Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n grace_n life_n sin_n 2,939 5 4.9686 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A35303 A just reply to Mr. John Flavell's arguments by way of answer to a discourse lately published, entitled, A solemn call, &c. wherein it is further plainly proved that the covenant made with Israel on Mount Sinai, as also the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham, whereon so much stress is laid for the support of infants baptism ... : together with a reply to Mr. Joseph Whiston's reflections on the forementioned discourse, in a late small tract of his entituled, The right method for the proving of infants baptism ... / by Philip Cary ... Cary, Philip. 1690 (1690) Wing C741; ESTC R31290 91,101 194

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

Purchased But none will say they are therefore Antecedent Conditions of his Title or Interest therein it being plain that Life and Discretion are not Conditions of the Purchase but Qualifications of the Subject necessary to enjoy it Sir you cannot be ignorant of Bernard's famous speech concerning good Works Sunt via Regni non Causa Regnandi They are the way to the Kingdom not the Cause of Reigning I know it is usual with many besides your self to call them Conditions of Life But Dr. Ames gives a Distinction which might fairly end all this Controversy To require Conditions saith he as the Causes of our Right to Life is proper to the Law But to require them as Concomitants or Effects of what God hath Promised and the Actual Bestowing it is agreable to the most mild Kingdom of Grace If it be said God cannot forgive Sin till Man resolves to leave it and so Repentance must be before forgiveness I Answer this is untrue as is evident in Infants And as for the Adult It is true God cannot Pardon Sin and suffer Men to go on in Sin but it is sufficient that he Pardoneth and together with Forgiveness he giveth a Heart to Repent and obey And Faith it self which apprehendeth Pardon doth implicitely contain Repentance and all other Graces Forasmuch as unfeigned flying to and Trusting in the Mercy of God for Pardon and Eternal Life is a turning of the Heart to God and Spiritual things and doth naturally dispose the Heart to use all the Means which God hath Prescribed for the Obtaining of his Kingdom The same Answer is to be given to those Scriptures that require Men to Forgive their Enemies and if they do not Forgive neither shall they be Forgiven For First This doth at the most but shew that Christians must be Merciful and disposed to Forgive as they expect Mercy and Forgiveness from God But it proveth not that a Man is not Forgiven or Justified till he doth actually Forgive all Enemies at least in Purpose much-less that it is a Condition of his being Reconciled to God For Secondly The Scripture supposeth a Man to be first Forgiven and maketh that an Argument to incline him to Forgive others Eph. 4. 32. Forgive one another even as God for Christ's sake forgave you And this is the Scope of that Parable Mat. 18. 23 24 c. The Servant is himself first Forgiven and therefore it was Judged meet that he should Forgive his Fellow Servant vers 32 33. Thus much by way of Answer to your first Argument whereby you pretend to have proved the Conditionality of the New Covenant your second follows Argum. 2. If God's Covenant with Abraham Gen. 12. 2 3. and that Gen. 17. 2 3. were as you say pure Gospel Covenants of Grace and yet in both some things are required as Duties on Abraham's part to make him Partaker of the Benefits of the Promises then the Covenant of Grace is not Absolute but Conditional But so it was in both these Covenants Ergo Reply This Argument I have already dispatcht in my Answer to your third Argument upon the former Head in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision And therefore I need say nothing to it here I shall accordingly proceed to your third Argument whereby you labour to prove the Conditionality of the new Covenant which runs thus Printed Reply pag. 69. Argum. 3. If all the Promises of the Gospel be Absolute and Unconditional requiring no Restipulation from Man then they cannot properly and truly belong to the New Covenant But they do properly and truly belong to the New Covenant Therefore they are not all Absolute and Unconditional Reply That the New Covenant is wholly Free and Absolute I have already Proved by way of Answer to your foregoing Argument there being noCondition at all Annexed thereunto neither in Jeremy nor in the Apostles Recital thereof Heb. 8. In respect whereof your present Argument might more justly and truly have been thus formed If all the Promises of the Gospel do properly and truly belong to the New Covenant then they must needs be absolute and unconditional as that was But they properly and truly belong to the New Covenant therefore they are all absolute and unconditional as that was The sequel of the Major say you is only liable to doubt or denial namely That the absoluteness of all the Promises of the New Testament cuts off their relation to a Covenant You should have said That the Absoluteness of all the Promises of the Gospel cuts off their relation to the New Covenant according to the scope of your forementioned Argument if you had kept close to that And then you must have examined the New Covenant and have compared the Promises of the Gospel therewith But you knew well enough that there are no Conditions annexed to the New Covenant whether in Jer. 31. or in Heb. 8. the consideration whereof it may be startled you off when you came to prove the Sequel of your Major from that expression of the New Covenant to their relation to a Covenant in general That the absoluteness of all the Promises in the New Testament cuts off their relation to a Covenant This by the way looks with no good Countenance and ●…s indeed no other than a plain Shuffle But to proceed And that it doth so say you no Man can deny that understands the difference betwixt a Covenant and an Absolute Promise A Covenant is a mutual Compact or Agreement betwixt Parties in which they bind each other to the performance of what they Respectively promise So that there can be no proper Covenant where there is not a Restipulation or Re-obligation on one part as well as a Promise on the other But an absolute Promise binds onely one Party and leaves the other wholly free and un-obliged to any thing in order to the enjoyment of the Good promised So then if all the New Testament Promises be Unconditional and Absolute they are not part of a Covenant nor must that word be applied to them they are Absolvte Promises binding no Man to whom they are made to any Duty in order to the enjoyment of the Mercies promised But those Persons that are under these Absolute Promises must and shall enjoy the Mercies of Pardon and Salvation whether they Repent or Repent not Believe or Believe not Obey or Obey not Reply You might have added Although God hath therein promised to put his Laws in our Hearts and his Fear in our inward parts and that as he will not depart from us So neither shall we depart from him But that this would have marred and overthrown all your foregoing Discourse For these are the Promises of the New Covenant as well as the Mercies of Pardon and Salvation Nay therefore God hath promised to put his Laws in our Hearts and to write them in our Minds because he will freely pardon our Sins Now if our Sins are freely pardoned and if in the self same Covenant God
pure Covenant By way of Answer I must tell you that Abraham was required to be Circumcised by the Command of God as a token of the Covenant of Works he was pleased to make with him vers 7 8 9 10. And that even after the establishment of the formentioned Gospel Covenant ver 2 4. which how harsh or unlikely soever it may seem unto Mens Carnal Reason as if the latter must needs make void the former as you after tell me the Apostle will give a quite contrary Resolution of the present point Gal. 3. 17. And this I say that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 years after cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect The like whereunto may be as justly said in reference to the Covenant of Circumcision which God made with Abraham after the Confirmation and Establishment of the forementioned Gospel Covenant The latter doth not cannot disannul the former that it should make the Promise o●… none effect since the Grace of the one prevailed and did by far supersede the Force and Power of the other For so the Apostle himself resolves the Point in reference to the Law Rom. 5. 20. The Law entered saith he that Sin might abound But where Sin hath abounded Grace did much more abound Well but if there is something required as a Condition in the Covenant of Circumcision which quite alters the nature of that Covenant from the Gospel Covenant before spoken of so you should have stated the case but that I can meet with nothing but crookedness throughout the whole of your present Reasonings Tell me then say you why you say p. 223 that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 12. was a Gospel Covenant and yet there Abraham is obliged to walk before God and be Perfect Does not that also there alter the nature of the Covenant as well as here in the 17 th chapt Reply Something you would say though you know not what For the whole of your Reply is full of Mistakes and Mis-representations Sometimes nay twenty and twenty times over you Mis-represent my plain Words and Sense Here you mistake and Mis-represent the Scripture it self for in Genesis the Twelfth there is no such word there at all mentioned as an Obligation upon Abraham to walk before God and to be Perfect as you affirm there is nor any thing of that Nature And there being no such thing there expressed how can that alter the Nature of that Covenant from being a Gospel Covenant Which Proof failing you are so far to seek of a Material Advantage you thought you had against me Well but somewhere 't is if it be not in the 12 th of Gen. 't is in the 17 th And you also grant say you that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 22. was a pure Gospel Govenant Or if you deny it the Apostles proves it Heb. 6. 13. And yet there is more appearance of Respect to Abraham's Obedience in that Covenant tham is in submitting to Circumcision See Gen. 22. 16 17. By my self have I Sworn saith the Lord For because thou hast done this thing c. that in Blessing I will Bless thee and in Maltiplying I will Multiply thee Printed Reply P. 50. Reply It is Observable that the Apostle Heb. 6. 13. designing to give an Account and Commendation of the Faith and Obedience of Abraham sutable to his then present Discourse to the Hebrews calls not out that Grant of the Gospel Promise which was Preventing and Calling Antecedent unto all his Faith and Obedience and Communicative of all the Grace whereby he was enabled thereunto as it is Expressed Gen. 12. 1 2 3. But he takes it from that place where it was Renewed and Established unto him after he had given the last and greatest Evidence of his Faith Love and Obedience Gen. 22. 16 17 18. By my self have I Sworn saith the Lord For because thou hast done this thing and hast not with-held thy Son thine only Son that in Blessing I will Bless thee and in Multiplying I will Multiply thee and in thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be Blessed which is a plain Rehearsal of those Absolute Gospel Promises of the same Nature that had been before made unto him Gen. 12. 2 3. In which respect it is also further Observable that even Abraham himself at the very time of his Call mentioned Gen. 12. seems to have been tainted with the common Idolatry which was then in the World This Account we have Josh. 24. 2 3. Your Fathers dwelt on the other side of the Flood in old time even Terah the Father of Abraham and the Father of Nachor and they Served other Gods And I took your Father Abraham from the other side of the Flood It is true the charge is Express against Terah only but it lying against their Fathers in general on the other side of the Flood Abraham seems to be Involved in the guilt of the same Sin whilst he was in his Fathers House and before his Call Nor is there any Account given of the least Preparation or Disposition in him unto the State and Duties which he was afterward brought into In this Condition God of his Sovereign Grace first calls him to the saving Knowledg himself and by degrees Accumulates him with all the Favours and Priviledges afterward Conferred on him From hence in the close of his whole Course he had no Cause to glory in himself neither before God nor Men Rom. 4. 2. For he had nothing but what he Gratiously Received Indeed there were distances of time in the Collation of several distinct Mercies and Blessings on him and he still through the supplies of Grace which he received under every Mercy so deported himself as that he might not be unmeet to receive succeeding Mercies Which is the constant Method of God's Communicating his Grace to Sinners His first Call and Conversion of them is Absolutely Gratious He hath no no Consideration of any thing in them that should induce him thereunto Neither is there any thing required unto a Condecency herein God takes Men as he pleaseth some in Condition and Posture of Mind some in another some in an open course of Sin and some in the execution of a particular Sin as Paul and he indeed at the Instant of his Call was under the Active Power of Two of the greatest hinderances unto Conversion that the Heart of Man is Obnoxious unto For first he was Zealous above measure of the Righteousness of the Law seeking earnestly for Life and Salvation by it and then he was Actually Engaged in the Prosecution of the Saints of God Those Two Qualifications Constant Resting in Legal Righteousness with Rage and Madness in Persecution than which there are not out of Hell more Adverse Principles unto it were all the Preparations of that Apostle unto Converting Grace But after that this Grace which in the First Discovery thereof is