Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	law_n	sin_n	transgression_n	1,540	5	10.6759	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41016	Sacra nemesis, the Levites scourge, or, Mercurius Britan. disciplin'd, [Mercurius] civicvs [disciplin'd] also deverse remarkable disputes and resolvs in the Assembly of Divines related, episcopacy asserted, truth righted, innocency vindicated against detraction.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1644 (1644)	Wing F593; ESTC R2806	73,187	105

non simpliciter in some respects not simplie To the fourth Christs righteousnesse cannot be imputed to us before we are assoyled of our sinnes For it is not righteous with God to accompt him righteous who hath no way satisfied for his sinnes neither by himselfe nor other the captive must be first freed before he be advanced to honour To the fifth though it follow by the connexion of the causes of our salvation that whosoever is freed frō eternall death is stated in eternall life yet it doth not follow that there is the same cause of both as for example if you open the leaves of a window the sunnebeams shine into the roome yet there is not one and the selfe same cause of opening the window and the immission of the beams Thus I h●ve handled the poynt {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by way of confutation now {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} by way of confirmation I set to the proof thereof First if justification be a distinct thing from redemption and satisfaction then the imputation of Christs meer passive obedience will not suffice for our justification but they are distinct things Dan. 9 24. He shall make an end of sin he shall make reconciliation for iniquitie and bring in everlasting righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1 30. He is made to us righteousnesse and sanctification and redemption Secondly that which is imputed to us is called righteousnesse and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Rom. 5. but meer passive obedience makes not a man righteous but only patient ergo c. Thirdly the fulfilling of the ceremoniall law is a different thing from Christs passive obedience but that is imputed to us by the reason which our adversaries bring because Christ did not that for himself in regard he had no sin whereof all those legall acts were a kind of confession and therefore it must be allowed to us Fourthly If part of Christs active obedience be imputed to us why not the whole But the adversaries confesse that Christs voluntarie submitting himself to death and offering up himself for a sacrifice to God which are parts of his active obedience are imputed to us for otherwise his bare sufferings had not been meritorious Ergo his whole active obedience is imputed to us Fifthly unlesse Christs actuall fulfilling of the law be imputed to us we are debarred of eternall life which is promised to none but such who in themselves or by Christ have fulfilled the law according to those texts fac hoc vives si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata doe this and thou shalt live and if thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandements If Christ were not bound to fulfill the law for himself upon our adversaries own ground his fulfilling the law must be imputed to us but he was not bound to fulfill the law for himself First because he was not persona humana lex datur personae non naturae Christ was not a humane person and the law is given to the person not to the nature Secondly because as Son of man he is Lord of the Sabbath and so of the law Thirdly because he is the King of the Church to prescribe lawes to his subjects not to himself and all power is given to him both in heaven and earth Lastly because no man will say that Christ in heaven hath any obligation upon him yet there he hath his humane nature that nature therefore as in him it was hypostatically united to the deitie was free from all tye in regard of himselfe what he engaged himself was for us and to be allowed on our accompt M. Prolocutor AS S. Gregorie said plus debeo Thomae quam Petro I a● more indebted to Thomas then Peter because his doubting of Christs resurrection occasioned a more sensible demonstration thereof then otherwise we should have had so truly I may say we are much beholding to him who first moved the scruple concerning the imputation of Christs sole satisfaction for it hath occasioned the resolution not onely of that doubt but of many other concerning the communicatio idiomatum the effects of the hypostaticall union the nature of the law and the faithfuls title to heaven It is true there hath been some clashing among the worthie Members of this Assemblie but it hath been like the collision of steel and flint whereby have been struck out many sparks of divine and saving truth Nothing seemeth to me now to hinder the putting the question to the vote and determining it ex voto according to our desire but the vindication of it from aspersions cast upon it by foure sorts of mis●reants the Antinomians the Papists the Arminians and Socinians First the Antinomians object if Christs active righteousnesse be imputed unto us then are not we bound to keep the law because Christ hath kept it for us This objection may be assoyled with a double answer first that this active obedience of Christ is imputed to none but true penitents For though repentance be no cause of our justification yet it is conditio requisita in subjecto a condition required in the subject and to beleeve the remission of our sins by imputation of Christs satisfaction and righteousnesse without a sincere and serious purpose to forsake all our transgressions and walk in newnesse of life is an act not of Faith but of presumption Secondly I grant that Christs righteousnesse being imputed to us we are not bound to fulfill the law hoc nomine to justify us before God or procure us a title to the Kingdom of Heaven but for other ends namely to glorifie God obey his will to testifie our thankfulnesse to our Redeemer to shew our faith by our works to make our election sure to our selves to adorn our profession with a holy conversation to avoyd scandall and avert Gods judgements Secondly the Papists object if Christs active obedience be imputed to us then either the whole or a part of it not a part for that will make us righteous but in part not the whole for then no other should have share in it but our selves and everie particular beleever should be as righteous as Christ himself and everie o●e as another But this objection may be assoyled by a three-fold answer First there is a double totum or whole totum extra quod nihil est totum cui nihil deest a whole out of which there is nothing as the whole water is in the basin and a whole to which nothing is wanting as the whole soul is in every part of the body for the soul is tota in toto and tota in qualibet parte Christs whole obedience in the first sense is imputed to us not in the second 2. All believers according to the speech of Luther are aeque justi ratione justitiae imputatae equally just in respect of imputed justice though not inhaerentis of inherent in respect of passive not active righteousnesse

Thirdly aeque pronunciamur justi ut Christus we are equally pronounced just as Christ that is we are as truely acquitted and absolved as he sed non pronunciamur aeque justi but not pronounced equally just for his justice was inherent ours imputed his from himself ours from him his of infinite worth sufficient to justifie all beleevers ours of finite and sufficient only for our selves The Arminians object if {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} credere or the very act of believing justifie us then not Christs imputed righteousnesse But the very act of believing justifieth as the Apostle saith Abraham beleeved and it was counted to him for righteousnesse To this I answer that saith may be considered either ratione actus or ratione objecti in regard of the act or of the object Faith justifieth not ratione actus for then some work should justifie but ratione objecti not in regard of the act but in regard of the object as the spoon feeds the child in regard of the milk in it and the chirurgions hand heals in regard of the playster he applies those that were healed by looking upon the brazen serpent were not cured by the sharpnesse of their sight for the purblind were as well healed as the sharp-sighted but by a supernaturall vertue at that time given to the object the brazen serpent a type of Christ 4. The Socinians object God doth not justifie man by an act of injustice but it is injustice to punish one man for another or attribute one mans righteousnesse to another for justitiae est suum cuique tribuere it is the office or property of justice to give to every man his owne therefore we are not justified by the imputation of Christs active or passive obedience But this objection may be assoyled with a double answer First it is not against justice but agreeable to justice to lay the debt or penalty of one man upon another in case that one man voluntarily undertake for the other and becomes his surety as it was just to lay Cimon in the gaol for his father Miltiades debt after he ingaged himself for it and made it his own neither was it unjust to put out one of Zaleuchus his eyes for his sons adulterie after hee undertook to satisfie for his son and to save him one eye who otherwise should have lost both Secondly when God imputes Christs righteousnesse unto us he gives us our own namely that which Christ hath purchased for us by his death and secondly in regard of our union with Christ whatsoever is Christs in this kind is ours and Ro 5. he that hath given Christ to us hath given his righteousnesse also M. Prolocutor THe Roman orator in his oration pro Sex●o Roscio Amerino writeth of Caius Fimbria that he indicted Q. Scaevola upon a strange point that he would not suffer himself to be slain out-right by him diem Scaevolae dixit quod non totum ●elum corpore recepisse● accused Scaevola for not receiving his whole weapon into his body methinks some of our brethren put in a like bill against us that we suffer them not to have a full and fair blow at us quod non tota t●la argumentorum rec●piamus that we receive not the weapons of their arguments whole entire I will therefore propound their arguments as neer as I can remember in their own words to the best advantage and then return a punctuall answer unto them If any of their arro●s be headed if any of their s●ords be keen edged and sharp pointed if any of their arguments have acumen robur sharpnesse and strength they are these five following Every humane creature is bound to fulfill the Law of God for himself jure creationis by the right of creation But Christ is a humane creature ergo he was bound to fulfill the Law of God for himselfe and consequently he fulfilled it not in our stead To the consequence inferred upon the conclusion of this Syllogism I have spoken heretofore I now answer to the Syllogism it self by distinguishing of humana creatura a humane creature which may be taken either ratione naturae onely or ratione personae also which may be so tearmed either in regard of the nature or the person every humane creature ratione naturae personae that is such a creature as hath not only humane nature but a humane person also is bound to fulfill the morall Law for himself but Christ was not so he had a humane nature but no humane person Now we know Lex datur personae the Law is given to the person Thou shalt doe this or thou shalt not doe that In the accompt of the law and all judiciarie proceedings it is all one to be insons justus to be guiltlesse and righteous but by the imputation of Christs satisfaction we are accompted guiltlesse before God ergo righteous and fully justified I answer There are two sorts of causes in courts of justice criminall and civill in criminall it is true idem est esse insontem justum it is all one to be accompted innocent and just but not in civill where justice hath a respect to reward and in that regard a guiltlesse man is not necessarily a just man that is a deserving man It was not sufficient for Demosthenes to plead for Ctesiphon that he was a harmelesse man and therefore ought in justice to have the crown but he proves that he was a deserving man and by the law ought to have it as his due Thirdly Justification is a judiciary act opposite to condemnation but imputation of active obedidience is no judiciary act opposite to condemnation ergo c. God is said to be a righteous judge not only in respect of inflicting punishment rightly but also in conferring rewards and crowns of glory justification hath respect to both for there are two questions put to us at Gods tribunall first what hast thou to say for thy self why thou shouldst not be condemned to hels torments the answer is I confesse I have deserved them by my sins but Christ hath satisfied for me the second question is what canst thou plead why thou shouldst in justice receive a crown of glory sith thou hast not fulfilled the law the answer is Christ hath fulfilled the law for me both these are expressed by Anselm in his book de modo visitandi infirmos si dixerit meruisti damnationem dic Domine mortem Domini nostri Iesu Christi obtendo inter me mala merita mea ipsiusque meritum ●ffero pro merit● quod ego debuissem habere nec habeo if he saith thou hast deserved damnation answer thou I set Christs death between me and my ill deserts or wicked works and I offer his merit for that merit which I should have but of my self I have not Fourthly all they who are freed from the guilt of all sins of omission as well as commission are