Selected quad for the lemma: woman_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
woman_n	conceive_v	seed_n	womb_n	1,446	5	10.0770	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37649	A vindication, or, Further confirmation of some other Scriptures, produced to prove the divinity of Jesus Christ, distorted and miserably wrested and abused by Mr. John Knowles together with a probation or demonstration of the destructiveness and damnableness of the contrary doctrine maintained by the aforesaid Mr. Knowles : also the doctrine of Christs satisfaction and of reconciliation on Gods part to the creature, cleared up form Scripture, which of late hath been much impugned : and a discourse concerning the springing and spreading of error, and of the means of cure, and of the preservatives and against it / by Samuel Eaton, teacher of the church of Jesus Christ, commonly stiled the church at Duckenfield.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.	1651 (1651)	Wing E126; ESTC R30965	214,536	435

be more nearly allyed to the one then to the other more to God then to man but as he frames the Argument if Christ the Mediator be God then he is a party when as it is manifest that he is man also no nearer related to God though he be God then he is to man because he is man the Major is palpably false must be denied by that time he hath seriously considered of this which I have here presented I hope he will be forced to confesse that I knew what I did when I brought that reason that Christ if a meer creature would be a party rather then a Mediator But he gives an instance In reconciliation saith he by a Mediator we are to suppose three One offended another offending and a third mediating for peace betwixt them God was offended men were offenders and Christ was the Mediator Now if Christ had been a sinfull man he had been of the party offending and and if he had been God he was the party offended but Christ was not a Party From the Proposition which I have thus confirmed and the Assumption which you have acknowledged I will draw up this Conclusion That Christ the Mediator is not God Rep. In this Instance and in the application of it there are some things that are justly liable to exception and other things manifestly false 1. That there be three in reconciliation wil be granted but that the third must be so distinct as he holds it forth as not to partake of the other two is denied For a son that mediates betwixt father and mother which may somtimes be the case is of the flesh of both and yet notwithstanding is distinct from both but not so distinct as not to partake of both So in the reconciliation made by Christ betwixt God and man there are three that are distinct 1. There is God offended 2. There is man viz. mankind offending 3. There is Christ mediating who is neither meerly and only God nor yet meerly and only man but is both God and man yet distinct from both God and man Distinct from God because he is man and distinct from man because he is God Yea there is yet a further distinction for Christ though he be man viz. of that kind for nature and essence which was the offending party yet not one of those persons in that kind that did offend but without sin himself and though he be God and so for essence and nature one with that party which was offended and was offended in his own person yet distinct in personality or which is all one a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Ghost who more visibly do manage the offence against man For the Son though he was offended together with the Father and the Holy Ghost yet he appears not prosecuting the offence but therein he is veiled and appears only appeasing the Father that was offended in both these respects there are three in this businesse of reconliation But he makes mention of three in reconciliation which in titles and names are the same with the three which I have already spoken of viz. God men Christ But when he comes to open and unfold these three he makes the third which mediates betwixt the other two to be so distinct from both of them as to partake of neither of them And under this lies couched the poyson and malignancy of his doctrine For as he layes it down he not only denies the Godhead of Christ which is the doctrine in dispute betwixt us but he destroyes the Manhood also and overturnes that satisfaction which in the nature of man he gave for man for his words are these If Christ had been a sinfull man he had been of the party offending His designe is to shew that he was a distinct person partaked of neither Party betwixt whom he mediated He was not of the Party offending for he was not a sinfull man He was not the Party offended for he could not be God because he could not be a Party Let it be considered seriously what he saith and it will be found to be false and dangerous and reacheth not his own designe 1. False for was Christ therefore not of that Party because he was without sin Was he not a true man in all things like other men sin onely excepted Had he not a true Body and Soule Was not soule and body subject to the same infirmities and weaknesses sin excepted as other mens soules and bodies were Was he not the Seed of the Woman which was promised Was he not conceived in the womb of the Virgin and was flesh of her flesh Was he not Abrahams seed and Davids seed Was not Satan to be broken and destroyed in all his strength by one that must be of the Woman that must spring out of her and be her seed And should all this be and yet Christ not this Party He was no offender indeed but yet he was of that Party which did offend he had the same nature for essence Abraham was of that Party which offended and so was David and were offenders themselves and he was their seed and was of them and from them therefore it is a great untruth and grosse mistake to say that he was not of that Party for he was flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone but kept by the Holy Ghost from that naturall pollution and staine which defiled them 2. Dangerous for if Christ were not of that party that offended he could not satisfie for that party which offended for in the same nature in which the offence was committed must the satisfaction be given for both the justice and truth of God required this It was threatned that the soule that is the person that sins shall die and if another suffer that penalty yet it must be one in that nature therefore it is said he bore our sins on his own body on the tree It was necessary it should be so els the truth of God would not be fulfilled nor justice satisfied And if Christ be not of the off●nding party if he be another from them not partaking of them but be of another nature and not of theirs then he might as well have been no man at all for any fruit or bene●it that accrues to sinfull man thereby And Christ might as well have taken the nature of Angells and as much to the benefit of lost men as have assumed flesh if it be not th● fl●sh and nature of men that did offend if he be not of their party though not spotted with their sin 3. It reacheth not his own designe which is to make Christ a third and distinct person or party from those he mediates betwixt partaking of neither for he knowes that if it be confessed that Christ partakes of the nature of one of the parties whom he is to make peace betwixt and not of the other then he will undeniably be a party instead of a Mediator to