Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	work_n	work_v	wrought_v	224	4	8.0779	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30896	Robert Barclay's apology for the true Christian divinity vindicated from John Brown's examination and pretended confutation thereof in his book called Quakerisme the pathway to paganisme in which vindication I.B. his many gross perversions and abuses are discovered, and his furious and violent railings and revilings soberly rebuked / by R.B. Whereunto is added a Christian and friendly expostulation with Robert Macquare, touching his postscript to the said book of J.B. / written to him by Lillias Skein ...	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.; Skein, Lillias. An epostulatory epistle directed to Robert Macquare.	1679 (1679)	Wing B724; ESTC R25264	202,030	218

relief to my desperat cause as he terms it he concludes this 11 Paragraph p 200. with one of his sententious sayings Quakers can dream waking I see He goes-on in answer to my proofs brought from the antient Philosophers to confirm this to which he resumes little but railing wherein I will not trouble the Reader to follow him since without them the thing in hand is sufficiently proved by Scriptur yet if he will affirm the citations to be either false or fictitious they may be proved by production of the books themselvs He thinks the impertinency of my citing Augustin's words is discovered by the bare reading and little less he saith to those of Buchanan which I refer to the Readers judgment as he will find them in my Apology towards the latter end of the explanation of the 5 and 6 Propositions and I will leave him concluding this chapter with railing and empty threats which I neither fear nor value as being without ground and the fruits of no better spirit than that of Rabshakeh Section Eighth Wherein his thirteenth Chapter Of Iustification is considered ¶ 1. I come now to his thirteenth chapter Of Justification where after he has begun by telling this doctrin hath been principally questioned by Heretiks which I deny not and given us according to his custom some large citations out of their Confession of Faith and Catechism with the supposed sense of other Quakers from some of his formerly mentioned partial Authors at last he comes pag. 296. n. 4. to examin what I say in this matter where according to his custom he begins with a calumny upon his own false supposition as if the justification I plead for were not the true justification of the Saints because proceeding from the Light which saith he is but the dimme light of nature This he takes for granted to be true and thence falsly makes his inference pag. 297 298. 307 308. 324. To this he adds another perversion as if because I say from the Light received proceeds an holy birth therefore there were no infusion of any gracious Principle or Vertue c. which is false Men use to say that where seed is received in the earth it grows up to fruit yet not without the influence of the Sun and descending of rain so is it with this Spiritual Seed but with this difference that where-ever this Seed is God is never wanting to give his Heavenly influences towards its growth advançment In this chapter also he omits not his railing calling us poor deluded Wretches c. with the repetition of which I will not trouble the Reader if he be pleased he may observe it pag. 227-299 316. 318 319. in several other places but especially where he endeth the chapter p. 324 325. I needed not at all trouble the Reader with his often re-iterared accusation of my joyning with the Papists since he saith I am worse and less orthodox than they in this matter p. 301. 309. were it not to shew him how his malice has blinded him for he confesseth p. 300. n. 8. that I condemn their meritum ex condigno and placing justification in such works as are rather evil than good and yet p. 305. he asks wherein I differ from the worst Papists So then such as assert meritum ex condigno and these other things denied by me are not in his sense the worst Papists let him reconcile this with the general sense of Protestants yea with great bitterness he quarreleth me for wronging the Papists p. 301. calling it a base falshood and deceit in me to say Papists do not place justification in any real inward renovation of the soul citing the words of the Councel of Trent and Bellarmin to the contrary but he must know if he will I will not be cheated by the fair words of Papists contrary to what mine ears have heard and eyes seen to be the general practice of their people and Preachers and that in a kingdom where their superstition less abounds than any place of their territories I know they place more vertue towards the inward renovation of the Soul in such things as are justly condemnable than in obedience to Christ's precepts and were it not that he is even glad to patronize the Papists that he might get some occasion to rail against me he could not but acknowledge this since he can not be ignorant whatever distinctions and fair words they have invented now to smooth their doctrin that all the first Reformers do with one voice affirm that before the Reformation there was a profound silence of any thing save their superstitious works pilgrimages and indulgences in the point of justification not only as to making just but even as to remission of sins which they asserted to be attained by such means Yet this man's charity can extend to palliat their hypocrisy that he may accuse me while yet in the same page as to me he lays-aside all his charity alledging most abusivly that it is but good words I give them about the satisfaction of Christ and that I deceive them with Socinian glosses and metaphorical senses which is a gross calumny like to which is his calumny p. 317. where he saith the Quakers talk of Christ's Sufferings and Death c. as all done within man ¶ 2 That the Reader may not be interrupted in the through examination of this point by his calumnies perversions and malitious insinuations which he bestows throughout most of his work to squeeze out of my words that he may render me either odious or ridiculous I will remove them in the first place ere I come to the main matter Of this kind is what he saith p. 297. where he plays upon me saying that justification is not by our work or works considered by themselvs as if this were a mighty absurdity to say works wrought in a man could in any sense not be called his which he reckons Phanaticism in folio But if this be so he must accuse Christ and the Apostle Paul of this Phanaticism and it shall not much trouble me to be accounted guilty with them albeit I lie under I. B's censur for it for Christ saith to his Apostles Mat. 10 20. For it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you and Mark 13 11. for it is not ye that speak but the Holy Ghost yet they uttered the words He must either here confess his shame albeit he term me a shameless man for saying that Christ's words confirm it or else condemn Christ was not this speaking a work of the Apostles and doth not Christ say it is not they and dare he call this a contradiction So then he may see in what respect good works considered otherwise than as meerly the works of men help in justification see also 1 Cor. 15 10. But I laboured more abundantly than they all yet not I but the grace of God which was with me So here the Apostle's labour is

manner of Worship and the good effects he may suppose it sometimes has it would follow that whoever set about it and got up to the pulpit and read his Text could not preach false doctrin nor speak impertinently and therefore what he builds upon this here as also pag. 416. n. 7. pag. 517 429. falls to the ground But he seeketh to uphold this with another calumny as if all that frequent the Quakers meetings and are accounted of their number were supposed by us to be perfect asking how can the power of darkness work if they be made free from sinning which is false How we affirm this absolute perfection even of such as we account our Brethren I have shewn in my section of Perfection A sixth calumny is pag. 415. which he also hath pag. 424. where he supposeth it to be our doctrin that there is no setting about Prayer or other dutys without a previous motion of the Spirit and upon this he insists as an absurdity But we speak not of a previous motion in order of time as absolutely necessary it is enough if it be in order of nature which he knows may be without any priority of time and so his absurdity upon this pag. 424. evanisheth which I also answer speaking of Prayer in my Apology A seventh calumny is p. 426. where he concludeth because I say Gospel-Worship is not to be in outward observations gon-about by man in his own will and proper strength that I affirm Gospel worship putteth-away all external actions which how false it is and inconsequential any ordinary Reader may easily judg and yet upon this false inference he thinketh to bind upon me a contradiction in owning afterwards external acts of Worship for to say worship may be performed without these acts and that worship can not be performed in these acts is very different the last I deny but own the first An eighth calumny is pag. 418. where because I say that it sometimes falleth out that one come into a meeting upon a sinistrous account may by the Power raised in the Meeting be reached if the day of his Visitation be not expired he concludes if any such come in and be not thus changed his day is gon and it is impossible to him to be saved which is a gross abuse for albeit the not expiring of his day must be presupposed to a capacity of Salvation yet his not presently yea after divers times not being converted doth not suppose his day to be over since it was never our principle to say God affords men no opportunity but one Besides these there are many other perversions scatter'd up and down such as pag. 421. his saying that the waiting we plead for is such as putteth away Prayer that we plead for it to shut out the ordinances of Iesus Christ and to give God no more for all his solemn worship but a dumb mumry which word pleaseth him so wel that he hath it several times over ¶ 2. His great and mighty charge in this chapter is indeed great enough if he could make it out and that is that the Quakers are guilty of Devilry and are certainly acted by the Devil in their assemblys But this he only strongly affirms without proof unless one which whether it be valid or not comes now to be examined and that is pag. 418. from my saying that there will be sometimes an inward struggling yea so as the body will be strangely moved to this he adds a story of one Gilpin long ago answered and describeth these motions of the Quakers to be foam swell and froath at the mouth which is false and returned upon him as a calumny however he compares these motions of the body as asserted by me to the work of the Devil and the old Phythoniks But it seems malice hath wonderfully blinded the man here else he would not have given his own cause which he esteems the great Cause of God so deep a wound for in the book called The Fulfilling of the Scripturs a treatise much applauded by them whose author is said to be Robert Fleeming one of their non-conforming Brethren he relates as a convincing proof of the Power of God how some were so choaked and taken by the heart that they were made to fall over and so carryed out of the Church and as a convincing appearance of God and down-pouring of the Spirit that there was a strange and unusual motion on the hearers which by the profane was called the Stewarton Sickness from the name of the Parish Now what difference is betwixt this and my speaking of mens being strangely moved by the Power of God Will not this prove as much that all this was Devilry and the passions of the old Phythoniks Since these motions are made the great argument why the Quakers are said to be acted by the Devil let him the next time assign clear reasons according to Scriptur why these motions upon the Presbyterian bodys are a convincing sign of the working of the Power of God among them but that the motions on the Quakers bodys are enough to confirm they are acted by the Devil and if he do this effectually he may be in some hopes of gaining a proselyt Next to this I come to consider what he urges as a great absurdity to wit that the Quakers turning their minds inward which he will needs term introverting and not interpret the word that he may make ignorant folks believe it is a piece of the Quakers Devilry and laying-aside all their own thoughts and imaginations were a laying-aside both Christianity and humanity a becoming no men but brutes and worse and most capable to be deluded by the Devil Upon this he insists pag. 414. 422. and else where as if for men to abstain from their own thoughts and imaginations were the way to unman them yet if he will understand it of the Old Man the Man of sin that is corrupted we will say with the Apostle that ought to dye and be crucified and are so far from thinking this is against Christianity that we believe according to Scriptur it is the way to become a Christian and to overcome the Devil not to lay our selvs open to him And therefore his railing against man's silence from his own thoughts that God may speak and work in him doth evidence his great ignorance in the work of a true Christian for this is so far from descending from humanity to brutism that it is rather an ascending from humanity to Divinity so that albeit in one sense we are said to dye or be emptied as to our selvs yet we do more truely live and exist And if he think this a contradiction let him consider that of the Apostle Gal. 2 20. I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me and this if rightly considered will answer his questions pag. 422. by answering of which he would have me clear my way of Devilry As

he did not actually reconcile the whole world save in a capacity Ezech. 16 6. he giveth a question in stead of answer 1 Pet. 2 24. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we being dead to sins should live unto righteousness by whose stripes ye were healed noting 1 Pet. 3 18. Christ hath once suffered that he might bring us to God but it saith not that Christ by his sufferings did bring us to God which would have more made for his purpose and though it had been so yet neither that nor what is above cited prove any thing being spoken to those who had received the second redemption as wel as the first Then he notes these following Col. 1 14. Gal. 1 4. 3 13 14. 4 5. Rev. 5 9 10. 14 3 4. Tit. 2 13. all which I have looked but find not that they prove what he intends some were spoken not only to those who had already received the benefit of Christ's death here but of such as were already glorified in heaven if he think they will prove his matter he must shew how the next time he writes ¶ 4. Pag. 309. n. 21. He brings my argument shewing that where there is a perfect reconciliation there there is no separation why doth God then so often complain of his People for their sins from this it would follow that sin made no separation or that their good works and worst sins are the same in God's account His answer to this is that a man may be in a justified state and declared just because constituted so albeit unrighteous as to his person because of his unrighteous actions in which sense he is not justified nor approven of God that is in plain Scots to say God constituteth and declareth men just albeit they be wicked men and really unjust the first being understood of their condition the second of their person but the misery is there wants something to knit this incoherent matter together and inform us how a man as to his condition is just while in his person unjust and indeed he brings no proof for all this And albeit I wonder not at this omission since he could do no better yet I desire he may let me know the next time why I should receive his answer without proof That every sin which may be committed by a Saint doth not unsaint him or destroy his condition I acknowledge but they suppose no sin to do it for when they affirm murder and adultery and treachery not to have done it as they do if these sins are not destructive and killing as to man's condition I know none and desire to be informed how by Scriptur it can be made appear that these do not so my argument still remains in force and his charge of Antinomianism against me falleth to the ground Pag. 311. He brings my argument shewing the absurdity of their objection from 2 Cor. 5 21. thus If we be just as Christ was a sinner by imputation then as there was not the least sin in Christ so there is no necessity for the least righteousness in us To which he answers neither is there to our being justified upon that account The Reader may judge of this doctrin which the man either forgeting or being ashamed of plainly contradicts in the same page saying that sanctification is inseparably joyned with justification for then sure righteousness must be necessary to be justified upon whatever account And yet to go round again within five lines he cites Joh. 6 29. 9 35 36. 10 38. 12 36. 14 1. 16 9. to prove that Christ would have people resting upon a righteousness meerly imputative for justification for that is the thing denied by me for if sanctification be unseparable from justification it is impossible to rest upon that which is meerly imputative That these Scripturs prove no such thing the Reader may see all of them press believing in Christ but that to believe in Christ is to rest upon a righteousness meerly imputative remains yet for him to prove But to proceed with an unparalleled confidence to answer to me saying that to my observation that sentence the imputed righteousness of Christ which they so much urge as the foundation of their faith is not to be sound in all the Scriptur he noteth divers places of Scriptur in not one of which there is any such thing and indeed this controversy being of matter of fact can be easily decided by any that can read who can easily see whether that expression be there or not for the question is of the expression in terminis not of what he apprehendeth may by consequence import the like What he saith in answer to my proving justifying to be understood of being really made just from 1 Cor. 6 11. he overturneth himself in a few lines confessing that the Corinthians were really changed and if so we need not doubt where it is said they were justified but they were really made just that is changed from unrighteousness as he confesseth they were ¶ 5. Pag. 312. n. 26. He cometh to take notice of what I urge from the word justification and from the etymology of it and having introduced himself with a scoff he saith I do place this upon the authority of the vulgar Latine edition but therein he is mistaken the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will make as much for my purpose as the Latine he passeth from the etymology p. 313. and saith the words usually import a juridical absolution by by the sentence of a Judge but what then is not that because Judges usually at lest absolve men upon the account of their innocency And so his comparison of a Surety will not here hitt for when men are accused of murder or adultery or theft and that the case is proven and confest what Judges use to declare the person acquitted upon Surety given by another innocent person And therefore justifico I justify signifies the declaring of one just who is so and though justifico as being sometimes taken in a Law sense doth not in the Indicative answer to sanctifico because it is there active and has relation to another person yet in the Passive when relating to the person sanctified it is understood one way for justificatus and sanctificatus signifie the same But he overturneth all his quibbling here p. 313. n. 27. by asking whether they say that a man is said to be justified who is not really just which imports they say not so and then we are agreed only I would ask him how a man is really just while committing actual wickedness and unrighteousness as to his person and yet he said before such were justified and yet in the next p. 314. he saith I malitiously calumniat them to say they make use of the figurative sense of the word let the Reader judge of these consistencies And whereas I cite some Scripturs that justifying is spoken of some