Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	church_n	prove_v	scripture_n	17,112	5	7.1099	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54742	Proteus redivivus, or, The turner of Turners-Hall truly represented and the abuses and falsehoods of George Keith's fourth narrative, so far as they concern the author, examin'd and detected / by Daniel Phillips.	Phillips, Daniel, d. 1748.	1700 (1700)	Wing P2063; ESTC R32295	31,113	43

to consider here the Reasons G. K. advances to prove the Scriptures are the Word of God because in reading his Fourth Narrative I met with a Passage where he positively asserts p. 22. The Scriptures are the Word of God Fourth Narr p. 22. and the Word most frequently so called in Scripture To confirm his Reader in a belief that he had good Authority to prove so bold an Assertion he cites Three Texts of Scripture out of the New Testament viz. 1. Thes 1.5 John 15.25 Acts 1.1 May I presume to look into the 7th page of G. K. Presbyterian and Independent Visible Churches in New England printed Anno 1691. I doubt not but I shall find George there in Opposition to Parson Keith because in that Book he positively saith That Logos 1 Thes 1.5 Signifies word of talk or discourse Now by Logos there is meant Doctrine and that Logos Acts 1.1 Signified Treatise but now it signifies Word how to reconcile these seeming Contradictions of this Weather-Cock I profess I am in a Quandary On the other hand should I say as it appears to me that he is Guilty of a perfect Contradiction he might thereby imagine that I did Insinuate That he was stark Mad and Crazed in his Understanding because he lays it down as a Maxim in his Preface to his Exact Narrative That none but stark mad Men and Crazed in their Understanding will hold perfect Contradictions That things may be put into a true Light and that the Reader may be capable to judge for himself I shall here subject to his Consideration the original Texts and their Translations into Latin Dutch French and English whereby it may be the more facile for him to determine whether G. K. hath not to serve a turn given them a Sense different from all others nay from himself a few Years since is not this in effect to make a Nose of Wax a Lesbian Rule of the Scriptures by giving them this Year one signification the next a different one What advantages this may give to the Enemies of Christianity I shall not now Demonstrate The first of these Texts is 1 Thes 1.5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quoniam Evangelium nostrum constitit apud vos non locutione dunt●●●● sed etiam Virtute Spiritu Sancto Want on s Evangelium en is onder uniet alleen in Woorden gheweest maer oock in Kracht ende in den Heyligen Grest Car nostre Predication de l'Evangile n'a point este en vostre endroit seulement en Parole mais ausi en vertu en Saint Esprit For our Gospel came or more properly was not unto you in Word only but also in Power and in the Holy Ghost It may be observed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not Translated came in the Latin Dutch or French Versions neither in the Bible that was Printed in Queen Elizabeth's Time Anno 1578. Should I confine my self solely to the Modern English Translation I do not perceive any advantage that G. K. will get thereby seeing the Apostle Paul's Sense of this Verse is obvious to any unprejudiced Person that the Gospel which he Preached to the Thessalonians was not only to be believed because of the perswasiveness of the Word Talk or Discourse he made use of when he Preached the Gospel to them but principally because the Power and Efficacy of the Holy Ghost accompanied it that this is the literal Sense of this Text I conceive none will deny By what figure then this 1 Thes 1.5 proves that all the Books of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God I confess my self Ignorant and am likely so to remain unless G. K. or some of his Disciples can inform me better The Second Text of Scripture that I shall consider is John 15.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sed oportet ut impleatur Sermo qui in lege ipsorum Scriptus est Maer dit gescheit op dat het woort vervult worde dat in hare wet geschreven is Mais c ' est a fin-que soit accomplie la parole qui est ecrite en leur Loi But this cometh to pass that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their Law It is evident from all these Translations of the Greek Text that G. K. hath seen cause otherwise to word the Matter here than either the Latin Dutch French or English Translators have but whether his Intentions are the same I shall leave that to the uninterested to determine As G. K. in his former Proof gave us only the English version of the Text so here he omitteth that being little for his purpose and favours us only with a scrap of the Original viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and translateth it Written Word should it be admitted for a Genuine interpretation though different from all others of the Original it would only prove that Sentence in their i. e. the Jews Law was called the written Word yet it is altogether insufficient to prove the Bible collectively i. e. as it contains all the Books of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God because the Evangelist restricts it here to Four Words which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they hated me without a Cause The Controversie between G. K. c. hath not been whether one particular Sentence in the Bible but whether all the Books therein contained are the Word of God all Citations of the Scriptures that do not prove that are in my Opinion far remote from the subject of this Dispute and till this is proved in express Scripture Terms by him or some other I hope he will be so favourable to us as not to Stigmatize us with the Name of Hereticks especially if he hath not forgot what he lately said viz. * Retract p. 34. I still adhere to my former Advice that nothing be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scriptures in plain express Scripture Terms The Term Logos is variously used and translated in the New Testament G. K. recites * Presb. and Inde Vis Chur. p. 7. Ten different Significations it hath Had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 been translated in John 15.25 as it in 1 Cor. 15.54 the saying that is written there would be scarce any shadow of an Argument to be deduced from that Citation to have proved that the Scriptures are the written Word of God unless wheresoever the Term Written is to be found in the Scriptures he will say Word is there meant tho' not expressed Perchance G. K. may have so much Effrontery as to deny that Logos signifies Saying because he hath not given that Sense of it in the Book and Page above-cited If he will but please to Read Bishop Kidder's Demonstration of the Messias p. 11. p. 251. there he may see the Bishop affirming that Legos signifies Saying or Thing and translating the very Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Saying

that is Written or the Thing that is Written tho' the Quaker's Affirmation may be now of little Authority with him Yet I conceive he will not presume to contradict his Right Reverend Father in God so call'd but allow his ipse dixit sufficient to Patronize this Interpretation The third and last Quotation which I shall now examine to prove the Scriptures are the Word of God is brought by him from Acts 1.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primum Librum het Eersse Boetk Le premier Traitte the former Book but in the Greek saith G. K. it is Word He might e'en as well have said but in Greek 't is Christ 't is Communication 't is Utterance 't is Reason 't is Preaching or Doctrine for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in all these and several other Significations one whereof I remember G. K. makes mention of and that is Treatise and quoted Acts 1.1 to prove it in a * Presh Inde Vis Churches Book he writ about ten Years since notwithstanding G. K. the Episcopalian now asserts the contrary which brings to my remembrance an old Saying ☞ Conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipse Cato Before I leave this subject concerning the Equivocalness of words I shall concisely Anatomize one Query G. K. exultantly relates he put to John Whiting which was * Fourth Narr p. 41. whether he was of G. Whitehead 's and Edward Burroughs 's Faith who said Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature or that of W. Penn 's who said Christ took our Nature and triumphed in our Nature 'T will be necessary here before I proceed to explain at least summarily a few of the many Senses the ambiguous Term Nature is used in because on the Equivocalness of that Term is hinged the Opposition that G. K. would insinuate there is between G. W. E. B. and W. Penn. The word Nature is variously sensed By the School-men it is used as a Synonymous Term with God and is called by them sometimes Natura Naturans by Seneca 't is affirmed to be one of the Names of God By Physicians it is considered as an Aggregate of Powers existing in a living animal Body as when they say Nature is strong or weak or that the Morbifick Matter is by the strength of Nature expelled from the Center to the Circumference as in the Eruption of the Small Pox Measles c. and also for an Essential Property as Alees naturally Purges Creeus Metallerum naturally Vomits By Natural Philosophers the settled order of things is understood as Fire naturally burns the Blood naturally circulates out of the Arteries into the Veins after a Summer naturally follows a Winter the Children of all Women have their solid parts naturally organized alike and in the texture of their Fluids naturally there is no visible difference The Terraqueous Globe is also comprehended under this Term as there is no such thing in Nature as a Salamander Phoenix c. By Theologists the State our first Parents by disobeying their Creator fell into wherein the Unregenerate Man now is is typified as the Ungodly Man is in the State of Nature but the Godly is in the State of Grace Besides these here recited there are several other Significations of this ambiguous word Nature too long here to be enumerated By what hath been said it is certain that there is a possibility the Term Nature may be variously considered and it is as clear as the Sun at Noon from G. Keith's Quotations out of their Books that when G. Whitehead and E. Burroughs said Christ was not in Heaven in our Nature as G. K. would infer from their words they spoke it of sinful wicked Devilish Nature but W. Penn when he said Christ took our Nature and triumphed in our Nature considered him as the Son of Mary a true and perfect Man having a Body organized like other Men. That this was their meaning is demonstrable from their own words as cited by G. K. in his * P. 39. fourth Narrative where G. Whitehead as the Narrator affirms doth severely blame John Horne and Thomas More in his † P. 11 12. He Goat's Horn c. for saying Christ took upon him their i. e. Sinful Nature Ed. Burroughs is very plain in distinguishing the subject of the Controversie by answering his Opponent as follows * E. B's Works p. 301. Thou sayest in that Answer that Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father in your Nature Mark now thy Nature and your Nature who are one with thee is sinful and wicked and of the Devil for so are all Lyars and it is Blasphemy to say sinful wicked devilish Nature is at the right hand of God in Heaven If G. K. hath different thoughts of Christ being in Heaven than E. B. here demonstrates he hath let him plainly declare it I do acknowledge I am not of opinion that Christ is in Heaven in the Nature of Lyars which is the thing E. B. here opposes W. Penn saith That * Prim. Christ p. 85. Jesus Christ took our Nature upon him and was like us in all things Sin excepted What Shadow of a Contradiction is here in these Proofs even as cited by G. K. he that can perceive it must have a more penetrating sight than I pretend to I acknowledge that I see nothing but a perfect Harmony G. Whitehead blames some for saying Christ took their i. e. sinful Nature on him E. Burroughs saith Christ is not at the right hand of God in that Nature which Lyars are in W. Penn faith Christ took our i. e. as he was the Seed of the Woman Nature upon him and was like unto us in all things Sin excepted The two first consider Nature as it is predicated of the Unregenerate as they are in a State of Enmity to God The last considers Nature as 't is predicated of a Being that hath the Essential Properties of a Man and a Body organized as our Bodies are Note G. K. did not propose his Question to John Whiting in the terms of G. W. who said their Nature nor of E. B. who said your Nature thy Nature his Nature the alteration of a material word in a Proposition savours very much of Sophistry If G. K. had demanded an Answer of me to this Query I am subject to believe that I might have given him the same Reply that J. W. did tho' it may be with a distinction viz. That I was of the Faith of both for I do not favour any Opinion that would insinuate that Christ was or is in Heaven in sinful Nature Yet I do believe that he was a true and perfect Man not imagining Sin to be Essential to our Nature or deducible from the abovesaid Premises as G. K. would * Narr p. 40. infer and then cry out from a false Consequence this is a most vile and gross Heresie If G. K. thinks I have by saying that I am of J. Whiting's Faith in this matter