Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	evil_a	good_a	tree_n	33,809	5	11.7409	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85957	The fort-royal of Christianity defended. Or, a demonstration of the divinity of scripture, by way of excellency called the Bible. With a discussion of some of the great controversies in religion, about universal redemption, free-will, original sin, &c. For the establishing of Christians in truth in these atheistical trying times. / By Thomas Gery, B.D. and Rector of Barwell in Leicestershire.	Gery, Thomas, d. 1670?	1657 (1657)	Wing G618; Thomason E1702_1; ESTC R209377	93,977	264

gift of God Not of works lest any man should boast And again Tit. 3.5 Not by works of righteousnesse which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost The Advesaries answer That these and such like Texts are spoken of works before regeneration To which I reply that in Tit. 3.5 the Apostle expresly nominates works of righteousnesse and denies them to be any causes of salvation but there be no works of righteousnesse before regeneration for then an evill tree should bring forth good fruit which our Saviour denies Matth. 7.18 And therefore even good works after regeneration are in Scripture denied to be any causes of salvation Hereof I shall have occasion to speak more largely hereafter and therefore will not insist any longer in the illustration of it Before I proceed to the next Controversie I will display the weak argumentation of Mr. Henry Haggar for defence of election from fore-seen sanctification by his straining Scripture from its proper sense and in not comparing it with other Scripture where the genuine and proper sense is clearly explained He toils himself to prove the said point because it 's said in 2 Thes 2.13 that men are chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and therefore thence collects that they are not chosen before they are sanctified by the Spirit which is a very inconsequent collection for it doth not follow that because men are choto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit that therefore sanctification of the Spirit is the cause of their election or that therefore it precedes their election but that therefore sanctification is a necessary antecedent way and means through which they must be brought to salvation whereto they are elected as the way to any place is not the cause of a man his coming thither but only a necessary requisite to be observed of him And thus this Text fitly agrees with other Texts of Scripture as that before mentioned Ephes 1.4 where it 's said That we are chosen that we should be holy which Text he hath waved and never mentioned at all but as Satan alledged the words of the Psalmist leaving out a part as knowing it would disclose his wresting and perverting the true sense of the other Text which he alledged And so he neglects the premised rule of expounding Scripture by Scripture which is of necessity to be observed to find out the true sense and meaning of any Text that is ambiguous or may be variously expounded He alledgeth also the 1 Pet. 1.2 where it 's said That men are elected according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit Whence he collects that God knows men first before he doth elect them To this I answer First That God's prescience or foreknowledge of men and his election of them are in him together and one and the same act for all his attributes are himself and whatsoever is said to be in him is himself as it hath ever been acknowledged by all learned Divines But in humane apprehension of them his decrees precede his prescience for he doth not decree things to come because he foresees them but foresees them because he hath decreed them as is colligible from S. Paul's speech before named Ephes 4.11 where he affirms that God worketh all things according to the Counsell of his own will whence it 's manifest that his own will is the first cause of all his works and not his prescience though his prescience do concur with his will Secondly I answer That the foreknowledge of God there mentioned is a foreknowledged with approbation for the original word which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies fore knowledgement as all men of learning know which implies a concurence of his election and approbation with his foreknowledge of men and not any precedence of his knowledge before his approbation and election of them And this affords an answer also to that place which is brought by some of the adversaries for defence of election from foreseen faith and holinesse in Rom. 8.29 where it 's said that whom God did foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son where the Greek verb which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly fore-acknowledged which intimates an election either with it or before the foreknowledge and besides the words following lead to this sense in that the Apostle expresseth that the predestination which he mentioneth as a sequell of God's foreknowledge is a predestination to be conformed to the image of his Son that is to be holy as Christ is holy A predestination to holinesse cannot be a predestination for holinesse as was shewed before He alledgeth but one Text of Scripture more about this point which is in the fourth Page of his discourse and which he abuseth very sufficiently as he doth the two former and that is Ephes 1.11 and 12. verses where the Apostle speaketh of himself and others that they were predestinated that they should be to the praise of God's glory who first trusted in Christ Whence he ridiculously collecteth that they did first trust in Christ before they were predestinated Whereas the priority or precedency of their faith there mentioned by the Apostle hath no relation at all to their predestination in Grammatical construction but to the faith of the Ephesians that were Greeks or Gentiles and called to the faith of Christ after Paul and the other Apostles that were Jews as appears evidently by the next verse where the Apostle adds In whom also ye trusted after that ye heard the word of truth As if he should have said In whom we trusted first and then ye afterwards which agrees also with other Scripture as Rom. 1.16 where the Apostle saith that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth to the Jew first and also to the Greek The second Controversie Of the Vniversality of Christ's Redemption TO decide and determine this controversie I must first state the question aright between us and the adversaries To speak nothing of the word All which sometimes is put for all sorts of men and sometimes for all particular men of all sorts Seeing we acknowledge that Christ died not only for all sorts of men but for all of all sorts that do repent and believe The controversie depends upon these three Quaeries 1. Whether Christ died for unbelievers at all or not 2. Whether he died for them in as full and ample sense as for believers 3. In what sense he died for them and in what sense he died not for them To the first quaery or question I answer affirmatively for my part that Christ died for unbelievers in some sense To the second I answer negatively scil that he died not for unbelievers in as full and ample sense as for believers which I prove from Scripture three ways First Because it 's said sometime in

And Phil. 2.13 It 's God that gives to will and to work of his good pleasure Therefore the conclusion is true Argument 4. IF our good works be not every way responsible suitable to the Law of God which requires them at our hands then can they not be meritorious this is clear But they are not so Therefore they cannot merit That they are not answerable and agreeable to God's Law is most evident because they are imperfect and defective whereas the Law of God is perfect as David affirms Psalm 19.7 Now that they are imperfect and defective it 's divers times affirmed in Scripture Isa 64.6 All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Rom. 7.18 To will is present with me but how to perform that which is good I find not And again in the 21. verse When I would do good evill is present with me Argument 5. IF there be no analogy and proportion between eternal life and our good works then cannot our good works merit eternal life This consequence is a clear truth in reason for a reward is to be adequated and proportioned unto the work But there is no analogy and proportion between eternal life and good works for the reward of eternal life is infinite but man's good works are finite and finiti ad infinitum nulla est proportio between a finite thing and an infinite there is no proportion Therefore the Conclusion holds That eternal life cannot be merited by mens good works I will answer the main Argument for the merit of works so I will conclude concerning this Controversie It 's alledged for defence of the merit of works That the Scripture affirms that they shall be rewarded with eternal life and that very often as Matth. 5.11 Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you c. Rejoyce and be exceeding glad for great is your reward in Heaven Luke 14.14 When thou makest a feast call the poor c. and thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just Heb. 11.26 It 's said That Moses esteemed the rebuke of Christ greater riches then the treasures of Egypt becaus behad respect unto the recompence of reward And oft elsewhere eternal life is called a reward which say the Adversaries imports the merit of good works because merces meritum reward and merit are relatives To this I answer That there is a double reward 1. A reward of merit or debt and 2. A reward of mercy or favour And this distinction is not devised or coyned by man's wit nor hewen out of the quarry of his brain but is framed by the holy Ghost himself Rom. 4.4 where it 's thus written Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt where he bath made an apparent distribution of reward in these two sorts 1. A reward of grace and 2. A reward of debt Now eternal life is a reward of grace mercy or favour and not a reward of debt or merit as the Texts before quoted demonstrate scil Luke 12.32 John 10 28. Rom. 6.23 In all which places it's called the gift of God and a gift proceeding from his own pleasure and therefore can be no debt that God oweth to men for their good works for a gift and debt are so dissentaneous that they cannot consist together nor be predicated of one and the same subject And hence it is that though God hath oft promised to reward such as do good works with everlasting life that he may provoke all men unto them yet it is nowhere said that they shall be rewarded for them for that might have been interpreted to have intimated and imported some merit in them but the Scripture in mentioning God's reward of good works useth this phrase That they shall be rewarded according to their works which intimates the reward to be given of God's mercy and not to be obtained by man's merits Thus it 's expressed Psalm 62.12 Vnto thee O Lord belongeth mercy for thou renderest to every man according to his works Matth. 16.27 The Son of man shall come in the glory of the Father with his Angels and then he shall reward every man according to his works 2 Cor. 5.10 We must all appear before the tribunal seat of Christ that every man may receive according to that he hath done whether it be good or bad Rev. 20.12 13. verses It 's twice said of the dead that they were judged according to their works and in Chapter the 22 and verse the 12. Beheld saith Christ I come quickly and my reward is with me to give to every man according as his work shall be This is the constant expression of Scripture in speaking of the reward of good works to phrase it according to works and no where for them lest men should presume to ascribe some merit unto them And this makes it evident that the Popish distinction of the merit of condignity and the merit of congruity is but a meer gingle and shift to evade the force of the former Arguments against the merit of good works for the merit of congruity which they attribute to good works proceeds from mercy as they confesse themselves and therefore cannot properly be called merit for mercy and merit are contradistinct and inconsistent it 's the very affirmation of Scripture Rom. 11.6 If by grace then it 's no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace but if it be of works then is it no more grace otherwise work is no more work Here the Apostle makes a flat opposition between grace and works and there is the very same opposition between mercy and merit which hath forced that confession from Bellarmine which hath oft dropped from his pen in his book of Controversies Merita nostra sunt Dei munera The like was S. Bernard his confession to Almighty God Meritum meum est misericordia tua my merit is thy mercy Both which are agreeable to the sentence of S. Augustine in his Book of Homiles in Homil. the 14 Quum bona ●pera nostra remunerat Deus non merita nostra sed sua dona coronat When God rewardeth our good works he crowns his own gifts and not our merits From this premised discourse I deduct this corolary or capitulation of the causes of salvation as they are in order manifested in Scripture First God's free grace and love is the primary and principal efficient cause of election unto salvation This is justified by these Texts beside many other Rom. 11.5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace Ephes 1.5 Having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will And again in the 11. verse following of the same Chapter In whom also we have obtained an inheritance being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsell of his own will Secondly Christ's obedience