Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	faith_n	grace_n	justify_v	4,538	5	8.7378	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36910	The Young-students-library containing extracts and abridgments of the most valuable books printed in England, and in the forreign journals, from the year sixty five, to this time : to which is added a new essay upon all sorts of learning ... / by the Athenian Society ; also, a large alphabetical table, comprehending the contents of this volume, and of all the Athenian Mercuries and supplements, etc., printed in the year 1691.	Dunton, John, 1659-1733.; Hove, Frederick Hendrick van, 1628?-1698.; Athenian Society (London, England)	1692 (1692)	Wing D2635; ESTC R35551	984,688	524

have an Infinite Knowledge But his Knowledge would be necessarily limited if he did not see to the very smallest actions of Creatures or if he saw them but after a speculative manner as People speak to wit without having any influence upon them Moreover if all the actions of Creatures depended not absolutely upon God there would be certain Moments wherein Nature would be independant it would subsist of it self seeing it would act by it self and consequently it would be God whose greatest Perfection is to be Independant and to subsist of himself The Author afterwards Treats of the nature of Justification whereof he distinguisheth three kinds the one which would be solely done by Works if the first Man had persevered in his Innocency the other which we obtain by Faith in Iesus Christ and the third whereof St. Iames speaks which is done partly through Faith and partly by Works The first is not properly speaking a Justification for this term supposeth a Crime and guilty Men. There was then no enmity betwixt God and Man no demand from injured Justice So there was no need of Repentance In the second may be remarked three actions of God For I. He hath imputed our sins to his Son II. He imputes to us the obedience of his Son and keeps an Account for us of the Price which he hath pay'd for us in Suffering on the Cross. III. In fine by vertue of this obedience which Iesus Christ has rendered he forgiveth us our sins he receiveth us into his Grace and destines the possession of Heaven for us Whence it 's easie to conclude that this Second Justification is purely Gratuitous The Principal difficulty runs on the Second Action of God For say they How can God justifie us by the Iustice of his Son Can one be White with the Whiteness of another And would it not be a ridiculous thing to say That a General of an Army is brave by the bravery of Alexander But these Examples are not proper for the matter of Justification For it is true that a Body cannot be White by the Whiteness which another possesseth but nothing hinders but that a Man may be acquitted from a Debt which he had contracted though it be not he but a generous Friend who hath pay'd it Man had contracted unmeasurable Debts with the Justice of God Iesus Christ hath payed this Debt by his Death and God keeps us an Account of his Satisfaction There is nothing herein which implyeth contradiction It was all the Consolation which was given to dying People in the time of Anselmus Archbishop of Canterbury to make them solely to rely on the Justice of Iesus Christ as it appears by the Form of Consolation which he had made for Confessours And the Emperor Charles the Fifth found nothing finer than these words of St. Bernard which he often repeated I cannot enter into Heaven by my deserts but I hope that Jesus Christ who hath a double right to this happiness will be satisfied with one and that suffering me to enjoy the other which is the Merit of his Passion he will procure unto me the enjoymen thereof This is the Foundation of all my hopes For it is a perfidiousness to put our confidence in our Merits Here the Socinians are engaged who say That God having foreseen that Man could not absolutely be exempt from Sin had resolved to supply the defect of his Iustice provided that after having consecrated his heart vnto him he endeavoured to execute his Commandments and to live conformably to his Will This is to renew the opinion of the Ancient Iews who denyed not That the Mercy of God intervened in the Work of Salvation but who maintained at the same time that the Acts of their Repentance joyned to the Sacrifices which the Law had commanded were the causes of their Justification whereas Scripture represents it to us purely Gratuitous St. Paul assures That Man is justified by Faith without Works whereas these Doctors make this Grace to depend of Works rather than of Faith Moreover How can God impute to Men the Charity of Iesus Christ to supply the defect of their Justice if Iesus Christ in obeying perfectly the Law and in dying upon the Cross had not had a Design to satisfie for us The Third Justification is by Works For the better comprehending thereof we must observe that Man can be accused of two things before the Tribunal of God either to be guilty or to be a hypocrite God discharges us from the first of these Accusations in imputing to us the Merit of Iesus Christ which abolisheth all our sins He discharges us from the second by giving us by his Spirit the force of producing good Works which are marks of the sincerity of our Faith It 's in this sense that it is said that Abraham was justified by the Sacrifice of his Son God himself thus expounding this passage when he saith Now I see that thou lovest me And it is the same Exposition which ought to be given to this famous passage of St. Iames who teacheth That we are justified by Works We shall not speak of the Disputes which are the Third Part of this First Tome because they are very short Analyses upon Isaiah Hosea and some other Prophets The sense thereof is expounded after a very clear manner and all along there are some remarks mixed as when Hosea saith That the People shall weep upon Bethaven he remarks very justly That the pride of ancient Conquerors stopped not at triumphing over Cities or over People they had Conquer'd but insulted over the very Gods whom the People adored and that thus this Prophet threatneth the People of Israel That the King of Assyria will lead their Calves in Triumph to Babylon There are at the head of the Second Volume Nine Dissertations upon the Synagogues of the ancient Iews The Origine thereof is not very ancient Those who believed that Moses had had a precaution which all other Law-givers had past over of making his Law to be Read every Saturday that it might never be forgotten have been mistaken It was at the Return from the Captivity of Babylon that Nehemiah did a thing whereof there was no example For he Read the Law to the People without the Temple in a Publick place Since that time it was thought that the Service of God was no longer tyed to the Church of Ierusalem but that it could be done elsewhere and each City took care to build them Synagogues sometime without the City and sometimes without the Circumference of the Walls This opinion which our Author believes to be truest may be oppos'd by a great number of Objections I do not stand at this passage of the History of the Acts where it is said That the Jews had Synagogues according to an Ancient Custom for 500 years or thereabouts sufficeth to give this Name Iesus Christ calls the words of the Ancients a Tradition which was much more new in the Jewish Church and in

the Gauls The conduct of Victor pleased not all the other Bishops who exhorted him in their turn to have sentiments conformable to a Peace Unity and Love to our Neighbours There are still of their Letters adds Eusebius wherein they reprehend Victor with eagerness enough Amongst these Bishops was Irenaeus who in the Letter which he Writ upon this Subject in the Name of the Brothers over whom he presided among the Gauls maintains also that one Sunday must be Celebrated the Resurrection of our Lord yet he advertiseth Victor with much gravity that he ought not to cut off from the Communion whole Churches of God who observe a Tradition and Ancient Custom It will be some difficulty to believe that Bom found in this Affair a Proof of the Authority of the Pope Notwithstanding it is the conclusion he draws from it and grounds 1. Upon that the Bishops who were displeased at this Excommunication would undoubtedly have acted with more haughtiness against Victor if he had not been their Superior whereas they speak unto him with a mildness which marks well that they contested not the Right of Excommunicating the Churches as not being of his Jurisdiction but that they only found fault with the use he made thereof the cause of the Excommunication not being of consequence enough according to them 2. That notwithstanding they were deceived in that and that Victor did well to use this rigour because Blastus one of the principal Patrons of the Opinion of the Asiaticks would have introduced Iudaism under this pretence 3. That the Church approved of the Conduct of Victor in condemning the Bishops of Asia to whom was given the name of Quartodecimal Hereticks 4. That Irenaeus himself hath not doubted of the Superiority of the Bishop of Rome seeing he saith elsewhere That all the Churches must to wit all the Faithful of what place soever they are come to this Church in which the Apostolical Tradition hath been preserved by those who came to it from every Part because of its more powerful Principality Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem Principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab Apostolis Traditio To this Episcopius Replies That the Answer of the Bishops of Asia and the Letter of Irenaeus would not be very respectful if Victor had been the Chief of the Church that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies properly to give a contrary order and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acerbius perstringere are not invented to express the submission of a Subject to his Prince and that if these Bishops could take it ill that their Judge a pretended Soveraign and Infallible should banish from the Church and exclude from Heaven so great a number of Churches for so slight a cause they have therefore thought that he might be mistaken in his Decisions upon matters of Faith and that they had a right to examine them 2. That the Heresie of Blastus justifies not the proceedings of Victor seeing the Asiaticks looked not upon the Celebration of the Passover as a necessary Observance and which should precisely be applyed to such a day that they were contented that Victor and other Bishops should Celebrate it on Sunday if they had their Reasons for it but that they having not the same proofs thereof believed themselves not obliged to abandon the Apostolical Tradition It hath not been remarked that our Professor answereth the passage of Irenaeus because we need only to read it throughly to shew that there is no mention there of the Right of the Bishop of Rome in the Decision of Controversies but only of the Characters which they in the time of Irenaeus did acknowledge Apostolical Thereupon he saith That it must be sought for in the places where the Apostles have established Bishops but because it would be too long to make an enumeration of all the Apostolick Churches he stops at one of the most ancient and greatest which is the Church of Rome As this City was the Capital of the Empire Principalitas Potentior and that for that Reason the Inhabitants of divers Provinces negotiated there and were obliged to come thither Irenaeus concludes that the Apostolical Tradition could not fail of having been faithfully kept there since that if the Christians of a Province or of a City had been minded to corrupt it the Christians of other places who were at Rome would have opposed it it being improbable to suppose that so many different Nations would agree to abandon in so little a time the Doctrine of the Apostles II. Bom often alledged passages out of St. Augustin for the Authority of Popes that gave occasion to Episcopius of citing him the 22d Canon of the Council of Millan where St. Augustin was Secretary and another Canon of the 6th Council of Carthage where this Bishop also assisted both which prohibited the drawing Ecclesiastical Causes of the Diocess of Africk on the other side the Sea whether they regard the Inferior Members of the Clergy or the very Bishops That the Deputies of the Pope having represented to the Assembly That this Canon destroyed the Priviledges which the Council had granted to the Patriarch of Rome in permitting Ecclesiasticks to appeal unto him in Judgments had against them by the Ordinaries the Bishops of Africk were extreamly surprized and said all Unanimously That they never heard of such Priviledges Thereupon these Deputies related three Canons which they said to be of the Council of Nice the Fathers of Carthage to Constantinople Alexandria and Antioch and the Authentick Copies of this Council where not finding these three Canons they Writ to the Pope That the Right of Appealing which he pretended to in quality of Supream Judge and belonged not to him by virtue of the Council of Nice seeing the Three Canons upon which he grounded his pretentions were not to be found in the Originals The Exceptions are reduced to this 1. That the Council of Millan prohibits but the Inferior Clerks to Appeal beyond the Sea and that this is evident because Pope Innocent to whom the Synod of Millan submitted all their Decrees as to the Head of the Church approved the Canon in question 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Copy of the Council of Nice which was kept at Rome was supposed but that there is much more likelyhood that those of Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria were defective seeing the Manuscript upon which Ruffinus Writ his History was so and that there are several Canons of this Council cited in that of Calcedonia and in St. Ambros St. Augustin and Ierome which are not found in this Historian 3. That the Decrees which are accused of Supposition have been cited by other Popes before Zozime as Iulius speaks who living but Twenty years after the Council of Nice could easily have been convinced

Judges that were not suspected of Partiality and desired them to go to the places where these Judges should be with the Informations they had taken against Athanasius The Bishops of the East would not hearken to it whereupon those of the West received Athanasius Marcellus and other Bishops of their Party into their Communion Those of the East were extreamly affronted at it there were many Complaints on each side and at last the two Emperours Constantius and Constantine agreed to call a General Council at Sardis to decide this Difference There went Bishops to it from all parts but the Western Bishops were willing that the deposed Bishops should be admitted to the Communion and take place in the Council the Eastern would not suffer it and withdrew to Philippopolis where they protested against the Proceedings of Sardis as contrary to the Canons of Nice The Bishops of the West notwithstanding continued their Session and made new Canons to justifie their Conduct The Eastern Bishops complained that the Discipline established at Nice was manifestly violated and the Western Bishops said That there was Injustice done to the deposed Bishops that Athanasius had not been heard in Aegypt and that it was just that all the Bishops of the Empire should re-examine this Affair The Bishops of Sardis had no respect to the reasons of their Brethren they renounced not the Communion of Athanasius and made divers Canons the chief of which are the III. the IV. the V. which concern the Revisal of the Causes of Bishops In the third they declared that the causes should first come before the Bishops of the Province and if one of the Parties was grieved by the Sentence he should be granted a Revision Our Author makes divers Remarks upon two Canons of the Council of Antioch to which its commonly believed that that of the Council of Sardis has some affinity which we have spoken of our Author discovers the Irregularities of the Councils of Antioch and Tyre He also remarks that to obtain the Revision of an Ecclesiastial cause an Address was made to the Emperor who convocated a greater number of Bishops to make this new Examination The Council of Sardis made an Innovation in this for it seems that it took away as much as it could the Right of reviewing these sorts of Causes from the Emperor to give it to Iulius Bishop of Rome in honour to St. Peter He might by the Authority of this Council if he thought fit Convocate the Bishops of the Province to revise the Process and to add Assistant Judges to them as the Emperor used to do Besides this the Fourth Canon enjoyn'd that no Bishop should enter into a vacant Bishoprick by the deposition of him who was in it nor should undertake to Examin a-new a Process until the Bishop of Rome had pronounced his Sentence thereupon The Fifth Canon signifies That if he judges the Cause worthy of Revising it belongs to him to send Letters to the Neighbouring Bishops to re-examine but if he thinks it not fit the Judgment pronounced shall stand This is the Power which the Council of Sardis grants to the Pope upon which our Author makes these Remarks 1. That there was somewhat new in this Authority without which these Canons would have been useless Thus de Marca and he who published the Works of Pope Leo have established this Power of the Pope upon the Canons of the Council of Sardis But an Authority given by a particular Council in certain Circumstances as appears by the name of Iulius which is inserted in the Canon cannot extend it self to the following Ages upon the whole this Authority has changed nature so much that now it passeth for an Absolute and Supream Power founded upon a Divine Right and not upon the Acts of one Council 2. These Canons do not give this Bishop the Right of receiving Appeals in quality of Head of the Church but transport only unto him the Right of a Revision which the Emperor enjoyed before It is a great question if the Council of Sardis had the Power of so doing but there is a great likelihood that the Protection which Constantius granted the Arian Party engaged it thereunto 3. These Canons cannot justifie the conduct of those who should carry Causes to Rome by way of Appeal because they return the second Examination to the Bishops of the Province 4. The Council of Sardis it self took knowledge of a Cause which had been decided by the Bishop of Rome 5. This Council could not be justified by the antient Canons in that it received Marcellus to the Communion he who before had been Condemned for Heresie as also afterwards even by Athanasius himself 6. The Decrees of this Assembly were not universally received as it appeared by the Contestations of the Bishops of Africk against that of Rome seeing the first knew nothing of it some years after as our Author sheweth IV. Arianism being spread every where and afterwards Pelagius and Celestius being gone out of England the Clergy of this Isle were accus'd of having been Arians and Pelagians in those Ages Our Author undertakes to justifie them from these suspicions and afterwards describes the Publick Service of the British Churches But as the Ecclesiastical Antiquities of England afford no great matter he hath supplyed them by digressions He immediately refutes I know not what Modern Author who hath been mistaken in some facts concerning the History of Arianism since the Council of Nice at which we shall not make a stay After that there is an Abridgment of this History until the Council of Rimini The Arians being condemned at Nice and vainly opposing the term of Consubstantial thought they could not better save themselves than by yielding to the times They also suffered themselves to be condemned by the Council and to be Banished by the Emperor Arius with Theones and Secondus his Friends Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice Chief Heads of the Arian Faction Signed as the rest yet without changing their Opinion Afterwards they in like manner endeavoured to hide themselves under Equivocations The Circumstances of this History may be seen as Dr. Stillingfleet relates them in the Tenth Tome of the Vniversal Bibliotheque p. 447. and the following ones Yet there are these differences that our Bishop is larger in Reflections drawn from St. Athanasius concerning the Address of the Arians who expressed themselves almost as the Orthodox of that time to deceive the simple Moreover the Relation which we have cited was not made on design to justifie the Orthodox and to get those of the Arians Condemned but to give an Idea of these confusions without taking any Party whereas the design of our Author is to inform the Publick against the Arians without reprehending any thing whatever in the conduct of their Adversaries And our Author hath not applyed himself so much to the order of years which he doth not mark as hath been done in the Life of Eusebius of Caesarea

is transferred by reason of Inconvenience of so many Printers that were forc'd to be employ'd upon 't the only difference in these two Tomes is that the Extracts of the Fathers of the Fourth Age which are in the second Volume are longer and consequently more exact than those in the first He begins with Eusebius of Caesarea whom his Ecclesiastick History hath rendred so celebrated of whom he gives a very dissinterested Judgment Pag. 19. Although he found no difficulty in the Council of Nice to acknowledge the Son of God was from all Eternity and that he absolutely rejected the Impiety of Arius who said that he was Created out of nothing and that there was a time when he was not yet he always found it hard to believe the Term Consubstantial that is to confess that the Son is of the same Substance with the Father and after he had received it he gave such a Sense of it as establish'd not the Equality of the Son with the Father since he speaks thus in a Letter that he writ to his Church to give it an account of his Conduct When we say that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father we Mean only that the Son hath no resemblance with the Creatures which were made by him and that he is perfectly one with the Father by whom he was begotten not of another Hypostasis or Substance When we would justifie Eusebius in respect to the Divinity of the Son it is more difficult to defend what he says of the Holy Ghost For he affirms not only in his Books of the Preparation and Evangelick Demonstration but also in his third Book of Ecclesiastick Divinity that he is not the true God The holy Spirit is not God nor the Son of God because he has not taken his Original from the Father as the Son has being in the number of such things as are made by the Son This shews says Mr. du Pin that Socrates Sozomenes and and some Modern Authors have been mistaken in excusing him entirely whereas on the other side 't is a very great Injustice to call him an Arian and even the head of them as St. Ierom does His Judgment upon other points of Religion appears very Orthodox to the Author and in respect to his Person he says he was very much dissinterested very sincere loved Peace Truth and Religion He authoris'd no new Form of Faith he no way endeavour'd to injure Athanasius nor to ruin those of his Party He wisht only to be able to accommodate and unite both Parties I doubt not adds Mr. du Pin that so many good Qualities was the Cause of placing him in the number of the Saints in the Martyrologies of Usard of Adon and in some ancient Offices of the French Churches It is true he continued not long in the peaceable Possession of this quality of Saint But it would be in my opinion a very great boldness to judge him absolutely unworthy of it The second Author in this second Volume is the Emperor Constantine whose pretended Donation he rejects as well as the false Acts attribubuted to Pope Sylvester because nothing to him seems more fabulous If Constantine was the first Christian Emperor he was also the first that made Edicts against the Hereticks But he did well in not pushing things to that Extremity as his Predecessors have carried them to It is true that he sent Arius into Exile and the two Bishops that had taken his part in the Council of Nice and that he caused all these Hereticks Books to be burnt But he afterwards recall'd him and banished St. Athanasius to Treves He made also an Edict in the Year CCCXX against the Donatists by which he commanded those Churches they possess'd to be taken from them but the Year following he moderated the Rigor of it permitting those who were exiled to return to their Country their to live in rest and reserv'd to God the Vengeance of their Crimes This alteration of his Conduct sufficiently shews that this Prince on these occasions acted not according to his own Reason but according to the different Motions that inspired the Court Bishops who made him the Instrument to execute their Passions He was not of himself inclin'd to persecute Men for Opinions in Religion for the 27th of September the CCCXXX Year he granted the Patriarchs of the Iews an Exemption from publick Charges In the Month of May Anno Dom. CCCXXVI he made an Edict to forbid the admitting into the Clergy Rich Persons or such as were Children to the Ministers of State The occasion of this Edict was because many Persons entred themselves amongst the Clergy to be exempt from publick Charge which was a great Oppression to the Poor And Constantine thought it very reasonable that the Rich should support the burthensom Charges of the Age and that the Poor should be supported by the Riches of the Church Grotius M. Ludolf and others have observed the Disputes of the Eutychians and Nestorians were not really such as they were imagined for many Ages Mr. du Pin is not very far from this Opinion since he says p. 80. that the Eastern People always applyed themselves more particularly to observe the distinction between the two Natures of Iesus Christ than their intimate Union whereas the Egyptians speak more of their Union than Distinction Which has been since the Cause of great Contestations that they have had amongst themselves upon the Mystery of the Incarnation As the Life of St. Athanasius is one of the most remarkable of the Fourth Age for the variety both of his good and bad Fortune so Mr. du Pin relates it more at large It 's plain that from the time of this Father Persons were very much inclin'd to the Exterior parts of Religion since two of the greatest Crimes which the Arians accused St. Athanasius of were breaking of a Chalice and Celebrating the Mysteries in a Church that was not Consecrated We may also observe after these Authors that the Communion was then given to the Laicks under both kinds that there were Women which vowed Virginity which were not Cloister'd up that there were Priests and Bishops married that the Monks might quit their State and take a Wife That it was not permitted to make new Articles of Faith and that even the Ecumenick Councils were only Witnesses of the Faith of their Age whereas they authoritatively judged of such things as regarded Discipline Thus the Bishops of Nice said well in appointing a Day for the Celebration of Easter It pleases us we will have it so But they express'd themselves quite otherwise in respect to the Consubstantiality of the Word since after having given their Opinions upon it they content themselves with adding Such is the Faith of the Catholick Church As for the rest although St. Athanasius was an Ardent Defender of this Council he was not for having those treated as Hereticks which could not without difficulty make use of the