Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	adam_n	covenant_n	fall_n	2,656	5	9.6090	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40076	Dirt wipt off, or, A manifest discovery of the gross ignorance, erroneousness and most unchristian and wicked spirit of one John Bunyan ... which he hath shewed in a vile pamphlet publish'd by him, against The design of Christianity ...	Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714.	1672 (1672)	Wing F1701; ESTC R8698	59,846	88

him to be a publick Teacher he that so abuseth the most plain Scriptures in Print as I can shew he doth in a vast multitude of instances besides this what woful work may we conclude he makes with them in his ridiculous Preachments He saith that Adam in his best and most sinless estate was a Type and Figure a Type and Figure doubtless in his sinless and holy estate a Type or Figure of the Holiness of Christ. This must be taken upon his own word he saith doubtless 't is so but gives not one word of proof But suppose it were so it would be nothing to his purpose would this prove that Adams holiness was of a different kind from the Holiness of Christians or of Christ either but I say doubtless it is not so we only read that he was in his fallen estate a figure And that is in Rom. 5. 14. By Figure there is meant the opposite member in a comparison and there the Reader may see how Adam and Christ are compared He saith the holiness that was in Adam and we lost in him was such as stood in and was managed by his natural perfect complyance with a covenant of works On the other side of the leaf he would acknowledge no more than that Adam had the law written in his heart now we see he grants that he perfectly complyed with that law how thick is his ignorance that knows not the difference between these two But what again is this to the purpose Why 1. saith he Adams holiness was a natural perfect complyance c. But prithee I. B. is it ever the worse for being natural is not the holiness of the good Angels natural to them nay is not the Holiness of God natural to him or is it therefore of a different kind from the holiness of Christians because theirs is not natural I should affront my Reader should I go about to prove to him that the different manner of receiving these two doth not make them to be of a different nature Because Adam was created with his Holiness and the holiness of the Gospel is by regeneration or a new-birth are they not therefore of the same kind 2. He saith that the Covenant Christ brings in is a better Covenant than Adams a blessed Covenant of grace and he possesseth his children with the holiness and priviledges of that Covenant But I say the holiness that Christs Covenant of grace requires is of the same nature with that required in the Covenant of works but the difference is the condition of the former is true holiness and that of the latter is perfect holiness by virtue of the former sincerity is accepted and by virtue of the latter nothing short of perfection and so the holiness of the one and the other differ only in degrees and the holiness required by the Covenant of works is so far from being meaner that 't is as much above that which the Covenant of grace accepts as perfection is above sincerity He saith the holiness that was in Adam and that we lost by the fall was such as might stand with perfect ignorance of the mediation of Christ for Christ was not made known to Adam as a Saviour before he was a Sinner What stuff is here again Doth this make the one and the other holiness to be of a different nature And was Adams Holiness ever the worse because it stood with perfect ignorance of Christ's mediation Nay it was therefore far better than we can attain to in this life because he needed no mediator He saith the Holiness that was in Adam was never given him through the promise nor incouraged by the promise Adam had no promise to possess him with a principle of holiness it came to him by Creation neither had he any promise to strengthen or incourage him in Holiness But 1. How doth he know he was not incouraged by a Promise if God did make him a promise was he bound to tell us so 2. There was a promise that if he did not eat of the tree he should live implyed in the threatning that if he did eat he should die 3. But suppose this to be true what is it to the purpose and what doth it make for him to say that Adam's holiness was not given him through the Promise but by Creation when as was said a different manner of obtaining a thing makes no change in the nature of the thing it self Lastly He sums up all this sottish prate together and thereby expresseth his brutish contempt of the Holiness we have lost In a word saith he it was a natural shadowish old Covenant promiseless Holiness such as stood and might be walked in while he stood perfectly ignorant of the Mediator Christ. You see Reader what a vile object of contempt he makes himself He next p. 26. quarrels with that Saying before the Descriptions of holiness namely that the holiness that 's the design of Christianity is not subjected in any thing without us nor is made ours by a mere external or outward application To this he saith That these words secretly smite at the justification that comes by the imputation of the glorious Righteousness that alone resideth in the person of the Lord Iesus and that is made ours by an Act of Eternal Grace we resting upon it by the faith of Christ. Here 's malice with a witness Does not he know that Mr. F. hath asserted the imputation of Christ's Righteousness and that the worst he saith is that 't is not the ultimate end of Christianity but that 't is designed in order to the promoting of inward holiness as all Christian Priviledges are And does he not therefore know that when Mr. F. saith that the Holiness that is the design of Christianity is such as he there affirms that he means by the design the chief and main or the design by way of eminence He that hath read but the Title page cannot but see this for he interprets there the Design of Christianity by ultimate End and grand intendment One may sufficiently understand the naughtiness of this mans Spirit by this one instance By the way I must tell the Reader that whereas Mr. F. doth somewhere in his Book call Holyness the onely design of Christianity he must needs be most disingenuous that can interpret that onely so severely as to exclude all other ends the whole business of the Treatise being to demonstrate it to be the ultimate or last end that is in reference to men and no man can think that he would any where assert more than he designed to prove And he could mean no more by onely than as in common Speech it is very ordinarily used that is for special or principal And so the Reverend and Learned Mr. Baxter hath expounded the word in defence of Mr. Fowler These are his words where he and others do say that Holiness is the only design of the Promises c. You must not interpret