Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	sin_n	suffer_v	suffering_n	2,120	5	9.4937	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37649	A vindication, or, Further confirmation of some other Scriptures, produced to prove the divinity of Jesus Christ, distorted and miserably wrested and abused by Mr. John Knowles together with a probation or demonstration of the destructiveness and damnableness of the contrary doctrine maintained by the aforesaid Mr. Knowles : also the doctrine of Christs satisfaction and of reconciliation on Gods part to the creature, cleared up form Scripture, which of late hath been much impugned : and a discourse concerning the springing and spreading of error, and of the means of cure, and of the preservatives and against it / by Samuel Eaton, teacher of the church of Jesus Christ, commonly stiled the church at Duckenfield.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.	1651 (1651)	Wing E126; ESTC R30965	214,536	435

is said but very improperly to be eternal 2. The soul of Christ may be said to be a part of the sacrifice that Christ offered up to God by or through the eternal Spirit for though he suffered in the flesh and shed his bloud according to the flesh yet he suffered in the soul bore the wrath of God in the soul and the curse of sin lay upon the soul as well as upon the body therefore the soul as well as the body was in a sense offered up to God and therefore both of them are distinct from the eternal spirit that is here spoken of by which it is said he offered up himself that which was offered and that by which it was offered are different things from one another 3. When Christ speaks of his soul he calls it Spirit without adding the Epithite of Eternal to it Luke 2● 46. 4. The souls of men may be as properly and truly called eternal Spirits as the soul of Christ be called an eternal Spirit being of the same nature both the one and the other But where is such an Adjective added to them in Scripture as Eternal Nor can the Spirit of God be meant by this eternal spirit for Christ in reference to the eternal spirit is made the Priest and the Efficient that offered up to God that which was offered up viz. the whole Humane Nature of Christ consisting of soul and body though Scripture speak most of the body in which he dyed and shed his bloud For this Pronoun who points at somthing in Christ besides soul and body which was offered to God which did slay the sacrifice and offer it up and this can be nothing but the eternal spirit in Christ the Deity of Christ by which spirit he went and preached to the spirits in prison in the days of Noah before he had either soul or body and by which spirit he searcheth the heart which the soul of Christ cannot do and the spirit of God it was not because Christ is spoken of in those places and not the holy Ghost Nor can it be said that he offered up himself by another spirit that was not his but by his own spirit as it is said that he entred into heaven not by other bloud which was not his but by his own bloud Heb. 9. 12. Besides this offering up of himself through the eternal spirit is that that is mentioned to put the value upon the offering up of himself to God above all the legal Sacrifices for otherwise the bloud of a man is no more to God than the bloud of a beast but the person in reference to this eternal spirit is more excellent and glorious than all other creatures either men or beasts in which regard his flesh is called a greater and more perfect Tabernacle because this eternal spirit dwelt in it and filled it with glory By the bloud of this person he entred in the holy place having obtained eternal redemption for us And this is the formal reason and cause whence it came to pass that the sufferings of Christ which both in soul and body were finite and received an end for he suffered once and doth not alwaies suffer yet are able to expiate sins which carry infinite guilt in them being against an infinite God and are able to free millions of persons from sufferings which are as it were eternal and infinite because they would not have any end if Christ by suffering had not discharged from them for otherwise it would be utterly impossible that by one sacrifice or offering he should for ever perfect them that are sanctified but it would have been as when the high Priest offered up daily the same sacrifices because sin could not be taken away by one sacrifice but it is this eternal spirit that doth put the worth and value and merit into this one sacrifice therefore it is said that every Priest standeth daily ministring and offering up the same sacrifices which can never take away sin But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever sate down on the right hand of God expecting from henceforth till his enemies be made his foot-stool Heb. 10. 11 12 13. As one that hath done a work that hath great merit desert and worth in it expects a reward looks that things should be so and so done to him so Christ after he had offered one sacrifice sate down expecting the enemies to be subdued at his feet which had the offering been of himself a meer man he could not have done for what is man that he should deserve any thing of God Now because the word merit doth relish ill in reference to Christ himself with many and because all such who are against satisfaction by Christ or at least against full satisfaction are much more against merit because there is no such word found in Scripture therefore I shall clear up the Doctrine of Christs merit from the Scripture 1. Scripture testifies that Christ hath made a purchase Acts 20. 28. Feed the flock of God which he hath purchased with his own bloud this is spoken of Christ who is called God and he is said to purchase the Church with his bloud The Church is called a purchased possession Ephes 1. 14. The Jews were called a people peculiar by purchase so in the Original 1 Pet. 2. 9. Salvation is said to be obtained by purchase through our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thes 5. 9. so it is in the Greek Now this purchase is not an acquisition of grace as some may conceive who may give this sense of it Christ hath gained the Church and gained or obtained salvation but through grace he obtained and gained which in an analogical sense may be called a purchase but this purchase is an acquisition of work as the Greek word signifies that is used by the holy Ghost which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to acquire and get by work which is used in 1 Tim. 3. 13. They that have used the Office of a Deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree Now he that purchaseth any thing deserves the thing that he purchaseth but Christ hath purchased the Church hath purchased salvation hath performed a work that deserves the having of the Church and the having of salvation for the Church so that if words might not be formally stood upon too much it is manifest that we have the thing in equivalent expressions 2. Merit and Desert properly have respect to some work which is not due neither could be required from such a person in which sense Christ may be said to merit when yet the persons on whose behalf Christ hath done such a work could not have been said to have merited if they in their own persons had done it the reason is because if men having sinned against God had been able to satisfie the Law to the utmost in reference to their sin they had committed against it and had

speaks a truth concerning which there is no controversie betwixt him and me He tells me of a righteousnesse of God by the Faith of Jesus Christ and of Gods being the principall Author of this righteousnesse which I grant though not in his sense for he means it of the Father alone but I understand it of Father Son and Spirit this God is the efficient à quo the efficient from whom righteousnesse is for it is he that doth account persons that believe righteous and doth acquit them from sin for the sake of Christ Rom. 8. 33. 34. Ephes 4. 32. But what is this to the purpose is this any Answer to my Argument or to the Scripture I produced I spake of a righteousnesse imputed to believers which is the materiall cause of a believers justification or of his righteousnesse in the sight of God and the imputation of this righteousnesse is the formall cause of Justification and this righteousnesse that is imputed is called the righteousnesse of God Philip. 3. 9. but he tells me of a righteousnesse of God which is from God as the Author or principall Efficient which is only true in this sense as God is he that appointed decreed and instituted the righteousnesse of Christ for the Justification of Beleevers and doth also pronounce them just upon that account But the Apostle Philip. 3. 9. doth not call the righteousnesse of Christ the righteousnesse of God in that sense the words are these That I may be found in him not having on mine own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through Faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through Faith The Apostle in this place speaks of a righteousnesse which is by the Faith of Christ materially as it is opposite to that righteousnesse which he calls his own righteousnesse and the one viz. his own righteousnesse he calls the righteousnesse which is ex Lege of the Law now this must be understood materially not efficiently God did account persons just while the Covenant of works was afoot in reference to righteousnesse which materially did consist in our obedience of the Law the obedience of the Law was the matter of it therefore it is called the righteousnesse which is of the Law The other viz. that righteousnesse which is through the Faith of Christ that is which is conveyed to us through Faith viz. Christ he calls the righteousnesse which is of God not efficiently but materially for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex Deo not à Deo of God not from God God now accounts persons just this Covenant of Grace being on foot in reference to righteousnesse not ours of the Law but that of God viz. that of the person who is God the active and passive obedience of Christ who is God which Faith in Christ possesseth us of and makes ours instead of that which was ours viz. that of the Law for the Apostle speaks of righteousnesse which he would not be found in and of righteousnesse which he would be found in the former is Lis own of the Law the latter is of God by Faith that is of Christ who is God through faith in Christ The Apostle speaks not here of an Act of Grace in God that imputes the righteousnesse of an other unto Beleevers as theirs and so accepts of it but he speaks of that which is imputed and is become a covering in which he would be found and this he calls the righteousnesse not of the Law but of God viz. the obedience of that person who is God-man viz. Christ Suitable to this is that which we read in 2 Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him Here Christ is spoken of as a sinner but it is in the abstract to shew what a great sinner he was and the causes hereof are mentioned 1. God himself viz. the Father Son and Holy Ghost this God made Christ considered as Mediator and surety of the Elect a sinner that is he accounted him so here is the Efficient à quo from whom this was this was God 2. Here is the materiall cause which is our sins put on him and made his for he had none of his own it was for us 3. Here is also the formall cause which is in the imputation of our sins to him it was for us that he was made that is by laying of our iniquities upon him instead of us Isay 53. 6. 4. Here is the finall cause that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him in which there is 1. The efficient cause that we might be made that is by God accounted reckoned by God 2. There is the materiall cause which is the righteousnesse of God viz. of Christ who is called in this place God which is put on us for we have no righteousnesse of our own as Christ had no sinnes of his own 3. There is the formall cause which is Imputation we are made that is by this righteousness of God put on us therefore it is said through him that is through the Imputation of this righteousnesse of his which is called the righteousnesse of God or els through him may be through faith in him He also makes Christ from this text of Rom. 3. 22. to be but an instrumentall Agent in this righteousnesse of a believer I suppose he draws it from these words by the faith of Jesus Christ for he will have this particle by to refer to the instrumentalnesse of the thing to which it doth belong And if it were granted him in this it would but make faith instrumentall and not Christ for it refers to faith and not to Christ It is not said By Iesus Christ but by the faith of Iesus Christ and Christ is mentioned as the object of this faith which the Apostle speaks of as the instrument There is the righteousnesse of Christ which is called the righteousnesse of God which God looks upon and hath respect to and for the sake of which God accounts persons just and righteous and this righteousnesse is therefore reputed the meritorious cause of our justification and faith layes hold of this and is the instrument to convey it to us and to make it ours So that this text serves not his purpose nor doth it at all help him in that assertion of his viz. of Christs instrumentalnesse in agencie in reference to this righteousnesse In the meane time he hath wholly passed over in silence the text that I alledged to prove my Argument by without speaking one word in answer according to the manner in which he hath dealt with me formerly But he undertakes to shew what that is in Christ which is imputed to us for righteousnesse It is saith he his obedience which was both active and passive The opinion now adayes saith he is that the active obedience of Christ whereby he did perfectly fulfill the Law and his passive obedience whereby he did perfectly

say God loved such a creature and yet is angry with such a creature then to say a father loves such a child and yet is angry with such a child because he hath offended him especially when God is wise enough and knows how to declare his goodnesse and his righteousnesse together and to prosecute his decree of grace in bringing such persons to glory and to prosecute their sin with wrath with a curse and with death at the same time without thwarting with himself nor are love and anger opposite to one another considered in a divers respect a father loves his child as his child yet is angry with him as wanton as froward as disobedient and God loves the elect as elect as such whom he freely chose and set his heart upon and yet is angry with them as breaking his Law and doing things derogatory to his glory Obj. 3. It is asserted that redemption is taken in Scripture many times in a metaphoricall sense when only power is put forth to deliver persons from enemies and an evil state no price paid at all so in the deliverance from Egypt there was power exercised against Pharaoh and his Realm by which Israel was fetched out from bondage but no price paid to any yet it is called redemption in many places and Moses a Redeemer Acts 7. 35. And because this deliverance from Egypt was a type of the spiritual deliverance which comes by Christ and Moses a type of Christ in this deliverance therefore the deliverance which is effected by Christ is not redemption by any price paid to God but in a metaphorical sense by power put forth against Satan death hell all enemies that detained the Elect. Sol. Though redemption be taken metaphorically in some places of Scriptures yet it follows not it should be taken so in all places and though external deliverances are many times by power only and without price it will not therefore follow that this great spiritual and eternal deliverance must be a deliverance of the same kind And though this temporal deliverance from Egypt be a type of this spiritual by Christ from sin and death and hell yet it follows not that therefore there must be a similitude and parity in all things betwixt them and though Moses be a type of Christ yet the type reacheth not the perfection of the thing typified it is clear in the person of Moses compared with the person of Christ and it is as clear in the redemption that Moses effected from God which was from outward servitude and bondage and that redemption which was wrought by Christ which was from hell and from the devil There are many dissimilitudes betwixt the one redemption and the other and this is one that there is no price paid in the one but power used but in the other there was both And to convince of this the better consider the one was without blood for there needed none but the other must be with blood for there could be no remission without it Heb. 9. 22. The one was without the intervening of the Redeemer in the place and room of the redeemed Moses was not to be in bondage in the room and place stead of those that were by him to be redeemed from bondage but in this spiritual deliverance it must be so the Redeemer must be in the condition that the redeemed were in Christ must come in the room of sinners and must bear their sins and suffer their plagues instead of them as hath been proved And the reason of this difference is because Moses had not in the redemption of Israel any thing to do with an offended God who had a controversie against the people whom Moses was to redeem and from whom he would have satisfaction before he would save them for then in such a case against the enemy that held them power would not have been sufficient for their deliverance but a price would have been required but Christ in his redemption hath to do with Gods wrath and anger and with Gods righteousnesse which were shewed and revealed against the Elect for the Elect had sinned whom he was to redeem and God had threatned they should die the death and they had deserved it and God must be just and true in what he had said therefore Christ must first prevail with God in the deliverance of this people before he could exercise any power agalnst the devil or death or hell and this prevailing must be by a price paid to satisfie for transgression for it could not be by power God might be appeased but overcome he could not be as those enemies must whom he was to deliver the Elect from THis hath all been shewed already and this is it that makes the disparity betwixt the two deliverances which do typifie one the other Object 4. It is asserted in Scripture that redemption in Scripture is never said to be from God as it must needs be were any price paid to God or satisfaction given to God but redemption is said to be from Satan Acts 26. 18. from death Heb 2. 14 15. from the power of darknesse Col. 1. 13. from our vain conversation 1 Pet. 1. 18. from iniquity Tit. 2. 14. yea it is so farre from being a redemption from God that it is a redemption to God Rev. 14. 4. Sol. Redemption in Scripture though it be nowhere said in so many words to be from God yet it is said to be from the wrath of God from the judgement of God from the curse of God the Laws curse is Gods curse and so in a sense redemption is from God as an enemy and an Avenger it is from God as a Judge whose office is to search out iniquity and to passe sentence according to the Law and hath his officers to attend upon him to whom he delivers up the sinner and offender from God as such an one the redemption of Christ is but not from God in reference to relation interest communion fellowship acquaintance dependance power and dispose c. for in all these respects redemption is to God and not from him Though Redemption be from Sin Satan the world death hell and all such enemies and evils yet it is to be understood that it is from these only as the lesse principal causes of the detention of Gods Elect in bondage even as when a person is delivered from the Gaole he is delivered from the Gaoler from the daungeon or pit into which he was cast and from his bolts and chains and from all the noisomenesse and filthinesse and nastinesse that attends that condition yet these are but the lesse principal causes of the evils he is firstly and principally delivered from his Creditor and the Judge that committed him to these So it is in this case God is the principal person that detains and the rest that are mentioned in Scripture are but his servants The devil is as the officer that receives persons that are sentenced of God into

impartiall therein when his son whom he loved had offended by adultery caused one of his sons eyes and another of his own to be put out save only the praise of his justice and truth in his lawes and this is that which God grieves at And if the Judge loving the prisoner that is before him and knowing he hath nothing to pay and yet the law recovers payment will give his own son to be his surety and will lay the debt upon him and is content that his son shall fetch the price out of his own treasure yet the law is satisfied and the judges righteousnesse in reference unto it and his love to the Prisoner are glorified Nor is the satisfaction the lesse because God the offended person procures it and not man that offended him for the truth of God stands firme by that means and the law takes place and is not made of none effect as it would have been had no satisfaction been given which would have redounded to Gods dishonour Yea the righteousnesse of God and his love to undeserving creatures shines forth because the satisfaction is of Gods own procuring And though it proceed from God yet it cannot be said that God satisfies himself or that he was satisfied before for he that provides it doth not act it but it is acted in and by an other person The Father sends the Son and the Father in the Son receives satisfaction and though the Father and Son be the same God yet they are not the same person nor is the satisfaction that the Son gives materially considered given in the divine nature or God-head but the Sonne took flesh and in that flesh by dying and sheding his blood gave satisfaction so that it is from God but not in God if we speak of the next and immediate subject which is the man-hood if the matter of the satisfaction be respected And though it may be said that God was satisfied before in reference to his own love to such persons he did not repent of it in such sort as to cast them off nor was his purpose of glorifying them one whit shaken yet he was not satisfied after they had sinned and after he had sentenced them to death in point of righteousnesse and truth to passe by their transgression without satisfaction his Law was not satisfied in a free forgivenesse without satisfaction and so God was unsatisfied because the Law was Object 6. It is likewise asserted that there is an unsatisfied conscience in men men having sinned cannot discerne how Gods heart can be towards them without satisfaction therefore the Scripture speaks of propitiation through Christs bloud and of atonement by his death condescending therein to mans infirmity which could not otherwise apprehend how God could communicate life and glory to men after they had sinned without being first appeased and pacified by Christs blood But if things be rightly considered in themselves as in truth they are Christ dyed not to reconcile us to God but to heal us of an evill conscience and that we might know that God loved us after we had sinned as well as he did before by the gift of Christ who is the manifestation of the Fathers love after the fall which the Elect could not be perswaded of but by a pledge of it Therefore it is said that Christ shed his bloud to purge our conscience from dead works to serve the living God Heb. 9. 14. and not to satisfie God Sol. It will readily be confessed that it was an end of Christs dying to reconcile men to God and that they might have the answer of a good conscience before God 1 Pet. 3. 21. But that this was the solitary end or the principall end or that satisfaction to God is no end but is wholly excluded is denyed and hath been disproved all along in the discourse upon this subject 1. What need would there have been that Christ should have dyed at all if only satisfaction to mens consciences concerning Gods goodnesse and love to fallen creatures had been intended therein For God could best have done that by his spirit and must yet do it by his spirit if it be ever done in the hearts of men Indeed God having given Christ and delivered him up to death the spirit represents it as a great manifestation of the Fathers love but the spirit might have abundantly assured the heart of a sinner of the Fathers love without it so that there was no necessity of Christs dying in that regard 2. The love of God represented unto men in giving Christ is much lessened to them in the representation if Christ were only given to satisfie their hearts in reference to their fears of God not to satisfie Gods justice if there were no need of Christ in reference to any danger they were in in regard of God if God could or would have pardoned sin without him and his justice and truth could have remitted it 3. It is derogatorie to Gods wisdome and love to assert that Christ was delivered up to be crucified upon the crosse and there to shed his blood principally for this end to cure mans panique fears and his groundlesse causeles suspicions of God and not from any necessity that there was in mans evill condition in regard of sin committed by him and of Gods righteousnesse and truth prosecuting it against him For God might have done this in an easier way and have spared his dear Son God is represented prodigall of his dear Sons bloud if he must die and bleed out his spirits to cure some false conceits that men have entertained of God 4. What need was there that the Son should come in flesh and should empty himself of his glory and that he that is the Lord of glory should be crucified if no satisfaction to divine justice was looked at but only the satisfaction of the conscience the bloud of God as it is called would not have been necessary but the bloud of a meer creature Christ would have served the turne for such a purpose had that been all 5. How came those fears in the heart of man after the fall after sinne committed What bred them was there no ground for them were they meer conceipts and jealousies that wanted a right bottom did not the threatning before sinne was committed cause the horrours and terrours that were in the soul after sinne was committed and if they had Gods threatning as the ground of them viz. in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt dye the death were they not well grounded and was it possible that these fears should be cured by the bloud of Christ and the cause not removed by the bloud of Christ the threatning not taken away the truth of God and his righteousnes not fulfilled and satisfied which were in the threatning and which bred the feares 6. These fears and terrors of the Elect before Christs bloud be brought to their hearts to remove them are they not of the same nature with the