Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	father_n	person_n	union_n	3,953	5	9.3015	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A48860	A further defence of the report Vindicating it from Mr. Alsops Cavils, and shewing the difference between Mr. W's and my self to be real, and the charge in my appeal to be true.	Lobb, Stephen, d. 1699.	1698 (1698)	Wing L2724; ESTC R218961	51,757	90

Mr. A. doth insi●●nate That Jesus Christ hath wrought for himself Righteousness that he might by it be entitled to Eternal Life I will consider the Import and Tendency of such an Assertion 1. As for its Import it cannot be any thing less than that the Lord Jesus Christ was once in a state of Tryal and made under the same Law for himself that we were for our selves and that Obedience was required of him to the end that he merit Eterna● Life for himself Whence it follows That when the Promise of Eternal Life was proposed for the Encouragement of his Obedience he had no Right nor Title to Eternal Life no not for himself But that to get a Title thereunto he was under the Obligation of the same Law that we were and to speak most modestly of Mr. A's Notion The Lord Jesus Christ God-Man was antecedently to his rendring Obedience to the Law which said Do this and live He was as destitute of a Right to Eternal Life as Adam was on his first Creation Thus whilst he would fasten on the Reporter the groundless Charge of making Christ destitute of 〈◊〉 Righteousness he makes our Blessed Lord destitute of Eternal Life ay of a Right thereunto But le● us consider 2. The Tendency of this Notion and that I may do it with the greater clearness I will deliver what I design to offer on this occasion as pressed by the Learned Judicious and Holy Doctor Owen who in his Day excelled most Men in these Studies And whoever will consult his Discourse of Justification from page 366 to page 378. will see That this great Man in confuting the Socinians and their next of Kin in the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and our Justification doth with much concern declare and strongly prove That Christ came not under the Law for himself but for us To set this Important Point in the clearer Light it must be observed That the Controversie is not whether the Humane Nature of Christ as it is a Ra●ional Creature be subject unto the Law of Crea●ion and eternally obliged from the Nature of God ●●d its Relation thereunto to Love him Obey him ●epend upon him and to make him its End Blessed-●●ss and Reward For as the Dr. admirably wel ●●presseth it ' The Law of Creation thus considered doth not respect the World and this Life only but the Future State of Heaven and Eternity But the Point here controverted is Whe●●er Christ be under the Law as it is imposed on ●reatures by especial Dispensation for some time ●●d for some certain End with some Considerations ●●les and Orders that belong not essentially to the ●●w as before described as it is presented unto us ●●●t absolutely and eternally but whilst we are in this World and that with this special End that by Obe●●●nce thereunto we may obtain the Reward of ●ternal Life To this the Dr. answers That the Lord Jesus Christ was not made under the Law under this ●●nsideration for himself to the end he might get a ●ale unto Eternal Life For saith the Doctor upon the first Instant of the Vnion of his Natures being holy harmless undefiled and separate from Sinners he might notwithstanding that Law he was made subject unto have been stated in Glory For he that was the Object of all Divine Worship ceded not any New Obedience to procure for him state of Blessedness And a little before Setting side saith the Doctor the consideration of the Grace and Love of Christ and the Compact be●ween the Father and the Son as to the Undertaking ●or us which undeniably proves all that he did in pursuit of them to be done for us and not for ●imself I say setting aside the consideration of these things and the Humane Nature of Christ b● vertue of its Vnion with the Person of the Son 〈◊〉 God had a Right unto and might have immed●ately been admitted into the Highest Glo●● whereof it was capable without any Anteceder Obedience unto the Law And this is appare●● from hence in that from the First Instant of th●Vnion the whole Person of Christ with our Natu●● Existing therein was the Object of all Divi●● Worship from Angels and Men wherein consis● the Highest Exaltation of that Nature So f●● Dr. Owen Here then you see a difference between this Lea●ned Dr. and Mr. A. Mr. A. suggests as if Chri●● were under the Law which saith Do this and liv● for Himself as well as for us that he might be e●● titled to Eternal Life but the Dr. denies it up●● the weightiest consideration Besides the Doct●● is the more positive in his Opinion as it doth mo●● effectually subvert the Notion of Socinus which 〈◊〉 That our Lord Jesus Christ was for himself or on 〈◊〉 own account obliged unto all that Obedience which 〈◊〉 performed and therefore could no more obey a●● satisfie for others than any other person But th● Doctor proves That Christ's Obedience unto t●● Law was for Vs and not for Himself and ther● by doth most effectually enervate the strength 〈◊〉 Socinus his Argument which upon Mr. A's Notio● receives new Life and Vigour Whoever desires a suller understanding of th● Controversie will do well to consult the Doct●● himself who in the pages referred unto hath 〈◊〉 fully and clearly stated this Doctrine as to obvia●● Objections made against it by the Remonstrant Socinians and others but what I have here said 〈◊〉 sufficient to shew Mr. A's Mistake and what countenance it gives the Socinians and how much reason 〈◊〉 hath to be more in his Study consulting not ●ay-Books for the sake of foolish Jests but the ●oly Scriptures and the Learned Writings of D. O. ●●d other Orthodox Divines that for the future ●rough inadvertency or otherwise he give not those ●dvantages to the common Enemies of our Holy ●eligion he hath too oft done But I pass on to third Objection The Third Objection We are sin saith the Reporter and under a Curse Can you with all your Penetration Divine the ●eason why it 's said we are sin but how ●●e we sin why must it be phrased thus we are 〈◊〉 It was Poetically and Satyrically said That ●lexander the sixth was non tam vitiosus ●●àm vitium non tam scelestus quàm scelus but ●●e need to be taught how Man was sin sin it ●●lf Reply 1. That Mr. Alsop is so very much at a loss to ●●d out the genuine meaning of the word Sin ●en it 's said we are Sin as if it had been never ●used in Scripture doth not a little surprize it ●●ng so common for the Holy-Ghost to express the ●●erlative Degree by the Abstract not only in ●●er Instances but even in this that doth so puz●● and confound him For as the Devils whose ●●s are exceeding great are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or spiritual wickedness so wicked Men are cal●● Wickedness particularly in 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. ●ere is an enumeration of sundry sorts of Sinners 〈◊〉 render it And

were not the meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings That no Sufferings are properly Paenal but what are infliced on the Delinquent himself that when Parents or Princes sin● and their Children or Subjects suffer their Sufferings are but Improperly or Analogically Poenal and that therefore Christ not being the actual Transgressor could not be in a proper Sense punished for our Sins That properly speaking he did not satisfie the violated Law And agreeably adds that the Sufferings were exacted by God not as he was a Rector as such but as a Rector supra Leges and as an offended Lord and Benefactor And that I may be the more clear in this attempt I will show how exact the Agreement between Mr. B. Crellius Episcopius Curcellius and Limborch is and how full a Confutation the Answers of Grotius to Socinus of the Bishop of Worcester unto Crellius and of the Principal of Jesus Oxon unto the Disciples of Episcopius are of the Principles which Mr. Baxter has advanced Subsect I. Of the Meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings 1. That Mr. Baxter denies our sins to be the near impulsive and proper meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings 1. It 's well known to the Learned That if Christs suffering be not ex obligatione Legis and by vertue of the Sanction of the Law sin cannot be the near impulsive or proper meritorious Cause of them For as an universal and perfect Obedience to the Praeceptive part of the Law as it respects the Promissary Part would according to the Rules of distributive Justice have been the meritorious Cause of the Promised reward in like manner Sin the transgression of the Precept as it respects the Paenal Sanction is the meritorious Cause of the threatned Sufferings If then I clear it that Mr. B. is of Opinion That Christs sufferings are not Ex obligatione Legis it must be acknowledged that he denies our sins to be their meritorious Cause which I hope to prove even to Mr. Alsop's Conviction and moreover to evince it that he doth expresly declare that our sins were not the meritorious Cause of Christs sufferings For 2. Mr. B. in his sixth Determination which is in the first Chapter of the third Part of his Methodus after he had set down his Distinctions between the Law of innocent Nature and the Law peculiar to the Mediator And considering the Law in the first Sense which he saith obliged Christ himself as Man and all others even sinners he adds another Distinction between the Obligation of this Law as a Remote and as a near Cause and declares his Judgment thus 1. ' The Law of Nature altho' it did oblige both Christ and us unto Obedience yet it did only oblige us not Christ unto Punishment The Law obligeth not an innocent Person to Punishment it condemns not the Just. 2. ' That the Law of Grace obliged Christ neither to Obedience nor to Punishment 3. ' By the Law peculiar to the Mediator called the Covenant between the Father and the Son Christ was obliged to suffer Punishment for Sinners namely by his Consent and proper Sponsion and the Fathers Will and Commandment From this Law the near obliging Cause of Christs suffering Punishment had its Rise 4. ' By the Law of Nature obliging us sinners unto Punishment Christ was not directly obliged to Punishment However it was the occasion of his Punishment and the Obligation we lay under was ●he Remote Cause of Christs Obligation for if the Law had not condemned us Christ had never undertaken or suffered a vicarious Punishment So 〈◊〉 Mr. B. 3. From what Mr. B. has so freely declared it 's ●ident he is of Opinion That the Obligation Christ 〈◊〉 under to suffer ariseth not from that Law we violated but from the mediatorial Convenant and ●at the Obligation to Punishment which is by ●●rtue of the Sanction of the Law we violated ●nder which we all are by Nature is but an ●ccasion or Remote Cause and therefore our sins ●e not the near impulsive and proper meritorious ●●use of Christs sufferings which is conform to that he has in his other Writings not only in his Posthumous Discourse of Universal Redemption but in the Preface to his Confession of Faith pag. 4. where he saith That as Christ could not take upon himself the same Numerical Guilt which lay on us so neither could he take upon himself Guilt of the same sort as having not the same sort of Foundation or Efficient Ours arising from the Merit of our sins and the Commination of the Law and his being rather occasioned than meritted by our sin and occasioned by the Laws threatning of us both which are as we may call them but ●rocauses as to him c. And in his Catho Theol. Part II. Pag. 78. Christ suffered not by that Obligation which bound us to suffer 4. These Passages I have mentioned do sufficiently clear it That Mr. B. owns not that our sins were the near impulsive or meritorious Cause of Christs Sufferings the most he 'll yield being this viz. That our sins were the Occasion or Remote Impulsive Cause or the Pro-cause somewhat in the place of a meritorious Cause which is no more than Socinus Crellius and their Followers do grant as I will immediately show II. The Socinians do grant That our sins are a Remote Impulsive Cause or meer Occasion of Christs sufferings 1. That the Socinians make so large a Concession as this unto us is evident from most of their Writings Crellius against Grotius confesseth it Fatemur Peccata nostra posito Dei de salute nobis danda decreto eatenus etiam fuisse Impulsivam mortis Christi Causam c. Ad partic 2. Cap. 1. But 2. There is so much to this Purpose in the Answer the Learned Bishop of Worcester gives to what Crellius has on this Point that I will say no more of 〈◊〉 in this place but proceed to the Proposal of ●hat the Bishop offereth unto your Consideration III. What Mr. Baxter and the Socinians hold about our sins being only a Remote Impulsive Cause or Occasion of Christs sufferings opposed by the Orthodox particularly by the Bishop of Worcester 1. The Learned Bishop gives the Sense of the Socinians about the Impulsive Cause of Christs sufferings assuring us ' That tho' Crellius Attributes ●he sufferings of Christ meerly to Acts of Dominion without any respect to sin yet elsewhere he will allow a Respect that was had to sin antecedently to the Sufferings of Christ and that the Sins of Men were the Impusive cause of them And although Socinus in one place utterly denies any Lawful Antecedent Cause of the Death of Christ besides the Will ●f God and Christ yet Crellius in his Vindication ●ith by Lawful cause he meant Meritorious or ●●ch upon supposition of which he ought to Die for elsewhere he makes Christ to die for the Cause or by the occasion of our Sins which is the same that Crellius means by an Impulsive or Procatartick Cause Of