Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	ghost_n	holy_a	word_n	31,891	5	4.5048	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66432	A vindication of the answer to the popish address presented to the ministers of the Church of England in reply to a pamphlet abusively intituled, A clear proof of the certainty and usefulness of the Protestant rule of faith, &c.	Williams, John, 1636?-1709.	1688 (1688)	Wing W2739; ESTC R10348	38,271	45

bear Witness on Earth and which we know to be only morally One doth not expound what that Unity is that is found in the Three which bear record in Heaven We ask a proof out of Scripture to decide this doubt but our Answerer hath none to give us or is grown Churlish and will not allow us any Hath he any to expound the other Text No not any but he offers at some Insinuation from Scripture and `t is this When Christ said I and my Father are One the Jews took up stones to stone him for blasphemy because that thou being a Man said they makest thy self God The Jews then understood him to have spoken of a Natural Vnion therefore he did so Well I will let my good nature work upon me once and for quiets sake I will let this Discourse pass as allowable But in return of Curtesy I hope each sober Protestant will own this following Argument to be of at least as good Alloy When Christ said Joh. 6. Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man you have no Life in you The Jews who said how can this man give us his Flesh to eat and his Disciples who walked no more with him understood that he spake of his natural Body which they should corporally eat therefore Christ did really mean they should corporally feed on his natural Flesh This Popish Conclusion is in the same Form. This is the first Instance of Scripture's obscurity in matters necessary offered by the Addresser And here the Answerer shewed in general how frivolous and absurd the way of arguing used on this matter by that Author was to which we have not a word of Reply and then particularly that the two Scriptures viz. 1 John 5. 7. and John 10. 30. usually insisted on amongst others in proof of the Doctrine of the Trinity remain in their full force notwithstanding what the Addresser had objected against them But to this the Prover now Replies There is not one Text of Scripture to give us the dubious Sense of the two in Question What means he Would he have Texts to prove the Father the Word and Holy Ghost to be three Divine Persons That was not the Answerer's part to prove or if it was he might send him to his Friend Bellarmin who in Proof of the Deity of our Saviour has collected about 100 Texts of the Old and New Testament Would he have some Chapter and Verse where are these or the like Words The word One in the first Epistle of St. John Item in St. John 's Gospel signifies a strict Identity yes by all means for saith the Addresser This ought to be if all necessaries to Salvation are contained in Scripture I thought our Author might by this time have been sensible of this weakness certainly this Gentleman's Condition calls for some Commiseration and he would do well to advise upon it whether the Scripture was originally divided into Chapter and Verse and whether Hugo Cardinalis and Robert Stephens were not very Ignorant or unadvised to Labour in this Work anew if so it had been But is there no other way to give the Sense of these Texts Suppose we consider the Words and Phrases the Context and Scope of the Places in question and compare them with others and from all draw some good and substantial Reasons will not that be as proper and as much to the purpose as if we had Chapter and Verse in his way And this was the way taken by the Answerer As for Example in 1 John 5. 7. 1. It was there observed that it 's as plainly said the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are One as that they are Three 2. That the Union betwixt these Three was not a mere moral Union or a Union only of Will and Consent for the Apostle makes a plain difference betwixt the Three that bear Record in Heaven and the Three that bear Witness in Earth For of the Three in Heaven it 's said they are One but of the Three in Earth they agree in one Of this the Prover saith I will admit this English Translation agree in one tho Apocryphal Why an English Translation or why Apocryphal Unless it be that it 's nor Verbatim according to what they call the Authentick Vulgar Translation For otherwise their own Clarius and Bellarmin c. do thus translate it Conveniunt in unum conspirant in unum But admit this saith he What then Then the Answerer thus proceeded in his Argument Now if it had been a mere moral Vnion that was betwixt the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost who are the Three in Heaven it would have been as well said of them as of the Spirit the Water and the Blood which are the Three in Earth that they agree in one Here the Prover exults Is not this special Logic Would not this way of arguing prove equally that the Believers are one with more than a moral Vnion because otherwise it might as well have been said Joh. 17. May they agree in one As for the Logic it is Bellarmin's as well as the Answerer's who from the different Phrases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus argues Whence you may plainly see that the Spirit Water and Blood are not One as the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost but only do agree in one Testimony And as for the Inference the Prover makes Would not this way of Arguing prove c. I answer the Case is not alike For 1. The Force of the Argument doth not lie merely upon the difference of Phrase for both Bellarmin and the Answerer knew how One is sometimes applied to a Moral Union as John 17. but upon its being used in this place by way of distinction betwixt things of a different nature for proof of which it 's to be observed that the Apostle designing to shew the validity of the Testimony given to the Son of God v. 5. which was twofold he further amplifies this and distinctly speaks to each of them ver 7. and tho both do give Testimony to the same Truth yet one in an higher and the other in a lower degree As 1. There are Three that bear Record in Heaven and Three in Earth 2. The Three in Heaven are One and the Three in Earth agree in One. By which way of arguing and the distinction observed betwixt them the Apostle shows That the Three that bear Record in Heaven are not more different in their Nature and Place from the Three in Earth than in their Union That they are both alike Three and both alike in their Testimony but that the one are in Heaven the other in Earth The Three in Heaven are One but the Three in Earth agree in One So that the Three in Earth are no more One as the Three in Heaven than the Three that bear Record in Earth are the Three that bear Record in Heaven 2. In confirmation of this it 's observable

of God as his Plenipotentiary Where first his account of a Moral Vnion is very extravagant as if the being employed by another would make him for that reason to be Morally one with him that employs him but that Author is to be pardoned who understands not the difference betwixt a Moral and Political Union And again he shewed himself not acquainted with the matter of Fact when he saith the Heresie of Nestorius consisted in this that he denied Christ to be united to the Word otherwise than Morally whereas St. Cyril saith he granted that Emanuel or Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was constituted and compounded of the Word of God and an Intelligent Soul and a Body But then saith he he divided one Christ into Two so that he that is born of the Virgin is perfect man and the other the Word of God the one mere man the other true God The Word the true and Eternal Son of God but that which is born of the Virgin is equivocally the Son of God. Thus that Father But he will say I am now better informed Thanks to the Answerer who gently intimated to him that he was out of the way and to his Friend that has since set him in the right But after all was there not one word in the Answer as to the Vnity of one Person uniting these two Natures Let him but cast his eye upon it again and he will see this to be the Conclusion of the Argument Then there must be in him Christ two Natures united which is the Incarnation If the Incarnation be the Union of two Natures in Christ the Word and this was rightly inferred from what went before then what shall I say Our Author has not dealt fairly with his Adversary And if this be to be a Nestorian then so was St. Cyril so was the Couneil that condemncd him for so St. Cyril describes the Incarnation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Word was united to a Body informed by a Rational Soul. Q. 6. The first branch of this Question is What Scripture hath absolved us from obeying one of the Commandments which imposes the keeping of Saturday holy The second What Text of Scripture exacts of us the keeping holy as the Lords day the Sunday Ans To the first part not one word of Scripture and for excuse he tells us That there was no need of an express abrogation because Sunday being set apart for the publick and solemn Worship of God the Sabboth-day as well as the Holy-days and New-moons of the Jews being a shadow must surrender to the Sunday Here is as little Reason as Scripture for the Sabboth did appertain to the Law of Nature and was not a shadow only of a thing to come but a memory of the past and never-to-be-forgotten benefit of the Creation from the work whereof God rested on that day and blessed the seventh day Here 't is pity at what a loss the Answerer is to find the Chapter and Verse wherein the abrogation of Circumcision is clearly exprest 'T is a charitable condescendency to instruct him let him look then in Gal. 5. 2. where behold Paul tells you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For the second part he produces a Text Rev. 1. 10. I was in spirit on the Lords day then he flourishes to teach us ignorant people that 't is usual in Scripture after that Times Places Things and Persons were set apart for the service of God by Divine Institution to have his Name as a mark of propriety given to them But in the name of sense and reason what means all this There is a Lords day no doubt St. John was in spirit that day 't is certain but the question is What day of the week was it or was it only some peculiar day of the year as Easter-day or Good-friday Hath he Scripture for this Not one word I find forty Texts that call the day of general Judgment or that of each man's death the Lord's day but not one that mentions Sunday under that name I find Act. 2. 46. how they that believed were daily continuing with one accord in the Temple or breaking Bread from house to house but not a word of a day appointed for stated Assemblies Scripture failing our Adversary he seeks supplies from Reason but the misfortune is that the first and chiefest he offers at stands against him The Moral Sabboth says he in the Patriarchal Church and the Ceremonial in the Jewish Church were on the days following the Creation and Deliverance from the Slavery of Aegypt True but what follows Therefore 't is not to be kept by Christians on the day in which Christ rested after he had accomplish`d our Redemption on the Cross by a solemn Consummatum est and his precious Death Not on Saturday Raillery aside what can be I will not say more dull but spoken more directly in spight of sense and reason Our Author for convenience to himself has transposed the Questions so that the first in the Address is now the last Let him quietly enjoy the benefit of it I shall begin as he now begins Q. 1. What Scripture hath absolved us from c. To this I gave in short a Threefold answer 1. He requiring Chapter and Verse I told him When he could find out Chapter and Verse for an express and clear abrogation of Circumcision I would shew him Chapter and Verse for that of the Sabbath Here out of his abundant charitable condescendency he vouchsafes to instruct me and hands me to Gal. 5. 2. Where behold Paul tells you that if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing And yet I do not find there is a clear and express abrogation of it An Abrogation is a total abolition of it and if it was abrogated so as that whoever was thereafter Circumcised could have no profit by Christ then all so Circumcised were in a state of Damnation And here it would be fit to know when this abrogation did commence For Act. 16. 3. we find Paul to Circumcise Timothy and not long before St. Paul's being a Prisoner and being carried to Rome the solemn Assembly declared that there were many thousands of the Jewish Christians which were zealous of the Law and that St. Paul was reputed to be too forward in teaching the Gentiles ought not to circumcise their children Act. 21. 20 21. So that the Apostle's censure of it is not to be universally understood but is only a preventing of their imposing it upon the Gentiles and requiring it as necessary to Justification and Salvation And of these that held it thus necessary he saith If ye be circumcised upon these terms Christ shall profit you nothing if ye are justified and expect justification by the Law ye are fallen from grace ver 4. 2. I shewed there was no more a need of an express abrogation of the Sabbath than there was of the abrogation of Circumcision because if