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	justify_v	work_n	6,434	5	6.8388	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25225	The additional articles in Pope Pius's creed, no articles of the Christian faith being an answer to a late pamphlet intituled, Pope Pius his profession of faith vindicated from novelty in additional articles, and the prospect of popery, taken from that authentick record, with short notes thereupon, defended.	Altham, Michael, 1633-1705.; Altham, Michael, 1633-1705. Creed of Pope Pius IV, or, A prospect of popery taken from that authentick record.	1688 (1688)	Wing A2931; ESTC R18073	87,445	96

they are made Righteous when they are justified but as the Apostle saith They are justified freely by his Grace Rom. iij. And to explain himself a little after he adds That Grace would not be Grace if it were not given freely but rendred as a due Debt In the same Epistle I find also these words It is not therefore in vain that we sing unto God His mercy shall prevent me and His mercy shall follow me Whence life eternal it self which in the end shall be enjoyed without end and therefore is rendred to precedent merits yet because those merits to which it is given are not prepared by any ability of ours but are wrought in us by Grace even Life eternal it self is called Grace for no other reason but because it is given freely not therefore because it is not given to Merits but because those very Merits to which it is given are themselves a gift These words are an Inference from what went before where St. Austin argues against Merit either before to obtain Grace or after to deserve a Reward These are his words What is the Merit of Man before Grace by which he may deservedly obtain Grace when as all our Merit is from Grace and when he crowns our Merits he crowns nothing else but his own Gifts And from hence he inferrs in the words before cited Whence I observe 1. That all that is good in us here is owing to Divine Mercy preventing us 2. That all the good we can expect hereafter must be from the same Divine Mercy following us 3. That Life eternal which is the great Reward of Vertue and Goodness is called Grace 4. That though it be said to be given to Merits it is not said to be given for the sake of those Merits 5. That those Merits to which it is given are themselves the gift of God and therefore not Merits in the strict sence of the word It is not Righteousness but Pride in the name of Righteousness that expects eternal Life as a Reward due to its deserving These are St. Austin's own words in the next page which directly contradict this Definition of the Council of Trent viz. That a man justified truly deserves Life everlasting by his good works And now if the Vindicator can make any advantage of these words of St. Austin either to himself or to his cause I shall not envy him IV. He tells us that the Council hath defin'd That by works a Man is justified and not by Faith only And to prove this he alledgeth Jam. ij 24. where it is said ye see then how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only This place of Scripture hath been so often urged and all the Arguments raised therefrom so often and so miserably baffled that I wonder with what confidence this Gentleman could bring it upon the stage again They have been often told that St. James here doth not speak of Justification before God but before Men. That as Faith only though that Faith be not alone justifies us before God so good Works do justifie the truth of that Faith and evidence the reality of our Justification thereby unto Men. Which Interpretation is well warranted by St. Paul when he saith If Abraham was justified by Works then hath he whereof to glory but not before God Rom. iv 2. I likewise profess That in the Mass is offered a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the Living and the Dead TO persuade us to a compliance herewith the Vindicator advanceth both Scripture and Antiquity Two great Arguments if well managed Which whether they be or no I shall now Examine 1. He begins with Scripture and by way of Preface thereunto tells us That our blessed Saviour being a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedeck did at his last Supper offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins This is unhappily to stumble at the Threshold For 1. How his Consequent comes to be tack'd to his Antecedent is past my capacity to understand Our blessed Saviour was made a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchisedeck Therefore at his last Supper he did offer his Body and Blood after an unbloody manner for the Remission of Sins What Logick there is in this I am yet to learn. 2. If he did offer himself at his last Supper to whom did he do it For we do not find that he did address himself or offer any thing to any but only to his Disciples and surely he will not say that he offered himself as a Sacrifice unto them 3. If he did offer his Body and Blood then was it not an unbloody Sacrifice as they say it was 4. If it was an unbloody Sacrifice then could it not be propitiatory For without shedding of Blood there is no Remission of Sins Heb. ix 22. But the Vindicator hath good Scripture for all this viz. Luke xxij 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. Matth. xxvi 28. In all which places the Words of Institution are recited with some variation St. Matthew saith This is my Body vers 26. St. Luke adds Which is given for you And St. Paul saith Which is broken for you His whole Argument there depends upon the Words of Institution Before therefore I meddle with his reasoning therefrom it will be convenient to consider and explain them And 1. Our Saviour saith This is not This is Transubstantiate or wonderfully converted into another substance viz the substance of my Body 2. If when he said This is he meant Transubstantiation then his Body must be Transubstantiate before he spake and if so then the Conversion doth not depend upon the Words as they affirm For This is implies a thing already done 3. When he said This is my Body it is evident that his true natural humane Body was there with them took the Bread brake it gave it eat it now if that which he took brake gave and eat was then the Body of Christ either he must have two Bodies there at that time or else the same Body was by the same Body taken broken given and eaten and yet all the while neither taken broken given nor eaten 4. When he saith This is my Body which is given for you as St. Luke or Which is broken for you as St. Paul if it be understood literally then must it be either his natural or his glorified Body if they say the former then we urge them again with the preceding Observation the latter they will not dare to say because his Body was not then Glorified 5. If these words be to be literally and strictly to be understood then the substance of Bread must be Christ's Body at that time for what can any Man living understand by This but only this Bread For what he took he blessed what he blessed he brake what he brake he gave to his Disciples what he gave to them he bad them take and eat and what he bad them take and eat of that he

persons be so Righteous as to be void of all Sin they may no doubt keep all the Commandments But if the Foundation which he builds upon happen to fail him all his Superstructure will fall to the Ground Let us therefore Examine that whether it be firm and good In order whereunto let me premise That there is a Legal and Evangelical Righteousness The former of which consists in a perfect and unsinning Obedience to the whole Law And the latter in a sincere desire and endeavour to keep all God's Commandments The former of these it is not in the power of fallen Man to attain unto And to justifie this Assertion we have good warrant from the Holy Scriptures The wise Soloman in his Prayer at the Dedication of the Temple humbly confesseth There is no Man that sinneth not 1 Kings viij 46. And St. Paul tells us The Scripture hath concluded all under Sin Gal. iij. 22. And St. James saith In many things we offend al Jam. iij. 2. And if we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the Truth is not in us saith the Apostle John 1 Ep. c. i. v. 8. I might add many more places of Scripture to this purpose but these may suffice to show us how far it is out of the power of fallen Man to perform a perfect and unsinning Obedience to the Law of God. But the latter viz. an Evangelical Righteousness we acknowledge to be attainable in this Life It is possible for a good Man sincerely to desire and honestly to endeavour to keep all the Commandments of his God and though he fail in the attempt by reason of the corruption and depravation of his Nature yet God for Christ's sake will pardon those Failings and accept of those his honest Endeavours For if there be first a willing mind it is accepted according to that a Man hath and not according to that he hath not saith St. Paul 2 Cor. viij 12 And according to this Notion of Righteousness it is Hierom. ad Ctefiphon Aug. ad Bonifacium l. 3. c. 7. that holy and good Men are said to be Just and Righteous So St. Hierom saith Men are called just not because they are void of all Sin but because in the main they are Vertuous And S. Aug. saith The Vertue that is now in a just Man so far forth is called perfect that it pertaineth to the perfection thereof both in Truth to know and in Humility to confess that it is imperfect And the same St. Aug. in another place saith Aug. de Civit. Dei l. 19 c. 26. Ipsa nostra justitia quamvis vera sit propter veri boni finem ad quem refertur tamen tanta est in hac vita ut potius peccatorum remissione constet quam perfectione virtutum Our very Righteousness it self is such in this life that it stands rather in the Remission of Sins than in the perfection of Righteousness Thus Job by the Mouth of God himself is stiled A perfect and upright Man one that feared God and eschewed evil Job i. 8. and yet he cursed the day of his Birth c. iij. And thus Zacharias and Elizabeth are said to be both Righteous before God and to walk in all the Commandments and Ordinances blameless i. e. Their Lives and Conversations were so good and vertuous that no Man had any just cause to blame them But that they were without sin doth not appear but the contrary is very manifest for not long after we find Zacharias punished for his Vnbelief Luk. i. 20. His other Scripture Proof which is 1 John v. 18. Whosoever is born of God sinneth not will do him no better service than his Former For the same Apostle in the same Epistle c. i. v. 8. saith If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us If therefore the Text by him alledged be so to be understood as if the Regenerate were free from all manner of sin then must he say that St. John and those he speaks of in the other Text were not born of God or else that he contradicts himself in these two places neither of which I presume they will dare to say We must therefore find out another sence of these words which methinks is very obvious Whosoever is born of God sinneth not i. e. He doth not make a trade of sin or he doth not deliberately and on set purpose sin against God. This their own Lyra if he had consulted him would have told him for he saith Lyra in loc That the intention of the Apostle in this place is not to secure the Regenerate from all sin but from that sin unto death of which he speaks v. 16. Thus have I examined his proofs and find them to fall far short of proving what he pretends to prove by them But if I should grant his Proposition which he calls a Definition of the Council to be true yet I do not see how the possibility of keeping the Commandments can thence be inferred All works of the just he saith are not sins What then doth it necessarily follow That it is possible for the Regenerate to keep all the Commandments No surely for though all be not yet if any of them be it will be a sufficient bar to this Inference So St. James thought or else he would not have said Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet faileth in one point he is guilty of all Jam. ij 10. Unless therefore they will understand a possibility of keeping the Commandments Aug. Retract l. 1. c. 19. in the same sence that St. Austin doth who tells us All the Commandments of God are accounted to be done when that thing that is not done is forgiven I do not see how it can be asserted much less defended And if thus they understand it we shall not quarrel with them about it III. He tells us That the Council hath defin'd That a man justified truly deserves life everlasting by his good works And this he undertakes to prove both by Scripture and the Testimony of St. Austin Before I come particularly to examine his Proofs the force of all which stands in a misunderstanding of the Words Merit and Reward It will be convenient for a more clear decision of the difference between us to state the true notion of those words for Ambiguity of Words often hath been and still is not only the occasion of hot and fierce Disputes among men but of their continuance also That the word Merit is frequently used by the Fathers we own but that they used it in that sence in which the present Church of Rome doth we deny and thence ariseth the difference between us The Holy Fathers understood no more by it than Obtaining or Impetration but the Romanists would now have it to be understood of Earning or Deserving in the way of Condign Wages Bellarm de Justificat l. 5. c. 17. as if there were an

honour that we can do them But that they are to be invocated call'd upon or pray'd unto we cannot consent because we have no warrant for it either in the Word of God or any good Antiquity Whether they do offer Prayers to God for us as it is not very certain so is it not any part of the question between us nor if it be granted will it warrant our praying to them As for their Relicks those that are truly such viz. their Sepulchres their Memories their Writings and their good Examples we have a great Veneration for them and do think that they ought not only not to be exposed to any contempt or disgrace but that a very great respect and regard ought to be paid them But that all those things which the Church of Rome tells us are the Relicks of Saints are really such we cannot agree nor can we go along with them in paying them that Veneration which they do we cannot repose any confidence in them nor expect any help or assistance from them nor hope to have our Prayers heard in this place rather than in another upon the account of some Relicks being there As for their Images and the honour and veneration due to them it had been well if either Pope Pius or his Vindicator had thought fit to explain themselves and told us what kind of honour and veneration they mean. The Vindicator indeed saith That they being things relating to God it must be another kind of Regard Honour and Veneration than is usually given to prophane things But whether this is or ought to be called a Religious Honour is matter of dispute but no matter of his Faith. And that as for the manner or external profession of it it ought to be measured from the intention of the Church so that we are still as far to seek for the meaning of it as before Now where can we hope to find what the intention of the Church is unless it be in the Council of Trent and its Catechism out of which Pope Pius extracted these New Articles It may not be amiss therefore before we proceed any further to see what that Council hath determined in these two points viz. The Invocation of Saints and the worship of Images which are the two things promoted in these two Articles and which this Gentleman hath here undertaken to vindicate from Novelty I. Touching the Invocation of Saints The Council hath defin'd That the Saints reigning with Christ do offer their Prayers unto God for us But is this all No it farther declares Concil Trident. Sess 25. Decret de Invocatione c. That it is a good and profitable thing for us in an humble manner to pray unto them But is this all yet No We must have recourse to their Prayers Aid and Assistance Nor is this all for the Bodies of Holy Martyrs and others now living with Christ which have been the living Members of Christ and Temples of the Holy Ghost veneranda sunt are to be worshipped or had in veneration And it expresly damns all those who teach That Veneration and Honour are not due to the Relicks of the Saints or that it is not profitable to honour these Relicks and other sacred Monuments of the Saints or that it is in vain to frequent the Memories of the Saints and that eorum opis impetrandae causâ to obtain their help and assistance Thus far the Council which is seconded by the Catechism which saith We pray to God either to give us good things Catech. ad Parochos Part 4. Tit. Quis sit Orandus or to deliver us from evil but because the Saints are more acceptable to him than we are we beg of them to undertake our cause and to obtain for us those things we stand in need of From whence it comes to pass that we use two very different Forms of Prayer for to God the proper manner of speaking is Have pity on us Hear our Prayer whereas we only desire the Saints to pray for us But then it follows Though it be lawful on another account to pray to the Saints that they would have pity on us for they are mighty merciful And in another place it saith Invocandi sunt c. They are to be prayed unto because they are continually in God's presence and most willingly take upon them patrocinium salutis nostrae the patronage of our Health and Safety which is committed to their care II. Concerning the Worship of Images that Council hath also defin'd That the Images of Christ of the Virgin-Mother of God and of other Saints Sess 25. Decret de Invocatione c. are to be had and retained in Churches But is this all No All due honour and veneration is to be given to them And how is this to be given By kissing those Images uncovering the Head and prostrating our selves before them And is all this for no other end but only to excite in us the remembrance of those they represent Certainly the Council intended something more for it builds this Definition upon the second Council of Nice Concil Nicaen 2. Action 3 4 6. Catech. ad Parochos part 3. de cultu Invocat Sanct. in which it was ordained That the Images of Christ of the blessed Virgin Mary and of the Saints should not only be received into places of Adoration but also should be adored and worshipped And so the Catechism explains it for we are there told That to make and honour the Images of Christ the Lord of his most holy and immaculate Mother and of other Saints is an holy and most certain argument of a grateful mind But is this all No. It is not only lawful to have Images in Churches and to give Honour and Worship to them provided that Honour which is given to them be referred to their Prototypes but also it is for the greatest good and benefit of the Faithful so to do But is this all yet No. The Images of Saints are placed in Temples ut colantur that they may be worshipped This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in these two Articles as it is delivered by the Council of Trent and the Catechism ad Parochos out of which these and the other new Articles were collected by Pope Pius IV. Which Doctrine we can by no means comply with nor subscribe to For I. As for the Invocation of Saints 1. We look upon it as a fond thing vainly invented grounded upon no warranty of Scripture but rather repugnant to the word of God. 2. We think it to be highly derogatory to the Mediatorial Office of Jesus Christ 3. We look upon Prayer as an eminent Act of Religious Worship which we think to be due to God alone and ought not to be given to any Creature And II. As for the Worship of Images We think that it is an absolute breach of the second Commandment which forbids the worship of Images and that in words so large

what is this to the Bishop of Rome for it is granted by all that after this time he was first settled in the See of Antioch but it is questioned by many whether ever he was fixed in the See of Rome Or if he was why should his Successors in the latter place have a better Title to it than those in the first But 3. If we will suffer St. Cyprian to be his own Interpreter he will fully clear the matter where having occasion to explain those words of our Saviour to Peter St. Cypr. de Unitat. Eccles Edit Oxon. p. 107. he concludes The rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was being joined with him in the same fellowship of Honour and Power Where it is plain he gives no Supremacy to St. Peter over the rest of the Apostles much less did he intend any to his Successors But St. Cyprian must not escape thus he is again pressed to speak in this Cause For in his 73. Epist saith the Vindicator he hath these words Christ gave this power to Peter upon whom he built the Church To this I answer That this Epistle is an Answer to one sent him by Jubaianus concerning the Rebaptizing of Hereticks Against which it is objected by Jubaianus That we are not to enquire by whom a person is Baptized since he that is Baptized may receive Remission of Sins if he believe In answer to this Objection St. Cyprian after he had for some time discoursed of the Faith of those who are without the Church and the Efficacy thereof at last concludes But it is manifest where and by whom that Remission of Sins which is given in Baptism can be given For the Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and from whence he shows the Original of Vnity that Power that whatsoever he should loose on Earth should be loosed in Heaven And after the Resurrection he also spoke to the Apostles saying As my Father hath sent me so send I you and when he had said this he breathed on them John xx 21. and said Whosoever Sins ye remit they are remitted and whosoever Sins ye retain they are retained Where you see he joins St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles in the same fellowship of Honour and Power with this only difference that it was given to St. Peter first and afterwards to them all jointly And at last he concludes which was all that he aimed at By this we understand both where and by whom Remission of Sins in Baptism can be given viz. In the Church and by the Pastors of the Church And now what is all this to the Supremacy either of the Bishop or Church of Rome But he hath not yet done with St. Cyprian he must come upon the Stage again to justifie what he saith Epist 55. where we find these words They are bold to carry Letters from schismatical and profane Persons to the Chair of Peter and the principal Church from whence the Priestly Vnity hath its rise In answer whereunto it may not be amiss to give you a short Account of the whole matter The Story is this Felicissimus and Five other Presbyters with him had made an horrible Schism in the Church of Carthage contending for the reception both of Hereticks and Apostates into the Church without any form of Ecclesiastical Discipline These were opposed by St. Cyprian of whose Opposition they were so impatient that at last they proceeded contrary to all Rule and Order to chuse a new Bishop and fix'd upon one Fortunatus Hereupon St. Cyprian calls a Council of African Bishops in which the cause was heard and these Schismaticks censured This so inflamed their turbulent and unquiet Minds that they resolve to carry the matter to Rome and accordingly Felicissimus and others of the Party were sent with Letters from their mock-Bishop Fortunatus to Cornelius Bishop of Rome And this is the carrying of Letters to St. Peter 's Chair c. that St. Cyprian here speaks of So soon as they were come there and had made known their business Cornelius by Letters acquaints St. Cyprian with it and he in this Epistle returns him an answer Whence we may Note That it was not St. Cyprian and the Catholick Bishops of Africa but the schismatical mock-Bishop Fortunatus and his adherents that appealed to Rome Nor doth Cornelius take upon him to cite St. Cyprian and the African Bishops to appear and answer the matter before him but only in a Brotherly and friendly manner by letters acquaints him with it And so far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the Bishops of Africa that the highest titles that he gives him in this whole Epistle are only Brother and Most dear Brother He also takes upon him sharply to reprove him for his pusillanimity and lowness of Spirit at the threats and menaces of those wicked Men He instructs him what he should do and directs him how to behave himself towards them He acquaints him that the cause was already judged in Africa and as good as tells him that he ought not to meddle with it For saith he it is determined by all of us and it is both equal and just that every ones Cause should be heard where the crime was committed Every Pastor hath his portion of the Flock which he ought to rule and govern and to give an account thereof not at Rome but in Heaven not to Cornelius but to Christ to the Lord. Those therefore who are under our Jurisdiction ought not to run about i. e. they ought not to apply themselves to any foreign Jurisdiction but to plead their cause there where they may have both Accusers and Witnesses of their Crime So far was St. Cyprian from owning any Superiority or Power in the Roman Bishop over himself and the African Bishops But he calls the Church of Rome The Chair of Peter and the principal Church 'T is true he doth so but that he never intended thereby to ascribe unto her a Superiority and Jurisdiction over all other Churches I take to be very plain from the account I have now given you of his sentiments out of this very Epistle But having already accounted for these expressions I am not willing to repeat the same thing over again but shall rather referr you to what hath been already said His next evidence is Greg. Naz. Hom. de Cre. Epist Doar We do not contemn nor revile that great Pastor who governs that magnificent City we know him to be honourable we acknowledge him the Head we desire he will shew himself an indulgent and tender Father and diligently take care of the whole Church To this I answer That if by Head he mean the chief Ruler and Governour we grant that he is so in his own province and that he take care of the whole Church of that Province committed to his Charge we think is his duty and with Nazianzen we