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
A45147	Pacification touching the doctrinal dissent among our united brethren in London being an answer to Mr. Williams and Mr. Lobb both, who have appealed in one point (collected for an error) to this author, for his determination about it : together with some other more necessary points falling in, as also that case of non-resistance, which hath always been a case of that grand concern to the state, and now more especially, in regard to our loyalty to King William, and association to him, resolved, on that occasion / by Mr. John Humfrey.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1696 (1696)	Wing H3697; ESTC R16468	49,303	49

Effects only I conclude either then there is nothing at all in this or if there be something so as he may come off in his saying that Besides the Effects the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed it is a coming off but with a Fallacy fallacia dictionis For he understands that Righteousness of Christ which is so called in relation to the Sanction and we speak altogether of his Righteousness in relation to the Precept of the Law of Redemption I must yet add If Mr. W. will stand to it that the very Righteousness of Christ without equivocating is imputed to us besides or any more than in regard to the Effects then let him say that Christ obeyed and suffered not only for us or in our stead but also in our Persons taking it too in their own sense and so make a full end with his Brethren But I argue If Christ obeyed and suffered so in our Persons as well as for us and in our stead Then should not we obey at all Then should not we suffer at all for he that hath perfectly obeyed can be punished for nothing Then should we need no Forgiveness Then would Christ's Sufferings for us having obeyed be needless Then must he be lookt on by God as the Sinner Then must the Culpa as well as the Poena be imputed to him Then could not Christ be our Mediator because he is the Offending Party and a Mediator is a third Party between the Offender and the Offended in which Person he obeyed and suffered for us Then lastly should Impunity and Life be due to us immediately by a meer Resultancy from his Obedience and Sufferings and not be given by the Interposition of a new Law or Covenant upon terms as they are according to the Gospel which is subverted therefore by that Opinion Once more If Christ suffered in our Persons then should he have borne the same Sufferings and if they were the same they could not be instead of Ours You may say the Righteousness of Christ in it self is imputed to us though it be not Ours only in the Effects But Mr. W. must not come off so for I say To be imputed in it self is to be Ours by Imputation that is Judicially Ours which draws the same Consequences as Ours in it self But I pray let us consider a little in good earnest what is in this Conception of Mr. W. that besides the Effects being made Ours the very Righteousness of Christ is imputed Is there any thing in it or nothing in it Is it of any or no Signification Certainly if his meaning comes not to thus much that besides the Effects Christ's Righteousness it self is ours also by Imputation it is an idle impertinent vile Trifling with us which in regard to Mr. Baxter is not to be spoken without some Resentment in so exquisite a matter If he will grant his meaning to be thus much that though Christ's Righteousness cannot be inherently Ours yet it is indeed Ours by Imputation then is he come quite home to his Brethren who never said or intended any other After this I argue If Christ's Righteousness be imputed to us in it self Then were it pleadable by us as if we our selves had done and suffered what Christ did which Mr. W. does in effect allow or without Tergiversation must Gospel Truth p. 39 40. And also Then must God have dealt with us as if we had which he does more positively allow P. 42. To impute to one says he what is suffered by another is to deal with him as if he himself had suffered But God hath not dealt thus with us and we cannot plead so with him which appear by the said Consequences It is not all one as if we had done and suffered in Christ what he did and suffered for us for Satisfaction is another thing than this It is not all one in other respects it is as good for us only in the obtained when attained Effects PART IV. THERE remains now one thing and a chief thing yet to be done which is to offer something that may serve to reconcile such Brethren at least as agree in the main though it cannot such as quite differ in the Point I shall first dilate a little more for lights sake and so be lead thereto by the matter it self Christ in Scripture is said to dye for us and to dye for our Sins For our Sins he may be said to dye or suffer in these two senses For our Sins To expiate them to deliver us from them the Guilt and Condemnation due to us for them For our Sins As the Meritorious Cause of his Death and Sufferings upon his voluntary undertaking that Expiation Both these Senses are good and to be retained For us may have a double Sense also Loco nostro or Bono nostro In our stead or in regard to our Benefit The Socinians will have Christ to dye for us only bono nostro which they fetch about too so as makes his dying for us of no more concern than a Martyr's Christ by his Death confirmed his Doctrine This makes us believe it His Doctrine teaches a Holy Life By a Holy Life we leave Sin Christ therefore dyed for our Sins But we hold Christ dyed loco nostro in our stead in our room Now In our stead or loco nostro may have again a double Interpretation In our stead As representing our Persons so that God looks on us as having done and suffered what Christ did and suffered for us As what my Attorney or Delegate does for me I am accounted to have done He is the Agent Naturally but Civilly or Legally it is I In this Interpretation we are not to hold Christ dyed in our stead for that draws all those mentioned Consequences after it which must carefully be avoided There is another Interpretation then of Suffering in our stead In our stead that is To save us from Suffering our selves and this is the Sense we are first to know to be the right and then stand by it To do any thing or suffer it in the room of another I have said is to do or suffer that thing that the other may escape it and in this right sense it is that Grotius understands Christ's dying for us and speaks of a Commutation or Subrogation of Christ's Person in the room of ours in his Sufferings for us as the Beast was subrogated in the place of him that Sacrificed it If any stretch such words of his farther than so they abuse both their Understanding and him Now when this In our stead in usual speaking is Suffering or doing in our Person I am brought at last to a pause as to the words we use That Christ suffered and obeyed in our Persons is said by our Divines without scruple and Dr. Bates does but handsomly express what they speak ordinarily Nay Mr. Baxter does acknowledge that these words may be used if we put a right Sense on them And what is that Sense The Sense

of the business There is one Mediator which is the common Appellation of the same import as Surety between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus who gave himself a Ransome for all to be testified in due time 2 Tim. 2.5 6. Christ was a Surety but a Surety in the Scripture Sense not in an Arbitrary Sense Christ was a Surety not in an Antinomian Sense but in a Sense which must be agreeable to every thing else that is said of him in Scripture This is safe and this is true and here I will stand by Mr. W. But whether Christ's Suretiship is to be made commensurate with his Priesthood to make good his or any others Notion of it I question It is no where said we have a Surety though a High Priest and Intercessor now in Heaven As for the Commutation in the next place then of Persons I acknowledge such a one accordingly as is necessary to the Impetration of our Redemption but I understand none so as to go into the Application Christ took on him our Flesh made Satisfaction in our stead and procured an Act of Grace or Pardon for all But there is no Commutation I know as to particular Persons in the Point of Justification If Christ made an exchange of his Righteousness with Peter for his Sins any otherwise than as to the Impetration of Pardon on condition that concerns all alike then Christ's Righteousness must now be Peter's and James and John could never have it In Christ's uniting himself to us by his taking our Nature Obeying Suffering satisfying God's Justice I acknowledge a Commutation even such to wit that our Sins were so imputed to him as that he died for them and in our stead understanding the Phrases aright and his Righteousness so imputed as to be the Cause that upon our believing we enjoy the Benefit But in Christ's uniting us to him by giving his Spirit to work in us that Condition whereby we have our Right to the Benefit there is nothing done by him in our stead nothing by us in his no new no other no father Imputation The Fruit of his Purchase Pardon and Salvation by a Law of Grace cannot be formaliter his and if that the communicates to us be not his how is there a Commutation Of this Sacrifice and Righteousness it self we are uncapable Of the Effect or Fruits Christ is uncapable What he hath not he cannot communicate what he hath we cannot receive It is true he hath receive potestatem conferendi and in that respect eminenter may be said to receive for us his own Benefits but for us then must be only bono nostro if it were loco nostro our selves could not have them The Punishment we deserved Christ bare loco nostro therefore we are not to bear it The Benefits Christ purchased we have therefore loco nostro he could not receive them There is there can be no Substitution of Person in our partaking the Benefits purchased as there was there must be in the purchasing them for us There is a Chapter on this Head in my Book called Peaceable Disquisitions I refer thither for farther Explication With Mr. W. I believe speaking strictly that Christ was no Surety of the Covenant of Works so as to enter into the same Bond before or after it were but trifling to make a Dispute of that it was forfeited And that his Reasons for it are good his fourth especially as to the ill Consequences following upon it Against Mr. W. I apprehend Christ to be no Surety neither of the Covenant of Grace in a strict proper Sense as I say also in my Sheet because the business of this Suretiship I said now does lye mainly in obtaining for us this Covenant as Moses dealt in his Mediatorship and not in the undertaking on God's part which needs not and on our part that it should be kept In this sense do I understand the Prophet when God says he will give Christ for a Covenant of the People that is to mediate this Covenant to procure it The word Surety I say again must be taken in such a Sense and not any other which agrees with every thing else said of Christ in the Scripture or with the whole Doctrine of the Gospel besides And that Doctrine is false I count which confines the Gospel-Covenant to the Elect. Not that he undertook that all he mediated for should do all that is their Duty says the throughly Understanding Mr. Baxter in his Paraphrase on the place As for Mr. W. I will take leave to say he is to me a considerable Man especially as to his Talent Elocution which yet unless his Judgment also be Good Staid and Unpassionate as it appears may prove to him a Temptation There is nothing I distrust him so much in as in his Distinctions which I cannot but suspect sometimes through his Facility of words to be made rather in diverse Expressions than in the reality of the things he would distinguish I am afraid least he should hereby come to yield more in our main Cause than we can again recover This appears more particularly in these two Points wherein I am more particularly concerned the Conditionality of the Covenant and the Business of Justification It is to be known and acknowledged there are several places in the Old Testament which speak of God's Circumcising the Heart giving a new one putting his Fear into it so as they that have this Promise fulfilled to them shall enter into Covenant with God in Sincerity and never again depart from him Upon which account it is called an Everlasting Covenant and a second Covenant in Opposition to the first that the Israelites brake as it is in the Epistle to the Hebrews In these places then we have a Promise for they are all I suppose in the account of most one and the same Promise which is an Absolute Promise that is to give that which hath no Condition required of us for the obtaining it the first Grace the new Heart Faith and Repentance in order to our Salvation Now the Promise being Absolute and called the Covenant This is my Covenant I will make with the House of Israel after those days saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their Minds and write them in their Hearts And I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a People the Antinomian does apprehend it to be the Covenant of Grace and that the Covenant of Grace therefore is not Conditional for there is no Condition in this Promise and if that we call the Condition is on God's part given and not required as a Condition to be performed on our parts the Covenant is without Condition Here now the Orthodox Calvinist who is neither Arminian or Antinomian are of two sorts one whose Genius carries them so much against Arminianism that they come as near as they can to the Antinomian And the other whose Genius leads them so far from Antinomianism that they come