Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	call_v	church_n	king_n	1,685	5	3.6233	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44658	A twofold vindication of the late Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and of the author of The history of religion the first part defending the said author against the defamations of Mr. Atterbury's sermon and ... : the charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson consider'd ... : the second containing remarks on the said sermon ... : and a word in defence of the ... Bishop of Sakisbury, by another hand.	Howard, Robert, Sir, 1626-1698.	1696 (1696)	Wing H3006; ESTC R9361	74,122	190

affirm of the Jews in his Life of Pythagoras that they mix'd many things borrowed from the Egyptians with their own holy Rites I have said enough to justify what the Arch-bishop hath taught concerning the Original of Sacrifice and who is there now that will not be amaz'd at the Impudence of the Libeller who in his first Libel against the Arch-bishop is not asham'd to vomit up this ignorant false and inconsistent Charge p. 5. This Author meaning the Arch-bishop would perswade us that the Devil was the Author and first Inventer of it i. e. of Sacrifice and that God came in but at the second hand in imitation of the Devil to graft upon his Stock For as I have shown the truth is the Arch-bishop leaves it in doubt whether Sacrifice took its Original from Natural Reason or Divine Revelation and might without any Injury to the Cause of Religion have determin'd the former and he asserts but this that when the sacrifical and other ritual way of Worship came to be grosly corrupted God purg'd it from all its gross Corruption and because the Jews were incorrigibly fond of it God having purg'd it from all its gross Corruption and order'd and dispos'd it wisely he then in pity to the Infirmity of his People indulg'd it to them but always signified that he had no pleasure in Ritual Services for their own sakes and that what he most esteem'd was Obedience to the Laws of Righteousness Generally base Men do either find or make some Umbrage for their Calumnies but never did wicked Wretch with Case-harden'd Conscience vouch such notorious odious Lies such broad and bare fac'd Calumnies as the Libeller It 's plain to me if the Devil be a worse Creature 't is only because he has the greater Power 'T is a Note of Varro's which one would think could not but be true neque in bonâ segete nullam esse spicam nequam neque in malâ non aliquod bonum in the best Field of Corn some bad Ears in the worst some good ones But the Libeller's Supplement is a Field which throws up plenty of wild Fancies gross Mistakes malicious Reproaches false Imputations yet wherein he quarrels the Arch-bishop or Sir R. H. not one honest probable or pardonable Saying arises How this comes to pass is to me pure Amazement if it be Fate the Libeller is doom'd the most severely of all the Sons of Men if Free-will none e're worse us'd his Liberty no not the Traitor Judas for 't is true he betray'd a better Man but I do not read he so belied him On two more Heads viz. the Death of Christ and the Eternity of Hell-Punishments great Out-cries are rais'd against the Arch-bishop but his Grace's Reasonings are not consider'd nor answer'd that 's not the Libeller's way On the former both the late Arch-bishop and the present Bishop of Sarum speak to this purpose We know no reason but that God might if it had pleased him have brought about the Salvation of Mankind by another way than the Death of Christ his Justice did not necessarily oblige him to redeem the World by the Blood of his Son I must confess I think that the Modern Unitarians have more carefully judiciously and exactly handled this Subject than either of these two very learned and good Bishops but in Defence of what the latter teaches these things are plain and obvious That Lord who punishes his Vassal without a Cause or more than the Cause offer'd does deserve is unjust That Lord who exacts the utmost Penalty of the Breach of a just Law is just but he is not oblig'd to exact it because then he were oblig'd not to be merciful this Argument is close plain and must conclude the Dispute unless Justice according to the Dream of John Calvin be one thing with respect to Man and another with respect to God I will prove that the Notion of the word Justice is one and the same let it be consider'd with respect to God or Man We read of no other measures of Justice in Scripture than never punishing beyond Demerit the Punisher if a Supream always having the Power not to punish so far Indeed Inferiour Officers are absolutely bound to exact the utmost Penalty of the Law transgress'd unless their Commission leaves some Cases to their Discretion but the supream Governour of a Nation and the great Governour of the World may if they please forgive much and be never the less just they may so for all that we read in Scripture they may so for all that we can discover by Reason A constant unrelenting Execution of Justice leaves no room for Mercy but wise and gracious Acts of Mercy in proper time and place dispens'd are no Blemish at all to Justice But if we suppose God to be just by other measures of Justice than Scripture and Reason acquaint us with we mispend our time in talking about his Justice Again if we suppose Justice with respect to God to be something which we can't understand or rather something contrary to that which we do understand and that it always requires full Satisfactions for Sin the Consequence of this will be that God can forgive no Sin so that what the Libeller disputes for is the eternal Misery of Mankind Let him dispute for his own Soul as being unworthy of the Mercy which he blasphemously reproaches but 't is an odd Opinion for one that calls himself a true Son of the Church that neither God nor the King can be just while he is on this side Hell and the Grave To urge Authority here is an Argument little worth that is as to the Merits of the Cause but it will sly in the face of the Libeller who vends his unintelligible Whimsies for receiv'd Opinions wherefore I will cite him one or two Antients and Moderns of that Class who might hope for his good word if it be possible for any such to come from his Lips Athanasius Tom. 1. Serm. contra Arianos p. 239. Edit Commel Aug. l. 13. de Trin. c. 10. Calvin Instit. l. 2. c. 12. § 1. Zanchius l. 11. de Incarnatione c. 3. quaest 1 I spare the Reader the trouble of long Transcriptions and refer him to Grotius against Ravenspergerus in defence of his Book De satisfactione Christi who has collected many more Authorities for the very same Doctrine which our two Bishops teach concerning the Death of Christ. When I have replied a few words in Vindication of the Arch-bishop's Sermon on Matth. 25.46 I shall leave the doing him farther Right to an abler Hand The Arch-bishop propos'd to explain how it can stand with the Justice and Mercy of God to punish Temporal Sins with Eternal Punishments Rejecting the common weak Solutions which pass'd in an Age less inquisitive and wicked than ours this is the chief thing on which the Arch-bishop insists Tho he that promises does thereby pass over a Right to another and is oblig'd in Justice and Faithfulness to make good

Family the Monarchy the Liberties of the Nation the Common-wealth of Learning particularly Learned Men and that nothing may escape your Influences to the calamitous and poor I promise my self that you will not lay Father Atterbury's want of Honesty good Sense and Government against such Advantages as these but rather you will be mindful to give Thanks to God who has lifted you by favourable Providences so much above the unheeded Reproaches of an unfinish'd Pulpiteer Sir I am your most obliged most assured and most humble Servant N. S. April 3. 95. The Second LETTER In Answer to The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered and to the Appendix concerning the History of Religion SIR SInce my last here is another weak Brother that has taken Offence at The History of Religion I confess I wish the History had gone to the Press with that Title which your self in the Manuscript Copy gave it The History of Religion as it has been abused by Priest-Craft The words as it has been abused by Priest-Craft might have prevented some Peoples Mistakes who now seeing in the Title Page The History of Religion and meeting with little in the Book it self but an Account of the various Perversions of Religion by Pagan and Popish Priest-Craft they infer that by Religion the Author means even all Religion The Publishers of your Book feared it should seem that if Priest-Craft were not left out of the Title of your Book it would raise such a Jealousy in those for whose Use and Good the Book is design'd that they would never suffer themselves to be undeceived that is they would never read it and thereby be informed of the Abuses put on them by Impostors pretending to Religion Either way the Book was like to be mistaken but the Publishers who put it forth I may add that also against your Inclination because you thought it now not so necessary or seasonable judged it not advisable to give occasion of Offence in the very Title But as I said it appears by the Event that it had been better to keep the Title given to his Book by the Author himself for all your Maligners that have hitherto appeared seem to be misled by the present Title Because the Title is The History of Religion and the Book is only an Exemplification of the Corruptions and Abuses thereof by some wicked Priests therefore they cry out 't is written against Religion and the Sacerdotal Function But jacta est alea 't is now too late to recal the oversight of the Title we must be content to examine what your Opposers have to object to the Book Enough I think has been said to Mr. Atterbury you are now attacked by one who does not put his Name to his Book but the Title of it is this The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered with a Supplement by occasion of an History of Religion In the former Part that against Dr. Tillotson late Arch-bishop of Canterbury our Author pretends at p. 10. that the Arch-bishop's Design in publishing his four Sermons against the Socinians was only that he might be soundly answered by them and further that they and the Arch-bishop play booty into one anothers hands Pag. 9. He adds The Arch-bishop printed his Sermons and procured the Recommendation of them by the Court that he might serve the Socinians and more reconcile Men to their Principles But lest the Confederacy between him and the Socinians should be discovered they agree saith our Author like Counsel at the Bar to fall foul sometimes on one another and even to scold and call hard Names which to wise Observers says he again serves only to discover so much the more their Hypocrisy and Deceit But it is the least part of his Charge against the Arch-bishop that he is a Socinian and wrote only to oblige them and to betray the Cause into their hands for he says pag. 13. Dr. Tillotson is owned by all the Atheistical Wits of England as their true Primate and Apostle in him they glory and rejoice and make their Boasts of him He leads them not only the whole length of Socinianism they are slender Beaux who have got no further but to call in question all Revelation He sums up almost his whole Charge against the Arch-bishop at pag. 32 and 33. in these words He exceeds the Theistical Juncto in the Barbarous Accounts he gives of the Rise of Christian Religion for they make it to be only the Invention of wicked Men and of Devils he makes it to be a mean Compliance with those Inventions of Devils and wicked Men. He contends that all Revealed Religion is good for nothing but only to preserve outward Peace in this World 'T is a Maxim with him that a Mother's suckling her own Children is of more necessary and indispensible Obligation than to believe in Christ. He disputes openly and professedly against the Satisfaction by Christ and according to him not only the Eternity but the Being of Hell is a precarious Supposition To add now no more he he says at p. 16. that a plain and downright Hobbism appears in the Arch-bishop's Sermons and that the same Thread runs thorow all his Works Besides these as every one knows most false Imputations on the Arch-bishop's Books and Doctrine our Author speaks of his Person with like Malevolence and Contempt he never calls him Arch-bishop but Dr. Till or Jo. Cant or such like And he concludes his whole Performance with an Address to the Clergy and People to separate from this and some other Heretical and Impious Bishops He assures them that by the Canons of the Catholick Church they not may but ought to separate and that it is not Schism to depart from those Guides who corrupt Religion by their Heresies After these Compliments to the Arch-bishop our famous Author for his Book will certainly make him so proceeds to sprinkle his Flowers upon you At first he is much in doubt whether the Arch-bishop was not Author of The History of Religion but that Doubt he soon dismisses and he resolves that it is written by Sir R. H d. I suppose for no other reason but that he thought fit to divide the nauseous Load of his Stomach between two it would have seemed too malevolent and implacable to discharge it all upon one Man Besides as 't is one of the Delights as well as Undecencies of excessive Anger and Malice to repeat the same Charges and Reproaches over and over if our Author had wrote but against one he had missed the Satisfaction of easing his Mind by re-iterating his Scandals and saying again and again the same lewd and mad things When the most learned Writer had fixed in his Mind upon an Author for the History of Religion tho he is content it should not be the Arch-bishop himself yet of necessity it must be one of his Grace's Disciples and Proselytes And for this most dangerous Charge I confess Sir your self gave occasion enough