Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	call_v	justification_n	justify_v	1,479	5	7.9231	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A27015	The safe religion, or, Three disputations for the reformed catholike religion against popery proving that popery is against the Holy Scriptures, the unity of the catholike church, the consent of the antient doctors, the plainest reason, and common judgment of sense it self / by Richard Baxter.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1657 (1657)	Wing B1381; ESTC R16189	289,769	704

were not all freely given 3. Grace making us acceptable they will not have to be the grace of God by which he loves us and makes ●s acceptable to him according to that Wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved but to be grace by way of habit remaining in us by which we love God therefore they call charity a grace making us acceptable as if by reason of its force and merit men were saved of God 4. Moreover when they divide grace into sufficient and efficacious grace they say ●ufficient grace is given to all and every man even without the Church by which they have a power to will and they can if they will believe and by believing be saved 5. If any want sufficient grace to avoid sin they ●o not truely sin neither are they guilty of sin before God 6 That in the first act of conversion the will is not passive 7. That it is in the power of mans free will to resist o● yeild to efficacious grace § 12. Of Justification BUt now the doctrine of Justification they utterly overthrow 1. For first they confound justification which is an act of God without us as Redemption Reconciliation Adoption with Sanctification and Inherent Righteousness and so confound not onely the Gospel with the Law but quite take away Justification it self the chief benefit we have by Christ in this life 2. They teach men to lay the cause of justification and the merit of salvation in themselves 3. They will have remission of sin to be a blotting of them out by which not only the guilt but also the irregularity it self is abolished 4. As in warming the cold is expelled by the coming of the heat so in justification sin is abolished by the infusion of righteousness 5. Neither will they understand justification in the Scripture as a Law-term to be opposed to condemnation and Sanctification to pollution 6. The Scripture teaches sanctification to be an action of God they make the second justification as they call it not Gods action but their own 7. Whereas the Scripture ●eacheth that we are justified by the grace of God intimating the inward moving cause of justification which is the free favor of God in Christ the Papists understand grace or rather graces inherent in us which yet in the Question of justification wherein the holy Ghost opposes works to grace are not more opposed to works then their first justification is to the second 8. When the Scripture teacheth that we are justified by the righteousness of God and the blood of God i. e. of Christ who is God for by his obedience and blood we are justified and he is our righteousness I say by a righteousness which is not revealed in the Law and therefore not inherent but which is revealed in the Gospel without the Law They understand a righteousness infused by God and inherent in us 9. When the Scripture teaches that we are made the righteousness of God in Christ as he is made sin for us and so that the obedience of Christ is communicated to us for justification as the disobedience of Adam for condemnation namely by imputation But they say we are justified not by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ but partly by the infusion of habitual righteousness viz. in the first justification partly by our own performance of actual righteousness or good works in the second justification 10. For they contend for a double justification the first which consists in the infused habit of charity the other in meritorious works When as the Scripture teacheth that we are justified by faith without works i. e. not-by inherent righteousness but by the righteousness of Christ apprehended ●y faith and therefore that we are not justified by faith as it is a part of inherent righteousness for so with other graces it sanctifies us nor by any other faith then that which apprehends the righteousness of Christ or by any other grace because there is no other beside faith that apprehends Christs righteousness and therefore by faith alone 11. The Papists on the contrary teach faith to justifie as it is a part of inherent righteousness 12. And not so much to justifie as to dispose us for justification by obtaining remission and deserving justification 13. For say they faith and Repentance do justifie as dispositions and meritorious causes ex congruo 14. But that charity is properly the justifying grace 15. And the form of justifying faith 16. And yet that true justifying faith may be separated from charity 17. And therefore that a man having true faith may be damned 18. Neither do they acknowledge any special faith which apprehends the righteousness of Christ but they say that is sufficient which consists in a general consent without all affiance yea even without knowledge which they call implicite faith 19 For they say faith is better defined by ignorance then knowledge 20. Neither can they indure by any means that we say faith only justifies 21. When as the Scripture plainly excludes works as causes from the act of justification though it require them in the subject or person justified as necessary fruits of justifying faith by which believers are justified that is declared to be just but they assert that we are not justified before God by faith onely but also by works as the causes of justification 22. And in this matter they make James plainly to contradict Paul 23. And they invert the disputation of Paul as if the Question he disputes were whether faith justifies without works but whether works justifie without faith 24. That men are justified by the observation of Gods and the Churches commands 25. That men deserve remission of mortal sins by repentance Almes deeds forgiving injuries converting an offending Brother and other duties of piety and charity by which we do not deny but our belief of the pardon of sin is confirmed 26. And that venial sins are purged away by the repetition of the Lords prayer by striking the brest by sprinkling of Holy Water and the Bishops blessing c. 27. That a wicked man may deserve justifying grace ex congruo and that this merit of congruity is when the sinner doth his utmost 28. They deny justificaon be to proper to the Elect. 29. That no man in this life ought certainly to determine that he is of the number of the elect 30. That every one must doubt of the remission of their sins 31. No man can be certain of his justification without a special revelation 32. That no man in this world ought to seek an infallible certainty of his salvation or justification 33. That doubting of the pardon of sin is not an infirmity but a vertue 34. For any one certainly to believe that his sins are forgiven him through Christ is abominable presumption 35. That

Papists you are cruel and bloody for saying so When they have killed one half the other half is bloody if they desire to escape By my good will I 'le never come to the Bench for Justice where this Gentleman hath power For if I accuse a thief for robbing us or a murderer for murdering twenty of my friends I may on these terms expect to be accounted cruel for complaining Yea though I adde I pray Sir spare the person of the Murderer onely do your best to prevent the death of the rest of my friends I may look to be told its a bloody request But perhaps if leisure serve I may say more to this Gentleman in a full Reply to his paper Yea I am so far from desiring your blood that I hope I have given you no abusive language Sure I am I come far short of the language that you give one another where you may judge me to be most sharp I had once very Reverend thoughts of your Father Parsons when I read his book of Resolution and thought that if you had any good one it was he And yet your own Priest Watson calls him An Atheal stratagemitor pag. 160. A bastardly Vicar of hell p. 157. Judge paramount on earth under the Divel in Hell p. 156. The arch cousener p. 149. That he was a bastard unhonestly begot basely born a Wolsey in ambition a Midas in immundicity a traytor in action p. 108. That all Catholikes must depend upon the Archpriest the Archpriest upon father Garnet father Garnet upon father Parsons and father Parsons upon the devil the author of all rebellious conspiracies treasons murders disobedience heresies and all other such diabolical and bloody designments as this wicked Jesuite hath hitherto devised p. 151. One that as sure as you live on earth doth care no more for the lives of all the Catholikes themselves then for so many dogs lives in a time of infectious plague p. 153. Yea saith he questionless he could wish in his heart to see all the seculars and other Catholikes in England hanged rather then to be frustrate of his conceited Japonian Monarchy Yea I verily think he would be the hangman of them all himself rather then his platform should fail if it stood upon so desperate a point as a fitter office for such a base irregular bastard then to come neer Gods holy Altar c. Quodlib pag. 153.154 I will not foul my paper with any more concerning him And of the Jesuites in general I have thought that there are among them some temperate vertuous men but your Priest Watson saith Quodlib p. 346. I call them Jesuitical that is the Faction of Jesuites by a●breviation to avoid circumlocution in one word expressing them to be a factious seditious ambitious avaritious treacherous turbulent Machivilian Atheal consort that abusing the rules of their society and quite perverting the course cause institution and intent of their order c. The reasons he gives at large p. 340. And p. 108. The Jesuites have a special priviledge in two things One is to make all things to be believed as Gospel be it never so false that they speak or write another to make all things be judged false be it as true as the Gospel it self that any other shal write or speak without their approbation But if directly against them out upon it it is not to be heard spoken of or once looked upon And withal the vilest parts that can be played are counted acts of zeal among them if done by a Father so as it may be any way covered with either of their two principles scilic●t propt●r bonum societatis vel ●rdine ad Deum And p. 149. he makes their principles to be Omnia pro tempore ●et divide impera And p. 150.151 he affirmeth that it was the Jesuites own choice and doing that the Papists had not to●eration in England because by sufferings they would have the people more passionately serve their designs This is the language of your own brethren even more as well as he but not mine To conclude concerning these following Disputations I need not tell you that they are none of the elaborate writings of any champion of the Protestant cause challenging your Answer but a few hasty yet considered lines delivered in a monthly meeting of a few Country Ministers for mutual edification by one that never pretended to much skill or will for such Disputes If any of you have a mind to try your strength we boldy challenge you to do it on those mentioned by me in the end to whom let me add Dr. Craken●horpe especially against Spalatens and Dallaeus on several particular subjects as de Paenis sa●i●fact de Imaginitus de I●juniis and the rest I pretend not in so small room to handle the particular differences between you and us but to give my general reasons against you and to choose out one particular about our foundation and yours For I had read in Costerus Enchir. c. de sum Pont. p. 151.152 That No men Petrae plus includat quam fundamentum fundamenta quippe edificium sustinent Petra aut●m s●u Rupes ipsa fundamenta Apostoli ali● fundamenta dicuntur Petrus vero ut Rupes solidissima etiam fundamenta ipsa continet ● in errores vitia labantur detinet authoritat● pastorali And Skulkenius saith Apol. pro Bell c. 6. p. 255. Pontificia potestas est veiut cardo fundamentum ut uno verbo omnia complectar summa fidei Christianae Gretser saith Def. c. 1. l. 1. de verb. Dei p. 16. Id solum pro verbo Dei veneramur ac suscipimus quod nobis Pontif●x ex cathedra Petri tanquam supremus Christianorum magister omniumque controversiarum Iudex definiendo proponit Bellarm. saith lib. 4. de Pont. c. 1. In controversiis Religionis ultimum judicium est summi Pontificis cap. 3. solum Petrum Christus vocavit Petram fundamentum non petrum cum Concilio Et ibid. Petrus quilibet ejus successor est petra fundamentum Ecclesiae Ejus praedicatio confessio est radix mundi si illa errare● totus mundus erraret Ex quo apparet totam firmitatem conciliorum esse a Pon●ifice non partim a pontifice partim a Concilio The Pope then is your foundation yea your Church For saith Gretser Def. c. 10. l. 3. de Verb. Dei p. 1450. Per Ecclesiam intelligimus pontificem Romanum qui pro tempore Ecclesiae naviculam moderatur Et p. 1451. Ecclesiam papam interpretantur Non abnuo But the French have another foundation But that we renounce both yours and theirs I thought meet to tell you in the third Disputation Acept this account from Your friend Ri. Baxter THE CONTENTS Disp 1. Q WHether the Reformed Catholike Christian Religion commonly called Protestant be a safe way to salvation Aff. The terms explained to pag. 11 The first Argument p. 11 The second Argument p. 14 The third Argument

a Covenant Then when Paul saith This Rock was Christ it must proclaim that all the Israelites sences were deceived that thought it to be a true Rock when a Papist will confess that the meaning is This Rock represented or signified Christ As if among many Images you should say This is Peter and this John and this Paul this were plainly to say This signifieth Peter or representeth him c. and doth not proclaim that deceit of sence Bellarmine cannot deny but that it is called in 1 Cor. 10. 11. Bread and the Cup six times over as after the consecration and here his shifting answer is that things are said to be in Scripture what they seem to be as the brazen Serpent is called a Serpent and so here he pleadeth a Trope Good still The Scripture calls it Bread six times neer together after the consecration and it calls it Christs Body once when his living body sate by Now the Question is which of these speeches are Tropical And we must believe Bellarmine that the text which calls it six times Bread must needs be Tropical and that which calls it once Christs Body must needs be understood without a Trope And this is all the evidence they can bring that God hath proclaimed mens sences to be fallible Nay all that we need for our cause is but to take est for significat which is so common that one would think there should not such unnatural absurdities be admitted to avoid it as overthrow our humanity When we plead that Christ had a true body and that a true body may be seen and felt because Christ bids them Luk. 24. See and feel for a spirit hath not flesh and bones c. Bellarmine answereth that Sence is infallible in positives and therefore thence we may say This is a body because I see it self but not in Negatives and therefore we cannot say This is not a body because I see it not And what need we more then that which is here granted By his own confession then we may conclude that This is Bread and Wine because we see feel smell taste it Yet no doubt we may also argue that it is not a natural body because it is not visible or sensible So much for this second Argument which I may thus with full advantage enforce If sence be either fallible or infallible the Pope is fallible But sence is either fallible or infallible Therefore If sense be fallible the Pope is fallible and all his Church for their sences and the Apostles and their followers were fallible If sence be infallible the Pope and his Council are fallible because the common sences of all sound men take that for Bread and Wine which they expresly say as de fide to be believed is not either Bread or Wine Argu. 3. If the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already then are they not infallible But the Pope and his pretended General Councils have erred already Therefore they are not infallible As the first Argument was taken from the no proof of his infallibility and the second from the common senses of mankind so the third is taken from certain experience which is a medium so evident that their vain words and subtil evasions have the less force to elude or obscure it Of the validity of the consequence there is no question can be made He that hath erred is not infallible All the doubt therefore is of the Antecedent which hath by unquestionable evidence of History been put out of doubt by our Writers long ago I shall produce some few instances of many There are no less than fourty Popes whom Bellarmine himself takes notice of as charged with error or heresie for whom he frameth such poor excuses that I should think any impartial Reader might receive satisfaction enough from Bellarmine that the Pope is too fallible Yea that even judicially and in fundamentals he may err Did not Pope Liberius erre judicially when he subscribed to the Arrians confession in the Council of Sirmium Libenti animo suscepi in nullo contradicens which the Fathers condemn of Heresie and to the Councils condemnation of Athanasius as Athanasius himself and many more witness Did not Pope Vigilius err judicially when he condemned the Decree of the General Council for condemning dead Hereticks And when Pope Pelagius and Gregory the first and Adrian the first did all approve of the same Sure one party of these Popes erred unless contradictoryes may be true Yea when Pope Vigilius did afterward revoke his own constitution sure he erred either in making or revoking it And so did Pope Paschalis when they gave God thanks in open Council that they heard the Pope with his own mouth revok those grants which said they contained Heresie which he himself had before made to the Emperor Though Cajetans excuse be true that it was no Heresie yet either the making or revoking was an error What will they invent at last to hide the nakedness of Pope Honorius who in two several General Councils was condemned for a Monothelite Heretick which he judicially perswaded Sergius to when he sought his judgement Stapleton and many more of them confess the full certainty of the Councils condemning him of Heresie but forsooth they say the Council did mistake the case It seems then either a Pope may be a Heretick or a General Council err Moreover will any Papists deny that Pope Stephen six and Sergius erred when they judicially decreed that those should be ordained again that were ordained by Pope Form●sus And of Pope Celestines error Alphonsus a Castro faith that he himself saw it in the ancient Decretals as his Definition and therefore that it cannot be said that he erred as a private man and not as Pope What can they say of Pope John twenty two who denyed the immortality of the soul and was admonished of his heresie by the Doctors of Paris as not onely Pope Adrian the sixth Joh. Gerson Alphons a Castro and others witness but Bellarmine himself confesseth also But he excuseth him because that opinion was not there defined against and therefore was no heresie See here 1. Whether the Papists do not make themselves a new Faith and Religion when they please and that is a point of Faith with them one year that was none the year before so that the novelty and the mutability of their Religion is thus by themselves confessed 2. See here that a point declared in Scripture and held by the former Church is no point of Faith with them unless it be declared by a Pope or General Council 3. See here what men Bellarmine would make all the former Popes to have been that had determined whether the soul were immortal or not 4. Chamier truely noteth that Bellarmine himself forgetfully contradicteth himself and tells us elswhere that Innocent the third the ninteeneth Pope before John twenty two had taught the contrary in express words I shall