Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	believe_v	faith_n	justify_v	5,380	5	8.8463	5	true

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

of Promise but God gave it to Abraham by Promise Is the Law then against the Promise God forbid For saith he if there had been a Law which could have given Life verily Righteousness should have been by the Law So then the Law would but could not give Life and why could it not give Life but through our Weakness we were not able to perform it nor could the Law furnish us with power to Enable us thereunto But what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh that Christ hath performed and by his Death and Sufferings made up the Breach between God and us And so in this respect there is only a Difference of Deficiency between the Law and the Gospel the one being strong and powerful the other weak and unable to Relieve us But yet say I this Difference notwithstanding through the satisfaction of Christ there is no Repugnancy or Hostile Contrariety betwixt the Law and the Promises or between the Law and Faith which hath respect to the Promises c. This you account strange Doctrin The Reason you give say you is as strange that this comes to pass through the satisfaction of Christ. Good Sir say you Enlighten us in this Rare Notion Did Christ Die to purchase a Reconciliation betwixt the Covenant of Works as such and the Covenant of Grace And I pray Sir why not Did not Christ satisfie the Law on our behalf Was he not made of a Woman made under the Law to Redeem them that were under the Law that we might receive the Adoption of Sons Doth or can the Law it self Impeach those for whom Christ Died and whom God himself pronounceth Righteous Doth not the Law it self that was before our Enemy against us and contrary to us stand up as our Friend through the Mediation of Christ And hath not God for this very purpose set forth his Son Christ unto us a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood to declare unto us his Righteousness that he might be Just and the Justifier of him that Believeth in Jesus And were not the Two Tables accordingly put into the Ark to shew their subserviency to Christ and in this sense its Consistency with him Typically demonstrating that though the Covenant of Works could not be kept or performed by us yet it should be perfectly fulfilled in Christ for us Is there not here a Perfect Reconciliation betwixt the Two Covenants Are not Mercy and Truth here met together And do not Righteousness and Peace sweetly Kiss and Embrace each other through the satisfaction of Christ And yet it follows not that to be Justified by Works and by Faith should after Christ's Death make no odds of Difference between them according to the Corrupt Inference which you unjustly draw from the Premises For though 't is true in a sense we may be said to be Justified by Works rightly and truly enough that is as Christ in his own Person hath fulfilled the Law for us yet your Inference is far enough from being truly deducible from the Premises according to the common and proper sense of Justification by Works Since as all our own Works are throughout the Scripture perfectly Excluded from any concern in that matter viz. as the meritorious or procuring cause of our Justification So they are according to the tenour of the foregoing Discourse also For if Christ hath satisfied the Law for us hence it follows that our Justification is only the fruit of Gods meer free Grace alone through the Redemption that is in Christ Jesus Thus much may suffice to have been spoken concerning the Absurdities or Self-contradictions which Mr. Flavell chargeth on on me Which so far as they have been already Examined the Reader may easily perceive that they do all of them return upon himself There is only one Passage more which doth more nearly touch the Heart of the Controversie betwixt us which is necessary also to be considered before we proceed unto what follows And that is this Whereas I have Affirmed and do still Affirm that there was no Promise of Pardon on Repentance in Moses's Covenant Mr. Flavell thinks he hath a mighty Advantage against me and supposes I do therein plainly contradict my self because I do yet grant that God promiseth Pardon on Repentance Lev. 26. which Mr. Flavell Affirms to belong to the Dispensation of the Law at Mount Sinai where the Jews are directed to the Covenant which God had made with Jacob Isaac and Abraham for their Relief in this respect For that is the Covenant saith God there that I will remember Well Be it so saith Mr. Flavell if you will needs have it so that the Promise mentioned Lev. 26. refers to Abraham's Covenant yet still it follows that the Covenant made with Abraham must be a Conditional Covenant of Grace For so it s made by this very Text If they accept the Punishment of their Iniquities and their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled then will I remember my Covenant with Abraham c. You see then that no Unhumbled or Impenitent Person could have Relief from it till Confession and Contrition were wrought in him when you in the mean time stoutly deny that there are any Conditions required in a Gospel Covenant M. S. P. 5. Printed Reply P. 20. But then Mr. Flavell should have considered that this Contrition and Gospel Humiliation can by no means be Effected or Expressed till the Heart be first soundly wrought upon by the Grace of that Covenant which God hath made with Sinners in Jesus Christ. And accordingly this is one main Branch of that Covenant Deut. 30. 6. which I have already proved to be a Gospel Covenant and Essentially Different from that of the Law The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart and the Heart of thy Seed to Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart and with all thy Soul that thou mayst Live Compare this with the forementioned Text in Leviticus If their Uncircumcised Hearts be humbled c. The Sinner might Reply But Lord this we cannot do of our selves we cannot break our hard and flinty Hearts nor will it ever be performed until thou takest the Work into thine own Hand This therefore the Lord himself undertakes The Lord thy God will Circumcise thy Heart c. And what Condition can there be of that but that of the good Pleasure of God's own Goodness and Grace For whatever is Antecedent thereunto being only a Work or Act of Corrupted Nature can be no Condition whereon the Dispensation of Spiritual Grace is superadded From whence as I have already told you it plainly follows that I the Covenant of Grace is wholly Free and Absolute Eor as much as there is nothing that can be supposed as the Condition thereof whether it be Faith Repentance or new Obedience which is not therein Absolutely Promised Thus God himself is pleased to Represent unto us the Nature of that New and Evangelical Covenant which he Promised to make

assure us that the Law is not of Faith And accordingly whatever Subordination or Tndency the Law hath to drive us to the Covenant of Faith for Relief and Shelter to be sure the Law it self gives us no Relief For neither chiefly nor ultimately doth it propound Faith as the condition of Life but doing only and consequently is another Covenant and Essentially different from the Covenant of Faith to which it drives us The Law saith Moses requireth doing unto Life The Gospel saith Paul requireth Faith And these saith he Gal. 4. 24 25 26. are the two Covenants the one from Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Jerusalem that now is the other to Jerusalem that is above the one gendereth to Bondage the other to Liberty the one a ministration of Death and Condemnation the other a ministration of Life and Righteousness 2 Cor. 3. 7 8. 9. Now whom shall we believe Paul or you Whether shall we believe the Blessed Apostle who affirms that the Law is not of Faith but of Works and that these are the two Covenants and who in effect also affirms that these two Covenants are essentially or specifically different in respect of the terms of Life propounded in either or those that affirm that the Law is of Faith yea that it is a Covenant of Faith in Christ Jesus These things being thus premised my fourth Proposition roundly and naturally follows For first If it is evident that there can be no medium betwixt these two Faith and Works And if it is as evident that neither will they admit of any mixture And if it be also as evident that the Law is not of Faith since neither chiefly nor ultimately was it propounded or intended thereby then it will unavoidably follow that the Sinai Covenant is a Covenant of Works Yea the very same for substance with that made with Adam It cannot be supposed that Adam's Covenant was a Covenant of Faith and I have now plainly proved that the Sinai Covenant was not the down right consequence of which is that they were both of the same stamp for the substance of them Argum. 2. That Covenant which saith Do this and Live or requireth perfect sinless Obedience in order to the obtainment of Life and Happiness and pronounceth a Curse upon the least failing must needs be a Covenant of Works the same for substance and of the very self same stamp with Adam's Covenant But such is the nature of the Sinai Covenant Ergo. The minor onely needing Proof hath it abundantly from Rom. 10. 5. Moses saith the Apostle Describeth the Righteousness which is of the Law that the man which doth these things shall live by them which he citeth from Lev. 18. 5. Ye shall therefore keep my Statutes and Judgments which if a man do he shall live in them And what can be a more plain Description of a Covenant of Works and that not in the way of a Partial Imperfect Obedience But as it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. which the Apostle quotes from Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them And all the People shall say Amen And therefore when it evidently appears that this was the nature of the Sinai Covenant in the very first Sanction of it as the fruit of God's special Designation and Appointment and when it is also as manifest that from hence it is that the Apostle calls it as he doth A ministration of Death and Condemnation and therefore now took out of the way being nailed to the Cross of Christ It is the greatest Violation and Perverting of Scripture that can lightly be met with to affirm that all this is uttered and declared by Paul yea by Moses and God himself onely because the Jews had perverted it and not as God intended it For how could the Jews have perverted it before it was Instituted Is there any Scripture that gives the least ground for such a Supposition May we not make any thing or nothing of the Scripture after this rate of Reasoning Would not the Apostle 2 Cor. 3. and Col. 3. have given some hint or other that this had been the meaning when he thunders against the Law as there he doth that he meant it was so and so onely as the Ignorance and Infidelity of unregenerate Men had made it to themselves and not as God intended it And so when he tells us Gal. 3. That the Law requires Perfect Obedience under the pain of a Curse would he not have giuen some hint or other that this was onely because the Jews had perverted it and that it was not so in it self But can we think that Men of Reason will be so easily baffled Or can we believe that Men that have any regard to the Judgment of another day will be content to have their Eyes blinded so as to receive such Doctrines as these The Apostle was careful not to handle the word of God deceitfully but by manifestation of the Truth conmmending our selves saith he to every man's Conscience in the sight of God 2 Cor. 4. 2. So again We are not as many which corrupt the word of God but as of Sincerity but as of God in the sight of God so speak we in Christ 2 Cor. 2. 17. It would have been well if this Rule had been duly observed in our present case The want of this hath been often charged on those that plead for the right of Believers onely to Baptism I shall only pray that neither we nor those that oppose us herein may be found guilty of such a Transgression in the Great Day I shall add for the proof of the minor Proposition of the forementioned Argument what you your self have asserted p. 326 of your Book entituled The Method of Grace The Law say you there requires perfect working under the pain of a Curse Accepted of no short endeavours admitted no Repentance gaveno strength And if any Man can give a fuller Testimony concerning the Law as a Covenant of Works let him if he can I have alledged this to you in order to your Conviction upon this account and your Answer is That this was as the Ignorance and Infidelity of Unregenerate Men had made it to themselves and not as God intended it So say you it was a Covenant of Works a ministration of Death and Condemnation And so say you it requires perfect working under pain of a Curse accepts no short endeavours admitted no Repentance and gave no strength But Sir can you indeed upon second thoughts think this to be a fit or proper Answer Is this by manifestation of the Truth to commend your self to every Man's Conscience in the sight of God Do you indeed think this to be a good and sound Scripture Distinction to save you from the guilt of Self-contradiction when you deny the Law to be