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_v	world_n	wrath_n	21	3	7.0150	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A32773	A rejoynder to Mr. Daniel Williams his reply to the first part of Neomianism [sic] unmaskt wherein his defence is examined, and his arguments answered : whereby he endeavours to prove the Gospel to be a new law with sanction, and the contrary is proved / by Isaac Chauncy.	Chauncy, Isaac, 1632-1712.	1693 (1693)	Wing C3757; ESTC R489	70,217	48

may be called a Brute or a Brute a Man 1. Law and Gospel-grace are opposed expresly by the Spirit Joh. 1.17 The law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ Here is not a Law and a Law opposed Evangelium non esse legem sed ab ea plurimum distinctum tum ipsa arguit appellatio quam ponderat Theophyl in Praef. Matth. Euseb l. 1. in praeparatione Evang. c. 1. Tum manifesta Antithesis quae est Joh. 1.17 Rom. 10.5 6. Tum utriusque discrimen situm in patefactionis ordine natura promulgatione ministerio in forma seu differentia promissionum in effectis adjunctis efficacia officio utriusque in applicatione ad objecta tum constitutus Ecclesiae purioris consensus quae semper Evangelium a lege discrevit quemadmodum Cyril Alex. but a Law and Grace essentially differing for an old Law and a new do not differ essentially but secundum adjuncta only in the like manner and for the same end Christ and Moses are opposed Christ as a Son to Moses as a Servant one being a Minister of the Law the other of the free grace of the Gospel Heb. 3.5 6. As Mediators one of a legal administration that vailed the grace of the Gospel Christ such a Mediator of the New Testament who brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel 2 Tim. 1.10 Upon the account of this specifick difference of Law and Gospel it is that Mount Sinai and Mount Zion or Jerusalem that is above the heavenly are opposed to the earthly in that Spiritual Allegory of Hagar and Sarah applied Gal. 4.24 25. which opposition between these Mounts is fully and admirably managed by the Apostle Heb. 12.18 22. To this let me add the specifick difference that is made between those that are under one and under the other Rom. 6.14 There are some under the Law and some under grace he saith not some under an old Law some under a new but what 's the condition of them under the Law sin reigns unto death but as to those under Grace grace reigneth through righteousness i. e. of Christ not of works of our obedience to any Law unto eternal life Lastly The opposition made between the Works of the Law and the Grace of the Gospel is in the point of justification the Works of the Law or any Law are peremptorily rejected by the Apostle in the point of justification so that if Grace justified in a way of Works Grace and Works here could not be opposed See those two famous places that peremptorily reject all Works of what kind soever of what Law soever from Justification Rom. 3.20 Gal. 2.16 where it s said by the Works of a Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no Flesh living shall be justified It is reasonable to think that if the Apostle had intended we should be justified by any Law Alexand. in c. 40. Isa Hieron l. 1. Contra Pelagianos plurimorum ubi opus adduci possunt testimonia Christop Pelargi Jesuitismu p. 71. Impres An. D. 16●8 that he would not have told us by what Law-Works Would he have spoken so universally of all Law-Works Are not all good Works towards God and Man commanded in the Law But are some Works of one Law and some of another This Remark of mine obout leaving out the prepositive Article shewing that the Words of all Laws are indefinitely here meant you would blow away as a Cobweb Your words are Vpon such Cobwebs in the face of the plain scope of the Bible doth this Cause stand Cobwebs are fit enough to catch Flies in but I never fear an Adversary that spits at Arguments instead of answering them Where 's the Argument you say because in a few places the Article ὼ is not put in You should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore the Apostle excludes every sort when he plainly excludes only one sort as appears by the whole Context nay when at the same time another Species under that general Rom. 3.27 R. Therefore Ver. 20. We have the general of all Laws there 's no Justification by the Works of a Law and know you not that which is denyed to the Genus as such is denyed to the Species and tho' he mentions a Law of Faith v. 27. in the sense or senses which have been above mentioned yet it is manifest that he absolutely denies Justification to Faith as a Law-Work for else why had he not excepted Faith as a Law-Work when he excludes all Works And when he sheweth all Works are excluded he saith where is boasting then Saith he it is excluded by the Nature and Power of true Faith which will always lay the Creature low and exclude all matter of Boasting that may be in us he saith not we are justified by Faith as a Work of the new Law but saith that Faith stands up against all such Works and Law-Justification and this is witnessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Law and the Prophets i. e. by the Mosaical Ministry as well as the Prophets were the prepositive Points at Law in a peculiar sense but what is it that 's witnessed It 's that the Righteousness of God is manifested 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without a Law any Law for Justification by Gospel grace You mistake if you apprehend we make this our great Argument to prove that the Gospel in its nature is not a Law with Sanction it is the plain scope and design of the Apostle in all those places where he disputes against Justification by Works that we argue from and make use of this observation as a corroborating Argument that his plain intent is to exclude not only the Works of the moral Law but the Works of any Law for the Apostle deals with the Galatians which hankered after Circumcision and under pretence of observation of some of the Mosaical Ceremonies would have introduced the Works of the Law to share in the Matter of their Righteousness And therefore by using Law in the largest and most comprehensive sense he casts out all-Law Works as conditions of Justification and this is the sense Mr. Beza hath of the Apostle's Scope on Rom. 3.20 St. Paul having proved the World to be guilty before God and lyable to his Wrath he concludes that which he undertakes to prove viz. That no Man could be justified by the Works of any Law for having disproved one part of the disjunct Proposition he establisheth the other viz. Seeing we are not justified by a Law therefore only by Faith in Christ alone Christ apprehended by Faith as the Gospel teacheth that we are both justified and saved therefore that the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation to every Believer which was the state of the Question as laid down in the beginning of the Epistle He tells us what doth further shew or demonstrate these things duly considered that in this Verse by the nameing the Law without an Article all Doctrin is understood whether

begun 3. Either the first Grace is through Christ or not but 't is strange to say That Christ gives inherent Grace to one that 's not united to him but as his designed Head as you phrase it and to one in a State of Condemnation And should make a change in his Nature before a change of State 4. Then Sanctification if Faith be any part of it must be before Justification contrary to the best Protestants and what you have said Your 8th Exception is That I say 't is the Doctrine of Imputation that you banter and you tell us what you say of it in your Book where when I come to the Places you quote here you will see my Remarks on your Sayings And so as to the ninth and tenth it will be spoken to in its proper place And as to the el●v●nth and twelfth I am of the same Mind I was I shall not spend Time in Vindication and I leave the considerate Reader who understands himself whether I do not give a very fair account of your Opinion whereof by the Quotations of yours out of your former Book you give sufficient Confirmation As to the stating Questions in difference between us you do it not fair The first you say is Preface 2. l. 1. Whether the elect are required to believe that they may be justified This you say I deny R. You should have quoted the Place I say there are Commands in the Ministry of the Gospel unto Sinners to believe and obey the Gospel that they may partake of Justification by Christ's Righteousness but not to perform it as a moral condition that ther●by they may be qualified for Justification or made meet for it as you say 2. You say it is not whether the Gospel be such a Law that the Acts of Obedience to it stand in the place of Works so as for them we are saved but whether the Gospel assure Salvation for Christ's Merits to such as obey it and their active exclusion of Salvation to such as disobey it This you say you affirm and I deny I 'll tell you what I say The Gospel can't be a Law commanding Obedience as a federal condition of the Promise but upon performance of it the Promise must be a reward of Debt and if the Promise be Justification for the Merits of Christ then its due as Debt upon the said Obedience and tho' you say Justification for the Righteousness of Christ yet that Justification must be the reward of Obedience required in that Law 3. It is not whether we are justified by our Faith as an Act of ours as if they you mean Repentance too as Works or Qualifications were a Jot of that Righousness for which or by which we are justified This I deny Rep. Who says you say its that Righteousness of Christ to which you annex your for or by but for and by this Righteousness we come to be justified by our Faith and Repentance the Duties required in another Law which you tells us is the Gospel Rule i. e. your Law That a Man must be a penitent Believer whom God will justify for the righteousness of Christ This you say you affirm and I deny and that with good reason that our Faith and Repentance must be previous qualifying Duties to our Justification So that a Sinner must repent and believe in a state of Condemnation before he is justified and it s no more than this that for Christ's Righteousness which is our legal Righteousness we shall be justified by or according to our Evangelical 4. Your next Particular is the same and I say as before God doth not justifie us as a judicial Act for any Duty or Act tho' wrought by the Spirit 5. You say It 's not whether we are justified upon believing before any Works which follow the first Act of saving Faith R. No for the Papists own their first Justification to be so but you say If Faith should be ineffectual to Acts of sincere Holiness and to prevent Apostacy and utter Ungodliness would we not be subject to condemnation by Gospel Rule This you say you affirm and I deny R. Let us examin this then and see what you affirm 1. That there 's a possibility true justifying Faith may be ineffectual and so there may be a falling away 2. That till Faith hath brought forth sincere persevering Obedience we are not fully and certainly justified we must be justified by the second Justification before we be secure 3. That Apostacy and utter Ungodliness is prevented by a Gospel Rule of Condemnation that we are made subject to it s a fine way to prevent Apostacy to lay us under a Rule of Condemnation you mean a Sentence For my part I can t see these things hang together nor know what you mean by a Rule of Condemnation but in the sense of the Law working Wrath which is quite contrary to the nature of a Gospel 6. You say and we say That Holiness and good Works are necessary to Salvation but that I deny they are indispensable means of obtaining the Possession of Salvation through Christ R. If I say they are necessary it is enough tho' I may not own them to be indispensible means in your sense as a Law condition is an indispensible means of the Reward and if they be indispensible means the Thief upon the Cross could not have been saved and hundreds more that I doubt not but God saves in the like manner 7. It is not whether Justification Adoption and Glorification be Acts of Gods free Grace which I affirm R. But you said otherwise That forgiving adopting and glorifying and the conveyance of every promised Benefit given on Gods Terms are judicial Acts of God as a Rector i. e. As you after say That Grace is so dispensed by way of judicial rectoral Distribution of Rewards c. Pref. of the 1st Book But the Question is you say Whether it pleased God to leave himself at liberty to justifie the Unbeliever while such and glorifie the Unbeliever and Wicked and al●o to damn the penitent godly Believer this Mr. C. affirms and I deny R. You should have shewed the place where I said it that your Charge might have fastned by a Demonstration I marvel you blush not at such things as these 1. Where have I that Expression of Gods leaving himself at liberty It s one of your Terms of Art not mine 2. That he justifies the Ungodly is what the Spirit of God saith and therefore I may 3. But I say in justifiing him he sanctifieth him and whatever a Sinner is he is justified as such not as made holy and sanctified unless you 'l confound Justification and Sanctification as the Papists and Quakers do 4. But when did I say That God doth glorifie an Unbeliever and a wicked Man or damn the penitent and godly Believer Or that in the Covenant of Grace he hath made any such Exception that he may or will do so I suppose that you must