Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	father_n	offer_v	sacrifice_n	5,267	4	7.7853	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A23656	Animadversions on that part of Mr. Robert Ferguson's book entituled The interest of reason in religion which treats of justification in a letter to a friend.	Allen, William, d. 1686.	1676 (1676)	Wing A1054; ESTC R5034	44,339	112

guilt of Sin that hath not been accessary to the fault For guilt implyes two things a fault committed by him that is guilty of it and the being under an obligation thereby to suffer the punishment due to it and this obligation of a guilty person to suffer proceeds from the demerit of his fault or crime And will Mr. F. say that Christ was guilty of our Sins by being in the fault Or that he came under an obligation to suffer by being in the fault and from the demerit of the fault God sorbid Christ was no otherwise obliged to suffer for our Sins than by his own voluntary consent in concurrence with the will of God his Father in offering himself as a Sacrifice to make an Atonement by his own Blood And after this manner indeed by being a Sacrifice the Beasts in time of the Law that were offered in Sacrifice for Sin did bear the Sins of those for whom they were offered But I should think he were little better than a Beast in his understanding that should say those Beasts were guilty of the Sins of those for whom they were offered in Sacrisice But it 's true as one truth leads to another so it 's too commonly seen men are tempted to commit one errour tō defend another which I think is the Case now before us Otherwise Mr. F. would hardly have ventured to say Christ was brought under the guilt of our Sins and had the guilt of them derived upon him but only the better as he thought no doubt to accommodate his Notion of our being in the Innocency and Righteousness of Christ by having it imputed to us and derived upon us But this is not the only inconvenience that attends this Notion of having the Righteousness of Christ it self imputed to us for our justification and not only in its happy effects for it seems to me to oppose the doctrine of forgiveness of Sin Nay I pray you consider whether it doth not evacuate it and leave no place for such a thing For if we in Mr. F's Law sense have by Christ paid all the Debt the Law could any wayes demand of us both in point of obedience and of suffering for our disobedience by having his obedience and sufferings themselves imputed to us and not only in the beneficial effects of them How then I pray you can we be said to be forgiven by God to whom the Debt thus paid was due Does that man forgive a Debt to me which I have paid him by another though not by my self A Legal Discharge I may have in such a case from the Creditour but no man will say he hath for given me my Debt I think it will best become us to say as the Scripture doth That God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us and not to say we have paid him what in the rigour of Justice he could demand of us if not more to wit perfect obedience and suffering too which the Law in its utmost rigour never demanded nor required We may well and thankfully take up with this That God in consideration of what Christ hath become done and suffered for our sakes for our benefit hath past an Act of Oblivion to remember our Sins and Iniquities no more provided and on condition that we repent of our rebellion against God and return to our Loyalty and Duty in obeying him truly sincerely and heartily as every one doth that so believes as thereby to become capable of being justified pardoned and saved Furthermore consider I pray you That if Christ's fulfilling of the Law be so imputed to us as that we are looked upon as having fulfilled it in him how could it then be necessary that Christ should dye for our Sins If we by the imputation of Christ's fulfilling the Law have paid the whole debt of Obedience which was owing to it we should then owe no debt of Suffering for the breach of it and consequently Christ would not have needed by suffering to have paid any such Debt for us no more than for himself who had no Sin to suffer for Again consider yet further That if Christ hath paid our whole debt of Obedience to the Law by fulfilling it for us and then imputing it to us is there not by this Notion if admitted a way paved and prepared for Libertines to think that then they need not pay it too to think that God is no such austeer Creditour as to exact the same debt twice first of the Surery and then of the Principal too And let me tell you this Sir that I have very great reason from my observation formerly to be confident that it was from this Opinion which Mr. F. now defends touching the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us otherwise than in its blessed effects that Antinomianism took its first rise among us in this Nation and Ranterism also out of that For how else could it be possible that men should fancy themselves pure and perfect and free from all Sin in the midst of those abominations some of them gave themselves up to but only that they thought themselves to be so by having another's righteousness imputed to them so as they to become formally righteous by it as he himself was save only in the point of imputation I must confess I cannot think that any Doctrine that is of the Gospel indeed which is a Doctrine according to Godliness in the whole and every part of it can be so liable as this is to natural inferences tending to ungodliness or to weaken that which is in the Doctrine of Justification rightly understood against Ungodliness But on the other hand when the promise of the great benefits of remission of Sin and eternal Life is suspended upon our being righteous by a righteousness inherent in us such as consists in Repentance Faith c. this becomes the greatest motive to Godliness imaginable and so comports directly with that which is God's great design by the Gospel which is to recover man again to Happiness by Holiness from which he first fell by transgression But that you may have down weight in this Argument and more if more can be I will offer one thing more to your consideration which perhaps may deserve it and that is Whether those that deny the inherent Grace of Faith and Sanctification by Faith to be imputed for Righteousness in Justification as they usually do who hold that Christ's Righteousness it self is so imputed do not thereby make themselves guilty in some respect and to a degree of the pernicious errour of the false Apostles and Judaising Christians for which in the gross they were charged with falling from Grace with making Christ to become of none effect to them and with perverting the Gospel of Christ For I think I shall make it evident that their errour lay in two things unless you will add thereto their opinion of meriting the one in denying the necessity of Internal Righteousness unto Justification the other in holding an external