Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	faith_n	justify_v	papist_n	5,930	5	8.9109	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A93282	The true church of Christ exposed to the view of all sober Christians, from the Word of God, sound reason, and the ancient fathers / by James Salgado, a Spaniard, a converted priest.	Salgado, James, fl. 1680.	1681 (1681)	Wing S384; ESTC R42935	23,389	69

treat of Passive Justification or Justification considered in respect of the man justified And thus it is nothing else but an assured considence of our righteousness in Christ and by the imputation of his Merits which we receive and apply unto our selves by faith Rom. 3.25 26. Hence it appears that the Meritorious Cause of our Justification is the Merit of Christ as we proved a little before and the hand by which we apply this satisfaction of our Saviour or the instrumental cause of our Justification is Faith Man is justified by faith without the works of the Law Rom. 3.28 It is as clear from the Scriptures as the light of the Sun in mid-day that we are justified by faith only By grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God Eph. 2.8 So that I shall insist no longer upon this point but conclude with the Apostle That by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified for by the Law is the knowledge of sin Rom. 3.20 There is therefore no Justification in the sight of God by our works but only by saith which applieththe Panacea of Salvation unto our dead hearts and causeth us to live in God and God in us We are not so unreasonable as to separate Works from Faith yet nevertheless we affirm that Faith only doth justifie it 's the eye only that sees the hand only that weighs yet neither can the eye see nor the hand weigh unless they be united to the body Even so Faith only doth justifie but this Faith is never separated from Good Works The Apostle James indeed saith We are justified by works and not by faith only Jam. 2.24 But he either means justification before men as in the eighteenth verse Shew me thy faith by thy works or else the confirmation of internal faith by external actions or else he speaks by a Metonimy of the effect for the cause so that by faith and works he means a working faith which seems to agree well with the words You see then how that by works man is justified and not by faith only that is not by a solitary or naked faith which is not accompanied with works for faith being alone is dead but by a living faith which shews its foundness by works So that we are not justified by works but by faith only and whosoever will narrowly look into himself and his own frailty must needs break forth into Bellarmine's words Because of the frailty of humane life and the uncertainty of our own righteousness it is safest to relye only upon the mercy of God Bel. de bon oper Consider Candid Reader the words of this Cardinal who as I can demonstrate if need be at the end of the greatest Controversies between us and the Papists yields at last unto the truth and appears though an Italian to be more a Protestant than a Papist Thus we have proved by Gods assistance that Active Justification is an external judicial absolution of an unrighteous man and pronouncing of him righteous and that Passive Justification is by faith only and that a living faith which applieth to us the Merits of our Saviour As for Sanctification I shall say little concerning it by reason the Papists don 't disagree much with the Protestants in this Point as to the nature of the thing only I utterly deny that the good works which we do are meritorious or necessary to Salvation necessuate medii as a mean to bring us to Salvation Bernard says well Good works are the way to the Kingdom not the cause of reigning nor does the Popish distinction between merit of congruity and condignity mitigate this Assertion for besides that the Congruity of Gods Reward for our Works consists onely in his own good pleasure Fear not little Flock for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you a Kingdom Luk. 12.32 I have often admired that they have found no Text of Scripture to prove the condignity of works but this one which is Diametrically contrary to their Assertion The Sufferings of this present time are not worthy but condign to be compared with the Glory that is to be revealed in us This is the onely place where the word condignus is to be found I will proceed now to shew how found and genuine the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches is concerning the Sacraments which are Seals of the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 And shortly refute the Popish Errours As for Baptism both Parties acknowledge it to be a Sacrament of Initiation by which in the faith of our Parents which is my opinion we are implanted into the Church which is the Body of Christ But the Papists falsely affirm that Baptism ex opere operato by vertue of the work wrought works in us Regeneration and abolishes Original Sin Not onely because an external corporal thing can have no influence upon things internal and spiritual in reference to the rectifying thereof which can onely be done by God himself every good and perfect Gift comes down from the Father of Lights saith the Apostle James But likewise because the sign of the Covenant cannot communicate to us the things comprehended in the Covenant And the contrary appears also from the effect because those that have been baptized are and have been subject to everlasting damnation And if this Sacrament ex opere operato did work Grace Regeneration c. then Abraham could not have been reputed righteous by faith in uncircumcision Rom. 4.9 Moreover in the Primitive Times and especially as to them that were baptized when come to Age Faith was required before the Seal of Righteousness were stampt upon their hearts and consciences Now because Faith is the Root of the rest of the Graces and hath annexed unto it that great work of Repentance It necessarily follows that the Apostle requiring faith in the Adult did suppose the rest of the Graces to be in them not imagining that they should be conferred upon them but rather sealed or confirmed by Baptism for Baptism is a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith and not a thing that by its internal vertue work Faith and Regeneration For this very reason Augustin and other of the Fathers affirmed that Infants are baptized in the Faith of their Parents if believing Parents or in the Faith of the Church if their Parents were unknown or Unbelievers because they were perswaded that Faith is rather required before than conferred by Baptism So that we believe that the holy Ghost doth operate in the tender hearts and minds of elect Infants even from their Birth and that effectually though insensibly and although perhaps he doth not work in them subjectively an actual faith yet he objectively applies unto them the benefits of Christ which in others are received by an actual faith But lest any should think that we falsely charge our Adversaries with this Assertion I will shew the candid Reader the reason why they assert it and then evince the same

of another but an absurd name is fit enough for such an absurd thing Conveniunt rebus nominal saepe suis 4. The thing which is distributed in the Sacrament is called by the Ancients a Sign and a Figure of Christs Body Now nothing can be a Sign or a Figure of it self therefore Christ cannot be Corporally present Augustine saith The Lord was pleased to say this is my Body when he gave but the figure of his Body And most of the Ancient Fathers do understand the words c. Also the Scriptures call it A Seal of the Righteousness of Faith as we said before now the Seal cannot be the thing it self It were too tedious to consider all the arguments of the Papists against the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning the Lords Supper only this one I cannot pass by which I have read in an Anonymous Jesuit whereby he endeavours to invalidate our last reason against Transubstantiation by giving this instance that David might have been a sign of himself as sighting with Goliah if he had presented himself to the peoples view upon a Theater But I answer 1. David had not been in that case a sign of himself but of the actions he performed in the Combat 2. If David had been sowed up in a Sack or laid himself down upon the Theater covered with an Asses skin as they say Christ's Body is covered with the accidents of Bread and Wine so that he could not be seen I do not understand how he could have been a sign of himself or his actions either I shall omit to observe that the Sacrament was instituted in Commemoration of the Man Christ a that Commemoration is only of absent persons as likewise many of their Exceptions against us for brevities sake Only I shall shortly demonstrate the other Proposition viz. that the Lords Supper is not a Sacrifice for the sins of the Living and the Dead by this general argument Where there is no Priest no Altar no proper Host there can be no proper Sacrifice for sin But in the New Testament there is none of these beside Christ himself Therefore c. The Major is most certain for Relatives are mutual and the one presupposeth the other therefore where there is a proper Sacrifice there must be an Altar a Priest and an Hoast properly so called So Bellarmin himself saith That Altars use not to be Erected unless for Sacrifices properly so called de Miss Lib. 1. Cap. 16. And elsewhere without an Altar can be no Sacrifice de Cult San. l. 3. c. 4. Now to prove the Minor there is no material Altar to be found in the Scriptures as one to be used in the New Testament Christ who instituted this Sacrament Celebrated the same on the Table Luk. 22.21 The Apostle Paul calls it the Lords Table 1 Cor. 10.21 But there is no mention made of an Altar which had been certainly done if an Altar had been in use Hence the great Bellarmin says de Miss l. 1. c. 17. The Apostles did not use the Names of Priesthood Sacrifice Altar as knowing well there could be none after the material Sacrifices were Sealed up But the Papists object Heb. 13.10 We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the Tabernacle I answer This Text speaketh of an improper figurative invisible Altar but we deny onely a proper and material Altar for that the words are figurative evidently appears because no Body can eat of a material Altar And moreover the Sacrifice that the Apostle would have to be offered up upon it doth plainly discover what kind of Altar he means By him therefore let us offer the Sacrifice of Praise to God continually that is the fruit of our Lips giving Thanks to his Name The Ancient Fathers also do agree with us None of these is visible neither the Priest nor the Sacrifice nor the Altar Ambrose in Epist ad Heb. I think that the Altar is nothing else but the Body of the Lord Bernard in Serm. 4. Nazianzen calls it the Altar which is above Orat. 24. And finally the Papists themselves are forced to confess that here is meant an improper Altar I do not urge the place it self Bell. de Miss l. 1. c. 14. as also Thomas Anselmus and many others 2. Nor is there any proper Sacrifice in the New Testament For Daniel prophesieth That the Sacrifice and Oblation shall cease And we see this Prophesie fulfilled The Apostle Paul saith Nor yet that he should offer himself often but now once in the end of the World Heb. 9.26 Every Priest standeth daily ministring and offering but this man after he had offered one Sacrifice for sins for ever sat down on the right hand of God Heb. 10.12 where the Apostle evidently asserteth that Christ offered himself but once and doth not offer himself nor can he be so offered again Yea the Apostle urgeth the sufficiency of Sacrifice by these two Arguments 1. Because he offered himself but once and did not repeat his Sacrifice as insufficient 2 Because having perfected his Work he sat down on the right hand of God for ever But the Priests did always stand which signifyed that they had not yet compleated their Work but must lay their hands once more to it before they might sit down and rest from their work Therefore the Papists devising daily Sacrifices of Christ after that one Sacrifice doth derogate from its sufficiency and makes Christ lyable to the Ministry of standing who is already set down for ever at the right hand of God This was also the reason why God destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple after Christs Mediatory Office was fulfilled as to one part of his Priesthood namely his Sacrifice that there might be no more material Sacrifices that being the place to which they were confined The Papists urge the Custom of the Ancients and the expressions of the Fathers who speak very often of Sacrifices But it is clear that the Fathers meant no other th●n Sacrifica Eucharistica Sacrifices of a Thanksgiving which were commonly performed at the Lords Supper which with Prayers and Alms are indeed a living Sacrifice holy and acceptable to God Rom. 12.1 Hence Clemens Alexandrinus saith that a righteous Soul is a holy Altar and holy Prayer is the Incense Lactantius saith two things are to be offered a Gift and a Sacrifice both incorporcal integrity of mind is the gift Prayer and Psalms are the Sacrifice Augustin calls our heart an Altar Humility and Praise a Sacrifice and Charity the Fire So ronimus Ambrosius and others As for the Priest there is none besides Christ for he is a Priest for ever after the Order of Melchizedek and Levitical Priests they cannot be being that Order is ceased Thus having proved that there is no Altar Priest nor Hoast besides Christ himself who is our Sacrifice our Priest and our Altar Epiphan lib. 2. com 1. hoeres I conclude that there is now no proper Sacrifice for the sins of