Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	imputation_n	justification_n	righteousness_n	3,015	5	7.9076	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42456	An answer to Mr. George Walkers vindication, or rather, fresh accusation wherein he chargeth Mr. Wotton, besides his former foul aspersions of heresie and blasphemy, with Arianism, Mr. Gataker with Socinianism, Dr. Gouge and Mr. Downham with a fase attestation, Dr. Baylie and Mr. Stock with self-condemnation, all the eight ministers employed in the busines between himself and Mr. Wotton with partiality and unjust judgement : upon occasion of a relation concerning that busines / written by the said Thomas Gataker and by him now again avowed, wherein the said M. Walkers vindication is in many things shewed to be an untrue relation.	Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654.	1642 (1642)	Wing G310; ESTC R14600	105,275	140

same As for the word Equivalent here it is not M. Wottons but M. Walkers tearm whose spite and rancor against M. Wotton is such that nothing of his can fairely passe through his fingers To be equivalent that is equall in worth and value is one thing and yet I might tel M. Walker that Chrysostome sticks not to affirm yea stiffly maintains that Faith in Christ is of it self a more excellent thing and of greater worth then the keeping of Gods Commandements as I shew but disallowing elsewhere and yet is he not therefore deemed or condemned for an heretick to be reckoned or counted by God unto man in the covenant of grace to all purposes in regard of ought that God requires on his part to be performed for attaining of life eternal as if he had in the other covenant kept the whole law is another thing I suppose M. Walker is not to learne a difference and that a vast one too between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek The sixt question is Whether M. Wotton affirming that If we be freely pardoned then our sins were not punished in Christ our head and surety doth not deny Christs satisfaction for sin To this I answer he must shew first where M. Wotton so saith For these words out of M. Wotton he never yet produced Read the Parallel Error 7. out of M. Wotton what is there alledged and M. Wottons Answer to what is there alledged by M. Walker out of him and you shal soon see how M. Walker here deales with M. VVotton His seventh question is Whether M. VVotton be not guilty of heretical tergiversation and grosse contradiction in some passages The man you see can not speak of M. VVotton but he must needs spit Fier and Brimstone Every thing is either heretical or blasphemous in him But am I or is any man else bound to reconcile whatsoever contradictions are if any be or may be found in M. VVottons writings Or is every one that is taken in grosse contradictions of necessity thereupon to be condemned for an heretick But in this also M. Walker may as wel be beleeved as where he pronounces the like of M. Bradshaws book Were M. VVotton alive he were best able to reconcile his own seeming differences and indeed for the most of them if not all he then did it himselfe For the first which he citeth out of my Defence as he tearms it though out of his own Parallel and M. VVottons own defence indeed he might if he had but put on his spectacles have found it in the very same place assoiled that his dispute being of the formall cause of justification or that whereby we are made formally righteous he denieth any end or use of Christs righteousnes imputed to that purpose but he denieth not the imputation of it as the meritorious cause thereof Whereunto tho sufficient to take away the seeming contradiction I ad yet further what I touched upon out of M. Bradshaw before and I find in him elswhere that tho he deny Imputation of Christs righteousnes taken in a stricter sense as many in this argument would have it yet taken it in a larger sense for that which is reckoned to a man for his benefit so far forth as it may in that kind be useful unto him so he denies not the Imputation of Christs righteousnesse to mans justification For thus I find in certaine Theses of his written in Latine of this subject 1. If any man hold Christs Righteousnes to be by way of merit the efficient cause of justification I am wholly of his mind 2. If any maintain not Christs Righteousnes to be our formal Righteousnes I have no controversie with him 3. The imputation of Christs Righteousnes to our benefit I acknowledge and professe 4. It never came into my mind not so much as in dream to deny that we are justified for the righteousnes of Christ. As for what M. Walker addes out of M. VVottons Essaies they were written after our meeting as himself acknowledgeth and therefore nothing concern either us or our censure nor for my part did I ever see them nor know what is in them and yet what is it that M. Walker thence here alledgeth That in Scripture there is no mention of Christs merit Which if he speak of the word merit who wil or can deny the truth of it yet it will not thence follow that M. VVotton therefore denies the thing thereby signified the rather since that he useth the tearm of meritorious cause applied unto Christ and his Righteousnes so frequently himself no more then that Calvin denied the Doctrine of the T●init● because he acknowledgeth that tearm not to be found in Gods VVord To the next likewise he might have found the like solution in the very place whence he had it if he had been pleased to deal but half so kindly with M. VVotton as he dealt with Socinus For why may not Faith tho taken properly be said to justifie not per se or of it self tho Bucer as I have shewed so also say albeit the word Faith be there properly taken where it is said to be imputed for Righteousnes not for it self as M VVotton himself expoundeth himself but for Christ on whom it relies as hath formerly been at large related For what is added of Imputation is coincident to the former but that M. Walker with his cole so o●t new dressed and dished in again tires out h●s Readers and may wel overturn their stoi●ck● The third consists of the second and sixt Queres for M. Walker loves to turn round wherein nothing is truely alledged out of M. VVotton that any way crosseth Christs satisfaction made or the price by him paid for us and shal thither therefore be returned again least by running round in a circle after M. Walker we grow turn-sick with him The fourth is not so much a contradiction found in M Wottons writings to ought of his own as to the words of the Apostle Rom. 5. 19. which yet unles they be understood of formal and inherent Righteousnes however M. Walker tax M. Bradshaw for confounding these terms M. VVottoh contradicteth not at all And yet is it not sufficient to prove a man an heretick because he contradicts somewhat conteined in Gods Word since that every error whatsoever in any point of Divinity must of necessity so do and M. Walker therefore unlesse he dare professe himself free from all error must by the same ground withall granted confesse himself to be an heretick But from his Contradictions return we to his Questions again His eighth question wherein he thinks he hath me now on the hip is How M. Gataker with a good conscience can justifie and proclaim M. VVotton free from heresie when he wilfully and perversely denies the very form

essence and being of justification to wit the Imputation of Christs Righteousnes first simply rejecting it as being of no use and afterwards as the formal cause of justification where you have the same colie served you in againe seeing he the said M. Gataker hath publikely extolled and commended for Orthodox the like Treatife of M. VV. Bradshaw in his funerall Sermon at his buriall wherein he makes the imputation of Christs Righteousnes the form of justification In which words as he sometime said of the people of Athens M. Walker blowes and blusters much but does little For first I might demand of him where I so extolled M. Bradshaws book What I spake of it in a short Speech before my Sermon at that time I have formerly word for word related But in M. Walkers hyperbolical language every mole-hil is a mountain every rivelet or drilling ril a flood or a faire river every but scanty or sleight commemoration or commendation an extolling every light touch an Invective every error at least an heresie Secondly whether every one that commends a book in such manner as I there did must of necessity approve it as wholly free from all error I was by a worthy Knight sometime demanded mine opinion in a point concerning the seat of conscience wherein two Divines of special note run two divers and cros waies the one denying it a place in any natural Facultie of the soul usually assigned the other affording it a room in each of them and professing my self to dissent from either it was objected to me that I had by an Epistle prefixed commended the worke of the one wherein that opinion of his was found to which I then answered that Gentleman and so shal now M. VValker that a book may warrantably for the main substance of it be cōmended as useful yea as excellent albeit the party so commending it suppose the Author of it to have been mistaken in some things therein contained So did M. Cappel with the same M. Bradshaws book albeit in some things therein he dissented then from him when so highly yet he indeed did extoll it as you formerly have heard and my selfe did somewhat the like sometime with M. Eltons Catechetical work to my cost though withall professing that in divers things contained in that part of it which I had read I was my selfe of another judgement Thirdly what if M. Wotton and M. Bradshaw do not herein at all differ or crosse either other but may very well be reconciled may not M. Gataker then at least with a good conscience commend M. Bradshaws booke and yet pronounce M. Wotton free from heresie when he saith herein nothing that contradicts that which M. Bradshaw is here said to affirm And that it is so indeed and in M. Bradshaws own judgement was so may be easily made to appeare For doth not M. Bradshaw in his Preface plainly shew that the word of Imputation is overstrictly taken by some Divines in which sense M. Wotton seems to him to have denied it whereas the word might wel be understood in another and a larger sense professing himself so to use it So that the bare word rejected by the one and admitted by the other doth not necessarily imply any contradiction between them no more then S. Pauls words that A man is justified by faith without works doth any way contradict what S. James saith that A man is justified by works and not by faith onely And here I shall again crave leave of my Reader to insert a short passage out of some writings enterchanged between these two Christian brethren both I hope now with God and agreeing in all things though in some particulars they dissented while they lived here M. Wotton in his Animadversions which I have by me on M. Bradshaws book thus excepts The third opinion denying all imputation of Christs righteousnes is said to be somewhat erroneous Yet the same opinion held onely in that strict sense of imputation which the Autor himselfe rejecteth and that upon good ground as he acknowledgeth is therefore cleered from all erroneousnes For how can that be erroneous that is held on good ground To which M. Bradshaw thus answereth Tho upon good ground as to me seems you deny imputation in that sense only yet your denial of all imputation may notwithstanding that be erroneous being grounded upon a supposal of that which I think is erroneous that there is no other kind of imputation but that which is answerable to that strict sense aforesaid By which words it appeares that the difference herein between them was rather in words then in points and that M. Wottons error as M Bradshaw apprehended it was only concerning the use of a word not concerning any point of faith Fourthly suppose the difference were not verball but reall not in words onely but in sense and meaning too yet would it not therefore necessarily follow that M. Wotton denieth the very form essence and being of justification because he denies that which M. Bradshaw affirms to be the Formall cause of it or that M. Gataker must therefore of necessity pronounce M. Wotton an heretick unles first it be proved that that is indeed and truth the formal cause of justification which M. Bradshaw hath assigned which being found onely in a short Summary annexed to his Treatise M. Walker himself deems to contradict what is averred in the book nor is it at all in the Latine edition and that M. Gataker also is therein of the same mind with M. Bradshaw which for ought M. Walker knowes he may not be Fiftly I should desire to know of M. Walker whether he hold not the imputation of Christs active obedience to be the formall cause of our justification and if he so do which I suppose he wil not deny whether he can with a good conscience pronounce Pareus free from heresie notwithstanding that he denies the imputation of it unto justification as derogatory from the al-sufficiency of Christs suffrings and his sacrifice and consequently by M. Walkers inference takes away the very form essence and being of justification if he cannot how comes it to pas that he reckons him here so oft among his Orthodox Writers that condemn M. Wottons opinions as heretical and blasphemous if he can I see not why M. Gataker may not do the like by M. Wotton forought here objected the argument being as strong if not stronger against the one as against the other Sixtly suppose it were an error and a dangerous one to that M. Wotton maintains whence knows M. Walker or how is he able to prove that he holds it wilfully that is against his own knowledge for that seems to be intimated and perversly that is as I conceive him obstinately to make him a damned heretick For I suppose he wil not assume to himself any extraordinary gift in discerning of spirits and if he will pretend that he discernes it by his