Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	ghost_n	holy_a	trinity_n	2,581	5	9.6972	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47191	Truths defence, or, The pretended examination by John Alexander of Leith of the principles of those (called Quakers) falsly termed by him Jesuitico-Quakerism, re-examined and confuted : together with some animadversions on the dedication of his book to Sir Robert Clayton, then Mayor of London / by G.K.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1682 (1682)	Wing K225; ESTC R22871	109,893	242

living Creatures or Animals to love and cherish their Off-spring which is a shadow or figure of that more Divine Law in God's people is not any complex Proposition of words but an innate principle of love and affection which he hath planted in them Moreover the said I. A. digresseth here from his matter to seek an occasion against us and to load us with down-right Blasphemy because we do not say that there are three Persons in the God-head But to this Charge I have answered already to one of I. A. his Champions in my book called The Way Cast Vp the which hath given content to divers-sober people and I hope may give content to all who reads it in that particular where I show that it is only the unscriptural terms of a Trinity of Persons or of three Persons in the Godhead that we deny and not the mysterie or thing it self of Father Son and Holy Ghost being three that bear Record in Heaven which according to the Scripture we both believe and confess And indeed Augustine in his Fifth and Seventh Books of the Trinity not only saith the words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them and I suppose I. A. for all his School-Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able to Answer his Argument the substance of which to my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or somewhat relative to say the first is absurd otherwise there should be three 〈◊〉 Beings or Essences in God which is absurd if somewhat relative which is the second then seeing every relative is referred or is relative to another as Father is relative to Son and therefore Father is the Father of another and no man is his own Father in this sense to say the Father is a Person is to say the Father is the Person of some other and so of the rest which is absurd The which Argument not as mine but really Augustines I leave I. A. to Answer and Ierome another ancient Doctor and Father so called doth find fault with the words Three Hypostasis saying expresly in the words Three Hyposta●is Latet aliquid veneni There lieth hid some poyson And La●rentius Valla a man well esteemed among the learned findeth fault with the words Three Persons why then should we be so uncharitably charged by I. A. or such hot-headed men with Blasphemy only for keeping close to Scripture words in so great a Mysterie while the thing it self so far as the Scripture declareth it is owned by us And whereas he urgeth us to tell what Three are they to be called if neither Three Gods nor Three Persons I Answer It sufficeth us to call them what the Spirit of God in Christ and the Apostles hath called them and to enquire no further nor to be curiously wise above what they have d●●lared Hath not I. A. heard That there is a Docta Ignorantia or Learned Ignorance which is more safe and to be preferred to an uncertain Knowledge or Science falsly so called And if I. A. his definition of Person be received viz. That it is an intelligent Being subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I see not for my part but that Three Persons at this rate shall infer three intelligent Beings subsisting incommunicably and consequently Three Gods Lastly That he saith Some Quakers have called them three Manifes●ations viz. of Moses of Christ and of the Spirit he ought to have produced their names or then we are not bound to believe him that any have said so for at this rate Moses should be the Father of Christ which I do not believe any called a Quaker ever thought perhaps some have said there have been three Dispensations or Manifestations of God one through Moses and one through Christ in the Flesh and one through the Spirit or Christ in Spirit and that these may after some sort have such a reference as that the first may be called relative to the Father yet not excluding the Son and the second may be relative to the Son not excluding the Father c. which yet doth not argue that we understand the Dispensation or Administration of the Father to be the Father himself far less Moses to be the Father as I. A. I believe very rashly and unwarrantably doth alledge Now that there are or have been diversity of Administrations the Scripture is plain and Protestants as well as Papists do acknowledge it Yea what saith I. A. to the common Catechism that saith The Father hath Created us the Son hath Redeemed us and the Holy Ghost hath Sanctified us which is to be understood not exclusively nor yet without some order in the manner of working But who will be so foollish or ignorant for all this to say That the Father is our Creation the Son our Redemption strictly or literally and without a Figure so understood and the Holy Ghost our Sanctification Nor doth it follow that because Christ bringeth in his Father and himself as two Witnesses to prove that he was the true Messiah that therefore there are either two or three Persons in the Godhead for Christ speaketh these words not simply as God but as man Now as Man we acknowledge that Christ is a distinct Nature or Being from God although not divided or separated therefrom And lastly that he argueth That Christ is called the express Image of the Fathers Hypostasis and that Hypostasis should be and is truly Translated Person and not Substance and otherwise it would infer Arianism I Answer That Hypostasis should be Translated Person he doth meerly affirm without any proof from approved Authors and sure I am the Etymologie of the word hath no affinity to person but properly signifieth Substance being compounded of the Preposition and Substantive Verb which as near as possible is in Latin substantia and in English substance and is so Translated Heb. 11. 1. Now that to Translate it substance would infer Arrianism I. A. doth but meerly say it without any proof and so is not to be believed And beside Christ in Scripture is called The Image of the Invisible God and certainly God is a substance and yet this I hope will not infer Arrianism and may we not well understand how Christ as man is the Character or Image of God's substance without Arrianism seeing Christ said viz. in respect of his Manhood My Father is greater than I and it is clear that the aforesaid place Heb. 1. 2 3. is to be understood of Christ not simply as God but as man who certainly as man is the most bright and glorious Image of God and above all Angels or Men or whatever can be named besides the Godhead it self CHAP. VI. HAving thus traced I. A. in his unnecessary and impertinent digression I shall now reply unto his Arguments whereby he laboureth to prove that the Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith and manners And to the first that in Isaiah 8. 10. they were sent

men are infallible that therefore the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in men is fallible also Was not Peter fallible in some Cases Yea did he not fail sorely when he denyed his Master Doth it therefore follow that the Dictate or Light of Gods Spirit in him was fallible Indeed if I had said that when we follow the Dictate and Light of God within we are fallible he might have inferred such a consequence but I never said nor thought any such thing but on the contrary that the Dictates and Leadings of Gods Spirit in us are infallible and have a direct tendency to lead guide and move us infallibly as they are purely kept unto the which is possible for us to do Another Argument he bringeth against the Dictate 〈◊〉 I●s being the rule to try Spirits because then it would be both Superior and Inferior which is Repugnant Superior when it tryes and examines and Inferior when it is tryed and examined To which I Answer 1. It is no Repugnancy that one and the same thing be Superior and Inferior in different respects and as it respecteth different Subjects But 2. There is no necessity to understand the Dictate and Light of Gods Spirit in divers men to be Superior and Inferior when it examines and is examined for one equal may be a measure or rule to another yea one thing may be said to be a rule unto it self according unto that common Maxim or principle Line● recta est norma sui obliqui i. e. A right line is the rule of it self and also of that which is crooked Otherwise let I. A. Answer me How did Adam know the voice of God in his Heart and the Prophets before the Scriptures were writ how did they know it And in the close of his first Section he concludeth with a manifest Untruth That the Quakers are for a new Dispensation not only in manner but matter contrary to the Doctrine formerly Dictated by the Holy Ghost This I say is false which he neither doth nor can prove and the Dispensation we plead for is the same both for matter and manner which belonged to all true and good Christians in all Ages And as to what he saith Of our extream Infatuation and Brain-sickness and retaining the proportion and features of humane bodies having quite enervated our Rational Essence These and the like scoffing and disdainful expressions are no more to be regarded by us nor have any more weight than when some Epicureans at Athens called Paul a Babler We know it hath been the Lot of Gods people in former Generations to be reputed by Adversaries both Fools and Mad-men However we hope the sober Readers of our Books and Treatises and these also who have any Converse with us will find that we have neither abandoned nor lost the use of our Rational Faculties which we acknowledge to be good Gifts of God and for which he is to be praised nor doth our principle and belief of Divine Inspiration as being a more noble and excellent Gift of God than the highest Natural Faculty of Reason either weaken or render useless to us our Reason but both indeed both strengthen it and make it the more useful and comfortable whereof to Gods praise we are bold to say we have true experience notwithstanding of what I. A. or any of his insulting humour do or can say to the contrary There yet remains two other things in this first Section of I. A. which I think fit to notice One is That he alledgeth some of us understand by the more sure word of Prophecy the Scripture which is only to be taken heed unto until the day dawn and the day Star arise in the heart that is until the Holy Ghost be given and that consequently the Scriptures serve for nothing to belivers who are born with the Spirit and sealed therewith But seeing he has produced no Names of any among us understanding that more sure word of Prophecy to be the Scripture we are not concerned to Answer him It is possible that some in Discourse has only so argued with him ad hominem as they use to say and not as being their own judgment And as for the Scriptures we judge that they are profitable and ought to be Read by true Believers and renewed persons as well as others But when doth I. A. think that the day dawneth and the day Star ariseth in the hearts of believers Whether in this mortal State Yea or Nay and then whether the shining of Gods day and the day Star thereof be not a true immediate Revelation in the hearts of those who have it and whether it doth not more assure them who have it than the Letter of Scripture can do And seeing the Light of God in them when it shines in the heart but as in a dark place is a more sure Word than an audible voice from Heaven or than the Letter of the Scripture as to us what shall be said of that Light when it becometh not only as the day Star but as the day itself for clearness in the Soul Or can there be any greater or more principal rule than this The other thing I notice is That he inferreth the Scriptures to be a rule because Christ said to the Sadduces Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures Now if this Argument hold good seeing Christ said also Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the Power of God It will as well follow That the Power of God is the Rule and that the rather because it was their being ignorant of the Power of God which quickens both Soul and Body that made them ignorant of the Scriptures for none know truly the Scriptures but they who know the Power of God and therefore that Power which is Life Light and Spirit is the more principal and original rule But I. A. in citing these words of Christ omitted the following words which are exceeding weighty viz. no the Power of God whether this was purposely done of him to ensuare his unwary Reader or not I shall not determine but leave to his consideration CHAP. V. J. A. in the beginning of his second Section concerning the Rule is pleased to call me an Arch-Quaker the which Title I no wise acknowledge and a man too Learned as I employ it To which I Answer That as to my Learning that is but very ordinary and a thing I neither can nor ought to glory in However in this I rejoyce that the Testimony of my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit that any small measure I have of that called Learning it hath been my sincere aim and endeavour to employ it to Gods Honour and serve the Truth therewith and not in the least to use it against the Truth so far as it was or is made manifest unto me Next he blames me that I affirm The Scriptures are only but a secondory Rule of Faith and Manners but that the Spirit or his Dictate within is the Principal

Rule and like Proteus turning my self into all shapes sometimes I design Christ himself oftner the Spirit himself but oftnest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule But he might at that ra●e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes while he affirmeth sometimes That Christ spoke in him and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him was by a certain Word or dictate But to Answer directly when I say Christ is the Rule And again when I say the Spirit is the Rule there is no absurdness therein for if we mean by the Spirit the Holy Ghost Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men but their speech and Testimony is one and the same alwaies and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam the quickening Spirit and the Lord that Spirit and said Christ I am the way the Truth and the Life and certainly that Life is Spirit and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life as Christ said The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture and therefore whether I say Christ or the Spirit or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule it is to the same purpose And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule is no other than to say the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule and do not some of your selves use a variety of Speech when ye speak of the Rule one time saying The Scripture is the Rule another time The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule c. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expresly hath it Another time The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures c. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case that Proteus like he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural I leave unto sober men for to judge In the next place he argueth That Christ cannot be the Rule nor the Spirit because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition Direction or Precept and the like To this I Answer First That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition Direction or Precept formally understood in words formally conceived I altogether deny and I. A. hath not offered to prove it And although the Sp●rit of Christ may and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people yet he doth not alwaies so do when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them for if among men a King may signifie his mind to his Subjects or a Master to his servants without any formal Proposition or direction of words but only by some motion of his hand or face How much more may the Lord God who is the King of Kings signifie his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit without any formal or express words Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying Quis legem det amantibus major lex amor est ipse sibi which the Author of a late Book called The Life of God in the soul of man doth use to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians and Englisheth thus For who shall give a Law to them that Love Love 's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith God is Love he that knoweth God to be Love and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit which in Scripture is called The Spirit of Love shall not this man be tyed to love God and his Brethren yea and all mankind even his very enemies Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words do so and so Again whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart c. and thy Neighbour as thy self but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God or he that hath the love of God in his heart and feelleth the powerful constraint of it is under the most powerful Law Whether the words without or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within is the most powerful Law and Rule There may therefore be a Law or Rule which is not a complex Proposition of words either inward or outward to wit the Divine Love it self which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men in the silence of all words many times and can be understood as well without words as with them And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule I mean not that there is alwaies a dictate of express words but that which is either such a formal express dictate or equivalent thereunto which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox And thus by what I have said in this particular the intelligent Reader I hope shall perceive that in saying The Spirit is the Rule I am not beside my self as I. A. doth alledge but speak the words of Truth and soberness And I further ask Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Vsing the Holy Ghost for a Rule or Whether Paul was beside himself when he said The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life even as the Law of sin was sin and the Law of death was death And whether the Law of the Mind mentioned by Paul was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption that sometime had place in him and not any complex Proposition of words And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant be simply a form of words consisting of so many letters syllables and sentences or rather to speak properly is not that Law a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant naturally as it were to love God and all men even as the Law that God hath put in all