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
A12482	An answer to Thomas Bels late challeng named by him The dovvnfal of popery wherin al his arguments are answered, his manifold vntruths, slaunders, ignorance, contradictions, and corruption of Scripture, & Fathers discouered and disproued: with one table of the articles and chapter, and an other of the more markable things conteyned in this booke. VVhat controuersies be here handled is declared in the next page. By S.R.	Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.	1605 (1605)	STC 22809; ESTC S110779	275,199	548

absurdity is it more then for a body to be in twoe places for that being once done one may carry him self as wel as an other As the soule because it is in al parts of the body as it is in the legges carrieth it selfe as it is in the body The second absurdity is that Christ at his last supper was both liuing and dead But this followeth not for he was a liue in the Sacrament though there he shewed no acts of life and as long as he is a liue according to his natural being he is neuer dead in the sacrament because his sacramental being is a memorial of his natural being representing and depending of it 2. The third absurdity is that Christ was both visible and inuisible Nether doth this follow For though he were inuisible in the Sacrament yet it is not true to say absolutely he was inuisible because he was there visible in his proper forme But that he was visible in his proper forme and inuisible in Math. 29. Mar. 16. Luc. 20. Ioan. 20. 21. the sacrament is no more absurd then that after his resurrection he was visible to the Apostles and inuisible to the Iewes visible to S. Paul and not to his Companions Act. 9. v. 7. Willet saith that S. Paul did see VVillet Cōtrou 4. q. 3. p. 11● no man But we wil rather beleue Ananias saying that Christ appeared to him in the way Act. 9. v. 17. The fourth absurdity is that Christ was at his supper long and short broad and narrow light and heauy But rather these follow for what length bredth or weight Christ had in his proper forme the same he had in the sacrament albeit it had not there the like effects of filling roome or weighing as nether he had when he was Math. 14. Marc. 6. Ioan. 6. borne and walked vpon the Sea 3. The fift is that Christ was a sacrifice for our sins before he dyed for vs. This which Bel condemneth of impiety we haue before proued it out of Scripture to be certayne verity for such the holy Fathers auouch it let Bel heare one or twoe for al. S. Gregory Nissen orat 1. de Resurrect Christ offereth S. Gregor Nissen him self an oblation and hoste for vs being both the Priest and the lamb of God VVhen was this when he gaue his body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk to his disciples For it is manifest to euery one that man can not eate of a sheepe vnles slaughtering goe before eating Seing therfore he gaue his disciples his body to be eaten he euidently shewed that the sacrifizing was already perfect and absolute S. Chrisostome also hom de S. Chrysostom proditione Iudae tom 3. saith On that table was celebrated both Paschaes of the figure and of the verity Againe Iudas was present and partaked of that sacrifice And the Fathers are so playne for this matter as Kemnitius confesseth Kemnitius they vsually say that Christs body and blood was at this supper a sacrifice an oblation an hoste and victime and he could not escape their authorities but by casting of a figure 4. The Sixt and last absurdity or impietie which Bel inferreth is that al Christs sacrifice at his supper was imperfect or at his passion needles But nether this followeth For Christs sacrifice at his supper was a most perfect vnbloodly sacrifice according to the order of Melchisedech and yet his sacrifice on the crosse was needful as the peculier price which God exacted at his handes for the redemption of the world that Hebr. 2. v. 15. as the apostle saith by death he might destroy him who had the Empier of death For albeit not only Christs whole body and blood in the Eucharist but euen the least drop of his blood had been a sufficient sacrifice to redeeme the whole world neuertheles God partly to shew his great hatred towards sinne wherof Christ bore the punishment partly to manifest his infinite loue towards man kinde for whose saluation he would not spare the life of his only sonne partly for many other causes exacted of Christ the superaboundant price and ransome of his bloody sacrifice on the crosse But let vs heare how Bel disproueth this 5. He citeth fowre places out of S. Paule Heb 9. and 10. to proue that one oblation of the crosse was sufficient to take away al sinns in the world and that by it once made we are made holy and after it once donne Christ sitteth at the right hand of God But what is this to the purpose For we affirme not Christ to haue offered sacrifice at his last supper because his sacrifice on the Crosse was not sufficient or we not made holy by it but because the scripture and fathers teach so and Christ therby executed the function of his priesthood accordinge to the order of Melchisedech and applyed vnto his apostles the vertue of his bloody sacrifice as he applyeth it vnto vs by the dayly sacrifice of the Masse and did not make perfect and consummate his bloody sacrifice as Bel falsly chardgeth vs to thinke As Bellarmin whom onely I cite because Bel accounteth his testimony most sufficient sheweth at lardge lib. 1. de Missa cap. 25. Wher also he answereth Bels arguments But he should do wel to obiect the aforesaid wordes of S. Paul against Caluin blaspheminge lib. 1. instit 16. num 8. 10. That nothinge had been done for vs if Christ Caluin 2. instit c. 16. paragr 10. had only suffered corporal death but we needed a greater and more excellent price For this is plainly to say that the oblation of Christs body once was not sufficient nor that Christ perfected al by one oblation which is expresly against S. Paule Hebr. 10. v. 10. Hebr. 12. 14. And thus much for Bels second argument against the Masse 6. The third is this The Eucharist is a testament Bel p. 24. ergo either no sacrifice at al or of no valew before the testators death because S. Paule Hebr. 9. Hebr. v. 17. denieth a testament to be of force before the testators death Answer The Antecedent we grant with S. Luke 22. v. 20. though Bel him selfe deny it soone after The consequence we deny for as the blood of calues wher with the old testament was confirmed was both the peoples sacrifice to God and his testament to them as appeareth Heb. 9. 20. and Exod. 24. v. 8. so Christs blood at his supper was both his sacrifice to his father and his testament to his apostles And as a sacrifice it tooke effecte immediatly because a sacrifice is an absolute gifte made to God dependinge of no condition to come as the sacrifice of Abel and Noe Gen. 4. 8. pleased god immediatly But as a testament it was not of force til as S. Paule saith it Hebr. 9. v. 17. was confirmed by death because a testament is a deed of gift not absolute but vpō condition that

calleth it iniquity and lib. 1. de nupt concupisc cap. 27. filthy and vnlavvful Hence Bel pag. 53. inferreth inuoluntary More required to formal sinne then to euil concupiscence to be formal and proper sinne but he is far deceaued For formal sinne beside euil and vnlawfulnes requiteth voluntarines as I shal hereafter proue and is euident in fooles and beasts who though they haue these inuoluntary acts are no formal sinners 5. Fourth Conclusion whensoeuer it is any way voluntary ether in it self or in any needles cause therof it is formally sinne This is euident because then it hath the whole essence or definition of sinne for it is a voluntary act against Gods law or right reason I say needles cause because if the cause be necessary or honest it excuseth the actual concupiscence following therof from fault 6. Fift Conclusion Habitual and actual Al Concupiscence may be called sinne vvhy Concupiscence whatsoeuer euen in the regenerate may be called sinne This is manifest out of that which hath bene said in the 2 and ● conclusion For ether it is voluntary and then it is formal sinne properly so called or though it be vn voluntary it is the cause effect punishment or material part of sinne and any of these reasons suffice to make it figuratiuely be called sinne And they al are taken out of S. Austin For 1. de nupt concup c. 23. he saith Concupiscence may be called sinne because it is the effect of sinne as writing is called a hand And in the same place because it is the cause of sinne as coldnes is called sluggish because it maketh sluggish Likwise 1. Retract c. 15. he calleth it sinne because it is the punishment therof So Zachar vlt. v. 19. punishment of sinne is called sinne And finally lib. 5. cont Iulian. c. 3. he calleth actual concupiscence sinne because it is a disorderly act and it wanteth nothing of sinne but voluntarines and therfore may as wel be called sinne as a dead body is called a man And who wel remembreth what is said in these fiue Conclusions need no more to answer al Bels arguments For as we shal see he proueth no more then they containe 7. Sixt Conclusion Actual concupiscence Actual Cōcupiscence if inuoluntary is no formal sinne whensoeuer it is inuoluntary is no formal or proper sinne or offence to God This is against Bel in this whole Article But I proue it First because some acts of Concupiscence be but temptatiōs to sinne and are before sinne be brought forth Ergo such are no formal sinne The consequence is euident For what is but tentation to sinne and goeth before sinne be is no proper sinne The Antecedent I proue out of S. Iames saying Euery one is tempted by his Concupiscence S. Iames c. 1. v. 14. 15. See S. Austin lib. 6. cont Iul. cap. 15. to 7. behold an act but a tempting of vs to sinne aftervvard vvhen concupiscence hath conceaued it bringeth forth sinne behold also an act of Concupiscence going before sinne be brought forth Willet saith nothing to VVillet controuers 17. q. 1. p. 558. the first part of tentation but to the second of bringing forth he answereth That it follovveth not Concupiscence to be no sinne because it bringeeh forth sinne because one viper may bring forth an other But we infer not Concupiscence to be no sinne because it bringeth forth sinne for we wel know that one sinne may bring forth an other but we gather that that act of Cōcupiscence which S. Iames tearmeth conceauing of sinne is no sinne because he affirmeth it to go before the bringing forth of sinne in saying Aftervvard vvhen Concupiscence hath conceaued it bringeth forth sinne and this could not be if it were sinne it self Caluin answereth this Caluin lib. 3. instit c. 3. paragr 13. Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss grat stat peccat c. 7. argument otherwaies whom Bellarmin confureth 8. Secondly because whiles a man with the minde serueth the law of God he can not by sinne serue the dyuel But S. Paul euen when he had inuoluntary motions of concupiscence serued with the minde the law of God Therfore then he sinned not The Proposition is euident by the saying S. Math. 6. v. 24. S. Paul of Christ None can at once serue tvvo maisters The assumption S. Paul testifieth Roman 7. v. 25. saying I my self vvith the minde serue the lavv of God but vvith the flesh the lavv of sinne 9. Thirdly nothing inuoluntary or done against our wil is sinne diuers acts of Concupiscence be such Ergo no sinne Bel Bel pag. 50. Perkins refor Cath. tit Of original sinne wold gladly as some of his fellowes do deny the proposition and therfore streight after he had propounded the argument telleth vs though falsly that S. Austin proueth inuoluntary motions to be sinne indeed and towards the end of this Article auoucheth a man to be guilty of sinne in that pag. 57. vvhich he doth against his vvil and can not auoid yet at last resolueth rather to deny the Assumption pag. 51. wherfore I proue them both The proposition I proue out of that very place of S. Austin which Bel citeth to the S. Augustin to 1. contrary Sin saith he 1. Retract c. 13. is so far forth voluntary euil as it is no vvay sinne if it be not voluntary And this saith he lib. de vera relig c. 14. is so manifest as nether the fevvnes of learned no● the multitude of vnlearned doth deny it And wil Bel now deny that which in S. Austins tyme nether learned nor vnlearned would deny Now let the 46. vntruth Reader iudge with what face Bel affirmed that S. Austin in the foresaid place 1. Retract proueth inuoluntary Concupiscence to be sinne where he most manifestly affirmeth nothing to be any way sinne if it be not voluntary and therupon laboreth to shew original sinne in infants to be some way voluntary And in an other place he S. Augustin lib. de duab animab c. 1● tom 6. 1. Retract c. 23. to 1. S. Hierom. auoucheth it to be high iniustice and madnes that a man shold be guilty of sinne because he did not that which he could not do And S. Hierom. epist ad Damas de exposit fid Accurseth their blasphemy vvho say that God hath commanded any impossible thing as no doubt he hath if we sinne in that which we can not auoid See him dialog cont Pelag. S. Chrisostom S. Chrysost tom 4. S. Prosper S. Augustin tom 10. Tom. 7. hom 13 ad Rom. Prosper de vita contempl c. 4. S. Austin serm 61. de temp de nat grat c. 69. in psal 56. and others By reason also it is manifest For if inuoluntary acts done against our wil be true sins much more the acts of fooles and mad men yea of beasts which are not done against wil but only without wil and they true malefactors and sinners before

like a●prating petty-fogger cryeth lowdest when he hath lest proofs CHAP. III. Bels arguments out of S. Austin touching Concupiscence ansvvered THE first place he alleadgeth out of S. Bel pag. 45. Austin is tom 7. l. 6. contr Iulian. c. 3. where he writeth As blindnes of hart is sinne punishment of sinne and cause of sinne So cōcupiscence of the flesh is sinne punishment and cause of sinne Answer S. Austin compareth concupiscence with blindnes of hart in the material disorder of sinne For as sinne is against the rule of reason so disordinate lust not in formality of sinne Nether say I this only but can proue it And omitting that other where he Lib. de Spir. ●it c. vlt. l. 1. de nupt concup c. 23. l. 1. con duas epist Pelag. c. 13. plainly auoucheth it to be no formal sinne as is before shewed I proue it first by his reason where with he proueth it to be sinne vz because it is disobedient to the rule of reason which conuinceth it to be material sinne and a disorderly and euil thing but not to be formally sinne for want of voluntarines which him selfe necessarily requireth to formal sinne as is before shewed Secondly because it sufficed to S. Austin to ●ap 1. parag 9. proue concupiscence to be material sinne for to disproue Iulian the Pelagian against whom he there disputed who taught as S. Austin there and other where testifyeth Lib. de nupt concup c. 34. to 7. l. 6. cont Iul. ● ●● that it was laudable good against whom he there proueth by the example of blindnes of hart that it was not only punishment and cause of sinne but also sinne that is naught euil and disorderly because it is against the rule of reason which is to be sinne materially though it want the forme of sinne which is voluntarines 2. Next he bringeth these words Some Bel pag. 46. iniquity is in man when the inferior parts do stubbernly S. Augustin tom 7. striue against the superior albeit they be not suffered to ouercome And quoteth for them l. 6. contr Iulian c. 8. as he found it through the Printers error falsly quoted in Bellarm Bellarm. l. 3. de amiss grat stat pec c. 9. Bels chalēg nothing but Bellarmins obiections Sup. c. 1. parag 3. 4. but they are l. 6. c. 19 which added to that that almost al he saith is found in Bellarmin conuinceth that he made this boasting challenge out of his obiections As for S. Austin his meaning when he calleth concupiscēce iniquity is sufficiently explicated before And the very word Some argueth that he thinketh it not to be formal sinne but in some sort vz materially Besides that him selfe l. 2. contr Iulian c. 5. expoundeth the like words out of S. Ambrose of no sinful iniquity 3. The third place cited by Bel is l. 1. de pag. 46. nupt concupis c. 25. where S. Austin S. Augustin tom 7. writeth If concupiscence can both be in the baptized parent and be no sinne vvhy is the selfe same no sinne in the child To this I ansvver saith S. Austin That concupiscence is not so forgiuen in baptisme that it is no more but that it is no more imputed to sinne Item There remaineth not any thing vvhich is not remitted Wherupon Bel inferreth both that concupiscence is formal sinne els it need not be forgiuen that it is true sinne as wel after baptisme as before though it be not imputed to sinne after baptisme and biddeth vs mark that S. Austin said not Nothing is sinne that remaineth or no sinne remaineth but not any thing remaineth vvhich is not remitted Answer The forme VVhat is the essence of habitual sinne Cap. ●● essence of habitual sinne is the guilt of actual sinne before done according to S. Austin in the same book and next chapter as the forme of habitual sinne of adultery is the guilt of actual adultery before committed the forme of that habitual sinne which we haue by origin is the guilt of Adams actual eating the Aple which guilt Hovv Concupiscence needeth for giuenes being annexed to Concupiscence maketh it formal sinne and to require forgiuenes but that guilt being taken away by Gods forgiuing the sinne as the same holy Doctor teacheth in the same place and lib. 6. S. Austin contr Iulian. c. 17. and lib. 1. Retract c 13 Concupiscence need no more forgiuenes as the same B. Saint writeth lib. de spirit To. 3. 1. lib. 1. contr duas epist Pelag. c. 13. lit c. vlt. and epist 200. Nor remaineth any more true sinne more then the body remaineth a man after the soule is departed And in this very place which Bel citeth when he asketh why Concupiscence is sinne in the childe if it be in the parent baptized and be no sinne in him euidently supposeth that it is no true sinne in the baptized 4. As for that of not imputing sinne what S. Austin meant therby we wil rather VVhat no● imputing of sinne is vvith S. Austin learne of himself then of Bel he therfore in the very words which Bel citeth hauing asked why Concupiscence is not sinne mark Bel in the parent baptized as wel as in the childe vnbaptized answered that by baptisme non imputatur None but an infidel vvil say sinne is not ta●ē avvay in baptisme S. August l. 1. cont duas epist Pelag. c. 13. to 7. in peccatum it is not imputed for sinne In which answer vnles he did by not imputing for sinne meane making no sinne he had not answered the question why Concupiscence was no sinne in the baptized parent Therfore with him Concupiscence not to be imputed to or for sinne is to be made no sinne And cap. 32. he saith that Concupiscence to be imputed is to haue the guilt vz of Adams actual sinne which it hath with it and consequently to be not imputed is to haue this guilt taken away but to haue no guilt is to haue no sinne as him self saith c. 26. therfore with him Concupiscence to be not imputed is to be made no sinne Nether indeed can God otherwise not impute sinne but by taking it away For his iudgment is according to truth Rom. 2. v. 2. and therfore if ther be sinne S. Paul in vs he must needs impure it to vs and account vs sinners els he shold not accoūt vs as we are and according to truth And albeit S. Austin did not in this place say in plaine tearms Nothing is sinne that remaineth or No sinne remaineth yet he manifestly supposed the first when he asked why concupiscence is not sinne mark Bel as wel in parents baptized as in the child affirmed them both in equiualent tearms when he answered that by not imputation concupiscence became no sinne in the baptized as is already shewed And otherwhere plainly affirmeth That al sinnes are forgiuen in baptisme and S. Austin

God and men which I think none but a madde man wil graunt And I doubt not but Bel would think him self vniustly executed if he were put to death for a thing done against his wil and which he labored al he could to hinder 10. The Assumption I proue because if If Concupiscence be not some tymes inuoluntary nothing is inuoluntary that be not inuoluntary wherof we giue no occasion nor consent vnto yea detest and hinder al we can as it hapneth oftentymes in the motions of Concupiscence I can not see what can be inuoluntary vnto vs. And if they be Papists as Bel tearmeth them pag. 51. who cal such acts of Concupiscence S. Paul S Augustin serm 43. de verb. Dom. See serm 3. 5. and 12. de verb. Apost Bel a Papist by his ovvn iudgment inuoluntary A Papist is S. Paul saying Rom. 7. v. 19. I do the euil which I vvil not And S. Austin when he saith I vvil not that Cōcupiscence couet we wold ther were no Cōcupiscences but wil we nil we we haue them Yea Bel him self no les then they thrice in this Article pag. 50. 51. and 57. in plaine termes calleth these motions inuoluntary 11. But to this argument he answereth Bel pag. 51. That they be voluntary in their origin and therto citeth S. Austin affirming original sinne of S. Austin 1. retract c. 13. tom 1. infants to be voluntary in their origin and calleth this the Gordion knot which Papists can neuer vntie and so clear and euident a solution of the argument as euery child may behold the weaknes falshood and absurditie therof But Bel is ignorant VVhat is to be voluntary in the origen what it is to be voluntary in the origen For this is nothing els but to be willed of him from whom we took our origin and whose wil is accounted ours As original sinne is voluntary to infants in their origin because it was willed of Adam in the eating of the forbidden Aple and his wil was in that fact accounted theirs And this ment S. Austin loc cit But as for actual motions 1. Retract c. 13. to 1. of concupiscence he neuer said they were voluntaty to vs in their origin nether can VVhy inuoluntary motions are not voluntary in their origen S. Gregory they both because Adam had no wil of cōmitting these acts as he had of leesing original iustice in eating the Aple as also because his wil was not accounted ours in any other act then in his keeping or first leesing of original iustice Besides as S. Gregory writeth l. 15. moral c. 22. Original sinne being blotted out children are not held by the iniquity of parents and therfore Adams wil can not make those acts in the regenerate to be sinne which of their nature are none 12. And though the forsaid motiōs were Inuoluntary motions though they vvere voluntary in their origen could be no sinne voluntary in their origen yet could they be nether original nor actual sinne Not original because they are acts and not common alike to al Nor actual because they haue no actual wil of the doer and as voluntary in general is essential to sinne in general so is actual voluntary to actual sinne Yea for an act now done to be formal sinne when it is done sufficeth not that it was actually voluntary in the cause done long ago if now it be against wil. For albeit when I gaue cause of an vnlawful effect which I did see wold after ensue I was guilty of the effect when I did the cause yet if after the cause done I repent be sory before the effect follow I do not sinne a new in the effect As if by some thing yesterday done I gaue occasiō that disordinate motiōs rise to day though I was then guilty of these motions rising yet if I since repented I do not sinne a new when they rise now against my wil. Els I should against my wil leese that grace which I got by repentance Wherfore wel wrote S. Gregory to S. Austin our Apostle S. Gregory epist ad Augustin Cant. c. 10. Oftentymes it is done without fault which cōmeth of fault And much les should inuoluntary motions be sinnes in vs though they were originally voluntary vnto vs only by the wil of an other Thus is this Gordion knot two waies vntyed But him selfe hath with his tong tyed so fast a knot for proofe Bel disproueth him selfe of my conclusion as with his teeth he wil not be able to loose For pag. 48. he affirmeth S. Paul to haue bene most free and innocent 12. Contradict touching actual sinne and he proueth it because he fought mightily against his raging concupiscence and did in no wise yeeld therunto which is both to confesse that S Paul had inuoluntary motions of the flesh which him selfe acknowledgeth Rom. 7. v. 15 17. 19. 23. yet to proue them to be no sinne in him because they were inuoluntary which is both my conclusion and reason 13. As for S. Austin he is so far from S. Augustin 10. 2. See S. Austin lib. 2 cont Iul. c. 3. 10. l. 5. c. 3. 15. thinking that we sinne by inuoluntary motions of the flesh as he saith epist 200. ad Asellicum That if we consent not to them we need not say Forgiue vs our trespasses which he repeateth againe l. de spit lit c. vlt. adding Tom. 3. that if we cōsented not to these act● we should disproue that saying of S. Ihon If vve say vve haue no sinne vve deceaue our selfs and proueth it l. 1. de ciuit c. 15. thus If concupiscential disobedience Tom. 5. be vvithout fault in the body of one sleeping hovv much more in the body of one not consenting And l. 1. de nupt concupis c. 23. explicateth how it is called sinne vz as vvriting is called a hand or cold sluggish vvhich is figuratiuely improperly Nay he not only excuseth vs from sinne when we consent not vnto inuoluntary motions of the flesh but auoucheth that then we do much good a great Merit in resisting Concupiscence according to S Austin Tom. 7. Tom. 10. matter for vvhich vve shal be crovvned lib. 1. de nupt concupisc c. 29. He doth much good vvho doth that vvhich is vvritten Follovv not thy lusts And serm 5. de verb. Apost c. 6. It is a great matter for me not to be ouercome of concupiscence and cap. 9. who consenteth not doth much it is a great matter he doth And lib. 2. de Gen. cont Manich. c. 14. Somtyme reason Tom. 1. doth manfully refraine and bridle Concupiscence euen stirred vp vvhich vvhen it is done vve fal not into sinne mark Bel but vvith some striuing are crovvned Wherfore if they be Papists as Bel Contradict 13. saith pag. 46. and 49. who say we merit when we resist Concupiscence surely S. Austin is one Yea Bel himself if he account it