Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	formal_a	inherent_a	justification_n	2,595	5	10.5390	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15732	Whyte dyed black. Or A discouery of many most foule blemishes, impostures, and deceiptes, which D. Whyte haith practysed in his book entituled The way to the true Church Deuyded into 3 sortes Corruptions, or deprauations. Lyes. Impertinencies, or absurd reasoninges. Writen by T.W. p. And dedicated to the Vniuersity of Cambridge. Cum priuilegio.	Worthington, Thomas, 1549-1627.	1615 (1615)	STC 26001; ESTC S120302	117,026	210

coopling to the Atheist which your self M. Wayte haue heare assumed and practised and you shall finde strange positions well manteined by him For example the Psalmi●t speaking of your self and other such like saith T●s foole haith said in his heart there is no god Now kindly allow him to blott out the word foole as you more thē folishly did the woord Grace to insert in steed thereof the wordes wyse man as you according to the wisdome of the world inserted the word Nature and then obserue how easely he will defende from the scriptures that there is no god seing according to your scriptures The wyse man said in his heart there is no god But to conclude this knowingly and deliberately to corrupt to the dishonour of your owne Catholick Religion and to the ruyne of your owne other ignorant soules is to me an argument most conuincing that you are one of those fooles who said in his heart there is noe god Paragr 3. Cardinall Bellarmine corrupted concerning Iustification IN the verie first page of his preface to the Reader so loth it semed he was to loose any tyme he sheweth vs an other trick somwhat like vnto the former Where by the way I must aduertise him that I hould him a man herein impolitick and incautelous that would not suffer the verie face or front of his Treatise to passe vnblemished since the first he rather should haue coueted to winne the eare of credulity with pleasing insinuations of truth and then the iudgment of his Reader being once possessed after to haue vented forth his more impure d●egs for we are taught Io. 2. that omnis homo primum bonum vinum apponit cum inebriati sunt tum id quod est deterius But to the deprauation pag. 1. of his preface M. Whyte falsly to intimate to his reader how much the Catholicks do disualew the passion of Christ thus wryteth The Church of Rome teacheth that iust●fication is wrought by the habite of our owne righteousnes not by Christes Thus you see how peremptorily he affirmeth without any reseruation that we reiect the righteousnes of Christ to concurre to our Iustification Now this he laboureth to proue from a testimony of Bellarmine de iustificat li. 2. ca. 2. which he thus setteth downe Our owne inherent iustice is the formall cause of absolute iustification not the iustice of Christ imputed vnto vs. That we may conceaue the true meaning of that learned Cardinall in this place I will set downe his owne wordes in latine who there discoursinge of the causes of our Iustification thus saith Ad quaestionem an vid. iustificamur propter meritum Filii dei an propter in ch●atam renouatio●em nostram Respondemus Si illud propter significet causam formalem nos iustificari propter noui tatem nobis inhaerentem non propter meritum Christi quod iuhae●e●e non potest si veró significet causam meritoriam nos iustificari dicemus propter meritum Filii des non propter nouitatem in nobis haerentem That is In this question whether we be iustified propter meritum for the merit of the Sonne of God or for our owne renouation of lyfe I answeare If the word propter doe signify the formall cause then are we iustifyed through our owne newnesse of lyfe inherent in vs and not through the merites of Christ because they can not inhere in vs and these are the wordes alledged by M. Whyte but if the worde propter do here signify the meritorious cause then are we iustifyed propter meritum Filii de● through the merites of the Sonne of God not through any inherent newnes or iustice in vs And then presently concludeth ita iustificamur propter v●rumque c. So we are iustifyed by reason or through them both to wit through the merites of the Sonne of God meritorié meritoriously and through an inherent iustice in vs formaliter formally Thus Bellarmine Where you see the question is not as M. Whyte suggesteth whether Christes iustice doth concurre to mannes iustification which were a horrible blasphemy to deny but onely in what kynd of cause it concurreth the Catholickes teaching that it concurres as the meritorious cause not as the formall cause since if it did as the formall cause then euen according to philosophy it should really inhere in vs but so it doth not But now to obserue M. Whytes calumny fraude in alledging this testimony First he purposly concealeth the latter part of the sentence which sheweth how we ascribe our iustification to Christ as vnwilling that the reader should heare that in any sence we rely thereon Secondly that whereas this testimony of the Cardinales euen as it is set downe by M. Whyte him self excludeth onely Christes merites as the formall cause of our iustification and in none other sence yet our minister alledgeth it to proue that it is no cause thereof at all in this respect it is impertinently vrged for in his owne wordes immediatly before without any limitation of the cause he saith The Church of Rome teacheth that iustification of a sinner is done by the habite of our owne righteousnes not by Christes And then as I said alledgeth for proofe thereof such wordes of Bellarmine as excludeth onely the formall cause thereof But his sleight here was that perswading him self that the ignorant reader not knowing what the word formall cause is or how it is distinguished from other kinde of causes but thinking that it did signify any cause in generall should no sooner see the wordes of Bellarmine but then should instantly conclude with him self here Bellarmine the Church of Rome teacheth that mans iustification is in no sort or maner wrought by the iustice of Christ. And thus much of our Doctors deportement herein who through his subtill feaninge at his pleasure what we are supposed to mantaine doth in the meane tyme endanger and wrong the honour of the worthy and illustrious Cardinall till more full search and disquisition of the truth be made And thus our poetizing minister I meane our lyinge M. Whyte doth interest him self in the censure of the poet Ouid. li. 2. fast fraude perit virtus Heare now I end this deprauation assuring my reader that Bellarmine is so farre of from teaching that Christes iustice doth not necessarily concurre to our iustification that in the former alledged Chapter he thus writeth Iustitia homini a deo per Christi mer●ta donata est c. That is Iustice is geuen by god to man through the merites of Christ. And then presently thus repi●hendeth Kemnitius for his deceipte vsed in this question Kemnitius fraudulenter egit c. kemnitius dealeth fraudulently herein in that to precure malice against vs he opposeth on the contrary side our late begon renouation or newnes of lyfe to the merites of the Sonne of God as if we prized more our owne change or newnes of lyfe though imperfect and late begon then the

moste perfect and the most absolute merites of the Sonne of God The 4. Paragraph Bellarmine againe abused against Merite of workes A Gaine to take away the doctrine of the merite of workes M Whyte pag. 236 thus writeth Howsoeuer our aduersaries contend for their merites yet the learnedest and most iudicious men disalow them c. houlding that which I haue said to be the sounder doctrine and so answearably entitleth that page merite of workes reiected by papistes them selues Now in proofe that the Catholick Doctors condemne all merite of works he alledgeth among others the foresaid Cardinall thus writing By reason of the vncertainty of mans owne rightousnes for feare of vaine glory it is the saifest way to repose our whole confidence in the sole mercy goodnes of god But why think you stayeth the man in that place passeth no further You shall knowe for the immediate wordes folowing in Bellarmine are these Explico propositionem Non enim ita accipienda est c. I explaine this proposition meaning his former sentence which is not so to be taken as that a man should not laboure with all his endeuoure to do good workes and that there were no trust to be put in them or as if they were not to be accompted as true iustice or could not endure the iudgment of god but onely this we say that it is more saife to forgeate after a sort our good workes to cast our eye vpon the sole mercy of god Thus we see how greedily our minister takes hould of the texte and yet concealeth the comment though geuen by the Author him self And therefore I appeale to the censure of the iudicious if the whole contexture of this testimony which is vrged for the ouerthrowing of me rites doth not euen depose the contrary in positiuely confirming and mantaininge the doctrine of merits Againe what impudency is it in M. Whyte to produce Bellarmine as denying the doctrine of works when as the subiect of this very booke from whence the former wordes are taken as also of diuers other bookes in that tome is onely to proue that works do merit● Therefore I will onely say that this our Doctor in all dging his proofes and Authorities carieth him self perfectly minister-like I neede not further to expresse my meaninge since among some thinges there is such an inwarde and inseperable association and nearenes as that but naminge the one we are supposed withall implicitly to vnderstand the other The 5 Paragraph S. Thomas notoriously corrupted against iustification by work TO the lyke effect he depraueth a saying of S. Thomas Aquinas For pag. 26● we thus find Workes he not the cause why a man is iust before god but rather the execution and manif●station of his Iust●ce for no man is iustifyed by workes but by the habi●e of faith infused yea Iustification is done by faith onely Aquin. Ro. 3. lect 4. Gal. 2. Lect. 4. Wheare the reader is to know that the place to the Romanes is onely spent by S. Thomas against the Iewes in coufuting that Iustification is wrought by performinge the ceremoniall workes of the law or morall preceptes therefore he there immediatly before the wordes alledged thus saith which M. Whyte thought good to conceale Apostolus loquitur c. The Apostle doth speake in this Chapiter both of all ce●emoniall and morall workes for workes be not the cause c. to neither of which the Catholickes ascribe any iustification but onely to work●s done in state of grace and receauing their vertue from the passion of our Sauiour In lyke sort in his seconde reference of S. Thomas which is Gal. 3. Lect. 4. we fynde the lyke wordes in sence which our doctor here alledgeth for there S. Thomas cōmentinge vpon that of the Apostle I doe think that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law thus writeth Non au●em solum sine operibus caerimonialibus c Man is iustifyed not onely without the ceremoniall workes which did not confer grace but onely signifyed it but also he is iustifyed without the workes of morall precep●es according to that to Titus c and then presently foloweth in S. Thomas ita tamen qnod hoc intelligat c. yet so that the Apostle here meaneth sine operibus praecedentibus iustitiam non autem sine operibus consequentibus without workes which goe before iustice not without workes folowing iustice which is the doctrine of all Catholickes who teach that workes done out of the state of grace which are those that doe praecedere iustitiam can not iustify but onely such as are consequentia to wit performed after oure first iustification and so in state of grace Thus if M. Whyte had vouchsaifed to hau set downe this laste parte of S. Thomas his sentence which he moste calumniously concealed the reader would haue easely discerned how impertinently these tes●imonies are alledged against the Catholick doctrine of Iustification The 6. Paragraph S. Augustine corrupted against Iustification The doctor not content to depraue and corrupte moderne and more late writers exerciseth his faculty euen in the monumentes of the auntiente fathers For pag. 245. the more to depresse mans iustice he produceth S. Augustine de Ciuitate dei le 19. ● 27. thus writing All our righteousnes standeth rather in the remission of our sinnes then in any perfection of Iustice. The Fathers wordes are these which I will relate at large in latin for the more full discouery of M. Whites demeanour therein Ista nostra iustitia quamnis vera sit propter veri boni finem ad quem refertur tamen tauta est in hac vita vt potius peccatorum remissione constet quam perfectione virtutum This our iustice though it be true by reason of the end of the true good to which it is referred yet it is such in this life as that it rather consisteth of the remissiō of our sinnes thē of the perfection of vertues Here first our minister addeth the word all for greater swelling and fulnes of speach against our doctrine which is not in S. Augustine but this we let passe as a smaller fault Secondly he leaueth owt a parcell of the same sentence to wit although our Iustice be true by reason of the end of the true good whereunto it is referred in which wordes S. Augustine acknowledgeth the very Catholick doctrine of iustification to witt that our Iustice is true Iustice against which this very place is vrged Thirdly he falsly translateth for his owne aduantage those wordes quam perfectione virtutum then in any perfection of Iustice where it shoud be then in any perfection of vertues This he did to make S. Augustines wordes sound in an ignorant eare more clearely against Iustice Iustification mantayned by Catholickes For he can not but know that a man may be truly iust and yet not exercise all vertues in theire highest perfection Now that the reader may learne what is the true

reduced onely to the written word their owne priuate spirit onely must finally decree how the said word is to be vnderstoode either for the impugning or defending of any such pointes controuerted The 6. Paragraph Wherein are examined sundry argumentes framed by M. W. against the vnity of Catholickes in matters of Religion Not many leafes after M. Whyte as well knowing the force of vnity in Faith since it is true that God Non est dissensionis Deus sed pacis goeth about to shew that the Catholickes enioy not any vnity and concord in their doctrine and therefore he thus stileth those leafes The p●pistes haue no vnity in doctrine And page .156 he further saith The papistes agree in nothing wherein they dissent from vs. If either M. W. or any other can proue so much I must graunt that he greatly aduauntageth his cause seeing those wordes of the Prophet Concurrere faciam Aegiptios contra Aegiptios are tipically vnderstoode of the intestine warres and dissentions mantained by the professors of false doctrine This his vaunt he beginneth to exemplify in diuers particulers in the proofe whereof the iudiceous Reader shall fynde that this our impartinent minister for so he may well be tearmed since he altogether insisteth in such vnnecessary and immateriall stuffe endeuoreth most calumniously to bleare the iudgmentes of the ignorant they not being able at the first sight to perceaue the very tuch of any doubt or question betwene the protestants and vs. Many authorities of Catholickes he produceth to this ende the sense and meaning of which he most strangely peruerteth from the true intention of the writer which receaue their full satisfaction from the circumstances of the place But now here I am according to my former prescribed methode to display the weaknes of such testimonies which being acknowledged in their true natiue sense and construction do nothing at all contradict the Catholick doctrine against which they are vrged and consequently do not conuince any wante of vnity in doctrine amonge the Catholickes First thē he alledgeth against prayer in an vnknowne tongue Cōtarenus The prayers which men vnderstand not want the frute which they should reape if they vnderstoode them for they might both specially intend their myndes to god for the obtayning euen in speciall of that which with their mouthes they beg and also through their pyous sense of their praier then vttered they should be more edefyed They want therefore this frute Thus farre Contarenus Now here M. W. is to know that Contarenus doth not here absolutely condemne prayer in a strange tongue which is the lyfe of this controuersy betwene the protestantes and vs since they say it is merely vnlawfull and we hould it lawfull but onely seemes to preferre praier in a vulgar and knowne tongue before it which in reguard onely of the particuler frute aboue specifyed is in the iudgment of most if not all Catholickes more profitable then the other though the other haue certaine peculier helpes and aduantages to it self But what is this to the lawfulnes or vnlawfulnes of praying in a strange tongue or what kind of logick is this Prayer for some particuler reasons is better in a vulgar tongue then in a strang tongue therefore it is absolutely vnlawfull in a strange tongue In lyke sort touching latin seruice he bringeth in S. Thomas of Aquine Caietaine affirming that it were better for the edification of the Church if such Prayer were in a vulgar tongue What Catholick denyeth this if he haue onely respect to the edification instruction of the hearers and of nothing els But seing the publick Liturgies and prayers of the Church are principally directed to other endes then to the instruction of the standers by what doth this testimony force against the contrary practise of the Church therein Againe for the euacuating of the force and operation of confession of sinnes he bringeth in Caietane teaching that A man by contrition without any confession is made cleane a formall member of the Church which indeede is the generall doctrine of all Catholickes and therefore the receaued position with them in the schooles is that Attrition being a greeuing for our sinnes in a lower degree with Confession is answearable to Contrition without actuall Confession Yet here is to be noted that true Contrition which is a repenting for our sinnes in the highest degree onely for the loue of God can not be without Confession at least in voto and desire seing he can not be truly and perfectly penitent who neglecteth the ordinary meanes if opportunity serue for the obtayning of them appointed by God for the expiation of sinne Now who seeth not the independency of this inference Sinne is remitted by Contrition without Confession therefore Confession is absolutely to be taken away Most demonstratiuely concluded as if euery man had true and perfect Contrition or hauing it were infallibly assured thereof and yet this is M. Whytes trysting kinde of arguing In like sort touching Iustification by workes which according to our Catholick doctrine are to be done in state of grace and not by force of nature and deriue their worth not from the worker but both from the promise of God as also from the passion of our Sauiour in the blood whereof they receaue a new tincture the Doctor idly introduceth S. Thomas Aquinas thus teaching No workes either Ceremoniall or Morall are the cause why any man is iust before God c. And in an other place the same S. Thomas The Apostle sheweth Iustification to be wrought by faith onely there is in the woork of the Law no hope of iustification but by faith onely As if the question were whether Ceremoniall Iudaicall and Legall workes did iustify which all Catholickes deny and not workes now in the new Testament as is aboue explaned Finally as vnwilling to be ouer laboursome painfull in setting dowe more of M. Whytes trifling childish stuffe of this nature seeing in this sense that saying houldeth Absurdum est res fu●●les nimis seriò redarguere I will therefore forbearing diuers others conclude with the testimony which against the merit of workes he vrgeth out of C. Bellarmine a place before alledged being a wilfull corruption in concealing the wordes immediatly following explayning the sense but here vrged as a mere impertinency though taking the wordes in that very sense wherin M. W. pretendeth his wordes are these In reguarde of the vncertainty of our owne righteousnes and because of the daunger of vaine-glory The saifest way is to put our confidence in the sole mercy of God Now wherein doth he impugne the Catholick doctrine of merit who teacheth for the greater humbling of our selues and by reason of our manifould sinnes committed against god and of our vncertainty of knowing whether the works done by vs be performed in such sort as they are truly pleasing to God that we should for greater security ascribe nothing to our selues but