Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	bear_v	flesh_n	water_n	5,183	5	7.3915	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87231	The Quakers quaking: or, the foundation of their deceit shaken, by scripture, reason, their own mouthes at several conferences. By all which will appear, that their quaking, ministery, doctrine, and lives, is a meer deceit, and themselves proved to be the great impostors of these latter times: / by Jeremiah Ives.	Ives, Jeremiah, fl. 1653-1674.	1656 (1656)	Wing I1103; Thomason E883_3; ESTC R207296	36,620	64

Because I have purged thee and thou wast not purged that is as if God had said I have done that which was sufficient for thy purgation And the like in Joh. 1.29 Christ is called The Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world though he that believes not shall dye in his sins the meaning then must not be that every man hath his sins pardoned In like manner then when the same pen saith that as he taketh away the sins of the world ver 29. so he doth inlighten every one that comes into the world ver 9. which is as much as if he had said Jesus Christ by his blessed mediation hath done that which is able to effect pardon of sins for the world and which also is able to inlighten and inform the world into the knowledge of it How then doth this Text prove That every man hath this Light within him any more then the other Texts proves every mans sins were took away the latter of which themselves will not allow But further if every man hath received this Light Joh. 1. then every man hath received Christ for he is that Light ver 9. But every man hath not received Christ Ergo. The minor I prove from the 11 ver of the same Chapter He came to his own and his own received him not and the Builders were said to refuse him Matth. 21.42 and many other places But if they shall think to be relieved at this turn with this distinction viz. That it is one thing to have the Light and another thing to receive it Then I demand If this Light was not received how can it be in all men unless they are born with it Secondly whether men HAVE ANY THING but what they have RECEIVED according to I Cor. 4.7 especially any Light or Knowledge of Jesus Christ Lastly whether the Scriptures do make a distinction between a mans having the Spirit of Christ or the Light of Christ within him and his receiving Christ and receiving of the Spirit within him or in his heart as the Apostle phrases it Rom. 8. But to proceed Doth not the Scripture say John 11.10 That He that walks in the dark stumbles because there is NO LIGHT in him And Isa 8.20 If they speak not according to this rule it is because there is NO LIGHT in them and yet these say Every man in the world hath the Light within him spoken of John 1. which Light is Christ Thirdly In opposition to another of their Errours I shall prove That the day of Judgement is not past which I prove thus If the Heavens and the Earth are reserved to the Fire of that Judgement-day then is it not past already But the Heavens and the Earth are reserved to the fire of that day therefore that day is not past already The major is unquestionable For if they are yet kept from the fire of that day and are reserved to the fire of it then it followeth That none bath seen that day because the Heavens have not felt the heat of it The minor is proved out of 2 Pet. 3.7 Again if the day of the perdition of the ungodly be not past then the day of Judgement is not But the day of the perdition of the ungodly is not therefore the day of Judgement is not Again if in that day all must give account of the deeds done in the body and there are thousands and ten thousands that have not given an account then it follows that the day of Judgement is not past But there are thousands and ten thousands that have not given an account of the deeds done in the body therefore the day of Judgement is not past already Again if the day of Judgement be past already then the Resurrection is past already But the Resurrection is not past already Ergo. The major I prove from John 5.29 The minor I prove thus In the Resurrection they neither marry nor give in marriage But now men do both therefore they are not in the Resurrection Fourthly They say There is no Baptism but that of the Spirit In opposition to which I do affirm a Baptism with water which I prove from Mark 16.16 and Matth. 28.19 * Act 2.38 41. 8.3 6. 10.4 7. And that the baptism here commanded was water-baptism it appears by what I have already said by way of Reply to this notion Also the Scripture tells us Heb. 6. of the Doctrine of BAPTISMS And whereas it is objected That the Scripture tells us of one Lord and one Baptism I answer First this is not exclusive for there are Lords many yet he saith There is but one Lord Jesus So in like manner we reade of divers baptisms as of water and afflictions and the holy Ghost yet there is but one properly so call'd to wit That of water and the other are metaphorical baptisms Fifthly That the Lord Christ did administer bread and wine in token of his blood-shedding and bodybreaking which they deny This I prove from Mai. 26.27 28. where Christ did use both bread and wine upon that occasion and that the Apostles did so appears from 1 Cor. 11.23 where he saith That that which he received of the Lord he did deliver unto them how that Christ when he was betrayed took bread and ver 25. In like manner saith the Apostle he took the Cup when he had supped c. All which shew That bread and wine was instituted by Christ and practised by the Primitive Christians in remembrance of the dyings of the Lord Jesus Sixthly That civil honour and respect is due to some persons more then other which they deny First from the childe to the father as Exod. 20.12 Eph. 6.2 Secondly from the wise to the husband Eph. 5.33 and 1 Pet. 3.6 Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him LORD Thirdly this is due from servants to their Masters 1 Tim. 6.1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their Masters worthy of All honour c. Fourthly it is due from young solks to the aged Levit. 19.32 Thou shalt rise up before the boary head and honour the face of the old man and fear thy God or as Beza hath it Thou shalt honour the PERSON of the old man Fifthly this respect is due to persons in Authority as not onely the Apostle exhorts I Pat. 2.17 but as Paul himself practiseth as I have said when he calls Festw Most Noble and our Lord Christ notes the unjust Judge for one that did not reverence man Luke 18.2 and yet the Quakers make it a note of their infallible Ministery that they do not reverence men when Christ makes it a character of a wicked man This was urged by James Nayler at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate viz. That their not respecting persons was a sign they were immediately sent of God as I have already minded Again was not Jacob a faithful man and doth not the Scripture say that he called Esau LORD Gen. 32.18 Gen. 33.13

world in general but more especially out of love to my Brethren whose feet many of them are taken in this Snare not knowing that they are for their lives And if God shall bless these Lines either to the prevention of the falling of them who through grace yet stand or to the restoring of those that are fallen or if otherwise I have mistaken any thing God will bring this good of my mistake if in case any be found as to raise up and provoke some one or other to make my mistake manifest If by these Lines I obtain any of these ends which I do not much question then sure I am that I have not run in vain but shall give God the glory while I am able to subscribe my self Jeremiah Ives POSTSCRIPT READER AFter I sent my book to the Press I had another Conference with James Nayler on the 22 of June 1656. at the Bull and Mouth neer Aldersgate which was as followeth The people being met and James Nayler standing up to speak I did desire that James Nayler would prove that which he had so often afferted viz. That every man in the world had the Light within him spoken of in John 1. To this James Nayler replyed saying That Christ did inlighten every man that came into the world according to Joh. 1. To this I answered That I did not oppose the saying of that Text but his saying which was That every one in the world had the Light within him Spoke of in that Text. To this James Nayler replies saying He would have me bring him a man in that place that would say the Light of Christ was not in him To this I did answer First that every man in the world was not in that place and therefore if every one in that place should say This Light was in them it did not follow that therefore that Light spoken of Joh. 1. was in every one in the world But secondly I told him That if every one in that place would say they had this Light in them it did 〈…〉 as I fear many of this generation do I did therefore bid James Nayler to give me a Scripture to prove that every one had the Light within them spoken of Joh. 1. He answers That it was proved already in every mans Conscience but saith he it is not evidenced for if it were there would need no Teaching To this I replyed that if it were proved to every mans conscience then it was EVIDENCED for proof and evidence to the conscience was one and the same which he denied I further told him That the conscience might be misguided and therefore it did not follow that a thing is therefore true because a man in conscience thinks it so I therefore as before call'd for a plain Text for proof of what he said He thereupon brings Eph. 5.13 2 Cor. 4.6 I told him Neither of these Scriptures did prove That every man in the world had the Light within him spoken of Joh. 1. and therefore if he had any Scripture that said it he would do well to produce it and if not to forbear preaching any such thing that he could shew no Scripture for Hereupon James assumes an Apostolical Authority and saith That though there were no Scripture that said what he said yet it might be true for saith he the Apostles said many things that THEY had no Scripture for To this I replyed That he was no Apostle and therefore as before call'd for a proof of this notion that they preach in most places where they come viz. That everyone hath this Light within him He hereupon demanded How Christ was the Light that lighteth every one that comes into the world if this Light was not in every one To this I did answer as formerly That God and Christ were usually said in Scripture-dialect to do things for the world when they did use a means sufficient for the doing of it and so Christ is said to take away the sin of the world and to be the Saviour of the world and the Saviour of ALL men though all men shall not be saved inasmuch as he hath by his dying for the world put all men into a salvable capacity In like manner he lighteth every one that comes into the world inasmuch as he useth means for the bringing the world to the Light though all have not this Light WITHIN them Again I told James Nayler That this Light in Joh. 1. was Christ who is the Light of the world and if every one had this Light in them then every one had Christ in them But I told him that could not be because we reade Eph. 2. of some that were WITHOUT Christ I further told him That the Scriptures told us of some that had NO Light in them Joh. 11.10 Isa 8.20 He answered That possibly God had put out their Light because they did not walk according to it To this I did reply That then he did contradict himself for if some had no Light in them because God had put it out How could he say EVERY ONE HATH this Light IN him But further the Text in Joh. 11. saith that If A MAN walks in the dark he stumbles BECAUSE there is NO Light IN him Now I told James Nayler That those that he sayes he turns from darkness are such as WALK in darkness by their own confession and if so then whether it be not better to say with the Texts There is no light in him then to say contrary to the Text with the Quakers that when men walk in darkness The light of Christ is in them Hereupon James Nayler asked If the heathen had not a Light I told him first that they might have a light among them that they might not receive within them And secondly that though they had a Light in them yet this did not prove that the Light which they had was the Light spoken of Joh. 1. which Light is Christ Jesus which is the thing they affirm I therefore did intreat him to reconcile their Doctrine with Joh. 11.10 Their Doctrine is that Every one hath the Light of Christ within him John saith If a man walk in the dark he stumbleth because there is NO Light IN him To this James Nayler replyed that there were two seeds in man and there was an old man and a new man and a man born after the flesh and a man born after the Spirit so that saith he he that is the old man and born after the flesh he hath no Light in him I then asked him How every one that comes into the world hath the light of Christ in him if he that is born after the flesh have not the Light within him for as I then told him no man comes into the world but he is born after the flesh He answers that I spake like a Sot in saying that very man that came into the world was born after the flesh for saith he Christ was not born after

and yet you are so impudent as to say That None can come but they that come to perfection The fourteenth Errour is 14 Error That James Nayler in his book call'd Love to the Lost p. 23 speaking of the Lords Supper saith That at all seasons whensoever they eat or drink they were to have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord in their eating and drinking though it were at the Gentiles or Unbelievers Table alluding to that place of Scripture 1 Cor. 10.27 And another of them in a Book of theirs call'd Truths Defence against refined Subtilty pag. 100. calls a man Carnal Sot for asking whether Paul did administer the Lords Supper with Bread and Wine and thereupon demands Whether the Apostles did give to the Corinthians Bread and Wine The fifteenth Errour is That James Parnel in his Book call'd A Shield of Truth hath these words viz. That he denies all Baptism but that of the holy Ghost and Fire See page 12. Another of them in a Book call'd Truths Defence against refined Subtilty hath these words he being asked Whether Christ did command his Disciples to baptize with water or whether they did baptize with water he answers That the querent had shewed his subtilty in being ignorant of the Letter alluding to that place Matth. 28.19 But I demand Why these perfect men cannot speak perfect sense for what subtilty is it for a man to be ignorant yet he tells his querent he hath shewed his subtilty in being ignorant But to the thing it self viz. That there is no baptism but that of the Spirit and Fire when as the Scripture tells us of a baptism with water which is also required of them that do believe But to evade the force of the Scriptures that speak in the behalf of water-baptism they use to say That water-baptism did end when other Ceremonies of the Law ended but after the Resurrection of Christ it was not to be practised To which I answer That it was by Christ commanded after that he rose from the dead See Mat. 28. and Mark 16.16 But if any shall say This was to baptize with the Holy Ghost I demand First Whether that this baptism was not peculiar to Christ himself as appears by John's words Matth. 3.11 HE meaning Christ shall baptize with the holy Ghost and fire Secondly Whether that if the command of Mat. 28. and Mark 16. be for to command the Apostles to baptize with the holy Ghost and fire they did ever obey it if they did shew when and where Thirdly Whether we may not judge that the baptizing men and women in water in the Name of Christ which the Apostles frequently did was not in obedience to some Commission they had received from their Lord If so Fourthly Do you shew us where and when their Lord gave them a command so to do if this of Mat. 28. and Mark 16. was not it If you shall say They did it in order to the peoples weaknesses as Paul's circumcising Timothy was then I demand Fifthly Whether Paul did in the Name of the Lord Jesus impose Circumcision upon Timothy if not How doth this parallel with the case in hand viz. water-baptism which Peter Acts 10. doth command in the Name of the Lord But if you shall say That baptism with water was not commanded but left to liberty I demand Sixthly Whether to command a thing to be done in the Lords Name which he commands not be not to sin take his Name in vain See to this purpose Deut. 18.20 But the Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in my Name which I have not commanded him to speak c. even the same Prophet shall dye Seventhly And whereas it is alledged That water-baptism is a thing of indifferency that may be done or lawfully left undone I demand Whether it was not then as great a sin in Peter Acts 10. to command the doing of it in the Name of the Lord as it was for men to forbid to marry or to command to abstain from meats 1 Tim. 4.2 3. seeing that to command the doing of that which God hath left to liberty is a sin of equal extent with the forbidding of that he hath left to liberty Eighthly But if it shall be said as sometimes it is That they in the Primitive Times did receive water-baptism because they had a command immediately so to do and therefore we are not to be baptized till so commanded I answer First how will this be proved that all they that were then-baptized were so commanded is not the contrary to this easily made manifest from Acts 2. and Acts 8. and many other places where the people were mediately by means of the Apostles preaching put upon this duty and not by extraordinary Revelations But to the main Question and that is this Whether or no that this very Principle doth not lay all other Precepts waste and excuse the observance of them till I am immediately inspired thereto I believe if a man did owe a Quaker a sum of money he would be loth to be served as he would have men serve Christ As for instance Suppose I did owe James Nayler a sum of money and he should desire me to pay him and should urge this Scripture Owe nothing to any man as an argument to perswade me to pay him what if I should say It is true James this was a command to them that could witness it in themselves and when by an immediate power they were inspired to the observance of it then they were to do it but till then they did not sin in omitting of it and therefore when I can witness this Text within me I will pay thee thy money Do you think they would count this fair dealing yet in this manner would they have men deal with the commands of our Lord Jesus and the truth of it is this evasion of the command of baptism doth as forcibly evade all other Precepts in the whole Bible By this the Reader may see that these men would make the commands of God of none effect by their tradition The sixteenth Errour that I shall insist upon is 16 Error That though they say they are perfect yet they are inconsistent with themselves as appears First in as much as they make it their daily practice to preach That every man in the world hath a light within him according to that Text John 1. And yet one of their Scribes asketh a Minister of the Nation Whether he had that light which doth lighten every one that comes into the world * See for this a book of theirs cal'd Truths defence p. 3 Oh horrible blindness Did ever any man in his right wits ever ask such a question having over and over asserted that every man hath that light spoken of John 1 and yet to ask a man Whether he hath that light spoken of John 1. Surely this man did not understand that the party of whom he demanded the