Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bishop_n	call_v	church_n	2,062	5	4.1008	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A06606	A treatise of the iudge of controuersies. Written in Latin, by the R. Father Martinus Becanus of the Society of Iesus, Professour in Diuinity. And Englished by W.W. Gent; De judice controversiarum. English	Becanus, Martinus, 1563-1624.; Wright, William, 1563-1639.	1619 (1619)	STC 1707; ESTC S101284	69,267	198

also who are not of the stocke of the Iewes On the other side might be alleadged that of Deuteronomy Our Lord thy God will circumcise thy hart and the Deut. 30. 6. hart of thy seed Where it is insinuated that Circumcision of flesh is not to remaine in the new Testament but that the circumcision of the hart is to succeed in the place thereof As also that of Ieremy Be circumcised to our Lord and take away the prepuce of your harts as if he should say I do not require the circumcision of flesh but of the hart which consisteth in the inward contrition and greife for sinnes These and such like might be taken out of the Scripture for both parts But it was not so done For the Apostles being gathered together in Councell gaue sentence by the direction and assistance of God the which God had promised to them and their successours for euer After the tyme of the Apostles there arose other new controuesies in diuers places and ages which is certaine out of the Ecclesiasticall histories to haue beene decided eyther by the Romaine bishops or by some approued Councells And those who would not yeald to their sentence were accounted alwaies and condemned for heretikes I will bring forth some plaine examples euen of those which do first occure The first controuersy was whether the Pasch ought to be celebrated with the Iewes on the fourteenth day of the first month as many did hould Vide Euseb l. 5. hist Eccles cap. 23. sequent in Asia who for that cause were called Quartadecimani or only vpon Sunday as now it is This truly after many Councells and assemblies of diuers Bishops was decided and ended by Victor the Pope Anno Domini 198. The second was whether the Church might absolue thē from sinnes Vide Baron circa eundem annum who were fallen after baptisme Nouatian did deny it But he was condemned of errour in the Roman Councell by Pope Cornelius Anno Christi 255. The third was whether in God there was three persons really distinct Sabellius denyed it affirming that there was but one person which had three offices of creation redemption and Sanctification But he also was condemned Iuxta Baron in the Councell of Alexandria in the tyme of Pope Siluester Anno Christi 319 The fourth whether Christ be a pure man as other who be mortall hath nothing more in nature and person then we haue Paulus Samosatenus did affirme it But he also was condemned in the councell of Antioch in the tyme of Pope Dionysius Anno Christi 266 Iuxta Baron vide Euseb l 7. cap. 27. The first was Whether Christ were the eternall word of his Father and of the same substance with him Arius denyed it affirming that the word of the word not to haue beene from eternity but created of God in tyme of Vide duas epist Alexan E. pics Alex. quarum vna extat apud Socra lib. 1. c. ● altera apud Theod. l. 2. cap. 4. nothing and of another substance from God And therefore that God was not alwayes a Father but that there was some tyme when he was not Father But he was condemned in the first generall Councell of Nice in the tyme of Pope Siluester and Constantine the Emperour Anno 325. The fixt was whether in Christ there be two Persons as there are two natures diuine and human Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople did affirme it but he was likewise condemned in the Generall Councell of Ephesus in the tyme of Pope Celestine and Theodosiu● ●he Emperour Anno 434. and before by Cyrill in the Councell of Alexandria Anno 431. The seaueth was whether in Christ there be two natures Eutiches and Dioscorus sayd that before the hypostaticall vnion there was two natures Vide Ga● Vasq tom 1. in 3. par D. Thom. in disp 14. diuine and humaine But after the vnion that both two came into one and were made one But they both were condemned in the generall Councell of Chalcedon in the tyme of Pope Leo and Marcian the Emperour Anno 454. The eight whether there was one will only in Christ Macarius Patriarch of Antioch Cyrus of Alexandria Sergius of Constantinople and some others although they acknowledged two natures to be in Christ yet they sayd that there was in him but one will to wit the diuine In 3. p. 1. 18. art 1. as is recorded by S. Thomas and therefore they were called Monothelites this their opinion was condemned in the third generall Councell of Constantinople vnder Pope Agatho and the Emperour Constantine the 4. in the yeare 679. But whether these vnderstood by Vide Baro. the name of will the power or the operation is to be seene in Gabriel Vasquez The 9. Whether the holy Ghost be God The Macedonians deny it of Tom. 1. dis 73. cap. 1. whome thus writes S. Augustine The Macedonians came from one Macedonius who was bishop of Cōstātinople these of the Greekes are called also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they cōtended about the holy Ghost For as concerning the Father and the Sonne they beleeue aright that they are of one the same substance nature and essence but they deny this of the holy Ghost saying that he is but a creature These were condemned in the first generall Councell of Constantinople vnder Pope Damasus and the Emperour Theodosius The tenth is Whether baptisme may be reiterated or one may be baptized twice Which controuersy may be two waies vnderstood First whether baptisme if it be once giuen well may be reiterated againe Marcion Epiph. haer 42. paulo post princip affirmed it as Epiphanius is witnesse for he writeth thus of Marcion After he had deflowerd sayth he a certaine Virgin in the Citty and was fled away but yet afterwardes found in that great fault the cousener inuented a second lauer to himselfe affirming that three were lawfull to wit three Baptismes for the remission of sinnes to the end that if any shall sinne after the first doing pennance he might take the second and also the third if he should be found in fault after the second Againe it may be vnderstood whether Baptisme giuen of Heretikes may be reiterated The Donatists affirmed it who did baptize again all those who were baptized of Catholikes as S. Augustin doth witnesse because they Aug. in l. de haer cap. 69. accounted Catholikes for Heretikes and so thought that Baptisme giuen of Heretikes was of no value as is to be seene in Vasquez These were condemned V●sq disp 146. c. 2. in the Roman Councell vnder Melchiades the Pope Anno Domini 313. The eleuenth is whether a man Apud Baron without the grace of God can fullfill the Law only by the force of nature if he be willing Pelagius and Celestius affirmed it but they were both condemned in the Councells of Carthage and Mileuitane in the tyme of Pope Innocentius the first Anno 416.

naturall water For in another place it is called fier as in S. Luke He shall baptize Lue. 3. v. 1● you in spirit and fier and yet it is not vnderstood of true fire Therefore how can it appeare that in the former place true water is to be vnderstood or how will the Lutherans proue it against the Caluinists Not by any other meanes then by the practise order and tradition of the Church Another Christ in his last supper did not only institute the blessed Sacrament but also he adioyned the washing of feete and in the institution of the blessed Sacrament he sayd Eate and drinke but in the washing of eete and you ought one to wash the feete of another Here the Aduersaries say that in the first words there is a precept but not in the last And so the faythfull by Gods commaundment are obliged to receaue the blessed Sacrament in both kindes but not so to the washing of feete Now I aske how they are certaine of this or by what pretence do they thinke themselues bound to the receauing of both kyndes and yet free from the washing of feet Certainly they cannot pretend the words of Scripture For they seeme rather to shew the contrary For these words Eate and drinke seeme to signify no more of themselues then if a hous-keeper should say to his guests eate and drinke and be merry And if the hous-keeper should say so it would not be thought that be meant thereby to bynd them by a precept Therefore seing Christ spake in the same manner how is it certaine that he intended by that manner of speaking to oblige all the faythfull to the receauing of both kinds But these wordes You ought to wash the feete of one another seeme to signify a precept no lesse then if the maister should say to the seruant Thou must couer the table How therefore know they that by these words they are not obliged to wash the feete of one another seing the words themselues do shew plainly an obligation Only by the practise and Tradition of the Church For the Church neuer hath vsed this washing as necessary which notwithstanding she would haue done if shee had thought that she had beene obliged to it and that by Christs commaundment I omit many like examples which are easy to be found And out of these I conclude thus The Scripture may be considered two waies 1. According to the bare and outward letter 2. According to the inward sense which is intended of the holy Ghost But neyther of these two waies can it be iudge of Controuersies Not the former way as we haue proued in the first part of this second argument Neither as it is taken in the second way because the sense of the Scripture often tymes is so obscure and doubtfull that there is need of some other iudge who may define this to be the true meaning which is intended of the holy Ghost and not any other contrary And this is sufficient about the second Argument drawne from the Scripture THE III. ARGVMENT Which is drawne out of the Controuersies them selues THIS argument thus I propound There are many Controuersyes about fayth and Religion of the which in the Scripture there is no mention made at all or at least not so much as is sufficient so that the Scripture may giue sentence of them therefore in deciding of them some other iudge is to be sought Such Controuersyes be these The first whether the Bookes of Toby Iudith VVisedome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees be Canonicall land diuine The Lutherans and the Caluinists say no. But the Catholikes say the contrary Now who must be iudge to decide this contention The Scripture cannot be Neither the Lutherans nor the Caluinists which is well to be noted do appeale to the Scripture but to the Canon and tradition of the Iewes They say therefore that those Bookes cannot be found in the Canon of the Iewes which is extant in S. Hierome and therefore they are not to be accoūted Canonicall and Diuine Hence they confesse that in this case there ought to be some other iudge besides the Scripture And who is that The tradition of the Iewes say they But is not this strang to see our Aduersaries make more reckoning of Iewes then of Christians For although they be desirous to be accounted Christians they are deadly enemyes to the traditions of Christ and his Apostles and yet notwithstanding make great accompt of the Iewes traditions Wherefore say they not rather with S. Augustine Not August l. ●8 de ciuit Dei c. 36. the Iewes but the Church holdeth the Bookes of the Machabees for Canonicall or with Isidorus The Iewes do not receaue the bookes of Toby Iudith and the Machabees but the Church doth number them among the Canonicall Scriptures Ifidor in l. Pro●m de lib. vet no● Test And in the same place The Booke of VVisedome and Ecclesiasticus are knowne to haue the like authority that other Canonicall Bookes haue The second is how many Sacraments there be of the new Law Our aduersaries say but two Baptisme and the Lords supper The Catholiks beleeue seauen But what sayth the Scripture Nothing as concerning any certaine number and therefore it cannot be the Iudge in this Controuersy From whence therefore receaue the Catholikes the number of seauen if not out of Scripture From the tradition and consent of the Church From whence the aduersaryes the nūber of 2. Let them looke from whence Truly they haue it not from the Scripture but if they thinke they haue let them performe these three things First let them shew out of Scripture that the name of a Sacrament is attributed to Baptisme and to the Eucharist and not as well to Confirmation Order Pennance Matrimony and Extreme Vnction Secondly out of Scripture let them define a Sacrament Thirdly let them shew that the definition agreeth fitly with Baptisme and the Eucharist and not as well to the rest If they can do this they do something but that they neither wil nor euer can do this I am most certaine For first where will they find in Scripture that the name of a Sacramēt is attributed to Baptisme and the Eucharist Truly in no place But I will find where it is applyed to Matrimony For so writeth the Apostle For this cause shall man leaue his Father and Mother Eph. 5. 31. shall cleaue to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh This is a great Sacrament But I speak in Christ in the Church As though he had sayd That a man shall leaue his parents and cleaue to his wife This is a great Sacrament because it is a signe of the vniō of Christ with his Church that is the mariage of Christ and his Church Secondly where will they find Luth. in l. de captiu Bab ● vlt Melan. in ep Conf. August art 13. Mel. in locis ommun●●us tit d● numero Sacramentorum in the Scripture the definition of

spoken against them because I haue spoken to them and they haue not heard I haue called them and they haue not answeared me but to the howse of the Rechabits Ieremy sayd Thus sayth the Lord of Hosts the God of Israell For that yow haue obeyed the commaundment of Ionadab your Father and haue kept all his commaundments and haue done all things that he cōmaunded yow Therefore thus sayth the Lord of Hosts the God of Israell There shall not want a man of the stocke of Ionadab the sonne of Rechab standing in my sight all dayes In this example three things are to be noted First that the precept which was giuen to the Rechabites was most hard For what is harder then that husbands and wiues young men and young maides not only for a short tyme as the Nazareans did but as long as euer they liued should abstaine from all kynde of wyne and neuer should dwell in howses nor sow their grounds nor plant any vineyards Secondly that this precept was not diuine but humane it appeareth by the opposition which God made For thus he argueth The Rechabits did obserue the precept which they receiued from man how much more ought the Iewes to keep the precept which they receiued from God Thirdly that the Rechabits not only did well and commendably in obseruing the precept of their Father Ionadab but also thereby deserued a peculiar blessing from God whereas contrare wise the Iewes deserued nothing but great punishment For it is sayd to the Rechabits There shall not want a man of the stocke of Ionadab the sonne of Rechab standing in my sight al daies But to the Iewes I will bring vpon you affliction Now from hence let our aduersaries if they be wise infer these few verities First that the Catholikes obseruing the precepts of the Church do no lesse well and laudably then did theRechabites by keeping the precept of their Father Ionadab For doubtlesse it is no lesse commendable to obey the Church our common mother then it was for them to obey a priuate man their Father And euen as the Rechabites did not sinne against that aforsaid place what I commaund you that only do to our Lord euen so neyther the Catholikes sinne against it Secondly the cause why Catholikes haue continued and do continue still is because they keep diligently the commaundments of the Church and how much more diligently one doth obserue them so many more benefits he shall receiue from God and that some others do not prosper because of the one side they contemne the precepts of the Church in the which they are not so perfect as the Rechabits were And on the other they do not obserue the tenne commaundments in the which they are like the Iewes But that they may pretend some kind of excuse for this their damnable lasinesse they hould that the ten commaundement are impossible to be kept In the which they make God a tyrant as though he would commaund man that which is not in his power to fullfill But this may suffice to ouerthrow their false interpretation The true interpretation therefor is this You shall not Deut. 4. 1. ad to the word that I speake to you neyther shall you take away from it Which is generally to be vnderstood of ceremoniall and iudiciall precepts which were giuen of God by Moyses And this is the sense I haue giuen ceremoniall precepts to you which prescribe the rites of worshiping God and Iudiciall which prescribe the rites of keeping iustice in Ciuill matters and those which belong to the Common wealth Both of which you ought perfectly and entirely to obserue for this is the signification of that You shall not ad nor take away Which truly in other words but in the same sense is explicated in another place where it is sayd do not decline eyther from the right Deut. 2● 14. Deut. 17. 20. hand or the lest And againe That he may learne to feare our Lord his God and keepe his wordes and ceremonies nor decline to the right side nor to the left And a little after For I Deut. 31. 29. know that after my death you will do wickedly and will decline quickly from the way that I haue commanded you and like wise in the Iosue 7. booke of Iosue Take courage and be strong that thou keepe and do all the Law which Moyses my Seruant hath commaunded thee decline not from it to the right hand or to the left Therefore our of that place so vnderstood as truly it ought to be vnderstood the aduersaries cannot argue otherwise then thus The Iewes ought to obserue the precepts of God wholly and entirely not declining from them neyther to the right hand nor to the left therefore we Christians besides the Scripture ought not to admit any tradition which we haue receaued from the Apostles Spectatum admissi c. But that place in Deuteronomy Deut. 11. 32 VVhat I commaund thee this only do to our Lord neyther add any thing nor diminish is especially vnderstood of one ceremoniall precept to wit of the precept of sacrificing as appeareth Of which this is the sense and meaning When thou comest into the land of Palestine in the which thou goest and thou shalt offer a sacrifice to thy Lord thy God thou shalt not imitate the Gentills who offer their sonnes and daughters to false Gods by fyer But this only thou shalt offer the which I commaund thee as of Beasts Sheepe Goats Kidds Oxen Calues Pigeons Sparowes and Turtle-doues of fruits of the Earth Bread Meale Salt Frankincense a bundle of greene eares of Corne and wheat of Liquors Bloud Wyne Oyly and Water Do this only that is offer to our Lord Neyther ad any thing of the sacrifices of the Gentills nor diminish any thing of them which were now particulerly set downe Now out of this place the aduersaries can no otherwise conclud then in this manner The Iewes ought only to offer those things in sacrifice which were prescribed of God therefore we Christians may not keepe the precepts of the Church which is euen as foolish as the former THE II. TESTIMONY ISAY 8. 20. Rather to the law and to the testimony From hence the aduersaries gather that the Iewes in the old Testament when any controuersy did arise were sent presently to the law and testimony that is to the Scripture euen as to their iudge But they erre grosly First because it hath beene shewed before that the Iudge of controuersies in the old Testament was not the Scripture but the High Priest Secondly because those words to the law and testimony much other wayes are to be vnderstood then our aduersaries suppose as appeareth by the precedent words which are these And when they shall say to you Aske of Pytho●s and of Deuiners which whisper in their 1. cap. 8. 19. inchantements shall not the people aske vision of their God for the liuing of the dead To the law rather and to the