Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	believe_v	truth_n	word_n	3,712	5	4.2368	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62427	The Quakers quibbles in three parts : first set forth in an expostulatory epistle to Will. Pfnn [i.e. Penn] concerning the late meeting held to Barbycan between the Baptists and the Quakers, also the pretended prophet Lod. Muggleton and the Quakers compared : the second part, in reply to a quibbling answer to G. Whiteheads, entituled The Quakers plainness ... : the third part, being a continuation of their quibbles ... / by the same indifferent pen.	Thompson, Thomas.; Hedworth, Henry.; Penn, William, 1644-1718.	1675 (1675)	Wing T1013; ESTC R41153	141,349	262

G. the Charge is not foolish nor silly for as I understand the Baptists hold that the living Body that was born of the Virgin Mary is Christ and that that dyed and so believe that Christ indeed dyed But you Quakers not Believing so if you Believe that indeed the Christ dyed you must Believe his Spirit or his Divinity Dyed for that only you hold is THE CHRIST and then are you like Reeve and Muggleton who have Blasphemously said that the Godhead d●●d and thus is thy Charge turn'd upon thy own head and thy Quest proves foolish and silly For how canst thou ask if any more of Christ than the Body dyed when thou dost not Believe the Body to be Christ or any real or essential PART OF CHRIST Thus whilst you own the Body not to be the Christ nor a real part of the Christ you must own that not the Christ nor any real part of Christ dyed since you agree only the Body dyed and the Body of Jesus was not the Christ say you nor any essential real part of Christ that you will own 18. As to Jer. Ives Answer to their Distinction it seemed to me pertinent enough to manifest their fallacy and folly and so it doth still for ought G.W. hath told me as yet to the contrary and I cannot without offering violence to my understanding be so much taken with G's Reply which is on this wise p. 26. It 's not improbable that if we had made such a comparison you Baptists would have cryed out oh Blasphemy This is an improbable or an improper Reply indeed It 's more probable W.P. could have told G.W. if he did not know it that he had learnt in the Schools that may-bee's can be answered with may not bee's and so this might be sufficient for that But 1. What if the Baptists would not in such a case have Cryed out Oh Blasphemy where 's thy Answer then George 2. Or what if the Baptists should and the Quakers should not in such a Case Cry out oh Blasphemy as thou dost not affirm it is Blasphemy where 's thy Answer then George 3. Or what if there be no such comparison made as thou pretendest is implyed as sure I am there is not viz the name of Christ to be no more excellent than the name of George or William Where 's then thy Answer George And where 's now thy oh Ignorance in the Abstract one may well enough see it in the Concrete viz. in G.W. when thou settest down thy Reply thou immediately says oh Ignorance in the Abstract now if thou meanest as it may be so taken that the words of thy Reply is such I shall not trouble my self to say much against it But if thou speakest it of me or the Baptists by thy using that word Abstract thou shewest thy own Ignorance and want of Learning not well understanding the word Abstract which against the next time thou writest for W. P he may inform thee and teach thee so much Logick Ignorance in the Abstract Qualitatem notat nulli subjecto inhaerentem and so not in me Ask thy Brother P. else Besides how thou wilt Answer for this word Abstract before your Prophet G.F. I know not for in the Epistle before one of thy own Books Divin of Christ he condemns that word as well as others as coming from our old Logical and Philosophical Books and yet behold here a Quaker uses it oh what self-contradicting and dissembling Men are they And as for the excellency thou now pretendest to own in the name of Christ one may see it to be but Hypocrisy used for evasion-sake only by what your friend John Crook says of the name Christ and Jesus Principles of Truth p. 12. Without this Vertue viz. The Arm of God CHRIST and JESUS are but empty names We believe and know by his Grace in our hearts that as his name JESUS without Vertue and Power is but an empty word c p. 11. But the name which saves is the power and arm of God that brings Salvation from Sin c. Pray how much more excellent does the Quaker here make the name JESVS than the name GEORGE or WILLIAM Are they Can they be less excellent than empty words Oh the Hypocrisy of these Men to say no worse 19. I said the Quakers Quibbled as much about the word Body as the word Christ and G.W. instead of denying it hath confirmed it p. 29. For though it be Scripture Language That the Body is one and hath many Members and in another place That the Church of Christ is his Body yet it will not therefore follow nor is it according to Scripture Language That Christ had NO OTHER Body than his Church for had he not a Body that was born of the Virgin MARY or was the Church viz. all the Saints in the World born of the Virgin M●ry Or had the Body of Christ that was born of the Virgin Mary the espoused Wife of Joseph no other members as Arms Hands Legs c. but only the Saints would not this be rare Divinity When Thomas put his finger into the Print of the nails in the hands of Jesus and put his hand into his side was that then the Church that Thomas put his hand and finger into Oh excellent Quakerism Pag. 30. G.W. would slily give the go-by to my discourse about Mr. Keith's distinction of making three Christs by taking no notice upon what I grounded the Objection viz. Now after this rate or by the same manner of Reasoning and Quibbling may not one say that G.K. makes three Christs in Scripture and that with as much Truth as for any of them to affirm Christ would be a Monster by saying he hath two Bodies But this he slides by not Answering a word to it Is this the Qu●kers plainness Is it not indeed a Plain shuffle But come George come back again take notice what it is thou hast to Answer and then Answer it Shufflle me no Shufflles nor Quibble me no more such Quibbles neither doth G. tell me which I also prayed W.P. honestly and plainly to do whether G.K. meant That these three were three Christs in three distinct Persons Or that these three and not any thing less than these three were one Christ in one distinct Person Or whether these three are no Christ at all in no distinct Person Let G.W. Remember his own words in his Introduction to his Divinity of Christ We judg that such expressions and words as the Holy Ghost taught the true Apostles and holy men mentioned in Scripture are most meet to speak of God and Christ and not the words of man's wisdom or humane Inventions and devised Distinctions since the Apostles days nor in Philosophical terms and nice School Distinctions derived from heathenish Metaphisicks and now tell me G. whether this of thy Brother Keiths is not a devised Distinction since the Apostles And whether G. thou hast not condemned thy Brother K's Distinction Where is

came on them and they spake with Tongues and prophesied and all the Men were about twelve 2 Cor. 12.12 13. Truly the Signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience in Signs and Wonders and mighty Deeds For what is it wherein ye were Inferior to other Churches * Isa 29.11 12. And the Vision of all is become unto you as the words of a Book that is Sealed which Men deliver to one that is Learned saying Read this I pray thee and he saith I cannot for it is Sealed A●● the Book is delivered to him that is not learned saying Read this I pray thee and he saith I am not learned Mica 3.6 7. Therefore night shall be unto you that ye shall not have a Vision and it shall be dark unto you that ye shall not Divine and the Sun shall go down over the Prophets and the day shall b● dark over them Then shall the Seers be ashamed and the Di●iners Confounded yea they shall all cover their Lips for there is no answer of God see Psal 34.9 Ezek. 13.6 7. * 1 Cor. 2 4 5. My Speech and my Preaching says the true Apostle was not with inticing Words of Mans Wisdom But in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power c. 2 Tim. 2.24 25 The Servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle unto all men apt to teach patient in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them Repentance See Gal. 6.1 and Phil. 4.5 See 1 Tim. 1.5 6. 2 Tim. 2.16 17 18. Shun prophane and vain Bablings for they will increase unto more ungodliness and their Word wil eat as doth a Canker of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus who concerning the Truth have Erred saying That the Resurrection is past already and overthrow the Faith of some 1 Pet. 3.15 But sanctifie the Lord God in your hearts and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a Reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear reverence 1 C●r 14. ● So likewise you exc●pt ye utter by the tongue words significant or eas●e to be und●●stood how shall it be k●●wn wh●t is 〈◊〉 for ye shall speak into the Air. * And some of the Quakers quibble as much about the word Body as thou dost about the word Christ not being willing to own that Christ hath any other Body now then his Church from Col. 1.24 or sometimes then the Bodies of the Saints from Ephes 5.30 mistaken Titus 3.2 3. To speak evil of no man to be no Brawlers but gentle shewing all meekness unto all men For we our selves also were sometimes foolish disobedient deceived c. * Rom. 12.5 John 5.31 and 36. John 10.37 15.24 Acts 2.22 36. Heb. 2.3 4. Prov. 27.5 15.32 G.W. p. 18. * Which is the most true and pure Language to a single Person to write that thou ORDERED me or to say that you Ordered me Are they not both alike as to the impureness of speech Oh ye rare Linguists that write by Inspiration † If you have bad English again I cannot help that you have it as such a School-Master and Dictator as G.W. sent it me I would not take notice of this but that the Quakers pretend to Infallibility and have condemned o●hers for bad English or not speaking it Grammatically * It seems G.W. says or to deny it was added Whether it be so or no and What G.W. meant he WAS to deny or would IMPOSE upon him to deny I know not but it is still the same as to the purpose I brought it viz. their IMPOSING upon others as if they had the Power of or would new erect among them A HIGH COMMISSION COVRT for even there their IMPOSITION was the same that the Parties accused had the Liberty to confess or deny the Questions that were put to them * Mr. Pen● Judas and the Jews is no more than a little above sixteen sheets in Answer to four and a h●lf and this you must not doubt but without disgusting their Sober Readers it being a Quakers Method See also hi● Spirit of Truth Vindicated it is but seventeen sheets in Answer to six