Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	adam_n	law_n	moral_a	4,944	5	10.5377	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45142	The middle-way in one paper of the covenants, law and gospel : with indifferency between the legalist & antinomian / by J.H.	Humfrey, John, 1621-1719.	1674 (1674)	Wing H3693; ESTC R16428	27,351	35

is a truth somthing more considerable as I take it than that alone which our Divines contend for against the Sooinian in this matter In the next place when Divines make a difference between the Law and Gospel as to the power of doing that the Law commands to do but the Gospel gives power to do The Law commands the tale of Brick but gives not Straw and the like expressions I doubt not but they have some verity at the bottom which should have nakedly been laid down if he could by this Bright person For the delivery of things after others by roat without disgestion is the great fault which he finds so often in other mens Books The Law and Gospel we know are liable to a diverse acception By the Law most properly I think we are to understand that Law which is written in the heart of man by Nature in Adams and ours the copy whereof is the ten Commandements called the Moral Law and by the Gospel the Law of Christ That which he delivered and his Apostles The matter whereof in both may be considered qua faedus or qua regula to use the terms of others Qua regula the things required in the Law moral and the Gospel or Law of Christ are the same but qua faedus the Law of Nature originally requires these things in perfection to be accepted unto life and the Law of Christ requires them in sincerity only accepting them though imperfect unto life through his Mediation and Redemption This is the only difference that concerns us here between the Law and the Gospel The Law then and Gospel both being considered as the Doctrin of life how does this Author speak that the one gives power and not the other The rule shews what we are to do the power to do is not given by our being shown That which therefore is to be understood by such terms may come to this that that which the Law thus taken that is the Law of our Creation and qua faedus does require of man is not in our power to do and consequently none can attain Salvation by it but that which the Gospel requires we have power to perform and if we be not wanting to God's Grace upon the performance we shall be saved In the third place when he says the Gospel enables us to do with a more willing and chearful mind then the Law if we understand this kind of speech as those Divines do I think ordinarlly that use it in such a sence that Christ having done all our works for us that Righteousness of his which was a most perfect conformity to the Law being imputed or accepted in our behalf for life there are no good works now required of us to do but only as the testification of our thankfulness and belief of this and therefore we perform all we do with gladness joy and love altogether without bondage fear or doubt it being not in order to our Justification though we miscarry in the doing I do apprehend this Learned Man would be one of the first to dislike such Teaching Yet is there thus much here of truth also That when the Law so taken as before does give us no heart at all to do that which through the flesh as the Apostle speaks is indeed impossible to any the Gospel does give us encouragement to do upon the account that what it requires may be performed and by that performance through the assistance of God's Spirit as the condition Man is both justified and saved I know well that St. Augustine does use the like expressions and I think often but he does explain his meaning which comes to this that when the Law of works commands us what is our duty and threatens us if we do it not the Law of Faith he counts directs us to God for his assistance grace or spirit to do what he commands I do not forget neither that God hath promised his spirit and so his grace for the performance of the New Covenant and though it does not follow that if Adam had stood he should not therefore have given man his grace and spirit for performing the perfect obedience of the Old as well as to us for the performing imperfect under the New seeing that Father does speak of grace to Adam as to us and if we should ascribe the obedience he performed during his Innocency to his own strength and not to the adjutory of God's spirit altogether he would not endure it Yet if the Authour or those Divines of ours that speak as he does will chose rather to make good what they say upon the contrary assertion then can I tell how to understand with them When God made Man at first we know he endued him with original righteousness Let us suppose this righteousness alone sufficient to him for the performing the Law unto which he was made so that before the fall there was no need of that we call grace which is properly such help of the spirit as consists in the healing and relief of our falne estate to enable man to do that which he had strength to perform by nature until he did voluntarily deflect from it But when he was fallen and lost that righteousness which was his strength then are we to conceive a need streight both of a new Law to be lowerd brought down or fitted to his weakness that he may be able and also of grace that he may be made willing to perform it And thus shall there be grace the spirit and the promise of it belonging to the Covenant of our Redeemer when there was none nor need of it to belong to the covenant of our Creation However there is this I count most certain and I would have it to be noted that the spirit which is promised or given to man for his obedience to God is promised and given only in respect to this Covenant not for the performance of the Covenant of Nature for then should Adam never have falne nor we have had any need of a Redeemer It is true that there are some Divines are so much with Austin to have Adams standing supposing he had stood to be of grace that they will have mans original righteousness to be a work or habit supernatural from which when Adam fell he returned as they would teach us to his pure naturals and so his Posterity are born But this is a kind of Pelagianisme no ways to be received For what indeed should be a Creatures Nature if that be not which it receives from its Creation Besides if mans original righteousness be not lookt on as natural how shall original sin which consists in the loss of it be defined by the depravation of our nature according to the doctrin of the Church of England as well as the Catechisme of the Assembly Neither is Dr. Taylor here to be heard who cannot abide that that whatsoever he will call it which we contract from Adam without any will of our own