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
A85510	A modest vindication of the doctrine of conditions in the Covenant of Grace, and the defenders thereof, from the aspersions of arminianism & popery, which Mr. W. E. cast on them. By the late faithful and godly minister Mr. John Graile, minister of the gospel at Tidworth in the county of Wilts. Published with a preface concerning the nature of the Covenant of Grace, wherein is a discovery of the judgment of Dr. Twisse in the point of justification, clearing him from antinomianism therein. By Constant Jessop, minister of the Gospel at Wimborn minister in the county of Dorset. Whereunto is added, a sermon, preached at the funeral of the said Mr. John Grail. By Humphrey Chambers, D.D. and pastor of the church at Pewsie.	Graile, John.; Chambers, Humphrey, 1598 or 9-1662.; Jessop, Constantine, 1601 or 2-1658. Pauls sad farewel to his Ephesians.	1654 (1654)	Wing G1477; Thomason E817_1; Thomason E817_2; ESTC R207370	97,971	125

against the Papists And truly I wonder that you should cavil at that distinction I gave between a condition and a meritorious cause And more that you should say that Papists ascribe no merit to conditions and preparations You know the question concerning the conditional promises of the Gospel is handled under that concerning the necessity of works where our Writers grant a necessity of presence but not of efficiencie which Bellarmine contends for Now I pray what doe they understand by that efficiency but a meritorious efficiency or what other then that can be ascribed unto works yea that our Authours understand merit by that efficiency they deny Adde to Chemnitius Chamier and consider two passages in him But the Gospel doth not promise salvation without any condition of observing the law nor did ever any of ours teach that so that he do not take the word condition for merit And in ch 5. Sect. 11. For the condition of faith is not antecedent but consequent because there is no merit of faith considered or faith is not the cause of salvation To these joyne Doctor Ames who saith We doe not deny that good works have any relation to salvation for they have the relation of an adjunct consequent and of the effect to salvation obtained as they speake and of an adjunct antecedent and disposing to salvation to be obtained and also of an Argument confirming our assurance and hope of salvation But we deny that any works of ours can be a meritorious cause of justification and salvation And in the Chapter before Promises with a condition of obedience as the causes of that right which we have to the thing promised are proper to the law but promises with condition of obedience as of the adjunct or effect of the thing promised or the donation of it have place in the most bountifull kingdome of grace where there is no place found for our merits Bishop Davenant shall be the next who averring repentance faith and love to be necessary to justification adds by way of explication and in opposition to the Popish sense of necessity These and the like inward works of the heart are necessary to all that are justified not because they conteine in themselves that efficacy or merit of justification but because according to Gods ordination either they are required as conditions precedaneous to or concurrent with justification as to repent and to believe or else as effects necessarily flowing from justifying faith as to love God to love our neighbour And in his next Chapter stating this question whether good works may be said to be necessary to justification and salvation he sets downe in his first and second conclusions that in controversies with Papists and Sermons to vulgar people wee should not use such expressions without due explication of them and that because both Papists and people wil be ready to understand them necessarily as meritorious causes of salvation Shewing by example of the Ancient Fathers how careful they have beene to forbeare some forms of speech by reason of the corrupt sense of hereticks to which purpose he alledgeth that of Hierom that which may well be spoken is not sometimes to be spoken by reason of the Ambiguity Neverthelesse in his fifth sixth and seventh Conclusions he maintains that they are necessary thereto though not as meritorious causes yet as previous and concurrent conditions Let Mr. Perkins be the first wee name for this particular who in his Reformed Catholick besides the head of Merit which wholly makes for us and shewes sufficiently the Papists to be Patrons of merit in that of Repentance speaking of the differences between us and Papists therein saith The fourth abuse is touching the effect and efficacy of Repentance for they make it a meritorious cause of remission of sin and of life everlasting flat against the Word of God And a little after They ascribe to their contrition the merit of congruity which cannot stand with the sufficient merit of Christ We for our parts hold that God requires contrition at our hands not to merit remission of sins but that we may acknowledge our owne unworthinesse be humbled in the fight of God and distrust all our own merits and further that we may make more account of the benefit of Christ wherby we are received into the favour of God and more carefully shun sin for time to come But we acknowledge no contrition at all to be meritorious save that of Christ I might adde to these learned Camero and repeate that which I cited out of him before it being the very distinction which you call a most weake evasion and the defence of which we are now upon As also renowned Pemble who spends a whole Chapter in refuting that opinion of Bellarmine and the Romanists viz. That faith justifies us as an efficient and meritorious cause obtaining deserving and in its kinde beginning justification But I shall content my self with the recitall of two more who handle the very Question now in controversie Whether the Promises of the Gospel be absolute or conditional And determine that they are absolute not conditionall The first of these is Broachman who saith It is not controverted Whether the promises of the Gospel that they may be fruitfull and saving do require faith Neither is it called into controversie Whether the promises of the Gospel be so free and absolute that they discharge a man from a serious sorrow for sins and from all study of good works For he must be an infant in Scripture that is not acquainted with these assertions of the holy Spirit But the true state of the question is whether the Gospel for any our worth intention work merit or any disposition in us doth promise to us grace mercy remission of sinnes and eternal life or rather for and through Jesus Christ apprehended by faith And againe in answer to Bellarmines fifth objection which was that the promises of the Gospel doe alwayes require the condition of Faith Thus hee saith which wee grant And further averrs that this condition of faith will stand with his Assertion of absolute promises For saith he We warned you in the beginning that it is not controverted Whether the promises of the Gospel doe require faith which wee willingly grant But whether in the free remission of sins the condition of Faith be required as any work of ours or certain disposition in us to which as to an efficient helping or cooperating cause the free remission of sins may be ascribed which we do roundly deny The other is Mr. Burges who asserts the same out of Broachman as I conceive By these Citations I hope it will more then sufficiently appear to an eye not strangely possest with prejudice 1. That the distinction between a Condition and a meritorious Cause is no slender and weak Evasion but a maine and fundamental Distinction in this Controversie such as on which the very hinges of the

religiously maintained No Sir our doctrine concerning conditions doth no way destroy the certainty of election But on the contrary the doctrine of election doth confirme this our Tenent of Conditional Redemption For so as God from all eternity purposed salvation unto us and elected us thereto So did Christ purchase it and so is it actually to be applied But God hath from the beginning chosen us to salvation through sanctification of the spirit and beliefe of the truth And heretofore Christ did purchase it to be obtained that way and that way it is actually to be enjoyed So that till we be brought over to the beliefe of the truth and some degree of Sanctification we cannot be said actually to partake of any part of the salvation purposed or purchased That God elects for faith foreseene we uterly deny but that he electeth through or by it i.e. salvation to be obtained through or by it we religiously maintain Your fourth Argument runnes thus If the purchases of Christs death have any condition annexed to them in regard of application then these conditions share with Christ in the businesse of salvation It is the same with another of your Arguments used in your former lectures and neere of kinne to that of Doctor Crispe vol. 1. p. 168. Then Christ justifieth not alone Is faith Christ himselfe if not then Christ must have a partner to justifie But the sequel both in yours and the Doctors Argument is notoriously false and that because conditions are not required in the same way of causality that Christs righteousness is For that is required as a meritorious cause purchasing and procuring mans peace faith is an instrument apprehending it and Christ the cause of it repentance as a way leading to it or qualification fitting a person for it Now when an effect depends on divers causes of a different kind the necessity of the one argues not the insufficiency of the other but the one may be sufficient in its kind though the other be required The wounded person must apply the plaister to the wound if he wil have it heale him The diseased person must drink the potion must travel to the bath and bathe himselfe therein if he will have either the potion to purge him or the bath to cure him Yet would it be great weaknesse in either of these to say that the plaister the potion the bath were not sufficient because they were required to goe unto the one to take and apply the other for their taking going drinking applying are not required in the same sanatory and medicinal way as the bath the plaister or the portion are but only in an instrumental way to bring these home to him that so they might worke upon him So nor is my repentance and faith required in any satisfactory or meritorious way to satisfie Gods justice together with Christ or merit remission for me no Christ doth that alone they are only required to fit me for Christ and bring me to Christ Did we ascribe any merit or worthinesse to our conditions then you might say indeed that we made them partners with Christ but we abhorre this as much as you Faith saith Mr. Gataker affords not the least mite towards the making up of that price wherewith our debt is to be discharged That this answer would be made unto your Argument you your selfe foresaw and therefore to Anticipate it You say But some distinguish betweene Conditions and meritorious Conditions c. Unto which you reply That this is a most weake evasion for Papists themselves ascribe no merit to the preparations they plead for and cite for it Conc. Trid. Sess 6. c. 8. And here Sir is a second calumnie For as before you ranked us with Arminians so here you would insinuate that we joyne hands with Papists in maintaining of this conditional redemption But as I hope I have vindicated it from the charge of Arminianisme so I doubt not also to cleare it from this of Papisme Is it enough my good friend to make a thing evil to say that Papists hold so Why did you cite Aestius and Lessius both Papists among the Champions of your opinion Papists agree with us and wee with them in many things Nor call we that Popish where they are sound and agree with us but that only wherein they being erroneous we dissent from them and protest against them Now whether or no Papists maintaine any meritoriousnesse in the preparations they defend sure I am that Protestant Authors chiefly oppose this meritoriousnesse of them as I shall prove unto you First then consider that what Chemnitius replie to that very place and passage of the Counsel that you cite If I have not mist your quotation His words are these If therefore this were the minde and judgment of the Synod that it would simply shew that manner and order which God doth use according to the Doctrine of the Scripture when he intends to bring men to justification and if they would not attribute those things which the Scripture teacheth do go before it to the strength of free will but to the grace of God and operation of his Holy Spirit nor place any merit or worth in those preparations for which wee may be justified we might easily be agreed concerning the word preparation rightly understood according to the Scripture Out of which of Chemnitius I observe three things 1 That however in that Session they did daube over the matter yet they did hold a dignity worth and merit of congruity to be in these preparations which the same Chemnitius doth afterwards prove at large spending three or foure leaves therein 2 That Chemnitius held something some worke wrought by the Spirit in man to precede his justification or his reception of justification for in the following paragraph thus he speaks It is therefore false which in the ninth Canon they attribute to us as if we taught that not any motion of the will given by God and excited by him doth goe before our receiving of justification for we doe altogether teach that repentance and contrition doe goe before Wee doe not say that they goe before as a merit which by its worth doth cooperate to the obtaining of justification but as the sense of sicknesse or griefe of a wound is not any merit of the cure but doth raise and stirre up to desire seeke out and welcome the Physician For the whole hath no neede of the Phsitian but they that are sick as Christ saith And in this sense those things as the Scripture saith do go before 3. That he could easily have agreed with those Tridentine Fathers about preparations the word preparation being rightly understood and according to Scripture expressions if they would not have ascribed them to the strength of free wil nor have put the worth and merit of justification upon them By this I think it is plaine that they were meritorious preparations that Chemnitius did oppose in his writings

doth not justifie for it is against both his truth and justice 2. It may be taken for one that is ungodly and unjustifiable in himself but yet believing on Christ is through him and his satisfaction Just and so justifiable Such an ungodly person God doth Justifie and thus Ames Paraeus Bishop Downam and those other Divines I have in their descriptions of Justification make not a sinner simply but a believing sinner to be the subject of Justification or the person to be justified Now whereas you say That no where in Scripture a Believer is called ungodly I conceive it false He is called so there For who is the ungodly person spoken of there but Abraham and he was justified as hath been shewed when he did believe Besides God the object of faith Justifying who is described there to be the Justifier of the ungodly is said in ver 26. of the foregoing Chapter to be the Justifier of him that believeth in Jesus I beseech you tell me doth not the Apostle speak of one and the same Justification in both places Doth he not in both places describe one and the same person the person that is justified Him then whom he calls a Believer on Christ in one place the same he calls an ungodly person in the other and whom he cals an ungodly person in this in that he stiles the same a believing person Certainly seeing as it is Chap. 3. vers 30 that it is one God that justifies both the Circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith i.e. All that are justified both Jew and Gentile circumcised or uncircumcised by or through one and the same mean of faith It must needs be that the ungodly person spoken of in the next Chapter is such an ungodly person as hath faith and doth believe or else God should justifie some without faith to which the former place doth aver the contrary That place in the Romanes then concerning Gods justifying the ungodly will not bear the Position you ground upon it viz. That sinners are justified before they do believe or that we do not believe that we may be justified as the Doctor expresseth it an assertion as rotten as the foundation on which it is built and expresly contrary to the Apostle who tells us Galat. 2. 16. that hee had believed on Christ that so he might be justified by the Faith of Christ Thus have I given you an account of some and those of the main of your Arguments both wherein they have not satisfied me concerning the Tenent you endeavoured to maintain and wherein also they have offended me whilst they wounded that I hold for truth through the sides of Popery and Arminianism I shall now shew you some grounds of my belief on the contrary first taking leave in a word to state the Question and to set downe how and what I hold concerning it First then I distinguish between both a condition and a meritorious cause as also between it and an impulsive cause By condition I understand neither any thing meriting Justification at Gods hands in the least degree nor yet any thing moving the Lord to Justifie or bestow Salvation on us Secondly By Conditions I understand the restipulation or repromission in a Covenant the termes and Articles of Agreement in a Covenant betweene equals and the thing commanded or required in a Covenant betweene Superiors and Inferiors such as is the Covenant between God and man Thirdly Whereas there are conditions yet I assert them not in any rigid and legal but in an Evangelical way Not so as if they were not strictly and in a rigid exactnesse perfectly kept there were no hope of Salvation but so as if that they be not in some measure sincerely observed there is sure damnation Mr. Ball will tell you that whereas in the Covenant of Nature perfect obedience is exacted so that if there be the least failing in any jot or tittle and that but once a man can never be justied thereby nor can the breach be made up by any repentance In the Covenant of Grace perfect obedience is indeed required yet so as Repentance is admitted and sincerity accepted Conditions in this Evangelical way I plead for and conceive That God in the New Covenant doth not promise life and salvation absolutely unto his chosen whether they believe and repent or no but doth require from and command them to repent and believe if they will be partakers of the benefits purchased by his Son and promised by himself in that his Covenant which that they may do he himself of his own grace and for his own Sons sake bestowes faith and repentance on them Nor have they a right to any actual enjoyment of these benefits untill they do actually repent and believe The Grounds of my perswasion in this particular follow 1. That Covenant wherein is a mutual stipulation is conditional But such is the new Covenant therefore that is conditional As on Gods part life and salvation are promised so on mans repentance and faith and perseverance therein are required and to be promised Mar 1. 15. Chap. 6. 12. Acts 2 38. chap. 3. 19. chap. 20. 21. John 6. 28 29. chap. 3. 15 16. John 8. 24. Rom. 10 6 7 8 9 John 8. 31. Chap. 15 5 6 7 10. Heb. 3. 6. Chap. 10 38. He cannot see wood for trees that doth not take notice of these Evangelical commands wherein performance of Gospel conditions and perseverance in that performance are required they every where so abundantly occur Choose we out one of the places named and a little insist on it that Rom. 10 9. the rather for that in your answer to Mr. S. you make some reply thereto How say you do you prove that Rom. 10 9. is set down the forme and tenure of the New Covenant I deny it The Apostles intent is c. Sir It is clear as Calvin notes that the Apostle here opposeth the Righteousnesse of faith to the Righteousnesse of Works It is also clear that in describing the Righteousnesse of Works he setteth downe the very tenor and form of that Covenant The man that doth them shall live by them ver 5. And in opposition thereunto delivers this to be the speech of the Righteousnesse of Faith If thou confessest with thy mouth and believest with thine heart c. If then it be granted which cannot be denyed that in these words The man that doth them shal live by them the tenor of the Covenant of Works is contained it must needs follow by the rule of opposition that in these words If thou confessest and believest c. the tenor of the Covenant of Grace is also contained Besides when the Apostle saith The Word is nigh thee c. That is the Word of faith which we preach That if thou confesse c. What I pray you doth he mean by the Word of Faith but the Gospel or what else did the Apostle preach but the Gospel The sum of which he