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
A48860	A further defence of the report Vindicating it from Mr. Alsops Cavils, and shewing the difference between Mr. W's and my self to be real, and the charge in my appeal to be true.	Lobb, Stephen, d. 1699.	1698 (1698)	Wing L2724; ESTC R218961	51,757	90

were not the meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings That no Sufferings are properly Paenal but what are infliced on the Delinquent himself that when Parents or Princes sin● and their Children or Subjects suffer their Sufferings are but Improperly or Analogically Poenal and that therefore Christ not being the actual Transgressor could not be in a proper Sense punished for our Sins That properly speaking he did not satisfie the violated Law And agreeably adds that the Sufferings were exacted by God not as he was a Rector as such but as a Rector supra Leges and as an offended Lord and Benefactor And that I may be the more clear in this attempt I will show how exact the Agreement between Mr. B. Crellius Episcopius Curcellius and Limborch is and how full a Confutation the Answers of Grotius to Socinus of the Bishop of Worcester unto Crellius and of the Principal of Jesus Oxon unto the Disciples of Episcopius are of the Principles which Mr. Baxter has advanced Subsect I. Of the Meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings 1. That Mr. Baxter denies our sins to be the near impulsive and proper meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings 1. It 's well known to the Learned That if Christs suffering be not ex obligatione Legis and by vertue of the Sanction of the Law sin cannot be the near impulsive or proper meritorious Cause of them For as an universal and perfect Obedience to the Praeceptive part of the Law as it respects the Promissary Part would according to the Rules of distributive Justice have been the meritorious Cause of the Promised reward in like manner Sin the transgression of the Precept as it respects the Paenal Sanction is the meritorious Cause of the threatned Sufferings If then I clear it that Mr. B. is of Opinion That Christs sufferings are not Ex obligatione Legis it must be acknowledged that he denies our sins to be their meritorious Cause which I hope to prove even to Mr. Alsop's Conviction and moreover to evince it that he doth expresly declare that our sins were not the meritorious Cause of Christs sufferings For 2. Mr. B. in his sixth Determination which is in the first Chapter of the third Part of his Methodus after he had set down his Distinctions between the Law of innocent Nature and the Law peculiar to the Mediator And considering the Law in the first Sense which he saith obliged Christ himself as Man and all others even sinners he adds another Distinction between the Obligation of this Law as a Remote and as a near Cause and declares his Judgment thus 1. ' The Law of Nature altho' it did oblige both Christ and us unto Obedience yet it did only oblige us not Christ unto Punishment The Law obligeth not an innocent Person to Punishment it condemns not the Just. 2. ' That the Law of Grace obliged Christ neither to Obedience nor to Punishment 3. ' By the Law peculiar to the Mediator called the Covenant between the Father and the Son Christ was obliged to suffer Punishment for Sinners namely by his Consent and proper Sponsion and the Fathers Will and Commandment From this Law the near obliging Cause of Christs suffering Punishment had its Rise 4. ' By the Law of Nature obliging us sinners unto Punishment Christ was not directly obliged to Punishment However it was the occasion of his Punishment and the Obligation we lay under was ●he Remote Cause of Christs Obligation for if the Law had not condemned us Christ had never undertaken or suffered a vicarious Punishment So 〈◊〉 Mr. B. 3. From what Mr. B. has so freely declared it 's ●ident he is of Opinion That the Obligation Christ 〈◊〉 under to suffer ariseth not from that Law we violated but from the mediatorial Convenant and ●at the Obligation to Punishment which is by ●●rtue of the Sanction of the Law we violated ●nder which we all are by Nature is but an ●ccasion or Remote Cause and therefore our sins ●e not the near impulsive and proper meritorious ●●use of Christs sufferings which is conform to that he has in his other Writings not only in his Posthumous Discourse of Universal Redemption but in the Preface to his Confession of Faith pag. 4. where he saith That as Christ could not take upon himself the same Numerical Guilt which lay on us so neither could he take upon himself Guilt of the same sort as having not the same sort of Foundation or Efficient Ours arising from the Merit of our sins and the Commination of the Law and his being rather occasioned than meritted by our sin and occasioned by the Laws threatning of us both which are as we may call them but ●rocauses as to him c. And in his Catho Theol. Part II. Pag. 78. Christ suffered not by that Obligation which bound us to suffer 4. These Passages I have mentioned do sufficiently clear it That Mr. B. owns not that our sins were the near impulsive or meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings the most he 'll yield being this viz. That our sins were the Occasion or Remote Impulsive Cause or the Pro-cause somewhat in the place of a meritorious Cause which is no more than Socinus Crellius and their Followers do grant as I will immediately show II. The Socinians do grant That our sins are a Remote Impulsive Cause or meer Occasion of Christs sufferings 1. That the Socinians make so large a Concession as this unto us is evident from most of their Writings Crellius against Grotius confesseth it Fatemur Peccata nostra posito Dei de salute nobis danda decreto eatenus etiam fuisse Impulsivam mortis Christi Causam c. Ad partic 2. Cap. 1. But 2. There is so much to this Purpose in the Answer the Learned Bishop of Worcester gives to what Crellius has on this Point that I will say no more of 〈◊〉 in this place but proceed to the Proposal of ●hat the Bishop offereth unto your Consideration III. What Mr. Baxter and the Socinians hold about our sins being only a Remote Impulsive Cause or Occasion of Christs sufferings opposed by the Orthodox particularly by the Bishop of Worcester 1. The Learned Bishop gives the Sense of the Socinians about the Impulsive Cause of Christs sufferings assuring us ' That tho' Crellius Attributes ●he sufferings of Christ meerly to Acts of Dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a Respect that was had to sin antecedently to the Sufferings of Christ and that the Sins of Men were the Impusive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any Lawful Antecedent Cause of the Death of Christ besides the Will ●f God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication ●ith by Lawful cause he meant Meritorious or ●●ch upon supposition of which he ought to Die for elsewhere he makes Christ to die for the Cause or by the occasion of our Sins which is the same that Crellius means by an Impulsive or Procatartick Cause Of

such were some of you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●●t is as may be seen in Poole talia scelera eratis ●●th Wickednesses were some of you and as Ca●arius ut cum Sceleratum dicimus Scelus The like also in Ephesians 5.8 ye were Darkness that is as Zanchy ut Scelus pro scelestissimo and Bishop Reynolds observes on Psalm 110. The Lord to signifie that his People were most Rebellious saith that they were Rebellion it self Ezek. 2.8 and many other instances of this kind might be given which may move some of no jealous Inclinations to suspect that the Objector hath been more conversant with the Poets than with the Prophets and Apostles 2. Well then by comparing Scripture with Scripture the signification of the word Sin is very obvious denoting the greatness of Wickedness we are Sin we are Sin in the Abstract we are Sinners in the highest degree But 3. Doth not this Interpretation give advantage to the Objector who saith you shall see the mystery of his Phraseology it was to mislead you into that Abomination that Christ was sinful that h● was a Sinner for if Christ was Sin in the same Acceptation that we are then he was sinful h● was a Sinner and the greatest Sinner that eve● was in the World To this I answer That whatever is here suggested my Interpretation of the word Sin gives not the least advantage to th● Objector For 1. If the word Sin has a Sense in the Superla●tive Degree in which it is true not only of us bu● of Christ without making Christ inherently sinful or personally guilty all this noise is to no purpose 2. That Christ was Sin in an Acceptation tha● we are Sin without being Inherently Sinsul i● evident as the word Sin imports Guilt I mea● Legal Guilt and a proper Punishment consequen thereupon Sin in Scripture oft imports the sam● with Legal Guilt in the Sense described by the ●arned Bishop of Worcester and it also oft-times ●●gnifies Punishment My Sin and sometimes my ●uilt at other times my Punishment and when ●uilt and Punishment are expressed by the word Sin ●e are not only directed to our Sins as the merito●us Cause but to the dreadful and dismal Effects We are Sin we are upon the account of our Trans●ressions exceeding Guilty and the Punishment they ●serve is exceeding great But 3. If Christ be not Sin in some of the same Ac●ptations in which we are Sin then the Guilt of ●●r Sins was never transferred upon Christ nor the ●unishment thereof inflicted on him which is a ●ry liberal giving up the Controversie to the Soci●ans who deny Christ to be made Sin in any one ●ense in which we are Sin and so will not own ●at our Guilt was laid upon him or a proper Pun●ent inflicted on him 4. If Christ be in no Sense Sin in which we ●e Sin then our Sins were never imputed unto ●hrist nor did he in a proper sense bear our Guilt 〈◊〉 Punishment nor was he nor could he be a Proper ●●crifice for sin To say that Christ was a Sacrifice 〈◊〉 sin in a proper sense and yet not sin in any one ●se in which we are sin is to say he had not the ●uilt nor the Punishment of sin upon him and that ●e was not a proper Sacrifice for sin for it 's essen●al to a proper Sacrifice for sin to have the Guilt ●●d Punishment of sin laid upon it Upon this ac●unt it is that amongst the Hebrews the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for sin the Guilt the Punishment and ●●crifice And amongst the Greeks and Latines the ●ne word signifies a wicked man and an Expiatory ●●crifice Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as Dr. Owen against Biddle cap. 22. observes Homo pia cularis pro Lustratione Expiatione Patriae devotus whence the word is often used as scelus in Latin for a wicked man a man fit to be destroyed and taken away Agreeably hereunto Budaeus renders that place o● the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nos tanquam piacula we as as the accursed thing of the World and Sacrifices for the People it being a may be seen in Poole in loc the Custom of som● Countries in the day of their Calamity to take th● vilest amongst the People and Sacrifice them wh● by the Athenians were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so common hath it been for the Sinner and the Sacrifice to bea● the same Name even amongst the Heathen but i● the Holy Scriptures nothing more evident because the Sin for which the Sacrifice was to be offered was laid upon it in the Old Testament whereby the Laying of our sins on the Lord Jesus which wa● a necessary antecedent to his Death as he was a Sacrifice was prefigured But 5. Mr. A. writes as if he had either never known or had quite forgot what is so very obvious to mos● Divines and therefore what he saith on this occasion is to be the less regarded and to be considered as what can serve no other sort of People tha● the Socinians and their Allies tho' I still charitably hope that he abhors their Tenents even when hi● Writings do in too many instances favour thei● Cause The Fourth Objection That it is a mistake to conclude from Christ● being called Surety that therefore he came unde● the Sanction of the Law of Works And the rather because being stiled the Surety of a better Testament can respect only the Covenant of Grace Reply 1. I do not say that this is an Objection of Mr. Alsop's framing nor will I answer it as such The Episcopianism and Socinianism that is in it is so clear ●n evidence of its being formed by a Well-wisher ●o the Errours of our Adversaries that I 'll not ●asten it on one in whose Writings I have not met ●ith it But that 't is of the same nature with ●hat Mr. W. hath advanced is to me most certain 2. Whatever this Objector hath with a boldness ●ommon amongst our Adversaries asserted I must ●ave leave to suggest that by this way of arguing ●●d by these Assertions he hath left out Orthodox Writers and is gone over to the Tents of Limborch ●●rcellaeus Schlictingtons and Crellius 3. That herein the Objector has forsaken the Or●odox I will evince by setting down the Senti●ents of some of the most Eminent amongst them ●nd that I may be the more convincing in what I 〈◊〉 I must observe that the hinge of this Contro●ersie turns on a sound determination of this Que●●on viz. Whether Christs Suretiship belongs to his Priestly ●ffice or not For if it belongs unto the Priestly Of●●e 't will unavoidably follow that as our Surety ●e Lord Jesus offered up himself a Sacrifice to God 〈◊〉 the Expiation of the Guilt of our sins that to ●is end he took on him our Guilt and bore the ●unishment due to us which he could not do but by ●●ming under the Sanction of the violated Law The ●●nnection