Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	evil_a	good_a	know_v	2,974	5	4.2147	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A81734	The Quakers folly made manifest to all men: or a true relation of what passed in three disputations at Sandwich, April, 12, 13, 19, 1659. between three Quakers, and a minister, viz. Mr. Samuel Fisher, George Whithead, Richard Hubberthorn, and Thomas Danson wherein many popish tenents were by them maintained, and by him refuted. Occasioned by an imperfect and (in many things) false relation of the said disputations, published by R. Hubberthorn, one of the three Quakers, which said relation is also censur'd and amended. Together with a brief narrative of some remarkable passages. / By Tho. Danson, late fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon, and now minister of the Gospel at Sandwich in Kent.	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1659 (1659)	Wing D215; Thomason E2255_3; ESTC R34492	40,882	71

pervertest Scripture T. Danson I leave it to the judgement of judicious hearers whether I have perverted Scripture or no and so pray do you The third Qu●stion debated on was though with much ado at length stated in these terms Whether our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification And Mr. Fisher held it in the Affirmative Mr. Fisher Thus I prove that our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification by a rule that you own Contraria contrariorum ratio whence I argue thus If our evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation then out good works are the meritorious cause of our non-condemnation or justification But our evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation therefore our good works are the meritorious cause of our non-condemnation or just●fication T. Danson Now you shew your self a rank Papist indeed We deny your consequence because our evil works are perfectly evil but our good works are but imperfectly good and any one evil is a violation of the Law and deserves the penalty of the Law but any one or more good work is not the fulfillin● of the Law Let me add that there is no consequence in that Popish Argument notwithstand●ng that Canon because our good and evil works are not absolute contraries the one being perfectly evil the other but imperfectly good Mulum oritur ex quolibet defectu Bonum fi●●ex integris causis which latter appears by Isa 64.6 All our righteousnesses not our unrighteousnesses only are as filthy rags And again thus the rule will allow to argue Evil works which are the violation of the Law deserve damnation Ergo good works which are the fulfilling of the Law deserve salvation And we know no good works such but Christ's And once more in respect of the subject the Rule will not hold being one who owes all his good works to God and is a finite creature now those works which merit must not be due and they must be of infinite value or else there is no proportion between them and the reward And thus we might argue à contrariis If his evil works from whom only good works are due as from a finite creature to an infinite Creator do truly deserve damnation then his good works who owes none and is an infinite person do truly deserve non-condemnation But verum prius ergo et posterius And to understand this we must know that the desert of disobedience arises chiefly from the dignity of the Object against which sin is committed when as the desert of obedience arises from the dignity of the subject by which it is performed Mr. Fisher I will prove my consequence from Gal. 5.18 But if ye be led of the Spirit ye are not under the Law Whence I argue If they who are led by the Spirit are not under the Law then the leading of the Spirit is the meritorious cause of their not being under the Law but they who are led by the Spirit are not under the Law Ergo. T. Danson Sir you are very silly your self or take your hearers to be so that you think this to be a proof of your former consequence or that there is any consequence in this Argument You should have proved that there is par ratio for the merit of good and of evil works And surely Sir the leading of the Spirit or Sanctification is a fruit and effect not a meritorious cause of not being under the Law that is obliged to its penalty Mr. Fisher I will prove by another Scripture that leading by the Spirit is the meritorious cause of our Justification 1 Cor. 6.11 And such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God Observe here the Co inthians are said to be justified by the Spirit T. Danson I might say that perhaps the clause should be referred to Sanctification which is in a more appropriate manner attributed to the Spirits efficiency as if the order of the words had been but ye are sanctified by the Spirit of our God and such transpositions are not without instance in the Scripture as Mat. 7.6 Give not that which is holy to dogs neither cast ye your Pearls before swine lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rent you where turn again and rent you is to be joyned to the dogs for as swine do trample under their feet so dogs do fly upon a man and tear him down Or else justified by the Spirit may be meant of the Spirits application I mean the third Person in the Trinity not of the work of Grace whereof we are the Subject Mr. Fisher In the 8th of the Rom. v. 2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the Law of sin and death Now 't is the same Law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ and the Saints T. Danson That place is much against you For the Apostle asserts the Holinesse of mans Nature as a work of the Spirit conforming it to the Law to be the merito●ious cause of ou● freedom from sin and death but mark withal 't is not that which is in us but in Christ And though 't is true that the same spirit is in Christ and the Saints yet neither does the spirit in us conform us fully to the Law notwithstanding your vain assertion of perfection nor if it did were that conformity the merit of J●stification Let me add that the Law of the Spirit of life here spoken of is not only the meritorious cause of our freedom from death but from the Law of sin or obeying of sin as a Law now I would fain know what precedent holinesse in the Saints merits subsequent holinesse or whether the exercise of what they have is the meritorious cause of what they have not or of perfection especially if the law of sin intends the corruption of nature as the Law of the Spirit of life does holiness of nature I would be instructed how a nature in part corrupted can deserve total freedom and I am sure the first work of the Spirit renews our natures but in part Mr. Fisher Pray read on Rom. 8.4 That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit This place saies the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled in the persons of the Saints T. Danson Sure Sir you never read v. 3. which tells us that the Law was weak through the flesh that is unable to justifie us in regard of our inability through corruption to fulfill it which were untrue if we are able to fulfill it and what follows God sent his own Son to give us what we could not attain to by our own obedience to the Law and as for the 4th v. it imports the end for which God sent Christ that the righteousnesse of the Law might

the Law and by Christs righteousness that which is in Christ made his by Faith G. Whithead Then it seems you make two righteousnesses of Christ whereas the righteousness of Christ is but one T. D. Yes so I do what of that Do you think that the ri●h●eousness which the Apostle calls his own was not Christs Had he any righteousness which he had not received and yet that righteousness which was in the Apostle never was in Christ as the subj●ct but was wrought in him by Christ as an efficient cause And Christ had an inherent righteousness in respect of which he is said to know no sin and to be a Lamb without spot and blemish Are not here then two righteousnesses and they serve for two different ends the one for our just●fi●ation the other for our sanctification the one gives us a right to the inheritance of the Saints in light and the other makes us meet for possession G W●itehead Let me ask thee a question then are not we just●fied by Christ within us T.D. I answer no but by Christ without us G W●itehead If we are not justified by Christ within us then by another Christ and so thou preachest two Christs whereas Christ is not divided and thou dost that which thou chargest upon us preach another Gospel T. D. I did foresee the catch you intended ●n your question and answered you the more carelesly that I might see how you could improve your supposed advantage by i● But now I will answer you more punctually The Scripture by Christ w thin us understand● not the p●rson of Christ but h●s operat●ons the cause is put for the effect by a Metonymy a word too hard for your capac●ty Compare Col. 1.26 ●r st in you w●th Eph. 3.17 That Christ m●y dwell in your hearts by Faith And therefore it follows not that we make two Christs For we acknowledge that one and the same person just●fi●s us by a righteousness inherent in himself and sanct●fies us by a righteousnesse which he works in us by his Spirit So that when I deny justification by Christ within us however the words may sound to your ears yet to the judicious the meaning is obvious viz. that we deny our justification by that righteousnesse in us whereof Christ is the author but not that I make two Christs Two things are indeed expressed by the name of Christ his person and his operations in us and I deny the latter but assert the former for our righteousnesse to justification The Scripture speaks of two Christs Christ personal and Christ mystical if I should say not Christ mystical but Christ personal is our Saviour would you not speak wisely think you to say oh you make two Christs This distinction you may find Ch●ist pe●sonal Col. 2.8 9. not after Christ For in him dwelleth all the fulnesse of the Godhead bodily Christ mystical 1 Cor. 12.12 As the body is one and hath many members c. so is Christ meaning the Church which v. ●7 he calls the body of Christ G. VVhitehead I will prove by the Scriptures that we are justified by our sanctification whi●h thou saiest does but make us meet not give us a ●itle which thou shalt see it does to the i●heritance Acts 20.32 And now Brethren I commend you to God and to the word of his grace which is able to build you up and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified Gods grace gives an inheritance Here there was some disturbance among the people which occasioned VVhiteheads addresse to them and though I call'd to him often to take an answer he would not but at length Mr. Fisher started up and urged another Scripture and so this was omitted to it therefore I shall now return a brief answer That the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot refer to grace as this man would have it or if it did yet grace in●ends not sanctification but the favour of God which is the subject matter of the word which the Apostle cals v. 24. the Gospel of the Grace of God but it refers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and should be read who is able c. and so it is nothing to his purpose Mr. Fisher I will prove we are justified by grace or sanctification Tit. 3.7 that being justified by his grace we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal l fe The grace by which we are said to be justified is the same with that which is called washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost v. 5. T. D. You are much mistaken Sir the grace v. 7. is not meant of sanctification but of the favour of God which is manifested in the donation of his Son to us imputation of his r●ghteousnesse and acceptance of us as righteous in him G. VVhitehead I shall prove that we are justified by Faith as the cause of our justification by the plain words of the Apostle Rom 4.3 Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness T. D. But pray observe how well this agrees with your former Doctrine that we are justified by a personal conformity to the whole Law and now you will prove that a conformity to one part will suffice You interferr and cut one leg against t'other and are not sensible of it Does not the Apostle oppose Faith and Works Now if Faith be considered as a work there 's no opposition between them And does not that opposition exclude Faith as a work Yes surely and is boasting excluded in justification by Faith as a work no but there is more ground of boasting in the vertue of Faith were that equivalent to universal obedience Read Rom. 3.27 Where is boasting then it is excluded By what Law of works nay but by the Law of Faith and chap. 4.5 To him that worketh not but believeth c. which plainly int●mates that Faith is opposed to it self as a work in the businesse of Justification and as for the words of the Text the act is put for the object to which it relates as if it had be●n in expresse terms Christ whom his Faith laid hold upon was imputed to him ●or righteousnesse But that Faith is imputed to us a● be●ng nstead of a perfect righteousness● personal or that 't is the meritorious cause of our justification I utterly deny G. Wh. Thou dost darken counsel by words without knowledge and pervertest the Scripture by thy meanings T. D. That 's your usual charge but I deny it the Scriptures attribute our just●fication to the righteousnesse of Christ in the same s●nce that th●y deny it to works Receiving of Christ and remission of sins is the Office of Faith and not to merit them _____ Here we fell into a discourse very abruptly about several Arminian points which for the Reasons mentioned in the Epistle I omit An Account of a Discourse April 19th between two Quakers Mr. FISHER R. HUBBERTHORN AND THOMAS DANSON THe first Question debated on was