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	justify_v	sanctification_n	1,487	5	11.2350	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26655	Jesuitico-Quakerism examined, or, A confutation of the blasphemous and unreasonable principles of the Quakers with a vindication of the Church of God in Britain, from their malicious clamours, and slanderous aspersions / by John Alexander ...	Alexander, John, 1638-1716.	1680 (1680)	Wing A916; ESTC R21198	193,704	258

is not Acts of Righteousness as done by them nor as inherent in them as Acts by which they are accepted of God and justified before him but they are accepted of God and justified before him by Christ the Author and worker of these Acts in them Ans That is well I see then the Quakers hold not themselves to be justified by all Acts done by them or inherent in them as when they commit Blasphemy may be and truly this is all they have yeilded or said for their Vindication for if they were justified by any thing upon the very formal account of its being done by or inherent in them then they should be justified by every thing done by or inherent in them for a Quatenus ad omne sequitur universaliter But why would not the Quakers say if they intended to make any Faith of a vindication that they hold not justification by Acts of Righteousness done by or inherent in them as they are Acts of Righteousness and gracious Acts and not meerly as they are Acts done by or inherent in them Which seeing they inclined not to say especially where they are so purposely endeavouring to purge themselves from the suspicion of a Popish justification we see they do but prevaricat and throw dust in the eyes of the Vulgar But George Keith is in this point most plain in his Quakerism no Popery and as positive as any Papist I have seen For in the 44 45 46 47 48 50 52 53. pages thereof he expresly and positively Teaches that our inward graces and vertues of Repentance Conversion Faith as a Work Love Hope c. are the Righteousness whereby we are justified before God and that immediately page 53. which was never true of Faith it self which does not justifie immediately by it self but only Correlatively by its object which it apprehends and relies upon viz. the Righteousness of Christ And in his Definition of justification there page 47 he gives us no other material Cause of justification before God but our meer graces of Repentance and Conversion And he cunningly pleads moderate Merit page 46 47. but most openly and plainly page 55 56. and he quite confounds justification and sanctification leaving no imaginable Distinction betwixt these two making us to be justified by inward Righteousness and sanctified by the very same pages 46 47 50 53. compared which in his Popish Principles he is I Confess forced to do And is not George Keith plainly Popish in this point who holds justification by inherent Righteousness immediately gives us no other material Cause of our Righteousness before God but that only pleads moderate Merit in us by it allows Faith in the business only as a work with the rest and confounds justification and sanctification together Bellarmine himself was never more Popish than thus which all know that are acquaint with him upon the Controversie But George Keith endeavours to shift our Charge of a Popish justification because he seemingly yields pag. 44 46 47. that our inward Grace and Righteousness are not the procuring cause of our justification by way of strict Merit and in a way of strict Justice strictly and rigidly considered as when the work is of equal worth and dignity to the Reward as he explains it page 55. But I would fain know the other Member of this distinction from the Author He tells us their inherent grace and Righteousness are not the procuring cause of their Justification by way of strict Merit and strict Justice strictly and rigidly considered How many Stricts Strictlies and Rigidlies are there here he has certainly been exceedingly concerned and eagerly careful to get his Minute and imperfect inherent Righteousness at least next Neighbour to the strictest Merit and Justice and it would not fail nor he be feared for it in any thing but that and yet he has been as careful as he could to cover his meaning in this which must be the other Member of his distinction We see then that if Justice will not exact the very rigid Rigour of the Law from the Quakers and take the very summum Jus which uses to be called the summum Nefas they think to merit their justification by their inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal And this and what this great Ringleader of the Quakers we see hath said before shews that they hold as Popish a justification as the Pope himself I believe does But George Keith is yet resolved to shake off this Popish justification in the eyes of the world and to fix it forsooth upon us too in his Quakerism no Popery page 48. first because they differ both from the Papists and us in holding the Act of God in justification to be really Inward which the Papists and we says he do not Ans Indeed it is true that upon our believing the Gospel-promises pronounces the Sentence nor have we nor need we any immediate Dictates to warrand that but we may soon or late get a Transcript thereof Inwardly for our Formal assurance and so we do not differ wholly from this point that George Keith would have us differ as to the Inwardness of the Act or Copy of the Act rather out of these Divine Records but we differ hugely from them as to the Immediateness of the Act I grant but I never heard that that was called Popish till now but that a Popish justification was always reckoned upon inherent Righteousness as the Meritorious or material Cause thereof although George Keith denies that a man can Taste of Spiritual Food except he get it in his Enthusiastick way immediately Quakerism no Popery page 16. as if forsooth a man could not Taste Meat conveighed to him in any Vessel or Dish and this fully answers a long Discourse which he there has upon this matter seeing the Promises are the Vessels conveighing to us all our Spiritual Comforts of Justification Salvation c. Secondly to shake it off himself and fix it upon us he says page 48. that in regard of the Object they Teach that we are the Object thereof not only as having our sins Pardoned for Christs sake but as being Righteous in the sight of God viz. by inherent Righteousness whereof he still speaks through Christ dwelling in us But in this he is still Popish not we in holding himself to be the Object of Justification as being or because he is for all is one Antecedently Inherently Righteous and therefore justified which we never held but that we are justified by Faith as laying hold and relying on Christs Righteousness where Faith is not considered as a work or immediately in it self or as it qualifies its subject But Correlatively as apprehending and getting hold of the Object viz. Christs Righteousness let George Keith think this Distinction as nice as he will as he calls it scornfully in his Quakerism no Popery page 45 46. which was not so nice to the Apostle Paul who still opposes justification by Faith and by works and so does not consider Faith