Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	add_v	church_n	scripture_n	2,229	5	6.0132	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30907	William Michel unmasqued, or, The staggering instability of the pretended stable Christian discovered his omissions observed, and weakness unvailed : in his late faint and feeble animadversions by way of reply to a book intituled Truth cleared of calumnies : wherein the integrity of the Quakers doctrine is the second time justified and cleared from the reiterate, clamorous but causeless calumnies of this cavilling cetechist [sic] / by Robert Barclay.	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.	1672 (1672)	Wing B742; ESTC R37062	60,482	82

in the least follow that the Law and Testimony there mentioned was not inward It is more Observeably strange here then in any other place with what shameless confidence he asserts his own bare Assertions instead of Arguments After the like manner without answering a word of what I infer Pag. 27. of mine against him and his Brethren from Joh. 7. 49. He concludes That Scripture fits us better then them because of our known rash censuring upon which supposition of his own he condemnes us as like to Pharisees without more adoe still also by way of reply to me he sayes It is not probable that Christ checked the Lawyer in saying How readest thou Luk. 10. 26. not offering to add any further probation and as for what he subjoyneth Pag. 7 That Christ used the Scripture about Divorcement and in the matter of the Sabbath it doth no wayes prove them to be the only Rule for as is said we are willing to try Doctrins by them Pag. 37. He sayeth It is false to affirm that the Divine Authority of the Scriptures cannot be prov'd other-wayes then by the Spirits inward Testimony adding There are other Arguments whereby it can solidly and convincingly be proved and for this he instanceth one which he sayes is excellently improved by R. Baxter what then because W. M. thinks that Argument of R. Baxter will prove the Scriptures Authority without the Spirit must we therefore be of the same mind I doubt very much if R. Baxter think so much himself Now W. M. his deceit is very Remarkable in quoteing some words of John Calvin where he sayes If he were to deal with Arguments he could produce many to prove the Laws came from God for that I never Imagined these Arguments could convincingly prove the Scriptures Authority without the Spirit which is the thing in debate it appears in the very following words Lib. Inst. 1. Cap. 7. Sect. 4. But if we will well look to our Consciences that they be not troubled with doubts and stick not at every scruple it is requisite the Perswasion whereof we have spoken be taken higher then humane Judgment or Conjecture Viz. the secret Testimony of the Holy Spirit And a little after in direct opposition to wit his words he adds This word shall not obtain Faith in the Hearts of men if it be not Sealed by the Inward Testimony of the Spirit It is necessary then saith he that the Saints Spirit which spake by the mouth of the Prophets enter in our Hearts and touch them Livingly to perswade us that the Prophets have faithfully delivered that which was Commanded them from on high and a little after This then is a perswasion which requires no reasons And again This is a Perswasion which cannot be Begotten but by a heavenly Revelation And in the beginning of the next Chapter he adds If we have not this certainly higher and more firme then all humane Judgment in vain is the Authority of the Scriptures proved by Arguments This doth abundantly shew how contrary W. M. is to Calvin in this matter and not to him alone but to the whole Reformed Churches of France who in their confession of Faith agreed upon by the first National Synod they ever had at Paris Anno 1559. say thus Art 4. We know these Books to be Canonique not so much by the common consent of the Church as by the Inward Testimony and perswasion of the Holy Spirit and whereas he adviseth me to read Calvin his 6th Chap. but that it would prove to long a Digression I could easily shew that we are no such contemners of the Scripture as those he there speaks to And what if he contradict the Truth which we and himself else where acknowledges I make use of his Testimony against W. M. and his Brethren even as he did the Testimony of Augustin Gregory and others of the Fathers against those of Rome whom nevertheless he spared not to reject sometimes Read Inst. lib. 1. cap. 11. Sect. 5 lib. cap. Sect. 4. and in many other places thus also is added that which he adds about Passur whose Translation he sayes We follow in one thing but not in another for we are not bound to follow him further then he follows the Truth Nor doth W. M. here produce any argument to prove that these words Joh. 5. 39. should be Search the scriptures and not ye Search the scriptures but his own bare assertion adding That Christ did not check them when he saith in them ye think to have eternal life whereas the very following words clearly Import a reproof Ye will not come to me that ye might have life He says not seek for Life in the Scriptures ye do well to think to find it there but thus Ye think to have eternal life in the scriptures but will not come to me that ye might have life He ends this Section asking Seeing I grant the Scriptures are profitable for doctrine correction reproof c. Why I deny them to be a perfect Rule but I never denyed them and I told him also they were thus profitable not to every man but to the man of God i e. he that 's led by the Spirit of God Now to this he replys nothing onely tells me The man of God is most commonly understood of the Ministers of Christ Jesus which though I should grant him what he either can or would Infer from it against my Argument he hath left unmentioned Sect. 3. Pag. 40. He alledgeth The voice and Testimony of the Father which Christ speaks of to the Jewes not to have been inward desiring the reader to look to the place and thereupon he cites Joh 5. 36. where Christ speaks of his Miracles as a greater witness then that of John but his deceit is here abundantly manifest for the place mentioned by me was 1 Joh 5. 10. For this is the witness of God which he testified of his Son he tha● believeth in the Son of God hath the witness in himself Now this he hath wholly omited and mentioned another in the stead of it which makes nothing to the purpose I deny not but the Miracles were a greater witness then that of John but then will it therefore follow that the inward Testimony of the Father is not greater also this was the matter in question After the like manner he concludeth the voice spoken of John 5. 37. Is not inward but outward citing for Proof Mat. 3. 27. 2 Pet. 1. 17 18. the one is the voice heard at Christs being Baptized the other at his being Transfigured But what way he seeks to Infer from thence that the Voice of the Father here spoken of by Christ to the Jewes was not inward but outward he hath left unmentioned Likewise the Exposition he adds upon this place as if Christ were onely here reproving the Ignorance of the Jewes whose Predecessors had heard so much of God it would be the better received that it had some other bottom then

his 4. Section as reply to that which is contained in the 22. Page of my last where I shew we do no ways confound the Light-giver with the Light or enlightning given the Reason Alledged here is because we call that Light Jesus Christ wherewith all men are Enlightened which implyeth no more his Consequence then that usual expression that it is the Sun by which we are outwardly Enlightened implyes any confounding of the Sun with the Beams Whereas in his last he said There was a certain Light in all men and that as the Remianders of Gods Image in him since the Fall in the end of Page 24. he explaines to be the Light of Reason and Understanding and thereby makes the Resaon of man all one with Christ and the Spirit which Page 10. and 22. he granted to be in Wicked Men as to common Opperations After that he laboreth much in this 5 Section to Prove That man Retaineth some Good since the Fall he Instanceth nothing but the Soul which he saith is Good and Pretious and of great Excellency and Worth and Retaines a Similitude to the Image of God as being Spiritual and Immortal where it is observeable That he grants the Souls of Wicked and Unconverted men to be of great Worth and Excellency and yet he denies the Works of the Pure Spirit of God to be of any Worth or Excellency and that because the Soul has a share in them if so be the Souls of Wicked Men are conform'd to the Image of God because they are Spiritual and Immortal then are Divels also conform to the Image of God for they are also Spiritual and Immortal in the same sence that the Souls of Wicked Men are Lastly I desire the Reader may here Observe how he hath entirly Omited that part of Page 23. of mine where I shew how and in what sence the Light is to be understood or called the Light of Nature and of what Nature therein clearing us from the Aspertion of Pelaganisme by which Omission it may appear how willing these men are to Caluminate us and apt to pass by that which tends to our Vindication Page 25. Head 5. Sect. 1. He alledgeth We vilifie the Scriptures and that because we confess That the end of our meeting is not to read them but to wait on God adding that therefore we make an opposition betwixt Reading the Scriptures and waiting on God But as this conclusion hath no Proof so it is most Inconsequential as if nothing could be distingished except it were Opposite according to which he might Argue that because Preaching and Praying are not all one therefore they are Opposite that some have been Countenanced of God in Reading the Scriptures is not denied by us and therefore the bringing of it forth against us is wholly Impertinent And whereas he avers That Reading of the Scripture is the meanes of having the Word of God to dwell richly in us alluding to Coll. 3. 16. he should have first proved the Word there mentioned to be the Scripture before he had been so hasty to draw his Conclusion His Alledging some passages where Christ and others spoke upon some words of Scripture saith nothing to the purpose for as I confessed it was sometimes used by them so I told him it was also frequent among us but the Question is whether their setled Custom of speaking upon a Text be according to Scripture and thereupon I shew him how Christ and his Apostles did Preach without it as Christ Mat. 5. and in many other places And Paul to the Athenians but this of Paul mentioned by me in my last he hath left unanswered And in Answer to 1 Cor. 14. 29 30 31. For ye may all prophecy one by one c. He saith This will not conduce to keep up the Successive talking of Quakers Alledging it to be Ristricted to the Prophets which he sayes It will be hard to prove our Preachers to be Adding That it maketh not against their Way because Ministers speak among them two or three Here though in relation to us he Restricts this place to the Prophets yet in relation to himself he doth it not else he must prove their Ministers that so speak to be Prophets as he desires me to do our Preachers Now this he cannot since he sayes Peremptorly Page 97. That such a thing is ceased and therefore this may shew how he twinds and wrests the Scripture to make it Answer his Corrupt ends it is a manifest shift to avert the strength of this place where the Order of the Church which is quite contrary to theirs is expresly mentioned To run to the matter of Womens Speaking thereby to make a Digression to a new Debate which hath been largly defended by us and paticularly by Margret Fell. in a Book never yet answered and as to the place Alledged we have often shown how it cannot be understood in a Ridged Litteral sence else it would contradict the same Apostle 1 Cor. 11 5. where he Proposeth to Women the Method and Manner of their behaviour in their publick Preaching and Praying the Promise was that the Daughters as well as the Sons should Prophesie Joel 2. 28 Act. 2. 17. As a 2d Reason of our villifying the Scriptures he adds and that by way of derition They will not have the Scripture called their Masters Letter No Forsooth their Masters Letter is writ in their Hearts c. Ans. Here his Malice hath not only led him Foolishly to Deride us but the Apostle yea God himself for the Law of God is our Masters Letter and this is in our Hearts if we be under the New Covenant Heb. 8. 10. I will put my law in their minds and write them in their hearts and ver 11. they shall not need every man to teach their neighbour for they shall all know me c. His Argument taken from Christs writing to the seven Churches of Asia makes nothing against us except he will be so Ridiculous to aver that these Churches had no Rule nor Knowledg of their Masters will before they received that Writting which if they had it was not there onely and this was that Incumbent to be proved for which that example was brought for the Testimony of Christ through his Servants whether by Word or Writ is Dearly Owned by us as hath often been declared With the like Impudence he Concluds That we bend our strength to Evacuate the Authority of the Scriptures and confirm Negligent Atheists in their Contemptuous slighting of them because we Speak of walking or doing our Work by the Immediate Councel of God But he might as well babble against the Beloved Disciple 1 Joh. 2. 24. Ye have received an anointing and ye need not that any man should teach you and yet was then teaching them himself without Contradiction as for that Scripture Joh. 12. 24 48. which he desires us to read we find not how in the least they strike against our Principle for as it is

truely apply the instance in his Epistle to himself that he is sailing in one boat with Papists though his face seems to look a verse from them Pag. 100 He saith Whatever inward call the Elders mentioned Tit. 1. 5. Act. 14. 23. had yet they had not an imediate call which is by the imediate command and voyce of God without the intervention of men but for this he adds no proof at all nor is there any Inconsistancy betwixt being imediatly called by command from God and afterwards being aproved of men or that being aproved and set apart by man excludes having an imediate call from God Sect. 1. Pag. 101. He sayes That Eph. 4. 13. is a pregnant and pertinent proof for the continuance of the Ministry which I never denied But this doth not answer my saying that it is impertinent as to them who deny perfection seeing that place sayes the Ministry is for the perfecting of the Saints now to this he answers nothing but that it cannot be gathered that this perfection is on Earth which is but his own assertion yea by himself there after overthrown saying That the Ministry is given that we may press after an absolute full Perfection even of degrees for it is folly to press after this if there be no hopes of attaining it He wholly passes by my objections against their Ministry Pag. 59. especially in that they make not the Grace of God a necessary quallification to the esse or being of a Preacher without so much as making any mention of it where I also show how contrary it is to the order delivered by the Apostles in Scripture Therefore his conclusion is false to say we cast off such a Ministry seeing he was not able to prove theirs to be such else he would not have wholy past in silence my reasons shewing it not to be so His Thirteenth Head Pag. 102. Is concerning the Sabbath or first day of the weeks being so as to which I desire the Reader first to take notice that as we believe the Apostles and primitive Christians did meet this day to worship God so we as following their example do the like and forbear working or useing our lawful occasions upon that day as much as our Adversaries so that the debate is onely whether there be any inherent Holiness in this Day more then in another or if there be any positive command for it from Scripture Particularly if the fourth command bind us to the observation of it And here W. M. notwith-standing of his great pretences to the Protestant Churches doth wholly disagree from them in this thing who are of our mind as to it the generality of all the Protestants both in Germany France and else where out of this Illand do look upon the supposed morrallity of the first day of the week as altogether ridiculous which may be seen in Calvin upon the fourth command lib. inst 2. cap. 8. Sect. 34. where he explains the signification of it as we do Viz. Typifiing a Spiritual Rest wherein leaving our own works the Spirit of God may work in us he there refuts W. Ms. notion as a Jewish Opinion saying Some false Doctors have abused ignorant People with it adding as we do That the Apostle Paul reproves such superstitions likewise he plainly asserts That the keeping of the first day is onely for conveniency and to preserve order in the Church that the Saints might have a fit time set apart to meet together to Worship which we also say hence doth appear the folly of that impertinent story mentioned by him Pag. 105. seeking to infer That we agree with Papist in takeing away the fourth Command as they have done the second for by this he might conclude the first and chiefest Reformers guilty of Popery whereas himself agrees with papists both against the Protestants abroad us in pleading for this imaginary holiness of the first day of the week which in his Dialogue he sought to prove because Christ did rise upon it but to my answer showing he might from thence infer the rest of the Popish holydaies of His Birth Ascention Conception c. he replies not one word he summarly passes over what is said by me concerning this thing Page 59 60 61 and 62 which the Reader by looking unto may observe He aledgeth The fourth command speaketh not precisly of the Seventh day in order from the Creation and that the beginning and ending of it mentions the Sabbath day and not the Seventh quid inde c. What then is not the middle of the command as observable which saith expressly But the Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord there God himself expounds the Sabbath to be the Seventh day and W. M. must not think we will reject this exposition to accept of his proofless glosses My argument drawn from Coll. 2. 16 17. Let no man judge you in respect of a holy day or Sabbath dayes and Rom. 14. 6. which sheweth all dayes to be alike and Gal. 4 10 11. Ye observe dayes and months times and years He answereth aledging These reprove not morral dayes but ceremonial adding That the fourth command binds to this and therefore it cannot be more abrogate then any of the rest of the ten commands but this is no proof at all onely a meer begging the question he should have more convincingly proved that the fourth command binds to the observation of this day Now the Apostle in these places sayeth not I am afraid of you because ye observe ceremonial dayes W. M. hath no bottom for this distinction he confesseth that Christ Mat. 24. 20. speaketh nothing of the first day of the week and therefore overthrowes the inference he makes in his Dialogue from it and what I further add to show the folly of this inference from the Scripture He hath wholly omited which the Reader may see Pag. 59 60. of my last Pag. 106. He sayes Oh! the conscientious keeping of the Sabbath is a comfortable evidence of those that shall be admitted to this Rest viz. the rest of the Lamb. But seeing these words are without any proof they are only like to have credit with such silly superstitious Bigots as Calvin in the place above mentioned reproves and not with any solid serious Christians Sect. 2. Pag. 107. To prove that the first day of the week is set apart for the service of God by Divine Authority he citeth Rev. 1. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lords day but whereas I told him this did no way prove that day to be the first day of the week because the day of the Lord or the Lords day in Scripture is not limited to any particular day He answers That these two ought not to be confounded for all dayes wherein the Lord executeth judgement are dayes of the Lord but the Lords day mentioned Rev. 1. is but one For this he bringeth no proof but his own meer assertion As Ignatius calling the first day of the