Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	admit_v	doctrine_n	great_a	52	3	2.1295	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46640	Verus Patroclus, or, The weapons of Quakerism, the weakness of Quakerism being a discourse, wherein the choicest arguments for their chief tenets are enervat, and their best defences annihilat : several abominations, not heretofore so directly discovered, unmasked : with a digression explicative of the doctrine anent the necessity of the spirits operation, and an appendix, vindicating, Rom. 9. from the depravations of an Arminian / by William Jamison.	Jameson, William, fl. 1689-1720.	1689 (1689)	Wing J445; ESTC R2476	154,054	299

7.13 compared with 10. These Scriptures and many others that might be Cited unanswerably prove that the Scriptures are and ought to be called the Word of God. Several of these Passages with many others calling the Scriptures or a part thereof the Word of God or of the Lord in the singular number are adduced by Mr Brown Chap. 4. N. 2. To all which Robert Barclay's reply Vind pag. 31 is a flat contradiction of these Scriptures saying That the thing which the Prophets spake was only the words which came from the Word of God. Judge therefore Reader if such replies as these can either help the Author or hurt his adversaries Notwithstanding these Men have something to say for themselves and so had they who denyed the fire to be hot or the snow white Their first Reason why the Scriptures are not the Word of God is Because Christ is called the Word of God but this reason sayeth nothing but upon supposition that one word or phrase cannot undergo divers acceptations which is most false yet Robert Barclay in the Vindication of his Apology Pag. 31. to strengthen this Reason sayeth that one epithete or attribute cannot be predicated or affirmed of two things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by way of eminence without a grosse contradiction But in this he only bewrayes his own ignorance of the Laws of a Contradiction and his desire of contradicting the Scriptures with a shew of Reason For whether by the Word of God Christ or the Scriptures are to be understood this Elogie is still ascribed to either of them with a peculiar eminency But by the diversity of the acceptation the Contradiction is removed which diversity may be easily Perceived by any that read or hear the Scriptures or other Discourses in which mention is made of the Word of God As for Example who could read these two Texts of Scripture Mark. 7.13 and Rev. 19.13 but they would presently see that in the latter of the Texts by the Word of God Christ is to be understood and in the former the Scriptures except he were altogether stupid and so there is not the least appearance of a Contradiction Therefore in short where by the Word Christ is understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word is taken improperly viz. For a Person the essential and substantial Word of God in so much as Christ is the Principal Declarer of the Mind of God or upon other such accounts such improper Attributes being frequently ascribed to Christ as a Door a Vine and the like But on the other hand where by the Word of God we are to understand the Scriptures there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word is taken in a more proper acceptation for a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables The same Author hath yet another Reason and it is a rare one viz. That there are moe words in the Scriptures than one Therefore they cannot be called the Word of God. Behold Reader with what ridiculous Shifts these men endeavour to uphold their impiety and oppose themselves to God! Who but he that desired the Fools Coat would thus reason It is a lie to name an Epistle sent from one Person to another a Letter because in it there are moe Letters than one Not only the Jews who were Christs Enemies but even the Apostles themselves had done right in the judgment of this Quaker if when Christ Mark 7.13 called the Scriptures the Word of God they had flatly contradicted him and said this is a lye seing there are moe Words in the Scriptures than one Here is ridiculous folly and impious Blasphemy mixed together And yet worse if worse can be unavoidably followeth this their Doctrine even that the Son of God was not from Eternity For according to them when it is said Hos. 1.2 The Beginning of the Word of the Lord the meaning must be the beginning of Christ. With the like sacrilegious audacity they endeavour to bereave the Scriptures of that sweet and heart-melting Title of the Gospel saying Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn are not the Gospel but the Letter The Defence of this wicked and bold Contradiction of the Scriptures William Pen undertaketh in his Rejoinder to Iohn Faldo Pag. 117. His Reasons whereby he would prove it are 1. Because the Gospel is called the Power of God to Salvation so are not the Scriptures To which I answer That the Scriptures may as well be called the Power of God to Salvation as the Gospel seeing it was the same Doctrine which the Apostles both preached to the People and committed to Writing And the Righteousness of God is revealed from Faith to Faith by this Doctrine when it is committed to writing as well as when it was Preached by the Apostles 2. By the Power of God to Salvation no other thing can be understood but the Mean Organ or Instrument whereby God exerteth or putteth forth his Power to the saving of Sinners Which kind of Metonymie is frequent in Scripture The next Reason to prove that these Books ought not to be called the Gospel which the Mans copious invention brancheth into two is That the Gospel is everlasting and was Preached before the Scriptures were therefore they are not the Gospel Ans. 1. The Principles of Truth are everlasting and were before any Quakers Books were extant Therefore a Pamphlet which the Quakers have entituled The Principles of Truth carrieth as a token of what is within a lie in the Frontispiece thereof which I believe William Pen will hardly admit Ans. 2. The Doctrine contained in those Books is the same with and therefore no lesse everlasting than the Gospel proclaimed by the Angel Rev. 14.6 cited by Pen. His two last Reasons whereby he would prove those Books not to be the Gospel are that the Gospel is but one and that it is glad Tidings but the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn are four and but Narratives and not glad Tidings are of the like nature with the former For he knoweth well enough that Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn deliver not a contrair Doctrine one to another but only divers Narratives of the same Doctrine All which Books contain the glad Tidings of the Birth Life Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour of the World And this I assert in opposition to this Quaker who here discovereth himself in his own Colours in that he denyeth that the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn contain glad Tidings what could the Devil himself utter more black and Hellish than this Behold Reader with what ridiculous Sophistry these men can cheat their own Souls which is so blunt that a school-boy would be ashamed to bring it forth and what black and Hellish Impieties they not only swallow down themselves but with open face avouch before the world Lastly if these Books as for example Mark ought not to be called the Gospel and by the Gospel ought alwayes to be understood the power of God or the essential Attribute of

in the Soul are not God under what notion soever he be taken a Declaration of the Fountain is not the fountain it self Hence the Quakers grand principle that immediat objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their Faith falleth to the Ground and these imprinted Rules are but only secondary Ergo even according to what is here gained from the Quakers the Scriptures are equal even in their primariness to immediat Revelations for the one can no more be called the primary Rule than the other and that by the Quaker his own Concession Moreover seing these immediat Revelations imprinted on the Soul are not the primary but secondary Rule then certainly they ought to be examined according to the primary Rule Now to assert this is most impious Seing these Revelations must be supposed to be self evident and their Divinity already undoubtedly apparent For this is to maintain that we ought to doubt whether or not there is veracity in God and horresco referens Judge that the God of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us But once more how shal these imprinted secondary Rules be examined not by other words or dictats of whatsoever kind for to do this will cost the examiner a journey to in finitum to which he will not come in haste seing these other Dictats or Revelations are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain more than the first and to assert that these Revelations may be examined according to God himself and not by the Word of God is to go some stages beyond the wildest of nonsense and again there is very good Reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primary than the Scriptures both being given by the same Spirit seing the primarinesse is not the immediatness but the chief binding power the prerogative to be the touch-stone of all Doctrines Now this notion of a primary Rule being had there is very good Reason to wonder why the Dictats of the Spirit should be preferred before the Scriptures seing God hath told whether mediatly or immediatly it 's all one the Quakers themselves dare not deny that God hath indeed said it that they are able to make the Man of God wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.16 17. And hath commanded and commended the perusal of them as the Book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest in the matters of greatest import Isai. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 2 Pet. 1.19 20. With many other places But on the other hand in all the Scriptures there is not so much as the least intimation that all persons within the Church and fa● less all men have divine immediat Objective Revelations by which they may examine and discern good from evil and here he is very angry with his adversary because he accused him of confounding in his Apology the principal Rule and the principal Leader and yet as though he had not confounded them compleatly enough in his Apology he here again in his Vindication in one and the same page viz. 38. both calleth the Spirit as imprinting Truths into the Soul the primary Rule as was even now cited and also the same Spirit the principal Leader as imprinting Rules into the Soul to walk by by which Rules must be understood the Truths he spake of just now above here the Reader may see that not only the same thing is both Principal Leader and principal Rule but also that there is not so much as a Metaphysical formality betwixt them for both of them is God under the notion of imprinting Rules or Truths into the soul yet the confidence I shal not say the impudence hath he to deny that he confounded them 8. But the Quakers well knowing that if God speaking in the Holy Scriptures be admitted Judge of the present Debates between us and them Or if the Holy Scriptures be not Esteemed False Ambiguous and Nonsensical then their cause is lost and their great Diana of Immediat Revelations and the rest of their Monstruous and Impious Doctrine falls to the ground they assert with the Papists that the Spirit of God Speaking in the Scriptures is not his own Interpreter and so bereave the Scriptures of that which is the Soul Sense and Marrow thereof denying all Scripture Interpretation though never so Genuine and Clear except they have Immediat Objective Revelation to tell them that such a Meaning is true Hence they say they may very well reject all our Interpretations and Consequences of Scripture seeing we do not pretend to the Spirit that gave forth the Scripture but declare our selves Enemies to it Thus replyeth George Keith to Mr. Iohn Alexander Truths Def. Chap. 8. Behold Reader the grossest of Popish Shift●● to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine for the Papists still say that we can know nothing Certainly because we reject their Doctrine of Infallibility just so do the Quakers maliciously belying the whole Reformed Churches Impiously crying out that they are Enemies to the Spirit of God and that because we examine all Doctrines and Practices by the written Word of God. Hence we find that the Spirit the Quakers pretend to is Diametrically opposite to the Scriptures and therefore the Spirit of Lies and Delusion at this they are enraged and cannot away with it Nam trepidant immisso lumine manes Hence William Pen thus speaketh Rej. Pag. 72. Let them shew me that Scripture that plainly and uninterpretatly tells me such a proposition is true and such a One is false that only consists of their additional Meanings such a new Nick-named People Right and such wrong and they do their busines If they cannot as it is impossible they should they must have recourse to some thing else to Rule and Determine and what can that be besides that Eternal Spirit Thou seest Judicious Reader that according to the Quakers God speaking in the Scriptures cannot tell us what is true or what is false who are Right or who are Wrong of the same Nature is that which the Quakers have in their Queries to Mr. Iohn Alexander in which they often require an Answer to be given in plain words of Scripture and in particular Querie 10. They have these Words We say they expect plain Scriptures from you for this without any Shuffling Meanings Consequences or else never pretend Scripture Rule more but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings Consequences which have been your Rule Hence according to this Doctrine our Saviour laboured but in vain when he proved the resurrection of the Dead from the Scriptures Matth. 22.31 32. for the Sadducees might have answered that such express words were not in the Pentateuch viz. That the dead should rise again and therefore they were not bound to believe it tho the inference were never so clear except they had a new immediate Revelation which they might have said we have not and who could have proved the contrary yea if this Doctrine be true a man doth not sin tho

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or persona See the same Author Col. 783 De Libris Ephremi Pariarchae Theopolitani where he confirmeth at large this our assertion Now observe serious Reader of how great a consequence in the Judgement of those who are in this great point most Orthodox the right or wrong use of these words about which we now treat was esteemed and also that they took them in the same sense for which we now plead But I forbear to add more out of the an●ients For Calvin Inst. lib. 1. cap. 13. Sect. 2. affirmeth this our proposition of all the Ancient Orthodox without exception and Socinus ingenuously confesseth it Of the Modern writers I affirm the same as is clear from Calvin ibid. and Tremellius in His version of the Text out of the Syriak Pome●ranus on the place and others It is clear then th●● we have both name and thing in Scripture and indeed this Text doth so clearly hold forth this trulie Catholick Doctrine that George Keith is forced to discover that which he by all means endeavoureth to palliat For Truth Defended p. 76.79 He sayeth that this Text is to be understood speaking of Christ as Man only Now I am sure if he could make out this he should do a piece of non such service unto the Arrians and Socinians for this is one of the Texts that they with greatest Care endeavour to pervert and wrest and the Orthodox to vindicate inferring alwayes from it the Divinity of Christ but this he shall never be able to make out for there is nothing more clear than that the whole Context and Scope of the Apostle doth evince that this place speaketh of Christ as God and again who d●re say except the Arrians and Socinians with George Keith that Christ as Man can be called the Brightness of the Fathers Glory or the express Image or Character of the Father Man indeed was made according to the Image of God but certain it is that no Creature in Scripture is called the Image of the Father hence when Christ Col 1.15 Is called the Image of the invisible God Divines take the the word GOD for the person of the Father neither at all can it be otherwise understood for Christ is there called the first born of every Creature and he by whom all things were Created and Consist Hence Christ must be called the Image of the invisible God according to his God-head and by ● good Consequence by God must be understood the Person of the Father as a distinct Subs●st●nc● from that of the Son. From all which I conclude that so firm is the Truth of our Doctrine that the very things that seem to infringe and weaken it resolve only into a fair Occasion of and making way for its clearer Evidence and stronger Corroboration Add to all this that the primitive Church carefully retained these Words and Phrases as either being in Scripture in Terminis or bottomed thereon and as being the true Symbols of these Divine Things whereby the Church might most fitly express her mind and repel the Sophistry of Hereticks both before but esp●cially after the rise of the Arrian Heresie H●nce Iustin Martyr hath a book intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and describes a Person of the Holy ●rinit● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And Damas●●●e Orth. fide and others follow him in this Description These and the like Phrases are generally found in the works of the Fathers as Irenaeus Tertullian and others before the rise of Arrianism but especially after it as Augustin Athanasius Hilarius Cyrillus Alexandrinus Eusebius Rufinus Sozomenes and many others divers of which as Augustin Athanasius hath books with Titles expresly concerning the Holy Trinity But as I sa●d before after the rise of the Arrian and Sabellian Heresies the Church with greater Care and Acuracy distinguished the words Substance and Subsistence as he that pleases may see in Ruf. l. i. Cap. 29 and in the History of Sozomenes writing of the Council of Alexandria Notable also to th●● purpose and never to be forgotten are the words of Athanasius who in his Symbol thus speaketh Whosoever will be saved before all thing● it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith which Faith except every man keep wholly and inviolat without doubt he shall eternally p●rish this truly is the right Catho●ick Faith that we worship one God in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity without confounding the Persons neither separating the Substance c. From which Time to this day the Church hath Religiously Observed these Words and Phrases whereby She might express the Truth and distinguish her self from that Porphyrian sect of the Arrians as C●●stantin the great called ●hem and other Here●ick● By this Time. I am confident that he that will not close his Eyes may perceive that the Doctrine of Quakers is all one with that of Arrians Macedonians Sabellians which is the purpose of this Discourse But yet ex abundanti I will transcrib a Passage or two further The first of which is in Truth Def. This compleat Arrian and self contradicter having said pag 75. That It is only the ●●scriptural Terms of Trinity and Persons which he denyeth and not the Mystery pag 77. He giveth himself the lie and palpably bewrayeth his Arrianism in these words And if Io Alexander ●ir definition of a Person be received that it is an Intelligent Beeing subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I do not see for my part but that three Persons at this ●ate shall infer 〈◊〉 Intelligent Beeings subsisting incommunicably and consequently three Gods. Behold Reader the the Arrian dashing against the same stumbling-stone upon which Arrians and Socinians have alwayes broken their necks For upon this very Account that it seemed to them to infer three Gods the Arrians and Sabellians of old and the Socinians at this day always malign and endeavour what they can to render odious that most necessary Doctrine of the Holy Trinity With this passage of George Keith well agreeth what Hubberthorn in his Reply to Sherlock impiously belloweh forth pag 19. That there is no Scripture for the Catholick Faith and Trinity and three Persons Before I passe this Matter I cannot but take Notice of the strange dealing of George Keith attempting to make Augustin a Patroniser of his Arrian Doctrine For in Truths Def Cap 5. The Quaker h●th these Words And indeed Augustin in his 5 and 7 Books of the Trinity not only sayeth the Words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them as I suppose Io. Alexander for all his School Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able t● answer his Argument the substance of which 〈◊〉 my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or relative to say the first is absurd otherways ther● shall be three absolute Beeings or Essence's in God which is absurd If somewhat Relative which is referred or relative to another as Father is relativ● to a

all blessed for ever so with equal Impiety they bring down the glorious God levelling him with the dust and subject that most pure and Impassible beeing to the weakest frailties of Mankind Alledging that Christ weeped as God and not as man over Ierusalem but that they may want all ground of Complaint Let us hear themselves who in the principles of the Priests of Scotland pag 33. say It was asked of him viz. Henry Foreside of a fore ordained number to destruction and for what Christ wept over Ierusalem He answered as he was Human he mourned and his god-head decreed them to hell this is a lying Doctrine of the devil for after many of them of Ierusalem came to be converted as ye may read in Acts 2. And many of the Priests came to be obedient to the Faith for all being gone astray both Iews and Gentiles Rom 2.9 concluded under sin the pure the Eternal tendered over them who had stopped their ears and closed their eyes to that which was pure of God in them that they might have come to that which is pure and have been gathered under Christs wings Mat. 23 37. Who is pure and so have been converted and healed and have heard with their ears and seen with their Eyes And as for the word Humane that is not Scripture Language it speaketh not that Language CHAP. V. Of Christ and of his Benefits THE Quakers in words commonly acknowledge that Christ is God and Man and account it a wrong when they are accused of the denyal thereof But beside these two Natures they really maintain a third viz. a Spiritual and Heavenly nature in Christ which they call the Heavenly man Christ Jesus which heavenly man they say did exist before the incarnation of Christ Jesus and assert that on the Flesh and Blood of this man the Church in all Ages did feed For George Keith in his way cast up pag 38 93 96. Sayeth Christ as Man was and is before all the first and the last Id pag 90. The Man Christ influenceth all Men by his life and is in them and pag 93. The word made flesh created all things and the word only is is not properly the Christ. And George Keith in that Book contendeth at large that Christ before his Incarnation was as properly the Christ as he is now And in the same book pag. 94 he sayeth Christ as man came down from Heaven Idem ibid. Christs Flesh and Blood came down from Heaven pag. 94 95 Thus Christ hath Spiritual Flesh and Blood pag 95. Of his Spiritual flesh and blood did the Saints of old eat drink pag 97.98 He saith The Man Christ is to be understood prov 8.23 I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was And Ps. 110.1 2 3. and pag 99 100 108. It was this life of Christ as Man that was pressed as a Cart c. Amos 2.13 pag 100.108 109. Thus saith he Apostats crucifie to themselves again the Son of God. Heb. 6.6 pag. 100. Thus hath Christ been crucified by the wicked from the beginning Ibid. Christ the Heavenly man lived in Abraham and Moses pag 102. Christ was true and real Man before he was born of Mary pag 103. The word was made flesh from the beginning and dwelt in us pag 104. According to his Heavenly Nature even as Man He Christ was the son of God. pag. 123. The Man Christ is every where That is his Soul is extended into all in his divine seed and body which is his Heavenly Flesh and Blood. From all which beside other most horrid absurdities and blasphemies which follow upon this their Doctrine this is a clear consequent That Christ hath three Natures To this they answer Quak. Confir p. 33 That it will no more follow from their Doctrine that Christ hath three natures than it will follow from ours who assert that Christ assumed into Vnion with the Divine nature a Body and a Soul. But this answer is easily repelled for a Body a Soul considered both together make up but one humane nature Whereas according to their Doctrine he was Man before his incarnation and again man by incarnation seing every incarnation bringeth a man to the World Which incarnation they have not yet denyed at least in words And therefore Christ hath two entire humane Natures and yet these strictly conjoyned together in one man. Which doctrine maketh our blessed Lord a down-right Monster 2. The Quakers doctrine as it rendereth the Humanitie of Christ altogether Monstruous so it quite annihilateth and destroyeth his Divinity For Christopher Atkinson a known Quaker in a book of his entituled The Sword of the Lord in oposition to the sixth of the propositions which Philip Nye Thomas Godwine and Sidrah Simson drew up at the appointment of Cromwel whereby he might regulate himself in the tolleration of Sectaries viz. Christ is God said Hear Sotish minds your imagined God beyond the Stars and your carnal Christ which ye would make appear through your Heathnish Philosophy is utterly denyed and testified against by the light In these words the God-head of Christ is so evidently denyed ye● and his manhood too that the Quakers are able to put no Commentarie or glosse upon them which is their usual custom whereby to varnish and make any thing speak what they will And therefore to the Students of Aberdeen who Quak. Canvass pag. 82. Have objected this passage unto them they answer Quak. Conf. pag 36 that they cannot light upon Aitkinsons book But it is not to be believed that such active and bussie Spirits for the promotion of Quakerisme as Robert Barclay and George Keith are men of so great acquaintance and correspondence with the Quakers in England could not obtain the sight of a book which certainly is frequent enough there But it mattereth not much what they say for they stick not to deny passages that are verbatim in their own books Of which kind of dealing take one place of many which might easily be given Will Pen Sand Found pag 26 sayeth that Christ fulfilled the Law only as our pattern or example And yet Rea● against Rail pag 78 counteth his adversary Hicks a forger for repeating these words and stif●y denyeth that there is such a passage there saying I am very certain that the word only was not there See Hicks Dial. 3. pag 74 75 76. Where you shall find a large bundle of the like impudent and inexcusable lies They say also they can prove that Christopher Aitkinson was not a Quaker which they may easily say but they ought to have proved it not said it only otherwise these words serve only to testifie their dissatisfaction with the ingenuous plainness of Aitkinson in which he unma●keth and ●ayeth open to the World what the rest of the Quakers involve in Clouds of strange and mysterious Language equivocal and hardly intelligible terms being the only covert that they can find under which to shreud their abominable