Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	punishment_n	sin_n	sin_v	1,923	5	9.5821	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A55108	A plea for the late accurate and excellent Mr. Baxter and those that speak of the sufferings of Christ as he does. In answer to Mr. Lobb's insinuated charge of Socinianism against 'em, in his late appeal to the Bishop of Worcester, and Dr. Edwards. With a preface directed to persons of all persuasions, to call 'em from frivolous and over-eager contentions about words, on all sides.	Lobb, Stephen, d. 1699.; Baxter, Richard, 1615-1691.	1699 (1699)	Wing P2521; ESTC R217330	67,965	145

the World But whether their leisure from greater Affairs will permit 'em or indeed whether they shall account it worth their leisure to interpose in this Matter or not the Nature of the Charge is such that how groundlesly soever it be advanc'd it is not fit to be silent under it That which is apprehended more especially to require that this invidious Reflection be taken notice of is That this way the Reputation of that most excellent Person is undermin'd and his most valuable Writings as well as the Ministry of those that in this Matter are of his Judgment are so far as in this Accuser lies blasted and rendred odious and useless And such as either have wanted opportunity to look into the Socinian Writings or have not Judgment sufficient to distinguish betwixt Appearances and Realities may be so far impos'd upon by the Confidence of this Accuser as to believe the Charge advanc'd against us For their sakes therefore and our own to prevent their Guilt as well as to preserve our own Reputation and Usefulness and if possible also to undeceive this Accuser and his Brethren we think it fit and necessary that it be made appear There is no sufficient ground whereupon to Censure Mr. Baxter or those whom he calls his Followers as Socinians in that Great and Important Article of Christ's Satisfaction For the clearing whereof we shall with reference to the suspected Passages First manifest their Agreeableness to Truth And then shew the no-advantage hereby given to the Socinian Cause Now the Passages this Accuser and his Brethren are so much afraid of and griev'd at as he pretends we shall set together that we may see what they will in the whole amount to and they are these 1. Christi perpessiones quoad rationem reifuere malum naturale perpessum ex occasione causalitate remota peccatorum generis humani He should have added proxime ex sponsionis consensus proprii obligatione Bax. Method Theol. Pars III. Cap. 1. Determ 5. p. 38. This will be the better understood if it be observ'd that the Question he had before him was Whether the Suffering of Christ was properly and formally a Punishment For the Determination whereof he does define Punishment properly so call'd a Natural Evil that is an Evil of Suffering inflicted for or on account of a Moral Evil i. e. the Evil of Sin And besides other Distinctions which he had premis'd he distinguishes betwixt the Suffering of the Delinquent himself for his own Sin in which case his Sin is directly immediately and per se the cause of his Suffering and this he tells us is Punishment in the Primary and most Famous Sense of it and the Suffering of another by reason of the Delinquent's fault in which case though there be a Suffering for Sin yet that Sin is more indirectly mediately and per accidens the cause of the Suffering and therefore though it be Punishment yet 't is only in a Secondary and Analogical Sense to be so call'd And this Secondary sort of Punishment is two-fold 't is either Natural or Voluntary the Natural Punishment for another's Sin he calls that which follows upon the nearness of Relation in Nature betwixt the Sufferer and the Sinner as when Children suffer for their Parent 's Sins the Voluntary is when there is a free consent and undertaking to suffer on the behalf and in the stead of the Sinner though there was no previous Relation to the Sinner from whence he should naturally be oblig'd to suffer for him Now he does and surely with very just Reason conclude the Sufferings of Christ to be of this last kind for that they were not the Sufferings of the Delinquent himself and so not Punishment in the Primary and most Famous Sense of the Word they cou'd therefore only be Punishment in a Secondary and less proper Sense And since even in his Assuming our Nature Christ was conceiv'd miraculously by the Power of the Holy Ghost and did not descend from Adam by ordinary Generation therefore in that Secondary Sense his Punishment could not be the natural Effect of Adam's Sin It remains then that Christ only was punish'd as a Voluntary Undertaker and the Analogical Punishment He underwent was inflicted on him as a Sponsor in our stead our Sins were the ground and reason of his Sufferings yea the meritorious Cause but not so nearly and immediately as they wou'd have been of our own Sufferings for that his Sponsion and Consent did necessarily intervene so that they may not unaptly be call'd Punishments though not so fully and properly as the Sufferings of the Sinners themselves might have been so call'd To this Sense does that excellent Person speak and this is little else than a Translation of his Latine Words as will appear to any one that is capable and willing to consult the place referr'd to And this being the Substance of what he afterwards quotes from him I shall need to be at no farther trouble than only to recite the Words 2. And thus he goes on Peccata nostra fuere causa remota passionis Christi And again Culpa nostra non erat causa proxima ejus passionis sed tantum remota occasio Once more At sensu improprio i. e. not in that most proper and primary Sense in which they are imputed to the Sinner himself as may be collected from the immediately fore-going Words per meram Connotationem dici potest peccata nostro Christo imputata fuisse viz. quoad reatum paenae culpae ut ad paenam at non in se idque tantum remote non quasi peccata nostra paenas Christi merita essent sed quia nisi nobis paenas merita essent ille paenas non dedisset Et quia paena nulla est formaliter nisi propter peccatum ideo quatenus Christi passiones fuere paenae Analogice fic dictae peccatum non suum sed nostrum non causam meritoriam sed quasi procausam meritoriam occasionem connotabant Ibid. Determ 7. p. 40 41. 3. He quotes him again in English thus Man's Sin was an occasion of Christ's Sufferings as being Loco causae meritoriae for properly there was no meritorious Cause The Law 's Curse or Obligation was another occasion as being Miseriae causa removenda Christ's voluntary Sponsion or Consent was the moral obliging Cause Universal Redempt p. 7. Again We must distinguish betwixt Suffering Ex obligatione legis merito peccati as we should have done if we had suffered our selves and Suffering ex obligatione solius sponsionis propriae as Christ did without any Merit or Legal Obligation his own Sponsion being instead of both and our Sin and Obligation being but the occasion or Loco causae meritoriae Ibid. p. 25. Again The Law as binding us was the great occasion of Christ's Death and Loco causae obligatoriae but not the obligatory Cause it self Christ's own Sponsion and his Father's Will were the only proper

yet again Crimes unpunish'd are too much countenanc'd at least if they be not thereby authoriz'd We see the meer delay of Punishment is very frequently abus'd to this purpose Eccles 8. 11. Because Sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in 'em to do evil And if meer Forbearance have this effect what may we suppose wou'd have been the consequence of absolute Forgiveness So that we conclude GOD cou'd not consistently with either his own Honour or our Safety Pardon Sin without a Satisfaction it was necessary that Sufferings shou'd be insisted on and such Sufferings as shou'd be Equivalent to what was Threatned Sufferings that were adapted to answer the ends of the Law and Government as well or better than the Sufferings of Sinners themselves Hereupon IV. In order to our Remission the Sufferings of Christ were insisted on by the Father and agreed to by the Son by his Sufferings it was effected brought to pass that Sin might be remitted without either reflecting any Dishonour upon GOD or in the least encouraging any to Sin His Sufferings did fully answer all the Exigencies of our Case and therefore this Constitution is mention'd by the Apostle as a very condecent and becoming one Heb. 2. 10. Supposing so Gracious an Intendment towards us That GOD design'd to put us into the Hand of Christ that He might bring us to Glory it was what well became God to make the Captain of our Salvation perfect through Sufferings But what Condecency or Becomingness wou'd there have been in it if Sin might have been pardon'd and the Sinner sav'd as well without it Nay the Death of Christ was therefore insisted on that thereby GOD's Justice might be demonstrated Rom. 3. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is doubled to give it the greater Emphasis GOD would have been Just and sufficiently have demonstrated himself to be so if He had infficted upon us the Vengeance that was threatned but supposing that He Pardon us that He Justifie Sinners though Penitent Believers his Justice might well be call'd in Question unless Satisfaction be first made for our Sins therefore does the Apostle so industriously urge and inculcate this over and over as what he would not by any means have overlook'd Christ therefore was a Propitiatory-Sacrifice that GOD's Justice might be demonstrated that it might clearly be demonstrated to the World and the next Words rise yet higher 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that He might be and not only that He might appear to be the Just as if upon the supposal of his Justifying Sinners He cou'd not otherwise be Just So that though meer Remission wou'd have well consisted with Mercy alone or the Damnation of all Apostate Sinners with Justice alone yet if GOD wou'd be merciful to Sinners He must also be Just and that He cou'd not be unless He so far and in such a way punish Sin as will suffice to keep up his own Honour and Authority and effectually to discourage Sin And hence it was that Christ became the Propitiation for our Sins Wherefore V. And in the last place The Sufferings of Christ being thus insisted on in order to his being a Successful Mediator with GOD for Sinners He is therefore said to have died for us and for our Sins Our Sins render'd Suffering necessary GOD thereupon insists on Suffering without shedding of Blood He will allow no Remission Hereupon Christ consents to die and accordingly dies a Sacrifice for us bears our sins carries our griefs c. Sect. 5. And this is that relation betwixt our Sins and the Sufferings of Christ which is intended to be express'd by Grotius and others when they say Our Sins were the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings i. e. they deserv'd Death and so bound us over to it as that we cou'd not be exempted from it without a Satisfaction without some-what Equivalent to our dying in which Exigency Christ dies for us I cannot find that they or which with every Christian surely shou'd yet be of greater weight that the Scriptures themselves do mean any thing more Thus Grotius Causa altera quae Deum movit sunt peccata nostra paenam commerentia He does not mean that they deserv'd Christ shou'd be punished but they so bound us over to Punishment that unless Christ die for 'em we cou'd not Salva Divinae Justitiae demonstratione a paena mortis aeternae liberari as he had a few Lines before expressed himself And therefore having mention'd that Text a few Pages forward Gal. 2. 21. If righteousness be by the law then Christ died 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a cause he adds Locus ipse Pauli de quo agimus aliam quam antecedentem causam intelligi non patitur And a little further adds Causam propriam cur se tradiderit Christus mortuusque sit hanc esse quod nos per legem justi non essemus sed rei paenae nostra ergo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causa est antecedens mortis Christi To which he adds p. 36. Non potest alicujus actionis causa impellens esse Meritoria nisi finis sit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And cap. 5. p. 113 114. Merebantur peccata nostra ut paena exigeretur quod vero paena in Christum collata fuerit hoc ita ad Dei Christi voluntatem referimus ut ea quoque voluntas causas suas habeat non in Merito Christi qui peccatum cum non nosset a Deo peccatum factus est sed in summa Christi aptitudine ad statuendum insigne exemplum c. So that whoever allows that our Sins deserv'd Punishment and so bound us over to Eternal Death as that we cou'd not be exempted from it with safety to the Divine Justice unless Satisfaction be made that Christ died for this end by satisfying Divine Justice to procure our Remission and that his Death therefore was antecedently thus caused by our Sin and was inflicted for an example to deterr us from Sin I say whoever agrees to this so far as I can find admits of all that Grotius ever design'd when he calls our Sins the meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings And so also the Bishop of Worcester Our Sins as an Impulsive Cause are to be consider'd as they are so displeasing to GOD that it was necessary for the Vindication of his Honour and the deterring the World from Sin that no less a Sacrifice of Atonement shou'd be offer'd than the Blood of the Son of GOD. Sect. 6. And to all this we do readily agree yea how fully has Mr. Baxter spoken to this Sense particularly in his Reasons of the Christian Religion Part I. Cap. 15. Sect. 9. P. 161 162 163. So also Part II. c. 4. § 6. P. 232. and c. 5. § 10. P. 253 254. The Passages are too large to Transcribe But he has there very plainly intimated That GOD neither has nor cou'd Pardon Sinners

without such a Sacrifice or substitute-means as might preserve the Honour of his Law and Government and the future Innoceney of his Subjects as well as their Punishment in the full Sense of the Law wou'd have done Sect. 7. Now when the whole Matter or Thing is agreed to all that the Orthodox intend by that Phrase 't is a very insipid thing for any one vehemently to contend what Word or Name to call it by What if one call our Sins the Meritorious Cause another the Promeritorious Cause another the Occasion of Christ's Sufferings whilst they are all agreed as to the Reference they had to 'em But if any one by a Meritorious Cause intend more than what is abovesaid or by an Occasion intend less it may with just Reason be concluded they are mistaken with the Antinomians in the one or with the Socinians in the other Extream Sect. 8. We blame no one therefore meerly for calling our Sins the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings nay Mr. Baxter himself sometimes calls 'em so the Meritorious or Pro-meritorious Cause Confession of Faith p. 153. the Remote or assum'd Cause Life of Faith p. 311. and p. 321. he allows that our sins lay on Christ as the assum'd Meritorious cause of his Sufferings So in his Methodus Theologiae Ad peccatum Relationem habent speaking of the Sufferings of Christ ut ad occasionem ut ad causam meritoriam remotam si non proximam P. III. c. 1. Determ 5. p. 38. And in that other Book to which our Accuser refers us he thus expresses his Sense at his very entring upon this Point When He Christ is said to die for our Sins it may be understood for our Sins as the Pro-meritorious procuring Cause of his Suffering through his own Undertaking to bear what they deserv'd Or if any think it fitter to call 'em the Occasion than the Meritorious Cause they may Universal Redempt p. 5. And the very last Words that I have observ'd him to use of this Matter in that last-mention'd Tract are these The strictest Sense in which He Christ is said to die for Men is to die in their stead or to die for their Sins as the Procuring Cause on his own Undertaking yield this once and we shall much easiler agree c. Ibid. p. 91. Which Two Passages do so inclose and explicate all the rest that for a Person to represent any of the intermediate Passages to adiffering and disadvantageous Sense is what deserves a Censure so severe as we did not think fit to express otherwise than by a significant Silence Sect. 9. But though we allow others their Liberty yet accurately speaking it must be said That all that Reference that our Sins had to the Sufferings of Christ does not amount to a Proper Meritorious Cause Nor did Grotius ever think it did whatever our Accuser may imagine For though he does affirm as is intimated Appeal p. 6. that Praeter Dei Christi voluntatem datur Causa Antecedens Legitima mortis Christi yet he distinguishes once and again betwixt Punishment taken Personally and taken Impersonally By Punishment taken Personally he intends the Sufferings of Christ consider'd as his by Punishment taken Impersonally he means the Sufferings of Christ consider'd only as Sufferings And he expresly tells us That our Sins were only the Meritorious Cause of the Sufferings of Christ in this latter Sense For thus he speaks Illud quoque reprehensione indiget quod dicit Socinus Praeter Dei ipsius Christi voluntatem non posse ullam legitimam Causam reddi mortis Christi nisi dicamus Christum meritum fuisse ut moreretur Nam inest quidem in antecedente Causa meritum ut supra diximus sed Impersonaliter merebantur enim peccata nostra ut paena exigeretur c. Cap. 5. p. 113. Our Sins only did deserve Sufferings and those of such a value and cou'd not be remitted unless such a Compensation was made to Divine Justice for 'em but they never did deserve that Christ should die they made it necessary supposing we be Redeem'd that it be by such a Price but they did not deserve that we shou'd be Redeem'd with his Precious Blood All that Grotius asserts is That Death was deserv'd he no where says that Christ's Death was so § 10. And this is the true Reason why we are not fond of the Phrase a Meritorious Cause because it wou'd intimate Christ's Sufferings were deserv'd Now if they were deserv'd it must either be allow'd that they were the very thing that the Law threatned or we by our Sins deserv'd God shou'd Save and Ransom us by such Sufferings If either of these be true our Sins may then be said to be the Meritorious the proper meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings as our Accuser wou'd have 'em but cannot be strictly and truly so otherwise than upon the one or the other of these Principles In that they deserv'd such Sufferings for weight and cou'd not be remitted without such Sufferings and Christ hereupon consented to suffer for 'em they may be call'd the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings or much more fitly the ground the reason the assum'd cause the pro-meritorious or quasi-meritorious Cause of his Sufferings But the real proper meritorious Cause of 'em they cou'd not be unless they in a strict and proper Sense deserv'd that Christ shou'd die Now the Death of Christ is considerable under a two-fold Notion either as a Curse or Blessing As inflicted upon Him 't was a most dreadful Curse As it was our Ransom the Price of our Redemption it was and is a most invaluable Blessing If our Sins therefore deserv'd the Death of Christ it must be either in the one or the other of these Respects But no one surely will dare to say That our Sins deserv'd such a Ransom that GOD in giving his Son to be the Saviour of the World gave us no more than we deserv'd this were egregious Blasphemy against the brightest and most amazing Instance of Love with which God ever bless'd the World § 11. It remains then that supposing our Sins the Proper Meritorious Cause of Christ's death they did deserve it as a Curse to be inflicted upon Him tho' not as a Blessing influential upon us And 't is not conceivable how our Sins cou'd so deserve the death of Christ unless this be suppos'd to be the very thing threatned in the Law if thou sinnest Christ shall die And this our Accuser sometimes seems to intend what else can he possibly mean when he tells us Appeal p. 25. If Christ's Obligation to suffer did not result from this Law i. e. the Law which we had violated our Sins were not the Impulsive Cause of his Sufferings Or if it did not immediately our Sins were but the Remote Cause or Occasion not a meer Impulsive or Proper Meritorious Cause of ' em And p. 50. If Christs Sufferings be not ex obligatione Legis we suppose he means the

same Law as before our Sins cannot be their Meritorious Cause And p. 41. Whence its impossible i. e. if Christ's Sufferings arise not from the violated Law but from the Mediatorial Law it s impossible Sin shou'd be their Meritorious Cause So that his Sense shou'd be That Christ's Sufferings were not could not be 't were impossible they shou'd be from our Sins as the Proper Meritorious Cause unless they did result and immediately result from the violated Law And this is what we also say and therefore while he pleads for our Sins being so properly so immediately the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings he must needs mean that they did result immediately result from the Law when violated i. e. so soon as ever the Law was violated so soon as we had sinn'd the Law immediately lays hold on Christ binds Him over to Death and that it cou'd not do unless he was threatned by it Here therefore I wou'd have manifested that the Death of Christ was not threatned by that Law but that I have already largely done it both in the first and third Chapters of this Discourse And our Accuser himself has render'd it the less needful by giving it as his true Sense That when the Law was at first given to Adam Christ was not in the Obligation it did not run Thou or thy Surety for thee p. 5. of this very Appeal We shall therefore instead of perusing the Matter further allow him leisure to bethink himself how these things will be made to consist together That Christ's Obligation to suffer did immediately result from the Law and that yet the Law did not include a Surety Humanity it self and much more Christianity obliging us to shew some pity and not to press too hard a Person that labours under the hardships of Self-contradiction § 12. To sum up this Head then Orthodoxness does not consist in Words and Phrases 't would be egregious weakness to imagine That the Controversies betwixt us and the Socinians are only whether this or the other Word or Form of Speaking be most apt and expressive of that Truth about which there is no difference That which the Bishop of Worcester has observ'd with a more particular respect to a Change of Persons will admit a much more extensive Application It is not says he the use of the Words but the Sense of 'em is to be enquir'd into See his Lordship's Letter to Mr. W. inserted in the Answer to the Report p. 57. 'T is not the bare Word Trinity that divides betwixt them and us in that point or the term Person or Satisfaction or meritorious Cause c. But 't is the Sense design'd to be express'd by those Terms in which they will not agree with us wou'd they allow the Truth we plead for that is wont to be express'd by those Words they wou'd no longer be Socinians nor wou'd any wise Man perpetuate the Contention with 'em tho' they shou'd yet be unsatisfy'd as to the foremention'd Phrases Our Accuser therefore does not to use that Right Reverend Persons Words again discover his profound Knowledge in these Matters if he think as he says Ap. p. 39. That the Heart of the Controversie lies in Asserting or Denying our Sins to be the Properly Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings And if He know otherwise and to design to impose upon those that do not where is his Ingenuity 'T is so far from being true that the Heart of the Controversie lies here that so far as I have yet observ'd this very Man is the first that ever asserted Our Sins were the Properly meritorious Cause c. Grotius Vossius and the Bishop of Worcester do indeed speak of 'em as the Meritorious Cause but how they explain themselves we have before manifested as to two of ' em Nor does Vossius intend any thing more than only that they are truly Meritorious of Sufferings that they cou'd not be remitted without 'em and that in this Exigency Christ consents to suffer for us whereupon he calls 'em the Meritorious Cause of his Sufferings though he as Grotius means it only of the Sufferings he underwent not of those Sufferings as undergone by Him To this purpose we find him explaining himself Punitio omnis qua talis sive Impersonaliter spectata causam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habet Justitiam Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Procatarctica vero causa sunt peccata itidem Impersonaliter in genere spectata sine determinatione c. Punitio vero quae pro alio est plane misericordiae Divinae opus est procatarctica vero causa sunt peccata nostra Satisfactionem Exigentia Vossi Responsum ad Judicium Ravensperg Chap. 12. So that though they call 'em the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings yet they plainly manifest that they intend only they were meritorious of the Sufferings He underwent abstractly consider'd and therefore may improperly be said to be meritorious of his Sufferings but I no where find 'em asserting our sins to be the properly meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings much less fixing that as the Point in Controversie betwixt the Orthodox and the Socinians whether they be to be so call'd or not Nay 't is not only not needful to use the Phrase our Accuser wou'd impose upon us but unless carefully explain'd 't is very unsafe for that if the Words be taken as they sound they wou'd import that in a strict and proper sense Our sins deserv'd that Christ shou'd die an Assertion that in a sense very obvious does amount to blasphemy and without a manifest force put upon the Words cannot possibly be a Truth CHAP. V. That though Christ's Sufferings may not unaptly be call'd a Punishment yet not in the full and proper Sense in which the Sufferings of the Sinner himself might have been so calld § 1. IN this Point also our Accuser is as Clamourous as in the former and what has been said in the fore-going Chapter will furnish out a just Answer to all his Cavils upon this Head He represents us as if we did allow the Sufferings of Christ to be the Punishment of Sin only so far and in the same Sense as Crellius does Appeal p. 27. but deny'd 'em to be a Proper Punishment and that therefore we are against the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction Ap. p. 4. 10. And lest this shou'd not be enough to leave us under the Reproach of Socinianism he represents this as the very parting Point betwixt the Orthodox and the Socinians the Heart of the Controversie according to him lies in the Asserting or Denying Christ's Sufferings to be properly Penal p. 39. and if he be not mistaken Grotius Vossius and the B. of Worcester are of the same mind § 2. But after all what if it should appear That the Phrase is Ambiguous that in one Sense and which is plainly the Sense of that very Judicious and Learned Bishop and others that use the Phrase it is true That the Sufferings of