Selected quad for the lemma: knowledge_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
knowledge_n	darkness_n	glory_n	shine_v	2,497	5	9.0823	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54224	The spirit of truth vindicated, against that of error & envy unseasonably manifested : in a late malicious libel, intituled, The spirit of the Quakers tryed, &c. / by a friend to righteousness and peace, W.P.	Penn, William, 1644-1718.	1672 (1672)	Wing P1375; ESTC R21576	102,800	151

others for plain Scripture and would suggest because doth proceed is mentioned instead of is sent that he himself is Unscriptural He omits to tell the World what it was G. F. made that Demand for viz. to prove Three Distinct and Separate Persons in the Godhead Now whether there is the same Reason for the one as for the other I leave to all sober Men to judge yea to our Adversary himself if he dare be just 9thly His last Socinian Objection to G. F's Citation and Application of Scripture is this That whereas the Scripture sayes For this End Christ both dyed and rose and revived that He might be Lord both of the Dead and Living He sayes That he might be God both of the Dead and Living Also where the Scripture sayes Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly G. F. has it Let the Word of God dwell richly in you By all which it is easie to observe how averse he is from allowing Christ the least share in an Eternal Divinity making it his Business to abstract from every Scripture that may in the least Favour such a thing and imperiously rant it over us in the abusivest termes as Impostor Lyar False Prophet Forger void of all Reason with abundance of the like Complexion the proper Language of Brutish Malice and not a True Disciple But let us answer to his Objection If Christ be God over all as saith the Apostle then why not God both of the Dead and of the Living as well as Lord both of the Dead and Living and likewise why not let the Word of God as well as let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly for if the Word of Christ be the Word of God and if God be the Lord and the Lord God then why not God in both places as well as Lord First I am well assur'd that God is called Judge of Quick and Dead and if so then because Christ is Lord of Quick and Dead Christ the Lord is God of both Quick and Dead unless there be more Lords of the Living and the Dead then the One Almighty God and Lord of Heaven and Earth Besides methinks this Critick might have consider'd that it is not expresly in the Greek that He might be Lord but that he might Raign over the Dead and the Living so saith the Arabick but the Aethiopick has it That he might judge both the Dead and the Living In short Christ is called both God Lord and Judge and since there is but one only True God Lord and Judge of right Christians we therefore believe Christ to be that only True God Lord and Judge of both Quick and Dead And here let me caution the Man of his eager Opposition to Christ's Divinity since supposing it should not be true there can be no Detraction and if it should prove true as he may one day know he will be guilty of robbing Christ of that for which he thought it no robbery himself to be equal with God that is to be the only true God Himself A Summary Consideration of such Scripture Citations as he trivially Objects against not so much about Matter of Doctrine as in Point of imperfect Quotation and Transposition of Words GEorge Fox in answer to a Priest thus Contrary to John's Doctrine and Christ's who saith The Light that doth enlighten every man that cometh into the World is the true Light that man through the Light might believe Our Adversary answers That it is through Him that is John Baptist Now granting it to be so yet John was no more Instrumental then as by the Light fitted to be so as Erasmus well said and others Whatsoever Light John had he received it from Christ the Fountain of Life So that still the Light was that Medium or Instrument Besides he does not positively charge G. F. with referring those words to that Verse and to be sure that is no Doctrinal Mistake since most true in it self Secondly His next Criticism is this whereas the Scripture runs thus For God who commanded Light to shine out of Darkness hath shined in our Hearts to give the Knowledge of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ He brings in G. F. citing it thus The Light which shined in their Hearts to give the Knowledge of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ Again Which was the Work of the true Apostles to bring People to the Light within that shined in their Hearts to give c. Again he sayes The Light that which gives the Knowledge But sayes he if he had recited it right it would then have appeared not only that God was the Giver but also that it is the Light of Knowledge and created for God caused Light to shine out of Darkness by creating it Gen. 1. 3 4. Thus far this impertinent Man To all which I say that first he obtrudes an arrant Lye upon our very Senses to say that G. F. has not rightly cited it for so much as he did cite For God caused the Light to shine where in their Hearts So sayes G. F. But for what to give of the Knowledge of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ And doth not G. F. say the same Wretched Scribler How Idle how Frivolous and how very Troublesom is he with his Ridiculous Remarks Secondly that the Knowledge comes by the Light all but such Bats as himself must needs see For why did God give his outward Light if not to give external Sight and Discerning And to what purpose did He cause his Invisible Spiritual Light to shine if not to give an Internal Knowledge of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ Besides God himself is Light He is that Great Supernatural Sun that shines throughout the Intellectual World offering unto Men the Knowledge of his Divine Glory and that in the Face of Jesus Christ This is our Message a● it was the true Messengers of Old And who talk of the Creation of this Light because it gives Knowledge may as well say God who was the Fountain of it was created too because He gives Knowledge I would have him give us one Scripture that therefore calls the Light created because it gives Divine Knowledge or if he can but one Reason who fools himself and would others with the Conceit that he is a great Master of it For what grosser Darkness can be then to assert the Creation of the hight upon that very Account for which we ought most truly to believe it Spiritual and Eternal But enough for this Thirdly G. F. saith But the Word is nigh thee in thy Heart Deut. 30. Moses saith our Adversary sayes But the Word is very nigh thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou mayst● do it Where observe that the only Difference lies in leaving out in his Mouth though it be imply'd for where it is in the Heart it will be in the Mouth But

that he was not antecedent to that work that he never enlightned the Fathers and holy men of old with a sufficient measure of that same Divine Light which without measure appeared in him and far greater then before to the Sons of men I appeal to any modest intelligent man if this be not Ingratitude nay Sacriledge in the highest degree Certainly therefore it can be no Injury to the Scripture if we say That He who enlightned the Patriarchs and Prophets of old hath in a more excellent manner and suitable to the Spirituality of his own Divine Nature revealed himself in this Gospel administration the which may aptly be compared to a well-built Temple which has been of old begun but left to these latter daies of Christ's more eminent manifestation to superstruct compleat adorn and sit for him the eternal Light of Life and Righteousness to be worshipped in so that there is a great Difference as Grotius in other words doth well observe between the Beginning of an administration and of the Author of it That might be the Beginning of those large Discoveries but not the Light that gave them and consequently notwithstanding John should have intended a Divine Creation yet it will not necessarily follow that the Light which is that Creator was not in beeing antecedently to that Divine Creation and so God both by pre-existence and omnipotency But I shall say no more of this I mean the transposition of the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 till our Adversary sayes more to the contrary if we may then think it worth our notice But it may be fit to observe that the man shows a wave●ing in his own Judgment which is not only manifest from his saying It may as well be referred to Light as Man but in a man●script to a Friend of ours he affirmed it to be unreasonable to refer coming to Man and not to the true Light All we can say is this that though it show him to be unsettled in his own thoughts yet he was willing to be a little more modest in print then in his manuscript For his Distinction between Lighteth and Enlightneth I confess my self troubled not at his great Skill but ●olly It shows he would say something if he could tell what and to use a familiar Proverb The poor man will be playing at small game rather then stand out Then let 's to the Word since he would be thought a Critick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we read in Greek in the Latin illuminat and should in the English enlightneth the defect is not in the Original nor Latin versions but our English only I perceive whether it be Original or Translation which makes most for him that is the Infallible Text till it happens to contradict him and then if in the Original the Word is foisted in or thus to be transposed or rendred if in any of the versions then it is not so in the Original it is lamely rendred and the like But this Callenge I make to the man that if he can find one version in three and three to one that 's odds which re●dres it different from what we understand by it I shall acknowledge him a Critick and our selves ignorant in words All the Greek Coppies and Latin Translations I ever saw or heard of import no other thing then Illumination or Enlightning All that I have hitherto mentioned so give it us quae illuminat omnem hominem c. That this is the constant use of the Word throughout both the Old and New Testament so called is evident It is said of Jonathan that after he had tasted a little of that honey into which he put his rod his eyes were enlightned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia illuminati sunt oculi mei See saith Jonathan I pray you how mine eyes have been enlightned The Chaldee version hath it illuxerunt oculi mei how my eyes shined The Syriack thus my eyes have received light The Arabick thus quomodo illustrata est acies mea how is my Eye-sight clear'd but the Septuagint expresseth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 behold how my eyes have seen which in a mystical sense is the same now for that eternal Light or Word of Life is that Honey out of that true Rock and Milk that the Prophet exhorted the Jews to buy without money and without price And who taste of that in faith receive that blessed effect namely true illumination Thus Job To bring his Soul from the pit that is from darkness death and sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad lucendum in luce viventium to be enlightned with the light of the living The Chaldee has it after this manner that my Soul may shine by the Light of the Living The Syriack and Arabick that is may see the Light of Life Job 33. 30. and upon v. 28. which speaks to the same purpose sayes Vatablus De luce illa coele●●● intelligit fruetur Dei conspectu Which is He means by that heaven●● Light he shall enjoy the presence of God Likewise David most emphatically useth the same Verb and that to our purpose unde●●●bly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quoniam tu illuminabis lucernam meam Deus meu● illuminabit tenebrositatem meam For thou wilt light my Candle the Lord my God will enlighten my darkness The Chaldee has it thus because thou wilt enlighten the Candle of Israel which was put out in the captivity for thou art the Author of the Light of Israel The Lord my God will bring me out of Darkness into Light A notable addition at least explanation of the place yet this is in the Chaldee version The Syriack Aethiopick and Septuagi●t are the same the Arabick differs only in tenses thou dost enlighten for wilt enlighten and he hath enlightned my darkness for he will enlighten my darkness And if the spirit of man be the Candle of the Lord and that God only can light it then certainly since man's spirit is within him it is not more unsound nor any more violating of Scripture sence to say that God enlightens then that he lightens every man within by communicating of his own Light to man's Spirit which receiving it becomes lighted by it to all right Knowledge and good Works Further if David's darkness was within him in his Soul and understanding as certainly he meant it so when he spake of it then must that Light which was to shine there shine in David's Soul and understanding And what false Doctrine or English it is or perversion of Scripture to say that man is then enlightned let sober people judge It is thus exprest in the Greek Copies of the New Testament also and the Latin Versions of them witness the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. illuminatos oculos cordis vestri Beza has it in his Copy and version 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuminatis oculis mentis vestrae The Syriack has it that the eyes of your