Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	act_n	faith_n	justification_n	3,419	5	9.8335	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87010	A brief vindication of three passages in the Practical catechisme, from the censures affixt on them by the ministers of London, in a book entitled, A testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ, &c. / By H. Hammond D.D.	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1648 (1648)	Wing H518; Thomason E424_9; ESTC R202516	8,057	16

shal perish is described to be one for whom Christ died The other testimony which I shall adde is that of S. Paul 2 Cor. 5.14 which I desire the intelligent Reader to observe Where speaking of the constreining obliging love of Christ he saith we thus judge that if one died for all then were all dead that is surely All in the full latitude not only the elect but All others and this conclusion the Apostle inferrs by this medium because one i.e. Christ died for all which being a proof of the other must certainly be as true and as acknowledged if not more as that which 't is brought to prove and particularly the all for whom he died be as unlimited as the all that were prov'd from thence to be dead or else the Apostle could not judge as he saith he doth or conclude the death of all in Adam by that medium From this arguing of the Apostle I shall make no question to infer that in S. Pauls divinity Christ died for all who are dead in Adam and on that occasion I shall adde by the way that the contrary doctrine of Christs not dying for all was by the Antients affixt on Pelagius upon that ground of his affirming that all i. e. that Infants were not faln in Adam and so needed not to be redeem'd by Christ Thus it appears by S. August cont. 2. Epist. Pelag l. 2. c. 2. Pelagiani dicunt Deum non esse omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem salvatorem liberatorem c. and when the Massilians to vindicate themselves from that charge of S. Augustines confesse that Christ died for all mankind as it appears by Prospers Epistle Prosper expresses no manner of dislike of that confession but forms other charges against them And the truth is there is scarce any antient writer before Pelagius but hath directly asserted Christs dying for all The testimonies of Irenaeus Clemens Origen Macarius Cyril of Jerusalem Eusebius Athanasius and many others might readily be produced if that were needful And then let it be guest also which of the two positions the affirmative or the negative best deserves the charge of being the spawn of those old accursed heresies which have been already condemned c. The same I could adde from many the learnedst Protestants which never were thought to be tainted with any antient or modern heresie though others I know have exprest themselves otherwise but I need not such auxiliaries To conclude this point I suppose in affirming or vindicating this position I have born testimony to the truth of Christ from whom and whose Apostles I professe to have learn'd this truth and to conceive it for the sense of it as fully testified by plain Scriptures as many Articles of the Creed and for the expression used in the Pract Catechisme of all mankind I must acknowledge to have learn'd it from the Church of England of which I do yet with joy professe my self an obedient son and member in those words of her Catechisme establisht by Act of Parliament and inserted in the Book of Liturgy where I was taught to believe in God the Father who created me and all the world In God the Son who redeemed me and all mankind and in God the Holy Ghost who sanctified me and all the elect people of God where mankind as it is of a narrower extent on one side then all the world of creatures so is it to be understood of a larger then all the elect people of God and so much for the first charge The second is set down p. 15. and it is this That neither Paul nor James exclude or separate faithful actions or acts of faith from faith or the condition of justification but absolutely require them as the only things by which the man is justified What is thus set down I acknowledge to be in terminis in the practical Catechisme but cannot easily guesse wherein the error or perniciousnesse is conceived to lie unlesse it should possibly be thorow a mistake of the phrase the only things by which the man is justified as if by that speech should be understood either that the faithful actions or acts of faith without faith it self were the only things by which we are justified or else that all the things there spoken of Faith and faithful actions or acts of faith are the only CAUSE and so some CAUSE of our justification or by which as by a CAUSE we are justified either of these I confesse might passe for an error but both these doctrines I have sufficiently disclaim'd and indeed in this very proposition 't is affirm'd that the faithful actions or acts of Faith are not excluded or separated from Faith which they must be if they justifie without Faith or the condition of justification i. e. from that faith which is considered as and affirm'd to be the condition of our justification but by those two Apostles absolutely required to what why to faith or the condition of our justication as the only things together with it by which as by a condition and only so as 't is clearly set down all over that part of the Catechisme which handles faith or justification the man is justified This I suppose may give these men some light of their mistake if it were such but if they understand the speech as then and now I do and yet think it error and pernicious I must then only prove that what was said from S. James and S. Paul was not by me falsly imposed upon them and then they must either maintain my speech or fall with me in the same condemnation That S. James doth not exclude or separate faithful actions or acts of Faith from Faith or the condition of justification but require them i.e. Faith and faithful actions or acts of faith as the only things by which as by a condition the man is justified will be clear by the definition of a condition in Logick and the plain words of S. James A Condition is a qualification of the s●bject required to make him capable or a causa sine quâ non and so a condition of justification is no more then that without which a man cannot be justified and that as the direct affirmation of S. James c. 2.24 Ye see that by works i. e. faithful actions or acts of faith a man is just●fied and not by faith only and again Faith if it have not works v. 17. and Faith without works v. 20. is dead and so sure not such as by which we are justified From whence I form this syllogisme That without which in S. James's opinion we are not justified and by which joyn'd with faith we are justified not by faith only is not by S. James excluded or separated from Faith or the condition of our justification but required together with Faith as the only things by which as by a condition the man is justified But without acts of faith or faithful actions in S. James's ●●●mon we are not