Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A48858
|
A defence of the report, concerning the present state of the differences in doctrinals, between some dissenting ministers in London, in reply to a book, enbtitled, A faithful rebuke of that report
|
Lobb, Stephen, d. 1699.
|
1698
(1698)
|
Wing L2722; ESTC R215527
|
59,724
|
97
|
Sense would have help'd him to understand that here is not one word in all his Nice and Critical Disquisitions to the purpose and that it was not about the difference between for ours and for us for them and for theirs but that the strest of what she Reporter suggested on this occasion leans on the word Obligation In the first Paper it was that the Lord Christ did Answer for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works and it must be observ'd that by this phrase an Effectual 〈…〉 was laid in against the most Rotten part of the Socinian Heresie against Christ's Satisfaction And the Enquiry if so the purpose should have been what the Nice Difference between answering for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works and Answering for our Violation of the Law of Works To which I answer 3. There is a very great Difference as great as is between a Gospel Truth and a Socinian Errour in an Important Article of the Christian Faith To clear the Truth in this Point I will refer you to the learned Bishop of Worcester who truly delivers the sense of the Socinians thus They assert That God took occasion by the sins of Men to exercise an Act of Dominion upon Christ in his sufferings and that the sufferings of Christ were intended for the taking away the sins of men but they utterly deny that the sufferings of Christ were to be considered as a Punishment for sin or that Christ did suffer in our place and stead nay they contend with great vehemency that it is wholly inconsistent with the Justice of God to make one mans sins the Meritorious Cause of anothers Punishment especially One wholly Innocent and so that the Guilty shall be Freed on the account of his sufferings Thus I have endeavoured to give the true state of the Controversie with all Clearness and Brevity And the substance of it will be reduced to these two Heads Thus this learned Bishop The first Head of the two being mostly to my purpose I 'll only mention it and somewhat said of it It is this Whether the sufferings of Christ in general are to be considered as a Punishment of Sin or as a meer act of Dominion for that it must be one or the other of these two cannot be denied by our Adversaries for the Inflicting those Sufferings upon Christ must either proceed from an Anteceding Meritorious Cause or not If they do they are then Punishments if not they are meer Exercises of Power and Dominion whatever Ends they are Intended for and whatever Recompence be made for them Of Christ Suff. p. 267. Here then lies the Heart of the Controversie between us and them whether our sins be an Impulsive Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings and Christ's sufferings a proper Punishment for our sins If our sins be the Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings it necessarily follows that Christ bore the Punishment of our sins in a proper sense An Impulsive Cause in a remote sense as though our sins were a meer Occasion of Christ's Dying Crellius granted But as the Bishop observes We Understand not an Impulsive Cause in so remote a sense but we contend for a nearer and more proper sense viz. that the Death of Christ was primarily intended for the Expiation of our sins with a respect to God and not to Us and therefore our sins as an Impulsive Cause are to be considered as they are so displeasing to God that it was necessary for the Vindication of God's Honour and the deterring the World from sin that no less a sacrifice of Attonement should be offered than the Blood of the Son of God 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 269. And as they own a sort of no Anteceding Impulsive Cause which is but the meer Occasion of Christ's suffering so they 'l call Christ's sufferings a Punishment but then they take Punishment only in an improper sense Paenam improprie dictam fatamur So Crellius For saith He What Christ suffered hath so near a Cognation and Alliance with true Punishment that the word Punishment and those other phrases used in describing proper Punishments may for the greater Elegancy be taken into our Discourses about Christ's Passion The Agreement there is between Christ's sufferings and a proper Punishment is very considerable First in their matter for both are afflictive then in the Impulsive Procatartic cause which is sin in the sense the Bishop observed and at last in the Effect and End which is to remove guilt and bring men off from their sins tho' in the manner there is some difference But then the great Difference is as to the Formal Reason of Punishment which not being found in Christ's sufferings they can't be properly a Punishment Crel Respons ad Grot. de satisf ad cap. 1. Thus what Approaches soever they seem to make towards the Truth they utterly deny that sin is in a proper sense the Meritorious Cause of Christ's sufferings Or that Christ's sufferings are a proper Punishment There are amongst the Arminians also some who agree too much with the Socinians in denying Christ's sufferings to be properly a Punishment they holding them to be rather Dolorous than Poenal who are justly called Socinianizing-Arminians such as Episcopius Carcellaeus and Limborch who do their utmost to corrupt the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction They own that Christ was Punished Loco nostro in our Place and Stead and yet deny his Sufferings to be properly Poenal allowing 'em to be but Improperly or Analogically a Punishment That the sufferings of Christ as to the Reason of the thing were a Natural Evil endured for Sin as sin was the Occasion or remote Cause and may be aptly enough called Punishment But they would rather call them a Vicarious Punishment as they are Vice Poenae in the Room and Stead of a proper Punishment Gerardus Vossius in a Letter to Grotius is very express that in this point Episcopius differed from him For Tho' He owned that Christ's Sufferings had a respect unto God and not only unto men yet the Grand Question is saith He what respect As for the Opinion commonly Embraced viz. that Christ bore that Punishment which was due to us he could by no means admit because then He thought Christ must have been plung'd into despair and suffer the very Torments of Hell and that Pardon of sin would be made hereby Impossible That his Notion of satisfaction was that as in the Old Testament sins were Pardoned on the Offering of a Sacrifice without any suffering of a Punishment even so in the New Testament on the Intervention of Christ's Sacrifice which abundantly excels them under the Old are all our sins forgiven us That herein lay the Errour of Socinius that He Denied Christ's Sacrifice to be properly Propitiatory Epist. Praest Viror Ep. 278. Thus far Episcopius who in his publick Writing used more Caution yet to his Particular Friend He thus freely opens himself and Limborch thought it meet to acquaint the World with it
Mr Ws doth grant that Christ by his Righteousness did not only purchase a Conditional Grant of those Effects which he had merited by his Righteousness But besides these Effects made ours the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed to true Believers Gospel Truth Stated p. 39. However if we compare this passage with what is more lately and fully explain'd in his Man made Righteous p. 77 c. you will soon unravel the whole Mystery and see that whilst he is labouring to hide himself for a while in a Cloud of Words be means nothing at all by this Grant For he is most explicite in affirming That the Righteousness of Christ as it was the Performance of the Conditions of our Salvation is mediately imputed to the Believer Christs very Performance of the Conditions is saith he Imputed mediately in this manner If one give me my Liberty which he voluntarily purchased for me at a dear rate he mediately gives me what he paid for my Ransom tho' immediately I receive my Liberty and a Right thereto Now what is this more than an imputation of Christs Righteousness in the Effects Because the Effects of Christs death such as a Right to Pardon c. is given to the True Believer therefore it may be said that Christs Righteousness the procuring Cause is imputed unto him As the money which one gives for anothers Liberty may be said to be given to that other to whom Liberty is given which is only in the effects of that Money so Christs Righteousness is imputed in that the effects of it are given unto us that is to say Christs Righteousness is imputed to us mediately It is imputed to us mediante effectu or in its effects If he can make any thing more of it let him Besides so long as he against the Common Sentiment of Protestants denies a Commutation or Change of Persons between Christ and us or that Christ sustained the Person of sinners or as our Surety came under the Bond and Obligations of the violated Law of works to answer those Obligations for us it is impossible there should be on his Principles any other imputation of Christs Righteousness but what is in its effects which Mr. Humphrey clearly understanding does honestly Assert and that he must do the same or relinquish his Principles may be more distinctly proved at any time that he will tho' let him be but sincere and confess it I shall be most willing with my Reverend Brethren to consider how far we are to extend our Communion or Charity towards such wherein he will find me Charitable enough 6. The Breach being on this account begun it is now widened by a Rejecting the Assertion of a Necessity of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and us for the due explaining and defending the Doctrine of Christs satisfaction and our Justification together with a Laying by the Vse of the Phrases of Christs sustaining the Person of Sinners of a Change of Persons between Christ and us of Christs being our Surety to answer for us the Obligations of the Violated Law of Works and the like And made more dangerous since these Phrases have been so very much Ridiculed by this Brother But there being so much wonder made at an insisting on the Vse of these Phrases I will for the sake of those Brethren who either by disuse have forgotten or by reason of a too early and constant Application unto practical Preaching never throughly understood this necessary Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction I will I say show how useful these Phrases are to explain this glorious and blessed Truth There are in the Holy Scriptures several Texts which discover and prove the Doctrine of Christs Satisfaction About the Genuine Sense of these Texts the chief Controversie between the Reformed on the one hand and the Arminian and Socinian on the other doth Lye The Controverted Texts are such as speak of Christs dying for our sins and for us of his being our Surety and a Sacrifice for us and the like that relate to these Matters The different Senses which the Orthdox and their Adversaries have of these Texts I will distinctly Propose 1. When it 's said in Scripture that Christ was wounded and bruised for our Transgressions suffered and dyed for our Sins Socinus and his Followers affirm that the Expression for our sins signifies only a Final Cause as if no more was meant than that Christ dyed for our good The Orthodox expresly Asserts that For our sins in these Texts imports an impulsive meritorious Cause and Grotius proves against Socinus that these words Christ suffered for our sins cannot be understood of a Final but of Meritorious Cause And if our sins be the Meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings it necessarily follows that Christs sufferings were a Proper Punishment for them and must be satisfactory to Gods Justice which Grotius and the Right Reverend Bishop of Worcester have unanswerably Proved 2. When in Scripture it is affirmed that Christ suffered and dyed For us the Socinians who Labour to reduce all to his suffering for our good only are positive that the signification of the Proposition For â—s that Christ dyed nostro bono for our good He suffered for our sins that is say they he suffered for our good He dyed for us that is say they he dyed only for our good On the contrary the Orthodox aver that the Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For when it 's said Christ dyed for us signifies a Commutation or Change of persons between Christ and us which is aptly expressed by that other Phrase in our Place and Stead that is Christ suffered not only for our good but that God might be glorified in our Redemption Christ suffered in our Place and Stead Christ in his sufferings did sustinere vicem seu Persunam nostram He was put into our Place State and Condition that having the Guilt of our sins laid upon him he might according to the Rule of Justice suffer a Proper Punishment for our sins and so make Satisfaction to Gods Justice for us When it 's said Christ came into our Place State and Condition the meaning is he came under the Bonds and Obligations of the violated Law of Works lay under the Guilt and Punishment of sin on our behalfs that we by laying hold on Christ by Faith might be delivered The Phrases then of a Change of Persons between Christ and us of Christs taking on him the Person of Sinners suffering in their Person Rooms and Stead are most apt to convey unto our Vnderstandings the true the Orthodox and Genuine Sense of these Texts Christ dyed for our sins and for us in opposition to the Socinian Interpretation that is to bring all to Christs suffering for our good only which they do that they may the better subvert the Doctrine of a Real Proper and full Satisfaction to Gods Justice 3. The Term Surety when spoken of Christ in Scripture relates to us as we are Sinners endebted to the