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	righteousness_n	work_n	4,718	5	6.5009	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89189	A sober ansvvere to an angry pamphlet, or, Animadversions, by way of reply, to Robert Barclays late book (entituled, Truth cleared of calumnies) in answere to A dialogue between a Quaker and a stable Christian by VVilliam Mitchell.	Mitchell, William, 17th cent.	1671 (1671)	Wing M2294; ESTC R43708	69,116	149

the light wherewith Christ inlightens every man that cometh into the world Ans That being a created work of light it is not the object of faith we are no where warranted to believe in a creature but threatned with a curse if we do it 3. He saith that we deny that men are to know their justification or that they are in a justified estate by the immediate testimony of the spirit and so do Papists Ans It is by us lookt upon as an errour in Papists that they are against the certaine knowledge and assurance of Justification and do so much cry up doubtings but though Papists should oppose the knowledge of justification by an immediat testimony of the spirit this will not prove it to be Popery Every thing that Papists mantaine is not Popery for it is known they hold some truths in common with the Orthodox Popery is their super added inventions and corrupt additions to the truth amongst which is their and your doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness SECT III. We are not justified by good and Gracious Works wrought in us He saith that Rom. 3.28 Gal. 2.16 The works of the law are excluded but not the works of Christ in us Ans Either the works of the law which in these scriptures are excluded from justification must be evil and sinful works or else good and gracious works they are not evil and sinful for here the Apostle confutes such among the Romans and Galatians as had corrupted the doctrine of justification but it would be irrational to think that their opinion was that sinful works did justify could they imagine that to be the cause of justification which deserveth and bringeth on condemnation And therefore the Apostle excludeth from justifition good and gracious works and consequently the works of Christ in us as not being the meritorious cause of justification Further we shal find that works simply and in general are excluded from justification and this is notably proved in the case of Abraham who though a gracious and godly man yet was not justified by works Rom. 4.2.3.4.5 For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory but what saith the scripture Abraham believed GOD and it was counted to him for righteousness now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness Likewise works without that limitation of the law are excluded Tit. 3.5 which scripture was cited by me in opposition to justification by works as the meritorious cause thereof verse 7. that being justified by his grace we should be made heires according to the hope of eternal life and indeed works in us and done by us neither merit justification nor salvation though they be the qualification of the persons that are justified and shal be saved for all such are regenerate and renewed by the Holy Ghost It is a known saying good works are the way to the Kingdome and not the cause of reigning and we onely deny them to be meritorious causes of blessedness in this respect the Apostle excludes works generally And therefore the Gentle-man might have kept in his insulting triumphing words why should he be at so much paines to make to himself a man of straw and then take pleasure to undress him There is no hazard to exclude the merit of works in justification and yet to affirme them necessarily requisite in the subject justified He telleth us page 38. That they justly cast off the accusation of Popery having express testimony of scripture that we are justified by workes Jam. 2.24 Answer Papists alledge the same scripture for justification by vvorks and therefore one ansvvere shal serve you both vve must distinguish betvveen justification before GOD and justification before men if vve speake of GOD and being justified in his sight and before his Tribunal then vvorks cannot serve the turne Job 9.2.3 But how should man be just with GOD if he will contend with him he cannot answere him one of a thousand Yet vvorks are useful in respect of men to declare and clear our Justification as to them thus Abraham was justified by works Jam. 2.21 that is declared to be just hereby he was approved as just and righteous in his own conscience and before the World He saith that good works are not ours in that signification as where it is said Hebrews 4 10. he that hath entered to his rest hath ceased from his own works Answer None of us do affirme that that good and gracious works are ours in that way that sinful works are and therefore his answere is but a shift he cannot deny good works of Christ in us to be called ours for though we be enabled to them by Christ and so efficiently his yet they are subjectivly our own our own faith and our own repentance it is not Christ but we who repent and believe Hence it is evident that if justification be by good works of Christ in us then our good works justify us for these are ours in respect of subject and inherency He addeth that faith may be excluded from justification if it were granted to be imperfect Answer This is his groundless assertion for the matter and substance of our justification is not faith but the perfect righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith and upon the account of this object of faith to wit Christs perfect righteousness Which faith applyeth therefore faith is said to be accounted for righteousness Rom. 4.5 He saith that little faith is perfect in the measure of it and though the Disciples had doubting yet the faith was not doubting Answer According to this he might as well say that light in the Aire at the very first breaking in and dawning of the day is perfect light for though the Aire then be partly light and partly dark yet the light is not darkness yea he might call gold attended and mingled with a great deale of dross perfect gold because the gold is not dross And page 39. he reasoneth no better alledging that though we know but in part yet our knowledge is not imperfect we may know a thing in part and that which we know of it we may know perfectly Ans It is needful to enquire what is meant by imperfection is not that imperfection when there is not that degree of grace in us which ought to be Now when our faith is but little and our knowledge in part have we all that faith and knowledge that we ought to have Or rather have we not cause to complaine that we come short of the command Who can say they know GOD believe in him and love him in the highest degree that they are bound to do if not then these grace● must be imperfect Object It is said of Abraham that his faith was perfected by works Jam. 2.22 Answer This comes to no more but that his faith was made known and

likewise confuted what was said proving it to be so Is not the Apostle more to be believed then any Quaker who expounds that more sure word of prophesie calling it verse 20 not the word in the heart but the prophesie rf Scripture or Scripture prophesie which is said to more 〈◊〉 sure then a voice frō heaven not as if there could be any uncertainty of the Lords voice speaking from Heaven this is sure enough in it self but yet Scripture prophesie is more sure quoad nos as to us because a trans●ient voice is more easily mistaken or forgotten then a standing record VI. HEAD Concerning Iustification SECT I. Wherein is cleared the Quakers agreement with Papists in the Doctrine of Iustification Page 32. He raiseth a great storme against me as displaying the banner of disingenuity venting filthy imaginations discovering vanity and malice extending my self in a foolish and vaine excursion Ans I wish the Gentle-man would reflect how much his pen spirit hath been dipt in the gall of Asps and remember that causa firma est semper querula I have not leasure to answere his bitter revilings and railings and therefore passing them I shal endeavour to trace him according to the method he hath proposed in giving as he pretends an honest and plaine and true account of their belief in the matter of Justification He saith page 33. That we are justified by Iesus Christ both as he appeared and was manifest in the flesh at Ierusalem and also as he is made manifest and revealed in us and thus Christ and his righteousness without are not divided from his righteousness within but we do receive him wholly and undivided the Lord our righteousness in the sight of God and which ought not nor cannot be divided Ans Here he insinuats that our opinion is to divide the the righteousness of Chirst without from his righteousness within which is the calumny of Papists against us as if we held that because Christs righteousness is imputed to men there needed no other righteousness When as we mantaine that inherent righteousness and imputed are inseparably annexed so that every one that is justified hath holiness and righteousness wrought in him We may not confound Justification and Sanctification seeing the Scripture distinguisheth them and yet we must not divide them Now that the Quakers fraud and cheatry which I supect he is guilty of in this thing may be discovered it will be necessary to enquire how the word justifie in the present affaire namely as it imports the sinners Justification before God is used in scripture and in this PROTESTANTS and Papists are at variance Papists say that it signifies to make inherently just and righteous as calefaction signifies to make inherently hot on the other hand PROTESTANTS affirme that it signifies not the making of a man just by infused inherent righteousness but to absolve account and pronounce a man righteous Prov. 17.15 he that justifies the wicked and he that condemneth the just even they both are abomination to the Lord. Marke to justify is not to make inherently just and holy for this would not be abominable but acceptable to God but it is to absolve and pronounce a man righteous as to condemne is to declare a man guilty and accordingly sentence him to punishment Now in that he saith that they are justified by Christ revealed in them by which he understands grace and holiness wrought in them by Christ for he afterwards explains it to be that which in scripture is called Christ formed within Here he falls in with the Popish sense of Justification by righteousness infused And his more full agreement with Papists will appear even in that wherein page 34. 35. he saith that they greatly differ from them To make good this I shal do two things 1. Set down the words of G. Keith in his paper to me which Mr. Barclay acknowledges to be in substance the same with that which he hath written Saith he I perceive that by the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed by which thou queries if we be justified thou understandest not his work of righteousness he worketh in his Saints but his obedience and sufferings even unto death in the flesh not excluding but including his souls sufferings at Jerusalem To which I thus Reply that we are even iustified by the righteousness of his obedience and sufferings in that Vessel or Man-hood not formally but causally forasmuch as by his obedience and sufferings therein he was the procuring cause of that grace and power of his revealed in us which produceth a work of righteousness wrought in us by which we are formally as the School-men speake righteous and this inward righteousnesse wrought by him in us is truely and properly his Righteousnesse and that on a twofold account 1. For that by his obedience and sufferings he procured an enterance to mens hearts to become a Prince and a Saviour in them Secondly In that he is not onely the remote procuring cause in the manner aforesaid but the immediat worker of it in us by his immediate Arme and Power so that he is well called the LORD our righteousness Now that there is no inconsistency between these two to be justified by the obedience of Jesus Christ in the flesh at Jerusalem as the remote procuring cause and to be justified by the work of Righteousness wrought by him in us as the formal cause is manifest being causes of different kinds vvhich do not repugne one to another but sweetly concurre to the producing their effect Thus far G. Keith Second thing to be done is to shew wherein PROTESTANTS differ from Papists in the matter of Justification which will be notably seen by the answer both of PROTESTANTS and Papists to this important and weighty question viz. what is that very thing which causeth a poor believing sinner stand pardoned and so just before GOD and for which he is pronounced righteous or absolved from the accusation and condemnation of the law and accepted unto eternal life Now the Papists in answering this question have recourse to infused inherent righteousness asse ting this to be the thing whereby they are justified in the sight of GOD. But PROTESTANTS though they look upon a principle of Grace within as an excellent gift of GOD yet they cannot leane to that for Justification but think their onely refuge to be the imputed righteousness of CHRIST namely the satisfaction and merit of his Death Passion and Obedience in fulfilling the law judging this to be the very thing by which Believers may appeare before GOD and in the confidence whereof they may live and die And for which they are accounted righteous absolved from death and accepted unto eternal life Now let us hear the Quakers answere to the aforementioned question and it will be found that as Papists make the formal cause of Justification to be an inherent righteousness wrought in us and inspired into us by the Spirit of GOD so the Quakers do

the same for G. Keiths expresse vvords are that we are justified by a work of righteousness wrought by Christ in us as the formal cause And therefore when in their Printed book they say that they rely on Christ himself revealed in them indwelling in them as the ground and foundation of their Justification What can their meaning be though they blind the eyes of the simple by using words inoffensive in themselvs but as G. Keith explaineth it to wit that Christ by his obedience and suffering was the procuring cause of that grace and power of his revealed in us which produceth a work of righteousness wrought in us by which we are formally righteous Now is not this a manifest coincidency with Papists For even they make the obedience and sufferings of Christ the procuring cause of that grace and righteousness wrought in them which they own as the formal cause of their first Justification So that both Papists and Quakers deny the imputed righteousness of Christ to be the very thing by which a Believer stands pardoned so just before God for which he is pronounced righteous or absolved from the cōdemnation of the law and accepted unto eternal life which is look'd upon as carrying with it such danger that some PROTESTANTS are of opinion that hereby the Church of Rome doth rase the very foundation And upon this ground Mr. Samuel Hammond undertakes to demonstrate the impossibility of Salvation in and by the principles of Quakers in his book called The Quakers house built upon the sand SECT II. That Works are not Meritorious of Iustification He addeth that he may not deny Justification by works but plead for it according to the true sense and mind of the spirit Answ Let him hold there and we shall go along with him for we readily yeeld that by works a man is declared and manifested to be a justified person so that good works justify our justification being notable evidences thereof and signs of that faith whereby we are justified for we are not justified by a barren faith but by a faith which is fruitful in good works and this is that which the Apostle drives at Iam. 2. But justification by works such as the Quakers plead for is not according to the true sense and mind of the spirit Is it the mind of the spirit that good works are the meritorious cause of Justification Which Sam. Fisher one of the Quakers ring-leaders plainly asserts exercit 1. page 84. and page 88. he saith there are good works which in different respects are called truely enough both Christs and ours viz. ours as done in and by our persons Christs as done only by his Power in us and by these call them as ye will Christs or ours is the justification of all that ever were or shal be justified both deserved and effected Object We understand it not any other way then thus that all their merit or worth is from Christ Ans Where doth the scriptures say that works wrought in us have merit in them from Christ to deserve justification This is a Doctrine of your owne forging and not of Christs teaching Though good works shall not want a reward yet they do not merit It is false to say that reward and merit inferre one another PROTESTANTS use to distinguish between a reward of merit and a reward of grace which distinction is grounded on scripture compare the original words in Matth. 5.46 with Luk. 6.32 and in that you affirme the reward to be of grace then it is not merited by works the Apostle opposeth these two making them incompatible Rom. 11.6 And if by grace then it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace but if it be of works then it is no more grace otherwise work is no more work We acknowledge that God of his rich mercy and goodness hath promised to reward good works and being faithful he will not deny himself 2. Tim. 2.13 But a reward given by promise doth not import merit and desert the reward proceedeth from the bountie of the Giver and not from the merit of the receiver Now the Quakers wisdome is much to be observed in that they refuse to owne the grossest sort of Papists for then their draught would be found out and their tendency sufficiently known but they under the specious name of new lights can creep towards the moderate sort of them who say that works are not meritorious but as they proceed from grace and by vertue of Gods promise when as indeed if works be of and flow from the free grace of God this inferrs that they are not meritorious for that which doth merit must not be done by the strength of another especially his at whose hands we look to merit It is evident that the Gentle-man is of a higher straine then to be onely for a reward or merit as he phraseth it of free grace and upon the account of the promise Else how shal he be able to reconcile himself to his brother Sam. Fisher who exerc 1. page 90. maketh use of this Popish argument namely evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation therfore good works are the meritorious cause of our justification insinuating that there is a meritorious dignity in good works even as there is a meritorious indignity and sinfulness in evil works this argument hath been often answered by a denyal of the consequence because our evil works are perfectly evil but our good works are but imperfectly good And giving but not granting that our works were perfectly good yet all the requisits to make a work meritorious would not agree to them He addeth that the works that Papists seek to be justified by are such as they believe none can be justified by Ans Though they do not go along with Papists in some of their practises yet they owne their principle as hath been abundantly cleared and therefore their correspondence with Rome being manifest we must conclude that in stead of coming out of Babylon they are rather running to it His next work page 36. Is to make people believe that we are near a kin to Papists But none who know what Popery is are like to give him credit yet if any be of such an easie faith as to take upon trust what he saith then no wonder if the blind leading the blind both fall into the ditch We shal consider wherein he chargeth us as guilty of Popery which he brancheth forth into several particulars 1. Because we deny that we are justified by Christ dwelling in us Ans We affirme that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ and when this righteousness is believingly applyed and laid hold on then Christ dwels in us is this Popery Or can any that know the difference between Papists and us think that we agree with them in the matter of our Justification 2. He saith according to us the way to attaine to a state of Justification is not by believing in