Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	formal_a	justification_n	meritorious_a	1,409	5	11.1733	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45121	Animadversions, being the two last books of my reverend brother Mr. Williams the one entituled A postscript to Gospel-truth, the other An end of discord : conscientiously examined, in order to a free entertainment of the truth, in some momentous points in divinity, controverted among the nonconformist brethen, occasionally here determined, for the sake of those honest among us that seek it, without trick or partiality / by John Humfrey ...	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1699 (1699)	Wing H3666; ESTC R16328	37,926	42

dare not say as they must who indeed hold an Imputation in se that God does judicially account what Christ hath done and suffered to be Legally the Believers this is the Doctrine of an Imputation in se which he militates against in all his Books as Mr. Baxter in all his but to be his pleadable security And what is that Is that Justification Is that I say again an Imputation of what Christ hath done and suffered to the Believer so as to be that Righteousness in se whereby he is justified No what Imputation then in se is it Did he that wrote the rest of the Book write this Did he write it when he was awake or asleep If he was a wake let him tell what That the Performance of the Covenant of Redemption by Christ does afford us a pleadable security that if we believe we shall be saved there is no body questions That this pleadable security is an Effect and Benefit of that performance is not to be questioned neither That the Imputation then of the Righteousness of Christ to us for this pleadable Security if there be any such Imputation is an Imputation of it only in the Effects or quoad Effectus and not in se●● I have it already in my former Letter That this pleadable Security arises from the promise of the Gospel Covenant as well as from that to Christ in the Covenant of Redemption Mr. Ws. says And if from the Gospel there arises no Imputation of Christs Obedience to us in se how does it from the Law of Mediation That God does impute Christs Performance to us for Righteousness is said by Divines but I say again where is it said in Scripture or by any Divine of Note that he imputes it to us for our pleadable Security only by himself it is true that we may impute or apply it to our selves so but where or by whom is it said that God so imputes it and judicially so imputes it Is this the work of Judgment And why does our otherwise very worthy Brother take upon him by making such Speeches for God as he does to put him upon the saying any thing more than needs What needs such a Speech Thou believer I judicially esteem and pronounce thee to be one that I promised to my Son in the Covenant of Redemption to save in reward to his performance of that Covenant therefore I judicially also account what Christ hath done and suffered to be thy pleadable Security that thou shalt be saved Is it not enough that God says this Thou sinner being one that haft believed and repented and so performed through my Grace the Covenant of the Gospel I do therefore according to my promise therein to thy self and all Mankind judicially sentence thee to Life everlasting Let the Believer have this Sentence pronounced by the Covenant of the Gospel he will not need and scarce over thought of any other by the Covenant of Redemption P. 107. As for those that say Christs Righteousness is not imputed in se but in the Effects they oppose all this says he but they great the Righteousness of Christ to be the meritorious Cause of our Justification they narrow not their Opinion to a procuring only a Covenant of Grace or Law of the Gospel but say Christ purchased the Benefits first which that Covenant bestows they are sound in the Doctrine of Satisfaction they abhor the presenting our Faith or Evangelical Obedience to God as any Satisfaction to Justice Attonement for Sin or Prince of Salvation Upon these Accounts more at large expressed better by him a forbearance is very charitably and commendably pleaded for these Brethren by this good Brother in their behalf who no doubt is well inclined to it himself for this is certainly a very ingenious kind of Apologizing for Mr. Baxter's and Mine and his Own Opinion Nevertheless I have two or three things to take Notice of further in this Chapter One is P. 109. Our Opinion quoad Effectus he says does amount to an Imputation in se because the Divine Mind must apply the Merits of Christ to our Faith to make it a Righteousness But how so Why if so the Divine Mind he counts must apply his Righteousness to our persons If through Christs Merits our Faith is made a Righteousness then his Merits must make our persons Righteous This is his sense which he hath in diverse expressions three times in the Paragraph Very well now I say that if through Christs Merits God does impute our Faith for Righteousness then must the Imputation of Christs Righteousness be an Imputation only quoad Effectus for this is a grand Effect of it that our Faith which of it self is none is through those Merits imputed for Righteousness And if the Righteousness of Christ be Imputed only quoad Effectus it is not Imputed in se for our Justification The Divine Mind says he does apply Christs Righteousness to the Person which in plain words is God does Impute it to a Person But what Imputation is it is it not an Imputation quoad Effectus It is doubtless for that Effect which Christs Righteousness has to make our Faith a Righteousness it hath the same to make the Person accepted as a Gospel Righteous Person and for his sake to be dealt with accordingly but not as a Legally Righteous Person as Christ is It is thus and no otherwise whereas he speaks of it as if it were an Imputation in se which our Opinion he says amounts unto nay supposes and infers he says as Necessary But if it were an Imputation in se then should Christs Righteousness not our Faith be imputed to us for Righteousness which falls in he knows with the Opinion of the Brethren and makes it the Formal Cause of our Justification Alas that this perplexing Notion should lead this considering Brother into those Blunderings which seeing it does I do write this Book on purpose to prosecute it if I can to the death not to hurt him but to rid him of it That what he says is very handsome for perswading the contrary minded to bear with if not receive our Opinion because it hath all the Conveniency as to the Substantial Doctrine of the Protestant which the Brethren can make of theirs Yet he is short in his discernment of that very Critical Point wherein the hinge of this Controversie among us does turn which is the Question whether the Righteousness of Christ or of Faith be the Formal Righteousness that justifies us I wonder that this very searching and judicious Brother should not see here his Defect An imputed Righteousness in se makes Christs Righteousness the Formal Cause an imputed Righteousness only quoad Effectus makes his Righteousness the Meritorious Cause alone of our Justification Another is P. 11. I could wish a very worthy Person of this Opinion would review in his own account of Justification where he faith it is that act whereby God imputes to every sound believer his

very distinguishable Having laid down what precedes I do as it were give instance in this Citation unto the which I do the more deliberately answer The Impetration of our Justification by Christs performing the Mediatory Law is indeed one thing and the Application of it by our performing the Law of the Gospel is another But Justification it self is one Omneens est unum and not two things or acts and consequently ought to be defined and understood as one act so that when in one place it is said we are justified by Christs Blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through his Blood and in others we are justified by Faith this makes yet but one act one Justification described in one place by the meritorious in the others by the formal cause thereof which both are to be put together in the Definition I must confess Mr. Baxter as I remember does ordinarily speak at your rate as if we were to be justified both by Law and Gospel and furthermore does not scruple to make as many Particular Justifications as there can be Charges laid against us but with the assertion that there is also a Justification Universal and which I apprehend the Gospel alone does yield us Indeed how to reconcile Mr. Baxter herein to his own Doctrine I must confess I have not yet observed from him but crave your help to find out In the mean time I must warn you that you understand him not after the manner you write for if indeed there are two Barrs at which we must be justified as well as two Righteousnesses that goes into our Justification If to be justified by Faith is one Justification and to be justified by Christs Blood be another so that the Believer must have both as one subordinate to the other unto which apprehension your way of expression leads then must Christs Righteousness be indeed ours in se and not only in the Effects as you appear to maintain against me and him for at one of these Barrs nothing less will serve and then must we return all three to the Road of the common Protestant Doctrine and grant that it is not by our own Works whether Legal or Evangelical no not by Faith as a Work not by Faith as productive of Repentance and New Obedience that is not by St. James's Faith and Works also but by Faith only and by Faith taken objective for Christs Righteousness made ours by Faith so as to be our Formal Righteousness or formally to justifie us And if so there may be an end of Controversies with Mr. Baxters Books as one of them is called which concern Justification his Practical Books may still be in credit but his Controversal Works may be all burnt for you who for maintaining one expression not well advised must forsake him and your self and all almost of weight that you have writ besides There is a Distinction therefore which that accurate Man Mr. Baxter who otherwise has so many does yet want as to this Point of Justification which is that Justification may be taken Strictly or Largely seeing the Scripture so speaks of it If we will take it strictly we consider only what respects the form and definition and Justification so taken is Gods constituting by his Law of Grace and accounting a Man righteous upon his believing for Christs sake or imputing his Faith for Righteousness When Justification largely taken may comprehend its Antecedents as Redemption and Consequents as Pardon and Life together with it See my Righteousness of God p. 55 56 57. In such a large sense of it Mr. Baxter and our Divines may take liberty to speak of it in such a manner as they or others do or as they please but there are these words in that Learned Gentleman Sir Charles Wolsley his Letter to me that are more accurate to my purpose than any that I most like in Mr. Baxter The Scripture says he that were written not with any relation to those nice and subtle Distinctions which Men have since used in interpreting them do chiefly intend to express their plain and genuine meaning of things and in an especial manner by various expressions of the same thing does set forth the amplitude of Gospel Salvation Justification is spoken of in Scripture sometimes in its Cause which is imputing Righteousness by Faith and sometimes in its Effect which is Pardon Therefore I am well pleased to say with you to adjust and comprehend that matter right that the formalis ratio of Justification is Gospel Faith and Obedience that is as imputed to us of God for Righteousness and taking Justification passively meaning as I and Pardon of sin as the necessary consequeent concomitant and effect of it He that will give any other account of it must I believe make use of some other Doctor than St. Paul One thing more I will note in this Postscript and have done and that is the particular p. 312. wherein you say you were ready to subscribe with Mr. Cole You look to your self indeed by such words that you may not lye but do you think your meaning and Mr. Coles can indeed stand in one Stable I will therefore express the truth of this sixth Particular for you with little alteration When a Man believes that very Faith and sincere Gospel Works which proceed from it is you say is not the matter of that Righteousness whereby you to save your Not before put in for which a sinner is justified and so intitled to Pardon and Glory Yet is the Righteousness of Christ alone that for which the Gospel gives the Believer a right to these and all saving blessings who in this respect is justified through Christ or through his Righteousness though by Faith Faith being indeed the Matter or Material Cause and Gods Imputing that Faith not Christs Righteousness to us for Righteousness the Form and Formal Cause of our Justification Reverend Brother What will be the issue of this present endeavour according to my small Ability I know not But I will end with this Story Luther one day being with Melancton Phillip says he I am afraid we are gone too far in that matter of the Sacrament Master says Melancton then let us amend and retract it No says Luther if we do so Phillip we shall be believed in nothing Alas what pity it was and what prejudice to the Protestants Cause that Luther had not hearkned to Melancton It must be no wonder therefore if you hearken not to me now in my farewell Admonition which is to chuse in this small matter of Difference between us not to follow Luther but St. Augustine who is so much commended by all for his Book of Retractations Your very respectful Brother JOHN HUMFREY Animadversions ON HIS End of Discord Learned and Worthy Sir I Wrote a Sheet or two in a Letter to Mr. Williams upon his Postscript to Gospel Truth before this later Book called An End of Discord came out I had no Answer to it nor my Copy