Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	according_a	know_v	word_n	2,143	5	3.8658	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47124	The arguments of the Quakers, more particularly, of George Whitehead, William Penn, Robert Barclay, John Gratton, George Fox, Humphry Norton, and my own arguments against baptism and the Supper, examined and refuted also, some clear proofs from Scripture, shewing that they are institutions of Christ under the Gospel : with an appendix containing some observations upon some passages in a book of W. Penn called A caveat against Popery, and on some passages of a book of John Pennington, caled The fig leaf covering discovered / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1698 (1698)	Wing K142; ESTC R7322	106,695	121

Man Christ and because the Fulness is not in us and never was or shall be in any Man but in the Man Christ Jesus alone that was Born of the Virgin therefore he and he only because of the Fulness of Grace and Truth that was and is in him was Ordained and Appointed to be the Great and only and alone Sacrifice for the Sins of the World being the Head of the Body which is his Church it was only proper that the Sufferings that should be in the Head only should be that compleat only and alone Satisfactory and Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Men As the Arguments above mentioned in my Queries to G. Whitehead and W. Penn do plainly demonstrate And though in Christ when he Suffered for the Sins of the World at his Death his Godhead did not Suffer yet all that was in him the Godhead excepted did Suffer Note again Reader That although I find no cause to give an Answer to the Book of John Pennington above-mentioned called The Fig-Leaf Covering c. Because I had said in my second Narrative p. 33. that very Book being a pretended Answer to my Book of Explications and Retractations is such a plain and evident Discovery of his Unjust and Unfair Proceedings against me whereof the whole second Days Meeting who hath approved his Book is Guilty and of his Ignorance and Perversness of Spirit in Perverting my Words that I see no need to give any other Answer to him or direct to any other Answer either to his Fig-Leaf c. or his Book Keith against Keith or any other his Books but his own very Book and Books compared fairly with my Books Quoted by him and particularly that of my Explications and Retractations yet because I find divers Passages in that Book of his plainly prove him and his Brethren of the second Days Meeting extreamly Erroneous in the great things of the Christian Doctrin some of them being Fundamental therefore I shall take notice of the following Passages partly to give the Reader a tast of his Unfair Dealing towards me and partly to shew his being still Erroneous in some great Fundamentals of the Christian Faith together with his Brethren of the second Days Meeting who have approved his Fig-Leaf In his 19 and 20 Pages he will needs fasten a Contradiction on me That one time by the Flesh of Christ John 6. I mean an inward invisible Substance and the Eating an inward invisible Eating But now in my Retractations I Assert that to believe in Christ as he gave his Body of Flesh outwardly to be broken for us is the Eating of his Flesh as well as the inward Enjoyment of his Life in us And to confirm the Contradiction he Quotes me saying Immed Revel p. 258. This Body of Christ of which we partake is not that which he took up when he came in the Flesh outwardly but that which he had from the beginning Ans First It is no Contradiction to say the Eating of Christ's Flesh John 6. is to believe not by a bare Historical Belief but by a living sincere Faith Wrought in us by the Spirit of Christ that Christ gave his outward Body to be broken for us and also that it is the inward Enjoyment of his Life in us as it is no Contradiction to say Christ is our Intire and compleat Saviour both as he came outwardly in the Flesh Dyed and Rose again c. And as he cometh inwardly by his Spirit into our Hearts and dwelleth in us by Faith And as concerning that Quotation Immed Rev. p. 258. by this Body in that place I did mean that which is only Allegorically called his Body to wit that Middle of Communication above mentioned that is indeed a Spiritual and invisible Substance owned by R.B. as well as by me and many others And I say still this invisible Spiritual Substance in the Saints is not that visible Body of Christ which he assumed when he came in the Flesh outwardly yet this is not to make two Bodies of Christ because the one is called his Body only in a Metaphorical Sense Ans 2. In my Book of Retractations p. 25. I had plainly Retracted and Corrected that Passage in p. 25. Recor. Corr. That by Christ's Flesh and Blood John 6.50 51. He meaneth only Spirit and Life acknowledging that it was at most an Oversight in me but how doth this prove me a Changling in an Article of Faith As he infers very Injurously May not a Man change his Judgment concerning the Sense of a particular place of Scripture without changing an Article of Faith That such a Change may be without a Change in an Article of Faith is acknowledged by all Sober Writers and Expositors of Scripture Yea there are many places of Scripture that some understand one way and others not that way but another and others a third way and yet all have one Faith in point of Doctrin Ans 3. What a Man Retracts in one Book or part of a Book he ought to be understood to Retract the same Passage where it can be found in another Part or Book of his nor ought he to be Charged with Contradiction in what he hath Retracted For as I have formerly said in Print they are only Chargable with Contradictions that without Retractation holds Contradictory Assertions simul semel i. e. both together Page 22. He will not permit me to use that Distinction to say I had not my Knowledge from them viz. The Scriptures as being the efficient Cause but I did not deny that I had my Knowledge by them Instrumentally to wit the Doctrinal Knowledge and Faith I had of Gospel Truths he Quibbles upon the Word from as if it could not signifie sometimes the efficient Cause and sometimes the Instrumental whereas a School Boy knoweth that it hath these several Significations and more also And seeing what I then Writ in my Book of Immed Rev. was owned by the Quakers it plainly followeth That according to J.P. the Words of Scripture are not a Means so much as Instrumentally to our Knowledge of the Truths of Christian Doctrin But how will he Reconcile this to W. Penn who doth acknowledge that the Scriptures are a Means to know God Christ and our selves See his Rejoynder p. 115. where he expresly saith We never denied the Scriptures to be a means in God's Hand to Convince Instruct or Confirm By we its plain W. P. meant all the Quakers and consequently G. K. being then owned to be one of them Page 39. He will not allow that what I have Quoted out of my Immed Revel p. 243. to p. 247. proves that I did then hold the Man Christ without us in Heaven to be the Object of our Faith though he grants my Words that I said The Man Christ who Suffered in the Flesh at Jerusalem is the Spring out of which all the living Streams flow into our Souls and that he is to be Prayed unto which he saith none of us

Dead nor need the inward and outward Baptisme be strictly called two Baptisms more than England and a Map of England are called two England's or the Law writ in the Heart and the same writ in Paper are two Laws And thus I hope I have fully examined and answered to the Argument both of G. Whitehead and R.B. from 1 Pet. 3.21 as the impartial intelligent Reader may perceive SECT IV. THE third Argument used by G. Whitehead is the same for Matter that is used by R.B. in the Treatise above cited p. 30. which they bring from Paul's words 1 Cor. 1.17 where Paul said that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the Gospel The reason of that Consequence saith R. B is undeniable because the Apostle Paul 's Commission was as large as that of any of them And whereas it hath been answered to this by them who holds that Baptisme with Water is a Gospel Institution from Matth. 28.19 that the Sense of Paul's words is that he was not sent principally to Baptize not that he was not sent at all as where it is said Hos 6.6 I desired mercy and not sacrifice But this parity R.B. doth except against because this place is abundantly explained by the following words and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings But there is no such words added in that of Paul And against this manner of interpreting Paul's words he thus argueth else we might interpret by the same rule all other places of Scriptures the same way as where the Apostle saith 1. Cor. 2.5 That your faith might not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God it might be understood it shall not stand principally so How might the Gospel by this liberty of interpretation be perverted Ans As we are not to Interpret all other Places of the like Phrase so else great harm would follow in giving false Interpretations of Scripture so we ought to Interpret diverse places of Scripture so to wit by adding the word only or more or principally otherwise the like harm would follow as where it is said 1. John 3.18 Let us not love in word nor in tongue but indeed and in truth and Rom. 2.13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God c. John 14.24 The word which you hear is not mine but the Fathers which sent me Matth. 15.24 I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel John 4.42 We believe not because of thy saying Matth. 10.20 It is not ye that speak c. In these and diverse the like places of Scripture the word principally or more or rather though not expressed is understood and there is a good Rule whereby to know when any such word when not expressed is necessarily understood as when without any such word understood or implyed when not expressed it would contradict some other place of Scriptures or any true consequence from Scripture or true Reason as is manifest in the present Case for Paul telleth in the same Chapter that he Baptized some of the Church of Corinth which he ought not to have done without a Commission for as to what is alledged that he and others did Baptize by Permission and not by Commission as when he Circumcised Timothy it was by Permission and not by Commission which conceit I grant I had formerly entertained as well as R.B. being swayed by the assumed Authority of them we esteemed our Elders pretending they did so Interpret the Scriptures by Divine Inspiration But finding their Pretences to be palpably false in many other things of greater weight occasioned me to examine their pretended Inspirations in this also which I desire to praise God for his true Illumination I found to be false Now that Paul's Circumcising Timothy was not by Commission is certain because sometimes afterwards he did earnestly oppose the practice of it but we never find that he or any else in Scripture opposed the practice of Baptisme with Water or spoke so slightly of it as he did of Circumcision he did not say if any of you be Baptized Christ should profit you nothing as he said if any of you be Circumcised and he submitted to Baptisme himself and received it Acts 9.18 compared with Acts 22.16 Though I find that W. Penn calleth it in question whether this was Baptisme with Water which bespeaketh as great inadvertency in him as when he had printed in his Christian Quaker that Jesus Christ was born at Nazareth And as for Paul's saying he thanked God he Baptized none of the Corinthians but such and such it only proveth that he judged Preaching to be his principal work as indeed it was for had he Baptized all to whom he Preached and who were Converted by his Ministry it would have been too great a hindrance to his Preaching and as Paul Preached to many whom he did not Baptize so did the other Apostles therefore we find not either Peter or John or any of the other Apostles after our Saviour's Resurrection Baptized all to whom they Preached but left it to be done in great part by others and whereas some have argued that if Baptisme had been a Gospel Precept Paul would not have said he thanked God he had Baptized so few of them This Argument hath no force for he did not thank God simply that he did not Baptize but that he had Baptized so few of them lest they should say he had Baptized in his own Name which sheweth that the occasion of the Division that was among the Corinthians at that time was about Baptisme and that they had too much an eye to those who had Baptized them so as to denominate themselves after them And whereas R.B. saith p. 32.33 Let it from this be considered how the Apostle Excludes Baptizing not Preaching though the abuse mark proceeded from that no less than from the other for these Corinthians did denominate themselves from those different Persons by whose Preaching as well as from those by whom they were Baptized they were Converted as by the 4 5 6 7. and 8 Verses of the third Chapter may appear Ans But that the Preaching of these different Persons was the occasion of this Division among the Corinthians doth not appear from the Verses Cited nor any where else for Paul and Apollo Preached the same Doctrine to them but we no where find that there Preaching occasioned any Division but suppose it had on the supposition that some of the Corinthians might esteem the Preaching of the one more powerful than the Preaching of another yet that proves not that Paul Excluded Baptizing the most it proves is that he preferred his Preaching to his Baptizing as being the greater and more principal Work enjoyed to him Page 33. And yet for to remove that Abuse saith R.B. the Apostle doth not say he was not sent to Preach nor yet doth he Rejoyce that he had only Preached to a few because Preaching being a standing Ordinance in the

former part of it for Men may have a Power that is neither from the Apostles mediately nor immediately not mediately as he thinks he has proved nor yet immediately from the Apostles because not their immediate Successors But why may they not have a Power mediately from Christ after some true manner and yet in some sort immediate also If we consider the several significations of the Words mediate and immediate none of which are Scripture words any more or scarce so much as other words they reject because not Scripture words and because of the ambiguous and doubtful signification of the Words mediate and immediate they may be omitted and other Words used to as good or better effect But if we may be allowed to use the words mediate and immediate one Sense of the word immediate is a Call from Christ's Person speaking with an audible Voice to the outward Ear such as the twelve Apostles had and Paul also This I know none now pretends to Another Sense of the word immediate is a Call by the Holy Spirit in the Hearts of them who are so Called in the same way and manner as the Prophets were both taught their Prophecies and called to deliver them and commit them to Writing which was by a Prophetick Spirit that did Infallibly guide them in every Sentence and Word of their Message without the least possibility of Error or Mistake and as so Taught and Called without the need or use of any outward means whatsoever If some of the Teachers among the Quakers have pretended to any such Inward Teaching or Calling as it can be easily proved they have it can be as easily proved that they have not been so taught nor called because in too many things wherein they have pretended to such Teaching and Calling they have Bewrayed themselves miserably and laid themselves open to the Judgment of the weaker sort of Sincere Christians who have been able to prove that in too many things they have delivered as Divine Revelations they have contradicted the Holy Scriptures and so have grosly Erred A Third sort of immediate Teaching and Calling is by taking the Etymologie of the Word immediate to signifie not without all Means but in and with the Means as when it is generally acknowledged that there is an immediate Supernatural Divine Concurrence of the Spirit of God that assisteth the Faithful in all truly holy Actions yea in all holy Thoughts and Desires Words and Works yet not without the use of outward Means but in the due and frequent use of them as in Reading Hearing and Meditating upon what hath been Read or Heard Now this sort of inward Teaching and Calling by the Spirit as it is not without means altogether so is it not without all possibility of Erring or Mistake for though no Error can proceed from the Spirit of God nor can the Spirit Err yet a Man that has the Spirit of God working in his Heart both to illuminate his Understanding and move and incline his Will to good Things may through Humane Weakness and Inadvertency or by some Prejudice of Education or wrong Information of his Teachers misapply and misunderstand the Spirits inward Illuminations and Motions which he is the more likely to do if he do not duly and diligently apply his Mind as to the Spirits inward Illumination so to the Directions and Instructions given to us in the Holy Scriptures to examine and find the agreement of the inward with the outward for certainly if the Persuasions that any Man hath contradict the plain Directions and Institutions given in the Holy Scriptures they are not of the Spirit of God whatever appearance they may seem to have of Power or Evidence the joynt concurrence of the Spirit of Truth within and the instrumental and subordinate help of the Scripture without given us to help our weakness may be compared to the natural Light of the Sun or Candle that we read with in some sort though this and all other Similitudes fall short of a full Illustration for as we cannot Read without the Light though the Book lie open before us so when the Light Shines yet it will not teach us what is in the Book unless we look on it and also be taught to Read in it Even so the Light of the Holy Spirit shining upon the Ideas and Perceptions of our Minds as conveyed to us by what we have heard or read out of the Holy Scriptures opens to us the true hidden Sense and Truth of them with Life and Power and great inward Clearness and Evidence Joy and Satisfaction and thus if we find that the Spirits Illumination worketh in our Hearts and Minds an Assent to the Truth of what is Recorded in the Holy Scriptures we can with all readiness receive it But if what we suppose to be a Divine Illumination discord from the Truth of the Scriptures we ought to reject it and by no means to receive it for it is not Divine but Humane or which is worse Diabolical Now according to this last Sense of the Word immediate i.e. inward Teaching and Call of the Spirit in the use of outward Means and Helps and especially the Holy Scriptures I see not but it may be granted that Men may be found and are to be found that have a true immediate Call from the Spirit of Christ in their Hearts both to Preach and Administer these Divine Institutions of the outward Baptism and Supper and all this well consisting with the mediate orderly Call where there is a Constitute Church though not every way so rightly and duly Constitute as was in the Apostles Days and in the purest Times succeeding the Apostles There is ground to believe that God raised up many such in the beginning of the Reformation from Popery and though since that beginning too many Particulars have rather gone backward than forward yet the Success of the Ministry and excellent Books that have come forth time after time of many Worthy Persons however in some things mistaken and the truly Christian Lives and Conversations of many through all the Protestant Churches though in comparison of the great multitude that are Prophane and Scandalous they are but a few may be a good Ground of Evidence that God is truly among them and doth own the Remnant that are Sincere and their Ministry to whom an Allusion may be made of what was said to the Church of Sardis the Greek Word Sardis is in the Plural Number thou hast a few Names in Sardis who have not Defiled their Garments they shall walk with me in White for they are Worthy I know there are some who do more than make an Allusion in the Case and think that by the Church of Sardis is really meant the collective Body of the Protestant Churches throughout the several Parts of the World which I will not here be positive either to affirm or deny but either by way of Allusion or by Hypothesis let us conceive that the Collective Body

of Recommendation concerning him they both sent with him to Friends in Ireland contained in the said Manuscript unto you all saith Edward Burrough I do him recommend as a faithful Labourer to be received by you in the Name of him that sends him in tender pity for you all and the Blessing of the Lord upon his Faithfulness I doubt not c. Dated London 19. 3d. mo 1656. And saith Fr. Howgil receive Humphry Norton in the Lord whom the Lord hath moved to come unto you who is a Brother and Faithful in the Lord's Work and be Subject unto him in the Lord all unto him for I much desired that he might come unto you and so the Lord hath ordered it and as you receive him you receive me F. Howgil This Man Humphry Norton after his Arrival in Ireland in the year 1656 writ and spread about several Papers among the People call'd Baptists and others of which I have seen divers contained in a Manuscript all Writ by one Hand and having his Name to them His Argument against Baptism is in the following Words Q. 15. And now ye Baptists seeing that Christ is come and hath Baptized us and all Men come unto him tell me whether there be any Baptism but one seeing the Apostle saith one Lord one Faith one Baptism Eph. 4.5 6. And whether Baptism be not a Doctrin yea or nay If you say an Ordinance whether it be not Abolished yea or nay seeing the Scripture saith having abolished in his Flesh the Enmity even the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances for to make in himself of Twain one new Man so making Peace Eph. 2.15 Ans That concerning one Baptism is fully Answered above To the latter concerning Ordinances the Word in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not properly Translated Ordinances but rather Opinions or Persuasions But let it be Translated Ordinances how doth this prove that therefore Water-Baptism is Abolished unless the Argument be built upon this Supposition that all Ordinances are Abolished and consequently Baptism with Water and at the same rate Preaching and Prayer must be Abolished which are no less Ordinances And in the same Parcel of Queries the fifth Querie is now Answer in plain Words From whence must this Christ ye wait for come and in what Generation and of what Family and out of what Country and of whom must he be Born that they may no longer be deceived by you who have kept them gazing after a false Christ well may it be called Gazing but leave it and mind these in white Apparel which Reproves you for it Acts 1.10 11. This Humphry Norton after some Years went into New England and after his Return Prints a Book at London which I find Quoted in another Printed Book having the like or the same Queries for Substance the Words are these Is not Christ God and is not God a Spirit you look for a Christ without you from what Coast or Country shall he come What Country-man is he You stand Gazing up in the Clouds after a Man but we stand by in White chiding of you Reader are not these dreadful Words enough to make all Christian Ears to tingle it is no wonder that they have so generally Construed these Words ye shew forth his Death until he come to be only his inward coming when the chiefest Teachers among them had no Faith of his outward coming to Judge the World And it is but too likely that E. Burrough and F. Howgil were as great Unbelievers as he in that great Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion and if they were not they were miserably deceived and did miserably deceive themselves by their supposed Gift of Discerning to give such high Recommendations and Praises of a Man that deserved not to be numbred among the lowest Rank of Christians who hath dared thus openly like one of the Heathen Opposers to Scoff at our Blessed Lord's coming without us to Judgment but never any Christian gave him occasion for such a Scoffing manner of Questioning it being universally believed by all Christians that our Lord will come from Heaven in the same Body wherein he Ascended and is not to be Born again of a Woman Again In another Paper that hath his Name to it there are these Words and whereas he Accused us for denying Christ's Merits I say that which can be Merited is of Self and that which is of Christ is freely given But such a word is not in Scripture as Christ's Merits but is fetch'd from the Whore a at Rome by them Behold the Man whom E. Burrough's called a Faithful Labourer and F. Howgil called a Brother Faithful in the Lord's Work to whom he would have all the Quakers in Ireland to be Subject How can they who follow such blind Guides but fall into the Ditch with them Is there any greater or so great Blindness to be found in the Blindest and most Ignorant of the Papists In a Book of mine called Truth 's Defence p. 140. I find an other Argument I have used against the Supper the Effect of which is contained in these following Words What Christ did at that time and bid his Disciples do until he come is no Gospel Ordinance because it was done in the Night or Evening of the old Covenant Dispensation and consequently was to come to an end with it Ans. I freely acknowledge this Argument is Weak and Unsound and the way to Answer it is by denying the Consequence to be True and Just for mostly what Christ Taught was in the Evening or latter part of the old Covenant but it doth not therefore follow that it was to end with it As also where I have said in my Book called Presbyterian and Independent Churches c. P. 185. That which ye now use is neither Substantial Dinner nor Supper being only a Crumb of Bread c. I acknowledge was unadvisedly said and as weakly Argued for the end of that outward Institution was not any outward Substantial Dinner or Supper as neither was that of the Paschal Lamb. And also where p. 184. of the same I have argued that the use of the outward Signs of Baptism and the Supper did suit most with the Ages and State of Children for they suit well enough with the most grown Christians while remaining in the Mortal Body SECT XII AND thus I have Answered to all the Arguments brought against the outward Baptism and the Supper by their several Writers and chief Teachers that I have found in their Books not omitting any to my best Remembrance of any Note where though I have brought in G. Fox among the last because I had not found the particular Book where his Arguments were until I had finished my Answer to the other four preceeding yet he was the first among the Quakers that led them as into divers other great Errors so into this of rejecting the outward Baptism and the Supper grounding all upon a pretended Divine Inspiration and as