Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	apprehend_v	faith_n	righteousness_n	2,102	5	8.3942	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20770	A treatise of the true nature and definition of justifying faith together with a defence of the same, against the answere of N. Baxter. By Iohn Downe B. in Divinity, and sometime fellow of Emanuel C. in Cambridge.; Selections	Downe, John, 1570?-1631.; Baxter, Nathaniel, fl. 1606.; Bayly, Mr., fl. 1635.; Muret, Marc-Antoine, 1526-1585. Institutio puerilis. English.	1635 (1635)	STC 7153; ESTC S109816	240,136	421

of an implicit or couched ignorance Of an implicit Faith we haue often heard and of a rude and confused apprehension the Iesuit in the place by you quoted speaketh but an implicit ignorance was neuer yet heard of and what meaning it may haue for my part I cannot see De iustif lib. 1. ca. 7. Bellarmines right words are these Faith is better defined by ignorance then knowledge which saying of his how my speech helpeth I would you had taken a little more paines to make it manifest For whence and how you should collect it I cannot tell except perhaps it bee thus I say that Faith is not a knowledge Ergo I say also it is an ignorance I answer therefore secondly that Bellarmine and I speake not of the same Faith for hee speaketh of Faith of Story and I of Faith of Person so that when I say Faith of Person is not a knowledge I cannot help him who saith Faith of Story is not a knowledge For as for Faith of Story you cannot bee ignorant that contrary vnto Bellarmine in my Treatise I haue called it a Generall knowledge so farre am I from defining it by ignorance with him And yet I would haue you to know also that when I say Faith of Story is a knowledge I meane not thereby Science of Conclusions acquired and gotten by demonstratiue proofe out of such principles as are of themselues knowne and euident For how can a man by the light of naturall reason aspire to the knowledge of that which is supernaturall and aboue reason But I vnderstand an explicit and distinct apprehension of the necessary Articles of Faith opposite vnto that brutish ignorance which Papists call implicite Faith and Blind obedience which distinct apprehension Bellarmine in the place before alledged denieth necessarily to bee required vnto Faith Farthermore I would faine know how this followes Faith is not knowledge Ergo it is Ignorance for by the same reason you may conclude Faith is not Hope Ergo it is Despaire or thus Earth is not fire Ergo it is water and so by your creation all things in the world shall bee one of two fire or water Metaph. 12. But you should remember that simple negation is positiue of nothing and that Priuations are reduced vnto that subiect whereunto their Habits doe belong whence it followeth that denying Faith to be in the Vnderstanding and so to be knowledge I deny it also to bee Ignorance N. B. Againe whatsoeuer bringeth life eternall bringeth iustification and is Faith But true knowledge of Iesus Christ bringeth life eternall Therefore true knowledge of Iesus Christ bringeth iustification and is Faith The Minor I proue out of the Words of Christ in S. Iohn Ioh. 17.3 Mel. Pez Arg. Theol. p. 3. notitia Es. 53. significat non solum agnitionem personae beneficiorum Christised etiam fiduciam quiescentem in Christo sicuti Ioh. 17. This is life eternall to know thee to bee the onely true Lord and him to bee Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent into the world The Maior is plaine whatsoeuer apprehendeth that last which is life Eternall apprehendeth the former as election and iustification c. But the knowledge of Christ apprehendeth eternall life Therefore it apprehendeth iustification But hence it followeth whatsoeuer apprehendeth iustification is Faith True knowledge of Jesus Christ apprehendeth iustification Therefore true knowledge of Christ is Faith and so consequently and conuersiuely Faith is knowledge and this knowledge is Faith Ioh. 19.25 Eph. 3.14.15.16.17.18 1 Cor. 13. And by this meanes Particular knowledge commeth not in time after faith but is Faith and is knowledge in the beginning in proceeding is knowledge and in the end is knowledge I. D. The Maior of your first Syllogisme that whatsoeuer bringeth life eternall bringeth iustification I deny You say it is plaine because whatsoeuer apprehendeth the last such as is eternall life apprehendeth the former also which is iustification But first what rule of Logicke allowes you thus to shift tearmes and to turne bringing of life and iustification into apprehending life and iustification For howsoeuer you seeme to vse them indifferently yet are they words of different significations and therefore confounding them thus you make not so much the truth of the Maior plaine as obscure the meaning thereof Againe chuse whether of these tearmes you please yet is it palpably false that Whatsoeuer bringeth or apprehendeth the last bringeth and apprehendeth also the former Rhetoricke brings a man to speake eloquently which is the latter yet it is Grammar not Rhetoricke that brings a man to speake congruè which is the former Physicke brings a man to the faculty of curing diseases which is the latter yet brings not to the knowledge of the nature of things for that belongs vnto the naturall Philosopher and according to the old saying where the Physiologer ends there the Physician begins So also in diuine matters Hope apprehends eternall life which is the latter for it is the proper obiect about which it is occupied it apprehendeth not iustification which is the former for then by your rule it should bee Faith it selfe that being faith as you say which apprehends iustification As therfore when diuerse needles are by the Loadstone trained one after another the vertue of the stone moueth the first the first the second and so of the rest but the third or second is no way the cause of the dependency of the first so in the concatenation of the causes of our saluation reckoned vp by the Apostle to wit Election Rom. 8.30 Vocation Iustification Glorification the former are mouers as it were vnto the latter but not the latter vnto the former The reason of all in a word is this because as I haue already shewed more is required vnto the maine end then vnto the subordinate meanes and therefore seeing saluation is the end Iustification the meanes not whatsoeuer is requisite vnto that is presently necessary vnto this The Minor that true knowledge of Iesus Christ bringeth eternall life I also deny For Particular assurance which is the knowledge you must here vnderstand or else you conclude not to the purpose bringeth not eternall life in as much as a man may be saued without it as we haue already sufficiently proued Neither doe the words of Christ in S. Iohn verify your Minor Ioh. 17.3 for by knowledge there he meaneth not your particular assurance and perswasion by which a man knowes he is iustified shall be saued but such a knowledge of Christ and his Gospell as is mingled with faith and worketh our wils to accept of Iesus Christ for our onely mediator And this knowledge is said to bee eternall life not because euery one that barely and nakedly knowes liues eternally for as wee haue shewed Reprobates and Diuels haue Historicall Faith but partly because no man can liue without it partly because by it the Spirit of God worketh in the Elect that Faith by

which they are iustified and so come to eternall life But what say I vnto the Minor deliuered in other tearmes thus Knowledge of Christ apprehendeth eternall life I say first it is not the same Proposition because the tearmes are changed neither are they equipollent Secondly I grant it to bee true whether you meane by knowledge Dogmaticall Faith or Particular assurance for by the one doe we apprehend that there is an eternall life by the other that wee haue speciall interest in it Well then if it apprehendeth eternall life doth it not follow that therefore also it apprehendeth iustification No by no meanes for as wee haue aboue demonstrated it is not necessary that that which apprehendeth the latter should apprehend the former also And yet though I disallow the consequence the consequent I readily yeeld you that Particular knowledge apprehendeth iustification for so haue wee defined Faith of promise to be a perswasion or assurance that the promise of God made in Christ to wit iustification remission of sinnes adoption regeneration finally election it selfe and eternall saluation doe particularly pertaine vnto mee and are mine What gather you now of this Ergo say you it is iustifying Faith How so Because whatsoeuer apprehendeth iustification is iustifying Faith Nay contrarily whatsoeuer apprehendeth iustification it not iustifying Faith for apprehension followeth iustification no man apprehending himselfe to bee iustified vntill hee be iustified but Iustifying Faith is in nature before iustification that being the cause and this the effect And therefore vnlesse you will say that that which followeth is that which goeth before you cannot say that that which apprehendeth iustification is that which iustifieth To conclude therefore neither is Faith knowledge nor knowledge Faith but particular knowledge for ought you haue yet said or can say commeth in time after Faith But whereas finally you inferre that Faith is knowledge in the beginning knowledge in proceeding knowledge in the end besides that the foundation vpon which it is grounded is vntrue it is cleane contrary also to that which erewhile you affirmed that Faith is but one compounded of my three nice distinctions the first being the beginning the second the progresse the third the end For the third is Faith of Person and in the Will and is by your confession there the end of Faith yet here you say faith is knowledge in the end which things how they can stand together I see not vnlesse you will say that knowledge is in the Will and so confound the faculties and operations of the soule N. B. In Ioh. 1. Ep. c. 5. to 13. The place of Saint Iohn by you cited to proue your Minor in your argument maketh nothing for you because the Apostle speaketh of their increase of knowledge and not of the originall begetting of knowledge and so saith M. Caluin I. D. The text in the clearest tearmes that may bee distinguisheth betweene Belieuing and knowing and vnto that giueth the priority before this but your glosse confoundeth their natures and saith that the Apostle here speaketh onely of increase of knowledge Wo to the glosse that corrupteth the text for if this bee S. Iohns meaning it is as if hee should say I write vnto you that know that yee are iustified haue eternall life that yee may increase in knowing that yee haue eternall life and that yee may know yee are iustified and haue eternall life which how vnworthy it is the pen of an Apostle euery one easily seeth But Caluin you say interpreteth the place as you doe Bee it so yet is it not the name of Caluin how venerable soeuer that may sway this matter For seeing I professe to differ from him in the definition of Iustifying Faith hee defining it by knowledge I by Affiance you may not thinke it vnreasonable if in this point and the explication of such scriptures as may seeme to concerne it I desire rather to bee pressed with his reasons then borne downe with his authority But what saith Caluin Because there ought to bee dayly proceedings in Faith therefore he writes to them that belieue already that they may more firmely and certainly belieue Whereunto I willingly assent if you apply it as Beza in his annotations doth vnto the last clause of the verse and that yee may belieue for then the meaning without forcing or constraining the words will bee as if hee should say I write vnto you that belieue that belieuing yee may know yee haue eternall life knowing the same may constantly perseuere and proceed on in Belieuing For as the clouds poure downe raine to moisten the earth and the earth moistned sendeth vp vapours againe to make clouds so likewise Faith begets Assurance and Assurance being gotten doth againe confirme and strengthen faith And thus doe the Century-writers expound this place Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 4. p. 276. gathering from it that Cetainty of Saluation is an Effect of Faith and so euidently distinguishing knowledge from Faith Treatise 3. Arg. That which in nature comes after iustification cannot bee iustifying Faith This appeares because Faith is the Efficient Instrumentall cause of Iustification and euery Efficient by the rule of Logicke is in nature before the Effect But this knowledge or assurance is in nature after Iustification Ergo it is not Faith N. B. Your Minor is very false and so proued by my former arguments For particular knowledge and assurance of our saluation is not in nature after Faith but is Faith and wholy infused by the Spirit of God and begotten by hearing of the Word preached and commeth to act by degrees according to the measure of grace giuen of God For it is in Habitu sometime not in actu Faith habituall in power actuall in the deed of belieuing as when one sleepeth his beliefe is not in actu and yet hee liueth vnto God by his faith which liueth powerfully in him though not actually I. D. The Maior of my Syllogisme is vndeniable because as I haue said Faith is the cause of iustification For as D. Fulke saith vnto Bristow excluding it from Efficient causes Reioinder to Bristow p. 172. Seeing Scripture often affirmeth that God worketh in vs by Faith faith must needs be an instrumentall efficient when you haue said all that you can except you will teach vs new Grammar and Logicke The Minor therefore you say is very false and so proued by your former arguments But those arguments are already answered and thus I proue the Minor For as for the rest of your idle and wilde talke touching the infusion begetting degrees habit act of Faith I willingly passe ouer lest pursuing you in this course I seeme to run riot and play the wanton with you Treatise The truth of a Proposition is alwayes in nature before the knowledge of the truth for Propositions are not therefore true because they are knowne so but they are first true and knowne so Therefore this Proposition I know I am iustified spoken

proued against the first that Faith is not a Knowledge or Assurance against the thirteenth that the onely proper Obiect of Faith is the Person of the Mediator and against the foureteenth that the Forme thereof is Affiance and not any such Relation or Certainty The ninth sixteenth and seuenteenth in part I deny the ninth where you make Faith and Knowledge to bee conuertible which I haue proued to haue different natures and Definitions the sixteenth where you affirme Resting vpon Christ to bee an effect of Faith which I haue demonstrated to bee the Forme and proper Act of Faith the seuenteenth where you say that the subiect of Faith is both the Vnderstanding and the Will against which I haue shewed that it is impossible for one and the same Habit to be subiectiuely in two seuerall faculties of the Soule The rest of your Positions sauing the inconuenience of some tearmes and setting a fauourable construction vpon them I acknowledge to bee true and because as the Apostle speaketh I can doe nothing against the truth but for the truth therefore I oppose them not but readily and willingly yeeld and subscribe vnto them But Master Baxter in all this long discourse of Faith hauing spoken so carefully of the Definition of Faith of the vnity of it in kind and difference of it in number and degree of the imperfection sufficiencie efficient principall and instrumentall of the obiect both in generall and speciall of the forme and end both Subordinate and Highest finally of the Effects Subiects and adiuncts thereof in all this long discourse I say how is it that wee heare not so much as a word of Iustification which notwithstanding is the immediate and proper Effect of Faith Immediate because it is the first fruite and benefit that springeth of it and commeth before Adoption and Sanctification proper because it is the Act of Faith onely and not of any other Grace which iustifies a man before God Whether it were of negligence or of policy that you haue omitted so materiall and necessary a point I cannot say If of negligence it deserues a seuere chastisement if of policy it was I think you foresaw what a dangerous consequence would follow thereupon For if you had placed Iustification as needs you must haue done if you had mentioned it among the Effects of Faith the Reader possibly might haue reasoned thus If iustification be an Effect of Faith and so follow after Faith then cannot Assurance of Iustification bee Faith because it is an effect of Iustification and followes after for it is necessary that a man bee iustified before hee can bee assured that hee is iustified And thus you had cast away your whole pot of broth 2 King 4.39 if you had not warily kept this Coloquintida out of it But vpon what ground soeuer you haue forborne to speake of this point I will by your leaue supply this defect and in a word or two shew you in what sense I affirme that Affiance iustifies and deny it of Assurance for in some sort Assurance also may bee said to iustifie Iustification is a law-tearme and is opposed vnto Condemnation As therefore Condemnation is the sentence of a iudge pronouncing a man to be guilty and deliuering him ouer to bee punished so is Iustification also the sentence of a iudge but absoluing and acquitting a man both from crime and punishment Now there are three barres at which all men are arraigned and three Iudges who at their seuerall barres either iustify vs or condemne vs that is to say the barre of God the barre of Conscience and the barre of Men. If wee bee condemned at all these barres and by all these Iudges wee are of all creatures the most miserable if wee bee absolued at them all and by them all of all men wee be the most blessed Againe if Men acquit vs what booteth it if our owne Conscience condemne vs and if our Conscience acquit vs what auaileth it if God condemne vs for who can deliuer the prey out of the pawes of that Lion On the contrary side if men condemne vs it mattereth not so as our Conscience doe absolue vs and if our Conscience also doe condemne vs yet happy are we if God absolue vs for God is greater then our Conscience What that is 1 Ioh. 3.20 for which sentence of Condemnation passeth vpon vs at any of these bars there is no question for it is well knowne to bee sinne sinne I say which is so indeed or at least is so in appearance For although nothing appeare vnto God otherwise then it is so that there can bee no error in his iudgement yet our owne consciences and other men may easily bee deceiued and mistaken and so without cause oftentimes pronounce sentence of Condemnation What then is that by which wee are iustifyed and absolued from our sins and the punishment of death due vnto them Surely that which is contrary vnto sinne euen Righteousnesse What Righteousnesse Phil. 3.9 for as the Apostle distinguisheth there is a Righteousnesse which is of the law and there is a righteousnesse which is of Faith by the former shall no flesh liuing bee iustified by the latter euery one that Belieueth is iustified God iustifieth vs at his barre when hee seeth our Faith that by firme Affiance wee rest and rely our selues vpon Christ to bee our Mediator accepting him to bee our Prophet Priest and King for then according vnto promise doth hee accept the Passiue obedience of Christ to satisfy for our sinnes past and imputeth vnto vs his Actiue obedience to supply the want of that perfect legall righteousnesse which should be in vs. Our Conscience iustifies vs at his barre when it is perswaded that God hath already iustified vs for as long as it is perswaded that God condemneth it cannot acquit vs. If the perswasion of the Conscience be built vpon a sandy and deceitfull foundation it is rather vaine presumption then true assurance and the iudgement that it giueth is erronious but if it bee grounded vpon infallible euidence euen the testimony of the Spirit of God Rom. 8.16 witnessing with our spirits that wee are the sons of God then is the Assurance sound and certaine and the sentence pronounced thereupon iust and rightfull Phil. 4.7 whence presently ariseth in our soules such vnconceiuable peace as passeth all vnderstanding and such durable ioy as nothing can take from vs. Finally Men iustify vs at their barre also Ioh. 16.22 Mat. 5.16 when our light so shineth before them that they see our good works which are the fruits of Faith and a good Conscience and thereby are moued to glorify our Heauenly Father as being perswaded in the iudgement of Charity that they are indeed as they seeme to bee euen iustified before God and borne againe of water and the Holy Ghost This iudgement because it is built vpon probability onely and not vpon certainty for who knowes whether the outward appearance come from