Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	work_n	work_v	write_v	138	4	5.3337	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13812	An ansvvere to certein assertions of M. Fecknam, sometime abbot of Westminster which he made of late against a godly sermon of M. Iohn Goughes, preached in the Tower the xv. of Ianuarie. 1570. Seen and allowed.	Tomson, Laurence, 1539-1608.; Feckenham, John de, 1518?-1585, attributed name.; Gough, John, fl. 1561-1570, attributed name.	1570 (1570)	STC 24113; ESTC S113017	63,134	174

difference is betwixt iustification and sanctification you should doubt whether sanctification were a piece of iustification or an effect of iustification Let vs then sée whether workes that follow doo con●erre any thing to the Iustification Marke I pray you the controuersie betwixt you and master Goughe The question is not whether good woorkes are necessarie to walke in Whether we are bound to walke in the feare of GOD after that he hath manifested vnto vs his election and called vs to embrace his frée mercy and Iustification I say the question is not whether we ought to do well that GOD may be glorifyed by vs But whether a man being already iustified his woorkes afterward may giue encrease of Iustice I pray you Sir after that Quéene Marie had made you Abbot of Westminster dyd you the office of an Abbot that you would be a more Abbot or to do your duetie to the which the Quéene of hir grace hadde called you For therefore shée bestowed it vpon you that you should doe the duetie and not dy doing the duetie to become a more Abbot So fareth it with the children of God Of this whole lumpe of earth which he made of this masse which we call Adam he of his free mercie and goodnesse hathe chosen some whereby he will bée glorified in this world by the good woorkes which they shall do before the face of men When this election of his beginneth to be manifest to euerye chosen when he moueth the hearts of his after they haue long slept in sinne to remember that they are hys that he hathe slayne hys Sonne for them that they are deliuered from the whole cursse of the lawe Is it not requisite thinke you that they walke worthie his vocation That they make sure their vocation Naye doe they in this their course in any parte delyuer them selues from the cursse of the lawe Doe they pay that raunsome which was paide before What is the iustice or Iustification of GOD Redemption and remission of sinnes in the bloud of christ Was then the bloud of Chryst answearable to all the Lawe did there remaine no parte vnpayde For whome then did he all this Not for him selfe for there was no guile found in his mouthe For whome then For the faithfull to whome God dothe giue this Faith not of merite but of grace Haue they then all the iustice of Christe haue they that which Christe dyd in his bodye put vppon them May they say as he sayde Death where is thy sting Hell where is thy victorie May they say death is swallowed vp in victorie May they say there is no condemnation to vs whiche are in Christe Iesus what remayneth then that they walke according to the Spirite not according to the fleshe that they glorifie God before men whiche hath already made them the children of god Not to do ageyn y which is done alreadie for that is impossible not to ioyne a piece to Christes as thoughe it were not perfect For he left no piece vnpayed But to receyue by faith that iustification that God doth giue them without the workes of the lawe For workes sequuntur iustificatum non praecedunt iustificandum they followe a man iustified and goe not before him that is to be iustified Effectus autem non praeiudicat causae as you knowe The effect neuer preiudiceth the cause Thorough al the course of our liues we worke bicause we are iustified and we do not worke that we may be iustified And this is the meaning of the Apostle in this place not as thoughe workes were to be ioyned with faith to deserue some thing For then should wée receyue reward due and not grace And thus much touching M. Goughe his argument Now to your Obiection Firste I maruayle that M. Goughe will allowe this terme Only when it is not expressed in Canonicall scripture Next I am sure that there is nothing equiualent vnto it for faith without the workes of the lawe and fayth onely or fayth simplie withoute workes be not of one like condition You néede not maruayle much if you would rightly consider it Paules whole disputation standeth vpon twoo Subiecta one Praedicatum as the people are twoo to whō he addresseth his doctrine and must agrée in one The subiecta are these works or the Law fayth or Christ The Praedicatum is Iustification If then reasoning à diuisione the one be put away what remayneth If I reason thus Of all liuing creatures there is one that is risibile apte to laugh it is not Brutum any brute beast Therefore it is Homo man If I reason thus I say is not this consequent comprehended in Consequenti Therefore onely man is risibilis So likewise Paule reasoneth there is one thing which iustifieth It is not works therfore it is fayth Doth it not nowe folow that being but one and that one faith that we may wel conclude that faith only iustifieth And so adde we nothing to the scripturs which you séeme to lay to M. Goughes charge by a taunte but finde it in the verie letter although not literallie And in so doing we make no new inuentiō So taught before vs Theophilact whose wordes are these vt autem haberi pro comperto queat posse hunc deum qui impiè vixerit non solum à tormentis eximere sed iustum reddere illud subdit credenti autem in eum qui iustificat c. Num igitur est hic quippiam allaturus Fidem duntaxat that is But that it may be certaynely knowen that God can not onely deliuer frō torments but also iustifie him which liued wickedly he addeth that but to him that beléeueth in him which iustifieth c. Must he therfore also bring some thing Faith onely ▪ And Origenes vppon this same place whiche M. Goughe alleaged sayeth thus Nunc tam velut conclusionem suarum assertionum ponens in hoc loco dicit Vbi est ergo gloriatio tua Exclusa est ▪ per quam legem operum Non sed per legem fidei Arbitramur enim iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem ita vt credens quis tantummodo iustificetur etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum Nowe making as it were a conclusion of his assertions sayeth in this place where is then thy reioysing it is excluded By what law of workes No but by the lawe of faith for we suppose or conclude that mā is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law and he sayeth that the iustification of only faith is sufficient so that a mā beléeuing onely may be iustified although that no work be don of him I will not alleage here Hierom on the 4. of this Epistle Conuertentem impium and agein vt omnes qui ex Gentibus c nor Amb. j. Cor. xj hoc constitutum est à Deo. c. nor Bernard ser. 22. super Can. Quamobrem

¶ An Answere to certein Assertions of M. Fecknam somtime Abbot of Westminster which he made of late against a godly Sermon of M. Iohn Goughes preached in the Tower the xv of Ianuarie 1570. Seen and allowed Imprinted at London by Henrie Bynneman CVM PRIVILEGIO To the right worshipfuls Sir Frauncis Iobson Knight Lieuetenaunt of the Toure Sir Henrie Neuell Knight and M. Pellam Lieuetenaunt of the Ordinaunce geue these YOur worships request was vpon Sunday last as I came from the Churche to know my lyking of M. Goughes Sermon Wherunto I answered that I was very lothe to finde any faulte with the sayings or dooings of any man being already in trouble as you knowe You replied and sayd that I was not able to find fault where no fault was I had thē no leisure to make any further answer you departing homewardes and I to my prison But now considering wyth my self that I might séeme vnto you a greater offēder in holding my peace than in speaking my mind when as saying nothing I might ingender an opinion in you that I am obstinate self willed and h●ue nothing to mislike but mine owne proper fansie On the other side to declare my minde I might signifie vntoo you the iust causes and true occasions which I haue to finde fault withall not so much for reprehending other men as to shew the necessary stayes of mine owne conscience I thought good vppon your lycence graunted and obteyned to expresse by wryting some faultie matter of his sermon wherby your worships might perceiue in the rest how much fault he is worthy of for speaking and how litle I deserue for not lyking of so vngodly pointes of doctrine Desiring you most humbly fauorably to interprete these my notes of reprehending his Sermon that is to proceede of a minde not desirous of contention but desirous of the truthe more seeking to satisfie your request and demaund than to minister any occasion of further argument 1 That it is not impossible to keepe Gods commaundements M. Fecknam MAster Gough in his sermon among other things said that gods precepts and commaundements giuen to man be so burdenous heauie as not possible of man to be obserued So taught long before him the Maniches and the Valentinians déenying free will which is the originall of that herisie M. Goughe For the profe of his doctrine he brought a familiar example likening almightie God and vs to a father and his litle sonne who being commaunded of his father to go and fetch a great lumpe of leade farre aboue his power weighing a hundred or two hundred weight not able to bring it yet making a profer the father accepteth his good will and so alloweth the thing to be done which otherwise was and is impossible M. Fecknam Contrarie to this doctrine is our sauior Christe where he willeth vs to take his yoke vpō vs because it is light Tollite iugū meū super vos iugū enim meum suaue est onus meū leue Take my yoke vpō you for my yoke is sweet my burden light If it be a light burden M. Goughs heauy exāple hath not a penyworth of good skil S. Iohn to this effect sayth quod mādata eius graua non sunt that his cōmādements be not heauie If they be not heauie they be farre vnlike M. Goughs lumpe of lead impossible to bée taken vp and remoued S. Paul in rebuking these idle herers of the law which say they can hear it but not do it fulfil it writeth Nō auditores legis iusti sūt apud deū sed factores legis iustificabūtur For not the hearers of the law be iust with god but y doers shal be iustified If thei do the law then it may be don thē it is possible Sub esse ad poss● is a good argument They do the workes of the law therfore they may bée done The Euāgelist S. Luke of these doers of the law bringeth a full example writing thus of Zacharie and Elizabeth Erant ambo iusti ante Deū incedentes in omnibus mādatis et iustificationibꝰ dn̄i sine querela that is They were both iust before god walking in al the cōmandements iustificatiōs of the lord without blame If s. Luke had the spirite of truthe when he said that these two walked in al the cōmādemēts thē M. Gough by his denial impossibilitie put therof must néede haue the spirite of errour lying S. Iohn sayth Qui dicit se nosse deū et mādata eius nō custodit mendax est He y sayth he knoweth God kepeth not his commaundements is a lier S. Ierome writing of these teachers whiche say that it is impossible too kéepe the law hath these words Execramur corū blaspemiā q dicūt impossibile aliquid homini a deo p̄ceptū esse mādata eiꝰ nō a singulis sed ab omnibꝰ in cōmuni posse seruari that is Wée detest their blasphemy which say that god hath cōmaunded man to do any thing impossible and that the cōmaundements of god may be kept not of euery one in particular but of all in generall He witnesseth that gods cōmandements may be obserued of euery one in particular and that god cōmādeth nothing impossible for he detesteth the cōtrary doctrin calleth it blasphemy therfore I haue litle cause to like it S. Austen likewise to the same ende sayeth Deus neque impossibi●e aliquid potuit imperare quia iustus est nec da●●aturus est hominem pro eo quod non potuit vitare quia pius est that is God neither could commaund any thing that is impossible bicause he is not iust neither wil he condemne any mā for that which he could not auoid bicause he is merciful The contrary whereof to maintaine doth blasphemously argue God both of iniustice and impietie when he cōmaundeth vs to do that which M. Gough sayth is impossible and condemneth vs for that which he saith we could not auoid 2 That the holy Angels and Saincts of heauen may heare our prayers MAster Gough went forward tooke occasion to impugne al prayer inuocation intercession made vnto Saincts calling it a diuelish Doctrine So did long before him Vigilantius the hereticke ageinst whome doth write S. Ierom. M. Goughe To mainteyne his error he made this proposition that beside God no Angell no Spirit no Saint in heauen doth knowe what is done here vppon the earthe touching our internall or externall petitions And then sayth hee what a madnesse is it to pray vnto those which cānot heare vs M. Fecknam To this opinion is cleane repugnant the saying of our Sauiour Chryst when he teacheth that more ioy shal bée in heauen before the Angels of God vppon one sinner dooing penance than vpon ninetie and nine iust mē which néed no penaūce But Angels can haue no ioye of that thing which they do not knowe neither if they doo knowe our penaunce shall they be