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	faith_n	word_n	1,876	5	4.4042	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64356	The difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian methods in answer to a book written by a Romanist, and intituled, The Protestant's plea for a Socinian.	Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715.	1687 (1687)	Wing T694; ESTC R10714	38,420	66

that when the Counsel on either side pleads Presidents and Statutes or Equity the Plaintiff pleads for the Defendent and the Defendent for the Plaintiff Both pretend to the same Rule but he that is in the right measures his Case by it the other would bend it towards his illegal Interests One has a Plea the other a Pretence If a Socinian will plead Scripture and plead it falsly it is so far not ours but his If Confidence in pleading may either carry or ballance a Cause then Pleas of Laws Scriptures Oral Tradition Fathers Councils may be urged contrary ways and each side be equally justifi'd For all such Pleas have been made by contrary Parties Mr. Lilburn pleaded Law as much as Judge Ienkins though not as well Some Dissenters in the Queens time wrote down their Arguments and gave their Book the Title of Sions Plea. It may be their Adversaries might call it the Plea of Babylon Whether it was the one or the other was to be tryed not by the Name of the Plea or the Persuasion of the Advocates but by the Merit and Nature of the Cause itself The Apostles pleaded before Magistrates of another Faith that it was better to obey God than Man. All Parties who dissent from the Establish'd Religion use the same Plea and generally in the same Words But does this make the Pleas equal Must they not joyn Issue upon the Reason of the Case and compare their Circumstances and those of the Apostles and observe wherein they agree and wherein they differ If Men who plead Scripture as their Rule of Faith make Apologie by so doing for all others who pretend to the same Rule then Catholick Councils themselves plead for Socinians For to give an example the General Council of Chalcedon and after it Evagrius testifies That the Intent of the Second Council was to make it appear by Scripture-Testimony That such as Macedonius err'd in that Opinion which they had advanc'd against the Lordship of the Holy Ghost The Council here us'd the like Plea with Socinus but to a contrary End and upon surer Reason In such Cases there will be no satisfactory Conclusion till the moment of the Scriptures be particularly weigh'd For Tradition that was pleaded by Valentinus Basilides Marcion who boasted of their following the Apostle S. Matthias And Irenaeus observ'd concerning Hereticks that being vanquish'd by Scripture they accused it and took Sanctuary in Tradition Thus after his time did the Nestorian Hereticks Their Epistle to the People of Constantinople begins on this manner The Law is not deliver'd in Writing but is placed in the Minds of the Pastors And when the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Third Council that of Ephesus had confuted Nestorius out of the Scripture in stead of answering he foam'd against them S. Cyprian pleaded Universal Consent against Appeals to Rome and that is part of our Plea too Yet the Romanists will not allow that he either pleads for our Church or against their own The Plea is to be consider'd and not meerly offer'd If for example sake a Church-man quotes the same S. Cyprian in favour of the Doctrine of the Unity in Trinity and Sandius the Arian cites the same Father as being against it are we not to have recourse to the Book itself and to examine the Pretences on both sides Or can any Man believe a Quotation is made good by the meer quoting of it And may not one Party be confuted without the Spirit of Infallibility It is evident it may be done for it is done on this manner Sandius cites the Book De Duplici Martyrio as not owning the Text in S. Iohn's Epistle There are three that bear Record in Heaven Now that Book is not S. Cyprians It would be a very Extraordinary Birth if he should be the Father of it for it makes mention of Dioclesians persecution And yet that spurious Book does not reject the place in S. Iohn though it does not exactly set down the Text And for the Genuine S. Cyprian he mentions the Text directly in his Book of the Unity of the Church And of this how are we sure Why Let us open the Book and read plain Words and their unwrested sense gives us satisfaction I conclude then that notwithstanding the Protestants and Socinians do both of them plead Scripture as the rule of Faith yet because Protestants plead the rule rightly in the point of the Divinity of the Son of God and the Socinians very falsly even in the opinion of the Arians and Romanists themselves the Plea of the former does not justifie the Plea of the latter and justifie is our Authors word For the Tryal of the Plea we must come to dint of Argument and Truth is great and will in time prevail CHAP. III. Particular Answers to the particular Branches of the Protestants Plea for a Socinian divided into five Conferences by the Author of it THIS Third Chapter needs not to be drawn into any very great length for after the general Considerations which answer the general Argument there wants little more than the Application of them to the respective Heads in the Dialogues Of the First Conference this is the Sum both Protestants and Socinians plead Scripture as the sole Rule of Faith. Both say the Scripture is sufficiently clear Both say it is clear in the Doctrine of the Nature of the Son of God. The Socinian professeth himself to be as Industrious in finding out the sense of the Scripture as the Protestant and he is as well assur'd in his persuasion therefore the Protestant in this Plea Iustifies the Socinian the latter saying the same thing for himself that the former does I answer First as before That though they pretend to the same Rule they Walk not alike by it One follows it the other wrests it And this ought not to be turn'd to the prejudice of him who is true to his Rule Let both Opinions be brought to it and then it will appear which is strait and which is crooked If Two men lay before them the same Rule of Addition and one works truly by it and the other either through want of due attention or out of unjust design shall cast up the Sum false there is no man who will tell us in good earnest that the first justifies the Second or that both of them needed an Infallible Arithmetician to be their Judg. Secondly Though this Author picks out this one point of the Divinity of Christ and represents it in the term of Consubstantiality which to the Vulgar here is more difficult than that of Homonsiety was to the Greeks and passes by many more easie Socinian Doctrines yet so it is that we find in St. Iohn this very Article plainly revealed For that Apostle who certainly was conscious of his own design wrote the History of his Gospel to this very purpose That we might believe that Iesus is the Son of God

Word in a great Volume of Refutation The Bottom on which all is built is shew'd to be false and if a Workman discovers the unsoundness of the Foundation he is not oblig'd to tell particularly how every single Brick is dawbed with untempered Mortar The Guide is sufficiently answered if it be prov'd either that the first step he sets is false or that he wants Eyes or that he is by prejudice blinded Some such thing seems to be in some degree in this Guide in Controversie and I may set it down as my Second Observation That though there is a commendable Temper in this and his other Writings yet there is an obscureness in all of them and he that is conversant in his Books is as if he walk'd in a calm but darkish Night Part of this obscureness to the Unlearned riseth from Hard Words which though they seem not to be affected by the Author are yet very frequently used by him Such are in his other Discourses Relative Cult Salvifical Non-clearness Inerrability Church-Anarchical Traditive-Sense Decession And in this Plea Autocatacrisie Plerophory Cognoscitive Faculties Unliteral Consubstantiality But the plain truth is this That where the Cause will not bear manifest and sound Sense it must be darkned with Words if Men will plead with Art for it Concerning the Sense of the Protestants darkned in this and his other Discourses he has done it with Art enough I cannot say with equal Sincerity Little Pieces of their Writings are taken out of their Places and inlaid in such manner as to serve the Figure of his Work but to blemish theirs And it may be a Third Note with particular reference to Mr. Chillingworth whom in this short Dialogue he has cited more than twenty times that whilst he has picked out of him many other Words he has omitted every one of those which do expresly answer this Plea for a Socinian I will set down these Words afterwards in their due place for the Satisfaction of Ingenuous Readers and to shew that great Accomplishments may be attended with great Insincerity Fourthly I observe concerning this Writer That he has not in this Dialogue betwixt a Protestant and a Socinian strictly kept the Character of either of them First He hath not accurately observed the Character of a Socinian He introduceth the Socinian as insisting perp●tually upon the Point of the Consubstantiality of th● Son of God or his being of one and the same E●sence or Substance with the Father Whereas that ●● properly the Point in Controversie betwixt the ●●rians and the Catholick Christians rather than betwixt them and the Socinians who derive them selves from Artemon and Samosatenus more directly than from Arius It is true they deny that Christ is of the same Substance with his Father but their proper Heresie is the denial of his being any thing before he was conceiv'd by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary For this reason the Extracts out of the Readings of the College of Posnan against the Socinians have the Name given to them of Theological Assertions against the New Samosatenians and not the New Arians yet in some respects they are and may be so called without absurdness of Speech Socinus himself will not admit that the true Arians are of his way further than as they agree with him in affirming the Father to be the only God by Essence And Sandius though he was a professed Arian and an avowed Enemy of the Nicene Doctrine yet he wrote against the Socinian Heresies which affirm That Christ was a meer Man and deny that the Spirit of God is a Person But the Author may have been moved to select this Point because of its accidental difficulty occasion'd by Scholastick Niceness in their Disputes about this Mystery and the Controversies which they have carry'd on about the very term of Homousiety There was artifice therefore in singling out this Point as capable of being turned into perplexity Especially as Go●… us the Socinian notes when the Occams and the Durands enter into Questions about Formalities Quiddities and Personalities Other Points as about Baptism the Lords Supper Orders and the Church would have been too plain for the purpose Again This Author brings or rather forces in his Socinian and makes him to speak to the Protestant in these words I pray tell me Whether do you certainly know the Sense of the Scriptures for the Evidence of which you separated from the Church before Luther requiring Conformity to the contrary Doctrines as a Condition of her Communion This is rather the Phrase of a Papist than a Socinian For though Socinus believ'd his own Scheme to be new and distinct from the whole Church he did not believe that the Lutherans had made such a Separation Neither would he have disputed with them about the Sense of the Scriptures for the Evidence of which they separated or rather were driven from the Church of Rome for he did allow that those places were clear Nor would he have given to the Roman Church the name of the whole Church or scarce of a Church at all He did not so much as allow it to be a true Church in the most favourable sense of the Protestants who distinguish betwixt a true and a pure Church and compare it to a Mass of Silver embased with Lead Socinus plac'd the Truth of the Church in the Truth of its Doctrine from which Truth he held the Church of Rome to be extreamly departed He affirm'd concerning the Notes or Signs of the Church That either they were false or if true belong'd not to the Church of Rome And he made particular Instance in the Mark of Holy. He declar'd concerning Luther That he drew Men off from false Worship and Idolatry and brought them to that Knowledge of Divine Matters which was sufficient for the procuring of Eternal Life He added That God did afterwards by Zuinglius and Oecolampadius reform certain things of very great importance He repeats it again That by the means of Luther Men were enlightned in those things which were absolutely necessary to Salvation So that this Author does not exactly personate a Socinian when he speaks thus in a Sonian's Name Whether do you certainly know the Sense of the Scriptures for the Evidence of which you separated from the Church before Luther Again A Socinian would not have spoken as this Author does in his Name calling a heinous Iniquity a very great Mortal Sin. Nor would any accurate Speaker have us'd that improper Expression Then Secondly for the Protestant in the Dialogue he does here and there misrepresent his Sense and speak at the same time as by him and yet against him For Example-sake the Socinian having said out of Mr. Chillingworth That his Party had not forsaken the whole Church seeing themselves were a part of it which by the way a Socinian would scarce have said