Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	adam_n	nature_n	sin_n	2,126	5	5.5892	4	true

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

If this be so here is a difficulty arises We are punished and that with Death for the sin of another how can that be just And if God may punish us with Temporal Death for Adams sin he may with Eternal I answer therefore That though Death inflicted on Adam for his sin was indeed a punishment on him yet is Death in it self no punishment on us Adam was made of the Earth Mortal as we but he was put into the Garden where was the Tree of Life whereof so long as he might eat it would save his Life but upon his sin God excluded him from it and having not the Free to eat on when his time came he must needs dye The Sentence of Death was in effect executed on him in excluding him Paradise But as for us we never had the Tree to eat on and cannot be punished by the exclusion from what we never had but according to Nature we being Mortal and of course appointed to dye our Death as Natural is neither good nor evil in it self but in regard to what follows it that is the reward to come according as out Lives have been in the World and if good it is but a Gate to Blessedness After this you may ask What think you then of the more common Doctrine that it is not as we were in Adams Loins but as we were in Adams Covenant that we sinned in him and so were liable to the same punishment I answer besides that it can never be proved that those words In the day thou eatest thereof was said to you or I when they were said to Adam this Assertion is too grievous for my embrace because it makes the Constitution only of God that is his Will alone without any of the sinner to be the cause of Mans damnation I will yet not leave but seeing I am fallen on the Point I will consider what Original Sini● is that I own There are three things according to the common Doctrine wherein original Sin consists the Want of Original Righteousness Adams first guilt and the Corruption of our Nature from whence Actual Transgressions proceed For the second I have spoke to For the first The Schools have conceived that Adam was Endowed with a supernatural Grace besides his Natural Righteous Constitution which by his Fall he lost and so we but our naturals and Free-will remains Now I believe no such thing as that Adam had any Righteousness or Grace supernatural but only Nature entire for Grace is indeed a Medicinal thing or Auxiliatory for fallen Nature which Adam needed not and there can be no loss of that which never was If by Original Righteousness the integrity of Adams Nature be meant only the want or loss of this is included in the third As for which I believe that Adam falling depraved his Nature and being depraved himself he begets Children with this Corruption in their Nature The Mind and Will is infected with ignorance and disobedience the Ataxy in his Faculties upon his Fall is begotten in ours and so I hold Original Sin according to the Article of the Church of England which speaks of this and nothing else though I did not therefore so take it up Omnes peccaverunt id est in omnes propagatum est malum quod est peccatum says Melancthon and so we are by Nature filii ira not upon Adams but our own account This or thus much I hold with the Church against Pelagius so that there is a necessity therefore of Grace in order to Salvation But whether of special Grace against Arminius also which I have hitherto imbibed I leave others to their own Sentiments P. 77. Mr. Ws. and I do hold that Christs Obligation to bear our punishment was a single Obligation or an Obligation of his own not our Obligation though our punishment Our Obligation is ex delicto his ex voluntario contractu so that he suffered not as a Sinner But the Brethren think otherwise That our sins were so imputed to Christ as to give him the denomination and judicial acceptation of a Sinner in the esteem of God and the Law This being so what says Mr. Ws. to it to end the Discord Why Notwithstanding this so long as they deny that Christ bad any defilement in him or any sin of his own only our sins imputed to him and he was but a Legal Sinner this difference cannot justifie mutual Censure What And can it not indeed Then I promise you we must be more friendly to the Antinomian also for it is very abusive for any to think that such a one as Dr. Crisps or any University Graduate did ever believe that the Accident of one Subject could migrate into another so that we are to take their words how broad soever as when they account Christ took on him the fault as well as the punishment to wit our faults and only Legally in the sense of those Orthodox Divines as have commonly said he suffered as a Sinner and Luther as the greatest Sinner Yet are such sayings reprehensible by and according to us who deny that he was our Legal Person though a Days-man betwixt God and us he bore our punishment that we might not bear it An Opinion may be of ill consequence and he that holds it not see it and a Man may hold a Tenent in the Theory which he does not in the Practice but live as free from those ill consequences as he that holds the contrary Opinion In such a case such a Brother is not to be censured but born with but the Opinion the Tenent is to be censured and refuted and such Censure to be justified P. 80 81. The Apology he makes there for our Opinion that is his I mean and mine and Mr. Baxters against the common Protestants is so well handsome humble true clear and taking that I cannot but commend it Ut nihil supra The following Pages are as judicious in clearing us from Popery I thank him for them P. 84. He speaks of the Manner of Imputation of Christs Righteousness and tells us the double sense thereof on the one side the sense of the Brethren which is the same that God reckons us to have Legally done and suffered what Christ did as before but in more words And on the other side our sense which he might dispatch in two words Quoad Effectus but he clouds it so with his Notion of Gods adjudging that the Obedience and Sufferings of Christ is our Pleadable Security for his benefits purchased that I cannot tell what to make of it For what an idle impertinent thing is this to talk of Gods adjudging Christs Obedience to be our Pleadable Security for the enjoyment of that whereof he does adjudge us upon the account hereof to the very enjoyment P. 86. By this you see says he that we rise ●ot so high as to say we are accounted to do or suffer what Christ did and so to be absolved immediately by the Sentence of the