Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	death_n	life_n	sin_n	9,880	5	5.5192	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08426	A true report of the disputation or rather priuate conference had in the Tower of London, with Ed. Campion Iesuite, the last of August. 1581. Set downe by the reuerend learned men them selues that dealt therein. VVhereunto is ioyned also a true report of the other three dayes conferences had there with the same Iesuite. Which nowe are thought meete to be published in print by authoritie	Nowell, Alexander, 1507?-1602.; Day, William, 1529-1596. aut; Fielde, John, d. 1588.; Fulke, William, 1538-1589. aut; Goad, Roger, 1538-1610. aut; Campion, Edmund, Saint, 1540-1581. aut; Walker, John, d. 1588. aut; Charke, William, d. 1617. aut	1583 (1583)	STC 18744; ESTC S113389	169,017	230

not vouchsafe the Doctours an answere shall they be sent away before they haue receiued their answere Camp They wrote vpon occasion against an heretike hauing affiance in workes Charke Be it so then they write aswell against Papists hauing affiance in workes Camp They had affiance in workes done without Christ and are therefore reproued by the Fathers Charke This is onely sayde to shake them all off with one false distinction Agayne it was a straunge occasion you speake of that made the Fathers write an vntrueth But rather you are straunge to expounde them directly against their wordes saying Faith onely doeth iustifie I could here helpe you with a better answere which the better learned on your side vse to this obiection Camp It was the heresie that most troubled Christians in the Primitiue Church Charke This is a newe question and in doubt But howe will you euer bee able to proue that the Apostle disputing for iustification by fayth against iustification by woorkes excludeth onely Paganisme Answere this Camp I haue answered Charke In deede you haue stil somwhat to say but not to answere that point of the argument which most woundeth your cause Therefore a Syllogisme against your shift The Apostle excludeth the morall Lawe from iustifying Therefore your distinction is wast Camp But he excludeth not charitie and good workes Charke What a But is that Is there any charitie or be there any good workes not conteyned vnder the morall and eternall Lawe of God If the deedes of the morall Lawe be shut out from the causes of our iustification by S. Paul what doore can you open to let them in againe Camp I say charitie and good workes are not excluded Charke And I say this is still to begge the question and not to answere the Argument So your doctrine is sufficiently ouerthrowen Walker Besides a great sort of places that master Charke hath brought Sadolet one of your owne hath a plaine place in Epist. ad Rom. Abraham attulit tantum fidem non sua opera And againe Quantum quisque affert de sua iustitia tantum defert de diuina beneficentia c. Camp It is but lost time that you you alleadge Sadolet Hee was but a man of late yeres whose credite is not to be set against the determination of the whole Church besides his meaning was that man should not trust in his owne workes Walker You will allowe no man neither those that are against you nor with you But if he had dealt as soundly in other things as in this he had bene to be striued withall He sheweth by an apt similitude that if a man take a Potte hauing some troubled water in it and goeth to the cleare water to fill it the troubled foule water in the potte doeth not become cleare but rather troubleth and defileth the water which was cleare Euen so the more we bring of our owne the lesse we attribute to God and the lesse we receiue from God Wee must bring nothing of our owne to God It is troubled water when we mingle our workes and righteousnes with Gods Camp Let the similitude be rehearsed It is an apt similitude He that commeth to be iustified by Christ must not bring troubled water but cleare that is those good workes that he did before and those prayers that he made before his morall deedes his almes his fasting c. For all the morall workes that are done before they are troubled water but those we doe afterwards they are made cleare in the Passion of Christ although they be not in all respects perfect Charke I wil so proue that good workes haue no place in iustification that you shall not be able to answere and because the Doctors can haue no answere I will returne to Scripture Sanctification and iustification are two sundry things Therefore good workes the fruites of sanctification haue no place in iustification Camp Make your Syllogisme Charke Whatsoeuer is an effect of sanctification that followeth is not a cause of iustification that went before But charitie and other good woorkes are effectes of sanctification which followeth Therfore they be no causes of iustification which goeth before Answere if you can Camp I deny that they are onely of sanctification they are of both Charke They be disparata handled by the Apostle as diuers things also the one some degrees before the other Therfore you doe euil to confound priora posteriora the effectes of the latter with the causes of the former Camp Is this the argument that can not be answered I say whosoeuer is iustified is also sanctified and so good workes proceede from both Charke Let all men marke the absurditie of this speache If good workes proceede from sanctification and sanctification from iustification howe can good workes goe before them both as a cause seeing they come after both as an effect Thus you are entoyled Here was an open misliking of the answeres and some speach of making an ende Then M. Charke saide I woulde faine vse one argument more to turne Campion out of all his shiftes and to let the company vnderstand his weakenes and especially the weakenes of his cause Campion Let vs heare what argument this is whereof you make such bragges Charke The authoritie and trueth of scriptures for my cause maketh me so confident Therefore marke the argument well We are iustified by Imputation onely Therefore by faith onely Camp Nego Maiorem I deny your Maior Charke I proue the Maior if you so call it Christ died onely by Imputation Therefore we liue onely by Imputation and are consequently iustified by faith onely Camp I deny the argument Charke I proue it by Analogie Christ died onely through the imputation of our sinne Therefore if we liue we liue onely by the imputation of his righteousnes And therfore to say that we liue by any imputation of our owne good workes is asmuch as to say that Christ died by imputation of some of his owne sinne For this analogie and proportion betwixt the causes of Christes death and the causes of our life doth necessarily hold and must diligently be obserued Camp I answere to your similitude Charke If it be a similitude it is by good analogie and demonstration of trueth out of the scripture It is you that abuse the hearers with similitudes that are not similia my argument is demonstratiue Camp I answere then to your analogie So farre as the scripture doth intend it holdeth like as Christ did beare our sinnes so we haue in vs the iustice of Christ. The righteousnes that we haue is giuen vs by Christ. Christ had our sinnes by imputation onely because hee was not capable of sinnes inherent But we are capable of iustice inherent which Christ doth giue vs and therefore in vs we haue the iustice of Christ both by imputation and also inherent giuen by him And therefore it is called the iustice Non qua ipse iustus est sed qua nos iustos fecit Not

whereby he is iust but whereby he hath made vs iust Walker Sinnes inherent in vs and righteousnes inherent in Christ Camp Nay I say righteousnes inherēt in vs giuē by Christ. Charke Campion ye answere not the argument but in place of answering you lay downe newe positions Your inherent righteousnes is not graunted you if it were yet it followeth not that it should bee a fellowe cause in our iustification with Christes righteousnes Camp I say we haue inherent righteousnes and Christ had not inherent sinne Charke What answere is this to my argument If we had it yet it followeth no more that it should iustifie vs then the inherent sparke and light of nature which is leaft should make vs able of our selues clearely to behold the hidden mysterie of the grace and mercie of God reuealed onely by fayth in the Gospell Camp Will you not admitte an answere Charke You are graueled It is no answere to bring a newe and false position that not applied to the argument But I will not let you rest in this starting hole you shall haue Syllogismes Our sinnes alone were of full sufficient force by imputation to condemne Christ vnto death Therefore his righteousnes alone is of full and sufficient force by imputation to iustifie vs vnto life Againe and shortly In Christ there was no inherent sinne to be any cause of his condemning Therefore in vs is no inherent righteousnes to be any cause of our iustifying Camp I dispute not how he might haue iustified but by what meanes he doth iustifie vs. Charke This is plainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to say the least Answere the reasons Doe my arguments proue howe he was able or rather proue they not most manifestly howe he hath iustified vs But as the Scribes Pharisees supposed some inherent sinne in Christ so you their successors suppose some inherent righteousnes in vs and we shall as truely liue by this as he iustly dyed for that Campion I deny the argument because his will is otherwise Charke Here againe is a newe proposition brought in place of an answere But I haue proued that GOD hath done it and therein reuealed his will which is most holy and most perfect in al proportion of iustice Camp I deny it For we haue inherent righteousnes Charke I would you would so answere as men might see with what iudgement ye vse so many denials But I will followe my argument and proue there is no inherent righteousnes in vs whereby we are more or lesse iustified If we haue any inherent righteousnes as a fellowe or helping cause of our iustification then the righteousnes of Christ is not alone without vs so full and absolute to our saluation as were our finnes to cause his condemnation But Christs righteousnes alone without our inherent righteousnes is de facto as full and perfect euery way Therefore we are aswell de facto iustified onely by the imputation of his righteousnes as he was condemned onely for the imputation of our sinne Camp I deny the Minor Charke You deny it manifestly against the doctrine of the Apostle Rom. 5. teaching that there was more force in the righteousnes of Christ to saluation then was in our sinne to condemnation Whereupon you are turned out of your shiftes and must confesse that as Christ was condemned onely for the imputation of our sinne without any inherent sinne of his owne so are we iustified onely by the imputation of his righteousnes without any inherent righteousnes of ours Which who so denieth he shal be found to match mans supposed righteousnes with the righteousnes of God and to exalt flesh and blood against the almightie Here Master Lieutenant signified the time was past Let vs conclude with prayer ALmightie GOD and most mercifull Father we giue thee humble and heartie thankes in the name of Iesus Christ for all thy goodnes especially for the alone and all sufficient sacrifice of Iesus Christ beseeching thee that renouncing all opinion of any righteousnes of our owne we may by faith lay holde of his righteousnes to our euerlasting saluation Also wee thanke thee for the inestimable treasure and armour of thy holy worde whereby thou makest thy children rich in all spirituall and heauenly wisdome inhabling them euen the weakest of them to triumphe against proud and bold ignorance against the deceitfull and lying spirits gone out into the world in these last times to deceiue those that receiue not the knowledge and loue of thy trueth Moreouer good Lord as it hath pleased thee to vouchsafe some blessing vpon our labours this day for which we likewise giue thee thankes so we beseech thee yet further to blesse them that the trueth may be more and more precious to thy children and that they which are yet without may either acknowledge the power and light of thy Gospell if they belong to thee or being none of thine may stand conuicted in their owne conscience as children of darkenesse and haue their mouthes stopped which they so open against the light and trueth of thy most holy word Graunt vs these things O Lorde and whatsoeuer else may serue to thy glory and our saluation through Iesus Christ our onely Lorde and Sauiour Amen Io. Walker W. Charke Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker Printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie Anno 1583. Flagitiosus Apostata Contentiosam tumidam aridam stramineam Lutherus in praefat in epist Iacobi Hanc epistolam S. Iacobi laudo pro vtili ae commodo habeo S. Aug. in his booke of retractations S. Hieromes wordes Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 25. Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 23. Adulterinam August contra Faustum li. 28. cap. 2. lib. 33 cap. 6. Distinct. 19. cap. In Canonicis Ad norm●… Hieronimi August De Doctrina Christian lib. 2. ca. 8. Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 25. dubia ficta adulterina August de Ciuit Dei lib. 15. cap. 23. contra 2. Gaudent Epist. lib. 2. cap. 23. Testes Domini Distinct. 19. cap. In Canonicis S. Augustines wordes The report of them Distinct. 19. Cap. de Canonicis Hierom. Prolog Galeat epistola ad Paulinum Distinct. 20. Cap. De libellis The Pamphleter here saith that M. Day meaning the Deane of Windsor hauing belike of olde store an other Canon to reade c. But the trueth is their affirming the word Canonicall to make all writings so named to be of equall authoritie occasioned vs to reade that Canon before Distinct. 19. Cap. In Canonicis The Decretall Epistles are together numbred with the Canonicall Scriptures To the which if you ioyne the saying of Pope Agatho Distinct 19. Cap. Sic O●…es which is neere to it All the Sanctions of the Apostolique Sea are to be taken as established by the deuine voyce of Peter him selfe sayeth Pope Agatho To the which if you ioyne this which Pope Leo magna voce with a great voyce saith here woulde you not thinke that Sathan or Beelzebub bellowed out most horrible

Goade That is not to the point though some remained yet they were hidde All being persecuted and put to death that coulde be knowen or founde Campion The time of these persecutions was euen like to our times For then the Christians were exiled put to death driuē into corners as the Catholikes are nowe and yet there remained inough c. and they were knowen Goade Surely you make euill and vntrue conparisons you haue no such cause to complaine of bloody persecutiōs in the time of our gratious Queene and doe not wel to compare her highnes peaceable and milde gouernement with those tyrannical persecutions ye might better liken your crueltie shewed in Queene Maries time to those examples I had thought to haue founde more modestie in you Campion Well let the comparison bee of Q. Maries time then Protestants were put to death yet there remained many Goade The question is not whether they remained but whether they were seen But you said of those Emperours times that there remained many and they were not vnknowen They were vnknowen both to the faithles and faithfull ergo they were altogether vnknowen Campion I deny both partes of the antecedent Goade Then I must proue both distinctly and first touching the faithles The faithles could not knowe the Church therefore they did not knowe it Camp They knew it not by faith but by sense they knewe it Goade Iohn 3. The worlde knoweth not vs because it knoweth not him Campion I tolde you they did not knowe him as they ought to know him to saluation They knewe but not fruitfully and effectually As I knowe you are a Protestant but yet beleeue not your religion And a man that saith Masse is knowen and yet you doe not beleeue in it Goade But though the persons were knowen yet they knewe them not to be of the Church I will come to the other part of the antecedent As is the whole so are the partes But God onely knoweth the whole Ergo he onely knoweth the partes For the members of Christ are knowen to Christ alone By reason of many hypocrites men are not able to iudge who are truely faithfull There are many wolues within and many sheepe without Deus nouit qui sunt sui 2. Tim. 2. God knoweth who are his therefore the true members of Christ can not be knowen but to God alone Campion I knowe not who is elect but I knowe who is a Catholike I knowe not whether the Bishop of Rome bee elect or no c. Goade Onely the elect are of the Church whereof Christ is the head Camp I say that both good euill are of the visible Church Goade Christ hath no dead members of his body therefore the reprobate can not bee of the Church I will helpe you with a distinction They may be in the Church but not of the Church Campion The distinction is Caluins and therefore I refuse it But you answere your selfe for euill men may be viua membra Christi the liuely members of Christ in respect of faith but not in respect of charitie A man may be a member of the body of Christ as it is here in earth being a wicked man but onely the godly are members of his body as it is in heauen Your own argument doth confound you It is impossible to knowe the elect therefore it is impossible the Church should be inuisible Goade It is your parte to answere not to oppose you vse many words graunt absurdities Your argumēt doth not folow Campion You cannot know any particular man to be elect you cannot pronounce it of your selfe therefore you cannot measure the Church by election then it remaineth the Church must be visible because it must be knowen Goade To be elect or true members of Christ is one thing to be in the visible Church is another Campion This was Wickliefes error that onely the electe were true members of the Church but as I haue sayde no man can knowe who is elect and therefore you teache that no man can knowe a member of the Church nor no man can knowe that he shall be saued Goade Particular electiō is not so vnknowen as you would make it for a man may haue knowledge of his owne election by vndoubted testimonies and see the signes of election in others Fulke You saide before that visibilitie was an inseparable qualitie of the Church whereupon I reason thus If it be an inseparable qualitie it is an inseparable note But it is not an inseparable note Ergo not an inseparable qualitie Campion I deny both the Maior and the Minor both may be doubted of Fulke I will proue both Campion Giue me leaue A note is more then a qualitie The qualitie is to goe right to goe the neerest and gainest way the safest way A note is a marke that may be remoued that teacheth to turne on the right hand or on the lefte by this crosse or by that windmill or marke c. Fulke I graunt there is a difference betweene a note and a qualitie and you needed not so many wordes to haue shewed that but I speake of an inseparable note and an inseparable qualitie That qualitie which is inseparable being also a note must needes be an inseparable note Also of that your selfe haue saide that it is an essentiall qualitie I will proue the Maior Whatsoeuer marke is of the essence or nature is inseparable The visiblenes is a marke which is of the essence and nature of the Church Therefore it is an inseparable marke Campion It is an inseparable qualitie but not an inseparable note but after a sorte for a qualitie must euermore stande but a marke may be taken away Fulke The question is whether it be an inseparable note of the Church that cannot be taken away Campion I say it may be in a sense Fulke I know not what sense you speake of but this is euident by your owne confession the visiblenes of the Church is a marke and it is of the nature Ergo it is inseparable so my Maior is plaine Campion Proue your Minor Fulke There was a time when visiblenes was no note of the Church ergo it is not an inseparable note Campion I deny the Antecedent Fulke There was a time when the Church was only knowē by the Scriptures therefore there was a time when visiblenes was no note of the Church Campion I deny both the Antecedent and the consequent Fulke I will proue both and first the Antecedent Cam. Nay proue the consequent first then the antecedēt Fulke Why the other is first both in order and nature Campion Nay Whensoeuer the consequent is denied you must straight proue the argument Fulke That is if the consequent onely be denied but seeing you deny both I will first proue that which in nature order is first and afterward I will proue the other if it neede It is but a sory shift of you to decline from the point of the question Chrysostome

our selues to shewe that it is no righteousnes cleauing in vs but in Christ is made ours by imputation euen as our sinnes were imputed to Christ consider the place hereafter with your selfe Fulke Marke here his absurdities First he holdeth that he can keepe the lawe in such perfection as God requireth and he can loue God with all his heart with all his soule and with all his strength and his neighbour as himselfe Secondly he affirmeth that though he haue a lust to steale yet if he bridle that lust hee loueth his neighbour as himselfe Thirdly he holdeth that we are iustified by inherent righteousnes which he thinketh to colour by the grace and gift of God But neuerthelesse ye are in the case of the Pharisee Luke 18. which trusteth in his owne righteousnes yet ascribeth all to the grace of God saying I thanke thee c. He boasted not before men but humbly gaue thankes vnto God acknowledging his righteousnes to be Gods gift and yet Christ tolde this parable against him and such as he is which trust in themselues that they are righteous that is by iustice inherent although they confesse they haue it by the grace and gift of God Campion But this was of pride that he gloryed in his righteousnes and therefore the parable is told against himselfe Fulke I graunt that he was proude and so are all iusticiaries that trust in themselues that they are righteous howsoeuer they would cloke their pride by ascribing it to the gift of God but he is condemned for trusting in himselfe that he was righteous that is for inherent righteousnes which neuerthelesse he ascribed not to his owne strength but to the grace of God saying I thanke thee God c. But I will go to another argument Campion I pray you let me answere this argument first for it shal be reported that I sayd this and that and my wordes shal be depraued I say therefore there are two wayes of iustification one in vs another without vs. Christ is a cause of iustification by his grace and merite without vs and so we are iustified by baptisme and we are iustified by the giftes of God in vs faith hope and charitie how say you were not these my words And why then do you challenge me for saying we are iustified by Gods righteousnesse saith hope and charitie which is within vs. For how say you are we not iustified by faith and is not faith within vs Fulke I challenged you for blasphemous absurditie in saying you could loue God with all your heart with all your soule and strength And albeit hope and charitie follow that same faith by which we are iustified in the regenerate that are the children of God yet we are not iustified by them no nor by faith otherwise then instrumentally as by apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ which is without vs and is no otherwise ours then by imputation And howe can you loue God with all your heart c. when you can not giue him an entire loue according to his lawe Campion I said a man may loue God with all his heart in this life according to his lawe when he doeth preferre God before all the thinges in the worlde as when a man doeth chiefely preferre him c. Fulke But can you loue God onely Campion A man loueth God onely when hee loueth him chiefely c. Fulke Chiefely and only is all one write that Campion Why thinke you the lawe was giuen to no purpose I am sure it was giuen to be fulfilled and we are notbidden to keepe it if it were impossible Fulke The lawe was giuen for another cause then that we should be iustified by fulfilling it namely to shew vs our infirmitie that we may be conuicted of sinne Campion That is a wise cause in deede Belike a father cōmandeth his children not that they should do his will but because he would haue them to see that they can not do it Fulke As though almightie God can haue none other ende of giuing commaundements then mortall men vse to haue But this is not to the question I would goe forward with another argument if you would suffer me Campion You will giue me leaue to declare my meaning Fulke Belike you haue an yll opinion of the auditorie that they can vnderstand nothing except you tel it them twenty tunes ouer If you will not suffer me to proceede I must desire Matter Lieutenaunt to commaunde you If a generall Councill may erre then the Church may erre But a generall Councill may erre Therefore the Church may erre Campion I deny the Minor Fulke A generall Councill may be corrected as Augustine sayth therefore it may erre Campion It may be declared or explaned but not corrected by a contrary decree Fulke Will you heare the place it is Tom. 6. lib. 2. contra Donatistas cap. 3. Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam canonicam tam veteris quàm noui Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum literis ita praeponi vt de illa omnino dubitari disceptari non possit vtrum verum vel vtrum rectum sit quicquid in ea scriptum esse constiterit Episcoporū autem literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribantur per sermonem fortè sapientiorem cuiuslibet in ea re peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum grauiorem auctoritatem doctiorumque prudentiam per Concilia licere reprehendi siquidem eis forte à veritate deuiatum est Et ipsa Concilia quae per singulas regiones vel prouincias fiunt plenariorum Conciliorum auctoritati quae fiunt ex vniuerso orbe Christiano sine vllis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenariasaepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat cognoscitur quod latebat sine vllo typho sacrilegae superbiae sine vlla inflata ceruice arrogantiae sine vlla contentione liuidae inuidiae cum sancta humilitate cum pace catholica cum charitate Christiana That is to say Who knoweth not that the holy canonical Scripture both of the old new Testament is cōteined within her certaine boūdes and that the same is so preferred before all latter writings of Bishops that of it there cānot be any doubt or questiō at all whether it be true or whether it be right whatsoeuer is certaynely knowen to be written therein But that the letters of Bishops which since the canō cōfirmed either haue bin writtē or be nowe in writing may be reprehēded both by the saying which is perhaps more wise of any man that is more skilful in that matter also by the more graue auctoritie wisdome of other bishops that be better learned if any thing in them perhaps be declined out of the way of trueth And that euen those Councils which are held in euery region or prouince without al doubt must giue place to general