Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	affection_n	love_n	love_v	1,622	5	6.3349	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A32770	Neonomianism unmask'd, or, The ancient gospel pleaded against the other, called a new law or gospel in a theological debate, occasioned by a book lately wrote by Mr. Dan. Williams, entituled, Gospel-truth stated and vindicated ... / by Isaac Chauncy ...	Chauncy, Isaac, 1632-1712.	1692 (1692)	Wing C3754; Wing C3754A; Wing C3755; ESTC R19390	474,696	516

displeasure Neonom I will tell you the Doctor 's mistake Because God laid our Sins on Christ to make Attonement for forgiveness of the Elect therefore God cannot be offended with the Elect for them before they repent Antinom Your Mistakes are wilful and foul ones too or else you would not act so dishonestly 1. This Doctrin of laying Sin on Christ you are always bantering take heed it prove not of dangerous consequence to you 2. Hath the Doctor spoken one word of the unconverted Elect in this matter or of the Elect before they repent But your spleen is moved because he founds the security of Believers from the Wrath of God towards them for Sin upon Christ bearing Sin and making full satisfaction for it you cannot brook it that Christ's Righteousness should have this honour I will tell you one thing If you have no better security from Wrath than the Evangelical Righteousness you shew in this Book I can say without a Spirit of Prophecy The Wrath of God abides on you Neonom Because God doth not hate the Believer as an unreconciled God when he sins therefore he is not at all displeased with him because of the Gospel-sins Antinom Because God manifests displeasure against the Sins of his People therefore say you God is displeased with their Persons that 's your mistake it 's not in the nature of God to love and hate the same Object neither hath God such affections as we have If God hate not as an unreconciled God he can do nothing towards that person but what are the effects of love there 's few earthly Parents can correct a Child but it 's in their mind wholly to do them good and to free them of some ill habit or corruption the Child calls the Father's carriage Anger and it looks so to him in a wise Father but all this while his Heart earns toward the Child and longs to be Kissing it Neonom He thinks because a Refiner is not angry with his Gold therefore a Holy God is not angry with Rational Offenders Antinom The Persons of true Believers are precious and honourab●e in the sight of God 10000 times more than Gold can be and securer from the anger of God than any Gold can be from the Refiner's anger I suppose your Rational Offenders are your Abominable Believers Neonom Because God will not hate a Believer so as to damn him therefore he cannot be angry with his People so as fatherly to chastize them Antinom If God cannot hate a Believer so as to damn him then he cannot punish or afflict him in this World with the same affection wherewith he doth damn any one but all that befalls him in this World proceeds from the same affection of love that saves them from damnation as to God there 's the same cause of the afflictions and chastisements of Believers as there is of their glorification they all proceed from his Eternal and Unchangeable Love from the sure Mercies of the Covenant of Promise and therefore are all in a way of benefit and advantage towards them God loves a Child of his as much in its infancy and nonage as in its grown state tho' his carriage is different the diversity of state requiring it And as to Fatherly Chastisement if you understand it aright we deny not but such are those of God's Children but you must know the Spirit of God Heb. 12. tells us the comparison will not hold but as a small illustration of it for God's thoughts affections designs are not as Man 's a Father may correct a Child in anger and passion and so for his pleasure as the Apostle saith but God never doth so a Woman may lay aside natural affections and forget her sucking Babe yea murder it but as God cannot lay aside his innate love so he cannot forget to exercise it in all things Neonom Because God afflicts from Sin therefore he doth not afflict for Sin Antinom If you mean from Sin and for Sin in the same sense that Sin is a reason of affliction in some sense or other we deny it not but if you mean it be a judicial cause of affliction as it is in a wicked Man we utterly deny it for such must be attoning to the Law transgressed in part or in whole the Law designs not the salvation of the sinner in any of its executions but it s own satisfaction in his destruction it looks not at his amendment but ruin And therefore if you mean that God as a Father doth so afflict we deny it for to say so were to make him change to invalidate the satisfaction of Christ and make him worse than an earthly Father Neonom As if he could not rebuke for what is past if he resolve not against their amendment for time to God Antinom God resolves their Amendment and therefore chastiseth and God rebukes their Sins and shews Man that he hath transgressed that Faith be exercised the more lively on the propitiation of Jesus Christ who satisfied God for Sin and that they may the more admire the free and pardoning Love of God and that his dealings are so favourable it 's the Lord's Mercy we are not consumed because his Compassions fail not and that Sin may be made more sinful and hateful to them Neonom The Doctor was led into this Opinion by not considering that Anger and Displeasure be not Passions in God but a Will of Correcting and are denominated from the kinds and degrees of Correction Antinom Quite contrary he took up his Opinion because he believed they were not so and that God's correcting his Children is from his Love and Good-will and that whatever the Degrees are the Specifick Nature is toto genere distinct from Punishments in anger Calv. 1. There is no reason why God should exact the Debt of Sin in the suffering of Believers because Christ hath fully satisfied his Father's Justice for their Sins 2. Their Sorrows and Afflictions cannot carry a Curse in them and therefore not the Wrath and Displeasure of God for he hath born their Sorrows and carried their Grief not that they should not have Sorrow but that their Sorrows should have nothing of the Sting of Sin the Curse of the Law in them 3. They are under the Grace of Adoption therefore Chastening is the Fruit of Adopting-love Heb. 12.6 And it 's one of the good things God hath allotted to them as Children and that for many great Ends 1. To be Partakers more and more of his Holiness in general Ver. 10. for their Profit and Advantage 2. To be conformed unto Christ therein who learned Obedience by suffering Heb. 5.8 3. To fill up that which is behind of the Afflictions of Christ in his Mystical Body Col. 1.24 4. That we may have fellowship with Christ in his Sufferings and therein be conformable to his Death Phil. 3.10 5. That as the Sufferings of Christ abound in us so our Consolations may abound by Christ 2 Cor. 1.5 6.

he there was no Sin in him this doth plainly evince that the Anomy of Sin was accounted to him 3. That the fault of Sin is separable from the Person of the Sinner but can never be separated from the demerit without payment David's Person is freed from the fault of Murder but his Murder cannot be freed from the desert of Death Now that which Christ did especially was to make the Elect without fault before God to take off that relation which they had to the Law lying as to the blame of it God's Reconciliation to the Persons of Sinners is by taking away the fault of Sin before God and this is done by the Person of Christ bearing Sin 4. That in a Sinner which is to be pardoned whenever he receives Christ was ●aid on Christ but the fault of Sin is to be pardoned whenever he receives Christ there 's the least part of pardon that frees only from Punishment but forgives not the Fault or Offence just as a King 's Reprieving a Felon but not Pardoning him To save him from the Gallows but charge him never to see his Face 5. That without the taking away of which the Conscience of a Sinner can never be purified from Guilt was certainly laid upon and taken away by Jesus Christ Heb. 9 14. But the Fault of Sin is such without the taking away of which before God the Conscience can never be purified from Guilt Ergo the fault of Sin was laid upon Jesus Christ to take it away let a Man be sure he should never see Death yet if the fault lye upon him there will still be Guilt his Conscience will accuse he cannot have Peace towards God 6. If the Wages of Sin be in the very Nature of Sin viz. Spiritual Death and it be inseparable from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Sin it self then that Death cannot be removed without taking away the Sin before God but the Wages of Sin which is Death is inseparable from the Nature of Sin in the Fault before God c. Ergo he that by Death slays our Death slays and carries away the Sin which is this Death The Apostle to the Rom. 7. calls the Body of Sin the Body of Death 2 Tim. 1.10 7. That which Essentially belongs unto Christ's Office as Mediator must be performed by Christ but bearing our Sins so as to take them away before God is Essentially belonging to Christ's Office as Mediator It 's not the Essential part of a Mediator to bear the Punishment of the wronged Party but to reconcile the Parties at variance he may save one Party from utter Ruine by bearing Punishment yet cannot reconcile them without taking away all matter of offence but it is the fault of Sin that is the cause of variance God hates it and the Sinner loves it God is not offended at the Creature because he must be punished but because it 's he who hath broke his Law therefore he punisheth him 8. If the Creature will never be Reconciled to God till it hath some prospect of God's being reconciled first by Christ taking away the fault of Sin before God then Christ bore it away but the Creature will never be reconciled to God without this prospect Ergo for the Ministry of Reconciliation as to its Efficacy is founded upon this 2 Cor. 5. And it 's there described to be God being in Christ first Reconciling the World to himself and how is he said to be so but by making Christ Sin for us who knew no Sin 9. All the Sin-offerings of the Law hold forth Christ's bearing Sin if you consider their Names the proper Sin-offering was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Levit. 4.3 It was called a Sin because made Sin for us Typically as Christ Really by Imputation the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Trespass or Guilt-offering was for Sin that for the whole Congregation was such Lev. 4.15 So the Burnt-offering was designed to the taking away of Sin by bearing it that Called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Peace-offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in order to the making Peace and Reconciliation for the Sinner therefore in the Consecration of all these there was the charging them with Sin by the laying on of the hands of them that brought them to be Offered up for them Levit. 1.3 The Hebrew Doctors say all Oblations of Beasts which particular Persons Offer of Debt or voluntarily they lay hands on them and so it was on the daily Sacrifice as Mr. A. on Numb 28.2 saith signifying that it was constituted instead of the Sinner and the Sacrifice placed in the Sinners Room thus charged with his Sins the Priest was to offer to make Atonement by to Expiate and make Reconciliation in regard of Man's Sin and God's Wrath for the same That these Sacrifices were Types of Christ our Sacrifice in beating Sin appears abundantly Heb. 9.28 Neither do we say that this bearing of Sin by Christ doth free a Person from being formally a Sinner but because we are formally Sinners therefore our Sins are thus born to bring us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 The Physical Substratum of Sin remains and in us yea the Moral macula in pravity and obliquity to be gradually removed in the Application of Christ's Blood by the Spirit of Holiness but yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before God must be taken away which is the fault blamed by the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. O. of Justification p. 287. proves Sin was laid on Christ as to the Guilt which we have shewed and is either the Sin it self or is so conjoined with it that it cannot be separated where there is a demerit there is a fault if Christ had a demerit to Sufferings it was for Sin though ours and subjective in us which his bearing Sin by Imputation always supposeth His Arguments are these 1. If Guilt of Sin was not Imputed to Christ Sin was not Imputed to him in any sence for the Punishment is not Sin 2. There can be no Punishment but with respect of the Guilt of Sin personally Contracted or Imputed Guilt alone gives what 's materially evil and afflictive the formal Nature of Punishment and what is Guilt but Sin manifest by Conviction whereof the Sinner is charged in foro Dei or in foro Conscientiae The first kind Christ took off by bearing it immediately the other is removed by Application in Believing 3. Christ was made a Curse for us Gal. 3.13 14. but the Curse of the Law respects the Guilt of Sin only i. e. a Person manifestly faulty and a Delinquent to the Law 4. The Express Testimonies of Scripture unto this purpose cannot be avoided Isa 53.6 Psal 32.5 c. 5. This was represented in all the Sacrifices of old especially in the Great Aniversary Expiation with the Ordinance of the Scape-Goat 6. Without supposition of this it cannot be understood how Christ should be our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suffer

And is it not strange Gentlemen that after he had said this he should affirm a Separation Antinom And is it not strange that you cannot distinguish between Separations I may separate from a thing in one respect and not in another I may separate from another as to Communion but not as to Relation let it be Son Wife Brother c. and it 's strange you cannot understand forsaking to be but of a Relation Neonom The Lord Jesus could not be abhorred or odious to God for in him God was always well-pleased Isa 42.1 Matth. 17.5 Antinom We say the same Christ's Person in his Eternal Sonship was so All the Indignation that was testified towards him in his Humane Nature in which only he was capable of Suffering in that he became a Curse as well as Sin God saith it Neonom Mr. Calvin How horrid a Sound hath it to the Ear to say that Christ is odious to God and abhorred by the Father Calvin Methinks those new Words applyed to Christ do not sound so well and some Ears are offended at them I think it 's better to use the Scripture-Expressions Christ made Sin and Christ made a Curse for us Let us but have the thing Mr. Neonomian we will part with any Word that 's not Scriptural if you give us another that will express it as well Antinom Doth not this make as horrid a Sound in a Christian Ear that God manifested his wrathful Indignation against sin in the Person of Christ in a most awful and dreadful manner Calvin But that 's his way of expressing it he doth not like yours Antinom Then I will abdicate those Words Odious and Abhorrence and use his Words I be not fond of mine Neonom 5. Christ could not be separated from God or abhorred while his Body lay in the Grave his Soul went into Paradise Antinom No his Hypostatical Union was not dissolved nor God's Fatherly Love removed from his Person but yet at the same time he was under the Suffering of Death which was Penal for sin he finished his Soul-sufferings on the Cross but was under the Separation of Body and Soul which was part of the Threatned Indignation against Sin as also the lying of his Body in the Grave Neonom I will shew you your mistakes You do not distinguish between the Affection of Wrath and Effects of Wrath because God forsook Christ as to the usual Degrees of Comfort he thinks Christ was separated from God Antinom Sure this is a soul Mistake if he should mistake his Logick as to take the Cause to be the Effect and the Effect the Cause But I doubt you mistake your Divinity as to ascribe an affection of Wrath to God But I pray where there 's an Effect of Wrath in the Creature is not Wrath the Cause of it He that lies under the Effects of Wrath is he not under Wrath If Christ suffereth the Effects of Wrath he suffereth Wrath. I know not how any one should suffer Wrath any other way As to my Thoughts about Separation from God they are only your Imposition of Thoughts and Meanings upon me as I have told you Neonom Because he that is formally a Sinner is odious to God therefore he thinks Christ was odious to God who had on him the Punishment of Sin with the Guilt or Obligation to bear Punishment by his own Consent neither of which have any thing of the Loathsomness of Sin Antinom I will not use the Word Odious because you love not the smell of it I say therefore because a formal Sinner or Committer of sin unpardoned is the Object of God's threatned Indignation bearing the Effects of Wrath therefore an imputed Sinner is also the Object of God's threatned Indignation bearing the Effects of Wrath. You will be at the old Socinian Notion still That Christ bore but the Punishment for Sin and Guilt is only Obligation to Punishment which is absolutely false unless you mean reatus culpae for nothing is a Demerit of Punishment but reatus culpae Neonom I know not why you think Christ came not near God from the time of his Death to his Resurrection unless because of your Conceit for the Loathsomness of Sin God could not bear the sight of him Antinom Your frequent Banter and Scoffs at the Scripture-Account of the Nature of Christ's Satisfaction and of Sin I am sure is very odious and a horrid Sound to a Christian Ear. I shall not think such reasoning worthy of any thing but a Note of Contempt Calvin Mr. Neonomian you must know we can't part with this Article of our Faith That Christ was made a Curse for us no more than that That he was made Sin That Christ bore the Curse of the Law and was made a Curse for us is such a Gospel-Truth that we need no other Authority for it than what is contained in the Scripture being so expresly declared which all sound Protestants always understood of bearing the Wrath of God in his Soul and Body especially in his Soul undergoing Poena Damni and Sensus the first whereof I look to be the greatest and Cause of the other and also fully enough express'd by our Lord Jesus Christ upon the Cross Take Mr. Calvin in his Harmony on the Evangelists Altho' there appeared more than Humane Courage in Christ's Outcry yet it 's certain it was uttered from Extremity of Grief Verily this was his chiefest Conflict and more grievous than all his other Torments because that in his Anguishes he was not so refreshed with his Fathers Holy Favour that he did in some respect perceive him alienated from him for neither did he offer his Body only as the Price of our Reconciliation with God but in his Soul he bore the Punishment due to us and they are Men of unsavoury Spirits that slighting this part of Redemption do insist only on the external Punishments of the Flesh for as Christ satisfied for us so it was requisite that he should be set as guilty before God's Tribunal For nothing is more horrible than to perceive God as a Judge whose Wrath exceeds all Deaths Neither doth he complain Feignedly or Theatrically that he was deserted of God according to the insipid Cavils of some For the inward Grief of his Soul from the Depth of Anguish compelled him to break forth into this Outcry He did perfectly fulfill the Law endured most grievous Torments immediately in his Soul Conf. Assemb c. 8. § 4. He bore the Weight of God's Wrath and laid down his Life an Offering for sin Large Catceh p. 249. Quest What Death did Christ suffer when he Sacrificed himself Mr. Perkin's Catech. Answ A Death upon the Cross peculiar to himself alone For besides the Separation of Body and Soul he felt also the Pangs of Hell in that the whole Wrath of God due to the Sin of Man was poured forth upon him The Apostle doth not say that Christ was cursed but a Curse Calv. on Gal. 3.13 which is more for