Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	divine_a	faith_n	formal_a	1,432	5	11.4042	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49714	A relation of the conference between William Laud, late Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite by the command of King James, of ever-blessed memory : with an answer to such exceptions as A.C. takes against it.	Laud, William, 1573-1645.; Fisher, John, 1569-1641.	1673 (1673)	Wing L594; ESTC R3539	402,023	294

Assembly it is probable 't is no Demonstration and the producers of it ought to rest and not to trouble the Church Num. 2 Nor is this Hooker's alone nor is it newly thought on by us It is a Ground in Nature which Grace doth ever set right never undermine And S. Augustine hath it twice in one Chapter That S. Cyprian and that Councel at Carthage would have presently yelded to any one that would demonstrate Truth Nay it is a Rule with him Consent of Nations Authority confirmed by Miracles and Antiquity S. Peter's Chair and Succession from it Motives to keep him in the Catholike Church must not hold him against Demonstration of Truth which if it be so clearly demonstrated that it cannot come into doubt it is to be preferred before all those things by which a man is held in the Catholike Church Therefore an evident Scripture or Demonstration of Truth must take place every where but where these cannot be had there must be Submission to Authority Num. 3 And doth not Bellarmine himself grant this For speaking of Councels he delivers this Proposition That Inferiours may not judge whether their Superiours and that in a Councel do proceed lawfully or not But then having bethought himself that Inferiours at all times and in all Causes are not to be cast off he addes this Exception Unless it manifestly appear that an intolerable Errour be committed So then if such an Errour be and be manifest Inferiours may do their duty and a Councel must yeeld unless you will accuse Bellarmine too of leaning to a Private Spirit for neither doth he express who shall judge whether the Errour be intolerable Num. 4 This will not down with you but the Definition of a General Councel is and must be infallible Your Fellows tell us and you can affirm no more That the Voice of the Church determining in Councel is not Humane but Divine That is well Divine then sure Infallible yea but the Proposition sticks in the throat of them that would utter it It is not Divine simply but in a manner Divine Why but then sure not infallible because it may speak loudest in that manner in which it is not Divine Nay more The Church forsooth is an infallible Foundation of Faith in an higher kinde than the Scripture For the Scripture is but a Foundation in Testimony and Matter to be believed but the Church as the efficient Cause of Faith and in some sort the very formal Is not this Blasphemy Doth not this knock against all evidence of Truth and his own Grounds that says it Against all evidence of Truth For in all Ages all men that once admitted the Scripture to be the Word of God as all Christians do do with the same breath grant it most undoubted and infallible But all men have not so judged of the Churches Definitions though they have in greatest Obedience submitted to them And against his own Grounds that says it For the Scripture is absolutely and every way Divine the Churches Definition is but s●o modo in a sort or manner Divine But that which is but in a sort can never be a Foundation in an Higher Degree than that which is absolute and every way such Therefore neither can the Definition of the Church be so Infallible as the Scripture much less in altiori genere in a higher kinde than the Scripture But because when all other things fail you flie to this That the Churches Definition in a General Councel is by Inspiration and so Divine and Infallible my haste shall not carry me from a little Consideration of that too Num. 1 Sixthly then If the Definition of a General Councel be infallible then the Infallibility of it is either in the Conclusion and in the Means that prove it or in the Conclusion not the Means or in the Means not the Conclusion But it is infallible in none of these Not in the first The Conclusion and the Means For there are divers Deliberations in General Councels where the Conclusion is Catholike but the Means by which they prove it not infallible Not in the second The Conclusion and not the Means For the Conclusion must follow the nature of the Premisses or Principles out of which it is deduced therefore if those which the Councel uses be sometimes uncertain as is proved before the Conclusion cannot be Infallible Not in the third The Means and not the Conclusion For that cannot be true and necessary if the Means be so And this I am sure you will never grant because if you should you must deny the Infallibility which you seek to establish Num. 2 To this for I confess the Argument is old but can never be worn out nor shifted off your great Master Stapleton who is miserably hamper'd in it and indeed so are you all answers That the Infallibility of a Councel is in the second Course that is It is infallible in the Conclusion though it be uncertain and fallible in the Means and Proof of it How comes this to pass It is a thing altogether unknown in Nature and Art too That fallible Principles can either father or mother beget or bring forth an infallible Conclusion Num. 3 Well that is granted in Nature and in all Argumentation that causes Knowledge But we shall have Reasons for it First because the Church is discursive and uses the Weights and Moments of Reason in the Means but is Prophetical and depends upon immediate Revelation from the Spirit of God in delivering the Conclusion It is but the making of this appear and all Controversie is at an end Well I will not discourse here To what end there is any use of Means if the Conclusion be Prophetical which yet is justly urged for no good cause can be assigned of it If it be Prophetical in the Conclusion I speak still of the present Church ● for that which included the Apostles which had the Spirit of Prophecie and immediate Revelation was ever Prophetick in the Definition but then that was Infallible in the Means too That since it delivers the Conclusion not according to Nature and Art that is out of Principles which can bear it there must be some Supernatural Authority which must deliver this Truth That say I must be the Scripture For if you flie to immediate Revelation now the Enthusiaesm must be yours But the Scriptures which are brought in the very Exposition of all the Primitive Church neither say it nor enforce it Therefore Scripture warrants not your Prophecie in the Conclusion And I know no other thing that can warrant it If you think the Tradition of the Church can make the world beholding to you Produce any Father of the Church that says This is an Universal Tradition of the Church That her Definitions in a General Councel are Prophetical and by immediate Revelation Produce any one Father that says it of his own Authority that he thinks so

God is uttered to men either immediately by God himself Father Son and Holy Ghost and so 't was to the Prophets and Apostles Or mediately either by Angels to whom God had spoken first and so the Law was given Gal. 3. and so also the Message was delivered to the Blessed Virgin S. Luke 1. or by the Prophets and Apostles and so the Scriptures were delivered to the Church But their being written gave them no Authority at all in regard of themselves Written or Unwritten the Word was the same But it was written that it might be the better preserved and continued with the more integrity to the use of the Church and the more faithfully in our Memories And you have been often enough told were truth and not the maintaining of a party the thing you seek for that if you will shew us any such unwritten word of God delivered by his Prophets and Apostles we will acknowledge it to be Divine and Infallible So written or unwritten that shall not stumble us But then A. C. must not tell us at least not think we shall swallow it into our Belief That every thing which he says is the unwritten Word of God is so indeed Num. 8 I know Bellarmine hath written a whole Book De verbo Dei non scripto of the Word of God not written in which he handles the Controversie concerning Traditions And the Cunning is to make his weaker Readers believe that all that which He and his are pleased to call Traditions are by and by no less to be received and honoured than the unwritten Word of God ought to be Whereas 't is a thing of easie knowledge That the unwritten Word of God and Tradition are not Convertible Terms that is are not all one For there are many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church for ought appears And there are many Traditions affirmed at least to be such by the Church of Rome which were never warranted by any Unwritten Word of God Num. 9 First That there are many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church is manifest For when or where were the words which Christ spake to his Apostles during the forty days of his Conversing with them after his Resurrection first delivered over to the Church or what were the Unwritten Words he then spake If neither He nor His Apostles or Evangelists have delivered them to the Church the Church ought not to deliver them to her Children Or if she do tradere non traditions make a Tradition of that which was not delivered to her and by some of Them then She is unfaithful to God and doth not servare depositum faithfully keep that which is committed to her Trust. 1 Tim. 6. And her Sons which come to know it are not bound to obey her Tradition against the Word of their Father For wheresoever Christ holds his peace or that his words are not Registred I am of S. Augustines Opinion No man may dare without rashness say they were these or these So there were many Unwritten Words of God which were never delivered over to the Church and therefore never made Tradition And there are many Traditions which cannot be said to be the Unwritten Word of God For I believe a Learned Romanist that will weigh before he speaks will not easily say That to Anoint or use Spittle in Baptism or to use three Dippings in the use of that Sacrament or divers other like Traditions had their Rise from any Word of God unwritten Or if he be so hardy as to say so 't is gratis dictum and he will have enough to do to prove it So there may be an Unwritten Word of God which is no Tradition And there are many Traditions which are no Unwritten Word of God Therefore Tradition must be taken two ways Either as it is the Churches Act delivering or the Thing thereby delivered and then 't is Humane Authority or from it and unable infallibly to warrant Divine Faith or to be the Object of it Or else as it is the Unwritten Word of God and then where ever it can be made to appear so 't is of divine and infallible Authority no Question But then I would have A. C. consider where he is in this Particular He tells us We must know infallibly that the Books of Holy Scripture are Divine and that this must be done by Unwritten Tradition but so as that this Tradition is the Word of God unwritten Now let him but prove that this or any Tradition which the Church of Rome stands upon is the Word of God though unwritten and the business is ended But A. C. must not think that because the Tradition of the Church tells me these Books are Verbum Dei Gods Word and that I do both honour and believe this Tradition That therefore this Tradition it self is Gods Word too and so absolutely sufficient and infallible to work this Belief in me Therefore for ought A. C. hath yet added we must on with our Inquiry after this great Business and most necessary Truth Num. 10 2. For the second way of proving That Scripture should be fully and sufficiently known as by Divine and Infallible Testimony Lumine proprio by the resplendencie of that Light which it hath in it self only and by the witness that it can so give to it self I could never yet see cause to allow For as there is no place in Scripture that tells us Such Books containing such and such Particulars are the Canon and Infallible Will and Word of God So if there were any such place that were no sufficient proof For a man may justly ask another Book to bear witness of that and again of that another and where ever it were written in Scripture that must be a part of the Whole And no created thing can alone give witness to it self and make it evident nor one part testifie for another and satisfie where Reason will but offer to contest Except those Principles only of Natural knowledge which appear manifest by intuitive light of understanding without any Discourse And yet they also to the weaker sort require Induction preceding Now this Inbred light of Scripture is a thing coincident with Scripture it self and so the Principles and the Conclusion in this kind of proof should be entirely the same which cannot be Besides if this inward Light were so clear how could there have been any variety among the Ancient Believers touching the Authority of S. James and S. Jude's Epistles and the Apocalyps with other Books which were not received for divers years after the rest of the New Testament For certainly the Light which is in the Scripture was the same then which now it is And how could the Gospel of S. Bartholomew of S. Thomas and other counterfeit pieces obtain so much credit with some as to be received

free hearing is more than ever the English Catholikes could obtain though they have often offered and desired it and that but under the Princes word And that no Answer hath nor no good Answer can be given And he cites Campian for it How far or how often this hath been asked by the English Romanists I cannot tell nor what Answer hath been given them But surely Campian was too bold and so is A. C. too to say Honestum responsum nullum no good Answer can be given For this I think is a very good Answer That the Kings and the Church of England had no Reason to admit of a Publike Dispute with the English Romish Clergy till they shall be able to shew it under the Seal or Powers of Rome That that Church will submit to a Third who may be an Indifferent Judge between us and them or to such a General Councel as is after mentioned And this is an Honest and I think a full Answer And without this all Disputation must end in Clamour And therefore the more publike the worse Because as the Clamour is the greater so perhaps will be the Schism too F. Moreover he said he would ingenuously acknowledge That the Corruption of Manners in the Romish Church was not a sufficient Cause to justifie their Departing from it B. § 22 I would I could say you did as ingenously repeat as I did Confess For I never said That Corruption of Manners was or was not a sufficient Cause to justifie their Departure How could I say this since I did not grant that they did Depart otherwise than is before expressed There is difference between Departure and causless Thrusting from you For out of the Church is not in your Power God be thanked to thrust us Think on that And so much I said expresly then That which I did ingenuously confess was this That Corruption in Manners only is no sufficient Cause to make a Separation in the Church Nor is it It is a Truth agreed on by the Fathers and received by Divines of all sorts save by the Cathari to whom the Donatist and the Anabaptist after accorded And against whom Calvin disputes it strongly And S. Augustine is plain There are bad fish in the Net of the Lord from which there must be ever a Separation in heart and in manners but a corporal separation must be expected at the Sea-shore that is the end of the world And the best fish that are must not tear and break the Net because the bad are with them And this is as ingenuously Confessed for you as by me For if Corruption in Manners were a just Cause of Actual Separation of one Church from another in that Catholike Body of Christ the Church of Rome hath given as great cause as any since as Stapleton grants there is scaree any sin that can be thought by man Heresie only excepted with which that Sea hath not been foully stained especially from eight hundred years after Christ. And he need not except Heresie into which Biel grants it possible the Bishops of that Sea may fall And Stella and Almain grant it freely that some of them did fall and so ceased to be Heads of the Church and left Christ God be thanked at that time of his Vicars defection to look to his Cure himself F. But saith he beside Corruption of Manners there were also Errors in Doctrine B. § 23 This I spake indeed And can you prove that I spake not true in this But I added though here again you are pleased to omit it That some of the Errors of the Roman Church were dangerous to Salvation For it is not every light Error in Disputable Doctrine and Points of curious Speculation that can be a just Cause of Separation in that Admirable Body of Christ which is his Church or of one Member of it from another For he gave his Natural Body to be rent and torn upon the Cross that his Mystical Body might be One. And St. Augustine infers upon it That he is no way partaker of Divine Charity that is an enemy to this Unity Now what Errors in Doctrine may give just Cause of Separation in this Body or the Parts of it one from another were it never so easie to determine as I think it is most difficult I would not venture to set it down in particular lest in these times of Discord I might be thought to open a Door for Schism which surely I will never do unless it be to let it out But that there are Errors in Doctrine and some of them such as most manifestly endanger Salvation in the Church of Rome is evident to them that will not shut their Eyes The proof whereof runs through the Particular Points that are between us and so is too long for this Discourse Now here A. C. would fain have a Reason given him Why I did endeavour to shew what Cause the Protestants had to make that Rent or Division if I did not grant that they made it Why truly in this reasonable demand I will satisfie him I did it partly because I had granted in the general that Corruption in Manners was no sufficient cause of Separation of one Particular Church from another and therefore it lay upon me at least to Name in general what was and partly because he and his Party will needs have it so that we did make the Separation And therefore though I did not grant it yet amiss I thought it could not be to Declare by way of Supposition that if the Protestants did at first Separate from the Church of Rome they had reason so to do For A. C. himself confesses That Error in Doctrine of the Faith is a just Cause of Separation so just as that no Cause is just but that Now had I leasure to descend into Particulars or will to make the Rent in the Church wider 't is no hard matter to prove that the Church of Rome hath erred in the Doctrine of Faith and dangerously too And I doubt I shall afterwards descend to Particulars A. C. his Importunity forcing me to it F. Which when the General Church would not Reform it was lawful for Particular Churches to Reform themselves B. § 24 Num. 1 Is it then such a strange thing that a Particular Church may reform it self if the General will not I had thought and do so still That in Point of Reformation of either Manners or Doctrine it is lawful for the Church since Christ to do as the Church before Christ did and might do The Church before Christ consisted of Jews and Proselytes This Church came to have a Separation upon a most ungodly Policie of Jeroboam's so that it never pieced together again To a Common Councel to reform all they would not come Was it not lawful for Judah to reform her self when Israel would not joyn Sure it was or else the Prophet deceives me that