Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	believe_v	faith_n	scripture_n	7,320	5	6.8604	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47180	Some of the many fallacies of William Penn detected in a paper called Gospel truths signed by him and three more at Dublin, the 4th of the 3d month, 1698, and in his late book called A defence of Gospel truths, against the exceptions of the B. of Cork's testimony concerning that paper : with some remarks on W.P., his unfair and unjust treatment of him : to which is added a synopsis or short view of W. Penn's deism, collected out of his book called A defense of the general rule of faith, &c. / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1699 (1699)	Wing K214; ESTC R2685	46,816	106

that the Discoveries that he sets up for are not the same to all Nations and Persons as can easily be proved Ten thousands would break through the Hedge of his General Rule of binding them to the common Discoveries given to all Mankind as most of the People called Quakers do and would highly pretend to new and special Discoveries given to them by the Light within and to none others and the reason they will alledge that it is not given to others is their Unfaithfulness and especially that like Corah they Rebel against their Spiritual Guides and Leaders Thus we may see the great need of an outward Rule and the great Goodness of God that he hath given us one full and perfectly sufficient to be a Rule of our Faith and Life in all necessary Cases And besides If W. P's Argument have any Truth in it it would infer that Christ or the Spirit abstractly considered from all Revelation both Internal and External should be the Rule because he is the Ruler If the Ruler and the Rule must still be one and the same thing then suppose all Revelation Internal as well as External should cease Christ or the Spirit should be the Rule because the Ruler Who sees not the Fallacy and Sophistry of W. P's Argument here Hath not every common Artificer his Rule of Wood or Brass that is not the Man himself but the Instrument that he hath made and prepared for his use The Prophets Rule by which their Faith was ruled in what they Prophecied was not the Spirit but the internal Revelation of the Spirit the Spirit was their Guide and Ruler but not to speak properly their Rule but the Revelation they had or things revealed that was their Rule and so now the external Revelation of the same Truths is the Rule of our Faith whereby to believe them as the Spirit inwardly by his secret Illumination perswades us of their Truth and certainty not by any new verbal Record but by Sealing to the Record outwardly given Section 12. His falsly alledging that he has the first Reformers Fathers and Martyrs on his side viz. That the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith but the Light in every Conscience His Fallacy in this detected in the late Book called The Deism of W. P. and his Brethren c. The Spirits being superior to the Scripture proves not that the Spirit is the Rule of Faith His pretended ground of his pitying the Bishop for his supposed Ignorance Causeless and Fallacious His false Accusation and Charge against the Bishop and Church of England and all Protestant Opponents to the Quakers that they confine the Operations of the Spirit to the first or Apostolical Times That the Ministers among the Quakers are less acted by the Spirit of God in their Praying and Preaching than the Ministers among their Protestant Opponents evidently proved AND this leads me to detect another Fallacy of his which shall be the last I intend to notice though I could detect many more but these I think will suffice to shew how Fallacious he is Let us therefore hear him once more In his Page 106 and 107 after he has most grosly alledged that he has the concurring Testimony and Assent of the best and first Reformers as well as Martyrs and Fathers to confirm his Fundamental viz. That not the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures without but the Light within is the Rule of Faith and Life and that the Light or Spirit within is something at least co-ordinate if not superior and antecedent to the Scripture Which is more saith he than we said before and consequently is the Rule of Faith and Life superior to the Scripture Having in my late Treatise of W. P's Deism rescued the Fathers and first Reformers from his Perversions I shall only now take notice of his fallacious Inference by this his Argument The Light or Spirit within is something superior and antecedent in way of Excellency to the Scripture therefore it is the superior and antecedent Rule above the Scripture the Proposition is granted and I know none that ever denied it to wit That the Spirit which is God is greater and more excellent than the Scripture But then it followeth not that it is the greater or more excellent Rule because properly speaking it is no Rule at all Right Logicians will tell him if he will go and learn of them which it is to be suspected for all that he was a Student at Oxford he has great need to do that things in a different kind are not to be compared If it were asked of W. P. whither a Knife of Gold or a Knife of Steel were the best Knife he would answer surely though Gold is superior to Steel and more excellent yet it is not fit to be a Knife and Men make not the blades of Knives of Gold So though the Spirit be superior to the Revelation of it whither Internal or External yet not the Spirit but his Revelation is the Rule and Internal Revelation was the Rule to the Prophets whereby they believed their Prophecies and what internal Revelation was to them external Revelation is to us though we have not that internal Revelation that they had which was Prophetical and Extraordinary but the Spirit internally by way of Seal Sealing to us the Truth and Certainty of the external Revelation gives us as sure ground for the certainty of our Faith as they had of theirs But this inward Seal of the Spirit is no Rule either co-ordinate with the Scripture or subordinate to it because it doth not propose to us by it self all the things necessary to be believed by us in verbal Propositions as the Seal of a Bond though it is a Proof and Evidence to the Truth of the Bond yet it tells us not the Contents of it And now because the Bishop found fault with his calling the Scripture without and the Illumination of the Spirit within the double and agreeing Record of true Religion as indeed well he might so do in W. P's sense though in a qualified and sober sense it may be acknowledged as perceiving the fallacious sense that W. P. had of those words well observed by the Bishop That they will not believe what Scripture saith except the Light within them dictate the same And yet none of them can justly say that the Light within doth dictate to them by it self one Article of that called the Apostles Creed yea W. P. doth not so much as pretend that it doth to him yet most uncivilly he falls upon the Bishop p. 107 telling him It must be his turn now to pity the Bishop And truly saith he I do it with all my Heart And this it seems in retaliation of the Bishop's tender Expression of his Pitty and Compassion towards some well-meaning Persons among them who are mislead by their Teachers But for what must he needs Pity the Bishop Why for his supposed Ignorance that he will not allow the Spirit to be

Spirit and these three are really one yet in his former Books particularly in his Sandy Foundation never yet retracted by him he hath sufficiently discovered his gross and vile error in that fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith thus arguing not only against their being Three Persons but their being Three otherwise than Nominally which was the Sabellian Heresie since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their opinion necessitates them to confess then unless the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct God's And he bringeth Five Arguments against their being a Holy Three P. 12 13 14. In his Third Section he seemeth to profess his and his Brethrens Faith in Scripture terms But this his professed Faith is quite inconsistent with what he hath delivered in his other Books here he saith That the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among Men and was and is the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth his beloved Son c. who tasted Death for every Man and dyed for Sin that we might dye to Sin But as it hath been above shewed out of his Sandy Foundation he hath argued against any such distinction as of the Father and the Son in the God-head as inferring a plurality of God's and though here he professeth to believe that this only begotten Son dyed for Sin yet in his Serious Apology Page 146 he saith That the outward Person that suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny And in his guide mistaken P. 25. Christ Co-essential and Co-eternal with his Father c. of being made Man of his Dying Rising and Ascending into Heaven c. he saith of all this that it is confused Babble and by Rote Canting by paths of vain Tradition and Invention results of Factious and corrupted Counsels And in his Rejoinder to John Faldo Page 299. he plainly denyes that the Body of Christ was any constitutive part of Christ and for seven leaves together contends against John Faldo That Christ did not Dye nor hang on the Cross but only the Body which he will not have to be any part of him To this Doctrine of W. P. doth that of G. Whitehead agree a Man as great or rather much greater among the Quakers as W. P. who saith in his Dipper Plunged P. 13. Jesus Christ God-man is not Scripture Language And in his Christian Quaker P. 140. 141. though he grants that Christ had a humane Body of Flesh and Bones yet he denys that he consisted of it and saith he distinguisheth betwixt Christ's having a Body and consisting of it And in a Book given forth by the Quakers from their second days Meeting whereof G. W. is supposed the Author called A Testimony for the true Christ and his Light in confutation of R. Cobbet printed 1668. They deny the Humanity of Christ as Humanity signifieth the Earthly Nature of Man's Body as coming from Humus the Ground but as Humanity signifies Meekness Gentleness Mercifulness as opposite to Cruelty in this last sence they own Christ's Humanity but deny it in the former which yet is the true sense of Scripture and of all true Christians Section 2. His Fallacy in pretending to own Justification by Christ the Propitiation in Contradiction to what he hath delivered in his Serious Apology and Sandy Foundation and his fallacious way of stating the Doctrine of Justification wherein he misrepresents his Opponents IN his fourth Section as seemingly Orthodox as he professeth himself to be as fallacious and insincere he is seeing he knoweth in his own Conscience that what he hath here delivered is utterly inconsistent with what is extant in his other Books never as yet retracted by him nor doth either he or his Brethren own any change of perswasion from what they had ever since they came under the profession of Quakers but as one of them hath lately said in Print As God is the same and Truth is the same so his People are the same viz. the Quakers I shall first set down his present profession of what he believes concerning Justification as followeth That as we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done so there is an absolute necessity that we receive and obey to unfeigned Repentance and amendment of Life the Holy Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ in order to obtain that Remissionand Justification from Sin c. But in contradiction to this see what his Doctrine is in his Serious Apology P. 148. And indeed says W. P. this we deny viz. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World Note Reader If according to W. P's former words we Only are Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done then it is plainly evident by the same Doctrine that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us for these two manners of Speech are perfectly equivalent viz. That we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the propitiation and that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person wholly without us The word Only plainly importing the Righteousness of Christ Wholly without us unless there be some great fallacy in W. P's words as the sequel will make appear a little after But if we take these two quotations in their genuine Sense the one that we are Justified by the Righteousness of Christ Only i. e. Wholly without us from the guilt of Sin and the other that this we deny i. e. that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils c. it is a perfect inconsistency and contradiction And yet now W. P. doth teach the same Doctrine which formerly he called the Doctrine of Devils without any change of his perswasion as he plainly tells in the conclusion of his Paper This saith he hath all along been the general stream and tendency both of our Ministry and Writings as our books will make appear But what a Forehead of Bras must W. P. have with so great confidence to assert so known an untruth Again the same W. P. in his forecited Serious Apology thus argueth P 148. against Christ's imputative Righteousness Death came by actual Sin not imputative therefore Justification unto Life came by actual Righteousness not imput ative Note Reader If we are not Justified by Christ's imputed which he calls imputative Righteousness as here he asserts