Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	ghost_n	holy_a	trinity_n	2,914	5	9.7351	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65863	The divinity of Christ and unity of the three that bear record in heaven with the blessed end and effects of Christ's appearance, coming in the flesh, suffering and sacrifice for sinners, confessed and vindicated, by his followers, called Quakers : and the principal matters in controversie, between them, and their present opposers (as Presbyterians, Independants, &c.) considered and resolved, according to the scriptures of truth, and more particularly to remove the aspersions ... cast upon the ... Quakers ... in several books, written by Tho. Vincent, Will. Madox, their railing book, stil'd The foundation, &c, Tho. Danson, his Synopsis, John Owen, his Declaration / which are here examin'd and compared by G.W. ... ; as also, a short review of several passages of Edward Stillingfleet's ... in his discourse of the sufferings of Christ's and sermon preached before the King, wherein he flatly contradicts the said opposers.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1669 (1669)	Wing W1925; ESTC R19836	166,703	202

to and obey is the Light of Christ which witnesseth against all sin against all Idolatry and unrighteousness and leads us in the Doctrine of the true God which we receive in the Light and not mens Traditions and corrupt Doctrines and Inventions whereby People have been kept in the dark by such perverse and prejudiced Spirits as thus blasphemously deem the Light within an Idol of our own brains whereas it is the Light and Life of the Eternal Word which enlightens every man that cometh into the World that we testifie unto against all the dark opposers and gain-sayers whose wayes are dark and crooked as thine W. M. is who thus falsely and blasphemously hast represented the Light within like those that put Light for Darkness and Darkness for Light And now let the Reader judge Whether such dark envious Persons as thou herein hast shewed they self are fit to be Judges in these things of Controversie about such high matters touching the Three that bear Record in Heaven viz. The Father The Word and The Spirit when thou in thy earthly sensual wisdom never camest there neither canst thou till thou countest it loss unto thee and com'st to loose it that the Babe's state that enters the Kingdom be known in which the Light and Life of the Son of God is manifest which discovers the hidden things of darkness and reveals the Mysteries of God's Salvation to them that obey it but not to such as count it an Idol and now what may we expect but darkness from such an one as calls the Light within an Idol and they that look into thy following work against us may see the gross darkness thereof yea darkness that may be felt W. M. By their three Persons you mean the three increated Persons of the ever blessed Trinity the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost Three increated Persons are thy own words and terms but the Father Word and Spirit we really own and bear witness to both as mentioned in the Scripture and as knowing the absolute Testimony and Eternal Power thereof manifested where that which may be known of God is manifest even within both in creating begetting and quickening us again to God out of death and darkness And these Three which are One which bear Record in Heaven to wit The Father the Word and the Spirit as I could not own the title of Three distinct and separate Persons to be put upon them as thy Brother Erroniously did being not Scripture-language so it was never my intent nor Principle to compare them to three Apostles or finite Creatures as most falsely and injuriously thou accusest me But to endeavour to make the People understand both the grosseness and falseness of Tho. Danson's and Tho. Vincent's Principles of three distinct separate Persons in the Deity you naming each Person God which renders them Three Gods whilst but One God by shewing the Consequence of this your Principle After I had from Scripture shewed how inseperable the Father and the Son were and the Oneness of the Father Word and the Spirit but if I had simply compared them to three Apostles who were distinct and separate Persons then had I owned your own Terms and Principle and then the Controversie had fallen between us But instead thereof I am accused for opposing your Doctrine of distinct separate Persons and thus you confound your selves in wronging of me for were not the three Apostles Paul Peter and John three distinct separate Persons did I ever deny that they were how like then to finite Creatures doth your own Doctrine render the Eternal God his Word Spirit which to shew was my end in instancing three Apostles for we never believed the Eternal God to be like to corruptible man since we knew any thing of his Divine Power But T. Danson in his Synopsis pag. 12. plainly instanceth three Apostles Peter James and John as also his instance of David and Solomon for their Trinity or three Persons in one nature Was not this an instance of finite Creatures and such an indignity put upon God as I never intended How can such men but blush for charging that on others which so evidently they are guilty of themselves Madox We call the Father Son and Holy Ghost Three Persons or Hee 's according as they are held forth in the Scriptures Answ. Nay had you stood to Scripture-language there had not been any Controversie between us therein but it would not satisfie you but you must obtrude your Popish unscripture-like terms and distinctions or rather worse in telling not only of distinct but separate Persons which being plainly refuted from Scripture you may remember I several times called to T. D. and T. V. to confess their Error I shewing how inseparable the Father and the Son were reflecting chiefly on the words separate Persons which how you come off about will appear hereafter And as for their being Three Hee 's thou W. M. durst not keep to any Argument from thence or to make that any Cause or Reason why we must own them to be Three Persons though here thou seem'st to make the terms equivolent viz. Three Persons or Hee 's so then it appears that either will serve if the Three that bear Record in Heaven be but own'd under the Name of Three Hee 's it will serve instead of Three distinct Persons but then are all Hee 's or Males Persons and all Shee 's or Females no Persons What strange Logick is implyed here And where doth the Scripture mention three increated Persons thou tell'st of are they three distinct increated Persons If so then mayst thou not as well say they are three distinct Infinites three Eternals and so three Gods Where is now the blasphemy and blasphemer And Christ's speaking of another Comforter which was the Spirit of Truth Joh. 14.16 was not another Person distinct from him for that Spirit was then in him neither doth he use those words for the same Comforter or Spirit was in him and was that divine Life that then spoke in him when he was personally present with them He doth not say he would send them another Person to Comfort them but speaks more spiritually for though they had been Comforted in his outward Presence and Ministry yet his spiritual Presence was that other Comforter for ever to abide with them for in that Joh. 14.17 Christ speaking of the Spirit of Truth or that other Comforter saith he that dwelleth with you shall be in you vers 18. I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you which clearly explains his former words which to say this Comforter was a Person distinct from Christ is all one or as absurd as to say the Spirit or Life that was in him was a distinct Person from him or that he was a Person distinct from himself for I will not leave you comfortless I will come unto you or were it not gross to say That Christ in his People is a Person distinct from Christ or

as in Pag. 31. he pleads for making use of other words expressions and phrases that neither are litterally nor formally contained in Scripture and so makes use of his conceptions and apprehensions of what is contained therein see pag. 30 31. But then again another while he saith Let us nakedly attend to what the Scripture asserts as in pag. 42. And in pag. 110. he tells us of manifesting what was revealed expresly in Scripture concerning God the Father Son and Holy Ghost so that many times he would make people believe as if he would nakedly and exactly keep to the Scriptures but then at other times his notions conceptions meanings and odd invented terms must be put upon them and men must either confess to those or else be liable to his and his Brethrens censures of being Socinians Hereticks Blasphemers and what not And though he hath appeared a little smother then his Brother Tho. Vincent hath done in his railing Pamphlet yet he hath wronged us by his false insinuations against us as if we denied the Diuinity of Christ and deserted our former Principles also he hath represented us as being in conjunction with those whom he accuseth of opposing or denying the oneness of the Deity and the Grace of Christ or the Father Son and holy Ghost to be God which we are not at all concerned in nor guilty of and our Books and Writings now and from the very beginning evince the contrary But then in Pag. 129. he confesseth That the objections these men principally insist upon are meerly against the explanations we use of this Doctrine and not against the primitive Revelation of it which is the principal object of our Faith c. Now if by these men he intends us called Quakers as is apparent he doth by his present discouse he hath then very much cleared us from other of his and his Brethrens Accusations and thereby hath also plainly contradicted both himself and them for here our objections are meerly against their explanations and not against the primitive Revelation or principal object of Faith so whilst the Revelation which is according to the Scriptures and the principal object of Faith is not objected against but owned and professed by us according to the Scripture it is very unjust and injurious either in him or his Brethren to insinuate against us as if we denied either the Divinity of Christ or the holy Spirit though as to their distinctions about Personalities Subsistances Modallities and the like invented terms and names which they put upon the Deity we must needs except against as not scriptural nor proceeding from any naked attention to what the Scripture asserts which J. O. doth but pretend to but from mens conceptions and traditions which are upheld by the wisdom which this world teacheth and not that which the Holy Ghost teacheth And then in Pag. 89. he goes to accuse and vilifie us in these words viz. Our Quakers for a long time hovered up and down like a swarm of Flyes with a confused noise and huming what falshood and scorn is here for such a Doctor to express begin now to settle in the Opinions lately by them declared for this is a false insinuation again what their thoughts will fall to be concerning the holy Ghost when they shall be contented to speak intelligeably and according to the usage of other men or the pattern of Scripture the great rule of speaking or treating about spiritual things I know not and I am uncertain whether they do themselves or no. Thus far J. Owen To which I say in the first of these expressions he hath scornfully and falsly accused us as also with beginning now to settle in Opinions for we are neither so beginning nor so to begin but are setled in the Truth out of and above mens invented Opinions about which are so many Divisions and Sects among them but if by Opinion he intends Socinianism as he calls and represents it his own testimony shall testifie against him as a false Accuser of us herein as in pag. 129. where he confesseth our objections to be meerly against the explanation they use and not against the primitive Revelation of it so then we are not guilty of such Opinions as either deny the Divinity of Christ or that tends to lessen him in any respect or offices relating to man's Salvation for our desire is and our endeavour hath been the exaltation of his Name Power and Glory over all neither have we been hovering nor in confusion as falsly he hath represented us and if he knows not what our thoughts will fall into concerning the Holy Ghost but is uncertain whether we do our selves or no he should therefore have been silent of accusing or reviling us as he hath done because it appears it is in his ignorance and uncertainty that he hath thus vilified us and insinuated against us he should have received a better information and knowledge of us before he had thus reviled us and not to have gone and bespattered and vilified a whole Body of People to render them odious from his own uncertain thoughts of them for he would not be so dealt by himself and the Reader may take notice that a great part of his Book wherein he goes about to prove the Divinity or Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost in which he appears as one opposing some great Enemies among whom we are numbred we are unconcerned therein having never denied Christ's Divinity and if his own testimony may be of any value we are cleared by it as before in pag. 129. Alas poor man J. 0. has missed his mark in shooting thus uncertainly and at random against the Quakers And where he adds touching the Holy Ghost Whether he may be the Light within them or an infallible afflatus is uncertain Though it be uncertain to J. O. it is certain to us that have the Testimony and evidence of the holy Spirit in us which gives us both Life Light and Power and we know him to be infallible how deridingly soever he speaks of it as also according to the precious Promises of God which hereby we know in a large measure the fulfilling of we experience Christ to be in us and in that the Father Word and Spirit are confessed to be one Power Wisdom and Love and to be of one Divine Substance Nature and Essence this we neither do nor ever did deny and God is in his People and dwels in them and walks in them and the Spirit is sent into our hearts so they are not divided distinct and separate persons c. as may be read in John 17.21 to the end where Christ said that they may all be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us that the World may believe that thou hast sent me and the glory which thou gavest me I have given them that they may be one even as we are one I in them thou in me that

before whether this doth not make a fourth For as he was not fifty years old this had not reference to his Divine Nature as is confessed But then where in pag. 36. The generation of the Son must be Eternal the Son being so they say How is his Personallity with reference to his being begotten denyed to be Infinite in pag. 45. What gross and apparent Contradictions are these And as to his instance Matt. 3.16 17. how that Jesus went up out of the Water and the Spirit descended like a Dove and lo a Voice from Heaven to prove a distinction of all the Three Persons the Son was cloathed in Flesh the Spirit in the shape of a Dove the Father was in the Voice he saith c. Let the Reader but mark how far short of proving his Distinction this instance is Surely he will not say That the Son was cloathed in Flesh from Eternity nor the Spirit in a bodily shape like a Dove from Eternity for if their Personallities did consist in these visible Appearances how were they Coeternal Coessential Coequal with God c And surely Personallity doth not consist in the shape of a Dove neither do we read of the Person of a Dove besides the Spirits appearing in a bodily shape like a Dove doth not prove that the Spirit was a distinct or separate Person from Jesus for he had the Spirit in him and was not separate from the Spirit though that appearance like a Dove was for a Confirmation to John's belief of him John 1.32 33. T.V. Isa. 6.3 Holy holy holy is the Lord of Hosts the three Holies signifies the three persons the Lord of Hosts the One God I must confess I never heard this Argument before if each Holy signifie a Person how then are they spoken to the One God And if so many Holies as are given in praise to him do signifie so many distinct Persons in him then they will amount to a great many Trinities for it is said Rev. 4.8 They rest not day nor night saying Holy holy holy Lord God Almighty c. Now if all the Holies they give day and night to him be so many Persons then they will amount to Persons ad infinitum but the absurdity of this Argument who cannot but see As also his Argument from the distinct Names is little better for God is denominated under many Names more than Three And also his arguing from John 14 15 16. chap. from personal Acts as he calls them as sending the Comforter his speaking and guiding c. Where doth the Scripture call them Personal Acts Were they not Spiritual Acts of the Divine Spirit and Power of God And was there any Act but what was brought forth in time And was the Father's begetting the Son a Personal Act however was it not an Act in time if so how sayes T. V. That the Generation of the Son must be Eternal What distracted confused work is here And as to that Cavil in pag. 40. at the word ONE as not being in the Hebrew in all those Scriptures Isa. 40.25 chap. 48.17 Psal. 71.22 where Holy One is mentioned in the English which to Cavil at shews little prudence whilst Holy One and the Lord being One and the Only Wise God is often mentioned elsewhere see Zac. 14.9 which W. P. quotes is it not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah echad ushemo echad i. e. Dominus unus nomen Ejus unum One Lord and his Name One. And see Deut. 6.4 how its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah echad One Lord but where the word Echad is not expressed whether it be not understood Besides T. V. himself pag. 33. useth these words The Lord of Hosts the One God so that he might have spared his Contradictory Cavil about it And if their distinctions be in regard of the Personallity and not of the Essence then I ask Are they three Persons both distinct among themselves and also distinct from the Essence or Being of God and so not infinite or neither finite nor infinite as most Absurdly and Contradictorily is laid down in their 44 45 46 pages as before has been mentioned And as to W. P. his Cloudy Brain Conceptions as it 's called which is so difficult to find out as they say and his Phrases so uncouth and his Reasonings so odly joynted together Indeed neither T. V. nor T. D. have shewen any such Brightness nor strength of Argument as to expel or drive away these cloudy Conceptions if they be such it must be another thing that must unvail him and overthrow what he hath said than their grosse Confusion and many apparent Contradictions which I am certain that W. P. is so far unvail'd as to have a sight and discovery of though this dark ridged Presbyterian Spirit hath sought by Persecution false Reports and Slanders to vail and obscure both him and others in whom any degree breakings forth or glimerings of true Light have appeared where they could not do it by slandering grossely villifying and traducing them they would endeavour to bring Persecution and Cruelty and outward Restraint upon them to their Power And as for their taxing W.P. for instancing Irenaeus Justin Martyr Tertullian Origen Theophil and others as appearing forreign to the matter in Controversie c. they telling us The Doctrine of the Trinity is plainly enough to be gathered from several passages in Irenaeus lib. 1. ch 2. Ecclesia accipit fidem quae est in unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem in unum Christum filium Dei incarnatum in spiritum Sanctum qui per Prophetas praedicavit And then our Opposers ask Do not these words hold forth a distinction of those three persons To which I say However he gathers or imagines such a distinction of their being three Persons he does but beg the Question in calling them three Persons which their words no not prove nor so call them but God the Father Omnipotent Christ the Son of God and the Holy Ghost in whom the Faith of the Church is Neither do the latter words prove any thing for this purpose which mention the God of all things making and governing all things by his word and Spirit If he had asserted no otherwise herein then Irenaeus hath done there had not been this Controversie between us and them And as for the rest of the Authors they mention I do not find that they called them three distinct separate persons as T. D. did in all these Passages mentioned and quoted by them And it s known that W.P. his Controversie was principally against them for unscriptural Doctrine of the God-head subsisting in three distinct and separate persons which also their own Instance of Theophil lib. 1. Com. in Evang. doth contradict viz. Margarita pretiosa est Sancta Trinitas quae dividi non potest nam in unitate consistit the Holy Trinity is a precious Jewel which cannot be divided because it consisteth in Unity To which I say then the Glorious