Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	israel_n	people_n	11,566	5	4.5954	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47166	Quakerism no popery, or, A particular answere to that part of Iohn Menzeis, professor of divinity in Aberdeen, (as he is called) his book, intituled Roma mendax Wherein the people called Quakers are concerned, whom he doth accuse as holding many popish doctrins, and as if Quakerism, (so he nick-names our religion,) were but popery-disguised. In which treatise his alleadged grounds for this his assertion, are impartialy and fairly examined and confuted: and also his accusation of popery against us, justly retorted upon himself, and his bretheren. By George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1675 (1675)	Wing K194; ESTC R213551	62,351	126

we prefering the Spirit of GOD sealing and confirming in our hearts the truth of what we outwardly read in the Scriptures according to I. M. his own rule above mentioned that may be a Heresie in them and not in us But as I have already said I know not any Papists who say That the Scripture is not the principall rule of Faith I know they say commonly It is not the formall object of Faith but I. M. is not ignorant how they distinguish betwixt the Rule of Faith and the Formall object of Faith how truely they do so we are not concerned But that this assertion to wit that the Spirit witnessing the truth in the hearts of Believers is greater then the outward testimony of the Prophets and Apostles and consequently the principall rule is so farre from being repugnant unto the Scripture that it is in express terms asserted in the Scripture 1. Iohn 5.8.9.10 If we receive the witness of men the witness of God is greater c. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself c. And surely it is most agreeable to sound reason that what the Spirit of GOD witnesseth or dictateth in the heart of a Beleever hath more evidence and force to convince then the outward testimony of the Scripture seeing it is more immediat for although the outward testimony of the Scripture may be called a testimony of the Spirit yet it is not so immediat as what the Spirit speaketh in the heart nor secondly hath it so powerfull an operation upon the Conscience or Spirit of a man a● the inward testimony of the Spirit hath I need go no further to prove this then the experience of all those who ever knew any inward touches or working of the Spirit upon their hearts such will declare that what the Spirit speaketh home to their hearts by his secret touches and motions hath fare more abundant power to convince then the outward testimony of the Scripture Yea notwithstanding of the outward testimony how many have been in great doubt whether the things declared in Scripture are true as whether there be an eternall reward for the righteous whether the Lord doth regard the righteous more then the wicked and such like truths But when the Spirit hath spoke home those truths to their hearts they could no more question them they were so clear as nothing could be more Yea was not the Psalmist greatly tempted in his minde with doubting If the Lord had a favour to the righteous Psal. 73. What cleared him of this doubt and raised up his minde over this temptation Was it the outward testimony of the Scripture so much as was then vvrit of it He had this before and yet he vvas troubled but vvhen he vvent into the Sanctuary then he vvas cleared not as if the outvvard Sanctuary or Temple had this vertue in it but that the Lord appeared unto him vvhile he vvas there And if there vvas any outvvard testimony given there the Lord did second it vvith the invvard testimony of his Spirit and this vvas it that cleared him as the vvords follovving import verse 26. My flesh and my heart faileth but GOD is the rock of my heart So the margine according to the Hebrevv Here the rock of his heart vvas GOD to vvit revealing himself and his truth in him and this vvas the rock and foundation of his Faith therefore he concludeth in a most svveet strain It is good for me to draw near to GOD and then he adds I have put my trust in the Lord God importing that since he drevv near to the Lord or since the Lord drevv near to him as the vvords may be as well translated he vvas enabled to believe and nor othervvise Moreover the Sanctuary mentioned by him in the place above cited may in a spirituall sense vvell be understood to be that holy principle put by GOD into his heart vvhich is indeed the true sanctuary signified by the outvvard vvherein GOD appeareth and speaketh unto men in their hearts Therefore said the Psalmist I will hear what God the Lord will speak in me Psal. 85.8 So the Septuagint as it were Paraphrastically and that this was the common priviledge of all the people of God in that day see Psal. 50.7 Hear O my people and I will speak O Israel and I will testifie in thee So the words according to the Hebrew yea and this is the very tenour of the new covenant that all his people shall be taught of God Himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which import a reall distinct teaching of God over beyond and above all outward teaching by the ministery of men I say a real distinct teaching which I prove thus If men may be outwardly taught by the Scriptur●s and want this teaching of God here mentioned in the Promise then the one is distinct from the other Bu● the first is true therefore the second The connexion of the first proposition in manifest from that maxime Quorum unum potest ab alto separari illa realiter distingu●tur when one thing can be separated from the other these two are really distinct The second proposition is clear from I. M. his own principles viz. that they may be outwardly taught by the Scripture and want the teaching promised in the new covenant because such a teaching is onely given unto the elect by hi● principle and I do confess the Elect are in a speciall way taught of God beyond what others are Now to proceed If this teaching of God be a reall distinct teaching from all outward teaching by the Scripture then I argue It is the greater and more excellent from I. M. his own principle My Argument is this That which is given as a speciall distinguishing priviledge and mercy unto the people of God is a greater and more excellent thing then that which is given indifferently both unto them and others to wit the wicked But this inward teaching of God is given as a speciall d●stinguishing priviledge c. Therefore it is a greater and more excellent thing Againe I prove it thus That which a man having it doth him most good that is the greatest and most excellent thing But this teaching of God by the Spirit promised in the new covenant a man having it doth him most good Therefore c. The second Proposition is clear for to be taught of God inwardly by the secret operation of his Spirit doth a man more good then meerly to be taught by the outward testimony of the Scripture Now if it be replyed that the inward teaching of the Spirit is granted to be a more great and excellent thing then the outward testimony of the Scripture and yet it be denyed that it is the greater and more excellent rule As for example Gold is a more excellent thing then Iron yet it is not so serviceable to be a Knife or Sword as Iron is To this I answere That the inward teaching dictate or word of the

justified is a peculiar and proper Faith unto him or them only to whom it is revealed and is not any part of the common faith of all true Christians for all true Christians are not required to believe that such a particular man is a true Christian or Child of GOD seeing perhaps not one of a thousand did ever hear of Him at all and so are not bound to believe that he hath a being in the World farr less that he is a Christian. Many other examples I could give of this peculiar and proper faith the rule whereof cannot be the Scripture but the special Revelation of GOD by his Spirit in the hearts of GOD'S Children whereby they have a reall knowledge and Faith in all their actings how farr they are approved and justified of GOD and as their is a peculiar and proper faith that is not the common faith so I doe affirm there is many times a peculiar and proper obedience unto peculiar and proper commands given of GOD unto some of his Children and not unto others Is there not an inward call whereby the LORD calleth such Preachers as are indeed accepted of Him in the discharge of their Ministry Sure I am I have heard some Protestants acknowledge this And is not this inward call a reall commandement seing it is a transgression to refuse to hearken to it And may not such a● Preacher have it made known to him from the LORD that he is really called to labour in Word and Doctrin among such a particular people rather then others And herein he is to give obedience unto the LORD although he have no outward call as many true Preachers never had And surely as there are some speciall things proper to every person in the World so as there are not to be found two in all the world but their way and manner of life doth differ in many observable things as much as their faces and that by a secret appointment of GOD so there are speciall directions of GOD'S holy Spirit given to those who do attend unto them whereby they may be safely and comfortably guided in all these various passages O how happy and blessed are they who have such a Bosome-Guid● as the blessed Spirit of GOD to direct them in their hearts and are given up to wait for and receive the Same when they fall into intricacies that no Scripture rules can sufficiently extricate And surely this the LORD hath promised his Children to guide them continually and to give them His Spirit to lead them into all truth By what I have said on this head it is manifest how farr we differ from Papists as touching the first Article charged by I. M. against us seeing as to all principles of common faith we hold with Protestants against Papists that the Scripture is a compleat and sufficient declaration and testimony and indeed the best and most compleat outward rule that is in the world unto which all Doctrins and principles of Christian Religion are to be applyed as to a Test or Touch ston in all externall debates and disputations whatsomever so that whatever Doctrin or principle that is not found agreeable to the tenour of the Scripturs Testimony is to be denyed and disowned for ever Yea and whatever proper or peculiar faith or obedience doth contradict the principles of common faith and obedience declared in the Scripturs I do plainly affirm that it is not a true and right faith and obedience but a delusion Moreover though I find that I. M. laboureth in his book called Roma Mendax to fix Enthusiasm upon the Papists so as he may the more conveniently class the Quakers and them together to render us the more odious yet I desire both him and all others to consider how I. M. himself doth rather clear the Papists at least the greatest and more considerable part of them of this so hainou● a crime of Enthusiasm as he thinks it pag. 44.45 he produc●th Stapleton and Testefort as downright Enthusiasts but in the same page 45. he bringeth Melchior Canus Alphon●us à Castro Becanus and Bellarmin as downright Anti-Enthusiasts who are all ashamed as saith I. M. to assert that Popes and Councells pass out their definitions by immediat revelations And the University of Paris anno 1626. emitted a Decree condemning the foresaid impious assertion of Testefort viz that the Sacred Scripture is partly contained in the Bible partly in the Decretals of the Bishops of Rome Very Good Here are then foure together with a whole Universitie of Papists the most famous in the world for two the two are guiltie of Enthusiasm and the four with the Universitie of Paris are as perfect Anti-Enthusiasts as the other are Enthusiasts So here is farr the greater number of them Anti-Enthusiasts and I believe who will search the Popish Doctors and Writers for one Enthusiast in pretence will find ten Anti-Enthusiasts Let then all impartiall men consider whether Enthusiasm or Anti-Enthusiasm deserve most to be called a Popish doctrin seeing that it is most probably a Pop●sh doctrin that is held by the plurality or greatest number of Popish Writers As for example what if I should find some Protestants so called whom I. M. doth own for reall Protestants perhaps two or three or more as down right Enthusiasts as either Stapleton or Testefort were it therefore just for me to conclude that Enthusiasm is a Protestant doctrin As for Doctor Stillingfleet whom I. M. citeth as giving an account of the Enthusiasms of the Church of Rome I suppose the same Author could give as full an account of the Enthusiasms of the Pre●byterians who were I. M. his Brethren but of Late Years and peradventure I. M. himself could doe as much Sure I am that diverse of the present Church of England have charged Enthusiasm upon the Presbyterians and Independents both I. M. his Ancient Friends as witness William Sharlock pag. 271. in his discourse with others could be named And Richard Baxter whom I suppose I. M. will hardly brand with Popery speaking hereof in his book called Aphorismes of Iustification pag. sayes That some ignorant wretches gnash their teeth at this doctrin as if it were flat Popery I judge I. M. will not take it well to be accounted among such and yet I see not how in his brother R. Baxter his judgment be can avoid this censure Yea may not Calvin himself whom some call the FATHER of Presbyterians be as much charged with Enthusiasm as any Papist seing in his Institutions he affirmeth that in his time God raised up Apostles or at least Evangelists whom he calleth Extraordinary Officers in the Church that were needful to bring back the Church again out of the Apostacy and from those Protestant Apostles or Evangelists he deriveth the ordinary mission of Protestant Preachers and goeth not back to the Antichristian Church and Bishops of Rome to derive the same as I. M. doth in his Roma Mendax and this forsooth lest He should run upon

in Infants it is unreasonable as well as contrary to Scripture that it doth infe●r any reall guiltiness where it is not in the least consented unto I remember what Bernard sayeth of it Non nec●t sensus ubi desit concensus The sense of it hurteth not viz. to bring on guiltiness where the consent is wanting Now if it were their sin it would certainly hurt The same Cassander showeth a form of agreement among divers Protestants and Papists how that the Materiale of it doth remain in the Regenerated that is to say a certain evil or infirmity or weakness but that the Formale of it is removed which Formale is the guiltiness of it to wit which it had before This Eight and Last Instance may be justly also re●or●ed upon I. M. and his Brethren who teach That by reason of this Principle in Infants they doe all come into the world guilty of Eternall Damnation and that many Infants doe really perish Eternally which is a Popish doctrin wherein they doe both agree contrarie to the Scripture which sayeth The soul that finneth shall die Importing that the soul that doth not actually sin shall not die which Popish error Zuinglius did manifestly impugne De Baptismo Having thus passed through all the Eight Instances alleadged by I. M. wherein he chargeth us as guiltie of Popish doctrins I desire the Reader to take a serious review of what I have answered on every particular head and he will find that upon all of them I have made it manifest that either we doe not hold the same doctrin with Pap●sts or if some papists seem to hold the same others of the Papists as Numerous and sometimes more hold the contradictory wherein I. M. and his Brethren aggreeth with them And so how the same charge is more justly retorted upon himself and his Brethren And Lastly that there is not one principle or doctrin held by us wherein any of the Papists seem to aggree with us but we have famous protestants whom I. M. doth acknowledge to be Protestants who therein doe aggree with us also And therefore if any of these doctrins can prove that our religion is but Popery disguised it will prove as effectually that the religion of those protestants who agree with us in all these things is also but Popery disguised which yet I suppose he will be loath to acknowledge SECT X. Where severall other alleadged lesser agreements in point of Practise and divers other Calumnies of that kind are considered and examined AS for his Criminations page 22.23 that Quakers have so much indignation at these who goe under the name of Puritans and so much correspondense with Romanists with whom before they could not converse I answere to the First as we love all men to those who are the rightest sort of Puritans we have a speciall kindness for in whom the true Puritanicall Spirit is alive by which they were seperated in good measure from the dead and dry formalities of the worlds religion and also from their profane customs And who will narrowly compare them and us will find a greater mearness betwixt us then is indeed betwixt us and any other people and although they differed from us in some of these principles above mentioned yet in others more in number they aggreed with us and which is most we have more unity with their spirit then with the spirit of any other people in the Nation But that spirit is much lost in those dayes among many who bear that name As to the Second for our Converse with Romanists I suppose it is not greater with them then with other people if the Lord hath delivered us from that peevish and narrow humour of some Presbyterians wherewith some of us hade been deeply tinctured and enlarged our hearts with true love both to Papists so called or any others differing from us so as we can converse with them either about our worldly lawfull occasions or in order to be instrumentall unto their conviction and better information We ought not to be blamed providing we keep free of complying with them in any sinfull thing farr less should I. M. blame us who himself hath been known as I am informed to converse with EXCOMUNICAT PAPISTS so as to eat and drink with some of them a thing repugnant unto the disciplin of their Church Again whereas he querieth have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Brittain who have been known to be professed Priests M●n●ks or Iesuits in France and Italy This informatory question may be returned with another of the same nature have not Papists if not Priests Mon●ks or Iesuits gone under the character of Protestants both in England and Scotland yea in Aberdeen will it therefore follow that the Protestant religion is but Popery disguised It is most certain that many Papists so called did outwardly conform to the Protestant religion so farr as to goe to their publick assemblies and be present at their worship as seemingly owning it and yet dissenting from it in their hearts for which I have heard they hade a dispensation from the Pope And some of the popish writters have writ against the lawfulness of such a practise which showeth that some have done it yea some in Aberdeen have been known to doe so will it therefore follow that Protestants in Aberdeen are but disguised Papists And yet the Case is the same He proceedeth to tell that he heard a chief Quaker confess before famous witnesses that one giving himsel● out for a Quaker in Kinnabers family was discovered to be a Popish Priest I answere if it hade been so how the thing was whether true or false I have not hade opportunity yet to examin i● proveth no more that Quakerism is Popery disguised then that because a Hypocrite doth give himself ou● to be a true christian Hypocrisie is true christiani●ty disguised And if it be true as I. M. saith tha● Romanists espcially Iesuits can transform them●selves into all shapes admitt then that some Iesui● doth transforme himself into the shape of I. M himself or at least of his religion will it fol●●ow that I. M. is a Iesuit or a Romanist but disgu●sed or his religion Iesuitism but seeing these to whom that popish priest is alleadged to have given him●self forth to be a Quaker did discover him wha● indeed he was and so did not acknowledge him to be what he pretended This showeth that Quake●rism and Popery are not of so near a relation fa●less one thing If he could prove that any Romanist Priest Monck or Iesuit were received by any of ●he Quakers as one with them in Religion whom yet they did know to be Romanists it would be some presumption but he is so farr to seek for a proof of this that I suppose he can not give any one Instance that ever a Quaker received a Romanist as a Quaker even unwittingly which yet if he could doe could only prove the Quaker at that ●ime was in a