Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	earth_n	glory_n	let_v	6,078	5	4.5887	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49184	Remarks on the R. Mr. Goodwins Discourse of the Gospel proving that the Gospel-covenant is a law of grace, answering his objections to the contrary, and rescuing the texts of Holy Scripture, and many passages of ecclesiastical writers both ancient and modern, from the false glosses which he forces upon them / by William Lorimer ...	Lorimer, William, d. 1721.	1696 (1696)	Wing L3074; ESTC R22582	263,974	188

or the doctrine of Grace that is the Gospel 2. What is this Grace this Doctrine of Grace of Gospel said to do And that the express words of the 12 verse tell us plainly to be this that it teacheth us That d●nying ungodliness and worldly lucts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present World Now if the Gospel teach us that we should live soberly righteously and godly then it hath some Precept which makes it our Duty so to live For to teach us that we should live soberly righteously and godly is plainly to lay an obligation on our Conscience and to make it our Duty so to live especially considering that this Gospel is the Gospel of God and it is God who is infinitely superiour to us and hath a soveraign authority over us who by the Gospel teacheth us that we should live soberly righteously and godly Gods teaching us that we should do a thing certainly obliges to do it and therefore Gods teaching us by the Gospel that we should live soberly righteously and godly obliges us by the Gospel so to live and consequently the Gospel hath some Precept whereby God obligeth us to live soberly righteously and godly in this present World Thus the Learned Divines who were Authorized by their Superiours in Holland to write the Dutch Annotations on the Bible understood this Scripture as appears from their Annotation on Tit. 1.1 The truth which is according to godliness That is which is such that it must not only be known but also by exercising of true Godliness be put in practice and which prescribes and requires true Godliness and stirs up and brings men thereunto 1 Tim 6 3. compared with Annotation on Tit. 2.11 The grace of God which bringeth salvation that is say they The Doctrine of the Grace of god shewn us by Christ and contained in the Gospel And then in their Annotation on the 12th Verse they tell us That the said Doctrine of Grace instructeth us that we should live soberly in respect of our selves and justly in respect of our Neighbour and godly in respect of God And if any yet doubt whether those Learned Annotators held that the Gospel hath Precepts obliging us to Duty let such read their Annotation on Rom. 10.6 where they expresly mention the Command of Faith as a Command of the Gospel contradistinguished from the Commands of the Law And again a little after they say If Moses said this of the Commandments of the Law much more may the same be said of the Promises and Commands of the Gospel which are not only easie to be understood as the Law is but also are easie to observe by the power of Gods Spirit c. See also the last called Pools Annotations on Tit. 2.11 12. where they tell us That by the Grace of God which brings Salvation is meant the Gospel of our Lord Jesus and that where it cometh it directs all Men their Duties in their several stations and teaches us that we should live with respect to our selves in a just government of our Affections and Passions and with respect to others giving to every one their due and with respect to God piously discharging the Duties and paying the homage we owe unto him so long as we live in this World where we have Temptations to the contrary Now if the Gospel as it is a Doctrine of Grace direct us to our several Duties and teach us that we should live as aforesaid then undoubtedly it hath Precepts as well as Promises for without some Precepts it cannot direct our Duties and teach us that we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present World I hope the R. Brother with whom I have to do will not flee to the Popish distinction between Precepts and Counsels and then say that the Gospel teacheth us that we should live as is said not by Precept but by Counsel For he hath himself stopt that passage into the Popish Camp by what he hath published to the World in his Sermon on the Death of the Late Queen where he thus writes The greatness of God gives Authority to his Counsel Mr. Goodwins Sermon on the Death of the Queen pa. 7 8. We readily hearken to those who are above us and every word which they speak carries a weight in it and is forcibly impressed on our minds If a Friend adviseth us to what we apprehend may be an advantage we chearfully receive and follow his Counsel but the direction of a Superiour is a Command and adds the obligation of Duty to the consideration of our own benefit God then who is the greatest above all may very well guide all by his Counsel and it is not more a Duty than a Priviledge to observe the measures of his conduct Thus he And by this he hath left no room for the distinction between the Lords Advioe and Counsel on the one hand and his Precept and Command on the other So that if the Lords Gospel direct and teach us our Duty by Advice and Counsel it doth it also by Precept and Command since the Lords Advice and Counsel ought to be unto us a Precept and Command The Sixth and last Testimony out of the New Testament which I shall alledge to this purpose at present is in Rev. 14.6 7. where it is written I saw another Angel fly in the midst of Heaven having the Everlasting Gospel to preach unto them who dwell on the Earth saying with a loud voice fear God and give glory to him and worship him that made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and the Fountains of Waters This Scripture I quoted in the Apology on the Margent pag. 23. but the Answerer passed it over but for all that it stands still in the Bible as a Witness against those who say that the Gospel hath no Precept For it is evident from the words of the Text that the Moral Law the First Commandment of it and by consequence the other Commandments of the Moral Law are taken into the Gospel so as that sincere Evangelical Obedience to them is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace with respect to the obtaining possession of Salvation consummate in Heavenly Glory For the First Commandment of the Moral Law obliges us to fear God and give glory to him and to worship him who made the World if then this first Command be not taken into the Gospel-Covenant and sincere Obedience to it made one Article thereof none could preach the Everlasting Gospel to the Inhabitants of the Earth by saying Fear God and give glory to him and worship him that made the heavens and the earth c. But so it is that the Angel was represented in the Vision to John preaching the Everlasting Gospel and saying with a loud voice Fear God and give glory to him c. Therefore that Command to fear God and give glory to him c. is taken into the Gospel so as that sincere Obedience to

entitatively considered so as to be dependent and hang in suspence No such matter nor doth any such thing follow from God's making Conditional Promises It is only Conditional respectively terminatively and objectively and that is all which follows from God's making Conditional Promises and willing the things promised Conditionally The Lord our God with an absolute independent Will doth Will that if Men truly Believe and Repent they shall be Pardoned and Saved whosoever they be but not Pardoned and Saved if they do not Believe and Repent 2. We apply the same distinction to the minor or second Proposition of the Objection and grant that there cannot be a Conditional Will in God that is a Will in it self and subjectively or entitatively Conditional and so as to be in it self dependent and to hang in suspence But then we utterly deny that the Will of God which is absolute independent and determinate it it self cannot be respectively terminatively and objectively Conditional in the Sence before explained This distinction was approved and used by Dr. Ames as I shewed in the Apology p. 105 106. and by our Brittish Divines in the Synod of Dort as from their Collegiate Suffrage I proved in the Apology p. 114. So did Dr. Twiss approve it witness what he writes against Corvinus His words are * Neque enim negamus decreta Dei quoad res volitas dici posse conditionata quatenus scilicet neque vita aeterna nisi sub conditione fidei conferenda sit c. In Corvin Defens Arminii contra Tilen p. 355. For neither do we deny but that the Decrees of God may be called Conditional in respect of the things Willed to wit as neither eternal Life is to be given but upon Condition of Faith c. The like he hath in his English Books both against Hoard and other Arminians and also against Mr. Cotton And as this distinction is approved by those great Divines so is it by all other Learned Men that I know who rightly understand these Matters See Ainsworth's Censure upon the Anabaptists Dialogue c. p. 10. where he saith God 's Will always lays no such necessity seeing he Willeth some things Conditionally which are not effected unless the Condition be observed as he would a Sinner's Life not Death Conditionally if he return to God he would the destruction of Niniveh but Conditionally except they Repented other things God Willeth absolutely and those must needs come to pass For none resist or hinder his absolute Will Isa 46.10 11. Job 23.13 Psal 33.10 11. So much sufficeth for Answer to the fourth grand Objection Object 5. p. 58. Fifthly Mr. G. objects That if the Conditional Promise be to all in the visible Church that if they Believe they shall be Saved then by the same rule we must say That the Conditional Threatning is to all that if they Believe not they shall be Eternally Damned I Answer And what Absurdity is in this that all in the visible Church who do not yet Believe are Threatned with Eternal Damnation if they live and die in Unbelief For understand the Conditional Threatning in the same Sence as I have shewed the Conditional Promise ought to be understood and it is a certain Truth That as the Conditional Promise is to all in the same Sence the Conditional Threatning is to all in general and to every one in particular John 3.36 and 8.24 Mark 16.15 16. But Mr. Goodwin says no The Conditional Threatning is not to all nor yet to any if they do not Believe And I pray why so To this he says That the Reason why none are Threatned with Death if they do not Believe is because the Threatning is not denounced against Men for not Believing in Christ but for not perfectly obeying the Law of Works as he hath proved before VVhereunto I reply that I have also answered him before and have proved the contrary And here I must advise him to take better heed what he writes for the future and not to contradict the Scripture in express terms The Holy Scripture saith John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed Mr. G. saith No it is not so But he that Believeth not is Condemned because he hath not perfectly obeyed the Law of VVorks Now choose you Whether you will Believe the Scripture contradicting him or Believe him contradicting the Scripture Obj. 6. Sixthly Out of what he writes in Pag. 57. this Argument may be formed against God's making Conditional Promises to the Non-Elect in the visible Church If God promise them Pardon on Condition that they Believe by their meer Natural Powers deprived as they are without his All-Conquering Grace he acts in a way Repugnant to his Wisdom and Goodness for he knows it to be impossible for them to Believe by their meer Natural Powers without his All-Conquering Grace and to Promise them Pardon upon such a Condition as he knows to be impossible for them to perform would be an illuding and mocking of them * Mr. G's Discourse p. 57. As if a Man should offer Food to a wretch who hath not a Limb whole starving in a Dungeon on condition that he would come up and receive it and yet should refuse to put forth a Finger to give him the least lift in such a case that merciless Man would but mock and make a sport of the Misery of the poor wretch ●ust so if God should Promise Pardon to the Non-Elect in the visible Church on Condition that they Believe by their meer Natural Powers which they cannot do and should withall refuse to put forth his Finger to help them he should but mock them and make a sport of their Misery which to do is repugnant to his Wisdom and Goodness And therefore God by the Gospel makes no Conditional Promise to the non-elect in the visible Church I Answer this objection shews that Mr. Goodwin is better at declairning than at fair arguing and close reasoning and seems to intimate him to be of the Man's mind who said flectere si nequeo superos Acheronta movebo For this Argument if it may be called an Argument is fetched from Hell and borrowed from the Devil that is from the Arminians who if Mr. G. have not wronged them in his Epistle to the Reader must needs be Incarnate Devils For he says Their opinions tear the Volume of Gods word to pieces and un-God God himself They pull him out of his Throne and strike the Scepter out of his Hands and snatch the Crown from his Head This is certainly more than all the Devils in Hell can do but if Mr. Goodwin say true and do not slander the Arminians they have done it they have un-Godded God himself And yet for all this he goes down to that Arminian Hell to borrow an Argument from those worst of Devils to defend and secure the Wisdom and Goodness of the God of Heaven from being impeached by the Calvinian Doctrine of conditional

promises in the Gospel-Covenant But now let me ask this R. B. a few questions as 1. Is it not now every whit as impossible if not more impossible for the non-elect in the visible Church to keep the Law of works most perfectly as to believe in Christ sincerely 2. Doth not Mr. G. himself hold that notwithstanding the said impossibility God now requires of them perfect obedience to the Law of works under pain of Eternal Death and Misery 3. Doth he not hold also that God by the Law and Covenant of works doth promise them Life and Happiness upon condition that they most perfectly obey that Law and keep that Covenant of Works This I take to be his Judgment from what he writes in Chap. 7. pag. 56. Compared with what he quotes with approbation out of Melancton in Chap. 6. pag. 29.30 Concerning the promises of the Law as contra-distinguished from the gracious promises of the Gospel Now if this be so that according to Mr. G. Godpromiseth to the non-elect by the Law and Covenant of works Mat. 19.17 Rom. 10.5 That they shall have Not indeed pardon of sin and salvation properly so called but Life and Happiness on condition that they most perfectly keep the Law and Covenant of works I say if this be Mr. G' s. Judgment I demand 4. Whether it be not as evidently repugnant to the wisdom and Goodness of God and as plainly a mocking of those wretched Men to promise them Eternal Life and Happiness by the Covenant of works upon the impossible condition that they most perfectly fulfill the Law of works As it is to promise them pardon and salvation by the Gospel or Covenant of Grace on the impossible condition of believing in Christ So that my R. B. his Argument militates against himself and he is as much bound to Answer it as we are Unless he deny the conditional promises of the Law as he doth those of the Gospel and when once I know that he doth deny both I shall cease from retorting his own Argument upon him and shall take another way of dealing with him In the mean time this may serve for the first Answer 2. I Answer that this Arminian objection was sufficiently answered in the Apology out of the writings of the professors of Leyden of Dr. Owen of the Synod of Dort and of Dr. Twiss For there it was shewed 1. That as for the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached in the visible Church God doth not require them to believe in Christ by their meer natural powers without any help without his putting forth so much as his finger to help them For together with the Gospel-Command to believe they receive more Common-Grace more light and power from the Lord than they make a good use of and as Dr. Owen says Apol. pag. 23. and pag. 114.115 where real Conversion is not attained It is always from the Interposition of an Act of Wilfulness and Stubbornness in those enlightened and convicted They do not sincerely improve what they have received and faint not meerly for want of strength to preceed but by a free Act of their own wills they refuse the grace which is further tendred unto them in the Gospel 2. There it was shewed out of the Writings of Dr. Twiss where he Answers this same objection which Mr. G. hath borrowed from the Arminians that as for the non-elect in the visible Church their inability to believe in Christ according to the Gospel is not a meer physical impotency but it is a Moral impotency Jer. 6.10 Which hath its immediate Foundation in and its next rise from their own wills so that if they earnestly would believe then they could believe but they cannot believe because they will not Whereas the inability of the poor wretch of whom Mr. G. speaks and to whom he compares the unconverted is not at all a Moral impotency but it is a meer Physical natural impotency There is nothing in the Man 's own will that causes him to refuse wilfully to come up out of the Dungeon in which he is a starving but that which hinders him from coming up is the natural weakness of his Limbs which are all supposed to be broke so that the poor wounded Man cannot come up out of the Dungeon to receive the Food that is offered him suppose he were never so earnestly willing and desirous to do it Now Dr. Twiss shews that there is a vast difference between these two impotencies between impotency Moral and impotency meerly Physical that impotency Moral is highly culpable and deserves to be punished because it is willful and affected whereas impotency meerly Physical is not culpable at all but is wholly excuseable and that therefore it is a shameful thing in the Arminians to confound these two impotencies to wit Moral and Natural impotency as if there were no difference See for this the Apol. 109.110 Where the express formal words of Dr. Twiss are quoted at large If then Mr. G. have a mind to dispute against this Distinction I desire it may be remembred that he disputes not so much against me as against Dr. Twiss and in the Doctors Judgment he doth a thing which will have a shameful issue to confound impotency Moral with impotency natural as he plainly doth 3. I Answer that what Mr. G. supposes to strengthen his Arminian Objection is manifestly false to wit that God always Commands the non-elect in the visible Church to believe by their Meer natural powers without any help since he will not so much as put forth his finger to help them I say this is false because 1. It is contrary to Scripture which saith that Gods Spirit shall not always strive with such Men Gen. 6.3 According to our Translation and that plainly implies that for a time God's Spirit doth strive with them and I suppose it will not be said that God's Spirit strives with them to hinder them but rather to help them So in Prov. 1.23 The wisdom of God saith to such Men turn ye at my reproof Behold I will pour out my Spirit unto you and I will make known my words unto you Here is not only a Command to turn unto God but a promise also of some help to enable them to turn And then it follows immediately in the 24. verse because I have called and ye refused I have stretched out my hand and no Man regarded c. In which words the Lord himself saith that he stretches out his hand to such Men but Master Goodwin saith that the Lord will not so much as put out his finger to help them for he compares the Lord in this matter to a merciless Man who offers food to a poor wretch starving in a Dungeon with all his Limbs broken on condition that he ●ome up and receive it and yet he refuses to put forth a finger to give him the least list Thus Mr. G. represents God to the world upon the Principles of the Calvinists whereas God in