Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n condition_n faith_n justification_n 3,635 5 9.8445 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A93387 Of the al-svfficient external proposer of matters of faith. Devided into tvvo bookes In the first. Is proved, that the true church of God, is the al-sufficient external proposer of matters of faith. In the second. Is shewed the manifold uncertanities of Protestants concerning the scripture: and how scripture is, or is not, an entire rule of faith. By C. R. doctor of diuinitie. Smith, Richard, 1566-1655. 1653 (1653) Wing S4156; ESTC R228293 181,733 514

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

word read by a particular fallible man If anie answer that Reading to them is but à condition of their beleuing but the whole motiue is Gods word which is written I replie First that their beleif dependeth vpon this condition and how can infallible faith depend vpon à condition which is fallible Secondly that thus the word Read and not Written must be the formal cause of their beleif And so Scripture is not the formal cause of their faith For Scripture is onely the word written I ask therfore what is the external formal cause of the blinde and ignorant mens beleif of that which is in Scripture For some such external cause there must be as Whitaker l. 1. de Scrip. c. 6. p. 64. Potter and others grant not the doctrin it self For that is the material obiect of their faith and the thing which is beleued Nor the writing of it or letters of the Scripture For that they perceaue or vnderstand not Nor the Reading For that is fallible 3. If anie say that the doctrin is both the material and formal cause of their beleif becaus it is credible for itself I replie First that this Credibilitie for itself or internal light in the doctrin is feigned and refuted heretofore in that we said before c. 14. of the Scripture Secondly that assent to doctrin for itself cannot be faith becaus faith is an assent for authoritie of some that proposeth doctrin Thirdly that thus Scripture or writing is no formal cause of beleif as Protestants said before c. 11. sec 1. but meerly doctrin is that cause and that writing is but a conseruer or pointer to diuine doctrin but no cause at al of beleuing it Let them then not say that Scripture is the principal external formal cause of their beleuing what they beleue but confess that Scripture or writing of diuine doctrin serues them to no more then Reading serues the blind or ignorant who as they haue the same faith which the learned so must they haue the same external formal cause of faith which they haue but that al the formal cause of their beleuing what they finde in Scripture is the internal light of the doctrin it self and that they haue no external formal cause of their beleif of it and that writing or reading of it doth but point to the veritie or light of the doctrin as they say of the Churches testimonie of the Scripture that it doth but point at the word of God which is to destroie al formal faith which is an assent for authoritie and to become Enthusiasts and to make al Christian doctrin ridiculous to Infidels in telling them that Christians haue no external formal cause why they beleue ether the Scripture to be written by Gods inspiration or that which is in it to be Gods doctrin beside the Scripture or doctrin itself And that as the Church doth but point to the diuinitie of the Scripture but is no formal cause of our beleuing it to be diuine So the Scripture doth but point at the diuinitie of the doctrin which it conteineth but is no formal cause of beleuing it to be diuine doctrin Nether can they giue a good reason why they should say that Gods writing should be credible of be credible of itself to be Gods writing and need onely the Churches pointing to it for to beleue that it is Gods writing and that Gods doctrin should not be credible of itself to be his doctrin and need onely the Scriptures pointing to it that it is his doctrin For why should not Gods doctrin be as credible of itself to be his writing And so al external formal causing of beleif is gon and onely pointing to the obiect of beleeif is left And Protestants must not say that they beleue anie thing becaus it is in Scripture but onely pointeth to what they beleue as they say they beleue not Scripture to be the word of God becaus the Church testifieth that it is so but for it self being pointed to by the Church See Chillingworth supra c. 11. sec 2. SEAVENTENTH CHAPTER That the Scripture hath not proposed points of faith in al times vvhen faith vvas had 1. THat Scripture hath not proposed points of faith in al times when points of faith were beleued is euident For there was no Scripture til Moises and yet therewas true faith euer before since Adam Whitaker Contro 1. q. 6. c. 7. I grant that there is no Scripture ancienter then Moises books and that religion remained pure al that time without Scripture Ibid. c. 16 I grant that God from Adam to Moises kept Religion kept by tradition more then 2000. years doctrin deliuered by liuing voice that is traditions not written Item c. 7. cit Some barbarous men for a time wanted Scripture For a time doctrin may be kept entire without writing Item q. 3. c. 10. I grant there was a time when the word was not written and then was the Church Kemnice 1. parte Exam. tit de Scriptura p. 14. From the beginning of the world for 2450. yeares heauenly Moulins of Tradition c. 17. doctrin by diuine voice reuealed was proposed and from hand deliuered without Scripture diuinely inspired And ibid. p. 41. It is clear that the Apostles for some first yeares deliuered and spread Apostolik doctrin without anie writing of theirs by onely liuelie voice 2. Chillingworth c 2 n. 159. Ireneus tels vs of some barbarous Nations that beleued the doctrin of Christ and yet beleued not the Scripture to be the word of God For they neuer heard of it and faith comes of hearing 3. Dauenant de Iudice c. 5. We grant that before Moyses the word of God Before Moyses Tradition was sufficient not written and propagated to Posteritie by continual tradition was a sufficient Rule of faith Rainolds Conclus 1. God reuealed his wil without writing to Adam and from Adams time til Moises 4. And was the Church of God for 2400. years before Christ infallible in al points of faith and is she not after Christ infallible in the most fundamental point of al concerning Scripture was the tradition of the Church for al that time an infallible rule of faith and it is not now Is the Church since Christs Hebr. 7. time of worse condition then it was then or did men in that time ordinarily beleue ether without some external means or motiue which is Prophetical and miraculous or did they beleue infallibly for the tradition of the Church at that time which was fallible Whitaker l. 1. de Script p. 64. saieth We ask which is that external cause for which we must beleue For there must Some external cause infallible be some external cause seing faith is not bred in vs nor produced of the Holie Ghost without external causes vnles miraculously and is of hearing And l. 3. c. 10. p. 415. As the Doctrin and religion which we profess is heauenlie and diuine such also must be the reason and
Preacher nor is in ordinarie course necessarie to engender diuine faith as we shal clearly proue hereafter neuertheless becaus the letter of Scripture is a Proposal of points of faith though we cannot properly enquire whither Scripture propose al points of faith becaus that is the parte of a Proposer yet we may wel enquire whether in Scripture or by Scripture al points of faith which are anie wayes necessarie te be beleued of anie kinde of men be sufficiently proposed as Protestants commonly affirme and Catholiks euer deny So that whether the letter of Scripture be a Proposal of points of faith or a Proposer of them we may enquire whether by Scripture al such necessarie points be sufficiently proposed or no. Yet before we enquire this we wil shew the vncertaintie of Protestants touching al things belonging to Scripture that euen therby it may clearly appeare that howsoeuer they say that the Scripture is the Iudge the entire Rule or Al-sufficient Proposer of al matter of faith they can indeed think nothing less FIRST CHAPTER VVhether S. Iames Epistle be Canonical Scripture and Gods vvord or no FIRST SECTION Protestants sometimes affirme CALVIN in praefat in epistolam ●acobi I doe willingly without controuersie embrace it Epistle of S. Iames becaus I finde no sufficient cause to reiect it Whitaker ad Rationem 1. Campiani We receaue it and number it among the Canonical books For whatsoeuer Luther or anie other thought of it yet our Churches doe willingly embrace it Contro 1. q. 1. c. 16. our Church receaueth al and onely those books of the New testament which the Councel of Trent receaued If Luther and others who follow Luther otherwise thought or wrote of some books of the New testament as the Epistles of Iames and Iude let them answer for themselues Nether need we cite anie more becaus both the French English and Holland Confessions account S. Iames Epistle Canonical SECOND SECTION Protestants sometimes denie LVther in c. 22. Genes to 6. fol. 282. Iames concludeth il It Luther said S. Iames d●ated followes not as Iames doateth Therfore the fruits doe iustifie Let therfore our aduersaries be packing with their Iames And praefat in Epistol Iacobi I doe not think this was written of anie Apostle for this cause For it is directly against S. Paul and al other Scripture it attributeth Iustification to works Melancthon de sacris Concionibus to 2. fol. 23. If it cannot be mitigated with some exposition as that of Iames you see c. such simply are not to be receaued Magdeburgians Cent. 1. c. 4. The Epist of Iames doth not a little stray S. Iames ascribeth iustification to workes from the Apostolical doctrin whiles it adscribeth iustification to works and not to faith alone And Cent. 2. c. 4. The Epistle of Iames adscribeth iustice to works against S. Paul and al other Scriptures Pomeranus the first Protestant Pastor of Wittenberg in c. 4. Epist S. Iames erreth ad Rom. By this place thou maiest espie the error of the Epistle of Iames in I●●erreth ridiculously which thou seest a wicked argument beside that he ridiculously inferreth he citeth Scripture against Scripture which the Spirit cannot suffer Wherfore it cannot be numbred among the books which preach iustice Confessio Heluetica c. 15. The same he S. Iames saied not contradicting the Apostle otherwise he were to be reiected Which they would neuer say if they were assured that it were Gods word For I suppose they would not reiect Gods word in anie ca●e Musculus in locis Tit. de Iustificatione they obiect to vs the places of Iames. But whosoeuer he was though ●e taught differently from Paul he could not preiudice truth And he addeth Imperti●ently That he impertinently bringeth in the example of Abraham that he abuseth the word Faith and setteth down a sentence different from Apostolical doctrin And Tit. de Scripturis plainly a●uocheth that he holdeth it not for Authentical Hence it is euident that Protestants agree not about their Canon or Rule of their faith For Lutherans reiect S. Iames Epistle as also diuers others which Caluinists account parte of the Rule of their faith and parte of Gods word Euident also that Caluinists must iudge their brothers Lutherans to haue a most desperate cause For as Whitaker writeth Respon ad Rat. 1. Campiani who cannot defend their religion vnles they laie violent hands vpon the Scripture and break the sacred authoritie of diuine books they must needs haue a naughtie and desperate cause But so doe al Protestants who denie S. Iames Epist Morton to 2. Apol. l. 1. c. 1. Al corruption of Gods word deserueth Gods thunderbolt And the same Whitaker l. 2. de Script p. 218. It is most of al necessarie that the Sic etiam cont 1. q. 3. c. 3. A certain Canon most necessarie certain Canon of Scriptures be vndoubted among Christians But so it is among Protestants For they are not agreed about the certain Canon of Scriptures And yet as Laude saieth sec 38. n. 8. What scripture is Canonical is a great point of faith Sec. 3. n. 12. If she the Church at this day reckons vpmore books within the Canon then heretofore she did then she is changed in a main point of faith the Canon of scripture And Hooker l. 1. § 14. Of things necessarie the very chiefest is to know what books we are bound to esteeme holie See infra c. 15. n. 7. SECOND CHAPTER VVhether al things that are in Scripture be plain and easie to be vnderstood or no FIRST SECTION Protestants sometimes affirme LVther de seruo arbitrio to 2. fol. 426. It is published by the wicked Sophisters that some things in Scripture are hard and that al are not open Ibid. fol. 440. I say of al the No parte of Scripture obscure Scripture I wil not haue anie part of it to be saied obscure In psal 37. to 3. fol. 10. If anie of their Papists number appeal and say we need the exposition of Fathers the Scriptures are obscure Thou shalt answer that this is fals No book in al the world is more clearly written then the Scripture which if it be compared with al other books is like to the sun before al other light Whervpon said Tailor in his Epistle dedicat of his libertie of Prophesing p. 47. so confident Luther sometimes was as he said he could expound al Scripture Gerlachius to 1. Disp 1. p. 9. We say al the Scripture is so clear as it Al scripture clear needeth no interpretation at al. Zanchius de Scriptura to 8. col 408. How can the Scripture be called obscure in anie parte of it Et col 409. If the Scripture be not obscure in anie parte as we shewed before much less in In euerie parte those things which are necessarie to Saluation Whitaker contro 1. q. 4. p. 341. Al the Scripture The whole Scripture is plain and clear Plessie of the Church c. 5. p.