Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	act_n	believe_v	faith_n	5,216	5	5.8503	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47166	Quakerism no popery, or, A particular answere to that part of Iohn Menzeis, professor of divinity in Aberdeen, (as he is called) his book, intituled Roma mendax Wherein the people called Quakers are concerned, whom he doth accuse as holding many popish doctrins, and as if Quakerism, (so he nick-names our religion,) were but popery-disguised. In which treatise his alleadged grounds for this his assertion, are impartialy and fairly examined and confuted: and also his accusation of popery against us, justly retorted upon himself, and his bretheren. By George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1675 (1675)	Wing K194; ESTC R213551	62,351	126

forgiveness which turning is an inward righteousness for to turn to GOD is an act of obedience and consequently is righteousness and it is also inward for it is an act of the soul and heart that is wrought in us by the Spirit of GOD. And indeed in this last place of Scripture our whole Iustification as consisting in these two Forgiveness of sin a●d 〈◊〉 R●ght unto eternall life which is the inheritance above mentioned to the receiving of both which our turning unto GOD from the power of Satan is expresly required yet not as if this conversion or inward work of righteouness were the p●●curing cause of our receiving either the one or the other nay not at all but they are the conditions or qualifications most necessarly required in order to the receiving them And seeing I. M. and his brethren affirme that men are justified by faith so as faith is a condition or qualification necessary unto Iustification I ask him and them is not faith inward righteousness though not the whole yet a part I prove it is All true inward obedience is inward righteousnes but faith is true inward obedience therefore c. The first proposition is clear because righteousness is nothing else but obedience unto what God commands The second proposition is no less clear for God hath cōmanded us to believe in Christ therefore faith in him is obedience and it is inward being an act of the soul wrought in it by the Spirit of God concurring with it that it may believe Yea this faith according to I. Ms. principle is not a bare assenting of the understanding unto what is revealed of Christ but it hath in it the consent of the will as also a certain affiance of confidence in GOD and Christ which is commonly called Fiducia that i● of the nature of hope And seeing this faith is an act of the will it must have love in it for indeed all acts of the will are either acts of love or hatred or doe proceed from them so that if faith be ane act of the will as well as of the understanding it must love or desire or both and thus in justifying or saving faith there is both Love and Hope as well as Faith all which three are inward righteousness wrought in us and by us through the help of the Holy Spirit Augustin saith tract evan secundum Ioh. 29. What is it to believe in Him but by believing to love Him and thus he defineth justifying Faith And if it be replyed that it is confessed that faith is an inward work of righteousness but that we are not justified by faith as it is a work or as it is a part of inward righteousness To this I answere first This distinction is too too nice and metaphysicall seing it is the very essence of faith to be ane inward work of righteousness whereby with the greatest love of our hearts we both cleave unto the Lord desire Him and have confidence affiance or hope in Him Now to distinguish betuixt a thing and the essence or that which is essentiall to it is too nice and curious and indeed altogether impertinent in the handling of controve●sies of religion where all things should be proposed with greatest plainess that is possible but to distinguish betwixt a thing and its essence is not plain nor fit to be understood by those of common capacity as consisting in a logicall notion as a meer ens-rationis as who would distinguish betuixt Paul his being a man and his being a reasonable creature made after the image of GOD. I answere secondly the controversie betwixt them and us is not whether we be justified by a righteousness wrought in us as it is a work we leave this to those vaine janglers who delight themselves in such airy and unprofitable questions it sufficeth us to contend for this that men ate justified by a righteousness wrought in them which inward righteousness is indespensibly necessary to our Iustification before GOD. I answere thirdly if they mean that we are not justified by any work of righteousness so as that work is the procuring cause by way of strict merit of our Iustification we doe also most willingly affirme the same for indeed no Faith of ours no Love no Hope no Humility no Patience no Meekness nor Temperance nor any other thing wrought in us or by us through the help of the spirit of GOD doth in a way of strict justice merit or procure either our Iustification or any other favour or thing whatsomever so that we doe indeed renounce all merit on our part strictly and rigidly considered and all debt as owing on Gods-part to us otherwise then as by His promise He hath bound Himself unto us so that as the reward is of grace the merit and debt is of grace also according unto the words of Augustin Fidelis est Dominus qui se nobis debitorem fecit non aliquid a nobis accipiendo sed omnia promittendo Faithfull is the LORD who hath made Himself a debitor unto us not by receiving any thing from us but by giving us all things Yea we doe really declare that we are as freely justified as we are sanctified and seeing our being sanctified by inward righteousness doth not hinder it to be by free-grace no more doth our Iustification But for the more distinct understanding of our mind concerning our Iustification before GOD. I thus define it IUSTIFICATION is an Act of GOD whereby He doth acquite absolve and discharge us of sins past and doth own and acknowledge us upon our Repentance and Conversion unto Him as righteous and as having right unto Eternall-life with a respect unto IESUS CHRIST not only in wha● He hath done and suffered for us without us but as really and truely indwelling in us and really and truely making us righteous In this definition two things are considerable First as it is an act of GOD. Secondly as in relation to its object the one is Iustification formally considered the other is it objectively considered or as it may be called objective Iustification Now i● this whole definition of Iustification I shall show how indeed I. M. and his Brethren are much more A-KIN to the Papists then we the people called Q●●kers First whereas we affirm that this act of GOD is a reall inward act in us whereby the Lord doth by an inward declaration and testimony inwardly and immediatly revealed in us both forgive us our sins and acknowledge us to be righteous and as having a right to Eternal life This definition of Iustification in relation to the act of GOD is denyed and opposed both by Papists and also by I. M. and his Brethren as being Enthusiasm whereof they are most unwilling in any terms to be thought guiltie Secondly in relation to the object I say we are the object of Iustification not only as having our sins pardoned for CHRISTS-Sake but as being righteous in the sight of GOD through CHRIST indwelling in us

not be too sterile and jejunt and so disgust thee if they hade been only simply vindicated from Popery and barely retorted The Author hath for thy further satisfaction found freedom to open our sense and judgement breifly in the severall particulars here handled manifesting not only the falsness of the Accusers calumnies in evidencing that we differ widely from Papists in these paerticulars but also shewing how Our Beleife of them is aggreable to the Scripturs to the purest antiquity and to the judgment of many of the most famous primitive Protestants So that the Author of this treatise hath well observed Iohn Monzeis his affinity and dependency upon Popery in that he acknowledgeth his Mission and Ministry to be derived to him by Popish Succession and so is by his own concession a BASTARD of that PAPAL-WHORE the Church of Rome whom he termes Rom● Mend●x and as it is usual for the of-spring to resemble its progenitor and according to our countrey proverb Hard for to take out of the Flesh what is bred in the Bone The Impartial Reader will observe by seriou●ly Reading this Treatise that I. M. as by his own confession he deduces his Ministry from ROMA MENDAX i. e. LYING ROME so also he inherits through her as a part of her goods that property of LYING so that it may be truely said MENDAX MENESIVS ROMAE MENDACIS FILIOLUS For one may know him to be a ROMISH-BROOD he is so like Her in this faculty though he hade not been so ingenuous as to acknowledge it Be it also known unto the READER that we are necessitat to this Controversie being drawn thereunto through the implacable malice of Our Opposers for I. M. in his contensions with the Iesuit would needs concern us by often reflecting upon us who otherwayes were not medling in these matters Also we have several papers by us vindicating us and our Testimony not only from Popery but divers other calumnies unjustly laid upon us by the PREACHERS of ABERDEEN which we have forborn and yet doe forbear to publish Because for severall years we have been threatned with a full confutation of all our principles from GEORGE MELDRVM his Collegue as he himselfe and some of his Bretheren have told us yea we are informed that the BISHOP and SYNOD of ABERDEEN hath particularly recommended that work unto him and now we are the more confirmed in that expectation that I. M. in his foresaid book page 88 shuns as he saith to refute the Quaker whimsies because he hopeth that ere long it shall be accurately done by the penn of a learned and judicious person in this place to wit ABERDEEN Thou must needs judge READER this is a MIGHTY WORK in the mens own esteem that needs such PREAMBLS to goe before it and though the waiting for it might have also in reason excused us from I. M his passing Flings yet we did judge it our Concern for the TRVTHS SAKE to entertain thee in the Interim untill that GREATER VOLVME appear with this small treat●se which if seriously and Impartialy considered will no● a litle contribute to let thee understand how much we are abused Which that thou may rightly observe and by observing truely improve to thy souls advantage is the earnest desire of thy Well-wisher ROBERT BARCLAY THE CONTENTS SECTION I. Containing the Introduction and Occasion of this Treatise Page 1. SECT II. Concerning our alleadged agreeing with Papists about the Scripturs where also some things are opened concereing the Rule of Faith and Immediat Revelation p. 5. SECT III. Where the alleadged agreement about Perfection is considered and examined p. 34. SECT IV. Where the alleadged agreement about Iustification is considered and examined p. 42. SECT V. Where the alleadged agreement about Good-Works is considered and examined p. 55. SECT VI. Concerning the Apocryphal Books 58. SECT VII Where the alleadged agreement as if the Efficacy of Grace depended upon Man's FREE-WILL is considered and answered p. 65. SECT VIII Where the alleadged Agreement about the Apostacy of the Saints is considered and examined p. 73. SECT IX Where the alleadged Agreement about Indwelling-Concupiscence is considered and answered p. 75. SECT X. Where severall other alleadged lesser agreements in point of Practice and divers other Calumnies of that kind are considered and examined p. 78 SECT XI Wherein I. M. his acknowledgment concerning the Ministerial Succession through the Chur●h of Rome is breifly considered and the Imputation of Popery in that respect justly retorted upon him p. 88. SECT XII Wherein we are further vindicated from the Imputation of Popery unjustly cast upon us and how much more truely it agreeth in our Opposers is evindenced by a short Account of many weighty particulars wherein they agree with Romanists against us p. 96. SECT XIII Containing the Conclusion by way of Epilogue wherein the whole 〈◊〉 breifly resumed and the falsness of the Accusation as well as the justness of our Retortion clearly presented to the View of the Serious and 〈◊〉 Reader p. 102. Quakerism no Popery SECTION I. Containing the Introduction and Occasion of this Treatise THe Occasion of this Treatise is a late book of Iohn Menzies Professor of Divinity in Aberdeen as he is called published wherein as in very many other places of his book he doth accuse Us classing Us with Papists and Iesuits so particularly page 20 21 22 The Author of Scolding no Scholarship blames Iohn Menzies as not having candour for saying that Quakerism is but Popery disguised He answers But there is less candour in the accuser for I only said if it were otherwise learned and judicious men were mistaken His frivolous Apologies are like to confirme these men in their opinion For many of the Quakers notions are undoubtedly Popish doctrines To this I say if He have no better argument that Quakerism is but Popery disguised then the bare affirmation of learned and judicious men His alleadgeance is weak unless He thinks or can prove that His learned and judicious men are infallible and cannot be mistaken which I know he is so far from that it is a great crime in his esteem for any men however so learned and judicious to pretend to any such thing Now whereas he alleadgeth as a ground of his former insinuation that many of the Quakers notions are undoubtedly Popish doctrines in order to the more clear and distinct examination of this his assertion let us consider what a Popish doctrin is First every doctrin affirmed in words by the Papists is not a Popish doctrin otherwise that there is one onely God that Christ dyed for sinners and rose again and in a word all the Articles of the Apostolick-Creed should be Popish doctrines because in words affirmed by Papists A popish doctrin then is A Doctrin taught and believed commonly by Papists repugnant unto or contradicting the testimony of the Scripturs either expresly or by just and necessary consequence of sound reason This definition of a Popish doctrine is so fair and

Spirit as it is a more excellent thing then the outward testimony of the Scripture so is it a more excellent Rule because any aptitutde or fitness that the outward testimony hath to be a rule the inward hath it more Yea the inward was a rule before the outward was and is a rule at this day as I. M. must needs confess unto those who are deaff that belong to the number of the Elect who can not make use of the outward Again why is the Scripture fit to be a Rule but because it is of a divine originall is divinely inspired hath somewhat in it that cannot be expressed that doth convince that it is of God but all this aggreeth more immediatly to the inward teaching dictate and word of the Spirit in the heart For it is most absurd to say or think that what God speaketh to us more mediately and remotely in the Scriptures hath a greater self-evidence then what he speaketh immediately and most nearly to us in our hearts as who would say what another hath reported unto me that I. M. had said so or so i● more evident unto me that he hath so said then what he hath told me himself out of his own mouth Yea why doth I. M. alleadge that the Scripture hath a self evidencing authority in it but because it is the word of God Hence I thus argue Whatever is the word of God hath a self-evidencing authority But the inward dictats of the Spirit in the heart of Believers are the word of God Therefore I prove the second Proposition That which God speaketh is the word of God But the inward dictats of the Spirit is that which God speaketh Therefore I see no way how I. M. can evade those arguments but by denying that properly and really God doth speak in the hearts of Believers and indeed this is conforme unto their usuall doctrine that the illumination of the Spirit of God in the heart of Believers is not objective but meerly subjective and effective The contrary whereof I have proved at large in my book of IMMEDIAT REVELATION To which I referr the Reader Onely at present I shall say this That if God doth not objectively illuminat and irradiat the souls of Believers and doth not inwardly speak in their hearts by his Spirit and that this be their Faith it is but a sort of deceiving the people when at times they themselves use these words both in preaching and praying as holding forth the necessity of God his speaking inwardly to the heart by his Spirit for if the effective operation of God as it is denyed to be objective may be called the speaking of God then it may be as much said that God speaketh to a Tree or a Horse c when he worketh in them 28 an efficient cause by way of concurrence to help them in the operations proper to their natures as he doth unto the hearts of Believers at least when he acteth in them to wit in the unreasonable creatures in a supernaturall way as when he said to the earth on the third day of the creation let the earth bring forth grass or when he spoke to the great fish to vomit out Ionah Certainly in both these there was a supernaturall influence or operation of God yet is it not absurde to say that God speaketh no more intelligibly or perceptibly in an immediat way unto the souls of his own Children his own sons and daughters then he did to those unreasonable creatures But if it be granted that this inward speaking or illumination of God is in it self intelligible and perceptible unto the souls of Believers then it must be granted that it is objective for what is in it self perceptible is objective and what is not objective is not in it self ●erceptible This consideration hath formerly made me conclude that those who deny inward objective illuminations of the Spirit do also deny all spirituall sensations or senses properly so called And thi● I do affir●e from as great clearness of ●nderstanding as if I should conclude from a ●●ns denying that the outward Light is objective ●nd perceptible in it self that therefore there is ●o sense of seeing and from a mans denying that 〈◊〉 outward sound is objective and perceptible that ●herefore there is no sense of hearing c or that ●●eat and drink as for example Bread Flesh Wine Milk Honey is not objective and perceptible therefore there is no sense of smelling tasting and feeling And if any should reply that the Scriptures are the only objects of those spirituall sensations such a reply would sufficiently declare that they do not mean spirituall senses and sensations properly so called seeing the objects of the spiritual senses are the things whereof the Scriptures are but a declaration as the objects of the naturall senses are things And even as it is most false to say that when I read or hear a declaration or discourse of meat and drinke that I really taste of the same seeing the sense of tasting is not at all answered by the discourse but by the things discoursed of even so it were really as false to say that when I hear or read a verball declaration of God and divine and spirituall things that I really taste of them For indeed those spirituall and divine things are really as distinct from the words declaring of them as meat and drink are distinct from the best of all words declaring of them Now the Scripture sayeth Taste and see that God is good Here God himself is proposed unto the soul as the object of its spirituall sensation and not the words But to say I can see and taste of the goodness of God in the Scriptures simply as being the onely and alone object of my seeing and tasting is really as much to deri●e me as who would discourse to me for an houre or two very effectually of the goodness of meat and drink and then tell me I have sufficiently seen and tasted it whereas I have indeed neither seen nor tasted it and all his discourse doth not answere the sight and taste nor yet the appetite as their proper objects Moreover when the Scripture declareth of God his speaking and witnessing in his children generally and useth the same manner of speach as when He is said to speak in the Prophets we ought to understand it as properly in the one as in the other seeing according to that generall rule agreed upon by all Expositors We are to keep to the proper sense of Scripture words when there is no necessity to reside from them as indeed there is none here but rather on the contrary there is a great necessity that God do indeed speak immediatly to the souls of his Children else they cannot have true peace for it is He who speaketh Peace unto his people and to his Saints and to them who are turned unto the heart as diverse of the Fathers did ●ite these words of the Psalmist Psalm 85.8 and particularly