Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	believe_v	faith_n	true_a	2,854	5	5.4281	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66556	The Scriptures genuine interpreter asserted, or, A discourse concerning the right interpretation of Scripture wherein a late exercitation, intituled, Philosophia S. scripturæ interpres, is examin'd, and the Protestant doctrine in that point vindicated : with some reflections on another discourse of L.W. written in answer to the said exercitation : to which is added, An appendix concerning internal illumination, and other operations of the Holy Spirit upon the soul of man, justifying the doctrine of Protestants, and the practice of serious Christians, against the charge of ethusiasm, and other unjust criminations / by John Wilson ...	Wilson, John, 17th cent.	1678 (1678)	Wing W2903; ESTC R6465	125,777	376

other Voice than that of the Scripture in speaking to us For how improper soever such an Expression may seem to this Gentleman it is agreeable to Scripture-language And me thinks he who so hotly contends for the Usus loquendi as to make that the only supreme infallible Rule of expounding Scripture might give our Reform'd Divines leave to speak according to this Use without his supercilious censure In the mean time this Author may do well to consider whose Cause he most favours by such manner of arguing I know none that can so heartily thank him for it as the Romanists who use the same way of cavilling against us when we say that the Scripture or the Spirit of God in and by the Scripture is the sole supreme Judge of all Controversies of Faith This say they cannot be unless the Spirit of God do by an audible Voice decide the Controversie telling the one party they are in the right and the other they are in an error And because he doth not so in the Scripture therefore they deny him to be the supreme Judge of Controversies by the Scripture Thus Gretser the Jesuit in the Conference at R●tis●on Seventy five years ago Behold says he we are here disputing the Cause If the Spirit of God do by the Scriptures judge and determine Controversies let him now come let him come and pass sentence out of this Book the Bible that lay before him and say Thou Gretser art wrong and thou H. art in the right Now what doth Wolzogen by his Argumentation but justifie the profane insolency of that petulant Jesuite The Antients were of another mind they acknowledged God speaking in the Scripture to be the Judge of Controversies Thus speaks one of them to his 〈…〉 Nemo vobis credat nemo nobis de Coelo quaerendus c. Let none give credit to us or you we must seek a Judge from Heaven but what need we go thither to him having his Testament here in the Gospel And if the Spirit of God may with congruity enough be said to speak in the Scriptures as Judge of Controversies he may with as good congruity be acknowledged to speak in the Scriptures as Interpreting his own Mind there laid down And so I have done with my first Argument CHAP. X. A second Argument from the Scriptures being the only Rule of Faith affording a double Proof for the Scriptures being its own Interpreter MY next Argument follows That which is the only Rule of Faith is the only Rule to interpret its own sense But so is the Scripture That the Written Word of God is the only Rule of Faith is acknowledged by all that sincerely own the Protestant Cause Now from hence I thus argue 1. The supreme Rule of Faith is that which infallibly guides and determines us per Modum Objecti what we are to believe Now it is the Scripture in its true and genuine meaning that we are bound to believe Whatsoever therefore objejectively determines what we are to believe must accordingly determine the sense of Scripture And if any thing else besides the Scripture be the Rule to determine this that must eo ipso upon that very score be acknowledged for the Rule of Faith 2. Whatsoever is the Rule of Faith must be the Rule of deciding all Controversies of Faith This I think no Man will question Now let but this be supposed that the Scripture is the only supreme Rule of deciding all Controversies of Faith which no sound Protestant can deny it will necessarily follow That it must be the supreme Rule of clearing all Doubts and Difficulties within it self For where the Scripture is on both sides own'd for the Rule the knot of the Controversie lies in this whether this or that be the sense of the Scriptures that are alledged on both sides for were that agreed the Controversie would cease and whatsoever determines that decides the Cause Thus much the Exercitator acknowledges What ever therefore it be that 's made the Rule of Interpreting Scripture and determining the sense of it is thereby made the Rule of deciding all Controversies of Faith and is to such as so use it the Rule of their Faith CHAP. XI 1. An Exception against this Argument affirming Scripture and Reason jointly to be the Rule of Faith 2. This Novelty disproved and condemned AGainst this Argument some may have the confidence it may be to make this Exception That Scripture is not the only Rule of Faith The Papists join unwritten Traditions with the Scripture and will have us take both together for the compleat Rule of Faith This I shall not deal with there having been so much said by our Divines about it in the Controversies between us and the Church of Rome But there is another Generation of Men that join Human Reason with the Scripture to make up the Rule of Faith Lambertus Velthusius one of the Seniors of the Gallo-Belgick Church at Utrech is charged with this by Vander Weayen who cites this among many other erroneous Positions out of one of that Authors Belgick Tracts That Scripture and Reason are the Rule of Faith So then we have here a new unwritten Word found out to be part of the Canon So fertile of Monsters is this Novaturient Age. But I hope this Doctrine will not be so easily received as it is boldly obtruded Hitherto Principles of Reason and Articles of Faith were wont to be contradistinguish'd and though some things knowable by Natural Light are likewise propounded to our belief in Scripture yet such were never that I know of owned for Points of Faith otherwise than as they were attested in Scripture And in all Logick that I have been acquainted with Arguments à Testimonio are put into one rank and those that are drawn à Natura rei are put into another these latter properly belonging to Science the former to Faith Our Understandings saith C. Streso and after him Dr. Tailor apprehend things three ways The first is 〈◊〉 whereby it receives first Principles The second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby it draws Consequences from those Principles The third is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such things as we assent to from Testimony And it is a known speech of St. Austin Quod intelligimus debemus rationi quod credimus Autoritati That we understand we owe to Reason but that we believe we owe to Authority And we have hitherto taken it to be essential to a Christians Faith that in its Assent it rely upon the Infallible Veracity of the Revealer as the ratio formalis credendi Perhaps it will here be said for I cannot imagine what else can be said That the Principles of Reason are the Word of God and by him written in our Minds therefore our Assent to them is a belief of Divine Testimony as well as our Assent to what is written in the Bible and consequently they are part of the Rule of Faith

distinction and tedrously dilates upon it to amuse his Reader But the sum of all comes to this That the words of Scripture are of no further use than as they are signs of conceptions and things and under that consideration they cannot be understood unless the things signified by them be first known at least in some gross and confused manner Whereof he gives us this instance that where we sind in Scripture that God is Omniscient we cannot understand this unless we first know what God is and what Omniscience is Therefore says he all the benefit that any can get by any Book that is written is but this that it stirs up the Mind of the Reader to reflect upon the clear and distinct Idea's of those things in his Mind which the Book treats of not that the Book can of it self bring him to the true knowledge of things much less that it can beget any clear or distinct Ideas in his Mind which were not there before And thus he tells us it is with the Scripture all the use of it is to stir up the Reader or Hearer to think of the things that it propounds and inquire into them and examine them whether they be so as they are there propounded and that they may do this they must make use of Philosophy to try what is there written Therefore adds he the Scripture is to be used not that it should of it self inform us in the truth or render the truth more clear and distinct or make it more firm to us but that it may give us occasion and matter of meditating on those things which perhaps otherwise we should never have minded Therefore says he still the utility and excellency of the Scriptures above other Books consists onely in this That the things it speaks of are of so great concernment to our everlasting blessedness not for any use they are of to instruct us in the Truth This is all the use that he allows the Scripture from whence I think will inevitably follow that he owns the necessity of no knowledge of God or Religion but what is natural And so all supernatural Revelation or at least all necessity of it is denied And if there be no other use of the Written Word but what this Author assigns it it s put into the same rank with a Crucifix or a Deaths Head Indeed the whole design of his Book and of that other Tract that is prefixed to its latter Edition written as is supposed by the same Author is utterly to undermine and overthrow the credit of the Scriptures We need not wonder that he so often derides and calumniates the Protestant Doctrine of the Spirits internal illumination of the Mind which consists in curing the indisposition of the Subject and fitting it for the right understanding of Heavenly Things of which more hereafter in an Appendix to my present Discourse when he will not allow the necessity of so much as an Enternal Light for the Revelation of Supernatural Objects as acknowledging no such things And he that is thus principled must needs be very ignorant of himself and of the ruines that Sin hath made among the whole Race of Adam and the woful depravation of Mans Nature by his first Apostasie But for the Readers full satisfaction about the necessity of Supernatural Revelation I dare commend to his perusal besides many other useful Discourses that might be named that excellent Piece of the Eminently-accomplish'd Sir Charles Wolsly concerning the Reasonableness of Scripture Belief CHAP. VII 1. A fifth Argument That this would open a gap to the most pernicious Errors in Matters of Faith 2. And Practice AGain fifthly This Assertion le ts loose the Bridle to proud and wanton Wits to overthrow the Foundations of Christian Religion for though there be not the least real repugnancy between the Doctrines of Christianity and the Principles of Right Reason and Sound Philosophy which undoubtedly there is not as I have already premised and asserted yet there being no certain and infallible Record of these Principles by which as by the Rule of Judgement particular Mens Reasonings may be tried If Scripture Revelation must be interpreted by Mens Reasonings I know not the any Error that hath ever crept into the Church of Christ either in matter of Faith or Practice since the first publication of the Gospel but may be introduced anew by this Engine The heretical Blasphemies of Servetus and Socinus which sprang up of late years and those of the Marcionites and Manichees that infested the Church in former times together with the loathsome impurities of the Gnosticks who esteemed themselves the only knowing Men or to speak in the new mode the onely Rational Divines have fair way made them by this Trim Device First Let us instance in Matters of Faith whatsoever is said in Scripture about the Creation of the World the Conception of our Saviour in a Virgins Womb the Personal Union of the two Natures the Resurrection of the Body at the last Day these with many more that might be named let them be brought to the Bar of Reason and tried by its Principles as they are to be found in the Minds of Men and what will it come to We have seen already what use some Men have made of this way to subvert the weightiest Truths of the Gospel But here it will be excepted perhaps by some That the Fundamentals of Christian Religion being clear and plain in Scripture there is no fear of this inconvenience To this I answer First If Divine Revelations must be no otherwise received or understood than as Men see ground for them in their own Reason the plainest and clearest Doctrines of Scripture will be rejected I shall here give two Instances as I find them quoted by a late learned Author The one is of Socinus who says That he would not believe Christ to have satisfied for our Sins though he should read it once and again in Scripture the infallibility of the Revealer not being sufficient to establish it unless he had declared it by its causes and effects and so satisfied Mens Reason concerning the possibility of it Smalcius is the other who says That he would not believe the Incarnation of the Son of God though he should meet with it in express terms in the Bible The same Author says elsewhere that by Reason alone we determine the possibility and impossibility of the Articles of Faith To which I might add the bold assertion of a late English Remonstrant in a Volume publish'd some years ago where he says I verily believe that in case any such unchangeableness of Gods love viz. as should assure the Saints infallible perseverance were to be found in or could regularly be deduced from the Scriptures it were a just ground to any considering Man to question their Authority or whether they were from God or no. And a late Belgick Tractator having affirmed that the

Resurrection of the same numerical Body proved against the Exercitator to be asserted in Scripture THE Exercitators next Work is to answer the great Argument which he says some urge against his opinion viz. Philosophy and consequently Humane Reason asserts many things that are repugnant to Divinity and the Scriptures and therefore they cannot be allow'd for the Rule of Interpreting Scripture He denies the Antecedent and so do I. What Authors they be in the Reformed Churches that thus argue I know not But this I know that it is no uncommon thing for pugnacious Wits to draw the Sword upon the shadow of a Dream and make Hector-like declamations against Utopian Adversaries Set aside those Authors who are engaged by some Atheological Hypothesis which they have espoused as the Papists and the Lutherans in the Doctrine of the E●charist I know not any Man of Learning and Understanding who hath such a thought that there is any thing in Scripture derogatory or contradictory to true Philosophy or Sound Reason or that believes any thing true in Philosophy to be false in Divinity Whatsoever is true any where is true every where Here therefore our Author may put up his Dagger But there is one thing which I cannot well pass over That the Exercitator pretending to confute those who assert a contrariety between the Principles of Philosophy and Divinity and instancing in these two Ex nihilo nihil fit and Idem non potest numericè reproduci Instead of solving the knot he cuts it and plainly affirms both these Principles to be true absolutely and without limitation both in Philosophy and Divinity confidently asserting that the Scripture doth no where teach us That the World was made of nothing or that the same numerical Body shall rise at the last day And here Wolzogen unworthily deserts the Christian Cause not vouchsafing to write one word in vindication of these grand Truths against this bold Adversary but tells us he is content the Man should enjoy his own opinion though he says he could easily have refuted him Which makes his silence the more inexcusable and brings him under greater suspition of Heterodoxy notwithstanding all his Rhetorical Flourishes But it is time I should return to our Author who if he had not been too much in love with Novelty might without the least prejudice to his Cause unless it have some other Monster in the Belly of it that is not yet come to the birth have answered that these Axioms are true in a limited Sense both in Philosophy and Divinity viz. That by a finite created Power nothing can be made of nothing and that by the like limited power the same numerical Body that perisheth cannot be reproduced But that nevertheless to an infinite Power all things that imply not contradiction are possible But it seems by this Authors words that he disowns the received Doctrine of the worlds Creation out of Nothing and the Reproduction of the same individual Body 1. By denying the former he must necessarily maintain the Eternity of Preexistent Matter whereas if God be the Maker of all Beings besides himself as the Scripture sufficiently assures us then nothing besides himself could be Eternal but he must in making the World make the Matter whereof the World consists which Matter therefore must be made of nothing The first Article in the most ancient Creeds as the Reverend Bishop of Chester hath observed had instead of these words Maker of Heaven and Earth or together with them this Clause The Maker of all things visible and invisible agreeably to that of the Apostle Coloss. 1. 16. which distribution is so comprehensive that it will not admit of any Exception all things whatsoever being either visible or invisible and whatsoever can be supposed necessary to the making of the World it must of necessity come under one of these two Members of the distribution and consequenly be of Gods making And indeed if it were otherwise then something else besides God must have a necessary uncreated independent Being which carries with it so broad a Contradiction as Mans Reason left fair to it self cannot allow Again 2. By disclaiming the latter this Author evidently denies the Resurrection for that imports the rising again of the same Body that fell according to that known Speech of Damascen so oft cited by our Divines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And if the same numerical Body rise not but another is made de novo for the Soul to animate this is not a Resurrection but a new Creation and then the first Creation of the World may as aptly be called a Resurrection as that which is so stiled by the Holy Ghost in Scripture But I think the Scripture speaks plain enough in this Case though this Author will not own it when it says that at the last day This corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality And that our Lord Jesus Christ shall then change our vile Body that it may be made like unto his glorious Body And that If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in us he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken our mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in us Add to this that Argument from the description of the place whence the Resurrection shall begin which I cannot better represent to the Reader than in the words of the learned Bishop of Chester They which sleep in the dust of the Earth Dan. 12. 2. and they which are in the Graves Joh. 5. 28. shall hear the Voice and Rise And Rev. 20. 13. The Sea shall give up the dead which are in it and Death and the Grave deliver up the dead which are in them But if the same Bodies did not Rise they which are in the dust should not revive If God should give us any other Bodies than our own neither the Sea nor the Grave should give up their dead That shall Rise again which the Grave gives up the Grave hath nothing to give up but that Body which was laid into it therefore the same Body which is Buried shall at the last day be revived And whereas the Socinians who are our Adversaries in this as well as in many other Articles of our Faith to evade this Argument will have the Graves spoken of in Joh 5. 28. to be the Graves of ignorance and impiety there meant and the Rising to be Mens coming to the knowledge of Christ c. the aforesaid learned Person answers them That Christ expresly speaks of bringing Men to Judgement vers 27. and divides those that are to come out of their Graves into two Ranks vers 29. neither of which can be so understood The first are those which have done good before they come out of their Graves these therefore could not be the Graves of Ignorance and Impiety from which no good can come The second are such who have done evil

are upon Scripture-testimony to receive without searching into the manner it being a Mystery infinitely above our reach which therefore he that will boldly intrude into may justly fear to be overwhelm'd with its Glory Or 2. To the Temporal Manifestation of that Eternal Generation a thing being then said to be done when it is manifested to be done And so the words are applied by the Apostle Paul to our Saviours Resurrection whereby as the same Apostle says elsewhere He was declared to be the Son of God with power Though I know there is who understands those words of Christs Resurrection immediately and in it self partly because it was as it were a second Birth to the Humane Nature partly because it was as they conceive the beginning of his Installment into his Regal Office which might be called his Birth by Analogy to what was said before concerning the Roman Emperors I shall not take upon me to determine which of these ways of Explication is to be adhered to But be it what it will this I need not be afraid to say that it is Scripture if any thing that must clear the difficulty and decide the difference it is not Philosophy in its highest Exaltation that can be a sufficient Rule to resolve us the matter in hand being so wholly foreign to the best and clearest Natural Light 3. Then for the last instance Joh. 3. 16. where God is said to love the World though in this as in all other things we are not to measure God by our selves yet this is undoubted that by Gods love to Mankind is every where plainly and clearly meant his Will to do them good discovering it self in answerable effects and the Complacency that he takes in the good that he doth for them or works in them Nor do I think that any man who heedfully reads the Scriptures can take it otherwise And this is no way unbecoming the Divine Perfections but fully agreeing to his Nature and the Manifestations that he hath made of himself both by Natural and Supernatural Light Now as to this distinction which the Exercitator so much applauds condemning all others that are not as fond of it as himself I find sufficient reason to reject it and do affirm that the Words and Sentences of Scripture taken in such a coherence among themselves and connexion with the whole and otherwise than thus they have no sense that is properly theirs do exhibit to the Reader no other sense than what is indeed the Authors meaning being written for no other end but to signifie his mind for our safe guidance to Blessedness And to think that they have any other sense than what is indeed the truemind and meaning of the Author is ●o charge the Holy Scriptures with the vilest Imposture What would we think of that man that should either spe●k or write so as that his words should carry one meaning and himself intend another Would he not be judged a Deceiver And shall we dare to fasten such a piece of Hypocrisie upon the Holy God and that in a business wherein Mans Everlasting Happiness is concern'd What thoughts have these men of God who can talk thus of the Scriptures that are his acknowledged Word But let it be consider'd before I leave this matter whether our Author do not by this distinction contradict himself For 1. When he is in preparation to his future discourse explaining what he means by the material Object of Interpretation he plainly asserts that Words are first and immediately the signification of the inward Conceptions of the Mind ●and because those Conceptions are representations of things in the Understanding hence the Words that declare those Conceptions are used to signifie and denote things Now if so how comes it about that the Words of Scripture can have a different sense from what the Author intends seeing as the Exercitator acknowledgeth they are signs or notes of the Conceptions of his Mind 2. This same Author when he is proving a multiplicity of true senses in the same Text of Scripture and that whatsoever Interpretations be they never so many and various are given if they be Truths in themselves they are also the true Expositions of that place useth this Argument That else God would be chargeable with deceiving Men by using such Words as he knew Men would be ready to take in such different senses as he never meant This the Author rejects with abhorrence as not agreeing with the Divine Perfections How well he agrees with himself and how this may be reconciled with the forementioned conceit of such a twofold sense as we have been speaking of the simple sense of the Words of Scripture and the true sense of the Speaker let the Reader judge CHAP. VIII 1. A fifth Exception That the plainest Scriptures may be wrested 2. A sixth from the multiplicity of Commentaries and Expositions removed IN the next place it will be said that the plainest Scriptures are liable to be wrested and perverted by Men of corrupt minds therefore they are not perspicuous enough to Interpret themselves Suppose what is indeed too true and sufficiently made good by our Adversaries in this cause that the plainest Scriptures may be perverted So may the best and truest Principles of Reason and Philosophy Nor can any Man devise how to speak or write so but a wicked and malicious Wit may put an absurd or horrid sense upon the most innocent Words And of this I think we have instances enough every day But what is this to the sense which the Words and Sentences of Scripture in such a Contexture and with reference to and dependence upon the Antecedents and Consequents and the whole Tenour of the Authors Discourse do offer to the Reader That the Scripture thus consider'd is of it self liable to such ambiguous senses is a profane and sensless calumny bringing that Holy Volume under the same condemnation with the Devils Oracles that were purposely contrived by that great Enemy of Mankind to cheat and abuse the Pagan World But may some say do not many take the Words of Scripture in a far different sense from what the Author of Scripture intended No doubt they do what then That is not because the Words give them that sense but because they impose that sense upon the Words to make them comply with their own apprehensions In the sixth place the Exercitator argues against the perspicuity of the Scriptures from the multitude of Commentaries Animadversions Interpretations for he loves to heap up words written by Learned Men upon the whole Scripture or the several parts of it whence he concludes it as a thing unquestionable that the Scripture is obscure so obscure that it cannot Interpret its own sense I answer That there are some difficulties in Scripture that may exercise yea and exceed the ablest Wits and that many things in it may be obscure to the Reader for want of using the