Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	apostle_n	call_v	spirit_n	1,821	5	4.7685	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

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

question was a man or else he was not of age to understand that universals do include all particulars of their species and yet these are the men that witness perfection Let me tell thee Reader whoever thou art that these men are the saddest spectacles of Gods Spiritual Judgements that ever any Age hath heard of And surely if ever any people were given up to believe a lye these are the men for was it ever heard of that a man should profess to be immediately sent of God and to be infallibly guided by him and to have attained to perfection as these would have it and yet not know common sense What think ye if after Paul had told the Athenians Acts 17. that God did give to all life and breath if afterwards he should ask the Areopagite Whether God had given him life and breath Do you think he would ever have cleaved to Paul as the 34 Verse of the aforesaid Chapter doth declare he did and yet such are the injudicious mindes that many in our dayes are given up to that though an Angel from heaven should detect their vanity yet some would resolve to be vain A second instance of their inconsistency is That though they say the letter of the Scripture is carnal as appears by a Book of theirs call'd Sauls Errand to Damascus yet for the justifying of their conceited New-light they make use of the first of John and many other Texts in the letter though therein they stretch it beyond its line But further at another time they say That it is a sign of a dark minde to think the Scriptures should have another meaning * See a Book of theirs cal'd Truths Defence p. 1. And yet in the Book call'd Sauls Errand to Damascus they say The letter is carnal and yet for all this a little before in the same book they say He that raiseth Spirit out of it is a Conjurer as I have already mentioned upon another occasion What miserable confusion is here doth this look like perfection One while the letter is carnal and another while its conjury to raise Spirit out of it and another while its a sign of a dark minde to think the Scriptures should have another meaning and another while they will give other meanings to them then what is exprest in the letter A third instance of their inconsistency and by which all that I have said is justified is That though they say they own the Scriptures and will talk a few words sometimes in their behalf yet one of them said in a book call'd Truths Defence pag. 2. in answer to Parson Camelford of Stavely-Chappel That he might as well have condemned the Scriptures to the fire to be burned as his Quares that be sent unto him or that he might as well have said the sayings of Christ and his Apostles were absurd as to say those Quares were absurd they meaning his Quaeres being given forth by the same Spirit the Scriptures were A fourth instance of their inconsistency is That one William Tomlinson in a book of his call'd A word of Reproof p. 11. doth blame the Ministers for praying before or after Sermon and saith What did Christ or his Apostles fall short of what they ought to do and leave it to you to mend it And yet in other cases we must not follow Christ's and the Apostles example and yet he would bring them to disprove the lawfulness of praying before or after Sermon because they did not so But further he inveighs against the Ministers for so doing yet one of their own Merlins prayed after Sermon at the Bull and Mouth at Aldersgate before hundreds of people I pray judge if any thing of this look like perfection nay are not these things Strong symptomes of the greatest degrees of defection that can befal the sons of men Now I come to the next Errour 17 Error and that is They study and devise deceitful terms that look with two faces like the Oracles of the heathen Gods that they may the better effect their deceits as for instance one of them namely Farnworth being charged by Hen Haggar and Tho Pollard for saying Paul was not converted when be spake those words in the 7 to the Romans where be cries out of a Body of Death To this they answer in a printed book call'd Scriptures freed from Scandals pag. 12 13. That there is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book Now mark the charge is a Negative Proposition viz. That Paul was not converted when he spake those words in the 7 of the Romans concerning a Body of death they answer That there is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book Reader had these words fallen from the mouth of a man that were conscious of his imperfection Charity would have taught me to have over-look'd them but now I cannot for such a speech as this either argues the speaker to be imperfect and so discovers his deceit in saying he is perfect else if he be perfect as believe it who 's will how could such a thing fall from his pen and on the other hand if he understood what he writ then it follows that he writ that to rescue himself from the force of the charge that so simple people that know not a Negative from an Affirmative might think he was not guilty of such a charge by his saying There is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book But Oh the impudence of these men that dare to say That one might as well burn the Scriptures as their Papers when if the Scriptures had let fall Negatives in stead of Affirmatives and Affirmatives in stead of Negatives how could they have been for our learning upon whom the ends of the world are come I dare challenge all men in the world either Quaker Atheist or Anti-Scripturalist to shew me such a piece of Non-sense from any of the Pen-men of old who were inspired by the holy Spirit Who will believe that these mens tongues and pens are infallible Oracles that know not I from No and that put Nay in stead of Yea for is it not the same he is charged for saying Paul was not converted and he saith There is no such Affirmative in his whole Book but then it seems there is such a negative and if so then how dare they call those honest servants of Christ lyers viz. H Haggar and Tho Pollard By this you may see that these are the greatest Seducers that these latter Times have produced and the Lord grant that these things that I do bring to thy minde concerning them may be as warnings to you that stand to take heed left you fall and you that know God delight to glorifie him left he give you over to a reprobate minde to do the things that are not covenient Take heed there fore and be warned of turning the truth of God into a lye as these men have done left God in his Justice give you up to believe