Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	formal_a	grace_n	justification_n	1,818	5	9.4473	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A23656	Animadversions on that part of Mr. Robert Ferguson's book entituled The interest of reason in religion which treats of justification in a letter to a friend.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1676 (1676)	Wing A1054; ESTC R5034	44,339	112

Animadversions On that part of Mr. ROBERT FERGVSON'S BOOK Entituled The INTEREST of REASON IN RELIGION Which Treats of JUSTIFICATION In a LETTER to a Friend LONDON Printed by T. R. for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's head in St. Paul's Church-yard 1676. SIR I Return you with Mr. Ferguson's Book my hearty thanks for the Loan of it I have read it and find many things well said in it And where I find anything otherwise I impute it not to his want of ability if the Cause would bear it but the Cause it self in those particular Instances which I suspect him to be defective in For neither he nor any other of what ability soever he be can as Solomon sayes make that streight which God hath made crooked Eccles. 7.13 And therefore the greater the parts be of any man who yet cannot make work of a Cause he undertakes it doth but make me so much the more doubtfull of the goodness of that Cause if it were any whit doubtfull to me before I will give you one instance of this nature out of Mr. Ferguson's book Chap. 2 Sect 10. Where he asserts that Mr. Sherlock's Notion as he calls it of Justification is not any wayes maintainable but by perverting innumerable texts from their plain and naturall Sense to a Metaphorick and that it is accompanied with this fatall unhappiness of turning agreat part of the Bible into mere insignificant and empty Metaphors P. 402. 403. And then represents Mr. Sherlock's notion thus That we are only justified by believing and obeying the Gospel of Christ That the Sacrifice of Christ's death and the Righteousness of his life have no other influence upon our acceptance with God but that to them we owe the Covenant of Grace That is God being well pleased with the obedience of Christ's life and the Sacrifice of his death entered into a new Covenant with mankind wherein he promiseth pardon of Sin and eternal life to those who believe and obey the Gospel So that the Righteousness of Christ is not the formal cause of our Justification but the Righteousness of his life and death is the Meritorious Cause whereby we are declared Righteous and rewarded as Righteous persons The Covenant of Grace which God for Christs sake hath made pardoning our past sins and follies and rewarding a sincere though imperfect Obedience The Gospel by its great arguments and motives and powerfull assistances forms our minds to the love and practice of Holiness and so makes us inherently righteous and the Grace of the Gospel accepts and rewards that sincere Obedience which according to the Rigor and Severity of the Law could deserve no reward P. 404. Mr. Ferguson having made this recital out of Mr. Sherlock's book knew not how as it seems to make good his charge there-from unless Mr. S. would be so kind as to grant what Mr. F. doth affirm but Mr. S. himself no where asserts And therefore although he grants in P. 416. That in reserence to the mere demands of the Gospel we may in a proper sense be said to be justified Yet he saith that in reference to the Law which is that alone which accuseth us we cannot in any prepriety of speech be said to be justified but that justification wheresoever it regards our discharge from the accusation of the Law must be taken Metaphorically he meanes I suppose unless we are discharged from that accusation by having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us Whether this be true or no I shall put to the Tryal afterwards But in the mean time pray you consider how little reason Mr. F. had to go about to charge Mr. S. with holding Justification in a Metaphorick sense unless he had first shewed us that according to M. S's sentiment of Justification before represented he had made somthing else necessary to it than that which is an answering of the demands of the Gospel which yet he hath not done that I can see But indeed M. F. is so far from doing that as that he hath done the quite contrary as you cannot but perceive when you compare Mr. F's concession and Mr. S 's notion touching Justification together for Mr. F. acknowledgeth as I said before that in reference to the mere demands of the Gospel we may in a proper sense be said to be Justified and M. S. saith no more as M. F. recites him but that we are only Justified by believing and obeying the Gospel And if to believe and obey the Gospel be not to answer the demands of the Gospel and no more pray you get Mr. F. to tell us what is But if it be then Mr. F. instead of making good his charge against M. S. hath himself even fairly acquitted and discharged him from it and might well have taken himself off here and saved himself the labour of further prosecution But however though M. S. doth not yet it seems Mr. F. doth hold that we must be Justified if Justified at all by answering the demands of the Law as well as of the Gospel although the Scipture tells us that he that abideth in the Doctrine of Christ which is the Gospel he hath both the Father and the Son Rep. Jo. 9. And because Mr. F. is of opinion that the demands of the Law must be answered or else we cannot be Justified therefore he thinks Mr. S. ought to be so too which if he can perswade him to be then he doubts not but that he shall be able to make good his charge against him And therefore to lay a foundation for a necessity of a perfect legal Righteousness unto Justification though not inherent in our selves yet by derivation of it from our Saviour in whom it was he does in effect assert the Original Legal Covenant to remain still in force notwithstanding the establishing with men the Evangelical and that in order to our Justification it is not enough to have an Evangelical Righteousness to answer the demands of the Gospel but that we must also have a perfect legal Righteousness to answer the demands of the Law though not in our selves but by derivation from another as was said before Whether this be not so judge I pray you by his own words comparing what he sayes in P. 411. and P. 414. which are these Now as the introduction of the law of faith hath not abrogated the law of perfect obedience but this as well as that doth remain in force each of them requiring a conformity to its own demands So supposing us to answer all that the Gospel requires yet the other law abiding uncancelled and we being all guilty of the violation of its terms there lies accordingly a charge against us from which by Justification we are to be acquitted p. 414. And again p. 411. That secluding not only the righteousness of Christ's life but the satisfaction of his death as the Matter and the imputation of it as the formal Cause of justification it seems repugnant to the immutability and essentiall

one in conjunction with Faith in Christ to be sufficient to that end Now whether Mr. F. himself doth deny inherent Grace to be at all imputed for Righteousness in our Justification or whether that it only is so I confess I cannot say But certain it is that he denies it to be sufficient without the imputation of Christ's Righteousness in the sense of imputation wherein he is opposed One while he grants that in reference to the mere demands of the Gospel we may in a proper sense be said to be justified p. 416. At another turn he saith that secluding not only the righteousness of Christ's life but the satisfaction of his death as the matter and the imputation of it as the formal Cause of Justification it seems repugnant unto the immutability and essential Holiness of God to justifie us upon an imperfect obedience such as he accounts Evangelical obedience to be the Law which requireth a perfect remaining still in force and denouncing wrath in case of every failure By which he seems to hold how consistently with what I before recited do you judge that it is inconsistent with the Holiness of God to justifie us upon an Evangelical Righteousness because imperfect But whether Mr. F. joyns the imputation of Christ's Righteousness and the imputation of inherent Grace together in the business of Justification or whether he wholly denies the imputation of the latter and affirms only the imputation of the former I shall not further enquire But it 's well known that those who are wont to plead the same cause with Mr. F. touching the necessity of the imputation of Christ's Righteousness unto Justification and in that sense wherein he is opposed are wont also to exclude inherent Grace as being neither imputed for Righteousness in Justification nor as necessary thereunto antecedently Mr. E. Polhill a Gentleman doubtless of a good Spirit another of Mr. S's Antagonists in his answer to him saith in p. 75. In Justification no other Righteousness can take place but the active and passive one of Christ which answers the pure and righteous Law in every thing And in p. 321. he saith Obedience to God's commands is indeed the way to Heaven but it s no where made an ingredient into our Justification And p. 365. speaking of Phil. 3.9 saith that the Apostle in this place doth not only exclude external Pharisaical righteousness but even inherent Graces in the matter of Justification And the common opinion of those that have gone that way hath been That Sanctification is subsequent to Justification and not so much as in order of Nature going before it or to be any ingredient in it and consequently not essentially necessary to it Now then that which I say is this that if I can make it appear that the denying the necessity of internal righteousness unto Justification was one part of the grievous errour of the Judaising Christians it will be enough to spoil the reputation of the same opinion though found in better men than they were And whether I shall not make it evidently to appear so to be I shall leave you to judge after you have weighed what I shall now lay before you Their Crime was I conceive a partial revolt or turning unto the worst of Judaism saving their retaining a profession of Faith in Christ to think that an external righteousness without an internal was available to justification and salvation The unbelieving Jews to whom they turned in part were quite degenerated from their worthy Ancestors and all that remained faithful among them who all held the internal Grace of Love to God fear of him uprightness of heart towards him truth in the inward parts necessary to interest them in his favour and the blessing of the everlasting Covenant But the degenerate Jews thought an external Righteousness such as Paul had while a Pharisee and such as would justifie them in the sight of men according to the terms of the political Covenant by which they were externally governed by God as they were his Commonwealth would justifie them as to their eternal estate Of which grand mistake our Saviour Matth. 5. laboured to convince them by shewing that no less was required by God in order to that than an inward purity and upbraided them with their making clean the outside of the Cup and Platter when within they were full of extortion and excess of ravening and wickedness with their appearing outwardly Righteous unto men when within they were full of Hypocrisie and iniquity and told his hearers that except their Righteousness exceeded theirs they should never enter into the Kingdom of Heaven that except they were born again they could not see the Kingdom of God Now it was to this monstrously corrupt part of Judaism to which the Judaising Christians did revolt or turn rather for many of them were Gentiles because without this their errour in adhering to the Law of Moses as necessary to be observed would not have been so damnable as the Scripture represents it to be calling it a perverting the Gospel of Christ a being removed to another Gospel a falling from Grace a making of Christ to become of none effect to them Gal. 1.7 and 5.2 4. which it would not have been if there had been nothing else in it than a perswasion that they were under an obligation of observing the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ For there were many thousands of the Jews which believed who were yet zealous of the Law of Moses and thought themselves still under the obligation of it Acts 21. who yet could never be said upon that account to be fallen from Grace or to be removed from the Gospel of Christ to another Gospel so long as they were really for an internal Righteousness as necessary to Justification and Salvation as well as an external For all the faithful Jews under the Law before the Law and after the Law yea and all the Gentiles too that had this internal Righteousness as well as an external were all justified through the Grace of God exhibited in the universal Covenant made in Christ and granted for his sake whether they had any explicite or distinct knowledge of that Covenant or not or of Christ in whom it was confirmed In every Nation he that feareth God and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him and if the Uncircumcision did but keep the righteousness of the Law the internal Righteousness designed by it their Uncircumcision was counted for Circumcision When on the other hand he was not a Jew at any time in the sense there spoken of who was one outwardly in the flesh only but he was a Jew which was so inwardly and Circumcision was that of the heart in the Spirit of the Law and not in the Letter only whose praise or approbation was from God whether it were from men or no Rom. 2. St. Paul would never have become as a Jew to the Jews to gain the Jews as he did in observing