Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	believe_v	faith_n	lord_n	1,391	5	3.9699	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26862	Aphorismes of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of the covenants, satisfaction, righteousnesse, faith, works, &c. : published especially for the use of the church of Kederminster in Worcestershire / by their unworthy teacher Ri. Baxter.	Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1655 (1655)	Wing B1186; ESTC R38720	166,773	360

and the Causa sine quâ non 3. Why I make not Christs Righteousness the materiall Cause 4. Why I make not the Imputation of it the formall Cause 5. Why I make not Faith the Instrumentall Cause 6. Why I make it only the Causa sine quâ non To the first Question As a Lease or Deed of Gift is properly a mans Instrument in conveying the thing leased or given and as the Kings Pardon under his Hand and Seal is his proper Iustrument of pardoning justifying the Malefactor so is the new Covenant Gods Instrument in this case or as it were his Mouth by which he pronounceth a beleever justified To the second Question Christs Satisfaction hath severall ways of causing our Justification 1. That it is the Meritorious Cause I know few but Socinians that will deny 2 That it is besides properly a Causa sine qua non cannot be denyed by any that consider that it removeth those great Impediments that hindered our Justification And what if a man should say that because impulsive and procatarcticall Causes have properly no place with God that therefore the greatest part of the work of Christs Satisfaction is to be the Causa sine qua non principalis But because my assigning no more to Christs Satisfaction but merit and this improper causality doth seem to some to be very injurious thereto I desire them so long to lay by their prejudice passion while they consider of this one thing That we are not in this business considering which cause hath the preheminence in regard of physicall production but which in morall respect deserveth the highest commendation In point of Morality the greatest praise is seldom due to the greatest naturall strength or to the strongest naturall causation In Physicks the efficient hath the greatest part of the glory but in Morals the Meritorious Cause hath a singular share As Diogenes said Quare me non laudas qui dignus sum ut accipiam plus enim est meruisse quam dedisse beneficium The like may be said of some Causes sine qua non That they deserve far greater praise in morall respect then some that have a proper causality do It is agreed that removens impedimentum quâ talis is Causa sine quâ non And doth not the greatest part of a Phisitians skill lye there That which taketh away the offending humor and clenseth out the corruption and removeth all hinderances shall have the greatest share in the glory of the cure of any artificiall cause Suppose a man be condemned by Law for Treason one payeth one thousand pound for his Pardon and thereby procured it under the broad Seale hereby he suspendeth and afterward disableth the Law as to the offender This man is the efficient of those happy effects from which the justification of the Traytor will follow But as to his justification it self he is but the Causa removens impedimenta taking away the force of the Law and the offence of Majesty and whatsoever els did hinder the justification of the offender And yet I think he deserveth more thanks then either the Laywer that justifieth him by Plea or the Judge that justifies him by Sentence So here If you had rather you may call it a necessary Antecedent Or if any man think fitter to call these Causes by another name I much care not so we agree concerning the nature of the thing To the third question Christs Righteousness cannot be the materiall cause of an Act which hath no matter If any will call Christs Righteousness the matter of our Righteousness though yet they speak improperly yet farre neerer the truth then to call it the Matter of our Justification To the fourth Quest. That Imputation is not the Form is undenyable The form gives the name especially to Actions that have no matter Imputation and Justification denote distinct Acts And how then can Imputing be the Forme of Justifying Though I mention not Imputation in the Definition nor among the Causes here yet it is implyed in the mention of Satisfaction which must be made ours or else we cannot be Justified by it Though therefore the Scripture do not speak of imputing Christs Righteousnesse or Satisfaction to us yet if by Imputing they mean no more but Bestowing it on us so that we shall have the Justice and other benefits of it as truely as if we had satisfied our selves in this sence I acknowledge Imputation of Christs satisfactory Righteousness But I beleeve that this Imputing doth in order of nature go before Justifying And that the Righteousness so Imputed is the proper ground whence we are denominated Legally righteous and consequently why the Law cannot condemn us It is a vaine thing to quarrell about the Logicall names of the Causes of Justification if we agree in the matter To the fifth Question Perhaps I shall be blamed as singular from all men in denying Faith to be the Instrument of our Justification But affectation of singularity leades me not to it 1. If Faith be an Iustrument it is the Instrument of God or man Not of man For man is not the principall efficient he doth not justifie himself 2. Not of God For 1. It is not God that believeth though its true he is the first Cause of all Actions 2. Man is the Causa secunda between God and the Action and so still man should be said to justifie himselfe 3. For as Aquinus The Action of the principall Cause and of the Instrument is one Action and who dare say that Faith is so Gods Instrument 4. The Instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the Principall cause by a proper Causalitie And who dare say that Faith hath such an influx into our Justification Object But some would evade thus It is say they a Passive Instrument not an Active To which I Answer 1 Even Passive Instruments are said to help the Action of the principall Agent Keckerm Logick pag. 131. He that saith Faith doth so in my judgement gives too much to it 2. It is past my capacity to conceive of a Passive Morall Instrument 3. How can the Act of Believing which hath no other being but to be an Act be possibly a Passive Instrument Doth this Act effect by suffering Or can wise men have a grosser conceit of this 4. I believe with Schibler that there is no such thing at all as a passive Instrument The examples that some produce as Burgersdicius his Cultor gladius belong to Active Instrument And the Examples that others bring as Keckermans Iurus instrumentum fabricationis mensa scamnum accubitus terra ambulationis are no Instruments except you will call every Patient or Object the Instrument of the Agent The Instrument is an Efficient Cause All efficiencie is by action and that which doth not Act doth not effect Indeed as some extend the use of the word instrument you may call almost any thing an Instrument which is any way conducible to the

acknowledgeth that the payment is not made by the party to whom remission is granted and so saith every man that is a Christian 2. He saith It was a full valuable compensation therefore not of the same 3. That by reason of the Obligation upon us we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment therefore Christs punishment was not in the Obligation but only ours so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed 4. He saith he meaneth not that Christ bore the same punishment due to us in all accidents of duration and the like but the same in weight and pressure therefore not the same in the Obligation because not fully the same Not the same numerically nor perhaps specifically in all respects if the losse of Gods Love and Image and incurring his hatred the corruption of the body the losse of right to and use of all the creatures and the losse of all comforts corporall or spirituall c. were any part of the curse yet that it was in the greatest respects of the same kinde I doubt not 5. He saith God had power so farre to relax his owne Law as to have the name of a surety put into the Obligation which before was not there and then to require the whole debt of that surety And what saith Grotius more then this If the same thing in the Obligation be paid then the Law is executed and if executed properly and fully then not relaxed Here he confesseth that the sureties name was not in the Obligation and that God relaxed the Law to put it in Now the maine businesse that Grotius there drives at is but to prove this relaxation of the Law and the non-execution of it on the offenders threatned I Iudge that Mr. Owen hath no better successe in his next assault of Grotius on that question whether God manage this work of relaxing the Law punishing Christ for us c. as a Creditor or as an absolute Master or as a Judge under Lawes or as the supreme Rector the last of which Grotius maintaineth He that readeth Grotius and Vossius own words doth need no further defensative against the force of Mr. Owens Answers But this is nothing to me Onely I would not have any truth to fare the worse for Grotius his defection It was himself that deserved the discredit and not the Truth of God The third and last contradicted Article is That no man is actually and absolutely justified upon the meer payment of the debt by Christ till they become Beleevers Against this you send me to both the forementioned Authors Answ. 1. When I first cast my eye upon the two fore-cited Disputations in Maccowski I had thought he had spoke onely of the universall conditionall Justification of men when he saith that active Iustification was at the begining of the first promise But my charitable thoughts I soon saw were mistaken But I find as his Doctrine is very strange so are his proofs as slender as any mans you could have sent me to 1. Is it not strange that Active justification should be perfected 5000. yeares before Passive justification is in being I thought Passive justification had been the mediate effect of the Active And that God had justified no man who is not thereby justified 2. And as strange and abhorred to me is the other part of his doctrine viz. That Faith onely taketh knowledge of justification formerly wrought And his Arguments are as weak as the doctrine erroneous 1. The first is Because the Object must needs go before the Act. Answ. But is it not pity that so excellent a Doctor should think that justification that not only in offer but in actuall being should be the object of justifying Faith I am ashamed to confute so sencelesse an assertion Sure it is Christ and not actuall justification that is the object When the Scripture saith that Whosoever beleeveth shall be justified is it a learned Exposition which thus interpreteth it You that are elect are already justified and if you will beleeve it you shall know it 2. He citeth Paraeus saying that Faith doth not effect justification but accept it Answ. 1. They that say Faith is the instrumentall cause of justification must needs say that Faith effectth it 2. Faith accepteth Christ for justification 3. It accepteth not justification as being actually and absolutely our owne before the acceptance But it accepteth a conditionall justification offered to me that by the acceptance it may become absolutely mine His citing of Tossanus words is nothing for him For when hee saith that All the Elect are justified in Christ in respect of the merit thereof it is no more then to say that Christ hath merited their justification which who denyeth But the great Argument which he and all of his judgement do trust to is this If the surety so undertake or discharge the debt that the creditor rest satisfied with that undertaking or discharge then is the debtor free from the debt But Christ hath so undertaken and discharged the particular debts of the Elect therefore the Elect are freed Answ. 1. Payment is refusable or not refusable That payment which is of the same thing in the Obligation either by our selves or our Delegate is not by the Creditor refusable so that if we had paid it or Christ had been our Delegate appointed by us to pay the same that was due then God could not have refused to take that payment But Christ being appointed to this by the Father and not by us and also paying not the very same but the value God might have refused the payment 2. Where the payment is not refusable there the discharge of the debtor is not refusable but doth follow ipse facto But where the payment is refusable as here it was the Creditor may accept it upon what termes he pleases and chuse to give the Debtor an absolute discharge so that it being the full agreement and pleasure both of the Creditor and the Surety the father and the sonne that the Debtor should have no discharge by the payment but upon a certaine condition by him to be performed no doubt he shall have none till he have performed it 3. So that Gods accepting the payment and being satisfied with it may be understood 1. In respect to the Surety and the value of his payment and so God was well pleased and fully satisfied in Christs payment as bein the full value that his justice did require and beyond which he expected no more at his hands 2. Or it may be spoken in reference to the debtor the sinner and the effecting of his freedome And so God was not immediately upon Christs payment so satisfied or well pleased with the particular offenders as to deliver and discharge them without requiring any thing at their hands 1. For he will first have them perform the imposed condition of taking Christ who hath bought them for their only Saviour Husband and Lord. To these of Maccovius Mr. Owen in

is so easie and obvious 3. I call this Act a Discharging as being the proper term in Law to express it by We were before charged by the Law we are by this Act discharged 4. I call it a discharge of the Offender For an offender is the only capable object or recipient of it There can be no pardon where there is no offender 5. I call it a discharging from the Obligation to Punishment For. 1. You must look at this whole process as legall and not as referring chiefly to Gods secret judgment or thoughts Therefore when it is called a freeing man from the wrath of God you must understand it onely of the wrath threatened in the Covenant and so from the obligation to Punishment You must not conceive of the change in God but in the sinners relation and consequently in the sence and sentence of the Law as to him 2. The common word by which this terminus a quo or rather the evil which this pardon doth directly free us from is expressed is Guilt But because the word Guilt is variously used sometimes referring onely to the Fact sometimes to the desert of Punishment and sometime to the dueness of Punishment or the Laws obliging the Offendor to bear it I have therefore here taken it in this last expression because I think that Guilt is taken away only in this last sence as I shall further open anon Therefore many define Guilt only in this last sence Reatus est Obligatio ad Poenam This Obligation though expressed only in the Covenant yet ariseth also from the Fact For if the Covenant had not been broken it had not obliged to suffering but still to duty only 6. I call it a Discharging by the Gospell-promise or grant It is called a Promise in reference to the benefit as future but more properly a Grant in reference to the benefit as present or past either in the conferring or already conferred This I do for these Reasons 1. To clear the nature of this Act. 2. To divert your thoughts from Gods secret judgment where most suppose this Act performed and to turn them right and free God from the imputation of change A great question it is Whether Remission and Justification be immanent or transient Acts of God The mistake of this one point was it that led those two most excellent famous Divines Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble to that error and pillar of Antinomianism viz. Iustification from Eternity For saith Dr. Twisse often All Acts immanent in God are from Eternity but Justification and remission of sin are immanent Acts therefore c. by immanent in God they must needs mean Negatively not Positively For Acts have not the respect of an Adjunct to its subject but an effect to its cause Now whether all such immanent Acts are any more eternall then transient Acts is much questioned As for God to know that the world doth now exist That such a man is sanctified or just c. Gods fore-knowledg is not a knowing that such a thing is which is not but that such a thing will be which is not Yet doth this make no change in God no more then the Sun is changed by the variety of Creatures which it doth enlighten and warm or the Glass by the variety of faces which it represents or the eye by the variety of the colours which it beholdeth For whatsoever some say I do not think that every variation of the object maketh a reall change in the eye or that the beholding of ten distinct colours at one view doth make ten distinct acts of the sight or alterations on it Much less do the objects of Gods knowledg make such alterations But grant that all Gods immanent Acts are Eternall which I think is quite beyond our understanding to know Yet most Divines will deny the Minor and tell you that Remission and Justification are transient Acts Which is true But a Truth which I never had the happiness to see or hear well cleared by any For to prove it a transient act they tell us no more but that it doth transire in subjectum extraneum by making a morall change on our Relation though not a reall upon our persons as Sanctification doth But this is only to affirm and not to prove and that in generall only not telling us what Act it is that maketh this change Relations are not capable of being the Patients or subjects of any Act seeing they are but meer Entia Rationis and no reall Beings Neither are they the immediate product or effect of any Act but in order of Nature are consequentiall to the direct effects The proper effect of the Act is to lay the Foundation from whence the Relation doth arise And the same Act which layeth the Foundation doth cause the Relation without the intervention of any other Suppose but the subjectum fundamentum terminus and the Relation will unavoydably follow by a meer resultancy The direct effect therefore of Gods Active Justification must be a reall effect though not upon the sinner yet upon something else for him and thence will his Passive Justification follow Now what transient Act this is and what its immediate reall Effect who hath unfolded I dare not be to confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient Act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein Justification is conferred upon every Beleever Here 1. The passing and enacting this Grant is a transient Act. 2. So may the continuance of it as I think 3. This Law or Grant hath a morall improper Action whereby it may be said to pardon or justifie which properly is but virtuall justifying 4. By this Grant God doth 1. Give us the Righteousness of Christ to be ours when we beleeve 2. And disableth the Law to oblige us to punishment or to condemn us 3. Which reall Foundation being thus layd our Relations of Justified and Pardoned in title of Law do necessarily result Object But this Act of God in granting Pardon to Beleevers was performed long ago But our Justification is not till we beleeve Answ. Though the effects of Causes as Physicall do follow them immediately yet as Morall they do not so but at what distance the Agent pleases sometimes A man makes his son a Deed of Gift of certain Lands to be his at such an age or upon the performance of some eminent Action Here the Deed of gift is the fathers instrument by which he giveth these Lands The passing this Deed is the proper Act and time of Donation Yet the son hath no possession till the time prefixed or till the Condition be performed At which time the conditionall Grant becoming absolute and giving him right to present possession it is not unfitly said that his father doth even then bestow the Lands though by no new intervening act at all but only the continuation of the former Deed of gift in force So here the conditionall grant

compound as it were of Actions which yet do all take their name from the Principall which is Consent To the 66. That Christ as a Saviour onely or in respect of his Priestly Office onely is not the Object of justifying Faith but that Faith doth as really and immediatly Receive him as King and in so doing Justifie this I prove thus 1. The Gospell doth not reveale Christs Offices as separated But as they are revealed so they must be believed 2. Neither doth it Offer Christ in his Priestly Office onely as separated from his Kingly though it may sometime presse our Acceptance of him in one respect and sometime in another But as he is offered so must he be received 3. Scripture no where tyeth Justification to the receipt of him as our Priest onely therefore we must not doe so 4. How commonly doth Scripture joyn his Offices together calling him usually Our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ 5. If we receive him not as King we receive him not as an entire Saviour For he saveth us not onely by dying for us but also by reducing us really into communion with God and guiding us by his Laws and protecting and perfecting us by his Government and subduing our enemies 6. His Kingly Office is a true part of his entire Office of Mediatorship Now the sincerity of Acts in Morall respects lyeth in their true suitableness to the nature of their Objects As God is not truely loved except he be loved entirely so neither is Christ truely received if you receive him not entirely It is a lame partiall Faith and no true Faith that taketh Christ onely in the Notion of a deliverer from guilt and punishment without any accepting of him as our Lord and Governour Though I beleeve that the hope of being pardoned saved is the first thing that moveth men to receive Christ yet do they being so moved receive him as their Lord also or else they doe not receive him sincerely 7. The exalting of his Kingly Office is as principall an end of his dying of his becomming Mediatour as is the saving of us and the exalting of his Priestly Office See the second Psal. and Rom. 14. 9. To this end he both dyed rose and revived that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living And therefore the receiving of him as Priest alone is not like to be the Condition of our Justification So that if Christ put both into the Condition we must not separate what he hath joyned But the main ground of their Error who think otherwise is this They think Acceptance of the mercy offered doth make it ours immediately in a naturall way as the accepting of a thing from men And so as if he that accepted pardon should have it and he that accepted sanctitie should have it c. But Christ as I have shewed establisheth his Offices and Authority before he bestow his mercies and though Accepting be the proper condition yet doth it not conferre the title to us as it is an accepting primarily but as it is the Covenants Condition If we should take possession when we have no title in Law God would quickly challenge us for our bold usurpation and deale with us as with him that intruded without the Wedding garment There is more adoe then come in and sit down and take what we have a mind to God hath put all his Sons Offices into the Condition to be received and submitted to either all or none must be accepted And if All be in the Condition then the receiving of all must needs Justifie upon the grounds that I have laid down before To the 67. That the promises or benefits are not the immediate proper object of Justifying Faith is evident from the gorunds already layd down As also from the constant language of the Gospell which maketh Faith to lie in receiving believing in him and in his name c. still making Christ himself the immediate object Therefore if Mr Cotton say as the Lord Brook represents him That Faith can be nothing but a laying hold of that promise which God hath made in his Tract of Truth and Vni pag. 152. it is a foul error in so weighty a point as is also his other of Faith justifying and saving only declaratively Indeed that first less principall Act of Faith which we call Assent hath the truth of the Gospell revelation for its neerest and most immediate object but I think by the leave of those who contradict not its onely nor chief object The truth of the proposition is but a means to the apprehending of the truth of the thing proposed nor the truth of the history but a glass to shew us the truth of the Acts which it relateth So that even the Understanding it self doth apprehend the person and offices of Christ in their Metaphisicall Verity by means of its apprehension of the Logicall and Morall verity of the Relation and though the truth of the Word be the neerest object of Assent yet the truth of Christs person nature and offices is the more principall Or if about these it may not have the name of Assent yet shall it have the same nature still To the 68. I think none will contradict it and therefore there need nothing be said THESIS LXIX IVstifying Faith is the hearty accepting of Christ for our only Lord and Saviour EXPLICATION IN this brief definition you have nothing but what is essentiall to it 1. The genus I need not mention when it is the Act of Faith which I define you know the genus already 2. The Understandings apprehension of Christ as a true Redeemer and Saviour which in severall respects is called Knowledg or Belief I do imply this and not express it because though I take it for a real part of Faith yet not the most principall and formall part And as we use to imply Corpus and not express it when we define man to be Animal rationale because the form or principall essentiall part part giveth the name So here though I know Assent is not properly a materiall cause yet being the less principall Act it giveth not the denomination 3. That Christ as Lord and Saviour is the proper object I have proved before His Propheticall Office whereby he is the Teacher of his Church Jimply in both these because it may in severall respects be reduced to these For he teacheth by his Laws and Commandments and his spirits teaching and governing are scarce distinguishable and he saveth by teaching Also his Office of Husband and Head are in these implyed they signifying more the future benefits and priviledges of a beleever which he shall receive from Christ beleeved in then the primary offices which he is to acknowledg in beleeving 4. The proper formall act of justifying Faith which is most principally essentiall to it of all other is accepting If I must needs place it in one only it should be this My Reasons are 1. Because the Scripture maketh