Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	humane_a	person_n	union_n	11,677	5	9.6253	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39120	Vindiciæ justificationis gratuitæ = Justification without conditions, or, The free justification of a sinner : explained, confirmed, and vindicated, from the exceptions, objections, and seeming absurdities, which are cast upon it, by the assertors of conditional justification : more especially from the attempts of Mr. B. Woodbridge in his sermon, entituled (Justification by faith), of Mr. Cranford in his Epistle to the reader, and of Mr. Baxter in some passages, which relate to the same matter : wherein also, the absoluteness of the New Covenant is proved, and the arguments against it, are disproved / by W. Eyre ...	Eyre, William, 1612 or 13-1670.; Owen, John, 1616-1683.	1654 (1654)	Wing E3947A; ESTC R40198	198,474	230

in Christ nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates till they did believe and that they are but dreamers who do conceit the contrary I know not what could be spoken more contradictory to many plain Scriptures which shall be mentioned anone more derogatory to the full atonement which Christ hath made by his Death and more disconsolatory to the souls of men in laying the whole weight of their Salvation upon an uncertain condition of their own performing And therefore after the Exercise was fully ended I desired the Minister that Preached that with his leave and the patience of the Congregation I might remonstrate the insufficiency of his Grounds or Reasons to uphold the Doctrine he had delivered three of which I took more especial notice of One was drawn from the parallel between the first and the second Adam As men said he are not guilty of Adams sin till they have a Being so the Elect have no benefit by Christ till they have a Being whereunto he added those old Philosophical Maxims Non entis non sunt accidentia and Accidentis esse est inesse Another was That where there is no union there can be no communion but there is no union between Christ and the Elect before they believe Therefore the Elect have no communion and participation in the benefits of Christs death before they have a Being and do believe in him The proof of the Assumption was managed thus The union between Christ and the Saints is a personal union which cannot be supposed till their persons have a Being A third ground upon which he laid the greatest stress was to this purpose The Elect have no benefit by Christ before they do believe because God hath made a Covenant with his Son That they for whom he died should be admitted to partake of the Benefits of his death by Faith § 6. Whereunto my Replies were to this effect I told him that I conceived his first Allegation made very much against him For if the Righteousness of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation as the Apostle shews it doth Rom. 5. Then it must follow That the Righteousness of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the Elect before they had a Being and then much more before they do believe in him for it is evident that Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation before they had a Being for by that first transgression sayes the Apostle vers 12. Sin entered into the world And more plainly Death passed upon all men The Reason follows because in him or in his loyns all have sinned Now as in Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is All that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a Being by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them so in Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that shall be saved were constituted righteous his obedience being imputed unto them by God before they had any Being otherwise then in him as their Head and common Person There is a late Writer who tells us that there is not the same Reason for the imputation of Christs Righteousness to all the Elect before they believe as there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a Being Because says he the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity in a natural and necessary way but the issues of Christs death do come to us in a supernatural way But this Reason seems to me to be of small validity for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed unto none until they are actually propagated and the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate Parents as they do from Adam so that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernatural way i. e. By vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unless they can shew any Proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flow as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force But to return to my discourse with Mr. Warren I added That those Logical axioms non entis c. have no force at all in the present Controversie It doth not follow that Christs Righteousness cannot be imputed to us before we have an actual created Being because accidents cannot subsist without their Subjects for as much as imputed Righteousness is not an accident inherent in us and consequently doth not necessarily require our existence Christ is the Subject of this Righteousness and the imputation of it is an act of God Now the Apostle hath observed That God in justifying and imputing Righteousness calleth things that are not as if they were Rom. 4.17 As the Righteousness of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarks before it was wrought and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed so I see no inconvenience to say That Christs Righteousness is by God imputed to the Elect before they have a Being § 7. As to his second Reason before mentioned I excepted as I conceive but justly 1. Against his calling our union with Christ a personal union which seems to favor that absurd notion That a believer loseth not onely his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the Nature and Person of the Son of God Divines do call our union with Christ a Mystical and Spiritual union because it is secret and invisible to be apprehended by Faith and not by Sense or Reason but the Hypostatical or Personal union is proper unto Christ in whom the Divine and Humane Nature do constitute but one Person 2. Against his Assertion proposed Universally That there is no manner of union between Christ and the Elect before they do believe for though there be not that conjugal union between them which consists in the mutual consent of parties yet is there such a true and real union that by means thereof their sins do become Christs and Christs Righteousness is made theirs God from everlasting constituted and ordained Christ and all the Elect to be as it were one Heap or Lump one Vine one Body or Spiritual Corporation wherein Christ is the Head and they the Members Christ the Root and they the Branches Christ the First Fruits and they the residue of the Heap In respect of this union it is That they are said to be given

2.2 3.10 13.10 c. Now the Scripture doth not call these Inherent Graces ours to exclude the Divine assistance in the working of them as if they proceeded onely from our selves the strength of Nature in us or the towardliness of our own wills The Jews who went about to establish their own Righteousness or Justification by their own works did not deny that these works are the gift of God the Pharisee expresly acknowledgeth as much therefore gives thanks unto God for them Luke 18.11 But they are called ours because they are subjectively in us and instrumentally wrought by us and in opposition to the Righteousness of Christ which is neither in us nor performed by us but is as the Scripture rightly terms it the Righteousness of God not the Essential Righteousness of God as Osiander supposed but the Righteousness of our Mediator God-man which though it be Inherent in the Humane Nature and performed by it yet is it truly called the Righteousness of God because it is the Righteousness of that Person who is perfect God And thus the blood by which we are redeemed is called The blood of God Acts 20.28 Or which is all one The blood of the Son of God 1 John 1.7 The life which was laid down for us was the life of God 1 John 3.16 The death by which we are reconciled to God is the death of his Son Rom. 5.10 The Obedience by which we are constituted just Rom. 5.19 is The Obedience of the same Son of God See Gal. 4.4 5. Christs Mediatorial Righteousness is called the Righteousness of God to shew the dignity and perfection of it it being the Righteousness of so great a person who is not onely Man but God And that we should not think it to be any thing in us from God it is sometimes called his blood Rom. 5.9 sometimes his obedience Vers. 19. By the imputation whereof we are made the Righteousness of God in him as he by the imputation of our sins was made sin for us And thus the godly learned yea and some of the Popish Doctors have expounded the Righteousness of God mentioned in the 1 3 and 10 Chapters to the Romans of Christ and his Righteousness which says Cajetan is called the Righteousness of God Quia est in Deo personaliter sum quia est apud divinum tribunal vera justitia ad differentiam justitiarum nostrarum quia apud divinum tribunal sunt velut pannus menstruatus c. i. e. Because it is personally in God as also because at Gods tribunal it is accounted Righteousness and to distinguish it from our Righteousness which in the sight of God is as filthy rags There is nothing more clear then that our Obedience to Evangelical precepts is not that Righteousness of God the Scripture mentions which is not inherent in us but imputed to us being without us in Christ God-man The Assumption That the Righteousness whereby we are justified is the Righteousness of God is undeniably proved from Rom. 1.17 3.21 10.3 In which last place the Apostle shews there is such an opposition betwixt Gods Righteousness and ours in the point of Justification That whosoever seeks to be justified by his own Righteousness cannot be justified by the Righteousness of God and therefore he himself professeth that in the Question of Justification he utterly renounceth his own righteousness desiring to be found in Christs Righteousness alone Phil. 3.9 This Righteousness of Christ which is out of us in him is properly called Evangelical Righteousness because it is the matter or substance of the whole Gospel the Gospel doth reveal it and not the Law Rom. 1.17 If the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or act of believing were that Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified this Scripture would be guilty of a gross Tautology The Righteousness of God is revealed from Faith to Faith for then the meaning must be our Evangelical Righteousness is revealed from Evangelical Righteousness to Evangelical Righteousness which is absurd § 9.4 If we are not justified by two Righteousnesses existing 〈◊〉 two distinct subjects then our Obedience to Gospel precepts is not that Righteousness whereby we are justified But we are not justified by two Righteousnesses existing in two distinct subjects Ergo. The Sequel is manifest in regard the Righteousness of Christ is inherent in him and obedience to Gospel precepts is a Righteousness inherent in us The Scripture sundry times declares That we are justified by Christ and his Righteousness Rom. 3.24 5.9 19. Now if we were likewise justified by our Obedience to Gospel precepts it would follow That we are justified by two Righteousnesses existing in two distinct subjects But this is gain-said in the Assumption which will be secured by this proof If by Christs Righteousness alone we are made perfectly just and righteous in the sight of God then there is no other Righteousness which concurs with his to our Justification For what needs an addition to that which is perfect But by Christs Righteousness alone we are made perfectly just and righteous in the sight of God as these and many other Scriptures do witness Heb. 1.3 10.14 Col. 1.22 2.10 13. Again if we are justified partly by Christs Righteousness and partly by our own our Faith for Justification must relie partly upon Christ and partly upon our selves Paul might have desired to be found in his own Righteousness But our faith and trust for Justification may not in any part relie upon our selves Jere. 17.5 Phil. 3.3 Gal. 5.2 3 4. The Adversaries of Grace as we shewed before acknowledge that it is the safest course to trust and relie upon Christ alone and to fetch the comfort of our Justification from his perfect Obedience onely § 10.5 That which overthrows the main difference between the Law and the Gospel ought not be admitted for the confounding of them will open an in-let to innumerable Errors nay by this means the Gospel it self will become a meer cypher The Apostle we see was exceeding careful to keep these Doctrines distinct each from other and therefore throughout all his Writings he still opposeth the Law and Grace Works and Faith our Righteousness and Christs Righteousness instructing us thereby how needful it is they should be kept a sunder But the making our Obedience to Gospel precepts the Righteousness whereby we are justified overthrows the main difference between the Law and the Gospel Ergo. For herein as Bishop Downham well ob●●●ves standeth the chief Agreement and Difference between the Law and the Gospel they agree in this That unto Justification both do require the perfect fulfilling of the Law but herein they differ That the Law requireth to Justification a Righteousness inherent in us and perfect Obedience to be performed in our own persons the Gospel reveals for our Justification the perfect Righteousness of an other even of Christ which is accepted in their behalf that do believe in him as

1 he blames the Proposition For sayes he though it were supposed that we are in Covenant before Faith yet it will not follow That we are justified His Reason is Because the blessings of the Covenant have an order and dependance one upon another and are enjoyed successively one after another But by his favor the Sequel is not invalidated by this Reason for though a man be not sanctified and glorified before Faith yet if he be in Covenant with God i. e. One of the Elect to whom the Grace of the New Covenant appertains he is certainly justified For 1 God from all eternity did will not to punish his Elect ones which as hath been shewn is real Justification it being forgiveness in the heart of God Or 2 taking it for an effect of his Will Justification is the first benefit that doth accrew to us by the death of Christ. God hath promised from thence forth to remember the sins of his people no more Isa. 43.25 54.9 and in Ezek. 36.25 He first promiseth to cleanse us from all our filthiness which must be meant of our Justification for by Sanctification our inherent filthiness is not perfectly cleansed in this life and then to give us a new heart And Chap. 16. he first sayes unto the Soul Live which is the sentence of Justification and then he adorns it with the precious gifts of his holy Spirit It is sufficiently known That the generality of our Protestant Divines in comparing the blessings of the Covenant have given the precedency to Justification some have ascribed to it a priority of time but all of Nature before the rest Perperàm absurde prorsus inter effecta Sanctificationis numeratur Justificatio quae illam natura praecedit c. Justification sayes Tilenus is most absurdly made an effect or consequent of Sanctification which in nature doth go before it A man cannot be sanctified until he is first justified for the tree must be good before it can bring forth good fruit Bishop Downham accounts it a gross error to say That Sanctification goes before Justification For sayes he Sanctification is the end and fruit c. So that if they have right to any benefit of the Covenant before Faith it must be to Justification for Faith is a part of Sanctification and the same thing cannot be before it self § 3. 2 He denies the Assumption viz. That we are in Covenant with God or that we have any right and title to any blessing of the Covenant before we believe But before he will give his Reasons for the Negative he is willing to hear mine for the Affirmative This seeming civility ushers in a notorious slander That I was so obstreperous in our Conference that I would not give him a fair hearing which hath been sufficiently disproved in another place nay his own mouth did acquit me in the close of that discourse before I belive a thousand witnesses I wonder though his Conscience was asleep when this fell from his Pen that his memory should fail him Me thinks he should have been more tender of his own reputation then to contradict himself though he had a desire to blast mine but as if it were not enough to mis-report my actions he takes upon him the office of God to judge my heart I believe sayes he he is resolved to give it unto no body else whiles the judgement of the cause must be left to the people Yes to himself or any one else when I have an occasion for the like essay I am sure he hath not found me heretofore of so morose a spirit as not to weigh and yeeld unto better reason he is no fit champion to defend the Faith who is so much a stranger to the rules of Charity which thinketh no evil but hopes the best I confess I am yet to seek for the Reason of his next clause whilest the judgement of the cause must be left to the people One would think that he who leaves the judgement of his cause unto the people should be most willing they should have a fair hearing of whatsoever can be said either pro or con or else he cannot expect their Votes should be for him The people are apt to think he hath the better cause whose mouth is stopt But perhaps it sticks in his stomack That in our Conference I desired the people to weigh and judge of some interpretations of Scripture which were given by him It was far from my thoughts to refer the decision of the Question unto most voices either of Ministers or people The Judgement desired was that of private discretion and not of publick determination though the latter ought not to be usurped by Min●sters whose Reasons and not their Votes must satisfie mens Consciences yet the former ought not to be denied to the meanest Christians who are required to judge for themselves to prove and try the Doctrines which are brought unto them Now why this expression should be faulted I see no cause unless men would have the people to content themselves with an implicite Faith such as the Romanists do allow their disciples who use them as Babes which must swallow whatsoever their Nurses do put into their mouths The Church of Christ saith Optatus is rationabilis she hath the use both of Natural and Supernatural Reason Did Christians more generally see with their own eyes make use of that Light and Reason which God hath given them they would never acquiesce in many of those Dictates which are imposed upon them will any man that hath a spark of Reason beleeve that I am doth signifie I will bee § 4. Well now he hath heard my Reason That we are in Covenant or have a right and title to the blessings of the Covenant before we beleeve because some benefits of the Covenant to wit the Spirit which workes Faith is given us before we beleeve What hath he to say against it 1. He undertakes to explaine that which is plain enough the word Give as that it is taken 1 for constituting or appointing and 2 for the actual collating of a benefit so as that it is received and possessed by him to whom it is given 2. He tels us of sundry ways how the Spirit is said to be given 1 Essentially 2 Personally 3 Operatively All which is nothing at all to the matter in hand but serves meerly to raise a dust to blind the unwary Reader The termes need neither distinction nor explication being easie enough to be understood by the weakest capacity When we say That the Spirit which works Faith is given us before wee beleeve none can well imagine that we meant it of Gods purpose or decree to give the Spirit but of the actuall sending or bestowing of him nor yet of an Essentiall or Personal giving of the Spirit so as to be Hypostatically united to us as the God-head of the Son is to the Humane nature though some godly