Selected quad for the lemma: grace_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
grace_n	condition_n	covenant_n	valid_a	160	3	16.7842	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65667	Energiea planēs, or, A brief discourse concerning man's natural proneness to, and tenaciousness of errour whereunto is added some arguments to prove, that that covenant entred with Abraham, Gen. 17.7 is the covenant of grace / J. Whiston ...	Whiston, Joseph, d. 1690.	1682 (1682)	Wing W1689; ESTC R39755	91,886	168

the present purpose whether it be or not the only Question is Whether the Promise Gen. 17.7 be the Promise the Apostle here refers unto which that it is in this his Evasion Mr. C. denies not but rather grants that it is and that is all that at present is contended for Let that be granted it will undoubtedly follow that that Covenant one constitutive part of which that Promise is is the Covenant of Grace seeing the Apostle in the very next Verse assures us it was the Covenant confirmed in Christ 430 Years before the Law was given for having said Verse 1 That tho it be but a Man's Covenant yet if it be confirmed no Man disanulleth or addeth thereto he subjoins ver 16. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the Promises made it is all one as if he should say now with Abraham and his Seed was the Covenant made For the Promises in this 16th Verse and Covenant both in the foregoing and following Verses are convertible or synonimous Terms intending one and the same thing And then for the Proof of what he designed to prove he expresseth the Tenour of the Covenant made with or Promises made to Abraham and his Seed it was made with or they were made to him and his Seed not with or to Abraham and his Seeds but with or to him and his Seed whence the Covenant or Promises exprest or running in that Tenour must necessarily by the Covenant or Promises here intended but that was the Covenant or those were the Promises recorded Gen. 17.7 And then the Apostle immediately adds in Verse 17. The Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law which was 430 Years after cannot disanul Now can it possibly be imagined that the Apostle sould intend any other Promise or Covenant than those or that just before recited How absurd and utterly unreasonable would it be so to do So that that is the Covenant that Apostle must necessarily past all rational Supposition have reference unto Indeed that which Mr. C. would seem to insinuate is this That who the Apostle may have reference to that Promise Gen. 17.7 yet it is so as only to recite the bare Words of it but indeed intending another Covenant and that of a quite different Nature from and made long before this the Words of which he recites But then I would know how we shall be sure that either the Apostle or other Pen-Men of the Holy Scriptures intend according to the Letter of their Words in any other place of the Scriptures But Mr. C. himself seems to be sensible of the insufficency of this Evasion and possibly was not altogether inapprehnsive of the ill consequence of avoiding such plain Scripture as this would be supposing it granted that the Apostle did recite the Words of that Promise Hence he attempts the Evasion of this Evidence given to what we affirm concerning the Covenant by this Discourse of the Apostle another way And so Secondly He endeavours to perswade his Reader that the Promise given Gen. 17. was not the Promise and consequently the Covenant there established with Abraham was not the Covenant that the Apostle refers unto but that it was the Promise made with Abraham Gen. 22.18 Thus pag. 78. which the Apostle calls the Covenant so he expresseth himself Howbeit I conceive the Apostle hath here a direct and special Eye to that Promise Gen. 22.18 In thy Seed shall all the Families of the Earth be blessed But then he foresees as well he might that this Objection would arise in the Minds of Men That whereas the Promise that the Aostle had reference unto and intends is exprest in these Terms and runs in this Tenour To thy Seed that Promise of Gen. 22. is only made concerning Abraham's Seed that Promise there is not To thee and to thy Seed but in thy Seed and consequently cannot be the Promise the Apostle here refers unto Now let us see what answer can be given to this Objection Why saith Mr. C. Let it be minded that all the Promises made of this Seed viz. Christ in one respect may be said to be made to this Seed in another because they are originally established in the everlasting Covenant of Redemption that was between the Father and the Son In answer whereunto it must be said that this is an Evasion of a like import with the former seeing it signifies nothing at all as to the present Purpose for the Question still concerns not the sence or meaning of the Promise but is only what Promise the Apostle hath reference unto and doth intend And besides it doth imply that the Apostle may cite one Promise and yet intend another Hence unless any Promise made to Abraham with reference to his Seed exprest in these Terms To thy Seed can be produced we may and necessarily must conclude that it is the Promise of this Covenant that the Apostle hath a reference unto and intends By such an answer as this the plainest Scripture may easily be evaded But surely when the Apostle expresseth the Promise he hath reference unto and directly intends in the very Words and Tenour of the Promise Gen. 17.7 and there being no other Promise recorded in Scripture exprest in the same Words or running in the same Tenour that he can possibly have reference unto but only this it will hardly be questioned by any Man that is not resolved to turn away his Ears from him that speaketh from Heaven whether that he the Promise referred unto and intended by the Apostle or no This I shall be bold to say that this one Testimony of the Apostle concerning this Covenant will bear the weight laid upon it will evince to the Judgment of all Men whose Minds are not blinded with excess of Prejudice the infallible certainty of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 its being the Covenant of Grace let Men or Devils do their utmost to weaken it From the whole we see the ground of those two Arguments lying firm the Arguments bottomed thereupon are valid and consequently those six Arguments to prove this Covenant to be the Covenant of Grace remain in their full force Now then before I proceed any further I shall briefly recapitulate what Evidence we have from plain and express Scripture that this Covenant under consideration is not the old Covenant or Covenant of Works but is indeed the Covenant of Grace And 1. The Scripture positively thus affirms this to be a Covenant I will establish my Covenant and this is the Covenant Mr. C. himself acknowledgeth to be a solemn Covenant 2. The Scripture expresly declares that there was but one Covenant made with Abraham wherein his Seed were taken in as joint Parties with himself 3. The Scripture expresly declares that the old Covenant was ordained by Angels in the Hand of a Mediator which this Covenant with Abraham was not 4. The Scripture expresly declares that the old Covenant was made 430 Years after the Covenant of Grace established with

the Consequent is undeniable Arg. 2. If it were the failing in or non-performance of the Covenant of Grace that did forfeit or disanul their Membership in the Jewish Church who were actual Members of it then it was the Covenant of Grace that their being under or taking hold of which did give them Membership or Right or Membership in that Church But the former is true therefore the latter For the Consequent in the Major Proposition that carries its own Evidence along with it It must necessarily be the same Covenant that the failing in or the non-performance of the Conditions of which they did forfeit or disanul their Membership that their being under or taking hold of which that did give them a Membership or a Right of Membership in that Church their continuance to have performed the Conditions of that Covenant through their being under or taking hold of which they came to have a Membership in that Church would have continued their Membership therein and the failing or non-performance of the Conditions of any other Covenant could not have forfeited or disanulled that their Membership So that look what Covenant it was that the failing in or the non-performance of the Conditions of which did forfeit or disanul their Membership in that Church must undoubtedly be the Covenant that through their being under or taking hold of which they first came to have a Membership therein This istoo plain then to admit of a Denial Therefore 2. For the Minor Proposition viz. That it was their failing in or non-performance of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace that did forfeit or disanul their Membership in that Church who before were Members of it This is expresly affirmed by the Apostle Rom. 11.25 It was their Unbelief that did forfeit and disanul their Membership in that Church They were broken off because of their Vnbelief And that Unbelief is Man's failure in or non-performance of the great Condition of the Covenant of Grace in unquestionable Now I would willingly know what Mr. C. or any others who are like-minded with him as to the nature of the Covenant do judg the Jews through their Unbelief where broken off from I conceive they must either say it was Abraham or the visible Church seeing there is no breaking off from the invisible Church If they say it was Abraham as the Root of that Nation they were broken off from then the meaning must be that through their Unbelief their Relation unto Abraham as his Children was dissolved their natural Relation it could not be hence it will necessarily follow that hitherto respective to the Covenant they had only stood in that Relation of Children unto Abraham through Faith viz. that Faith required under that first Administration But that will utterly overthrow their own Supposition viz. That the Jews stood in their Relation to Abraham as his Children meerly by virtue of their Natural Descent from him and will fully prove what I have elsewhere affirmed of which more by and by If they say it was the visible Church which they were broken off from which is the thing that we affirm then they must either say that their Church was the only visible Church or it was part of the visible Church Let them say which they please it comes all to one seeing it was the same Covenant as under or by taking hold of which they were or came to be Members of that particular Church and Members of the Universal Visible Church Now it was the Covenant of Grace that by their being undere or taking hold of which they were of the Visible Church seeing it was by the failing in and non-performance of the Conditions of that Covenant that they were broken off and that was as before is proved the Covenant of Circumcision therefore that must needs be the Covenant of Grace Arg. 3. That Covenant as under or by virtue of which the Jews had the Oracles of God committed to them was the Covenant of Grace but it was the Covenant of Circumcision or that Covenant established Gen. 17.7 that as under or by virtue of which the Jews had the Oracles of God committed to them therefore that Covenant is the Covenant of Grace The Minor Proposition is expresly affirmed by Mr. C. himself and therefore is secure from any Opposition from him See Pag. 122. Sect. 7. As for the Majro Proposition as previous to the Proof of that let it be observed That by the Oracles of God we are to understand chiefly and primarily the Word of God whether only as written or preached 1 Pet. 4.10 Tho we exclude not any other Means whereby God communicates his Will unto Men Yet I say the Word of God is chiefly and primarily intended Now that the Jews had the Word of God committed unto and entrusted with them as under or by virtue of the Covenant of Grace is evident because the Vouchsafement of this Priviledg as necessarily implied and included in those Promises that do undeniably appertain and must be referred to the Covenant of Grace As for Instance that Promise in Deut. 30.6 where the Lord promiseth to circumcise their Hearts That that Promise is to be referred to the Covenant of Grace will not I suppose be denied Now in the Promise the outward Means which are eminently the Word of God whereby God doth in an ordinary Way effect the Good promised is included and implied See my Essay p. 85. Arg. 4. If the Jewish Church were a Spiritual and not a Carnal or a mere Typical Church then the Covenant it was built upon or the being under or taking hold of which gave a Membership or a Right of Membership in it was the Covenant opf Grace but the former is true therefore the latter The Consequent in the Major Proposition needs no Proof and for the Minor that the Jewish Church was a Spiritual and not a mere Carnal or Typical Church is evident these three ways Only I shall premise this that it is readily granted that that Church at least in most Ages was too carnal many of them were wholly Strangers to Regeneration and true Piety and the major part even of those that were truly Godly yet had but a lower measure of Grace they had Spiritual Life but it was in a lower degree and so in a sense may be said to have been a Carnal Church that is comparatively they were so Thus the Church at Corinth is said to be carnal 1 Cor. 3.3 4. So much shall be readily granted but that that Church by Divine Constitution was to be and answerably at the first Plantation of it was a truly Spiritual Church that is a Church consisting of such as were truly Godly according to the Measure of Grace then given See for this my Answer to Mr. Danver's p. 102 103. And after throughout all Ages there were so many among them true Saints as that that Church in general might be denominated a Spiritual Church in the same sense in which the Church