Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	administration_n	covenant_n	intelligible_a	61	3	16.8323	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25202	Anti-sozzo, sive, Sherlocismus enervatus in vindication of some great truths opposed, and opposition to some great errors maintained by Mr. William Sherlock.	Alsop, Vincent, 1629 or 30-1703.	1676 (1676)	Wing A2905_VARIANT; ESTC R37035	424,995	711

It was enough that God had firmly revealed that he had made sufficient provision for it by a Mediator Abraham believed stedfastly that the means God had chosen were proportionable to their end and the rest was to be left to God 4. And herein lay much of the Bondage that Believers were in Under the old-Old-Administration of the Covenant of Grace they had not so satisfactory an account of the particular means how the Redeemer should work out their Deliverance which way he should accomplish the great work of Propitiation and therefore when fresh guilt contracted by fresh sin lay upon the Conscience their faith was staggered and peace broken because they had a clear Objection against their pardon from their sins but not so clear a Solution from the promise of the pardon of it the Promise being encumbred with so many intricacies that the only refuge was a Retreat to the Faithfulness of God in general Which yet was no easie work under the Scruples and Cavils of present guilt and the Accusation of Conscience Ay! but says he this was more than the Apostles understood till after the Resurrection though Christ had expresly told them of it Was it so Then 1. They could never know it to the World's end For if telling and express telling will not make us know there 's no remedy we must be content to be ignorant But this is our Author's humour to reproach all the World for So●… and Fools but himself and a few more Rational Heads The Jews were all Fools they had more particular Promises than Abraham and yet they looked only for a temporal Prince The Apostles they were all Naturals for they had been told and expresly told of it and yet understood no more than the wall I wonder what could have been done more to make them know it unless it had been beaten into their heads with a Beetle I suppose our Author has got this fancy from some such place as that Mark 9. 31. The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of Men and they shall kill him and after that he is killed he shall rise again but they understood not the saying But can we be so vain as once to imagine that they understood not the Grammar of those words that they knew not the literal sence of dying No! but they had not such clear satisfaction about some of the Consequents of it Perhaps they had not such a firm and stedfast belief of the truth of it as might bear up their hearts at an even rate of Tranquillity and Calmness under their temptations and tryals they might not improve the Truth to encourage in a patient waiting for the Resurrection of Christ And that this was it that pinch'd them is plain they declare it Luke 24. 19 20 21. Concerning Iesus of Nazareth how the chief Priests delivered him to be condemned to death and crucified him but we trusted that it had been be that should have redeemed Israel They believed his Crucifixion but were staggered about his Resurrection Hereupon Christ rebukes their slowness of heart to believe all that the Prophets had spoken how Christ ought to suffer and to enter into his glory ver 25 26. Besides it 's a common Rule That verba intellectus implicant affectiones words that in their bare sound only denote the understanding yet in their true intent and meaning take in the will and affections And again Negatives are often put for Comparatives I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice that is I will have Mercy rather than Sacrifice So here They understood not that is They understood not so much of it as such clear Expressions deserved 3. Another great Scruple for I see there 's no end of them is this He must understand the perfect holiness and innocency of Christ's life But that was the least thing of a thousand He needed no Elias to explain that a very Nullifidian would have believed that he whom God had designed to bless others must needs be perfectly blessed himself 'T is true had Christ's work been no other than what our Author has cut out for him he might have discharged it without an absolute sinless Perfection A Prophet might have revealed the whole will of God and afterwards confirmed his Doctrine by his death but to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice this required that Christ the Antitype should be holy harmless undefiled and separated from sinners And in this God was punctual and precise under the Law that the Sacrifice of Atonement should be without spot and without blemish And thus much Abraham might learn from his own Sacrifices and had he conceived the least suspicion that Christ would prove a sinner it had damped his joy and triumph in the foresight of his day Ay! but says he further he must understand that he fulfilled all Righteousness not for himself but for us Answ. 1. It 's a most wretched and unrighteous way of procedure to call things clear and evident into question for the sake of some that are obscure and disputable It becomes ingenuous persons to agree to what is clear and certain leaving them upon their own Basis and to reduce the doubtful to them It 's plain that Abraham was justified by Faith his Righteousness was the Righteousness of Christ If the measure of his knowledg herein be unknown to us yet that he had a knowledg is not so If God revealed this to Abraham's Faith I doubt not but he believed it That he did not is more than our Author can prove If he shall attempt it his Arguments may be considered in the mean time his Conceits and Crotchets ought not to prejudice the Truth But if God did not reveal it Abraham's Faith might live though not be so vigourous and strong without it 2. Abraham might know that what Christ suffered he suffered not for himself but in the stead of those for whom he suffered for he saw the Sacrifices die and yet not for their own sins And why he might not conclude That what a Redeemer did was for others too I cannot tell 3. There 's many a sincere and sound Believer that understands not all the Terms of Art that are used in the Explication of the Doctrine of Justification that perhaps cannot tell you which part of Christ's obedience answers this and which the other exigency of the sinner and yet believes the Thing that Christ is made to him Righteousness of God He is not so well versed in the Nomenclature of the Schools as to call every thing by its proper name but goes downright to work he renounces his own Righteousness sees the necessity of a Redeemer to make his peace with God accepts of life upon God's terms and leads a holy life suitable to his present mercies and future hopes and leaves the rest to the Learned World to wrangle about who may perhaps dispute themselves gravely and learnedly into Hell whilst the poor honest man believes his Soul into Glory 4. He must understand the great mystery

to us in the true Covenant Ioh. 6. 37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me and him that cometh to me I will in no-wise cast out Eph. 2. 8. By Grace ye are saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God And lest it should be Answered that Faith is indeed God's gift as all other things are wherein the Common Providence of God concurs with Humane industry The Apostle as if aware of such a petty Answer has laid in a Reply ready ch 1. v. 19. That they who believe do so by the exceeding greatness of God's power even according to the working of his Mighty power which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead Secondly we have a direct and express Promise too of that New-heart from which we give to God New-obedience nay of that New-obedience it self which proceeds from the New-heart or renewed Nature Ezek. 36. A new heart also will I give you and a new Spirit will I put within you and I will take away the heart of Stone out of your Flesh and will give you a heart of Flesh there 's the new Heart and v. 27. I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my Statutes and ye shall keep my Iudgments and do them there is new obedience thus also Heb. 8. 10. This is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days saith the Lord I will put my Laws into their minds and write them in their hearts c. wherein it 's easy to observe 1. That this New-Covenant was founded upon God's free Grace v. 9. They continued not in my Covenant the old Covenant and I regarded them not saith the Lord They were a Covenant-breaking people deserved utter rejection yet God will make another a better a New-Covenant with them 2 That the promises of this Covenant were purely Spiritual writing his Laws in their minds and hearts 3. The parties Covenanting God and his Israel not all and every individual Son of Adam But 2. This Description gives us very little of the true Covenant of Grace here 's a Promise of Pardon and Life to them who believe and obey but perseverance in Faith and Obedience is left to the desultory and lubricous power of free-will whereas in the true Covenant of Grace there 's an undertaking that the Covenant shall be immutable both on God's part and the Believers Jer. 32. 38 40. They shall be my people and I will be their God and I will make an everlasting Covenant with them that I will not turn away from them to do them good but I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me There are but two things that we can possibly Imagine should make the Covenant fall short of perpetuity either God's turning away from his people or which is only to be suspected their turning away from their God Against both of these God has made sufficient Provision 1. God has promised that he will not turn away from them to do them good 2. He has promised that they shall not depart from him and to fix and determine their backsliding Natures he has promised to put his fear into their hearts which is the great preservative against Apostacy § 2. As it describes not the whole of the Covenant so it describes not the Nature of a new-New-Covenant The gospel-Gospel-Covenant may be called a New Covenant either in opposition to the Old Covenant of Works or the old Administration of the Covenant of Grace Now 1. This Covenant which he has here described is no new Covenant in opposition to the Old-Covenant of works The Covenant which God made with Adam promised Life upon condition of Obedience Now the Commands which God gave to Adam were as easy as those which are now given to all Mankind and much easier too if we consider first That he had more natural strength to obey and keep them and as for supernatural strength our Author will allow us none unless by a desperate Catachresis we will call Moral Arguments so which to a Creature dead in trespasses and sins signify just nothing without special power from on high to render them efficacious which neither will be allowed us And Secondly we are told that Christ has added to the Moral Law which is to lay more Load on those who were before overcharged so that as he makes Covenants Adam's was much the better Covenant of the two But he has wisely shuffled in a Promise of the Pardon of Sin which may seem to give his Covenant a preheminence above that of Adam But that will not mend the matter both because it 's better to have no sin in our Natures than such a Remedy better to have no Wound than such a Plaister and also because the Promise of Pardon is suspended upon the condition of Faith and Obedience which without supernaturally real influx of immediate Divine Power reduces the promise to an impossibility of performance 2. This Covenant which he has here described is no new-New-Covenant in opposition to the old Administration of the Covenant of Grace There were the same promises then that we have now the same moral precepts to observe that we have now and though the word Gospel comes in for a blind yet the Apostle assures us Gal. 3. 8. That Abraham had the Gospel Preached to him § 3. Upon the matter it 's no Covenant of Grace at all For 1. A Promise of Pardon and Life upon Condition of Believing and Obeying is neither better nor worse than a threatning of Condemnation and Death to them who Believe not and Obey not It may with equal right be called a threatning of Death as a Promise of Life It 's no more a Covenant of Grace than a Covenant of Wrath and therefore 2. if it be lawful to consider Man as the Word of God describes him as dead in Sins and Trespasses as one that of himself cannot think a good thought that can do nothing at all without Christ It 's no Covenant at all to him under his present circumstances for what is the nice difference between a Promise of Life to him that obeys when it 's certain before-hand he cannot obey and no Promise at all 3. This Covenant which he calls New and well he may for it 's of his own making or however of his own new-vamping assigns the same conditions of Pardon and Eternal Life but the Scripture requires other qualifications for Eternal Life than for the Pardon of Sin A Believer may be justified without a sinless perfection but without such a sinless perfection none shall enter into Glory He may be actually justified that has not persevered in Holy Obedience to the Death but without such perseverance he can never be made partaker of Eternal Life 4. This Covenant of his is supposed to be made with all Mankind and yet all Mankind never heard of it Now is it not very

prevent Objections It 's evident says he from the Chapter that Christ when he speaks in the First Person I and in Me cannot mean this of his own Person but of his Church Doctrine and Religion But where lies the Evidence of this great Demonstration Why Christ says I am the true Vine and ye are the Branches He that abideth in me and I in him bringeth forth much Fruit for without me you can do nothing Well what of all this Why our Author would willingly Learn what sence can be made of all this if we understand it of the Person of Christ And I will as willingly Teach him if he be not too proud to Learn I Iesus Christ the Mediator of the New Covenant am very fitly compared to a Vine and ye my Disciples are as fitly compared to the Branches of a Vine Now he that really abideth in me by a true lively faith and I in him by the Quickening Operations of my Spirit the same bringeth forth much Fruit of holy Obedience for without derivation of Grace from Me your Root you can do nothing that is truly good and acceptable to God Oh! but he has two or three formidable Objections against this Interpretation 1. It 's not very Intelligible How we can be or abide in Christs Person No more it is If we bring Capernaitical understandings along with us who Puzled their Heads with a gross Notion of Carnal eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ. If by being in Christ were understood a Local Physical or Natural being in Him it were somewhat Unintelligible but when no more is meant by it but that every true Believer is by Constitution of the Covenant of Grace one Person morally with Christ so considered and dealt with by God there 's no more insuperable Difficulty than what unbelief will create in the clearest Truths of the Gospel But 2. It 's more unintelligible still How we can be in the Person of Christ and the Person of Christ at the same time be in us Which is a new piece of Philosophy called Penetration of Dimensions But there 's no great danger in that Christ may dwell in us by his Spirit and we in him by Faith and yet Faith and the Spirit never disturb each other in their Motions but what the Dimensions of the Soul in its actings of Faith or of the Spirit in it's working of Grace are this I confess is to me unintelligible And that a Christian should be in the Church and the Church at the same time be in a Christian had been equally Unintelligible and as much danger of the Penetration of Dimensions But that our Author stumbled upon a happy Expedient that I should signifie a Doctrine and Me a Church to heal the Contradiction 3. That our Fruitfulness should depend on our Union to Christ is as hard to my understanding Truly I cannot help that I have no Medicine to cure Crazed Intellectuals He that cannot understand that Believers do receive Actual assistance from Christ by his Spirit to help them in the way of their Duty and to encourage them against the Difficulties they meet withal in their Duties cannot I presume understand very many Lines in the Gospel 3. Our last Task is to Examine what improvement he has made of this Interpretation and in short it is this That the Union of particular Christians to Christ consists in their Union to the Christian Church And now I am abundantly satisfied that our Author is a very Philomel Vox praeterea nihil One whose Volubility of Tongue and Pen supplies the place of Argument and Demonstration I hope our Author will not meet with many Readers who have so far parted with their Memories as not to remember what that was he Propounded to himself to Evince viz. That the Union of particular Christians to Christ is by means of their Union with the Christian Church And yet now when he comes to cast up his Accounts we have gotten another Conclusion That the Union of particular Christians to Christ consists in their Union to the Christian Church Surely the Purblind will espie some small difference Eating is a means to Living yet none but a Swine of Epicurus his Stye will say that Living consists in Eating The High-road is a means to bring the Traveller Home yet it will be hard to perswade us that being at Home consists in Travelling Trading is a mean to Riches yet Riches do not formally consist in Trading The end may possibly be separated from the Means but nothing can be separated from that thing wherein it consists But let that pass If he has proved either the one or the other I am content he be reputed an Artist The thing he has a good will to prove is That the Union of particular Christians to Christ is either by means of their Union to the Christian Church or else that it consists in it Now for the Proof of this He has told us That the Church is the Body of Christ The Church is the Temple of Christ The Church is the Spouse of Christ The Church is the Flock of Christ. And had it been referred to a thousand Persons not one but would have thought that that Christ who is the Head of that Body is a Person He that is the Husband of that Spouse is a Person He that is the Shepheard of the Flock is a Person and He that Dwells in that Temple is a Person But things are not so far gone but our Author shall have his Opinion and choose what he will abide by for my part I am much unconcern'd let him please himself he shall not displease me at all Say then Shall it be Christs Doctrinal or Christs Ecclesiastical that is the Head of this Body The Husband of this Spouse The Shepheard of this Flock I can rest satisfied But then the Sence runs thus A Doctrine or a Church is the Head of the Church A Doctrine or a Church is the Husband of the Church A Doctrine or a Church is the Shepheard of the Church If this does not please him let him try the other way and allow it to be a Person that is all these A Person that is the Head Husband and Shepheard of the Church And now I must plainly acquaint him That he has Entangled his Affairs in such confusion that he will never be able to Extricate them For 1. If the Person of Christ be here intended then it seems at last whatever the means be of that Union yet there is an Union to the Person of Christ and whereinsoever that Union consists yet such an Uunion there is How absurd would it be to enquire whether our Union to Christ's Person consists in our Union with a particular Church If Union to Christs Person be a Non-entity Or Whether our Union with a particular Church be the means to our Union with Christ If there be no such thing And then 2. He is as much concern'd as his poor Neighbours to salve the