin only is in Adam as it is only by Adam not in our selues as it was not committed by our selues in so much that it may only bee tearmed ours by imputation from our fore-fathers not by reall inhesion in our selues seeing we neuer gaue any consent by our owne willes vnto the foresaid disobedience but as wee were included in Adam as in our head wee are therefore said to be spotted with originall sinne in as much only as hee who was our head and in whose loines we were contained did really commit the said sinne and consequently as the foresaid Doctors inferre originall sinne in vs neither consisteth in any actuall or habituall transgression neither in concupiscence or in the priuation of originall iustice not in the first Vide Augustinum li. 1. retract