Selected quad for the lemma: evil_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
evil_n	good_a	know_v	knowledge_n	3,077	5	7.3450	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65833	The accuser of our brethren cast down in righteous judgment against that spirit of hellish jealousie vented in a great confused book, falsly entituled, The Christian-Quaker distinguished from the apostate and innovator, in five parts ; the fallacy and force whereof being herein clearly detected & justly repelled.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1681 (1681)	Wing W1887; ESTC R19917	128,311	327

or Judicious Readers can reasonably take W. R ' s words Contribute toward the outward Maintenance to mean any other Maintenance than Tythes the Objection being wholly about Tythes and he presenting a We that are so far from condemning those that so freely pay Tythes that he grants them one Fifth part instead of a Tenth if the Charity of any be such as to bestow it on them they account Ministers of Christ. Thus we judge he hath declined our antient Testimony against Tythes and shewn his own Apostacy and Innovation and given away the true Christian Right and Freedom under the Gospel from that Yoke of Tythes which his Friends J. S. and J. W. have accounted Antichristian But W. R. though he has opposed Tythes as claimed either upon a Divine Right or Humane Institution under the Gospel as in the same cap. 8. 2d part yet in his Answer he grants a Liberty for the freely paying them as an outward Maintenance of their Ministers which being compared with his Friends Testimony against them amounts to thus much viz. Tythes in these dayes are an Antichristian Yoke yet nevertheless we are far from condemning any that will freely put their Necks under it and bear it without Compulsion or Sueing at Law whereas there is no need of Compelling them by Law who can freely submit to bear that Yoke but we deny that Freedom assented to by W. R. 't is not a true Christian Freedom nor a Freedom in Christ before he had given the said Fallacious Answer he should have considered whether it would not thwart or lessen the Testimony of J. W. and J. S. cited by him in his 4th part pag. 39. in these words viz. As to Tythes we can in Truth say 't was never so much as in our Hearts to strengthen any in the Payment thereof nor yet to weaken the Faith of any having a Testimony in our Hearts that Tythes as at this day paid are Antichristian But to W. R's Indulgence to the Blindness of those that freely pay Tythes to them they account Christ's Ministers in being so far from condemning them for that Practice or rather seeming to render it their Duty This is to make void Christ's Ministry and Testimony to make it suit with mens Ignorance and Blindness and not to answer his Light in them this is to leave them in Blindness under their Priests not to bring them to Christ this will never be the way to convert People to Christ the true Shepherd but is to leave them under their false Shepherds and Hirelings had we taken this Course in Preaching what success should we have had in our Ministry How little has W. R. ever known of the Work of Christ's Ministry 'T is a Question whether ever he Converted one Soul to God in all his Days This kind of Liberty and Indulgence to Ignorance and Blindness yea to Erroneous Practices on the one hand and to neglect what 's good on the other on pretence of not seeing it their Duty as also to make Opposition Dissention and Separation under pretence of Different Gifts and Measures of Grace this appears to us as the very Nature and Medul of W. R's Contest and a kind of Ranterism which Solid Truth and Gospel Light can never admit of it appears to us no better than to preach thus to People viz. Far be it from us to condemn you for doing Unchristian Practices if you see not your way out of them you may continue in them And so by the Rule of Contraries far be it from us to condemn you for omitting Christian Practices or to lay any good Commands or Things upon you if you see them not your Duty or if the Light doth not discover them to you you may remain in Darkness and that uncondemned all your Dayes Away with such Doctrine or any thing of this Tendence It s to introduce Carelesness and a False and Fleshly Liberty on the one hand to leave People in Blindness and Ignorance in Judaism and Popery on the other hand to let loose a shunning the Cross and to let up an Apostatizing Dividing Rebellious Spirit that will pretend want of Sight and Conviction or to a Differing Measure of Grace against True Light Grace and Knowledge all which is highly to pervert the Gospel and oppose good Order and to make void the Divine Authority of the true Christian Ministry of the New Testament which was preacht even to them that had the Vail over their Hearts that they saw not the end of things abolished to bring them from under the Law and Ministration of Condemnation Disaffect XLI Second part pag. 27. He forms or rather imagins the Objection thus viz. W. R. You seem to exalt Knowledge as an excellent thing How comes it then to pass that divers amongst you called Quakers have Preached reflectingly on such as are endued with Knowledge above many of their Brethren telling us that the Tree of Knowledge was not good for Food To which W. R. answers thus ' T is very true However that doth not prove all such Expressions according to Truth pag. 28. As to the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil though the Scriptures do not positively declare whether it was good for Food or no as in it self yet it clearly imports that Adam's Sin in eating thereof was the Sin of Rebellion A Father may command his Child not to eat an Apple His rebellious eating no Argument to prove the Apple in it self not good for Food It may reasonably be concluded that there is no ground to assert that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was not good for Food as in it self pag. 29. We know not on what Foot of Truth any one can assert that the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food Observe By all this opposition to the Doctrine that the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil is not good for Food W. R. seems to account it good for Food because that Tree in it self or in its own Nature is good and so it might and yet it follows not that it was good for Food for the Soul to feed upon in a state of Innocency And we may presume that W. R. may remember that 't is no Innovation in Doctrine to say that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was not good for Food Have not some ancient and faithful Friends said this who have ended their dayes in Peace And therefore for W. R. now to object it against us or any of us to bring us under his terms Apostate and Innovator shews his evil design of Envy Howbeit he appears still inconsistent with himself in varying from his charge in these Words pag. 29. viz. But yet I would not be understood to reflect on all that have used that Expression to wit the Tree of Knowledge is not good for Food because I question not but many have so expressed themselves not thereby to represent that Wisdom which is accounted Sensual and Devilish but rather to