Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	evil_a	good_a	tree_n	33,809	5	11.7409	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57283	A vindication of the reformed religion, from the reflections of a romanist written for information of all, who will receive the truth in love / by William Rait ...	Rait, William, 1617-1670.	1671 (1671)	Wing R146; ESTC R20760	160,075	338

any other Papist Reply Reply In your twelfth Sect you make us teach that lawful Magistrats may be deposed by the Pope and that we canonize such Where citing Rom. 13. and 1. Pet. 2. you sight with your own shaddow and make up tenets contrar to Scripture which Catholick detest and abhorre But this is proper to Heresie and particularly yours to cause rebellin from lawful Princes and Magistrats as it did every where even in its first beginning witness the revolting of the Princes of Germany against the Emperour The bloody warre of the subjects in France 20. years against their King Holland against Spain to this day the Suitzers amongst themselves SCOTLAND first against Queen Mary and then our late gracious King Nevertheless Ministers are so bold as to speak this who can neither be subject to Kings Magistrats nor Bishops if they oppose their whimsyes in the least Every one of them taking greater power to himself then Catholicks gives to St. Peter Duply Any one may here perceive a Prote ∣ stants Answer studied shift by way of recrimination Because ye date not declare your selves herein And do you indeed detest the Doctrine of the whole Canonists the whole Jesuits that the Pope may depose a lawful King If it be so I am glade you renounce this point of Poperie But because you say I fight with my own shaddow herein to shew how ignorant and impudent you are in this denyal Let any read either the bull of Gregory the seventh against Henry the fourth the Emperor or of Sixtus the 5 against Henry the third King of France or of Pius the fifth against Elizabeth Queen of England and there ye will find this tennor Nos in supremo justitia throne collocati supremam in omnes Reges Principes Terrae universae cunctosque populos gentes Nationes non humana sed divina institutione obtinentes nobis traditam potestatem declaramus praecipimus jubem●s c. Viz. That none of their subjects should owne o● acknowledge them For your better information in this particular know that the power of the Pope in this particular is one way explained by the Canonists and another way by the Jesuits For the Canonists say that the Pope hath jura omnia caelestis terrestris imperii sibi à Deo concessa The Jesuits that Pontifex ut Pontifex non habet directe ullum temporalem potestat●m sed solum spiritualem tamen indirecte ratione spiritualis habet potestatem quandam ea●●que summam disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum See more of this in Dr. Barclay de potestate Papae in Principes Christianos They hold it beyond doubt that in ordine ad spiritualia which is a broad charter the Pope may depose any King and loose their subjects from all allegiance to him cum subest causa rationalis † Anno 1654. When it was Printed at Naples by authority that the Pope should not exercise jurisdiction civil in the territories of Spain without the Kings leave this was condemned at Rome by Innocent the tenth Secondly They hold that Bishops may omnem mover● lap●dem and that is a broad word ne degant sub Haeretico Principe Baron anno 438. Sect. 89. Thirdly When the knowledge of the fault is evident Subjects may lawfully if they have sufficient strength exeem themselves from subjection to their Prince Bani●s on Thomas quastion 12. and that ante judicis sententiam declaratoriam Lastly Privat persons may kill an Heretical King after sentence is given against him Suarez defens fidei Cathol lib. 6. cap. 4. only their tenderness appeareth in this that the King be not constrained wittingly or willinglie to be the cause of his own death the sense is thi● if you can poyson him by his gloves garment or saddle you may do it But by meat or drink you may not for then he taketh his own poyson So John Mariana de Reg. instit lib. 1. cap. 7. Is it not then true that by principles of doctrine no Papist adhering to the Pope can be a loyal subject to the King As for our Reformations ye look on all such with an evil eye But our doctrine in the reformed Church concerning the Magistrat is such that no Christians on earth give him more then we do Witness out Confession of Faith to which we will adhere while we live what ever the scripture and pure antiquitie giveth to Kings that we willingly tender for conscience sake All sound Protestants do abhorre and detest the murther of our late Soveraign Lord the King and we in this Nation did protest and declare against it for which our Commissioners were committed close prisoners and sent with a guard to the border As for the Reformation abroad I desire that famous Mr. Baxter his Key for Catholicks and disswasive from Popery may be read by you who hath written so well on this point that I hope all men satissiable may be satisfied with his reasons which I need not here transcribe See also the testimonie of the Ministers at London against that horride murther to which testimonie we do still adhere and then adbered But Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione c. † See Bilson of Subjection page 382. Doth not your great Cardinal Allen write an Apologie for Stanles treason against Queen Elizabeth Doth not Bellarmin shew lib. 5. de Pontif. cap. 8. in how many respects Kings may be deposed by their subjects Did not Pope Sixtus the fifth make an Oration at Rome in commendation of the Friar who murthered Henry the third King of France Was not Tyrones treason commenced and commended by your Party who then did take on the co●● of Armes and sound the trumpet of rebellion When the Popes Bull roared in England against Queen Elizabeth how many treasons were hatched and evil humours bred in the people Thirteenthly Ye say we are justified partlie by faith partlie by workes but the § 13. Inst Scripture saith that we are justified by faith without the works of the law and that the man is justified to whom the Lord imputeth faith without workes Rom. 4. 6. and that we are saved by grace through faith not of workes lest any man should boast Neither can any good workes be wrought by us till we be justified and sanctified how can an evil tree bring forth good fruit Nor can we understand any good work which the law doth not require seeing it was tendered under the Covenant of grace Beside our best worksare leavened with many imperfections and debt for the present so these cannot absolve us for bygones or the time to come And whereas the Apostle James chapter 2. speaketh of Justification by workes his purpose there is onlie to declare what justifieth faith Now justifying faith must be a lively working faith and if it be dead it availeth not and if he hint at personal justification which verse 29. implyeth it is before men and that before the Tribunal of GOD there

all must say Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight no flesh living ●●n be justified Psalm 143. 2. And the Church must confess that all her righteousness is ragged and as a menstruous cloath Reply In your thirteenth Section you denying Papists Reply that we are justified by faith and works do both contradict scripture and your self It in the Epistle of St. James chap. 2. verse 20. 24. You see then how by works a man is justified and not by faith only No wonder after this ye contradict your self when you grant that faith is justifying or made justified by works For what is it to say that works justify faith But that faith without works is not justifying And so that faith justifyeth not all or no other way then as it is decompanied with good workes as two conjunct causes For as the Philosopher saith causa causae est causa causati But what needeth any reasoning if this place be not clear to a Minister what it clear to ignorants in all the scripture Wherefore ye had done better to reject the Epistle of James with Luther then to acknowledge it for scripture to deny that we are justified by faith and works the two parts of Christian dutie being belief and life Yet to shew that the place of St. James is not to be taken according to the letter you cite three passag●● excluding workes of the written law from justifying but not excluding workes of grace and the Gospel The first whereof expoundeth the rest and St. Augustin them all de fide operib cap. 14. saying St. Paul speaketh of the workes of Abraham in so much as they proceed from the law excluding the spirit and grace of Christ Then you say neither can any good work be wrought by us till we are justified for how can an evil tree bring forth good fruit To which Question I answer with our Saviour in the Gospel asking how a good tree can bring forth evil fruit as David committing adulterie For if you understood the one you may easilie understand the other Which if you do not go to the school and learn the distinction betwixt simpliciter and secundum quid betwixt good and evil simplie and in part For as there be few so good but they do some evil so there be few so bad but they do some good being assisted by GODS actual grace albeit they want sanctifying grace Yea very good actions may be done with some little imperfection which maketh the Prophet compare our righteousness to a menstruous cloath Duply You are like to your self all along in this reflection for I cannot call it a return Prote ∣ stants Duply seeing you have a flourish of fectless words for catching women and children but do not touch the arguments proposed for justification by faith without the workes of the law My first argument was this That the Apostle Paul saith we are justified by faith without the workes of law therefore not by them You say he meaneth not of workes of grace What then Of sinful workes before Coversion And is it indeed like that sinful workes can be called by the Apostle worke● of the law seeing these are transgressions of the law Or that the justitiaries amongst the Romans in the dayes of the Apostle were so gross as to assert that sinful workes justifie a man which condemn him Secondly you say that justification by faith contradicteth scripture James 2. 24. which place I explained and reconciled with the 4. of the Romanes and all you say to that is that I contradict my self I said workes justifie faith for my faith is known by my works to my self and others But that will nor say that workes and faith justifie the man So I clash not with my self here And for your Maxime causa causae est causa causati If I understand this you contradict your self in the application of it for faith being the cause of workes and justifying the man workes are the effect of justificat●on not the cause of it Hence the Apostle James saith shew me thy faith by thy workes O man For it cannot be showen without workes v. 18. Albeit we say that faith alone justifieth yet that Fides sola in approhendendo non est solitaria My next argument was that a man must be justified before he can work well therefore workes are not the cause of justification I hope you will not say that the effect is antecedent to its cause if you have read Ramus Logick And that a man must be justified before he can work well I prove thus He must be sanctified Ergo c. a corrupt tret cannot bring forth good fruit Matth. 7. 18. Ere you have not something to say to this you close with Pelagius for a defence and speak non-sense For you say that you answer with our Saviour by a distinction of that which is simply such and secundum quid In what part of the Gospel is this Logick to be found For it is clear from the verse above cited that our Saviour denyeth simply the thing so he granteth it not secundum quid Some good acts you say may be done by evil men being assisted by actual grace I would know if actual grace can be in exercise where habitual grace is not at all then if men habitually evil in an unconverted state can do any thing well That something materially good may be done by them as well as sin may be committed by the regenerated I doubt not but that they can do ought upon a good principle for a good end by a good morive I deny it simply Now if they be not such they cannot justifie a m●n For nullum agens potest agere extra Sphar●m suae activitatis Till he be sanctified he cannot be be such till he be justified he cannot be sanctified Workes justifie no more the man then the fruit maketh the tree good My third Reason you leave untouched which was this that the present time requireth all our work Ergo it cannot justifie us for bygones or the future What is now debituns cannot pay my bygone debt nor free me for the time to come And you grant all I have said in the fourth that our best workes are unperfect and so cannot hold water before the Tribunal of GOD. I am glade to hear you grant so much for then where will workes of supererogation and merit appear For further clearing of our Doctrine of Justification take notice the Papists and we thus differ First They say there is a two fold justification one whereby a m●n unjust is made just for attaining this there must be previous dispositions by the acts of faith fear hope love whch fit the man for his justification some of them terme this Meritum congrui others say t●at this is the free gift of GOD not deserved by workes The second Justification is that whereby ● man being just is made more just this they say is merited by their workes and proceedeth