Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	doctrine_n	scripture_n	word_n	3,808	5	4.2807	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A50867	An account of Mr. Lock's religion, out of his own writings, and in his own words together with some observations upon it, and a twofold appendix : I. a specimen of Mr. Lock's way of answering authors ..., II. a brief enquiry whether Socinianism be justly charged upon Mr. Lock.	Milner, John, 1628-1702.; Locke, John, 1632-1704. Selections. 1700.	1700 (1700)	Wing M2075; ESTC R548	126,235	194

after thirty Reasonah of Christian. p. 300. The Epistles resolving Doubts and reforming Mistakes are of great Advantage to our Knowledge and Practice I do not deny but the great Doctrines of the Christian Faith are drop'd here and there and scatter'd up and down in most of them But 't is not in the Epistles we are to learn what are the Fundamental Articles of Faith where they are promiscuously and without distinction mixed with other Truths We shall find and discern those great and necessary Points best in the Preaching of our Saviour and the Apostles to those who were yet Strangers and ignorant of the Faith to bring them in and convert them to it Ibid. p. 298. Many Doctrines proving and explaining and giving a farther light into the Gospel are published in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Thessalonians These are all of Divine Authority and none of them may be disbeliev'd by any one who is a Christian. Second Vindicat of Reason of Christian. p. 319. Generally and in necessary Points the Scriptures are to be understood in the plain direct meaning of the Words and Phrases such as they may be suppos'd to have had in the mouths of the Speakers Reasonab -of Christian. p. 2. He that will read the Epistles as he ought must observe what 't is in them is principally aim'd at find what is the Argument in hand and how managed he must look into the drift of the Discourse observe the Coherence and Connexion of the Parts and see how it is consistent with it self and other parts of Scripture The observing of this will best help us to the true meaning and mind of the Writer Ibid. p. 294. The Scripture gives light to its own meaning by one place compar'd with another Vindicat. of Reasonab of Christian. p. 22. Thus Mr. Lock OBSERVATIONS How happy would it be if Mr. Lock and I and all of us could presently condemn and quit any Opinion of ours so soon as it is shew'd that it is contrary to any part of Scripture I do not know any one that affirms that all or most of the Truths contain'd in the Epistles are Fundamental Articles so necessary that without an explicit Belief of them none can be a Member of Christ's Church here or admitted into his eternal Kingdom hereafter Mr. Lock without any necessity takes upon him to determine a Chronological Question and is very positive in his Determination Most of the Epistles says he were not written till above twenty years after our Saviour's Ascension and some after thirty But there are who refer our Lord's Ascension to his thirty third Year and the Date of the First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians to An. Dom. 53 that of the First to the Thessalonians to An. Dom. 49 making the Second to the Thessalonians to have been writ shortly after it the Date of S. Peter's First Epistle to An. Dom. 44 as there are who refer that of the First Epistle to the Corinthians and of both the Epistles to the Thessalonians to An. Dom. 50 so that according to them here are five Epistles of which it cannot be said that they were not written till above twenty years after our Saviour's Ascension If Mr. Lock say Suppose it were so that these five were not written above twenty years after the Ascension it is true still that most of the Epistles were not written till above twenty years after it I reply That a Person that is so positive should not barely say it but also prove it How knows he that there are not some other Epistles which were not written after twenty years after Christ's Ascension As to that which he adds That some were written after thirty years from our Saviour's Ascension it may be observ'd that he is so prudent as not to let us know what Epistles they are And farther the Martyrdom of S. Peter S. Paul and S. James is supposed by some not to have been after thirty years from our Lord's Ascension and their Epistles were certainly all writ before their Martyrdom and therefore it is impossible that their Epistles should be writ later then the thirtieth year after Christ's Ascension it being suppos'd that that their Martyrdom was not later then that year According to Jos. Scaliger the Martyrdom of the two great Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul was exactly thirty years after the Lord's Assension according to Syncellus nine and twenty according to Lydiat eight and twenty and S. James's Martyrdom according to all of them preceeded theirs so that if we follow the account of these three great Masters in Chronology the Epistle of S. James the two Epistles of S. Peter and those of S. Paul could not be writ after the thirtieth year from Christ's Ascension There remain the Epistles of S. John and S. Jude and how will Mr. Lock prove that those were writ after thirty years from our Saviour's Ascension One that spent much time and pains in the Study of the Chronology of the Old and New Testament says That among all the Apostolick Epistles there is none about whose time of writing we are so far to seek as about those of S. John If Mr. Lock say That there are who give other Accounts of the time of the writing the First Epistle of S. Peter and of those to the Corinthians and Thessalonians as also of the time of S. Peter's suffering and S. Paul's different from those that are given here of them I grant it but what can be inferr'd from this Disagreement of Expositors or Chronographers but the Uncertainty of the time of the Date of the Epistles which should caution Men not to be so positive in such things as too many are Many of the things which Mr. Lock saith of the Epistles may be apply'd also to the Gospels For instance All or most of the Truths contained in the Gospels are not to be look'd on as Fundamental Articles so necessary that without an explicit belief of them none can be admitted into Christ's Church here or his eternal Kingdom hereafter Also Fundamental Articles are promiscuously and without distinction mixed with other Truths in the Gospels So he that will read the Gospels as he ought must observe what 't is in them that is principally aim'd at find what is the Argument in hand and how managed must look into the drift of the Discourse observe the Coherence and Connexion of the Parts and see how it is consistent with it self and other parts of Scripture Finally There are some Fundamental Articles that are distinguish'd from other Truths in the Epistles As in Rom. 10. 9. If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe with thy heart that God rais'd him from the dead thou shalt be saved So 1 Tim. 1. 15. It is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus came into the World to save Sinners And so Heb. 11. 6. He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them

the Signification of the Word Spirit IF that will not serve his turn I will tell him a Principle of mine that will clear the Soul's Immortality to him and that is the Revelation of Life and Immortality by Jesus Christ through the Gospel Mr. Lock Answer to Remarks p. 5 6. Perhaps my using the Word Spirit for a thinking Substance without excluding Materiality out of it will be thought too great a Liberty but the most enlightned of all the ancient People of God Solomon himself speaks after the same manner Nor did the way of speaking in our Saviour's time vary from this I would not be thought hereby to say That Spirit does never signifie a purely immaterial Substance In that Sense the Scripture I take it speaks when it says God is a Spirit and in that Sense I have proved from my Principles That there is a Spiritual Substance and am certain that there is a Spiritual Immaterial Substance The First Letter p. 68. 71 72 73. OBSERVATIONS Mr. Lock in his Answer to Remarks p. 5. hath these Words I suppose this Author i. e. the Author of the Remarks will not question the Soul's Immateriality to be a Proof of its Immortality Doth he not then by taking so much Pains to persuade us that its Immateriality cannot be demonstratively prov'd manifestly weaken one Proof of its Immortality Mr. Lock in Essay l. 4. c. 3. § 6. says That he would not any way lessen the Belief of the Soul's Immateriality But he cannot expect that we should believe Words against the Evidence of Deeds Yet in his Essay l. 2. c. 23. § 18. he hath let fall some Words from which I think the Soul's Immateriality may be prov'd The Ideas we have belonging and peculiar to Spirit are Thinking and Will Thus Mr. Lock Now say I if Thinking and Willing are peculiar to Spirit then the Soul which thinks and wills is a Spirit And that by Spirit he in that Chapter means an immaterial Substance is evident for he opposeth Spirit to material Substance Besides the complex Ideas we have of material sensible Substances we are able to frame the complex Idea of a Spirit So Mr. Lock § 15. And so what he in the very next Sentence calls immaterial Substances in his Margin he calls spiritual Substances If then Thinking and Willing are peculiar to Spirit the Soul which thinks and wills is a Spirit or spiritual immaterial Substance I cannot reconcile the Immortality of the Soul with Mens ceasing to be when they die Mr. Lock who useth that Expression of ceasing to be more than once see above Chap. 15. must invent some unknown Sense of it which may reconcile them I shew'd just now That Mr. Lock in Essay l. 2. c. 23. did by Spirit understand an immaterial Substance and indeed he doth own that he doth so in his Third Letter p. 430. I shall transcribe his Words at large From the Ideas of Thought says he and a Power of moving of Matter which we experience in our selves there was no more difficulty to conclude there was an immaterial Substance in us than that we had material Parts These Ideas of Thinking and Power of moving of Matter I in another Place shew'd did demonstratively lead us to the certain Knowledge of the Existence of an immaterial Thinking Being in whom we have the Idea of Spirit in the strictest Sense in which Sense I also apply'd it to the Soul in that 23d Chapter Thus Mr. Lock And yet in his First Letter p. 68. he tells us of his using the Word Spirit not in that which he calls the strictest Sense but for a thinking Substance without excluding Materiality out of it He sets himself also to defend his using it thus This he doth first by the Anthority of Cicero and Virgil Ibid. p. 69 70. who as he says call the Soul Spiritus and yet do not deny it to be a subtile Matter But supposing this which he says to be true we may return Answer in his own Words in his Third Letter p. 126. That Latin Sentence Nil tam certum est quam quod de dubio certum being objected he taking it to be a Saying of the Romans answers thus As I take it they i. e. the Romans never use the English Word Certainty and tho' it be true that the English Word Certainty be taken from the Latin Word Certus yet that therefore Certainty in English is us'd exactly in the same Sense that Certus is in Latin that I think you will not say The very same say I As I take it Cicero and Virgil never us'd the English Word Spirit and tho' our Word Spirit be from the Latin Spiritus yet that therefore Spirit in English is us'd exactly in the same Sense that Spiritus is in Latin Mr. Lock I think will not say If he thought this a sufficient Answer to others why should it not be a sufficient Answer to him But farther Mr. Lock having said in his First Letter p. 69. that both Cicero and Virgil call the Soul Spiritus in answer hereto it was suggested concerning Cicero That in his Tusculan Questions in the Entrance of the Dispute about the Soul he takes Animus for the Soul and neither Anima nor Spiritus and that Spiritus is taken by him for Breath Now if this be true that is not which Mr. Lock says that Cicero calls the Soul Spiritus What says he in his Third Letter to this Not a Word nor doth he take the least notice of it neither doth he in that long Reply in his Third Letter p. 431 c. produce one place out of Cicero wherein he useth Spiritus for the Soul If it be said that he had done that in his First Letter I answer that he there cites only one place where he takes the Words on trust and sets them down thus Vita continetur corpore spiritu see him p. 70. But if he had consulted Cicero himself he would have found in Orat. pro Marcello vers fin the Words to be these Nec haec tua vita dicenda est quae corpore spiritu continetur illa inquam illa vita est tua Caesar quae vigebit memorio Saeculonum omnium quam posteritas alet quam ipsa aeternitas semper intuebitur Let Mr. Lock himself now judge whether Spiritus here must be necessarily understood to signifie the Soul and whether it can be more fitly interpreted than in the Sense in which Cicero most constantly useth it as signifying Breath even the Breath of our Nostrils without which the Body cannot live and which is so necessary to preserve this mortal Life which the Orator tells Caesar was not his Life As to Virgil Mr. Lock only cites these Words out of him Dum Spiritus hos regit artus saying that he speaks of the Soul see his First Letter p. 70 In answer to this he was told that Spiritus is there taken for the Vital Spirit and that Virgil did believe the Soul to be more

than a mere Vital Spirit and that it subsisted and acted in a separate State To all which Mr. Lock in his Reply in his Third Letter p. 440 441. says nothing at all nor does he take the least notice of it But Mr. Lock to justifie his using the Word Spirit in such a Signification alledges the Authority of one greater than Cicero or Virgil or the most enlightned Person of the Heathen World viz. Solomon himself Eccles. 3. 19 21. That which befalleth the Sons of Men befalleth Beasts even one thing befalleth them as the one dieth so dieth the other yea they have all one Spirit Who knoweth the Spirit of a Man that goeth upward and the Spirit of a Beast that goeth down to the Earth See Mr. Lock 's First Letter p. 71. To which I answer 1. How appears it that these are Solomon's Words and not the Sayings of others which Solomon only repeats Is it probable that Solomon would affirm absolutely as his own Sense that Man hath no Pre-eminence above a Beast Which Words we have v. 19. tho' they are omitted by Mr. Lock If they be not Solomon's Words then it is clear that he hath not the Authority of Solomon yea then he hath not the Authority of our Translators who this being suppos'd applied not the Word Spirit to Beasts but they whose Words the Preacher repeats apply'd the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them which Word our Translators render Breath v. 19. and Spirit v. 21. 2. But let it be supposed tho' not granted that they are Solomon's Words and Sense I need only borrow once more Mr. Lock 's Words As I take it Solomon never us'd the English Word Spirit and tho' it be true that the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often rendred Spirit yet that therefore Spirit in English hath exactly the same Signification that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath in Hebrew I think Mr. Lock will not say for then Spirit must signifie the Wind Breath c. since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is apply'd to these In vain therefore doth he pretend that he hath the Authority of Solomon And yet he seeks to justifie his use of the Word also by the Authority of one greater than Solomon When our Saviour says he after his Resurrection stood in the midst of them they were affrighted and suppos'd that they had seen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Spirit S. Luke 24. 37. But our Saviour says to them v. 39. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have See Mr. Lock First Letter p. 71 72. who forgot to tell us who the They and Them are but they are the Apostles and from our Saviour's words to them he here argues And if he would argue directly he must do it in this or the like form If our Saviour say that a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones then he useth the word Spirit as signifying something from which Matter is not excluded But Mr. Lock must have invented a new Logick before he could have made good this Consequence He therefore goes another way to work both in his First and in his Third Letter I shall briefly examine what he says in both In his First Letter p. 72. he says that these words of our Saviour's put the same distinction between Body and Spirit that Cicero did in the place above cited viz. That the one was a gross Compages that could be felt and handled and the other such as Virgil describes the Ghost or Soul of Anchises Ter conatus ibi collo dare brachia circum Ter frustra comprensa manus effugit imago Par levibus vent is volucrique simillima somno Thus Mr. Lock So that in short according to him in those words of our Saviour an Image is call'd a Spirit And can we not conceive an Image that doth not include Matter I may instance in those Ideas or Images which are the immediate Objects of Mr. Lock 's Mind in thinking are they material Likewise in the Images that we see in our Dreams which latter Instance I the rather mention because Virgil in these very Verses compares the Image of which he speaks to Sleep or to an Image appearing in Sleep formam apparentem in somnis as some interpret it In his Third Letter p. 444 he says that from these words of our Saviour a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones it follows that in Apparitions there is something that appears and that that which appears is not wholly immaterial Thus Mr. Lock In Answer to it I shall remind him that in his Second Vindication of the Reasonab of Christian. p. 228. he mentions a Request which Mr. Chillingworth puts up to Mr. Knot and I think it no less necessary to be put up to him Sir I beseech you when you write again do us the favour to write nothing but Syllogisms for I find it an extreme trouble to find out the concealed Propositions which are to connect the parts of your Enthymems As now for example I profess to you that I have done my best endeavour to find some Glue or Sodder or Cement or Thread or any thing to tie the Antecedent and this Consequent together Thus Mr. Chillingworth Here Mr. Lock 's Enthymem is this A Spirit hath not flesh and bones ergo In Apparitions there is something that appears and that which appears is not wholly immaterial If Mr. Lock can find some Glue or Sodder to join the Antecedent and this Consequent together it is well but if he cannot I shall make bold to add that no body else can Neither can he evade by saying that it was not from those words only viz. A Spirit hath not flesh and bones but from the whole Text S. Luke 24. 37 39. that he draws that Consequence that what appears is not wholly immaterial for the case is the same This may suffice as to his Authorities which are found to do him no service at all He subjoins in his First Letter p. 72 73. I would not be thought hereby to say that Spirit never signifies a purely immaterial Substance In that Sense the Scripture I take it speaks when it says God is a Spirit and in that sense I have us'd it and in that sense I have prov'd from my Principles that there is a spiritual Substance and am certain that there is a spiritual immaterial Substance Thus Mr. Lock But might he not have left out those words I take it and affirm'd positively that when the Scripture says God is a Spirit the word Spirit signifies a purely immaterial Substance He tells that he is certain that there is a spiritual immaterial Substance and I therefore hope that he is certain that God is such and if it be a certain Truth that God is a spiritual immaterial Substance in what sense can the Scripture be judged to say that he is a Spirit but in this God is a Spirit and