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
A70315	Ektenesteron, or, The degrees of ardency in Christs prayer reconciled with his fulnesse of habitval grace in reply to the author of a book, intituled, A mixture of scholastical divinity with practical / by H. Hammond ...	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1656 (1656)	Wing H540; ESTC R14859	26,365	37

nay by parity of reason a cloake or a buttond doublet is absolutely unlawfull by force of 1 Cor. xiv 40. section 33 This being the bottome of those arguments of Amesius I may safely tell Mr J. that they could no otherwise beat either Bishop Morton or Dr J. Burgesse out of the field than that they thought them utterly unworthy their making replies to He that thinkes there is nothing indifferent nothing lawfull the omission of which is not sin doth certainly use other dictonaries than we do discernes no difference betwixt lawfull and necessary and as the Assertors of Fatall production of all things will not allow a cause to be sufficient to produce any effect which it doth not produce and so produce that it cannot not produce it which is to tell me that I sit and walke at the very time when I stand still it being certain that I am equally able to do both those when yet I really do the third onely so he will not allow any thing morally possible which is not morally necessary which is certainly the giving new lawes to words making the word lawfull or possible which was wont to be interpreted that which may or may not be done to signifie onely that which must be done and may not be emitted and not new reasons to confirme old paradexes section 34 This argument of Amesius against things indifferent that learned Bishop was well acquainted with by his familiar conferences with Mr. Lapthorne a vehement disputer against ceremonies and whom the Bishop thought fitter to refute by trifling instances of unbuttoning and buttoning his cass●ck than by more serious attempts of conviction i.e. in plain termes to despise and smile at than to dread and if Mr J. have really read Mr Hooker whom he somwhere intitles our Patrone of ceremonies he may in him remember a discourse of lawes which will supersede all necessity or benefit of my farther inlarging on it section 35 Meane while to the reproch of my great stupidity I willingly acknowledge that it cannot enter into my understanding what sense that text is capable of which with the best possible managery can be taught plainly to condemne all institution of ceremonies in the Church i. e. by what prosyllogismes or supplies or advantages of art this Enthymeme shall be rendred concludent The Apostle commands that all things be done decently and in order Ergo He condemnes all institution of Ceremonies for Gods worship He that can maintain this consequence not onely to be true but as Mr J. affirmes of him plain and evident will be a formidable adversarie indeed much better deserving that title than one whom he knowes not and therefore honours with it section 36 His third and last impression now remaines wherein he undertakes to prove by 3. arguments that custome is not the onely rule of decency and his first argument is because the light and law of nature is also a rule of decency To this I answer that in those things whereof alone he knowes I there speak in the § concerning Vniformity i.e. in things indifferent gestures and other ceremonies in Gods service the Law of Nature is no rule at all and I suppose he cannot think I am sure he pretends not to prove or so much as affirme it is and therefore though not simply in all sorts of things of which I spake not nor can by any rules of discourse be supposed to have spoken yet as to the matters then before me wherein Ecclesiastick Conformity consisted custome and onely custome was the rule of Decency section 37 His second argument is wholly deceitfull and must be discovered to be so by reducing it to rules of art 'T is by him variously formed into two several Syllogismes The first is this Nothing can be undecent which is agreeable to the onely rule of Decency But divers things are undecent which yet can plead custome The conclusion now must be Therefore custome is not the onely rule of decency section 38 But this is no regular Syllogisme 't is in no mood or figure nor readily reducible to any and therefore t was his onely way to presume it evident and never to endeavour any proof thereof section 39 But he hath thought fit to vary this syllogisme and give it in other termes and then one might hope it would be exactly form'd 'T is thus It is impossible that the onely rule of decency should be undecent But yet it is very possible that many customes should be indecent Therefore he shall conclude that custome is not the onely rule of decency section 40 But this is no syllogisme neither being far removed from the measure that Logicians exact and such as by which I will prove any thing true that is the most distant from it For example it is a granted truth that Law is the onely rule of Justice yet this I shall disprove by a syllogisme exactly formed by Mr J. his model Thus It is impossible that the onely rule of justice should be unjust But yet it is very possible that many Laws should be unjust Therefore I shall conclude that Law is not the onely rule of justice section 41 To discover this deceit then the syllogisme which is now no syllogisme must be somewhat better form'd according to the rules of Logick and reduced as near as it can into a true syllogisme Thus Whatsoever is it self undecent cannot be the onely rule of decency But custome is it self undecent Therefore custome cannot be the onely rule of decency Here before it can be defin'd whether this be a regular syllogism or no it must be demanded quanta est minor is the assumption Vniversal or particular If it be particular then either the conclusion must be particular also or else t is a false syllogism And if the conclusion be particular then it infers no more then that some undecent custome cannot be the only rule of decency which is willingly granted by me who do not at all affirm it of undecent customes But if the minor be Vniversal then 't is a false proposition for certainly all customes are not indecent The short is Nature may be the rule of one sort of decency custom the only rule of another yet if the custom be in it self indecent then of such indecent custom it is not pretended that it is either onely or at all the rule of decency And so still my proposition may stand good which as it belonged not to natural decency so much less to what is by Nature or in it self undecent never imagining it reasonable that what gestures were against those Laws of Nature or Scripture or any other Law of decency or rather of natural comliness and honesty should by pretence of any custome whatever be introduced into Gods worship 'T is sufficient that some customes may be decent or in themselves not indecent and that all decency in the service of God is to be regulated and judged of by conformity with them For I said not that

ΕΚΤΕΝΕ'ΣΤΕΡΟΝ OR The Degrees of Ardency IN CHRISTS PRAYER Reconciled with His fulnesse OF HABITVAL GRACE In Reply to the Author of a Book intituled A mixture of Scholastical Divinity with Practical By H. HAMMOND D. D. LONDON Printed for R. ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane 1656. The Degrees of ardency in Christ's Prayer c. § 1 I Was very willing to hearken to the seasonable advice of many and to wholly withdraw my self à foro contentioso to some more pleasing profitable imployment but discerning it to be the desire of the Author of the Book Intituled A mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity that I should reply to his examination of one passage of mine against Mr. Cawdrey I shall make no scruple immediately to obey him not only because it may be done in very few words but especially because the doctrine which he affixeth to mee seems and not without some reason to be contrary to the truth of Scripture which I am to look on with all reverent submission and acquiesce in with captivation of understanding and so not assert any thing from my own conceptions which is but seemingly contrary to it section 2 The proposition which he affixes to mee is this That Christs love of God was capable of farther degrees and that he refutes as being contrary to that point a truth of Scripture which he had in hand viz. The dwelling of all fulness of habituall grace in Christ section 3 By this I suppose I may conclude his meaning to bee that I have affirmed Christs love of God meaning thereby that habituall grace of divine Charity to have been capable of further degrees so as that capacity of further degrees is the denyall of all fulness of that habitual grace already in him section 4 And truly had I thus exprest my self or let fall any words which might have been thus interpretable I acknowledge I had been very injurious not onely to the verity of God but also to my own conceptions and even to the cause which I had in hand which had not been supported but betrayed by any such apprehension of the imperfection of Christs habitual graces section 5 This I could easily shew and withall how cautiously and expresly it was fore-stall'd by mee But to the matter in hand it is sufficient that I professe I never thought it but deem it a contrariety to expresse words of Scripture in any man who shall think it and in short that I never gave occasion to any man to believe it my opinion having never said it in those words which he sets up to refute in mee never in any other that may be reasonably interpretable to that sense section 6 First I said it not in those words which he undertakes to refute These are p. 258. of his Book thus set down by him This point may serve for confutation of a passage in Dr. H. against Mr. C. to wit That Christs love of God was capable of farther degrees section 7 These words I never said nor indeed are they to be found in the Passage which he sets down from mee and whereon he grounds them which saith he is this Dr. H. p. 222. In the next place he passeth to the inforcement of my argument from what we read concerning Christ himself that he was more intense in Prayer at one time than another when yet the lower degree was sure no sin and prepares to make answer to it viz. That Christ was above the Law and did more then the Law required but men fall short by many degrees of what is required But sure this answer is nothing to the matter now in hand for the evidencing of which that example of Christ was brought by mee viz. That sincere Love is capable of degrees This was first shewed in severall men and in the same man at several times in the severall rankes of Angels and at last in Christ himself more ardent in one act of Prayer than in another section 8 Here the Reader findes not the words Christs love of God is capable of further degrees and when by deduction he endeavours to conclude them from these words his conclusion falls short in one word viz. further and 't is but this That the example of Christ will never prove D. H. his conclusion unlesse it inferre that Christs love of God was capable of degrees section 9 This is but a slight charge indeed yet may be worthy to be taken notice of in the entrance though the principal weight of my answer be not laid on it and suggest this seasonable advertisment that he which undertakes to refute any saying of another must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word and syllable Otherwise he may himself become the onely Author of the Proposition which he refutes section 10 The difference is no more than by the addition of the word further But that addition may possibly beger in the Readers understanding a very considerable difference section 11 For this proposition Christs love of God was capable of further degrees is readily interpretable to this dangerous sense that Christs love of God was not ful but so farre imperfect as to be capable of some further degrees than yet it had And thus sure the Author I have now before mee acknowledges to have understood the words and accordingly proposeth to refute them from the consideration of the all-fulness of habitual grace in Christ which he could not doe unlesse he deemed them a prejudice to it section 12 But those other words which though he findes not in my papers he yet not illogically inferres from them that Christs love of God was capable of degrees more intense at one time than at another are not so liable to be thus interpreted but onely import that Christs love of God had in its latitude or amplitude severall degrees one differing from another See magis minus all of them comprehended in that all-full perfect love of God which was alwayes in Christ so full and so perfect as not to want and so not to be capable of further degrees section 13 The Matter is cleare The degrees of which Christs love of God is capable are by me thus exprest that his love was more intense at one time than at another but still the higher of those degrees of intensness was as truly acknowledged to be in Christs love at some time viz. in his agonie as the lower was at 〈◊〉 and so all the degrees which are supposed to be mentioned of his love are also supposed and expresly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other whereas a supposed capacity of further degrees seems at least and so is resolved by that Author to inferre that these degrees were not in Christ the direct contradictorie to the former Proposition and so that they were wanting in him the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured as prejudiciall to Christs fulness Here then was one misadventure in his