Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	city_n	jerusalem_n	new_a	5,255	5	6.1626	4	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

Temple of God shall be opened in Heaven wherein shall be seen the Ark of his Testament And whatever Lightnings and Voices Thundrings or Earthquakes may be Coucomitant herewith to be sure the Issue must needs be Comfortable and Glorious to all that are upright in Heart Finally When the Pure and Uncorrupted Doctrin of the Grace of God in Jesus Christ shall be universally preached and all Corrupt Mixtures in Gods Worship shall be totally abolished then and not till then may we expect the Holy City New Jerusalem coming down from God out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband having the Glory of God and her Light most precious clear as Christal When there shall be no more Curse But the Throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it and his Servants shall serve him In the Hope and Expectation of which day and state of Blessedness I take leave to Subscribe my self Christian Reader Thy Servant for Christ's Sake Philip Cary. PART I. Containing a Just and a Sober Reply to Mr. Flavell's Arguments by way of Answer to the forementioned Discourse SECT I. MR. Flavell tells me in the Manuscript Copy he sent me of his present Reply now in Print That his proper Province at this time is to Examine and Defend the Foundation on which our Divines have built the Right of Infants Baptism viz. Gods Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. which saith he is the Covenant of Grace the same we are now under The Question hereon being the Articulus stantis vel Cadentis Paedobaptismi And that if I can make good my Thesis that it was not a Gospel Covenant but now abolished I have certainly destroy'd the principal Fort which defended the claim of our Infants to the priviledges of the Covenant He now tells me in his printed Reply That his proper Province is to discover that part of the Foundation meaning Abraham's Covenant whence our Divines deduce the Right of Infants Baptism So that I perceive he is not fixed in his Mind whether Abraham's Covenant be an Entire or Partial Foundation onely Sometimes it seems to him to be the sole Foundation of the Practice of Infants Sprinkling else the Question thereon cannot be the Articulus stantis vel Cadentis Paedobaptismi Otherwhile he is loath to venture it singly upon that Bottom However it be of this I am sure Every Plant which our Heavenly Father hath not planted shall in due season be rooted up And I suppose a little time will shew whether the present practice of Infants Sprinkling be not to be deservedly reckoned among that number That no small stress is and hath been laid upon the Arguments drawn from that Covenant by the Assertors of Infants Baptism for the justification of that practice cannot be denied How the Sinai Covenant came to be hooked into the Question Mr. Flavell himself hath accounted for p. 133. of his forementioned printed Reply as being occasioned by himself Accordingly he tells me in his Manuscript Copy that he is now to give his Reasons why he thinks I have not proved that the Sinai Covenant was a Covenant of Works As also why he thinks I have not proved Abraham's Covenant Gen. 17. to be a Covenant of Works nor that the New Covenant is Absolute and without Condition In his printed Reply the Expression is a little varied for there he saith that that which I affirm and he is to disprove is that the Sinai Covenant and Abraham's Covenant are no Gospel Covenants which is the same in effect with the other For if neither of them be Gospel Covenants they must needs be both a Covenant of Works He begins p. 10. of his printed Reply with the Sinai Covenant which I affirm to be a Covenant of Works the very same for substance with that made with Adam in Innocency For the clearing up of which Proposition and to prevent any further Disputes thereon as to the true state of the Question By the Sinai Covenant I understand the whole Complex Body of the Law as it was delivered on Mount Sinai The Moral part whereof contained a clear and plain manifestation of the Law written in the Heart of Man at the first The addition of the Ceremonial Precepts whereunto makes no alteration as to the true Nature or Essence of that Covenant For so long as this Rule is retained Do this and live as it was in respect of the whole Body of the Law it is still the same Covenant with Adam's for the Substance or Essence of it and is accordingly represented to us in the Scripture under the Denomination of the First or Old Covenant The whole Complex Body of the Sinai Covenant therefore is that which I affirm to be a Covenant of Works the very same for substance with that made with Adam in Paradise Now this Assertion of mine you tell me is attended with many gross Absurdities For first say you from hence it follows that either Moses and all Israel were damned there being no Salvation possible to be attained by that first Covenant or else that there was a Covenant of Grace at the same time running Paralel with the Covenant of Works And so the Elect People of God were at the same time under the First as a Covenant of Death and Condemnation and under the Second as a Covenant of Grace and Justification And this latter you tell me I am forced upon which you say is attended with many false and absurd Conclusions For during Life they must hang mid-way betwixt Justification and Condemnation And after Death they must necessarily hang between Heaven and Hell And so at last say you we have found the Limbus Patrum which the Papists so earnestly contend for and must send Moses and all Gods People to Purgatory so your Manuscript Copyruns How to avoid these Absurdities you say you see not according to my dangerous Concession Reply By way of Answer hereunto I must tell you Sir That I should greatly admire if you your self be not sensible that the same pretended Absurdities do attend and fall full as heavily and indeed a great deal more on your Doctrine than on mine Since that which I affirm to be two distinct and essentially different Covenants to wit Perfect doing with the consequent Curse upon the Non-performance and believing in Christ unto Life and Salvation you are forced according to your Doctrin to comprise in one and the same Covenant And then I would willingly know if you or any other Man can free the present Point as it is thus stated by your selves from the very self same Absurdities you would fasten on me If you can you will with the same breath discharge me and that far more effectually than you can with any shadow of Reason do it for your selves For your Conviction therefore in this respect In the first place It cannot be denied but that the Scriptures do plainly inform us that both Moses and all Gods People during the former Administration were all of

For indeed Faith it self is not our Righteousness as it would be if it were as you affirm it is the Condition of the New Covenant and that as an Act or Work required of us in point of Duty antecedent to the Benefit of the Promise For that would be to make an Act or Work of our own to be the formal matter of our Justification before God but this it is not it being only designed as an Instrument to receive and apply the Righteousness of another Even that wrought in the person of Christ for us which is wholly distinct from our own or any thing wrought in us or done by us Phil. 3. 9. Tit. 3. 5. You tell us indeed in your forementioned Book Entitled The Method of Grace P. 133 134. That though Faith is a Condition of the Covenant yet you cannot allow that it Justifies as a Condition And why Because as you there also tell us you cannot see according to this Opinion any Reason why Repentance may not as properly be said to Justifie as well as Faith For say you there Repentance is a Condition of the New Covenant as much as Faith And say you If Faith justify as a Condition then not onely Repentance but every other Grace that is a Condition must justify as well as Faith And say I 't is very true If Faith is a Condition of the New Covenant Repentance is a Condition as much as that and so are all other Graces Conditions of the New Covenant as well as Faith and Repentance This cannot be avoided And if all these are the Conditions of the New Covenant why they should not justify as Conditions I see not nor I think you nor any Man else For you give no other Reason why you cannot allow that Faith justifies as a Condition but that this will necessarily bring in Repentance and all other Graces to justify as Conditions also as well as Faith as indeed it doth Since whatsoever is the Condition of the New Covenant must needs be the Condition of our Justification For this is too evident to be justly denied but that as Perfect Obedience under the Law being the Condition of that Covenant was to have been the Condition of our justification before God had we been able to Perform it So after this Reckoning it is noless evident in reference to Faith Repentance and good Works under the Gospel also If therefore these must be ackdowledged to be the Conditions of the New Covenant the consequence is unavoidable that they are also the Conditions nay the very matter and ground of our acceptation before God And so at last in stead of making the Gospel Covenant to be a Covenant of Faith free and absolute we shall make it a plain Covenant of Works For what else maketh or wherein else consisteth the true Form or Nature of a a Covenant of Works but that Works whether perfect or imperfect be the Condition of it This being that alone that renders it essentially different from the Promise of Grace or the Gospel Covenant Thirdly It is true that Believing is Obedience to the Command of Believing that is it is the Act or thing Commanded and that in order to Salvation He that Believeth shall be saved He that Believeth not shall be Damned He that Believeth on the Son hath Life He that Believeth not shall not see Life But then it follows not that it is the Condition of the new Covenant A Physitian bids his Patient to trust himself with him and he will Cure him The Patient by trusting in him doth what is Required yet this is not the condition of his Cure but the means of accepting and using the Physitians Care and kindness We bid a poor Man hold forth his hand and we will give him an Alms. His holding out the hand is a Means to receive the Alms and so required by us not a Condition of our giving it though in so doing he doth what we bid him If one should say to a hungry Man there is Meat which shall be yours to live by it if you will eat it and digest it else not Who will call this a Condition Since it is the very Partaking of the Meat it self whereby a Man makes it his own If a Man redeem a Captive from Slavery and lays down the Price will any Man call his bare acceptance of Liberty the Condition of his Ransom True it is that if he do not accept thereof he will never be freed But this is not therefore the Condition of his Ransom for that was performed by another hand So for a Father to say to one that he bestows his Daughter upon in Marriage Lo she is your Wife take her and Marry her This is not a Condition of her being his Wife as external to it but it is that very intrinsecal and essential Act whereby she becomes his and he her Husband Additional unto all which it ought to be duely observed that in all those foregoing instances there is to be supposed a Power or capacity in the Poor Sick or Hungry Man to receive the Alms make use of the Food or accept of the Physitians kindness and so in the rest But so there is not in us to believe being by nature Dead in Trespasses and in Sins and therefore utterly uncapeable to perform this supposed Condition unless the Power and and Vertue of the New Covenant Mercy be first set at Work to accomplish it in us From whence it is manifest that the New Covenant is wholly free and absolute Since Faith it self is the Fruit and therefore cannot be the Condition thereof As for that Scripture Mark 11. 26. But if ye for give not Men their Trespasses against you neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you with many other Scriptures that seem to require Repentance and good Works as the Conditions of Life and Salvation To this I Answer That it is true that the immediate causes of Salvation are those things which do prepare and dispose for the Possession of Heaven and the state of Happyness which is Sanctification For this is that that makes us meet to be Partarkers of the Inheritance of the Saints in Light And without Holyness no Man shall see God But then it doth not therefore follow that the New Covenant is a Conditional Covenant It is the Law of the Land and the Fathers love that Entitles an Heir to the Inheritance Consequently these are not the Prime but remote Causes of his actual enjoying the inheritance when he comes of Age But the Immediate Causes of his Possession are his being of full Age and being of capacity to use it these giving Jus in Re the other Jus ad Rem Doth it therefore follow that the full Age and capacity of the Heir are Causes or Antecedent Conditions of his Title to the Estate Without these 't is true if he live not or lack understanding he cannot Inherit the Estate or come to the full enjoyment thereof though never so Absolutely