Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	divers_a	ghost_n	great_a	27	3	2.0640	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30899	Quakerism confirmed, or, A vindication of the chief doctrines and principles of the people called Qvakers from the arguments and objections of the students of divinity (so called) of Aberdeen in their book entituled Quakerism convassed [sic] by Robert Barclay and George Keith.	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.; Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1676 (1676)	Wing B733; ESTC R37061	83,121	93

circumcision becaus both are long agoe buried and what is buried is deadly to be raised up again as Augustin taught Their third reason is built on a mistake that the God head of Christ or names of Father Son and holy ghost were a stumbling block to the believeing Iewes for of these only we are to be understood also that the Apostles used the words Father Son and holy ghost when they baptized can not be proved farre lesse used they the word Trinity which was not invented long after the Apostles dayes Their second argument that the baptisme commanded in Matth. 28 16. is with water resolves at last into this that it is God only and not man who baptises with the holy ghost becaus he is only the proper immediat efficient cause of baptism with the holy ghost but wee deny the consequence as weak and false for ther is nothing more usuall then to ascribe the effect unto the instrumentall cause as truly as unto the principall Paul was sent to turne or convert the Gentiles from darknesse to light and to open their eyes and yet God only was the proper and immediat efficient cause of this Many more examples could be given yea the same reason of the Students would militate against teaching for even outward teaching which is by the motion of the holy ghost hath a power and vertue in it wherof the men who teach are but the instrumentall conveyers that is only from God as the immediat efficient cause Another reason they give to make all sure as they say is that it is only Christ as he is God and mightier then Iohn who baptised with the holy ghost Matth. 3 11. where baptism with the holy ghost is peculiarly attributed to Christ. But this makes their matter nothing more sure for although that baptism with the holy ghost be peculiarly attributed to Christ as the principall cause yet it hindereth not that men are the instrumentall even as Christ said it is not ye that speak and yet they also spake as instruments It is true that John did not baptize with the holy ghost as the Apostles did or rather Christ through them becaus John had not so powerfull a ministry given him as the Apostles of whom Christ said that they should not only doe as great works as he but greater to wit by his power Again They argue that giveing and not granting that baptism with the holy Ghost could be administred by men yet it is not commanded here for the words then would be full of needlesse tautologies To this we answer that this doth not follow for suppose that by teaching and baptizing were meant one thing how usuall is it in Scripture to expresse one thing under divers names without any tautologie However we believe that by teaching and baptizing are meant two severall things both which require the speciall operation of the holy Spirit for a man through teaching by the concurrence of the holy ghost is first of all convinced of the truth and hath a ground laid in him to believe and then he is baptized with the holy ghost upon his believing and obeying in what he is convinced of nor is this to confound the command with the promise for the sense of it is this goe ye and baptize with the holy ghost instrumentally and I shall be with yow as the Principall cause to concurre and assist yow and thus there is no tautologie the command and the promise being in diverso genere id est in a different kind Their next argument to prove that Water-baptism is to continue to the end of the world is that God sent Iohn to baptize with water and Christ caused Iohn baptize him and commanded or caused his Apostles baptize with water and these commands were never formally repealed nor ceased of their owne nature Therfor But to this the Answer is easie for Iohns baptism was no part of the Gospel dispensation as serving onely to prepare the way to Christ and he was sent only to baptise the Jewes that Christ might be manifest to Israel Joh. 1 31. and it is called Iohns baptism in distinction from that of Christ for some were baptized with it who had not received the holy ghost and that Christ was baptized with water proveth not its continuance no more then that he was circumcised proveth the continuance of Circumcision that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize with water we find not and though it were it is but as at that time being under Johns dispensation but unlesse they can prove that Christ commanded to baptise all nations with water and that to the end of the world they gain nothing for what was commanded only as toward the Iewes doth not reach us gentiles and so we need seek no repeal there not having been any such command In their answering our retortion as touching washing the feet anointing the Sick with oil and abstaining from blood and things strangled They say 1. This retortion hath a damnable tendency for enthusiasts may arise and plead the same way against the most necessary truths c. We answer They have no ground from our retortion so to doe becaus these things above mentioned are but figures and such as have no inward or intrinsecall goodnesse or righteousnes in them as the other things have which are most necessarie 2. Wheras they say If these things had been commanded and never repealed it were better to admitt and observe them then to reject Baptism c. We answer if by repeal they mean a formall repeal we deny that it were better for all being but figurative things and such as the inward Law of God writt in our hearts which is the new covenant dispensation doth not require of us they cease of their owne nature and carry a virtuall repeal in their bosome although it be not formally expressed in the Scripture as to every particular for all the things of the ceremoniall Law are not one by one particularly repealed in the new Testament but together in one body for the Law it selfe being changed the things required by it if they have no other Law to require them doe cease 3. They say That Christ in washing his disciples feet did 2 things 1. To seal up to his disciples their part in him 2. He intended to leave them one example of humility and it is onely this second thing which he commanded to his disciples to wit that they should performe acts of humility one to another But wee misse their proofe there altogether that he only commanded this and not the washing one anothers feet in particular yea this glosse expressly gives the lye to Christ his owne words Joh. 13 14. ye also ought to wash one anothers feet where not only an act of humility is signified but an act of love and also by the outward washing of the outward feet is signified how we ought to contribute to wash one anothers feet in a spirituall sense that is to say by seasonable

and teachers seing prophets and teachers teach both from the spirit The first is answered at large in the end of G. Ks. book of Immediat revelation To the second we answer that by prophets in the strickest sense are meant those who prophecy of things to come as Agapus was by teachers they who instruct the people in doctrine and this is a manifest difference although in the large and common sense prophecying and preaching are one thing Their seaventh argument they pretend to build on that Scripture Jud. 19. but it is easily answered that men in one sense may be said not to have the spirit and in another to have it even as a rich man who improveth not his money both hath and hath it not in divers senses according to which Christ said from him that hath not shall be taken away that which he hath And whereas R. B. doth grant that they whose day of visitation is come to an end have not the spirit so much as to invite and call them unto God here they insult as if all were granted they seek but they are greatly deceived for though he grant that some have not the spirit to call and invite them yet he granteth not that they have not the spirit to reprove them for even the devils and damned souls of men and women sin against the Spirit of God witnessing against them in their hearts which is in them a law of condemnation as David said if I go down into hell thou art there yea do we not read not only that God spak unto Cain a most wicked man but also unto Sathan Job 1. which speaking of God to Sathan we suppose the Students will not say was by an outward voyce and consequently it was internall But we ask them if all wicked Professors of Christianity should burn the Bible and destroy all outward rules and means of knowledge should they by this means cease to sin because they should have no rule or should they be excused from gospell duties because they have no rule by this supposition according to the Students to require them In their second subsection they spend both their strength and paper in labouring to prove some things which we no wise deny as the sequel of their Major § 14. but in the proofe of their Minor where the whole stress lyeth they utterly faill in both its branches as we shall briefly shew As to the first they argue thus they know no such inward objective evidence of inward revelations of the spirit in themselves therefore they have none such We deny the consequence they see it not nor know it because they will not their prejudice against the truth doth blind them and indispose their understanding yea might not the unbelieving Jews have reasoned the same way against Christ when he was outwardly present with them we do not know him to be Christ Therefore he is not Christ. Again whereas they querie in a scoffing way can a thing that is self evident be hidd from the whole world except a few Illuminado's We answer if it were hidd from the whole world except a few in comparison of others it is no more then what the Scripture saith that the whole world lieth in wickedness their wickedness blindeth them that they do not see the light that is in them yet we could instance many who are not Quakers so called both Christians and Gentils who have acknowledged the evidence and certainty of divine inspiration in all men as the surest ground of knowledge but we need not digress into this here we have enough besides to stop their mouths For do not they say that the Scriptures have a self-evidence and yet are not the Scriptures and the truths declared in them hidd from the greatest part of the world The Mahumetans reject both Old and New Testament and the Jews the New although they read them and yet according to our adversaries they have self evidence so that it is evident the same argument is as much against the Scripture as the Light within in point of self evidence and indeed much more seing many who deny the self evidence of the Scirptures even heathens have a knowledge of the self evidence of divine inspiration as Socrases Plato Plotinus Phocyllides Seneca and many others And here in the close being sensible of their weakness after they have laboured to prove the negative they tell us that seing the negative is theirs they are not bound to prove it and so would roll it over on us to prove the affirmative against their own law which would have us to be meer defendents As to the maxime Affirmanti incumbit probatio it doth not help them for they have affirmed a negative and have been at great pains to prove it But all in vain And why may we not put them to prove their Minor being a negative as well as their master I. M. put the Jesuit Dempster to prove his Minor which John Meinzies affirmed to be negative In their prosecution of the second branch they affirm that the Q. cannot give any sufficient evidence of their revelations This we deny and put them to prove it but how shamefully they fail here is apparent for instead of proving of what they affirm they put us to prove the contradictory and so contrary to their own Law would urge us to be impugners and defenders at one time a silly trick they learned from the Baptists in their dispute at London as indeed the Students argument about an evidence is the same upon the matter with that which the Baptists used against us at London long before them and which the Iesuit used against I. M. long before them both So that we may see what sort of patrons the Students here follow But it is well to be observed that when they seek an evidence from us they tell us pag. 57. They mean not an evidence which will actually and de facto convince a pertinacious adversary but an objective evidence or clearness in the thing it self which is apta nata fitt of its own nature to convince and will really convince the well disposed Very well this their plain concession destroyeth their whole building for seing they press upon us by way of Dilemma either we have the Spirit of God or we have it not which is I. L. his argument We may very lawfully by his own example press him and his fellow Students with the like argument either they have a well disposed mind or they have not If they say they have not then they confess they are a pertinacious adversary and so not capable to be convinced of our evidence and surely it were great folly in us to seek to convince them of the truth of a thing who are not in a capacity to be convinced If they say they have a well disposed mind then let them prove it to us or give us an evidence of it seing by their own rule Affirmanti incumbit probatio Who is so weak

or perceptible by themselves which were ridiculous and as ridiculous is their conceit of an influence of the Spirit that is meerly effective and not objective That the books of the old and new testament are called the Scripture by way of eminency we deny not although the name is given at times to other writings nor doth this refute G. K. his translation of that Scripture 2 Tim. 3 16. which is confirmed by the Syriack which hath it thus In Scripturâ enim quae per Spiritum scripta est utilitas est ad doctrinam c. i. e. For in the Scripture which is written by the Spirit there is profite But their reason from the Conjunction and is both foolish and blasphemous for if the words be rendered thus All Scripture given by inspiration is and profitable is no more non-sense then divers other places in the Scripture where the Conjuction and seemeth to be redundant as in that place Joh. 8 25. where the Greek hath it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The beginning or from the beginning the same which and I speak unto you Now if the Conjunction and render not this place non-sense no more doth it render that in Timothy but the Students ignorance renders them rather blasphemers and their arguments blasphemous against the words of Christ. Moreover the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie a strong affirmation as to say even truely indeed as both our English translation hath it Joh. 8 25. and Schrevelius in his Greek-Lexicon doth render it and thus the words have good sense All-Scripture or writing given by inspiration is even or indeed profitable And whereas they say none but a Q. or Jesuit would so interpret the place they declare their malice and ignorance for William Tindall that famous Protestant martyr in his translation of the Bible for which the Papists burnt him did tranilate it as G. K. doth whom we think the Students dare not accuse as a Jesuit that he was a Q in so farr as he held divers of our principles condemned by the Students we shall not deny As for us we blesse the Lord our faith stands not on such a small nicity as the want of an is or the redundahcy of an and let them look to that whose faith knoweth no other foundation but the letter It doth nothing hurt our faith nor lessen the due esteeme of the Scripture to us if peradventure an is hath been lost or an and hath crept into the text since the originall coppies were lost This we know and can prove that the Scripture can not profit any man to salvation without the illumination or inspiration of the Spirit which is both effective and objective and which our adversaries grant at least to be effective And if they make one exception why may not wee make another or if they say the Spirit is necessary one way why may not we say it is necessare another way But then the Scriptures say they would not be profitable at all in any manner or kind we deny the consequence for it is profitable yea and necessary in genere objecti materialis i. e. as the materiall object in relation to all historicall truths and divers other dogmatical and doctrinall points which perhaps we would not have knowne without the Scripture although we had had the Spirit in as large a measure as men now have it Again the Scripture is profitable in genere objecti remoti secundarii i. e. by way of a remote and secondary object and rule even as in relation to testimonies of life and experience which may be knowne without the Scripture yet the Scripture is a secondary confirmation and help even in that case as a card or map of a land is unto a traveller that travells through the land it selfe and seeth the high wayes who will not throw away his card because he sees the land it selfe but will both delight and profit himself to compare them both together Other great and weighty uses wee could give but these suffice to serve as instances against their weak and sorry argumentation Their last argument is from Joh. 12 48. The word that I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day But how prove they that this is the letter of the Scripture much of which was not then writ And although this Word were not Christ himself yet it may be an inward testimony spoken by Christ in mens hearts Here they meerly begg and prove not But 2. suppose it were the Scripture or written Law as that cited by them Rom. 2 12. it will only follow that the Scripture is a secondary Law or rule which we willingly grant and that by it men who have the Scriptures shall be judged but not by them only for if the Gentiles who have not the written Law shall be judged by the Law in the conscience so shall these also who have both inward and outward be judged by both and consequently their damnation shall be greater SECTION FIFTH Of worship being an Answer unto their third Section concerning inspirations to duty IN their stating the controversie in this particular they grossly prevaricate in divers things as where they say N. 2. the question is not only about duty on the matter videlicet the act of prayers c. as separated from the right manner viz. sincerity and truth wheras indeed the question betwixt them and us is about prayer as separated from the right manner viz. sincerity and truth For they say God requires men to pray without any inspiration or gracious influence of the spirit so that such a prayer is an answering of the obligation to the duty upon the matter although it be separated from the right manner and accordingly they doe both require and allow men to pray when they have no gracious influence or motion therunto telling them that even such prayers are required and that they doe better to give such prayers as want sincerity unto God then not to pray at all seing such lifelesse and spiritlesse prayers have the matter of true prayer although they want the right manner Wheras we on the contrary affirm that lifelesse prayers have neither the right matter and substance nor yet the right manner of prayer and therfor are not at all required in Scripture Yet we deny not but many times when men want an influence of life to pray they are still under the obligation and at such ' times it is their sin not to pray because they ought to have sutable influences to prayer which would not be wanting if they were faithfull unto God but when through unfaithfulnesse they want them it doth not excuse them from being under the obligation yet still when they want the helpe of the Spirit they ought to pray by the Spirit becaus they ought to have it Even as when one man oweth unto another man a just debt in money the debter ought to pay the money although he have no money to