Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	faith_n	justification_n	meritorious_a	2,679	5	11.7565	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47191	Truths defence, or, The pretended examination by John Alexander of Leith of the principles of those (called Quakers) falsly termed by him Jesuitico-Quakerism, re-examined and confuted : together with some animadversions on the dedication of his book to Sir Robert Clayton, then Mayor of London / by G.K.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1682 (1682)	Wing K225; ESTC R22871	109,893	242

of Righteousness as done by us nor as inherent in us as Acts by which we are accepted of God and justified before him but by Christ the Author and worker of those Acts in us and for us c. He most grosly perverteth the sober and honest intent of those words as if by them they understood only that they hold not themselves justified by all Acts as Blasphemy or any other gross sin But who seeth not that this is a most gross perversion for certainly all Righteous Arts of all sorts they exclude when they say not by Acts of Righteousness and therefore when they say it is not Righteous Acts as Acts whereby we are justified their meaning is most plain and obvious as Acts being understood to be only even as Acts of Righteousness and not simply and barely as Acts though upon this meer Grammatical Quibble I. A. buildeth all his loud clamour against them But I. A. should know better that when the Sense is obvious a word may be understood that is not expressed in the Sentence as so it is in this present Case A fourth gross Perversion of his that he saith of me in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I affirm That we are justified by our inward Graces immediately I. A. doth understand that I mean without all respect to Christ which is a most gross perversion for the express words of my Book are these following The Righteousness of God and Christ by which we are most immediately and nearly justified is Christ himself and then I add and his work of Righteousness in us by his Spirit So that I am so far from excluding Christ that I say in the first place Christ himself is our Righteousness A fifth gross Perversion of I. A. is that in my defunction of Justification I give no other material cause of our Righteousness before God but only our Inward Graces whereas in the said definition I mention expresly Jesus Christ as being the ground and foundation of our Justification both in what he hath done and suffered for us without us and as really and truly indwelling in us A sixth perversion of his is that I confound Justification and Sanctification together making no imaginable distinction betwixt them and that because I say we are justified by inward Righteousnes and sanctified by the very same But this proveth not that I do not distinguish them for one and the same thing may have a respect to different operations as well as to different Causes But this reasoning of I. A. is as one would argue that when a Malefactor is both Condemned and punished for his Crime that his Sentence of Condemnation and his punishment are one and the same without any imaginable distinction betwixt them As also that his Condemnation and guiltiness are the same seeing by his Crime he is both guilty and condemned But as to Justification and Sanctification that they are distinguished although sometimes in Scripture one and the same word doth signifie both I willingly grant and do expresly mention them as distinct in my Book which I need not here repeat And whereas I. A. doth not only accuse me in particular as holding a Popish Justification but saith further That Bellarmine himself was never more Popish on that Head Surely this his assertion proceeds either from great ignorance or something worse For Bellarmine de justif lib. 5. cap. 17. holdeth That good works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of Gods Covenant and acceptation but also by reason of the work it self so that in a good works proceeding from Grace there may be a certain proportion and equality unto the reward of Eternal Salvation and to the same purpose writeth Gabriel Vas●uez a Papist But no such thing is affirmed by any of us nor by me but on the contrary in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I altogether deny the merit of the best works as it signifieth an equality of worth to the reward of Eternal Life Nor do I in any other case or sense allow the word merit with a respect to the best works of the Saints but in that sober and qualified sense used by divers of greatest note among those called Reformers among the Protestants as Melanction and Bucer and also by the Fathers so called and which is agreeable to Scripture which calleth Eternal Life the reward of good works now reward and 〈◊〉 are relative ●●rms as Richar● Baxter highly commended by I. A. elsewhere doth acknowledge And not only the said Richard Baxter a great English Presbyterian but divers of the best account in the Episcopal way as particularly H. Hammond do hold that the Saints are justified not by Faith only but by Repentance Love and New Obedience as well as by Faith as Instruments of Justification and necessary conditions requisite thereunto and that Sanctification in the order of Causes is prior to Justification And Iames Durham a great Scots Presbyterian in his Commentary on the Revelation Digress 11. saith That such who rest upon Christ for Iustification and acknowledge his satisfaction ought not to be blamed as guilty of Popery although they hold that Repentance Love and other Spiritual Vertues and Graces are necessary to Iustification as Faith is Seeing then we have some of the greatest note both among those called Presbyterians and Episcopalians who agree with us in the Doctrine of Justification it must needs proceed from great prejudice and untowardliness in I. A. to charge us as being guilty of Papery in that for which we have not only the Scriptures abundantly to warrant us but divers also both Episcopal and Presbyterian of the best account to vindicate us And as for Henry Hammond a man of singular esteem in the Episcopal Church in Brittain whereof I. A. is a pro●●s●ed Member he doth not only agree with us on this Head of Justification but also on many other very great and weighty Heads of Doctrine so fiercely opposed by I. A. as particularly in those following 1. That Christ hath died for men 2. That there is no absolute decree of Reprobation 3. That Gods Grace is Vniversal 4. That beginnings of Regeneration may be fallen from 5. That these words of Paul Rom. 7. 14 15. concerning his being Sold under sin are a Meta●chematismus and not the present State that Paul was in And I. A. is extreamly ignorant if he know not that an exceeding great number if not the greatest of the most judicious persons of the Episcopal Church both in Britain and Ireland are of the same mind with the said H. Hammond in these things who therefore are so far from esteeming I. A. a Patron or Advocate of their Church that they cannot but judge him in so far at best their Adversary Moreover the great prejudice of I. A. against us appears in this that because I deny all merit strictly considered he inferreth most absurdly that if Justice will not exact the very rigid rigour of the Law from us and take the very

require as also that he alledgeth divers Arguments as used by us in the Case which I know not if indeed used by any of us Nor is it my work at present to bring Arguments for our Doctrine that being already done by others and partly also by me but to Answer I. A. in what he hath against the same He alledgeth that Paul must needs have been in that very condition which he there describes Rom. 3. 14 15 18 23. and consequently there can be no place for the figure called Metaschematismus as I did alledge except I will say that Paul then did not with his mind serve the Law of God But how weak and frivolous is his ●cason here Could not Paul in the same discourse speak of something that was truly his present conditions and of some other thing that was not Is it not clear that Iames doth so in his Epistle when he saith of the Tongue Herewith Bless we God and herewith Curse we men My Brethren these things ought not to be so Now according to I. A. his highly admired Logick Iames behoved to be both a Blesser of God and Curser of men at the same time seeing he useth the first person to express both and the like Impertinency I. A. is guilty of in saying the word cleanseth 1 Ioh. 1. 7. Being in the present Tense imports the Sanctification of Believers to be imperfect in this Life for the word is also used in the present time And second by I. A. his reason the word justifieth Rom. 8. 33. importeth an imperfect Justification contrary to I. A. his express assertion Again he alledgeth that the words in Ecclesiast 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the Earth that doth good and sinneth not Have the Verb in the indicative Mood and not in the Potential signified frequently by the second future as I did affirm But this is a bareevasion and no direct Answer to my Assertion And I say again the second future even that of the indicative may be turned into the Potential Mood as it is often at other times because the Hebrew Language hath no Potential Mood distinct by it self Again whereas he urgeth That Solomon must needs understand Actual Sinning and not a bare possibility of mens sinning for who would be ignorant of that To this I Answer that Solomon did not mean a bare possibility but such a possibility as did infer the great danger and hazard that men were under to sin if they were not duely watchful And although all men did know this yet they did need to be admonished of it for some parts of the Scripture are for admonition and putting us in remembrance and not barely for Information How oft doth the Scripture tell us that all men are Mortal and must die which yet none are ignorant of although they oft forget that it is so and therefore need often to be remembred But by I. A. his Logick either men are ignorant that they shall die or the Scripture saith so in vain Who seeth not here the weakness of I. A. his Reasons which I am already weary to repeat or spend my time and pains on such stuff and therefore shall hast to an end of the whole Only I cannot but take notice with what confidence I. A. doth conclude That the Apostles and Prophets their Writing the Scriptures was an Action surely defective and i●perfect as to the exact and compleat degree of Love to God and men c. But where doth he read any such assertion in Scripture Or by what consequence doth he prove it Suppose they did not what they did in the highest degree that men could attain to this doth not prove any sinful defect in what they did For it did sufficiently Answer to the exactness of the Law if what they did was with all that degree of Love to God and men that was possible for them at that time to perform CHAP. XVII J. A. in his pretended Answer to the 16 th Query first of all beginneth to accuse the Inquirer As guilty of a leud Calumny in charging his Brethren for holding Salvation by Self-works and Self-Righteousness whereas they disclaim Salvation by the best works of the Saints But I. A. in this as in other things doth grosly abuse his Reader and falsly accuse the Inquirer For doth not I. A. know that to Query a thing is no positive conclusion either for or against it And albeit the Inquirer did know that in words ye cry down all self-works and self-righteousness yet he had but too much ground to question you about them seeing ye are generally found so much practising them and if they be not so much as useful means or helps of Salvation why do ye both so much practice them and plead for them as I. A. hath done at great length for Preaching and Praying and Singing without the Spirit all which are nothing but Self-righteousness Another fault that I. A. committeth here is that he confoundeth the meritorious cause of Salvation with the subordinate and instrumental means thereof For although those called Protestants deny the Saints good Works that are wrought by the Spirit to be strickly the meritorious cause of Salvation yet generally or for the most part they deny not that they are means of Salvation and necessary in order thereunto which yet I. A. seemeth here altogether to deny And as to that place of Scripture cited by I. A. to prove that the Saints are not saved by any work of righteousness even wrought by the Holy Spirit in their hearts viz. Tit. 3. 5. He could not have brought a more convincing Testimony against his false Doctrine than that very place For after that Paul said Not by works of Righteousness which we had done viz. by any power of our own he immediately addeth That God saveth us according to his Mercy by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost Which Regeneration and ●enewing of the Holy Ghost comprehendeth the whole work of Sanctification in the Saints And here I. A. go●th on at his old rate of multiplying false accusations and perversions and perversions against us Some of the chiefest whereof I shall briefly mention 1. That we hold a Popish Iustification 2. That in one of our Books called A Confession of Faith p. 21. We deny to be justified by Righteousness received of us by Faith and also by a Righteousness imputed unto us All which are most gross Forgeries and Slanders for the words in that page 21. say expresly That acceptance with the Father is only in Christ and by his Righteousness made ours or imputed unto us And the said Book denyeth not that the Righteousness of Christ is received by Faith that is the Gift of God but both that Faith and imputation which is only and alone the Creatures act or work without the Spirit of Christ we do justly deny to have any place in our Justification 3. Whereas in the said Book our Friends alledge it is not Acts