Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	answer_n	book_n	perverseness_n	24	3	15.8648	5	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

was proper only to God and Christ why did John say he that comes after me shall Baptize with the Holy Ghost he did not say they who should come after me but he intimating none had that Power and Dignity but Christ who was God as well as Man and as he was God had this power belonging to him and which did belong to no Men nor Creature whatsoever and thus indeed the Baptisme with the Spirit is Christ's Baptisme not which he commanded Men to do but which he promised to do altho' the Water-Baptisme which he commanded his Apostles to practise in his Name is also his in a secondary sense as the Apostles teaching is his because commanded by him yet when we speak of Gods teaching according to the sense of that Scripture they shall all be taught of God it is not meant the outward teaching of Men but Gods inward teaching in Mens hearts As touching his third Reason to prove that Baptisme with the Holy Ghost is meant Matth. 28.19 The Baptisme which Christ commanded his Apostles was such that as many as were therewith baptized therewith did put on Christ but this is not true of Water-Baptisme Ans As concerning that place of Scripture Gal. 3.7 from which this Argument seems to be taken the place it self restricts it to the believing Galatians as v. 26. For yee are all the Children of God by faith in Christ Jesus and all such as beings Baptized with outward Water put him on by a publick Profession so by true Faith they inwardly put him on To make a publick Profession of Christ by Baptisme of Water is to put him on in a common Phrase of speech as when a Man is said to put on the Souldier the Magistrate by putting on the Garment of a Souldier or Magistrate in which sense Jerome said Romae Christum indui i.e. at Rome I put on Christ signifying that he was there baptized and it is to be noticed how Paul generally in his Epistles to the Churches he wrot to calls them Saints they being so by profession though there might have been Hypocrites among them and as by outward profession Men are said to be Saints so they may be said to have put on Christ when nothing by Word or Deed can appear to the contrary in a judgment of Charity As to his 4th Argument that Baptisme with Water was John's Baptisme I have above shewn that John's Water-Baptisme and the Water-Baptisme commanded to and practised by the Apostles after Christ's Resurrection diflered in many respects and tho' both required Repentance as a condition in order to receive the Water-Baptisme yet the later required Faith in Christ Crucified and Raised again as a condition in order to receive Baptisme but the former did not require that Faith Again his arguing from their not using that form of Baptism In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost who did Baptize with Water in those days of the Apostles is as defective as his otherways of arguing on this Head But how doth he prove that they used not this Form Why because in all these places where Baptizing with Water is mentioned there is not a word of this Form and in two places Acts 8.16 and 19.5 that it is said of some that they were Baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus But it ought to be considered that oft in the Scriptures what is not exprest is understood yea that very Form expressed 8.16 is comprehensive of the other and if no more be expressed by him that is the Administrator if he be sound in the Faith and that the person to be Baptized hath a sound Faith that Form is sufficient it is not exprest that the Eunuch gave any other confession of his Faith before he was Baptized but that Jesus Christ is the Son of God but will it therefore follow that he believed no other Article of the Christian Faith but that and confessed no other In his further Essay to defend his assertion that Christ commanded the Apostles to Baptize with the Spirit he saith Baptisme with the Spirit tho' not wrought without Christ and his Grace is instrumentally done by men fitted of God for that purpose and therefore no absurdity follows that Baptisme with the Spirit should be expressed as the action of the Apostles for tho' it be Christ by his Grace that gives Spiritual Gifts yet the Apostle Rom. 1.11 speaks of his imparting to them Spiritual Gifts and he tells the Corinthians that he had begotten them thro' the Gospel 1 Cor. 4.15 To convert the heart is properly the work of Christ and yet the Scripture oftentimes ascribes it unto Men as being the Instruments and Paul 's commission was to turn Men from Darkness to Light Ans I acknowledge such like answers I had formerly given in some of my former Books to the like Objection but I am come to see the weakness and defect of it in order therefore to detect the fallacy of this assertion that the Apostles might be as well said to Baptize with the Spirit as to Beget to Convert to Impart some Spiritual Gift c. Let it be considered that Baptisme with the Holy Spirit is not only another thing than Conversion or imparting some Spiritual Gift c. that it is incomparably greater for Baptisme with the Spirit is equivalent to the mission of the Spirit and his Inhabitation in Believers and his being given to them all Spiritual Gifts of Faith Conversion Regeneration however so true and real are but works and effects of the Spirit with whom Men may be said Instrumentally to work but the giving the Holy Spirit to which Baptisme with the Holy Spirit is equivalent is of a higher Nature than any or all these Spiritual Gifts differing as much as the Giver differs from his Gifts For as to Create is only proper to God and Christ and the Holy Ghost to Redeem by way of Ransome and Satisfaction to Divine Justice is only proper to Christ without any concurrence of Men or Angels so to Baptize with the Holy Ghost or endue therewith or give or send the Holy Ghost is only proper to God or Christ and not to Men so much as Instrumentally there is no such Phrase to be found in all the Scripture as that any Man did Baptize with the Holy Ghost in any case or sense we ought not to allow such odd Phrases so forrain to Scripture otherwise the greatest absurdities might follow and a Power of Creating and Redeeming might be given to Men at this rate by adding the word Instrumentally but as we are to allow no Instrumental Creators or Redeemers so no Instrumental giver of the Holy Ghost or Baptizers with the same The Holy Ghost is God himself and it is too arrogant and wild to say that Men who in respect of God are as Worms can give their Creator and Maker The Scripture indeed tells us that the Holy Ghost was given thro' the laying on of the Apostles

the filthiness of the Flesh but to signifie the inward washing by the Blood and Spirit of Christ upon the Soul and Conscience the which when so washed is a good Conscience and the effect of that inward washing is the answer of a good Conscience and indeed to me it is evident that Peter in this description of Baptisme first negatively what it is not doth refer by way of comparison to the legal purifyings under Moses Law by Blood and the Ashes of an Heiser with Water sprinkling the Unclean which as the Author to the Hebrews saith sanctified to the purifying the Flesh Heb. 9.13 and yet even this washing was not to cleanse the Body from natural filth but from the legal uncleanness that Men had on divers occasions as when they touched a dead Body they were legally unclean and because of that they were not to come into the Tabernacle until they were cleansed with this Water of purifying sprinkled on them But the Baptisme with Water under the Gospel had not that but a greater signification and being duly received had a greater and more noble effect viz. to signifie the spiritual cleansing by Christ and to be a means of Grace far greater than under the Law Again p. 17. He thus argueth If we take the second and affirmative definition to wit that it is the Answer or Confession of a good Conscience c. then Water-Baptisme is not it since as our Adversaries will not deny Water-Baptisme doth not always imply it neither is it any necessary consequence thereof Answ This Consequence also is not good because though Water-Baptisme in the literal sense strictly taken without any Metonymy is not the answer of a good Conscience as the Lamb was not the Passover but a signification of it yet the Lamb is called in Scripture the Passover by a Metonymy of the Sign put for the thing signified that is very common in Scripture as in other Authors so the Baptisme with Water metonymically may be called the answer of a good Conscience being the thing signified thereby That he saith their Adversaries will not deny that Water-Baptisme doth not always imply it neither is it any necessary consequence thereof in that he was under a mistake for they will say and do say that Water-Baptisme doth always imply it to such as duly and worthily receive it and that it is always a necessary consequence or concomitant thereof upon due and well qualified Receivers And if nothing appear to the contrary by words or actions but that the receivers are duly qualified tho' some of them be not such really yet in the judgment of Charity even according to Scripture rule they are called such as Paul calleth these of the Churches to whom he writ Saints and yet no doubt all were not real Saints in the Churches though by Profession they were such Again whereas pag. 18. he argueth thus Peter calls this here which saveth the Antitypos the Antitype or the thing figured whereas it is usually translated as if the like figure did now save us thereby insinuating that as they were saved by Water in the Ark so are we now by Water-Baptisme but this Interpretation he saith crosseth his sense Answ His Argument from the Greek word used by Peter viz. Antitypos he should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the neuter gender is indeed altogether weak and groundless as if it only signified the thing and could not be understood of the Figure of the thing the contrary whereof appeareth from Heb. 9.24 where the holy Places made with hands are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Antitypes of the true which are truly translated the Figures of the true holy Places made without hands Again whereas he argueth that Water-Baptisme is not meant p. 19. in 1 Pet. 3.21 that the Baptisme there mentioned is said to save us but Protestants deny it to be absolutely necessary to Salvation Answ Nor hath this Argument any force for though it is not absolutely necessary to Salvation yet that it is in God's ordinary way where it can be duely had and by whom it is duely received one of the ordinary means of Salvation it is truly said to save as the Doctrine of the Gospel outwardly Preached by the Ministry of Men is saving by way of means and as the Holy Scriptures are said by Paul to be able to make wise unto Salvation through Faith in Christ Jesus and said Paul to Timothy 1 Tim. 4.16 Take heed unto thy self and unto thy Doctrine continue in them for in doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee And as concerning the means of Salvation though all of them when really given of God are very profitable yet all are not alike necessary nor alike given nor afforded unto all some yea many never perhaps heard the Gospel truly Preached unto them by the Voice of Man yet having the Scriptures read unto them that hath proved an outward means of their Salvation the Lord working inwardly by his Grace and Spirit to make the same effectual to them And as at times the Book of the Holy Scriptures supplieth the defect of a Vocal Ministry so at times a Vocal Ministry doth supply the want of the Book of the Scriptures and thus though Baptisme and the Supper outwardly administred are means of Grace and Salvation when duly received yet they are not so necessary as the Doctrine of the Gospel as outwardly delivered by Men and the Books of the Holy Scripture If any shall object that it is better to keep to the literal Sense of the words in Peter than to run to the Metonymy which ought not to be done but in case of necessity I answer what way soever the Baptisme in 1 Pet. 3.32 be taken as suppose for the Baptisme of the Spirit yet such whoso take it must run to a Metonymy for the inward Baptisme of the Holy Spirit is not the Answer or Confession of a good Conscience otherwise than by a Metonymy of the Cause for the effect The Answer or Confession of a good Conscience being the effect of the inward Baptisme and operation of the Spirit and not the inward Baptisme it self And indeed such Figures and Metonymycal Speeches are very frequent in Scripture to which for not well adverting many are drawn into most false Interpretations of Scriptures and most hurtful Errors as the Papists by taking the words of Christ this is my Body in a mere literal Sense without any Metonymy To conclude upon this Argument the most that with any colour or shadow of Reason can be inferred from this place in 1 Pet. 3.21 is that Water-Baptisme alone neither doth or can save any without the inward Baptisme or operation of the Spirit all which is readily granted nor yet doth the inward Baptisme though joyned to the outward save without any thing else but both the inward Baptisme and outward do save us as Peter plainly declareth by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the

hands Acts 8.16 and sometimes in Preaching and sometimes in Prayer the Holy Ghost was given but it was never said that Men gave it or Baptized with it Besides at this rate they may say the Teaching that Christ commanded Matth. 28.19 was not outward Teaching but inward and then call it Instrumental but what sense would be made of such an assertion the Apostles were sent not to Teach outwardly but inwardly by Instrumental Teaching and one might argue as strongly that it was not outward Teaching that Christ meant Matth. 28.19 why not the least word is mentioned of outward Teaching therefore it is not understood but only inward Teaching If it be fit to answer this wild inference thus the Teaching there commanded must needs be outward because its only Mens work to Teach outwardly and Gods work to teach inwardly the like answer is as proper to be given in relation to Baptisme as it is Mens work to Baptize outwardly with Water so it is the work of God and Christ to Baptize inwardly with the Spirit And if Men be resolved to quibble and embrace any wild notion rather than the simple Truth had there been express mention made of Water Matth. 28.19 that quibbling Spirit would have made a new objection and still argued it was not material or outward Water but inward and Spiritual because in many places of Scripture Water signifieth not outward material Water but inward and Spiritual SECT VIII THERE is yet another Argument used both by W. Penn and R.B. against both Water-Baptism and the Supper in common I shall recite it in W. Penn's words being the same in effect with these of R.B. Thirdly saith W. Penn they were but the more noble among the Meats and Drinks and diverse Washings that the Apostles said were but shadows of the good things to come for I would not that any should be so sottish as to think that Christ came to abolish those shadows of the Jews and institute others in their room by no means He came to remove change and abolish the very nature of such Ordinances and not the particular Ordinances only to wit an outward Shadowy and Figurative Religion for it was not because they were Jewish Meats and Drinks and diverse Washings but because they were Meats and Drinks and outward Washings at all which never could nor can cleanse the Conscience from dead Works nor give eternal Life to the Soul else wherein would the change be A continuance of them would have been a judaizing of the Spiritual Evangelical Worship the Gospel would have been a state of Figures Types and Shadows which to assert or Practice is as much as in such lies to pluck it up by the roots Ans This whole way of Arguing proceeds upon a supposed Foundation that is false and because the Foundation is false therefore is his Superstructure also both which I shall briefly show First His supposed Foundation is false viz. No Signs that is no outward things that are Symbolical or Significative of greater and more excellent things do by any means belong to the Gospel and Christian Religion otherwise as he argueth but very weakly there would be no change and no difference betwixt the Jewish Religion and the Christian or betwixt Law and Gospel but this doth by no means follow For allowing that some Signs belong to the Gospel yet there is not only a change and difference betwixt them two but a very great change and difference even as much as betwixt the Light of the Twilight and the clear Light of the Sun after he is risen or betwixt the Sun in the Morning and the Sun when he is high in the Firmament and if he will have the outward Baptisme and Supper called Shadows as well as Signs is there no difference betwixt the Shadow that the Sun casts early in the Morning when he is but low above the Horizon and when he is high we know that the higher the Sun riseth the Shadow is the less yet still there is some Shadow however high the Sun riseth until he come to the Zenith or Vertical Point at which Point there is no Shadow but this never happeneth to us in these Northern Parts and to apply the similitude of the Sun and Shadow to the case in hand admit the Sun to be Christ as he enlightenth the Christian Church or the best Christian Congregation that ever was on the Earth did any such Church or Congregation know that Divine Sun to be risen upon them so high as the Vertical Point in this Spiritual Sense Is not that rather the State that is reserved to the future Life When the Shadows shall flee away Cant. 2.17 and 4.6 What was the State of the Church in the Apostles days after they had received plentiful Illuminations of the Holy Ghost Did not Paul say concerning himself and them now we see darkly as in a Glass tanquam in aenigmate the seeing Face to Face being reserved to the future State after Death and as he said again we walk by Faith not by Sight which is to be understood comparatively for though it is granted that the Saints while living in the mortal Body have often sweet and precious sights and tasts of the glory of God and of Christ yet it is not so always with them and their highest Illuminations of Knowledge do admit of some defects and obscurities and the condition of a mortal State as it implyeth somewhat of Shadow with reference to their defects and shortness in respect of the much higher and more full and perfect Attainments of glorified Saints and Angels So in this State of the mortal Body Shadows and Symbolical things may be and are really of that Service to them as the Shadow of a Curtain is that is interposed betwixt the brightness of the Sun and the frail sight of our mortal Bodies And what are all words but Signs verba sunt signa rerum conceptuum words are Signs of Things and Thoughts So are words properly defined by Logicians and Philosophers Now if the Gospels Dispensation under Christianity be all life and substance and nothing else then not only all Books and Letters but all words possible to be uttered by the Mouths of Men must be rejected from having any use in Gospel Worship and instead of silent Meetings at times there must be not other Meetings but silent Meetings nay nor any Meetings at all of Bodies of Men and Women outwardly Assembled for by W. Penn's way of Arguing there is no use of them such Meetings of Bodies reach but to the sight and all that is or can be seen is but Carnal and cannot reach to the Soul all Meetings must be only within and all Teaching within and all Prayer and Worship within and nothing without But if it be granted that outward words though Signs may be useful for the encrease of spiritual Knowledge by the same reason the outward Signs of God's appointment may be useful also yea in some sort they are more