Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	divine_a	faith_n	formal_a	1,432	5	11.4042	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45127	The friendly interposer, between the authors of those papers, the one called a report, the other, a rebuke of that report in order to a sound reconciliation between the Presbyterians and Independents in doctrinals, by the proposal of a third way, when both of them in their own, are out / by John Humphrey.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1698 (1698)	Wing H3678; ESTC R16381	26,728	32

it were sound at the bottom or no I would have you both after my notice of its being forsaken of our latter more considerate Divines to exercise that Talent which that Brother has something above others in looking into those Consequences how far they do go and then I will conceive there is one of these two things he must come to Either he will judge them maintainable and the Doctrine good and if so let him go on and see if he can make the Antinomian White Or he will see the Consequences such that he cannot come to that conclusion and then he must reflect back on the Premises and come to another that the Doctrine must be changed and if so then retaining his Honesty that will not abide daubing the Doctrine I offer in the room of his having nothing of that kind in it and nothing I seek by it but Truth for Truth 's sake may happily stand fair with him for the making a Convert more likely of one most extream from me than of the Moderate and Wise and consequently the Cold that unless it came into vogue will never concern themselves about it And for that Noted Brother you two have wrote against as differing from you in several things especially in a sound Explication of some Scriptures opposing the Sentiments of your Brethren which as in gave them high offence so it stir'd up this Brother of yours to write vehemently against him as a Perverter of the Protestant Doctrine and verging towards Socinianism But he therein innocent being not concern'd so much about that as about the Doctrine he taught that it might not offend he did endeavour so to temper it with Complyance and over yielding that made me write against him as like to yield away our Cause I must instance in what particular The Independent Brethren accused him for holding that Christ's Righteousness was not imputed to us but only in the Effects when he had expresly said That besides the Effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to a Believer According to the Doctrine he otherwise maintain'd he should have held and owned that which the Brethren accused him for but his Words were otherwise and he thought I believe that his Words and Doctrine were consistent the Reason indeed being because he had not and fundamentally could not have considered what Justification is that is he knew not then what the Form of it is nor could my self being the first Protestant that have ventured here to speak out when yet it was to be known If Christ's Righteousness be imputed in se which those Words say then must God look upon us as Legally Righteous in him and we Formally Justified by his Righteousness which with the Consequence following must drive him from his own Opinion and to come over to yours and lead him farther even to that Party he hath wrote so well against in the First of his deservedly commended Books So that I have more than hopes from him when I have hopes from you that he will because he must if he writes again come over to me or rather to the Apostle in the point To this end came I into the World says our Saviour that I might bear Witness to the Truth And here I will say something to the Quick in regard to Mr. Williams that considerable Brother and you too for I think both more worthy Men than you do of one another I have told you before That I believe if Mr. Williams had not seen my last Book or those Sheets or my Half-sheet forementioned and I had ask'd him or you the Question What is the Form or Formal Cause of our Justification It is like he and you would have ingeniously acknowledged both that you had not thought so much upon it or that it was scarce so pertinent as to be ask'd But seeing it is like to prove otherwise to him I must after all I have writ and his Thoughts on it ask the Question What is the Form or Formal Cause of our Justification I say our Justification which once for all I must tell you does denote Justification Passively taken as it must be taken and is by Papists and Protestants in their Dispute about it and by the Apostle when he disputes That it is by Faith and not Works that Abraham was and we are justified If one say here Justification hath no form he is beaten plainly off the Stage Justification it is true Actively taken is an Act of God a Judicial Act of him as the Efficient by the Gospel as his Instrument whereby he constitutes the sound Believer Righteous and thereby gives him a Right to Impunity and Glory As Justification then taken thus Actively being an Act of God Mr. Williams and you know I suppose that ex parte Agentis it can be nothing but God's Will and that his Will is his Essence and that God acts only by his Essence and that there can be no cause of nor any new Act in God's Essence and that it is in regard therefore to the Effect as that Act is terminated on its Object that God's Will hath that Denomination so that it is of the Effect our being justified there are Causes and a formal there must be as well as others Whereas our Protestants now do maintain against the Papists That it is the Righteousness of Christ imputed is this Formal Cause I ask again of that Reverend Brother Mr. Williams Whether according to the common Doctrine he does hold That the Righteousness of Christ imputed and received by Faith alone is the Form formal cause or reason of our Justification yea or no Here is a Question which is Joseph's Divining Cup that must tell Whether Mr. Williams be a True Man or a Spy If he answers Categorically either one or the other he is a True Man if he shuffles he is a Spy If then he says yea according to his Assertion that Besides the Effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Believer then does he come to you as the Maintainer of the commonly received Protestant Doctrine and you will be pleased I hope with such a Proselite If he says No then must he retract that saying as the good Saint Austin did Many and come over to Mr. Baxter and me and be welcome to the Truth as I judgé As for you then Mr. Report I must ask also the same Question but not to have an Answer till you see I desire it Whether you do really joyn with the common Protestant in this point as to the Formal Cause of our Justification If you say you do you see the Consequences Take them all draw out their Strength try if you can answer them One and an Elder Brother of yours forementioned is so openly Honest as when he sees to avow them but if you begin to shrug and must leave him I pray consider where you can stop unless you come to a Third Opinion for you and Mr. Williams to reconcile in when you

suffered To suffer that we might not suffer and to suffer that we may be accounted to have suffered is a contradiction For the Matter I deny not but hold That it is through Christ's Righteousness we are justified yet that Faith and Repentance are not only required as the Condition but when the Condition is performed it is our Gospel-Righteousness so that though it be Christ's Righteousness is that propter quod it is the Righteousness of Faith is that per quod we are justified There is therefore here a double Righteousness and twofold Concurrence to be distinguished and received The double Righteousness is the Righteousness of Christ and Righteousness of Faith the double Concurrence is a Concurrence per modum meriti or per modum causae formalis Now the Righteousness of Christ I must affirm concurs per modum meriti and the Righteousness of Faith per modum Causae formalis to our Justification This is the Doctrine which in opposition both to the Papists and the Absurdity brought into it by the Protestants I do maintain as you see in my late Book and may see farther The Papists say That Justification is by the infusion of Inherent Grace and that Inherent Grace therefore is the Form or Formal Cause of Justification The Protestants in opposition to them say That it is by the Righteousness of Christ we are justified and that it is Christ's Righteousness imputed is the Formal Cause of it I say it is by neither of these but by the Righteousness of God revealed in the Gospel in opposition to Works which is God's Gracious Condescention in his accepting of our Faith and imperfect Obedience through the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ unto Life that we be justified and that it is Faith imputed for Righteousness is the Form or Formal Cause of our Justification It is not then I say the infusion of Faith and Grace into us which distinguishes it from the Papists but it is the imputing that Faith and Grace infused which distinguishes it from the common Protestant for Righteousness that is our formal Justification Alas Mr. Report What an absurd thing was it at first to the Papists that the Protestants should hold That a Sinner was made or accounted Righteous without a Righteousness or by another's Righteousness whieh is all one as to be Learned with another's Learning or Holy by another's Holiness Now let me tell you in good earnest which perhaps you have never throughly reflected upon that the same Absurdity remains if we say That we are Formaliter made Righteous or Formaliter Justified by Christ's Righteousness which our former Divines having taught we must now leave them And one thing more which I am more sure you never thought on I will tell you That the Doctrine which I substitute in the room of this is that I conjecture which was indeed the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Luther as appears by his words and those of his immediate Followers I have quoted in my Book pag. 10. and 20. Justification with them consists in two things Faith in the Heart or inchoate Obedience and God's Imputation Our Faith and inchoate Grace being imperfect and so no Righteousness according to the Law God does for the sake of Christ or through his Satisfaction and Merits accept of it so as by his Gospel Law to impute constitute and allow it to us for Righteousness and thereby give us Right to Impunity and Salvation This first true notion not sufficiently digested by Luther others seeking to advance through the interpreting it by an application of Christ's Righteousness to the Believer's Person instead of applying it to his Performance came to pervert it and our former Divines took it up and stood upon it so much against the Papists that Bellermine accounts the Difference with the Protestants about J●stification to be as nothing besides and yet is this term Form or Formal Cause so much out of use of late in our present Divinity that many of our Brethren being not sensible of their grand importance as to the Negation of the Doctrine so held and of the Absurdity in the root they do retain the Sense without the Words or at least maintain so much of it as the rest does follow and yet do so seriously fall upon them that own the Consequences that I cannot wonder if you and that Brother of yours that have undertaken the cause should have such a kind of Spirit rais'd in you as was in Elihu when he was angry with Job's Friends who were ready to accuse him when they had nothing they could say without blame in themselves Then was kindled the Wrath of Elihu the Son of Barachael against Job and against his three Friends was his Wrath kindled because they had found no answer and yet had condemned Job There is one thing I will say therefore of that Brother of yours which is more kind perhaps than others will which is That in that Language of his which is so harsh and in that Matter as quoted by others which is so broad that they are beyond enduring yet do I apprehend methinks a Zeal in the one and an Integrity in the other A Zeal in that Heat and Wrath he hath against any that shall gainsay a Doctrine which he hath imbibed from his Youth and places his Salvation upon and a sincerity in that he being a rational Man and seeing more deeply than others into the Consequences of it he scorns to baulk any of them and so is broad when others shift which he I perceive abominates And this does prompt me therefore to say something in regard to you and him and that Presbyterian Brother you both have writ against In general I would ask all three Whether before reading this you had come to any such Consideration of this Matter that if I had ask'd you the Question What is the Form or Formal Cause of Justification you would have given me a fix'd Answer to it I do suppose you would acknowledge you had not nor thought it so material to know But you and some greater Men than you are out there The Form of a Thing is that by which the Thing is that which it is If you know not the Form of Justification you know not what Justification is and when it may be known and you don't know it How can you tell as another that does what is right or wrong that you say about it The Form does Dare the Nomen and the Esse as it gives the Being it denominates the Thing Justificatus accordingly hath his Form passively denominating him so from Justitia and that Righteousness which makes and denominates us Righteous must be the Form of our Justification Now what that Righteousness is I have here and in my Book discoursed and told it you as to my Opinion and that of the common Protestant And as for you then and your Reverend Brother who have I suppose taken up the Protestant Doctrine as formerly received without questioning whether

so long as any such Term Word or Phrase was like to tend to the procuring Peace he is free to let you make as much of it as you could but when he sees it not conducive to the end but the contrary he is free to speak out himself and make as little of it If they were Words of Scripture he would captivare intellectum to some right Construction of them but when they are only Terms of Men he will be no Slave to any but use them or leave them as Good or Evil is like to come of them But to go on Mr. Rebuke tells us that there is neither in the Assemblies nor any Confession of the Reformed Churches any such Phrase to be found and I take it upon trust from him because Grotius himself has not this Phrase full out who says indeed there is a Commutatio a subrogatio a substitutio these Words he uses of Christs Person in our room as to his Sufferings for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vice nostra in our stead as the Sacrifice died in the stead of the Sinner that Sacrificed it but a Commutation of Persons full out he has not nor any authority from the Ancients any farther than thus Deus pro animabus omnium dedit Commutationem pretiosum sanguinem filii sui which is Origen Dominus noster Jesus Christus communicando nobiscum sine culpa poenam culpam solvit poenam which is Augustine There is not a Quotation of his else hath any touch of such a Phrase and who shall come after Grotius to look for any thing he hath mist I close therefore here with this Reverend Brother This Phrase says he of Christ's taking on him the Person of Sinners does signifie more or less than Christ's taking on him our Sins and suffering for them in our place or stead or it does signifie neither more nor less but is just commensurate with it If you make it signifie less then it limits and narrows the end of Christ's Suffering and will be a sense only serving the turn of the Socinian If you make it signifie more than that it leads to Antinomianism If it signifies or be made to signifie neither more nor less I embrace it with all my Heart This Gentleman does still speak wittily but here wittily and solidly and I fully assent to it I won't say that you do when we are now come from what he hath had ad hominem to what he should have ad rem A Difference there is in Doctrinals as to this point among the Brethren and the business to be done is to find the bottom of it and to say something which is not said by this Brother for satisfaction to it It is true that though there be no more to be put upon these Phrases I believe than Grotius and the aforesaid Bishop puts upon them yet are there very Learned Men such as among us are Rutherford and Dr. Owen who I suppose together with you do lay more upon them than so when there are others if not they do carry them so far as to hold this Commutation to be such that from thence it is they account not only that our Sins are laid upon Christ but his Righteousness is communicated to us which is making us to sustain his Person as well as he ours and we thereby made Righteous as he in the Eye of the Law or in Law-sense for our Justification And this now I take to be another Matter If Christ obey'd the Law and suffer'd for us in our behalf or in our stead so as God looks upon us to have suffered the Penalty of the Law in him to free us from Condemnation and to have obeyed the Law in him to give us right to Heaven which your Commutation of Persons at the least must signifie then are we in Christ indeed Legally righteous for this is to be righteous in Law-sense or in the Eye of the Law that is Legally so if they know what to be Legally Righteous is and accordingly justified by the Law with his Righteousness as our formal Righteousness or as the Form or Formal Cause or Reason of our Justification This is the Opinion which in behalf of your Independent Brethren you do and must maintain as that which hath been received for the common Protestant Opinion heretofore and if it be true must bring your Adversaries over to you or else if it be not true both you and they must look for a righter in a middle way between Protestant and Papist which I doubt the most of you are either too negligent to seek or too conceited through your own greater learning to receive at another's Hands Sententia illorum qui Christi obedientiam justitiam nobis imputatam statuunt esse formalem causam justificationis communis est nostrorum omnium sententia neque quod ad rem attinet quisquam è nostris aliter sens●t aut scripsit says Davenant ds Jus Hab. c. 22. Well now if the Righteousness of Christ be indeed the Formal Cause of our Justification as this Learned Man and most Judicious Man otherwise does maintain for the received Protestants Doctrine and which those Independent Brethren who upon the account of Doctrinals hang off from Vnion with the Presbyterians will approve or else they know not what they would have to strive for then must we be Legally righteous in Christ and so justified by the Law And if the Believer be in Christ Legally righteous then must Christ's Righteousness be the Formal Cause of his Justification They that say one must say the other and they that deny the one must deny the other if they understand fundamentally what they are to affirm or deny The Papists held inherent Grace as infused to be the Form or Formal Cause of our Justification The Protestants in opposition maintain'd That Christ's Righteousness without us and not ours within us imputed to us is that which formally justifies us To be justified then by Christ's Righteousness is to be righteous in Christ in Law-sense and to be righteous in Christ in Law-sense or in the Eye of the Law is to be look'd on by God to have undergone the Penalty of the Law in Christ's Sufferings and obeyed the Law in Christ's Obedience and this infers a Commutation of Persons in the highest sense which you and your Brethren do indeed intend by it Here then we are come to the bottom which the Reverend and Ingenious Mr. Rebuke has not sounded and here is the Question upon which the fundamental Difference between you in the behalf of the Independants and your Adversaries does bottom If this Doctrine be true then must the Consequences of it be true If the Consequences be not good the Doctrine must not be good neither Let us then come Hand to Hand to the Tryal If your Doctrine be true That there is such a Commutation of Persons as that God does look on us in Christ's Person to have suffered the Punishment and obeyed the