Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	punishment_n	sin_n	sin_v	1,923	5	9.5821	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09100	A defence of the censure, gyuen vpon tvvo bookes of william Charke and Meredith Hanmer mynysters, whiche they wrote against M. Edmond Campian preest, of the Societie of Iesus, and against his offer of disputation Taken in hand since the deathe of the sayd M. Campian, and broken of agayne before it could be ended, vpon the causes sett downe in an epistle to M. Charke in the begyninge.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.; Charke, William, d. 1617. Replie to a censure written against the two answers to a Jesuites seditious pamphlet.	1582 (1582)	STC 19401; ESTC S114152	168,574	222

and saye Euerye liuing creature is a man it is false Soe these vvoordes as S. Iohn vttereth them are moste true Euerie sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the lawe but as you vtter them they are false to vvitt that euery iniquitie or transgression of the lawe be it neuer so litle or done vvithout eyther consent or knoulege or by a madde man or brute beast should be properlie a mortall sinne Soe that this first blashemie of the Iesuits cōmeth not to be so haynouse as you vvolde make it but rather to confound your ignorance vvhich vnderstand not so cleare doctrine but hudle vp matters as M. Campian telleth you also to note your vntruthe in misreporting their vvords and the scriptures against them And of this first depend the other tvvo that folovve THE DEFENCE For couering of falshoode in this place M. Charke is constrayned to vse a falshoode or two more according to the sayeing that one lye is not maintayned but by an other things aequiualent sayeth he as for example the definition and the thing defined may be conuerted one mutuallie maye be affirmed of the other as the gospell is the povver of God to saluation And the povver of God to saluation is the gospell And therefore these two woordes also si●ne transgression of the lavve But I denie this consequence for transgression of the lawe is not the definition of sinne as hath bene proued nor is it equall in signification with the same but reacheth further than sinne as the former discourse sheweth And thefore it is but absurdlie brought in againe heere as a thing graunted seing thereof is all the contention Secondlie let M. Charke looke leste he be deceyued whē he sayeth the power of God to saluation is the proper definition of the gospell seing Christ hym selfe whiche notwistandinge is not the gospell but author of the gospell is called by the same woordes in an other place DVNAMIS THEOV that is The povver of god and no doubt but to saluation as M. Charke will not denie VVherfore though it import not our matter at all yet I thinke M. Charke was somewhat grosselie ouerseene in choyse of this example After this for some countenance of his fraudulent transposition he sayeth as for the transposition lett the Apostles vvoordes be marked sayeing God is a spirit Yet the vvoordes lye thus in the greeke text a spirit is God VVherfore let not transposition seeme straunge to you No more it doeth M. Charke in common speeche and in a tongue that will beare it as the latin and greek doeth But when we measure the weight of woordes or propositions and that in oure English tongue as in our matter it falleth out trāspositions are fraudulēt as in the verie example whiche you alleage a spirit is God if you wolde inferre therof ergo euerie spirit is God as you inferre that euery transgression of the lavve is synne you should easilie see your owne falsehood For Angels also are spirits as the scripture sayeth and yet not Goddes And heere for my learning I wolde know of you Sir in what tongue the Apostle sayeth God is a spirit different from which you say the greek hath a spirit is God surelye M. Chark you are ouer bolde in your auouchements of the script●re For not onelie the greeke but also the latin and Syriak hathe Spiritus est deus and therfore bothe fondlie and falsely doe you attribute it as peculiar onelie to the greeke But M. Charke reserueth a sure carde for the end therewith to dashe all that hath bene sayd before and that is the sentence of S. Iohn afterward omnis iniquitas est peccatum all iniquitie or transgression sayeth he is sinne VVhich seemeth so plaine against me as he greatlie insulteth and triumpheth affirming that the victorie by this one sentēce is gotten but beleeue hym not good reader for he thinketh not so in his owne cōscience but well knoweth that this sentence maketh greatlie against hym thoughe he wolde deceyue thee with the bare sound and equiuocation of woordes For in the former sentence where is sayd sinne is iniquitie S. Iohn vseth for the woord iniquitie ANOMIA in greeke which signifieth any transgression or variance from the law● be it great or litle as hath bene proued and as the nature of the greeke woord importeth in which sense it is most true that euerie iniquitie is not sinne as I haue shewed as S. Augustin proueth of verie purpose l. 2. cont Iul. pela c. 5. And alleageth also S. Ambrose in the same opinion as also Methodius apud Epiphanium her 64. quae est Origenis And S. Augustin proueth it in many other places besides shewing in our verie case how concupiscence is iniquitie in the regenerat but yet no sinne And this for the first place Now in the second place where the same Apostle sayeth euerye iniquitie is sinne he vseth not the same generall woorde ANOMIA VVhiche he vsed before but ADICIA which is a more speciall woorde and signifieth an iniustice or iniurie as the philosopher sheweth assigning it as the contrarie to Iustice and therfore no maruaile though this kinde of iniquitie be sinne as S. Iohn sayth yea great sinne also for of such onelie S. Iohn talketh in that place sayeing there is a sinne to death I doe not saye that any man should aske for that all iniquitie is synne c. whereby is euydent that the Apostle taketh not iniquitie in this place expressed by the woord ADICIA in the same sense wherein he tooke it before vsing the woord ANOMIA VVhiche M. Charke well knoweing sheweth hym selfe a willfull deceyuer in that he wolde delude his reader with the equiuocation of the latin translation which at other times he reiecteth withoute cause or reason Lastlie he chargeth me with alteration of the text of scripture for translating omnis qui facit peccatum euerie one that sinneth where I should haue translated sayth he euery one that doeth sinne This is a charge woorthie of M. Charke that will playe small game rather than sytt owt I praye you sir what difference is there in the two phrases your vvyfe spinneth and your vvyfe doeth spinne But you cōfesse in deede there is litle holde in this and therefore freendlie you doe pardon me for it and doe conclude sayeing you think perhaps to serue the Lorde in your opinion and I knovv I serue the Lorde You are happie that haue so certaine knowlege of your good estate M. Charke though to vtter it in this place I doe not see what occasion you had But I praye you let me learne how you came to this knowlege Not by Aristotles demōstrations I am sure which yett are the onelie means of certaine science properlie How then by fayth but you know that faith can assure nothing whiche is not reuealed by the woorde of God VVhat parte of gods woorde then teacheth vs that william Charke in particular serueth the Lorde

Augustin hath written but one booke of this matter I wolde gyue a good thing that I were by you whyle you reade this to see whether you can blushe or no. But yet I call backe my wishe agayne For I thinke you wolde make me more a fearde than I you a shamed for that your Purseuantes are stronger than our argumentes And this is but concerning the quotation of S. Augustin for about the text it selfe M. Charks behauioure is a great deale worse and suche in verie deede as yf a man had care of his owne sowle he wolde neuer trust suche a felow more that against all honestie trueth shame and respect bothe of conscience ●redit falsifieth so learned a fathers writinges against his plaine and euident woordes and meaning For whereas S. Augustin alleaged by the Censure in many places else of his woorkes sayeth auoucheth confirmeth and proueth that Concupiscentia iam non est peccatum quando ●lli ad illicita opera non consentitur concupiscens nowe in the regenerate is not sinne when consent of mynde is not yeelded to vnlaufull woorks M. Chark answereth S. Augustins place is expounded by him selfe afterward sayeing Cōcupiscence is not so for gyuen in baptisme that it is not synne but that it is not imputed as synne this seemeth plaine and Augustin appeareth contrarie to hym selfe But what is the principall woorde in this sentence that maketh moste for M. Charke The word Synne you will say for that being taken away in the former clause the sentence maketh quite against hym VVell then that woorde hathe he added of hym selfe and yet hathe corrupted the whole sentēce besides For S. Augustines woordes are these quaeritur c. si in parente baptizato potest esse concupiscentia peccatum non esse cur eadem ipsae in prole peccatum sit The question is sayth S. Augustin whie this concupiscence is sinne in the childe before it be baptized yf it be no sinne in the parent nowe baptized heere you see by the way that it is holden as a matter out of doubt that concupiscence is no sinne in the parent whiche is baptized and the reason S. Augustin yeedelth immediatlie in the answer sayeing Ad haec respondetur dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo non vt non si● sed vt in peccatum nō impute●ur quamuis reatu suo iam soluto manet tamē c. To this is answered that the cōcupiscence of the fleshe is forgeuen in baptisme not that it is not or remayneth not but that it is not imputed into sinne Yt remaneth still though the guylt be taken awaye Heere now we see that S. Augustin affirmeth onelie that concupiscence is not quite taken awaye by baptisme but yet the guilt thereof is so that it is no more imputed into the nature of a sinne The cause whie it is left he vttereth in diuers places as when he sayeth ad agonem manet non sibi ad illicita consentientibus nihil omnino nocitura Concupiscence remaneth to fight withall but yet in such sort as it can hurt vs nothing at all yf we cōsent not to her vnlaufull suggestiōs Secondlie we see that S. Augustin in this verie place proueth directlie our verie position that concupiscence in the baptized is not sinne also that it hath no guilt and that it doeth hurt nothing vvithout consent vvherby M. Charkes lacke of Iudgement and shame may be noted in bringing this place of all others against vs adding that hovv soeuer the Iesuits distinguish yet these sinnes the first motions of concupiscence ●vhich by the Iesuits doctrine are so called figuratiuelie except vve fynde mercie vvill fynde no figuratiue condemnation Thyrdlie vve may beholde and lament the pityfull desperate resolutiō of our aduersaries whoe seing and knoweing their owne vveaknes yet to couer their miserie dare abuse forge and falsifie playne authorities as in this place this shamelesse creature hath done in so many points For first vvhere as S. Augustin sayeth Concupiscence is forgyuen in baptisme he translateth concupiscence is not so forgyuen in baptisme Secondlie vvhere as S. Augustine saythe it is forgyuen not that it be not or remaine not he trāslateth not that it is not sinne Thirdlie for imputed into synne he trāslateth imputed as sinne Fowerthlie he cutteth of the woordes immediatlie goeing before where S. Augustin sayeth concupiscence in the paren● baptized is no synne as also the voordes immediatlie foloweing and affirming that concupiscence remayneth but vvithout guilt and consequentlie can not be sinne Hathe this man anye conscience any trueth any good meaning any sparke of grace seeketh he to instruct or to deceyue to proue and defend or to couer dissemble Is this he whiche protested suche sinceritie in his dealing as before God and Angels is this the credit of a puritane protestant O how miserable are those people whiche hange their soules vpon the trust of such dissēbling and deceyuing men And this for the fyrst place cited by M. Charke for his sentence of S. Augustin for he citeth two chapiters in one booke the first thereof hath as you haue seene the other hath no one woorde tendinge that waye but cleane to the contrarie For S. Augustin layeth downe proueth our position of purpose in muche more ample and vehement maner than I can against M Charke and sheweth it also by examples how the Apostle called concupiscence sinne improperlie vocatur peccatum quia peccato facta est cum iam in regeneratis non sit ipsa peccatum Si autem vocatur lingua locutio quam facit lingua manus vocatur scriptura quam facit manus Concupiscence is called sinne because it is made in vs by originall sinne whereas it selfe is not sinne now in the regenerate euen as the speeche whiche the tongue maketh is called the tongue and the writinge whiche the hand maketh is called the hand The verie same hath S. Augustin against Iulian the pelagian towching S. Pauls calling of concupiscence sinne whiche in deede properlie is no sinne except consent be yeelded thervnto as there S. Augustin proueth by the woordes of Paul hym selfe VVherfore M. Charke doeth fraudulentlie alleage his woords against the same Iulian to proue that all concupiscence is sinne For S. Augustin sayeth onelie of concupiscence in generall that it is synne and the punishement of synne and the cause of synne whiche is true of concupiscence in generall as it comprehendeth all her braunches and all estates of men for concupiscence is the punishement of sinne in all men In them that gyue consent it is the cause of sinne in them that are not baptized it is sinne it selfe whether they gyue consent or no. But yet is it not nedefull that all these points should be verified in euerye particular braunche of concupiscence as for example Manslaughter in generall comprehendeth murder chaunce medley execution by Iustice and the like and in respect of these braunches a man may say

truelie manslaughter is vvicked and prohibited by god● lavve And againe manslaughter is good and commended by gods lavve for bothe these are verified in some of her braunches So in respect of diuerse braunches of concupiscence S. Augustin might saye concupiscence is synne the punishement of synne and the cause of synne But yet this is not true in euerie particular braunche of concupifcence and namelie of that braunche we now dispute of that is of concupiscence in the regenerat without consent as a man can not saye that euerye manslaughter is good nor that euerie manslaughter is euill And the cause why S. Augustin vsed this sentence against Iulian was for that Iulian dyd prayse concupiscence as a thing commendable for that it was a punishement of God sor sinne But S Augustin refuteth that sheweing that concupiscence in generall is not onelie a punishement for synne but sometimes also and in some ●ē it is sinne it selfe the cause of sinne thersore an euill thinge though no sinne without consent For so he sayeth against the same Iulian. Quantum ad nos attinet sine peccato sen per essemus donec sanaretur hoc malū si ei n●nquam consentiremus ad malum sed in quibus ab illo rebellame e●si non lethaliter sed venialiter tamen vincimur in hiis contrahimus vnde quotidie dicamus Dimitte nobis debita nostra ● As for vs that are baptized we might be allwayes without sinne vntill that day when this euill cōcupiscēce shall be healed that is in heauē yf we wolde not consent vnto yt to euill But in these things wherein we are ouercome by this rebelliouse concupiscence veniallie at least though not mortallie by these I saye we geather matter daylie to saye forgyue vs our trespasses Heere Loe S. Augustin proueth concupiscence to be euill against the pelagian yet not to be sinne without consent against the protestant Thyrdlie that accordinge to the mesure or degree of cōsent yeelded it may be ether veniall or mortall sinne against M. Charke a litle before obstinatlie denyeinge this distinction of sinnes And finallie S Augustin doeth not onelie proue this our p●sition purposelye in almoste infinite other places of his woorkes but also in his second booke against Iulian doeth confirme it by the vniforme consent of other fathers of the Churche as of S. Ambrose Nazianzen and others VVhat then shall we say but onelye pittie william Charke whiche fyndeth Augustin the doctor as hard against hym in all pointes as Augustin the monke The woordes of Christ alleaged by you to ouerthrow our position to witt euerie one that shall see a vvoman to lust after her hathe novv committed adulterie vvith her in his hart are truelie sayd of the Censure to be alleaged by you bothe ignorantlie against your selfe Fyrst for that the woorde hart there expressed importeth a consent without whiche nothing defileth a man as may be gathered by Christ his owne woordes in an other place sayeing that the things which defile a man doe procede frō the hart Secondlie for that the woordes import a voluntarie looking vppon vvomen to that ende to be inflamed with lust as bothe the latin muche more the greeke and Syriake textes insinuate and S. Chrisostom interpreteth hom 8. de poenitentia as S. Augustin also expoundeth them sayeinge qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendam eam id est hoc fine hoc animo attenderit vt eam concupiscat quod est plene consentire libidini He that shall see a woman to lust after her that is shall looke vpon her to this end and with this mynde to lust after her which is in deede fullie to consent vnto the lust Now what replieth Sir william to all this surelie nothing but maketh along idle speake of praedicatum subiectum as pertinent to the matter as charing crosse to byllingsgate And in the end to quite the Lorde as he saythe moste carefullie from synne he alleageth S. Iames sayeing that God tempteth no man but euerie man is tempted dravven and allured by his ovvne concupiscence and then concupiscence vvhen it hathe conceyued bringeth furth synne But what is this against vs Doe we charge God with this sinne of cōcupiscence when we denie it to be sinne at all except onelie when a man consenteth to it or rather doe you charge God withe it when you affirme it to be sinne as it is of nature without consent are we or you they that make God author of sinne is not Caluin condemned of our churche for this impretie a doeth he not holde that God is author of sinne in diuers places of his woorkes b Doeth he not condemne S. Augustin by name for holdinge the contrarie c Doeth not Peter Martyr his scholer holde the same How then talke you of quitting carefullie the Lorde from synne as though he were charged or accused therof by vs what hypocrisie what dissimulation what falshode is this in you Now the place of S. Iames as commonlie all other thinges that yow alleage maketh singularlie against your selfe Heare S. Augustins exposition argument whiche proueth our position out of the same woordes Cum dicit apostolus Iacobus vnusquisque tentatur a concupiscentia sua abstractus illectus deinde concupiscentia cum cònceperit parit peccatum profecto in hiis verbis partus a pariente discernitur Pariens enim est concupiscentia partus peccatum Sed concupiscentia non parit nisi conceperit non concipit nisi illexerit hoc est ad malum perpetrandum obtinuerit volentis assensum VVhen the apostle Iames sayeth euery one is tempted drawen awaye and Intised by his owne concupiscence afterward concupiscence when it hathe conceyued bringeth furthe sinne surelie in these woordes the childe is distinguished from the mother the mother that beareth is concupiscence the childe borne is sinne But concupiscence beareth not except she conceyue and she conceyueth not except she obtaine the consent of hym which is willing to doe euill Now goe M. Charke and acquite your selfe of grosse follie and ignorance whereof you are conuicted which wolde so carefullie quitte the Lorde of that wherewith we neuer meant to charge hym Of the first motions of concupiscence THE CENSVRE Thyrdlie you reporte the Iesuits to saye That the first motiōs of lust are without hurt of sinne Cēs 54. 89. It is moste true and playne as they delyuer it but you by clipping their vvoords make euerie thing to seeme a paradoxe They say the first motions of lust yf they come of naturall instinct only vvithout any cause gyuen by vs are no sinnes so long as vve geue no consen● of hart vnto them And the reason is because it lyeth not in vs they being naturall to prohibit them to come no more than it dothe to prohibit our pulse from beating And therfore seing no sinne can be cōmitted vvithout our vvill consent of har● as I haue shevved before the first motions