Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	good_a	grace_n	work_n	7,426	5	6.4759	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A32773	A rejoynder to Mr. Daniel Williams his reply to the first part of Neomianism [sic] unmaskt wherein his defence is examined, and his arguments answered : whereby he endeavours to prove the Gospel to be a new law with sanction, and the contrary is proved / by Isaac Chauncy.	Chauncy, Isaac, 1632-1712.	1693 (1693)	Wing C3757; ESTC R489	70,217	48

mean by leaving himself at liberty This you say is these Mens free Grace while they deny the Gospel Rule or Law These Taunts and Falshoods are well enough it seems in your Mouth its suitable to the rest of the Prittle Prattle in this Preface 8. You say the Question is not Whether God hath not as to us absolutely promised and covenanted with Christ that the Elect shall believe and all Men believing be pardoned and so persevere in Faith and Holiness to eternal Life which I affirm Pref. p. 5. R. Here then you allow that there is an absolute Covenant of Grace for whatever distinction you would make between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace there 's no Man of sense can deny that the Covenant of Redemption is a Covenant of Grace and if God hath absolutely promised to and covenanted with Christ that the Elect shall believe and be pardoned this must stand absolute to the end of the World But by your favour tho' I am for the absoluteness of the Covenant of Grace yet it was not absolute but conditional to Christ that Faith and Pardon and Perseverance as promised to Christ for the Elect were conditional and the condition was that he should make himself an Offering for Sin bear it and make full satisfaction to the Law by his Righteousness Active and Passive and make Intercession for Transgressors and therefore tho' you affirm here yet I deny But the Question is you say whether there is a Covenant which requires our true believing consent to the Terms of it to the condition of Pardon and Glory and supposeth this true consent in the actual bestowing these Benefits This Mr. C denies and I affirm Res 1. I deny that there is any more Covenants of Grace than one and say That the Covenant between the Father and the Son was that original Contract which was displayed and made manifest in the Gospel of the old and new Testament and in whatever is required in this Display is absolutely promised For if there be two Covenants wherein the same things are promised and to the same Persons the first absolute and the second conditional the one must certainly be vacated by the other For if I promise to a Person or to another for him to give him a House freely and afterward make a covenant Bargain with him that he must pay me 20 l. or 20 s. per annum the first Covenant is vacated or if I am bound to stand to my first Promise the second Agreement falls to the Ground 2. Likewise observe what you affirm That God hath made Terms as a Condition i. e federal of Pardon and Glory So that here is brought in a Covenant of Works to intervene betwixt the absolute Covenant and bestowing the Benefits absolutely at first promised Now Men may see plainly what you mean when you talk so much of Pardon for and by Jesus Christ this Pardon is one of the Benefits bestowed in your new Law judicially by way of remuneration to the performance of the Terms of Duty required 9. It is not whether Faith be the only Grace by which we receive and rest on Christ for Justification and that it is Christ received by Faith doth justifie which is the sense of the Protestants when they say we are justified by Faith alone this I affirm R. Yes you do in your sense i. e. That Christ justifies here as much as is needful as to legal Righteousness but there is another Righteousness viz. Evangelical that puts in for a snack viz. that of the new Law And you do much misrepresent the Protestants for they say Christ's Righteousness is all our Righteousness of one kind and another that we are justified by a Righteousness without us and not by any within us any Act or qualification whatever But the Papists say with you the Council of Trent doth anathematize Those that say a Man is justified without the Merit of Christ by which Christ did merit for us or is formally just by that Anath 10. And they curse also any one that saith that he is justified only by the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ or only by Remission of Sins without inherent Grace Anath 11. But let 's have the Query then It is you say Whether he that can truly believe to Justification must be in part a convinced penitent humbled Sinner and this you affirm and say I deny R. You should have told the Place and my Words It s possible I may deny it in your sense and I will prove how that you must deny it in my sense i. e. that legal Convictions and Humiliations are no federal conditions of Faith for you say That the first Grace is absolutely given and if so there 's no federal conditions of it Why do you not bring in hearing the Word as a federal condition of Faith for it comes by Hearing Why do you not bring in a Mans having his Senses and Understanding and many more things And now you talk of Humblings let me mind you what you say Page 15. You tell us of the Sum of the Popish Principles our Divines oppose 1. They think that by Attrition or a selfish legal fear of Punishment Men do ex congruo or meetness merit Charity and Faith which be the beginning of Sanctification and that this begun Sanctification is all our first Justification 1. What do you say less than they setting aside the word Merit and they say as to that de congruo its scarcely so Nay some are against Meritum de congruo as being any Merit but only a disposition and meetness of the Subject such as you would have and we may put their Attrition to your Humblings as a meetness for Faith See what the Council of Trent saith Can. 8. When Paul saith a Man is justified by Faith and gratis it is to be understood because Faith is the beginning and the things that precede Justification are not meritorious of Grace See now how you abuse the Papists Nay I 'l tell you more for I would give the Devil his due you abuse the Papists in charging them for making this begun Sanctification all their Justification The words of the 7th Canon of the Council of Trent are That Justification followeth Preparation which is not only remission of Sins but Sanctification And therefore they make not only Sanctification begun to be our first Justification And in the 10th Anathema they curse them that say A Man is justified without the Righteousness by which Christ did merit for us Now I think you ought to ask the Papists forgiveness for slandering of them Rhemists on Rom. 2.3 they grant That the beginning of our Justification which they call the first is meerly of Grace neither can we do acceptable Works before we be justified but in the second Justification which is the encrease of former Justice a Man may merit by good Works So again they say Works done of Nature before or without Faith can't merit but Works done by God's Grace may and are joyned with it as Causes of

you say p. 43 44 and 45. As for what you speak about that Position of Mr. B. I leave the Learned to judge whether you have salved it I shall hardly set that and other things in a g●eater L●ght unless you provoke me thereto as you insinuate by further Endeavours to set other Men in the Light or Dark to as great Reproach as you can cast upon them You say I m●ke Mr. R. B. to speak orthodoxly by saying p. 22. When once a Transgressor is sentenced by a Law he falls into the Hands of Perogative and the Prince may do with him what he pleaseth i. e. either execute him or pardon him God a so might have put Repentance into the Condition of the Law of Works and said If thou dost not eat or repent of thy eating thou shalt have thy Reward You should have added the Reason of my so saying it was upon your saying The Law of Works admitted no Repentance I tell you If God had intended Salvation by a Law of Works wherein Repentance should have been a Condition he might have put it in at first but God never intended to accept Repentance as a federal Condition of any Covenant nor our imperfect Condition And so I say again with a non obstante all that you have or can say against it And I must stand to that Rule which Mr. Norton takes from Cham. de descensu tom 2. l. 5. c. 12. This great Principle is all-a-long to be kept in Mind and occasionally to be applyed as in Answer to this Question Q. What is the supreme and first Cause why Justice requireth That Sin should be rewarded with Punishment due thereunto according to the Law A. The free Constitution of God the principal and whole Reason of this Mystery depends upon the good Pleasure of God for who can deny that God could have saved Man in another way But he would save him thus and no otherwise than thus This serves not only as a Sword to cut but as a leading Truth to loose the Knots of Carnal Reason The good Pleasure of God is the first Rule of Righteousness the Cause of all Causes the Reason of all Reasons And in one Word all Reasons in one Reason And how doth this make the following Saying orthodox viz. Being that Christ the Mediator and Faith in Christ are only means of the Restauration of Men to God by Holiness and Love therefore it must be said from the Nature of the thing Faith Holiness and the Love of God are more necessary to Salvation than either Faith in Christ or the Sacrifice of Christ himself Now if I had said that this Position were God's Constitution viz. that Holiness and Love to God wrought in us should be more necessary Means of Salvation than Faith in Christ or the Sacrifice of Christ you had said something Or that it were the Constitution of God That Christ in all things should not have the Preheminence whether in genere causarum mediorum vel finium Col. 1.18 19 20. Therefore to say Holiness in Grace or Glory is more necessary than Christ Mediator is to magnifie the Creature above Christ himself But because you say you would not have spoken the Words yourself but endeavour to explain them as charitably as you can I do not think it convenient to give you any further trouble about them but I must remark That it is not so fair in you to charge all upon me as my Sense which is spoken by an Interlocutor in a Dialogue AN ENQUIRY Whether the Gospel be a New Law SIR YOU begin thus Reader Though I did not once call the Gospel a Law in all my Book only in my Preface called it a Law of Faith yet because the whole of Mr. C 's Book runs on this I shall insist most on this Head R. Whether you called the Gospel a Law or no it matters not I know you kept your self here as in many other Points within your Trenches yet he that reads your Book is very blind if he sees not this to be the Corner-stone of your whole Scheme And by your now appearing in a Defence of that Principle as your professed Opinion You have not only dealt more candidly with your Reader than in your former Book but also justified me to the World in these things 1. That I endeavoured faithfully to represent your Opinions and did so in this Point 2. That I wronged you not in saying Your Art lay in concealing your Tenents from your less intelligent Reader under Ambiguous and Equivocal Expressions which I called by a plain English Name that you seem to be offended at 3. In that I treated you under the Appellation of a Neonomian which is an Antinomian in the truest Sense in that you have in this Reply professedly owned yourself as such and subscribed to the Truth thereof which for your own Reputation I would not have had you to have done In handling this Question I shall in the first Place remark upon your stating the Question and shew its true state 2. I shall answer your Arguments to prove the Gospel a new Law 3. I shall shew what Law and Gospel is 4. I shall give my Arguments to prove That the Gospel is no new Law 5. I shall shew the Beginning and Progress of this great Error viz. That the Gospel is a New Law 1. The stating of the Question SIR you tell us 1. In what Sense you hold the Gospel not a Law and from thence it follows That in a Sense it is not a Law and therefore in mine it may not be a Law 1. You say You do not hold that the Gospel includes nothing besides this Law R. Here is your old Tricking again The Question is about the Gospel being a Law and you say it includes som●thing that is not a Law it includes the Covenant of Redemption and absolute Promises as if the Qu●stion were Whether a Scabbard were a Sword And you say The Scabbard includes a Sword But by your Favour a Law as such can●ot include an absolute Promise for there 's no Promise but conditional in a Law but yet an absolute Promise may include a Law as that I will write my Laws in your Hearts There may be you say Prophecies Histories Doctrinals c. yet these may be called Adjuncts Of what You should have told us whether of Law or Gospel or of the Gospel as a Law The Histories of Christ are Gospel and the Prophecies of him and whatever in Doctrinals brings good News to Sinners belongs to the Promise and Exemplification thereof 2. You say p 19. Nor do I judge it a Law in that Sense our Divines six on S●cinians and Arminians R. No you apprehend our Divines abuse them but yet it hinders not but that you may judge it a Law in the Sense of the Socinians and Arminians I have told what yours is let the Reader judge whether it be so or no for they hold Justification by Acts of Obedience