Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
judgement_n according_a lord_n work_n 1,535 5 5.1853 4 false
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
A96326 The right method for the proving of infant-baptism. With some reflections on some late tracts against infant-baptism. / By Joseph Whiston, Minister of the Gospel. Whiston, Joseph, d. 1690. 1690 (1690) Wing W1695; ESTC R201364 36,822 72

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

he drives at is this There were some in the Covenant of Grace which were not circumcised nor under an Obligation to be circumcised Now in Answer to this I would only demand of Mr. G. Whether he is sure the Covenant now entred with Abraham was so far promulgated as that the Persons he talks of had knowledg of it Or suppose they had some notice of it Whether their Duty to be circumcised was made known unto them Either of these things being granted how their not being circumcised should intimate that this Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace nor Circumcision a Gospel-Ordinance is as much above the Reason of Man to apprehend as the former I would commend to Mr. G. the Case of Cornelius in Acts 10. the latter end There is only one thing more that I would take notice of in Mr. G's Discourse And thus he argues against that Covenant its being a Covenant of Grace from the Date of the Promise But I have returned so satisfactory an Answer to that in my Answer to Mr. Cox that I shall and no more see p. 97 and so on I shall now come to what Mr. Cary hath said in pursuance of the same Design namely to prove That that Covenant Gen. 17.7 is not the Covenant of Grace but on the other hand that it is the Old Covenant or a Covenant of Works only I shall premise that at present I design not a full Answer of his Book that I have already done in my Answer to Mr. Cox Neither do I know how I could more effectually answer his Book than by laying down and proving those three Propositions there laid down and proved I shall now only take notice of what is Argumentative in his Book and considering the Commendation it hath by Five as I suppose of the chiefest of that Perswasion and a Commendatory Epistle by a Sixth I might justly expect something extraordinary and I shall not deny but that my Expectations were somewhat high But if ever that Proverb Parturiunt Montes were verified it is here Alas what do I meet with but Ridiculus Mus For I have yet observed but two Arguments syllogistically framed by which he attempts the Confirmation of his Notion and the very recital of them may in the judgment of all unbyassed Persons be a sufficient confutation of them There first is in his p. 120. and it is this If that Covenant he means that recorded in Gen. 17. was as much a Covenant of Works as that Covenant of Mount Sinai and that Covenant mentioned Deut. 29.9 nay as much as the Covenant made with Adam before his Fall then it is not a Covenant of Grace But it was as much a Covenant of Works as either of the Covenants before-mentioned were Therefore c. A lusty Argument if it would stand But truly I might with sorrow say as the Apostle of some that would be teachers of the Law There are some that would be Teachers of the Gospel neither knowing what they say nor whereof they affirm But to the Argument I positively deny the Minor Proposition as that concerns the Covenant made with Adam and that entred with the People of Israel at Mount Sinai As for that Covenant mentioned Deut. 29. 't is the same with this in Genesis both which I affirm to be one and the same Covenant of Grace But Mr. Cary attempts to prove his Minor thus It must needs be as much a Covenant of Works as that entred with the People at Mount Sinai yea as that made with Adam in Innocency because although God promised to be a God to Abraham and his Seed yet it was upon condition of Obedience with an answerable Threatning But can Mr. Cary or any other Man of common sense think that the bare requiring of Obedience in any Covenant or Threatning of Judgments in Case of Disobedience makes it presently a Covenant of Works Is it not expresly said That our Lord Christ is the Author of Salvation to all that obey him and doth he not say according to the Covenant of Grace Yea and is not Faith it self an Act of Obedience and yet the Condition of the Covenant of Grace Mr. G. expresly grants that it is and if I do not mistake so doth Mr. Cary also And for Threatnings doth not the Apostle tell us If we live after the Flesh we shall die Rom. 8.13 Yea doth not our Lord Christ give us the Sum of the Gospel-Covenant in his Commission to his Apostles Mark 16. and yet doth he not say He that believeth not shall be damned But not to waste time Mr. Cary must know that it is not the bare requiring of Obedience nor yet the denouncing Threatnings that makes a Covenant a Covenant of Works but the commanding a perfect sinless Obedience to all that is written therein and threatning Death unto all in case of the least failure in such an Obedience And therefore to proceed His 2. Argument which is of a like validity with this we have p. 204. and it is this That Covenant in which Faith was not reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness could never be a Covenant of Faith of Grace I suppose he means And this Argument he takes to be irresistible Strange Confidence And not to spend Time in shewing the Insufficiency of his Proof that speaking of Circumcision when his Argument speaks of the Covenant and sure there is a wide difference between the Covenant and Circumcision the Token of it So that this Argument of it self falls to the ground for want of Proof But yet let me ask this one Question of Mr. Cary and that is Whether Faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness by a meer Act of Soveraign Grace without Respect had to any Covenant he was then under Or was it reckoned to him by virtue of some Promise of any Covenant that he was then under If he say the former Then I shall only say how his having his Faith reckoned unto him for Righteousness by such an Act of Soveraign Grace should be an Argument that this Covenant after entred with him was not the Covenant of Grace is above the reach of Man's Understanding to apprehend But if he say the latter then I shall affirm That was the Covenant of Grace the same for substance with this now entred with him only before less compleat but now fully compleated and how the Institution of Circumcision could either cast Abraham out of it or alter the Tenure of the Covenant so as that before he had Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness by virtue of the Promises contained in it but after neither had nor could have Faith alike reckoned to him for Righteousness by virtue of the same Promises is as much above the Understanding of Man as the former We will suppose an Heathen or a Pagan converted and enabled to believe Now upon his very first Conversion and Believing he hath his Faith reckoned to him for Righteousness but afterwards this Man is baptized shall we now say