Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A90870
|
A serious exercitation upon, or an impassionate vindication of 1 John 5.20. This is the true God--in reference to a printed conference between Mr. Samuel Eaton, and Mr. John Knowles for the beating out of the truth concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ. / By Thomas Porter M.A. Minister of the Gospel at Whitchurch. Decemb. 26. 1650. Imprimatur, Edm. Calamy.
|
Porter, Thomas, d. 1667.
|
1651
(1651)
|
Wing P2998D; Thomason E621_9; ESTC R206411
|
19,159
|
28
|
by you let the learned judge when both Parties are heard fully Your crude expressions could not be pretermitted without such rude yet just Animadversions 3. The reducing of this your answer into an argument will be sufficient to discover its vanity and weaknesse as you be speak Master Eaton p. 51. The Epitome c. of this whole Epistle relates to the Father only But these words This is the true God and eternal life are such an Epitome Therefore Sir not to repeat the forenamed contradictions you your self being judge cannot but condemn the major of palpable falshood and if you would assay to prove it to use your own phrase would be an endlesse labour Your Minor is of the same stamp For in all reason the last vers 20. Babes keep your selves from idols should be a part of the Epitome if there be any suchthing of the whole Epistle specially consisting of Agenda as well as Credenda Practical as well as Doctrinal matter But how prove you the Minor Because say you they are as an intire body of themselves not depending on the words immediately preceding Is this all Sir your major implyed is false viz. The words which are As an intire body of themselves are the Epitome of this Epistle For are the words mentioned in the last verse an Epitome of the whole Epistle which yet are as an intire body of themselves c. and do they therefore relate to the Father only But how prove you that these words under examination are an intire body of themselves not having dependance on the words immediately foregoing It s probable you say because they are by a full point separated from them But Sir must probabilities passe for proofs and Criticisms for Syllogisms Among sundry instances even in this chapter to go no further I shall cull out one or two which I fairly present to your serious consideration It s said ver 3. And his Commandments are not grievous These words are by a full point separated in the Greek from the words immediately preceding yet must needs have dependance on them as evidently appears by the c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Relative HIS Again ver 7. it s said And these three are one Which words are so separated yet it s as clear as the Sun that they depend on the words immediately foregoing viz. The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost Again t is said v. 9. For this is the witnesse of God These words also are separated by a full point and yet they have dependance on the words immediately preceding as is manifest by the Conjunction d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 FOR and the Relative THIS yea in this very ver 20. And we are in him that is true even in his Sonne Jesus Christ These words are also separated by a full point yet if you adhere to Erasmus or Tindals reading and your own glosse thereupon they must have dependance on the words immediately foregoing You may if you please peruse the chapter and so be an eye-witnesse of more instances and you may more probably conclude that though these words are by a full point separated from the words immediately preceding yet they have a dependance on them If all this will not leave a conviction on your spirit may I not say with the Apostle in another case e James 2. 4. Are you not then partial in your self You have been unhappy in your first Answer sure you will be more successeful in the second which runs thus 2. Were it granted that these words This is the true God c. do depend on the foregoing words yet will it Mr. Knowles Sect. 2. not follow of necessity that the Son not the Father is the antecedent to the Relative THIS and so that the sentence must be thus understood This Son is the true God In the precedent words there is mention made of the Father And we know that the Son of God is come i.e. we beleevers assuredly know that the Son of God is already come in the flesh notwithstanding many at this time gainsay and deny it And hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true i.e. and this Jesus Christ being in the bosome of the Father and having received from him the promise of the Spirit hath annointed the eyes of our minds that we might savingly know him i.e. the true God as some Greek Copies have it And we are in him that is true c. If with Erasmus and Tindal we read the words thus And we are in him that is true through his Son Iesus Christ the meaning is this we have not only apprehension of but also union and Communion with him who is the true God by the means of his Son Jesus Christ but if we follow Piscator the words hold out that Omnes and fellowship which the Saints have with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ for thus he would have them read And we are in him that is true to wit the Father and in his Son Jesus Christ But last of all if we consent with Hierom who by making a redundant hath them thus * False for he reads thus And we are in his true Son And we are in this true Son Jesus Christ Now the words that follow relate to the Father This is the true God and the Apostle intends the Father Sir me thinks I see you here like a bird in a net hopping and fluttering to get out but all in vain For Reply 1. If by the foregoing words you mean immediately preceding as in your first answer it will and doth of NECESSITY follow that the Son not the Father is the Antecedent to the Relative THIS Weigh well the Argument If the words This is the true God depend on the words immediately foregoing then the Son and not the Father is the Antecedent to the Relative This. But these words This is the true God depend on the words immediately foregoing Therefore The Major is undeniable unlesse a man will deny snow to be white The Minor you seem to grant and so yield the cause If not I pray you tell me which are the words immediately foregoing the Relative THIS Are not these words Jesus Christ Look on the Original our English Translation or any of the three Versions mentioned by you and its evident there is nothing but a full point as you say between the words Iesus Christ and the Relative THIS 2. I know not to what purpose you mention three several readings and three several meanings accordingly unlesse it be to cast a mist before your Readers eyes as they say the fish Polypus doth cast out a black humour thereby to escape you fix not on any of these readings or meanings Orthodox Divines maintain it for a truth against Papists f Revera unicus duntaxat uniuscujusque loci Sacrae Scripturae sensus est Alsteds Praecog Theol. l. 2. c. 100. Vide Ames Prolegom in Psal 2. Chamier Panstrat Cath.
A Serious EXERCITATION Upon Or an Impassionate Vindication OF 1 John 5. 20. This is the true God In Reference to a printed Conference between Mr. SAMVEL EATON and Mr. JOHN KNOWLES for the beating out of the Truth concerning the DIVINITY of JESVS CHRIST By Thomas Porter M. A. Minister of the Gospel at Whitchurch Tamet si hunc locum eludere ARRIANI conati sunt illis HODIE subscribunt QUIDAM hîc tamen insigne habemus DIVINITATIS Christi Elogium Calv. in 1 John 5. 20. Omnes ANTICHRISTI Christum negant aliquo modo Verbis Hoc falsum Plurimi enim tam clarè professi sunt Iesum esse Christum quam ullus Catholicorum si sola verba attendas ARRIANI Nestoriani Eutychiani alii Chamier de Antichristo l. 17. c. 11. f. 4. ARRIUS erat staturâ valdè longus subtristi specie figuratus velut dolosus Serpens qui decipere posset omne innocens cor per VERSUTUM SUUM PRAETEXTUM DULCIS erat in COLLOQUIO persuadens semper animas ac BLANDIENS c. Epiph. l. 2. Tom. 2. Haeres 69. Decemb. 26. 1650. Imprimatur Edm. Calamy London Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Ralph Smith at the signe of the blew Bible in Cornhill near the Royal Exchange 1651. An Extract of a Letterwritten from some Ministers of the Gospel to the Author of the Exercitation or Vindication SIR WE blesse God that hath inclined your heart in your vacant hours specially in the sad time of Gods visitation to appear for Jesus Christ in a controversie of so high concernment As we cannot but acknowledge strength of parts in your adversary in his managing of so bad a cause howsoever streights as it fares with all in such engagements put him upon contradictions so we rejoyce to see your accurate diligence answered with such acutenesse that his wiles have no lurking hole left to avoid the force of Truth in your Answer We would fain see that eldest son of Anak fall The Lord in whose cause you engage give an happy successe c. To Master JOHN KNOWLES late Preacher at Chester SIR IT is reported of Valens a Jubet Valens edictum de Basilio in exilium mittendo conscribi quod cum sua manu ratum facere conaretur ne apicem quidem unum alicujus literae facere potuit siquidem ruptus est calamus neque id semel sed iterum ac tertio accidit Ac cum impium illud Edictum confirmate impensiùs laboraret concussa est dextera tremorque eum occupavit Atque cùm animo esset prae metu prope attonito chartam manibus dilaceravit Theodor. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 17. that Arrian Emperour that as he was attempting to signe an Edict for the banishing of Basil he could not write one tittle of a Letter Providence breaking his Pen three several times at the fourth assay his hand was stricken with a shaking Palsie and thereupon as a man affrighted with his own hands he tore in pieces the Paper In this you might have imitated him if the spirit of horrour had seized on you when you first put Pen to paper to print your conference with Master Eaton Howsoever you are beholding to free grace in sparing you who have not spared to rob Jesus Christ as much as in you lieth of his Deity I have no leasure to reply to your whole book though its feasible being for the most part but a Magazine of the rusty Armour of Arrius Samosatenus Servetus Socinus Valentinus Gentiles c. scoured up and trim'd anew I have only pitcht upon one Scripture and the rather because you b The words I confesse at the first blush seem to stand on your side Confer p. 11. hint it speaks most clearly for Master Eatons cause And if but this one Fort be maintained against your scaling Ladders battering Peeces and powder Mines you have no great reason to cry VICTORIA though you may be beaten off from the rest too notwithstanding your desperate assaults I have according to the advice of your High-flown Epistoler studied to reason and not to revile especially you being so much as by face unknown to me Beseeching you to draw with an unbyassed judgment and an unbrib'd affection your own c Conference p. 30. f. rule into Act Betake your self to reason whereby the spirit may convince you of WHOM the text under Examination is to be understood Let all be taken by you as tendred by me with a spirit of love and meeknesse And the Lord give you the Spirit of a sound mind and understanding in all things which is the Cordial prayers of him who is Yours if you be indeed for Christ T. P. AN EXERCITATION On 1 JOHN 5. 10. This is the true God and eternal life THese words relate not to the Son but to the Mr. Knowls p. 11. Sect. 1. Father only For 1. If we consider those words as an entire body of themselves not having dependance on the words immediately preceding as probably they have not being by a full point separated from them then they are the Epitome Abridgment or Summe of the whole Epistle And so the Apostles mind seems to be this This father which I have in this my Epistle treated of is the true God and this Iesus Christ of whom I have spoken and in whom ye have believed is eternal life i.e. the way to it 1. Sir consider how you can acquit your self from the Reply guilt of two contradictions 1. These words relate to the father AS AN INTIRE body of themselves Are the same words in the same respect absolute and not absolute relative and not relative is not here an implicit contradiction 2. You say line 10 11. The words relate not to the Son but to the Father only And yet you say line 20. These words viz. eternal life are spoken of Jesus Christ Is not here an explicit contradiction For if the words which you call an Epitome c. relate in whole or in part to the Son Jesus Christ then not to the Father ONLY 2. Consider whether you have observed the rule a Deut. 4. 1. with 12. 32. of not adding to the word when you say This Father and THIS Jesus Christ is eternal life I am sure that terme THIS is but once mentioned in the text under debate and that only in the beginning not in the middle of the sentence Indeed b Quaerat hic aliquis annon liceat addere verbo dei Glossas sive Declarationes Resp licet Dummodo illae sint consentaneae verbo Dei scripto genuinum Scripturae sensum ex ipsa sententiarum cohaerentia collatione Scripturae milium locorum aperiant Pisc in lec Obs 2. Piscator moves a question whether it be lawful to adde a Glosse or Exposition to the Word written and answers affirmatively with this Caution That it be agreeable to the Word and that it opens the genuine sense of Scripture c. Which whether it be observed