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	justification_n	justify_v	1,647	5	8.0786	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55308	Speculum theologiæ in Christo, or, A view of some divine truths which are either practically exemplified in Jesus Christ, set forth in the Gospel, or may be reasonably deduced from thence / by Edward Polhill ..., Esq.	Polhill, Edward, 1622-1694?	1678 (1678)	Wing P2757; ESTC R4756	269,279	440

a difference one believes not another on God's a difference he justifies one not another but Christ stands only as a common cause his Satisfaction is in communi and constitutes no one righteous more than another He is no more as it seems the end of the Law for Righteousness to the Believer than to the Unbeliever Now if this be as it is durus sermo then it remains that Christ's Righteousness is by particular imputation made over to Believers and so becomes the matter of their Justification accordingly the Apostle in Rom. the fifth speaks of it not as a common cause but as peculiarized to Believers such as receive Grace He doth not speak of what Christ merited for all but of what Christ as an Head communicates to his Members The scope of the parallel between the two Adams evinces this it being no other than this That both of them communicate to those who are in them The sum of all is Adam and Christ are set forth by the Apostle as two communicative Heads if Adam's sin be imputatively ours so is Christ's Righteousness also I should now pass on to another Reason But possibly some may object That there is a great difference between the two Heads We were seminally in Adam we receive an Humane Nature from him but we were not seminally in Christ we receive not a Nature from him therefore though Adam's sin be imputatively ours yet so is not Christ's Righteousness In answer to this I shall offer several things First We receive an Humane Nature from Adam but is this the only foundation of the Imputation of his sin to us No surely Then all the sins of our Progenitors should be as much imputed to us as the first sin of Adam was Which I cannot at all believe Adam was a moral Head of Holiness and Righteousness to all Mankind but since the fall no Man no not Adam himself was such the sin of Adam is universally imputed to all even to the most holy but so are not the sins of other Progenitors we were not therefore one with Adam only by a Natural union but by a Divine Constitution Secondly We receive an Human Nature from Adam and have we not a Divine Nature from Christ are we not called his Seed are we not begotten by his Spirit and Word were we not in a Spiritual sence seminally in his Blood and Merits how else should any such thing as the New Creature be produced in a lapsed Nature These things are as proper to make us Parts and Members of Christ as an Humane Nature is to make us Parts and Members of Adam therefore the communication of Righteousness from Christ must be as full and great as the communication of sin is from Adam Bishop Vsher tells us That we have a more strict conjunction in the Spirit with Christ then ever we had in Nature with Adam one and the same Spirit is in Christ and Believers but there is not one Soul in Adam and his Posterity the communication from Christ therefore if answerable to the Union must be as great nay greater than that from Adam Thirdly Adam was a Head both by Nature and by Constitution Sin unless in Conjunction with Nature could not pass from him to us neither could we without a Nature conveyed from him have been members of him It di● therefore appertain to his Headship to convey a Nature to us but Christ was an Head not by Nature But above it by Divine Constitution he was not to convey Naturals to us but super-naturals since the Fall Righteousness was not to pass to us in Conjunction with Nature Nature was to be from one Head and Righteousness from another we were to be made Members of Christ not by communication of Nature but of Grace it therefore did not appertain to his Headship to communicate Nature to us yet was his Headship as potent to convey Righteousness to us as Adam's was to convey sin the Divine Constitution made him such an Head that his Satisfaction might become ours for our Justification thus much touching this Argument drawn from the Headship of Christ Fourthly Those Scripture phrases of being purged sprinkled cleansed washed justifyed in the Blood of Christ notably import two things the one that Justification is in a signal manner attributed to Christ's Blood as Sanctification is to the Spirit the other that Christ's Blood justifies by way of Application but neither of these can stand if that Blood be only a meritorious cause not the first how can Justification be signally attributed to it when as a meritorious cause it no less impetrates Sanctification than Justification nothing singular is done by it in the one more than in the other not the second how can it justifie by Application when as a meritorious cause it operates only by impetration You will say Christ's Blood is applyed in the effect in a pardon I answer those Scripture phrases before quoted shew that the Blood it self is applyed to us how else is it said that we are purged cleansed sprinkled washed in it unless it be applyed to us the phrases how emphatical soever seem to be improper surely a satisfaction must in its own nature be a justifying matter against the Law next to an absolute conformity to the Law Nothing is or can be more justifying against it then a satisfaction when God hath provided a plenary satisfaction to justifie us how may we think that it is not it self applyed to us actually to justifie us or that something less than it self should do it the Scripture sets forth this Application on both hands on our part it is applyed by Faith We receiving the Atonement Rom. 5.11 and Christ being a propitiation through Faith in his Blood Rom. 3.25 and on God's part by Imputation we being made the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 and the Righteousness of God being upon us Rom. 3.22 I cannot tell how to think that such an excellent justifying matter as Christ's Satisfaction is should be provided for us and yet not applyed to us according to the terms of the Gospel a pardon is as I take it upon the satisfaction not meerly made but applyed for it is given to Believers only if the satisfaction be it self applyed then that is our Righteousness against the Law if it be applyed in the effect that is in a pardon then the pardon is the very application and not a pardon upon a satisfaction applyed or if there be a pardon upon a satisfaction applyed there will be a pardon before a pardon a pardon in the application and a pardon upon it if the satisfaction be it self applyed then it may precede a pardon and a pardon may be upon it but if it be applyed only in the effect in a pardon then it cannot precede a pardon no more then a pardon can precede it self You will say a pardon is not upon a satisfaction applyed but is the very application To this I answer the Learned Mr. Gataker saith

Imputatio non nititur fictitiâ aliquâ suppositione sed verâ participatione rei imputatae Imputation doth not stand upon any fictitious supposition but upon a true participation of the thing imputed These things being thus laid down I shall come directly to the point my Opinion is That the Righteousness of Christ is not meerly the meritorious cause of Justification but somwhat more neither is it meerly imputed to us in the Effects but it self as a satisfaction is so far imputed to us as to be the material cause of Justification as to the Law I think nothing can be more proper to justifie us as the Law than that which satisfied it I cannot tell how to suppose that one thing should satisfie the Law and another justifie against it And here I shall first lay down my Reasons and then answer the Objections made against my Opinion For Reasons I shall offer several things First I shall begin with that memorable phrase The Righteousness of God which cannot but be of great moment in this point some take it for the mercy of God and so it is sometimes taken in the Old Testament The Mercy of the Lord is upon them that fear him and his Righteousness unto Childrens Children Psal 103.17 where Mercy and Righteousness are one and the same but in the New Testament where this phrase often occurs it is never so taken the Righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel Rom. 1.17 Revealed that which before was only obscurely hinted was in the Gospel clearly opened but the Mercy of God was not only darkly hinted but openly proclaimed in very high and stately terms in the Old Testament An Instance we have of it Exod. 34.6 and 7. where the Titles of Mercy carry as much of Glory and Magnificence as any thing can do We are said to be made the Righteousness of God 2 Cor. 5.21 but never to be made his Mercy neither would be at all proper to say so Others take it for our Inherent Graces which are our Evangelical Righteousness but these though they come down from Heaven are never called the Righteousness nay on the contrary they are called our own as being inherent in us Hence we find Your Faith Rom. 1.8 your Love 2 Cor. 8.8 your Patience Luke 21.19 your Hope 1 Pet. 1.21 your Righteousness Matth. 5.20 that which in Scripture is called the Righteousness of God is not the same with that which is called our own there were our Inherent Graces imported in that phrase Faith which is a prime excellent Grace must have its share therein but the Righteousness of God is by Faith Rom. 3.22 Therefore it is not Faith the Righteousness of God is upon the Believer therefore it is not in him Others take it for Pardon but neither can this Interpretation stand The Jews were ignorant of God's Righteousness Rom. 10.3 but surely they were not ignorant that God was a God pardoning iniquity that Pardon which in the Old Testament is elegantly decyphered by Covering Blotting out Remembring no more Casting away sin is not in the New vailed in an Expreslion so obscure and improper for it as that of the Righteousness of God seems to be to that intent leaving these I take it that the Righteousness of God imports that of Christ and in this sence the phrase is as Glorious and Illustrious as it would be obscure and improper to denote Pardon The Righteousness of Christ is indeed the Righteousness of God it is the Righteousness of him who is God of him whose Blood is called the Blood of God it is a pure perfect Righteousness which can consist before the Tribunal of God which was by God ordained to make us Righteous This is it which being before but darkly hinted was in the Gospel manifestly revealed this is that which is upon the Believer as a rich Covering to hide his imperfections this is it which the Jews were ignorant of and submitted not unto the Apostle tells us That they submitted not to the Righteousness of God Rom. 10.3 and what that Righteousness is the next Verse expresses for Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth the Law hath its end in nothing but in his Righteousness which satisfied it But besides there is one place which in terminis calls the Righteousness of God the Righteousness of Christ to them who have obtained like precious Faith with us through the Righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ 2 Pet. 1.1 Observe it is not through the Righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ as noting two Persons but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of God and our Saviour as betokening one as Bishop Downham hath observed like that Tit. 2.13 The glorious Appearance of the great God and our Saviour where one Person is intended Thus far it appears that the Righteousness of God denotes the Righteousness of Christ That which remains is to enquire Whether the Righteousness of God never import any more than a meer meritorious cause 'T is true in that place 2 Pet. 1.1 it imports no more but in others it speaks further We are made the Righteousness of God 2 Cor. 5.21 The Righteousness of God is upon us Rom. 3.22 and as a paraphrase upon the Righteousness of God the Apostle tells us that Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to the Believer Rom. 10.4 Here I take it the Righteousness of Christ is set forth not only as a meritorious antecedent cause of Justification but as an Ingredient a material cause in it he that hath only the effect cannot be said to be made the Impetrating cause no more can we be said to be made the Righteousness of Christ if we only have the fruit of it not the thing it self That Righteousness as a meritorious cause may be said to be for us but not to be upon us unless by Imputation it be made ours Christ in respect of Merit only is no more for Righteousness which yet is the Emphasis of the Text than for sanctifying Graces these being as much merited as the other Christ is so far Righteousness as he is the end of the Law and that he is in the satisfaction it self not in Remission which is the effect of it the Satisfaction it self therefore is made ours in Justification It seems to me a great departure from the Text to say Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness that is for Pardon which is the Effect or for Impunity which is the Effect of the Effect Secondly It is utterly impossible that there should be a Justification without a Righteousness Constitutive Justification makes us Righteous Estimative or sentential Justification esteems or pronounces us such a Justification cannot be without a Righteousness nor can any thing be a Righteousness unless it answer the Law What then is our Righteousness as to the Law Faith answers the Gospel terms But what answers the Law Surely nothing under Heaven

manner Christ's satisfaction doth first in order of Nature make us righteous by it self imputed and then by the sanctifying Graces communicated by vertue of it Now if Christs satisfaction be not it self communicated to us as Members of him then the Glory of his Headship seems to fail he is not so strong an Head as Adam Righteousness is not so amply communicated from Christ as sin is from Adam Adam communicates the sin it self to us but Christ communicates his Righteousness in the effects only if Christ only merited Justification the Glory of his Headship seems not to stand in it in Sanctification he as our Head communicates sanctifying Graces to us to be the matter of our Sanctification but in Justification he doth not communicate his satisfaction to us to be the matter of our Justification he merited Justification upon Gospel-terms before our Union with him What doth he after or more as our head in Justification his satisfaction not being communicated to us he seems not to be so compleat an Head in Justification as in Sanctification to make this Argument from Christ's Headship more clear it will not be amiss to consider some passages in that fifth Chapter to the Romans Wherefore as by one Man sin entred into the World and Death by Sin and so Death passed upon all Men for that all have sinned verse 12. in this and the two following verses one part of the collation viz. That of Adam being laid down where is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 collationis or how is it to be supplyed some Divines think that it is quite omitted by the Apostle others conceive it to be couched in those words Who is the figure of him that was to come verse 14. but whether it be the one or the other surely there must be somewhat understood on Christ's part as correspondent to that of Adam who was a Type of him Piscator supplies it thus Plena comparatio sic habet quemadmodum per Adam peccatum introiit in omnes homines per peccatum mors eo quod in Adamo omnes peccarunt sic per Christum Justitia introiit in omnes credentes per Justitiam vita eo quod in Christo omnes credentes pro peccatis satisfecerunt he saith that all Believers satisfied in Christ I intend somewhat more in this point then I suppose he did Yet I would speak less in words then so I think the expression that we satisfied in him is not an expedient one though in Scripture nothing to me seems to sound more like an answer to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 12. then that Text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Cor. 5.15 though the Learned Camero saith De Eccles fol. 224. in Christi morte Ecclesiae est veluti satisfaciens Deo Yet I wave that expression for it seems to import as if Christ's satisfaction were in its full latitude imputed to us It is as much as I intend that we as Members of him do in a measure participate of his satisfaction so far that it is the matter of our Justification against the Law Adam's sin is is not communicated to us in the full latitude but so far as to make us sinners Christ's Satisfaction is not communicated to us in the full latitude but so far as to make us righteous But to go on to another passage in that Chapter As by one Man's disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Vers 19. In this famous Text those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as and so also are to be noted it is as much as to say as it was in the one case so it is in the other as Adam's sin was derived upon us so also is Christ's Righteousness if Adam's sin were in some measure communicated to us to make us sinners then Christ's Righteousness is in some measure comunicated to us to make us righteous we see what is the best way to judge how far Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us not by comparing the Imputation of our Sin to Christ and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us but by comparing the Imputation of Adam's sin to us and the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us in that Text He was made Sin for us that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him 2 Cor. 5.21 there is no as and so also as there is in the parallel of the two Adams though I think it hard to say that sin was Imputed to Christ only in the effects for unless our sin as it was fundamentum paenae was Imputed to him unless it was so far Imputed as to render his sufferings punishments his sufferings were not penal and if not penal sin was not at all imputed to him no not in the effect yet if sin was Imputed to him only in the effect it follows not that his Righteousness should be so only Imputed to us the Apostle saith not as he was made sin so we are made Righteousness there is no as and so in that Text as there is in the parallel of the Adam's there is a great disparity in the cases Sin was not imputed to Christ to constitute him a sinner but Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us to constitute us righteous Sin was imputed to Christ that it might be absorpt and swallowed up in his sweet-smelling Sacrifice but Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us that it may abide upon us as the matter of our Justification We see here in the point of Imputed Righteousness we must take our measures not from our sin imputed to Christ but from Adam's sin imputed to us Further The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 19. Verse emphatically points out the material cause of Justification Christ's Righteousness as a meritorious cause is an impulsive to God to constitute us righteous but to be an impulsive to constitute is not properly to constitute as a meritorious cause it impetrates that we shall be made righteous but by that Impetration it doth no more make us righteous than by the Impetration of sanctifying Graces it makes us holy notwithstanding these Impetrations we are not indeed holy without those Graces nor are we righteous without a Righteousness as a meritorious cause it was before Faith nay before the Covenant of Promise but then it constituted none righteous It was for all but it constitutes not all You will say As soon as a Man by Faith hath a capacity it constitutes him righteous How so It was a meritorious cause before Faith now it is no more at the first it procured that Men should be justified upon Gospel-terms and now what new or fresh act or energy hath it Indeed there is somewhat more on Man's part viz. Faith somewhat more on God's viz. Justifying the Believer But what is there more on Christ's the merit is as before one and the same and impetrates Justification on Gospel-terms for all on our part there is