Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	work_n	work_v	wrought_v	1,549	4	8.0871	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39697	Vindiciæ legis & fœderis: or, A reply to Mr. Philip Cary's Solemn call Wherein he pretends to answer all the arguments of Mr. Allen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Sydenham, Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Roberts, and Dr. Burthogge, for the right of believers infants to baptism, by proving the law at Sinai, and the covenant of circumcision with Abraham, were the very same with Adam's covenant of works, and that because the gospel-covenant is absolute. By John Flavel minister of the gospel in Dartmouth	Flavel, John, 1630?-1691.	1690 (1690)	Wing F1205A; ESTC R218689	64,584	175

To im●…ose new Conditions though never so ●…ild is a New Covenant of Works with me Mercy but not a Covenant of race properly so called Sol. T 's true if those Works or Acts ours which God requires be under●…od of meritorious Works in our own Strength and Power to perform it destroys the Free Grace of the Covenant but this we utterly reject and speak only of Faith wrought in us by the Spirit of God which receives all from God and gives the entire Glory to God Ephes. 2. 5 8. Obj. But you will say If Faith be the Condition and that Faith be not of our selves then both the Promise and the Condition are on Gods part if you will call Faith a Condition and so still on our part the Covenant is absolute Sol. This is a mistake and the mistake in this leads you into all the rest though Faith which we call the Condition on our Part ●…e the Gift of God and the power of Believing be derived from God yet the act of believing is properly our act though the power by which we believe be of God else i●… would follow when we act any Grace as Faith Repentance or Obedience tha●… God believes repents and obeys in us and it is not we but God that doth al●… these This I hope you will not dar●… to assert They are truly our Works though wrought in Gods Strength Is●… 26. 12. Lord thou hast wrought all o●… works in us i. e. Though they be our Works yet they are wrought in us by thy Grace or Strength As for Dr. Owen 't is plain from the place you cite in the Doctrine of Justification pag. 156. he only excludes Conditions as we do in respect of the dignity of the Act and is more plain in his Treatise of Redemption pag. 103 104. in which he allows Conditions in both the Covenants and makes this the difference That the Old required them but the New effects them in all the Federates I know no Orthodox Divine in the World that presumes to thrust in any Work of Mans into the Covenant of Grace as a Condition which in the Arminian Sense he may or may not perform according to the power and pleasure of his own Free-will without the preventing or determining Grace of God which preventing Grace is contained in those Promises Ezek. 36. 25 26 27. c. Nor yet that there is any meritorious Worth either of Condignity or Congruity in the Popish Sense in the very justifying Act of Faith for the which God justifies and saves us But we say That though God in the way of preventing Grace works Faith in us and when it is so wrought we need his assisting Grace to act it yet neither this assisting nor preventing Grace makes the act of Faith no more to be our Act 'T is we that believe still tho in Gods Strength and that upon our believing or not believing we have or have not the Benefits of Gods Promises which is the very proper Notion of a Condition Argument IV. If all the Promises of the New Covenant be absolute and unconditional having no respect nor relation to any Grace wrought in us nor Duty done by us then the Trial of our Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs of Grace is not our Duty nor can we take comfort in Sanctification as an Evidence of Justification But it is a Christians Duty to try his Interest in Christ by Marks and Signs and he may take comfort in Sanctification as an evidence of Justification Ergo. The Sequel of the Major is undeniably clear for that can never be a Sign or Evidence of an Interest in Christ which that Interest may be without yea and as Dr. Crispe asserts according to his Antinomian Principles Christ is ours saith he before we have gracious Qualifications Every true Mark and Sign must be inseparable from that it signifies Now if the works of the Spirit in us be not so but an Interest in Christ may be where these are not then they are no proper Marks or Signs and if they are not it cannot be our Duty to make use of them as such and consequently if we should they can yield us no Comfort The Minor is plain in Scripture 1 John 2. 3. Hereby we do know that we know him if we keep his Commandments The meaning is we perceive and discern our selves to be sincere Believers and consequently that Christ is our Propitiation when Obedience to his Commands is become habitual and easie to us So 1 John 3. 19. Hereby we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before him i. e. by our sincere cordial love to Christ and his Members as v. 18. this shall demonstrate to us that we are the Children of Truth and again 1 John 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren With Multitudes more to the same purpose which plainly teach Christians to fetch the Evidences of their Justification out of their Sanctification and to prove their Interest in Christ by the works of his Spirit found in their own Hearts And this is not only a Christians Liberty but his commanded duty to bring his Interest in Christ to this Touch-stone and Test 2 Cor. 13. 5. Examine your selves prove your selves c. 2 Pet. 1. 10. Give all diligence to make your calling and election sure i. e. your Election by your calling No Man can make his Election sure a priori nor can any Man make it surer than it is in se therefore it is only capable of being made sure to us a posteriori arguing from the work of Sanctification in us to God's eternal choice of us And as the Saints in all Ages have taken this course so they have taken great and lawful Comfort in the use of these Marks and Signs of Grace 2 Kings 20. 3. 2 Cor. 1. 12. I am sensible how vehemently the Antinomian Party Dr. Crispe Mr. Eyre and some others do oppugn this truth representing it as legal and impracticable for they are for the absolute and unconditional Nature of the new Covenant as well as you but by your espousing their Principle you have even run Anabaptism into Antinomianism and must by this Principle of yours renounce all Marks and Tryals of an Interest in Christ by any work of the Spirit wrought in us You must only stick to the immediate Sealings of the Spirit which if such a thing be at all it is but rare and extraordinary I will not deny but there may be an immediate Testimony of the Spirit but sure I am his mediate Testimony by his Graces in us is his usual way of sealing Believers We do not affirm any of these his works to be meritorious causes of our Justification or that considered abstractedly from the Spirit they can of themselves Seal or evidence our Interest in Christ. Neither do we affirm that any of them are compleat and perfect Works but this we say that

Personal Holiness inherent in Gods Intention to be clear'd by a more Metaphysical Head than mine or else to stand among other rare and unintelligible Notions to be admired and applauded by the ignorant Reader But then when we come to the Second Member of your Distinction I am as much at a loss to find your Sense as before For there you tell us The Holiness here spoken of is a Derivative Holiness also and that from Abraham only and from him not as a natural but a spiritual Father resembling Christ herein Reply This word derivative is an equivocal word and may signifie either inherent personal Holiness or Federal Holiness for both of them are derived If you say the former it looks too black and horrid for me to believe you mean it though you should say you mean it for then you make Abraham not only the Figure and Image of Christ as you speak but Christ himself by attributing to Abraham Christs incommunicable Property and Prerogative Then Abraham may say to all his Children as Christ doth John 15. 4 5. I am the vine ye are the branches c. I am he that sanctifies you But if you mean the last as necessarily you must if you mean any thing that hath Orthodox Sense in it then this derivative Holiness you speak of is not personal Holiness or internal Sanctification but federal Holiness derived from Covenanted Ancestors or Parents to their Children and therein you come over to us and to the true Sense of the Text. But why must this be squeezed from you with so much difficulty And why did you hide this federal Holiness under an equivocal term lest you should seem to yield the Controversie with a Word this is not fair Object If you say we are too hasty and triumph before the Victory for though you do yield it to be a federal Holiness yet it is such as can be derived from no other Father or Progenitor but Abraham only Sol. Yes Sir I hope you will allow Isaac and Jacob at least to be the Root and First Fruit as well as Abraham seeing the Covenant was joyntly and expresly made with them all three and thereby they became the Root and First Fruit of that holy Nation And if that People be called the Seed of Abraham they are also called the Seed of Jacob and if Fatherhood he ascribed to Abraham it is ascribed to Jacob too Isa. 58. 14. And if Abraham be first named in the Covenant so is Jacob see Levit. 26. 42. But if you allow these three Patriarchs belike that 's all you will allow for you seem to say that no federal Holiness can be derived from any other Progenitors Good Sir whatever your own private Opinion be in this matter allow us to believe otherwise as long as those Scriptures 1 Cor. 7. 14. and Acts 2. 39. stand in our Bibles for we cannot think but the federal Holiness of Children results from the immediate Parents Faith or Covenant Interest as well as from the remoter Progenitors else we cannot understand how the Corinthians Children should be holy or how the Promise should belong to the Children of them that are afar off viz. the Gentiles who could derive no such thing to their Children by a Lineal Descent from Abraham but only as they became ingrafted Branches by Faith and so suck the Fatness of the Olive to themselves and to their Buds or Childrn as the natural Branches did I desire you to consider also how this Covenant passed as you say it did to Abraham and his Seed in Christs Name if it be the same with Adam's Covenant Did that pass to Adam in Christs Name too I have now dispatched what I at first promised and intended viz. The Confutation of my Friends Mistakes about the Covenants and the Vindication of those Scriptures by which our Arguments deduced from one of them are confirmed And now I have no further concernment with Mr. Cary's Solemn Call save only to note his high Confidence rash and most unchristian censures of all his differing Friends and Brethren with which he concludes his discourse wherein he calls Infants Baptism 1. A great abuse in the Divine Worship Pag. 242 243. And yet he that so calls it never looked half way into the Controversie nor is able without manifest shuffling and contradiction both to the Words of God and his own Words to Answer our Arguments as is here made too evident 2. That it is no other than a change of a Divine Institution and making void the Commandment of Christ the horrid Sin charged by Christ upon those Hypocrites the Scribes and Pharisees Math. 15. 6. With no better than these doth he rank and assiociate the many thousands of Gods choice and dear People who differ in this circumstantial Point from him 3. He compares it with the Sin of Nadab and Abihu And with that of Israel with respect to the Ark 1 Chron. 15. 13. a Sin which provoked the Lord to execute Judgment by an immediate Stroke in Fire from Heaven upon them Thus Mr. Cary is ready to call for Fire from Heaven upon his Brethren Alas Poor Man he knows not what Spirit he is of as Christ told the Disciples in a like case 'T is well we are not in his hands to execute the Wrath as well as charge the guilt upon us But I hope all this is but Rashness in him 4. He affirms it to be no less than a transgressing of the Law a changing of the Ordinances And a breaking of the everlasting Covenant If it be a transgressing of the Law he should have shewn us in what Scripture that Law that forbids it is or where God hath repealed his former Grant to the Children of his Covenant People And for the changing of the Ordinances I am of Opinion 't is he that is guilty of that Sin and not we for we have proved God setled this priviledge upon the Infant Seed of his People that the Promise under the Gospel continues still to them and if he exclude them from Baptism he changes the Ordinance of God And for breaking the everlasting Covenant for which he cites Isa. 24. 5 6. the Lord make him sensible of the Danger he hath put himself under from that very Text he produces against us for it 's manifest that the Covenant there spoken of is Gods Covenant with Abraham renewed with the Israelites at Sinai which in that Text is truly called an everlasting Covenant when mean time Mr. Cary hath pronounced it to be an Adam's Covenant and now utterly abolished Who is it Sir that Fights against and changes this everlasting Covenant you or we that are for its continuance to us and our Children 5. He affirms these things to be of highest concernment to us If so then sure it must follow that Repentance from dead Works and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ must be inferior things to them for nothing can be higher than the highest or equal with it And then by