Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	earth_n	holy_a	son_n	6,849	5	4.8446	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67126	Socinianisme in the fundamentall point of justification discovered, and confuted, or, An answer to a written pamphlet maintaining that faith is in a proper sense without a trope imputed to beleevers in justification wherein the Socinian fallacies are discovered and confuted, and the true Christian doctrine maintained, viz. that the righteousnesse by which true beleevers are justified before God is the perfect righteousnesse and obedience which the Lord Iesus Christ God and man did perform to the law of God, both in his life and death / by George Walker ...	Walker, George, 1581?-1651.	1641 (1641)	Wing W365; ESTC R3923	109,383	364

City to whom as yet I was unknown that I was a green headed novice carryed away with anger and passion rather then zeal yet divers of you my learned Brethren did judge otherwise of me and my labours and God blessed them and made them and your assistance of me therein powerfull and effectuall to the quelling of those errors and to the suppressing of them at that time by putting the Author of them to silence And now for 20. yeares and more they have been buryed in oblivion untill this new Adversary hath raked them up as coales out of ashes and out of a surreptitious Booke which the First Adversary had composed Printed beyond the Seas and procured to be brought in by stealth and sold underhand did bring them into the pulpit and from thence with a tumultuous noyse proclaymed them most confidently Now because I have sufficiently acted my part heretofore in opposing these errors and also divers of you have entered into the lists and with zeale and courage have begun to fight against the reviver of them I should have refrayned my selfe from further medling but because this common adversary hath singled me out and provoked me by a proud challenge to answere his writings I have once more undertaken to answer his challenge which Answer being sent to him privately might there have rest●d if his most reproachfull and rayling reply full of lyes absurdities contradictions blasphemies and intollerable scoffes and reproaches had not forced me to send it abroad into the world to justifie it selfe from the rayling and slanderous clamours which he and his disciples and factious followers have raised against it I here commend it to your grave censure in hope that the goodnesse of the cause which herein I maintaine will cover mine infirmities and will stirre you up to perfect and finish what I have begun The Truth for which you shall fight is strong and will prevaile all power might glory and victory is Gods for whose cause you stand and our Lord Jesus Christ on whose perfect rigteousnesse you strive to keep the Crown hath all power given him in heaven and in earth To this God eternall and omnipotent and to his eternall Sonne our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to the most holy and blessed Spirit three persons in one God I commend you and your holy and faithfull labours in my dayly Prayers humbly supplicating to his Majesty for this Grace that I may continue till death Your fellow Soldier and labourer in his Vineyard GEORGE WALKER THE ANSWERERS PREFACE To the first Chapter THE question which is propounded and the state and drift thereof laid down in this first Chapter is in the Authors own words this whether the faith of him that truely beleeves or the righteousnesse of CHRIST be imputed for righteousnesse in the act of justification In this question the imputing of Faith is opposed to the imputing of Christs righteousnesse for righteousnesse to justification which no Orthodox Christian durst atten●● to doe at any time for the godly learned in the Scriptures and acquainted with the writings of Orthodox divines both ancient and Moderne from the time of the Apostles to this day doe alwayes joyne Faith with Christs righteousnesse in the act of justification and do never account them such opposites as doe the one exclude the other and cannot both stand together and be reputed for righteousnesse to beleevers in justification Though the Apostle doth oppose justification by faith to justification by works of the Law performed by every man in his owne person as two opposites which cannot stand together in GODS justification of sinners And this all true Christians receive imbrace and hold for a solid truth and a fundamentall article of Christian Religion Yet they abhorre and detest the opposing of Faith and Christs righteousnes in GODS imputing of righteousnes to beleevers and doe with an unanimous consent teach that in this justifying act of GOD Christs righteousnesse of which all true beleevers have communion is that which GOD in a proper sense is said to accept and repute for righteousnesse and Faith as it receives and applies Christs righteousnesse is said to be imputed but in an improper speech the name of the act being used to signifie the object which we see frequently in Scripture as for example Gal. 3.2.25 where the name Faith is used to signifie the thing beleeved that is the doctrine of the Gospell and Coloss. 1.5 where the name Hope is used to signifie the thing hoped for that is the inheritance and reward laid up for us in Heaven of which kind many more instances may be produced But as for them who have called into controversie the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and having propounded this question whether Faith or the righteousnes of Christ is imputed in the act of justification have set up Faith and thrust out Christs righteousnesse they have ever beene branded by all true Churches of Christ for pestilent Heretikes and enemies of GODS saving truth The first mover of this question was one Petrus Abilardus a pestilent and blasphemous Heretick who being full of the spirit of pride and error did in disputing and writing deny the communion of Christs perfect satisfaction obedience and righteousnesse and the imputation of them for righteousnesse in the justification of true beleevers This filthie wretch was gelded for corrupting and defiling of a Maid and for his blasphemous heresies Saint Bernard and the Bishops of France caused him to be excommunicated and condemned for an Heretike and his blasphemous books to be burned publikely The next instrument of the Devill after him mentioned in former Histories was Servetus that blasphemous Heretike who for heresies and blasphemies which hee dispersed as a vagabond in several Countries in divers books was by Master Calvin discovered apprehended at Geneva condemned and burned and dyed blaspheming Christ most horribly as Beza testifieth in vita Calvini The third notorious Heretike who in writing and bookes published did maintaine this wicked errour and by his Disciples dispersed it in Transilvania Polonia and other adjoyning Countries was Faustus Socinus whose blasphemous faction and sect still continueth and infesteth those Countries at this day The fourth Grand Master and propagatour of this heresie who brought it into Holland nearer unto us was Arminius He did first secretly teach and instill it into the eares and hearts of many disciples and afterwards did openly professe it as we read in his Epistle ad Hyppolytum de collibus wherein he confesseth that he held Faith to be imputed for righteousnesse to justification not in a Metonymicall but in a proper sense And although this and other errours held by him are condemned in the late Synod of Dort yet his disciples the Remonstrants doe obstinately persist in this errour though some of that sect would seeme to decline and disclaime it The fift perverse publisher of this heresie who first openly professed it in England and in manuscript Pamphlets and Printed Bookes

to dispute against Gods imputing of Christs righteousnes in iustification His reasons are 3. First because God required Christs righteousnes of Christ himselfe and therefore it is not required of GOD for our righteousnesse to iustification Secondly because the scope of the Apostle is to shew what must be done and performed by us and what GOD requires at our hands to iustification and Christs righteousnesse is not any thing performed by us and therefore is not here said to be imputed Thirdly if the Apostle had said that we must be iustified by Christ and his righteousnesse without any other thing performed by us this had beene to cast a snare upon us rather then to open to us a dore of life and salvation To which I answere that as his denying of Christs righteousnes to be imputed is Hereticall so also are his reasons brought to confirme his opinion First in that he saith GOD doth not require of us the righteousnes of Christ for our iustification this phrase is not onely harsh and unsavory but also full of calumny and close slander It is harsh and absurd like as if one should say that GOD requires the same particular and individuall act done by another to be not done by him but by us which implies a grosse contradiction It is also full of close calumny for hereby he goeth about to make men beleeve that the orthodox doctrine of iustification by the communion and imputation of Christs righteousnes is a teaching and supposing that GOD requires of us for iustification that we be performers of the same individuall works of the law in the propriety and formality of them which Christ performed and so he openly expresseth his mind in another place which is a base slander as I have before shewed Secondly in that he saith God required Christs righteousnesse of Christ himselfe and not for our iustification This implies that Christ had need of iustification and was bound to fulfill the righteousnesse of the Law as a thing requisit for himselfe and it savours very rank of the Samosatenian and Socinian heresie which denyeth Christs eternall deity for if Christ his humane nature being from the first conception most pure upright and holy was personally united to the eternall Son God equall with the father and so was the Son of God and heir of all things who can doubt but that he in himselfe was worthy of glory at Gods right hand from his birth as his taking of our nature upon him was altogether for us so his infirmities sufferings death and continuance on earth for the performance of all righteousnes and obedience to the Law was for us and for all the elect both them who of old before his comming beleeved in him promised and to come and also for them who now doe beleeve in him already come exhibited and exalted to glory in his humanity To say or thinke that he had need to iustifie and make righteous himselfe by his workes and to merit glory in heaven by his righteousnes is in effect to deny that hee is GOD infinitely worthy of all glory as he was the onely begotten sonne of GOD and heire of all things His second reason is a manifest falshod to wit that the scope of the Apostle is to shew what is to be done and performed by us which GOD may accept at our hands to our justification For the Apostles scope is to shew that wee are justified freely by GODS grace by the things which Christ did for our redemption cap. 3.24 and that obedience righteousnes and satisfaction of Christ we must not obtaine by any workes of our owne according to the Law it is freely given us of GOD and faith is the hand by which wee receive it and our evidence that we are justified by it His third reason is blasphemy and contradiction of Christs owne words For our Saviour professeth and affirmeth that he alone is the dore John 10.7 the way Iohn 14.6 and hee who makes him the way and dore and seeks justification life and salvation by the way of his righteousnes hee is a true disciple of Christ and his Apostles But to call the teaching of men in this way the casting of a snare upon them is blasphemy Far be it from me and from all true Christians not to detest and abhorre such impiety and not to thinke him worthie of the curse of Anathema Maranatha who with his mouth proclaimeth and with an obstinate heart maintaineth that teaching of iustification by Christ and his righteousnes is casting of a snare on men and not of the dore of life and salvation to them Socinianisme THirdly that interpretation which is set up against it and contendeth for the imputation of Christs righteousnes is cleerely overthrowne by severall circumstances and passages in the context First it hath no appearance of a likelyhood in it that the Apostle in the great and weighty point of justification wherein doubtlesse he desired if in any subject besides to speak with his understanding as his owne phrase is that is that what hee himselfe conceives and understands may bee clearly understood by others should time after time and in one place after another without ever explaining himself or changing his speech throughout the whole disputation use so strange harsh and uncouth an expression or figure of speech as is not to be found in all his writings besides to say that faith and beleeving is imputed for righteousnes but to meane that indeed it is the righteousnesse of Christ that is imputed were to speake rather that he might conceale his mind then reveale it Christianisme IN this third way of arguing he layeth downe his arguments against the true Orthodox interpretation of Saint Pauls speeches concerning imputation of faith for righteousnes which interpretation he goeth about to overthrow by severall circumstances or passages in the context I will first sift his first argument here laid downe and then propound and answer the rest Answer to the first argument IN this argument there are more impudent lyes then full pauses or sentences The first impudent lye is that the Apostle expressing the state of righteousnes or of a man justified by Christs righteousnes by the name of faith and beleeving imputed for righteousnes to him should use an harsh strange and uncouth speech and expression what is the man so ignorant of the first grounds of Rhetorick that a trope or figure of speech is harsh strange and uncouth with him It is but a Metonymie to expres by the name of Faith and beleeving the state of a beleever or a faithfull man or the object of faith which faith hath laid hold on so fast that they cannot be separated but he who hath the one hath the other also and by righteousnes to expresse the state of a righteous man justified And when we say faith is imputed for righteousnes to meane that the state of a beleever is counted the state of righteousnes or of a man justified or that faith