Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	argument_n	faith_n	justification_n	1,485	5	9.6631	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28344	Vindiciæ foederis, or, A treatise of the covenant of God enterd with man-kinde in the several kindes and degrees of it, in which the agreement and respective differences of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, of the old and new covenant are discust ... / [by] Thomas Blake ... ; whereunto is annexed a sermon preached at his funeral by Mr. Anthony Burgesse, and a funeral oration made at his death by Mr. Samuel Shaw.	Blake, Thomas, 1597?-1657.; Burgess, Anthony, d. 1664.; Shaw, Samuel, 1635-1696.	1658 (1658)	Wing B3150; ESTC R31595	453,190	558

work a work of God towards man not without the actual concurrence of man such in which neither God nor man are sole efficients nor any act of God or man can be sole instruments but there must be a mutual concurrence of both This must needs be granted unlesse we will bring in Doctor Crispes passive recipiency of Christ Christs abode in man without man in spight of man and suppose him to be justified in unbelief And hereupon faith is disabled from this office in justification by this argument If Faith be an instrument it is the instrument of God or man 1. Not of man for man is not the principal efficient he doth not justifie himself 2. Not of God For 1 It is not God that beleeveth though it is true God is the first cause of all actions 2. Man is the causa secunda between God and the action and so still man should be said to justifie himself 3. For as Aquinas the action of the principal cause and of the instrument is one action and who dare say that faith is so Gods instrument 4. The instrument must have an influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality who dare say that faith hath such an influx into our justification I answer It is the instrument of man and though man do not justifie himself yet he concurres as a willing ready agent with God in it God is a justifier of those that beleeve in Jesus Rom. 3. 26. God hath set Christ forth a propitiation through faith Rom. 3. 25. It is one God which shall justifie the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith Rom. 3. 30. And because it is the instrument of man in a work of this nature it is also an instrument of God As some have observed a communication of Titles between Christ and his Church the Church being called by his Name so there is a communication of actions in these relative works Christ dwells in our hearts by faith Eph. 3. 17. We believe and not Christ and yet faith there is Christs instrument whereby he takes up his abode God purifies the hearts of the Gentiles by faith Acts 15. 17. They beleeved and not God yet faith is Gods instrument in the work of their purification so on the other side the Spirit is Gods work yet we by the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the flesh Rom. 8. 13. Man neither justifies nor sanctifies himself yet by faith he is raised to close with God in both and so Faith as an instrument receives righteousness to justification and therefore is called the righteousness of faith which is our justification and works sanctification provided you understand not the first work which is properly regeneration and precedent to faith but the farther progresse and increase of it The Spirit working faith faith takes in a larger measure of the Spirit John 7. 37. He that beleeveth on me as the Scripture saith out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water but this he spake of the Spirit which they that beleeve on him should receive The Spirit will do nothing without our faith and our faith can do nothing without the Spirit Man cannot justifie himselfe by beleeving without God and God will not justifie an unbeleeving man Faith then is the act of man man beleeves yet the instrument of God that justifies onely beleevers so that what is here spoken by way of exception against faith as an instrument holds of efficients and instruments sole and absolute in their work and causality But where there is a concurrence of agents and one makes use of the act of another to produce the effect that in such causality is wrought it will not hold The promise or grant of the new Covenant in the Gospel is insted of faith made the instrument in the work of justification This is indeed Gods and not mans It is the covenant of God the Promise of God the Gospel of God but of it self unable to raise man up to justification It is often tendred and justification not always wrought so disabled from the office of an instrument by Ke●ker in his Com upon his first Canon concerning an instrument Assoon as the instrument servs not the principal agent so soon it loses the nature of an instrument He instanceth in an horse that obeys not the reins of his rider but grows refractory then he ceaseth to be an instrument for travel A sword is not an instrument of slaughter where it slays not nor an axe an instrument to hew where it cuts not neither is the Gospel an instrument of justification where it justifies not without our faith it never justifies Where the Minister is a Minister of condemnation the savour of death to death there the Gospel becomes an instrument of condemnation and of death The efficacy that is in the Gospel for justification it receives by their faith to whom it is tendred Heb. 4. 2. Vnto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them but the Word preached did not profit them not being mixed with faith in them that heard it 1 Thes 2. 2 13. You received not the Word of God which you heard of us as the word of men but as it is in truth the Word of God which effectually worketh also in you that beleeve So that the Gospel in it self considered is wanting in that honour assigned to an instrument to have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality If none dare say faith hath such an influx they may much lesse say that the Word hath such an influx The Gospel is an outward instrument saith Ravanellus Faith an inward They both making up one instrument full and compleat yet Faith is more aptly and fitly called an instrument Seeing that faith gives efficacy as an instrument to the Word the Word may be without Faith and so no instrument at all but Faith always presupposeth the Word of Promise is not without its object Therefore to wind up this whole dispute in which I have studied to be brief though I fear some will think I have been too tedious Seeing that those that make Faith the instrument in justification make the Gospel an instrument likewise and dare not go about to strip it of its honour I hope that they that make the Gospel an instrument will acknowledge Faith to be an instrument in like manner being in their efficacy as instruments so inseparably joyned and so all the controversie may be fairely ended and concluded CHAP. XXII Objections against the conditionality of Faith answered AGAINST this which hath been said it is objected by one that Vnbelief is not a barre hindring one Objections from having part in Christ God bestowes Christ without any regard to our belief or unbelief Which words how high soever against the Gospel yet he undertakes to salve with a distinction There is a twofold receiving of Christ saith

love in a graciously disposed soul cleaves to Christ for communion but receives him not for justification These two stand as relatives there is no soul entituled to this righteousnesse but by faith and faith is it that entitles to it the beleeving soul hath interest in it Therefore justification in Scripture is ascribed to faith and denied to works when neither faith nor works can beare us out of themselves before the tribunal of God but faith takes hold and the soul by faith rests on this righteousnesse of grace which the Gospel tenders It is true that faith receives the Spirit as well as it receives the blood of Christ Joh. 7. 39. Gal. 3. 14. But this is for another use for the work of sanctification inherent not justification by righteousnesse imputed And it is also true that faith accepts Christ as a Lord as well as a Saviour But it is the acceptation of him as a Saviour not as a Lord that justifies Christ rules his people as a King teacheth them as a Prophet but makes atonement for them onely as a Priest by giving himself in sacrifice his blood for remission of sins These must be distinguished but not divided Faith hath an eye at all the blood of Christ the command of Christ the Doctrine of Christ but as it eyes and fastens on his blood so it justifies He is set out a propitiation through faith in his blood Romans 3. 24. not through faith in his command It is the blood of Christ that cleanseth all sin and not the Sovereignty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christs Mediatourship and the several offices of faith may not be suffered Scripture assignes each its particular place and work Sovereignty doth not cleanse us nor doth blood command us faith in his blood not faith yeelding to his Sovereignty doth justifie us There are several acts or fruits of justifying faith Heb. 11. But all are not justifying It is not Abrahams obedience Moses self-denial Gideon or Sampsons valour that was their justification but his blood in which faith alone gives interest who did enable them in these duties by his Spirit Paul went in these duties as high as they living in more clear light and under more abundant grace I doubt not but he out-topt them and yet he was not thereby justified as 1 Cor. 4. 4. James indeed saith that Abraham was justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son on the Altar James 2. 21. But either there we must understand a working faith with Piscator Paraeus Pemble and others and confesse that Paul and James handle two distinct questions The one whether faith alone justifies without works which he concludes in the affirmative The other what faith justifies whether a working faith onely and not a faith that is dead and idle or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who streight inferres from Abrahams justification by the offer of his sonne And the Scripture was fulfilled that saith Abraham beleeved God and it was accounted to him for righteousnesse How otherwise do these accord He was justified by works and the Scripture was fulfilled that saith he was justified by faith Neither can I reconcile what he saith if this be denied with the whole current of the Gospel The Rhemists indeed understand those texts of the Apostle where he excludes works from justification to be meant of mans moral works done before faith and conversion The works of the Law done without Christ Annot. in Rom. 3. 20 28. As though the Law did not command those duties unto which Christ through faith strengthens a Christian converted by grace And when the Apostle concludes the impossibility of being justified by the works of the Law his meaning should be unlesse grace assist the Law that it may justifie This could not be the Apostle calls it a righteousnesse of God without the Law not a righteousnesse of the Law with addition of strength from the Gospel All works before or after conversion inherent in us or wrought by us are excluded from justification See Ravanellus in verbum Justificatio Num. 3. page 867. This justification wrought freely by grace through faith Rom. 3. 24. is no way consistent with justification by works And what the Apostle speaks of election we may well apply to justification the same medium equally proves the truth of both If by grace then it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace But if it be of works then it is no more of grace otherwise works were no more works Rom 11. 6. And these things considered I am truly sorry that faith should now be denied to have the office or place of an instrument in our justification nay scarce allowed to be called the instrument of receiving Christ that justifies us because the act of faith which is that which justifies us is our actual receiving Christ and therefore cannot be the instrument of receiving This is too subtile a notion we use to speak otherwise of Faith Faith is the eye of the soul whereby we see Christ and the eye is not sight Faith is the hand of the soul whereby it receives Christ and the hand is not receiving And Scripture speaks otherwise We receive remission of sinnes by Faith and an inheritance among them that are sanctified is received by Faith Acts 18. 26. Why else is this righteousnesse sometimes called the righteousnesse of Faith and sometimes the righteousnesse of God which is by Faith but that it is a righteousnesse which Faith receives Christ dwells in us by Faith Ephes 3. 17. By Faith we take him in and give him entertaintment We receive the promise of the Spirit through Faith Gal. 3. 14. These Scriptures speak of Faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus The instrumentality of it in the work of justification is denied because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwayes rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kind in Moral actions The material and formal causes in justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvel then in case men mind to contend about it that some question is raised about the instrument But in case we shall consider the nature and kinde of this work about which Faith is implied and examine the reason and ground upon which Faith is disabled from the office of an instrument in our justification and withall look into that which is brought in as an instrument in this work in the stead of it I do not doubt but it will easily appear that those Divines that with a concurrent judgment without almost a dissenting voice have made Faith an instrument in this work speak most aptly and most agreeably to the nature of an instrument The work about which Faith is implied is not an absolute but a relative

concerning grace and works verse 6. to the 11. 2. He speaks to the Gentiles and to take down their insultation over the Jewes he shewes that this rejection of theirs is not final And this as the former is 1. Asserted verse 11. I say then have they stumbled that they should fall viz. irrecoverably fall God forbid 2. Proved by giving account of a twofold end of this rejection of the Jewes 1. The call of the Gentile verse 12. But rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles for to provoke them to jealousie 2. A more glorious returne of the Jews in emulation of the Gentiles verse 12. Now if th● fall of them be the riches of the world and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles how much more their fulnesse Hereupon he falls upon a large discourse of his zeal toward them and their re-ingraffing vers 13. 14 15. adding the words of the Text If the first fruits be holy the lump also is holy and if the root be holy so are the branches This Para●us makes a farther Argument for proof that the Jews shall again be called Gomarus makes it an encouragement to the Apostle to endeavour their call howsoever here is a double similitude One drawn from the Ceremonial Law If the first fruits be holy the lump is also holy The other from Nature If the root be holy so are the branches The first is only mentioned the second is largely commented upon In both we see 1. A supposition 2. An affirmation The supposition is of the holinesse of the first fruits the holinesse of the root The affirmation is the whole lump is holy the branches are holy This last is grounded on a principle in nature universally true As is the root so is the branch they are both of one and the same nature As is the one so is the other Which he applies to the state of the Church of God first to the Church of the Jewes and that 1. In their ancient estate when they were a people of God in Covenant-relation holy so stiled of him frequently in Scripture 2. In their present state for a great part broken off and so made no people 3. In their future condition when they should be called of God and as it were risen from the dead Secondly he applies it also to the Gentiles 1. In their ancient estate as no people 2. In their present estate made a people of God in the place of the Jewes 3. In their possible estate and condition to be rejected and cast off On which we may ground several undeniable Positions some concerning the subject root and branch some concerning the predicate holy First concerning the subject root and branch in this place as by way of Metaphor set out the estate of parent and childe ancestor and issue 2. The whole body of the Church is compared to a tree to an Olive tree 3. The root of this tree viz. the first supreme universal root is Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Not Abraham alone so Ishmaelites would be of the body Nor Abraham with Isaac alone so the Edomites from Esau would have been taken in But the Apostle in this chapter from Old Testament-authority excludes both of them Abraham Isaac and Jacob are therefore joyntly the root 4. The branches of this tree are of two sorts ●ome natural issuing from the root by descent others ingraffed put in by way of insition The ●ewes were natural branches descending from the loynes of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. The Gentiles are branches by insition put into the stock the natural branches being broken off 5. The fatnesse of this tree is the glory of Ordinances of which the whole Church partakes or as some say Christ is the fatnesse but that is onely as he is tendered in Ordinances for he walks in the middest of the Golden Candlesticks In which sense onely we may yeeld that Christ is that fatnesse Secondly concerning the predicate Holy There is one and the same holinesse goes through the whole tree all the branches natural and engraffed through the whole Church and all the children of it Jews and Gentiles The whole of this holinesse is from one Original root and therefore one and the same 2. This holinesse is such as is communicable from parent to childe and necessarily communicated as a root communicates sap to the branches This is so plaine that if it be denied all the Apostles dispute falls 3. It is no holinesse of inhesion but relation not qualitative but federal The holinesse of the Jewes who were a holy Nation was such The holinesse of the Gentiles can be no other Holinesse of inhesion is not communicable but only holinesse of relation In holinesse of inhesion the proposition holds not as is the father so is the child who knowes not that holy fathers have unholy children regenerate parents have issue unregenerate These things considered it is evident that as the father is in regard of Church-state Covenant-holinesse so is the childe both in the Church of the Jews and Gentiles The father being without the childe is without the father being within the childe is within eo nomine because a branch of such a root a childe of such a father which is a full confirmation of the point in hand that the childe is in Covenant with the father and the person that actually enters Covenant is not solely vested in it One stands upon the contrary part and puts it to this issue for trial Whether this ingraffing be into the visible Church by profession of Faith or into the invisible by Election and Faith and concludes that it is meant of the Church invisible which if he can make good I shall confesse all Arguments drawn from hence as to this point are lost I would to avoid impertinent cavils and quarrels each Text were brought to such issue I shall in the first place bring arguments to evince that the breaking off and engraffing is respective to the Church as visible and then proceed to answer arguments from a late hand against it 1. That ingraffing which is into Abraham Isa●● and Jacob as a root is not an invisible graffing by saving Faith and Election This is plaine we live not by power received from Abraham Abraham cannot say he bears us up in saving graces and that without sap from him we can do nothing But the ingraffing is into Abraham Isaac and Jacob as a root This argument as is said by one were of force if Abraham were made a root by communication and for prevention he is put to it to tell us of a root communicating nothing but an exemplary root or an exemplary cause of beleeving only what an exemplary non-communicating root is or meanes let the Reader Consider Secondly that ingraffing which caused disputation and contention in some emulation in others upon the sight and report of it was not by saving faith only into the invisible body but open visible and apparant into the

when it is well known that infant-Baptisme was not in that Councel of 66 Bishops at all agitated much lesse determined It was not put to the Question but taken for granted by all that were present The dispute and the determination was upon that which Fidus questioned which was the Baptisme of infants before eight dayes old and not infant-Baptisme how could he mean that it hath since continued in a streame by vertue of that determination or Canon when he very well knowes there was neither determination nor Canon upon it nor yet any need of it They determined that which in their meeting was put to the Vote that an infant under eight dayes might be baptized So that this Quaere as all the rest stands unsatisfied and antiquity cleared for infant-Baptisme It is yet farther said that many learned men in former and latter times take infant-Baptisme onely for an unwritten tradition giving us a list of Popish Writers that have spoke to this purpose a Cardinal in a Popish Councel Bennus Bellarmine and Erasmus that had scarce stept over the threshold from them To which we answer That it is no marvel if these making it their businesse to parallel unwritten Traditions with Scriptures some of them to preferre them before them and knowing infant-Baptisme to be in honour in all Churches do pin it upon unwritten Tradition that so they may advance the honour of unwritten Tradition with it yet even these cite Scriptures for it and so marre their own market of Traditions as those that procure them are forced to acknowledge When Bellarmine would argue the Scriptures imperfection and assert a necessity of unwritten Tradition then he can affirme that infant-Baptisme hath no other foundation but when he will defend infant-Baptisme against those that matter not Tradition he can finde Scripture for confirmation Foreseeing this Objection an Answer is brought out of Bennus That some things may be proved out of Scripture when the true sense of Scripture is evident and infant-Baptisme is proved from John 3. 5. but the sense whereby to prove it is manifest by tradition Becan Manual lib. 1. cap. 2. sect 24. It is very well known that these Jesuites will say as much of any point of Faith and leave the whole meaning of all Scripture to rest on the Churches interpretation continued by tradition As to the quotation of Protestant Authors so many of them as have kept up the honour of Scripture and made no defection from that way it onely speakes their boldnesse to affirme that any of them ever dishonoured infant-Baptisme in that way as to settle it upon unwritten tradition or to fixe it on such a bottome They very well know that as they defend the Scriptures full perfection and make it their businesse to oppose all that would have it ek't out by any thing that is unwritten so they assert infant-Baptisme on Scripture-foundation Can they think that they have to deal with such weak adversaries that whiles against their party they contend with scripture-Scripture-Arguments that infants ought to be baptized they will yield up the cause on the other hand to Papists and confesse the insufficiency of Scriptures But the homonymie or various acception of the word Tradition may deceive the unwary Reader Sometimes tradition is taken in the proper sense for that which is delivered or handed over from one to another in this sense every point of faith is a tradition and so is Baptism it self as well as infant-Baptisme in which sense Paul takes it 2 Thes 2. 15. Stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our Epistle Sometimes tradition is taken for that which is delivered in word without writing as there is distinguished a tradition by word and a tradition by Epistle what Paul taught in his Epistles is a tradition and what Paul delivered by word of mouth is a tradition and both must be held Here somewhat seemingly is spoken for unwritten traditions by the Apostle For solution of which our Protestant Divines have taught us to distinguish between the doctrine it self that is delivered to us and the way and manner of delivery So Chamier de canone fidei lib. 8. cap. 1. sect 16. The former of those might admit of many sub-divisions The way of delivery is either by writing in the Scriptures or by lively voice by Gods Ministers as Chamier farther observes sect 19. Here again we must distinguish between words and things the words that are uttered and the doctrine that these words contain all words are not written all our words in Sermons are not written in the Scriptures all Pauls words in his Sermons are not written in Scriptures as appears by his distinction before delivered by word or Epistle but the doctrine it self that we deliver is contained there Paul preached nothing but that which Moses and the Prophets said should come Acts 26. 22. yet there were many words delivered by him which Moses and the Prophets never spoke They yet teach us to distinguish between that which is expressely written in the Scriptures and that which is by evident consequence thence deduced Amesius defending the Scriptures perfection against Bellarmine introducing unwritten traditions saith The Question is not whether in so many words all necessary truths are contained in the Scriptures but whether they may be gathered from thence in any expresse speech or necessary consequence Bellar. Enervat cap. 6. thes 1. Let Doctor Sclater in this be heard who speaking to this point saith Thus informe your selves 1. Where generals are delivered there are all particulars comprized in those generals intentionally delivered because generals comprehend particulars 2. Where principles and causes are delivered there effects are also intended as being virtually contained in their principles 3. Where one equal is taught all of like reason it taught quia parium par ratio and where there is par ratio there is par lex Where there is like reason there is like law So take contents of Scripture no instance of any point of necessary or but convenient faith and practice can be given but what is delivered in the written Word Doctor Sclater in 2 Thes 2. 15. and when they have well weighed these things they will finde small cause to believe that they have any advantage from these Authors Field it is said sayes The fourth kinde of Tradition is the continued practice of such things as are neither contained in the Scripture expressely nor the examples of such practice there delivered though the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of such practice be there contained and the benefit or good that followeth it Of this sort is the Baptisme of infants which is therefore named a tradition because it is not expressely delivered in Scripture that the Apostles did baptize infants nor any expresse precept there found that they should do so yet is not this so received by bare and naked tradition but that we finde in