Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heaven_n	body_n	place_n	soul_n	7,234	5	5.3086	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47180	Some of the many fallacies of William Penn detected in a paper called Gospel truths signed by him and three more at Dublin, the 4th of the 3d month, 1698, and in his late book called A defence of Gospel truths, against the exceptions of the B. of Cork's testimony concerning that paper : with some remarks on W.P., his unfair and unjust treatment of him : to which is added a synopsis or short view of W. Penn's deism, collected out of his book called A defense of the general rule of faith, &c. / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1699 (1699)	Wing K214; ESTC R2685	46,816	106

Some of the Many FALLACIES OF WILLIAM PENN DETECTED In a Paper called GOSPEL TRUTHS Signed by him and Three more at Dublin the 4th of the 3d Month 1698. And in his late Book called A Defence of Gospel Truths Against the Exceptions of the B. of Cork's Testimony concerning that Paper With some Remarks on W. P. his unfair and unjust Treatment of him To which is added A Synopsis or short View of W. Penn's Deism Collected out of his Book called A Discourse of the General Rule of Faith c. By GEORGE KEITH LONDON Printed for Benj. Tooke at the Middle-Temple-Gate in Fleet-street 1699. THE PREFACE Christian Reader THE following Treatise is not intended to be any direct or compleat Answer to the Book called A Defence of a Paper entituled Gospel-Truths against the Exceptions of the Bishop of Cork 's Testimony By William Penn. Printed 1698 that Work belonging not to me but to the Bishop of Cork who as I am certainly informed doth intend to give him a meet Answer to his Book In the mean while I hoped it would be acceptable both to the Bishop and to many good Christians thus far to interpose in the Defence of the Common Cause of the Christian Faith especially in the detecting of some of the greatest Fallacies W. P. hath used in his Book under a seeming Disguise and Vizard of Christianity really to undermine and destroy it I being of late Years better acquainted with W. P's Fallacious way of Writing than probably the Bishop of Cork is If this small Treatise comes to the Bishop's Hand before he publish his Answer to W. P. he will find that he hath been more charitable to him than indeed he deserved and that he had in his large Charity judged him more Orthodox than he really is although W. P. has made but an ill use of his Charity and has badly requited him with many uncivil as well as unjust Reflections some of which I thought it was but Justice that I should vindicate the Bishop from and the rather because I suppose the Bishop's Innocency and Station may lead him in great part to neglect them as not being so proper for him to notice as for another that stands by and beholds their mutual Treatment of each other which according to my best understanding and observation as fair as it hath been on the Bishop's part hath been as unfair on the part of W. P. who as he treats him not with the least due respect to his Station so nor indeed as a Christian Some of the many Fallacies of William Penn detected in a Paper called Gospel Truths c. Section 1. W. P 's Fallacy in calling the Illumination of the Holy Ghost which to him is nothing but the common Illumination given to all Mankind together with the Scriptures a double and agreeing Record of true Religion His false Notion of Heaven and Hell denying the Locality of them His abusive Reflection on the Bishop of Cork his keeping the true Hell to himself His Fallacy in pretending to the Bishop that he owned the Holy Trinity where as in his Sandy Foundation he hath expresly denied it and argued against it His denying that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem to be properly the Son of God His denying that the Body of Christ was any part of Christ and his agreement with G. W. and other Quakers in denying the Humanity of Christ to be any part of the true Christ Page 1. HE saith The Testimony of the Scriptures of Truth and the Illumination of the Holy Ghost are the double and agreeing Record of true Religion In this he is very Fallacious in the very entrance this Illumination of the Holy Ghost he will have to be that which is given to be a general Rule to all Mankind see his Discourse concerning the General Rule of Faith and Life Printed by T. Sowle 1699. But how is that together with the Scriptures a double and agreeing Record whereas that general Rule that he contendeth is given to all Mankind to wit that general Illumination as given to Infidel Jews Mahometans and the Heathen World is no Record to any one Article of the Apostles Creed or any one peculiar Doctrine of Christianity but only to some few Precepts of Morality and general Piety towards God Yea W. P. hath confessed see his Page 32 of that Discourse That neither he nor his Brethren have any new superadded Revelation concerning Adam's Fall and Christ's Birth Death and Sufferings c. and saith It is not necessary Therefore the Illumination that he sets up for the General Rule to Quakers and Heathens is not any Record agreeing with the Scriptures in any one particular Article of the Christian Faith or positive Precept of the Gospel peculiar to the Christian Religion as distinct from Deism and Heathenism Page 2. In his first Section the makes the eternal Reward of Happiness to be given to all them that fear God without the least mentioning of any Faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ considered as both God and Man towards the obtaining the eternal Happiness nor is there the least hint of any such Faith being necessary in all his Sections And whereas he saith They that fear him not shall be turned into Hell as the Bishop of Cork did well observe What W. P. means by Hell by that Paper no one knows but elsewhere what he means either by Heaven or Hell he hath sufficiently told us in his Rejoinder to J. Faldo p. 179. viz. To assert the Locality of Heaven and Hell is too Carnal indeed Mahometan Seeing them W. P. doth not own any place without us to be either Heaven or Hell it is easie to understand what Heaven or Hell W. P. is for to wit the Light within that 's his only Heaven and Darkness within his only Hell which is the old Ranters Notion that is destructive to the great Fundamentals of Christianity such as that Christ is bodily ascended into a real Local Heaven without us which Heavens all the Saints shall after the Resurrection in their glorified Bodies he taken up into and the Bodies of the Wicked together with their Souls shall be cast into Hell that is a place of Torment as really as the other is a place of Joy and Felicity It is prodigiously Shameful and Astonishing in W. P. that though he knew in his Conscience he did not mean Hell in the common sense of Christians which without doubt is the Bishop's sense to wit a real place of Torment without us yet that he should so treat the Bishop and so rudely and unchristianly reflect upon him by a consequence as false as it is foul and dirty saying in his Page 40 either one of these is an Article of his belief or else he keeps the true Hell to himself Page 2. In his second Section though he professeth to express his and his Brethrens Faith in Scripture Words that there are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the

Propitiation in order to remission of Sins can hardly disbelieve any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion so by good consequence contrariwise whoever believes not in Christ as a Propitiation in the true sense of Scripture generally received by all true Christians to wit as outwardly Crucified Dead and Raised again c. can hardly believe any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion but W. P. believes not in Christ as a Propitiation in order to remission of Sin c. in the true sense of Scripture generally received by all true Christians therefore W. P. hardly believeth any fundamental Article of the Christian Religion to wit as peculiar to the same The first proposition is proved by the Rule of contraries from W. P's assertion as I think he will readily confess the second proposition which is the Assumption is fully proved from what is above at large quoted by me out of his former Books never to this day retracted by him And though he reckoneth up the Doctrine of the Trinity viz. of the Father of Christ the Son and of the Holy Ghost the Doctrine of Heaven and Hell the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust to be Fundamental Doctrines yea and the main of Christian Doctrine yet from what is above proved out of his Books he hath plainly opposed the true Christian Doctrine both of the Holy Trinity and of Heaven and Hell and as plainly he hath opposed the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust in their respective Bodies as I have fully proved in my third Narrative and so have his Brethren G. Whitehead Richard Hubberthorne and others only at present I shall quote these following passages out of some of his former Books in his Reason against Railing in answer to Tho. Hicks P. 138. he thus plainly argueth against the deceased Saints looking for any future Resurrection of the Body which Tho. Hicks argued for Is the Joy of the Ancients saith W. P. now in Glory imperfect or are they in Heaven but by halves But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Window to be without its beloved Body a better sort of Purgatory Again P. 134. If a thing can be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for the absurdity of it is rather out-done than equalled by this carnal Resurrection Again in his answer to J. Faldo called the Invalidity of J. Faldo's Vindication P. 369. It 's sown a Natural Body It 's raised a Spiritual Body and I do utterly deny saith he that this Text is concerned in the Resurrection of Man's carnal Body at all but the States of Men under the First and Second Adam Men are sown into the World Natural but they are raised Spiritual through him who is the Resurrection and the Life and so they are Sons of the Second Adam Nor need any to wonder why W. P. and his Brethren should disbelieve all these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity which now he professeth to own and that as Fundamental but still quite in a most differing Sense from all true Christians for with what certainty can he or they believe them they acknowledge not the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule of their Faith in any of these things or indeed of any others they have no certainty of the Truth of any of these he now calls Fundamentals from the Rule of Faith set up by them which is the Light within them with respect to its ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind but none of these Fundamental Doctrines above mentioned fall within these ordinary Discoveries as W. P. hath confessed for they belong to extraordinary Revelation And if he should affirm they did belong to the ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind he cannot prove it What obscure Knowledge any of them called Heathen Philosophers had of any of these great Mysteries W. P. cannot prove they had it from the Light within but Traditionally either from the Jews and ancient Patriarchs and Prophets or from some among themselves prophetically inspired as it is reported of the Sybils the which report were it true doth not prove that the Knowledge and Faith of these great Fundamentals did fall within the ordinary discoveries of the Light within given to Mankind in general Section 5. His uncivil Treatment of the Bishop as if he did render the Text 1 John 5. 7. defective whereas the Bishop only charg'd the Defect on W. P 's Confession which though given in Scripture words yet not in the true Sense of Scripture His Fallacious Argument against the Holy Trinity answered His Fallacy and Equivocation about his calling him who was born of the Virgin Mary Jesus Christ and the Son of God whereas he hath denied him to be properly so And his abusive Treatment of the Bishop on that Head IN his Page 30 he proceeds in his unchristian and uncivil Treatment of the Bishop unjustly charging him as if the Text 1 John 5. 7. were defective with the Bishop and as if he did render the Text it self short which saith W. P. with submission I think is a bold Attempt in one of his Station If he believes the 39 Articles But all this is nothing but a Scandalous Reflection on the Bishop and a Shuffling and Cover wherewithall to hide his own Error and Incredulity The Bishop might well enough without charging any defect on the Text as he doth not in the least charge a defect on this Confession of W. P. and his Brethren because though given in one Scripture Text yet he had just cause to question not to be given in the true sense of that Scripture for most that are unsound as touching the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity even Socinians as well as others will profess yea and have professed to give their Faith in the Text yea and all other Texts of the like nature who yet are professed Unbelievers of the true Doctrine of the Holy Trinity And though W. P. and his Brethren will frankly confess they believe that the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are one God one in Substance and Essence and thus think to clear themselves of Sociniansm yet he and they at the same time are grosly guilty of Sabellianism acknowledging no distinction betwixt Father Son and Holy Ghost other than Nominal or at most in Manifestation and Operation ad extra and with relation to the Creatures So that W. P's Notion and Faith of the Holy Trinity which he calls the Scripture Trinity but it is not the Scripture Trinity but the Sabellian Trinity is no other than this that as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God one Essence and Being so the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father and the Holy Ghost is the Son and the Son is the Holy Ghost for as I have quoted him above in his Sandy Foundation he disputeth not

only against their being Three Persons but against their being Three or Three He 's arguing That if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then unless they are Three distinct Nothings they are Three distinct Substances and consequently Three distinct God's Which is as weakly and Sophistically argued by W. P. as if he had argued If the three Dimensions of a Body be three distinct Dimensions then unless they are three distinct Nothings they are three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct Bodies which I only bring to shew the silly Sophistry of his Argument but not that I think this glorious Mystery of the Trinity can be duly represented by this Similitude or any other natural Similitude whatsoever though it is a certain truth that the distinction of the three divine relative Properties in the divine Essence prove them no more to be Three Gods than the distinction of the three Dimensions in a Body prove that they are three Bodies And had W. P. given the Profession of his Faith in all the other Texts of Scripture that are commonly understood by true Christians to prove the true distinction of the Father Son and Holy Ghost in their relative and personal Properties Yet seeing as hath been fully proved W. P. hath quite another sense of all those Texts than the true Scripture sense received by all true Christians the Bishop might well enough charge W. P's Faith with being defective for his imposing a wrong sense on the sound Scripture words as he hath done and which it is like the Bishop had just occasion of suspicion he had done in some of his books Doth W. P. think that if a suspected Papist to clear himself of being free of that Popish Error of Transubstantiation should profess his Faith in that one Text of Scripture Take eat this is my Body would this justly clear him of that Suspicion seeing he may be guilty of that Error for all his Scripture Confession it being the common Policy of the greatest Hereticks to profess their Faith in Scripture words while by their other words they have made it appear that they have a Heretical Sense as in the present case is fully evident In Page 31. To excuse his Equivocation about his owning Jesus Christ to be the Son of God he tells the Bishop we call him the beloved Son of God the only begotten of the Father And in Page 32 and 33 he tells they have called him Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary and Conceived by the Holy Ghost again and again yea that they have not confessed his Name less than nine times in that Paper And from this takes occasion to blame the Bishop with uncharitableness and being beside the business And if we have said so saith W. P. must not the Bishop be extreamly beside the business His uncharitàbleness is as obvious I will not say his Untruth What shall I say to his Story of some of our Friends whom he makes to affirm that Christ is not ascended into Heaven he is in us Can it touch us or should he have said it and not have proved it Is that fair and candid Is it charitable supposing it were true which does not appear Or is it just to insinuate upon the People as dubious But let it be never so true saith he it cannot conclude the People if not the Act of the People The Church of England has Doctors of very different Sentiments would the Bishop think it fair the common Belief of the Church should thereby be concluded And in Page 35 he saith So that though we did not dwell upon Points but were concise in our Expressions yet whatever is implied or is implicable from any Assertion Justice as well as Charity always grants and so would the Bishop have done had they been uppermost in his Mind when his Pen run so fast against us It is prodigious Fallacy and Presumption in W. P. thus to treat the Bishop or any Christian Man when he did know in his Conscience how far both he and his Brethren for all his seeming fair Confessions were and still are guilty in both these things in which the Bishop very modestly doth but blame them for not expressing those Matters more fully and clearly to take away Suspicion out of the Minds of some who might be jealous of their Sincerity as they have but too great ground so to be For as to the first viz. Whither he that was born of the Virgin Mary and dyed c. was the Christ and the Son of God truly and properly To this W. P. hath expresly opposed in his Serious Apology p. 146. That the outward Person that suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny It 's true W. P. hath called him that was so born Christ and the Son of God yet that will not prove that he believed him so to be truly and properly The Socinians call Christ the Son of God and yet deny his eternal Generation And so W. P. and G. W. and others of them call the Man that was born of Mary Christ and the Son of God by some Figure because the Son of God the true Christ was in that Man as the thing containing gets the Name of the thing contained by a Metonimy But still they deny that that Man was properly the Son of God or that he was God And accordingly G. W. hath found fault again and again with that Expression of Christ his being God-man calling it unscripture Language and alledging it is no where to be found but in the Pope's Canons Hence it is that they deny that Christ hath our Nature in Heaven or that he consisteth of a Humane Nature or Body though they grant he had a Body but deny that he consists of it as any part of him as a Man may have a Coat or Garment but doth not consist of it The Foundation of which Error is that they do not believe the Hypostatical or Personal Union of the two Natures so as to constitute one Christ they will have Christ to be nothing properly but the Godhead and that is the Father and the Holy Ghost as well as the Son as I have plainly proved in my third Narrative especially And as concerning their denying Christ's Ascension into Heaven first seeing W. P. denieth the Locality of Heaven as well as of Hell he must needs grant that Christ's Body is either no where ascended or is every where which last he seems to be for p. 35. quoting Eph. 4. 10. that he ascended far above all Heavens that he might fill all things Then saith he he is in Man certainly But as he was the Divine Word he did fill all things and was in Man before he ascended but this Text doth not prove that his Body filleth all things for the Question is not Whither the Godhead is present in all things which yet is well known some of the Quakers have denied and some of them in Pensilvania charged me

in a publick Meeting with Blasphemy for asserting it but whither the Body of Christ now since his Ascension is in all things and every where If not every where then but some where and that some-where is a Local Heaven which W. P. hath said is Mahometan E. Burrough charg'd John Bunnion with Wickedness for saying Christ was in Heaven in our Nature And for the same did G. Whitehead blame John Horn as I have shewn in my Narratives And saith G. W. in his Nature of Christianity p. 41. That Christ existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right hand What Scripture hath he viz. his Opponent R. G. for these words W. Bailey will have it That Christ ascended into Heaven in no body but what came down from Heaven All which and much more is proved out of my three Narratives the third especially And whereas he saith Let it be never so true it cannot affect the People if not the act of the People the Church of England has Doctors of very differing Sentiments c. I answer what any one of your Teachers have asserted in Print especially it affects your Second days Meeting that licenseth all your Teachers Books and yet profess to be all one and the same in all that ye believe as God and Truth is the same And if the Church of England hath Teachers of different Sentiments in lesser Matters yet not in Fundamentals so far as she knows and if they had and she should know it and not censure them it would affect her From all which it appears that W. P. and his Brethrens Conciseness in their Gospel Truths was on purpose in general Terms to cover their gross Errors And where Men are sound in the Faith and of known Sincerity what is implied in their words may in Charity and Justice be granted but not if they be Insincere and given to equivocate as is the present Case Section 6. His Fallacy in asserting that his owning future Rewards and Punishments in his Sense doth imply his owning the Resurrection of the Dead which it is proved he hath disowned His unjust Offence at the Bishop's Censure of his unsound Notion of the Light within and his uncivil Treatment of the Bishop on that account as if he were a meer Natural Man a Persecuter a Nicodemus in the Knowledge of Regeneration The Bishop's Doctrine of the Light within more sound and intelligible than that of W. P. By W. P 's Definition of Light within and Sight within a Natural Man is capable to understand it though in contradiction to himself W. P 's Ignorance in making the natural rational Faculty to be all the Spiritual Sight even in Regenerated Persons The Bishop's Doctrine of the Light within and Spiritual Sight of regenerated Persons as more sound so more sublime than that of W. P. IN Page 43 he proceeds in the like Fallacy and Equivocation alledging That their acknowledging the future state of the Just and Unjust implys the resurrection of the Dead which as it is true in a Scripture sense it is as false in his sense and in the sense of all others of his Heathen Brethren many of whom professed to believe the immortality of Men's Souls both Greek and Latin yet that profession did not imply they believed the resurrection of the Body either of the Just or Unjust for they generally disbelieved it and opposed the Christians for asserting it And that W. P. himself hath opposed the Resurrection of the Body is above sufficiently proved In his Page 51. and 52. W. P. seems not a little moved with the Bishops saying their discourse about the Light within as far as he can see is perfectly such as we usually call Banter that is when Men have a faculty to speak things seemingly profound but in the end neither themselves nor others can make any distinct Sense of what they have said This Modest Censure of the Bishop upon his discourse of the Light within in his 5th 6th and 7th Sections W. P. calls one of the severest Persecutions This to me saith he is one of the severest Persecutions because Spiritual things are only to be Spiritually discern'd and understood I would fain know saith he how a regenerate Man can possibly make a Carnal Man understand the new Birth yea he chargeth it to look Antichristian as well as unreasonable and he quotes diverse places of Scripture which he at least implicitly levels at the Bishop as if the Bishop were the Unregenerate and Natural Man that because he is so he cannot understand W. P's profound Doctrine of the Light within And the Bishop is he that is born after the Flesh who persecutes W. P. that 's born after the Spirit and his Brethren with Tongue and Pen when he and others such as he can no longer commit violence upon their Persons and Estates and as if the Bishop were a very Nicodemus in the Doctrine of the new Birth All which it plainly appears and much more W. P. indirectly and implicitly levels at the Bishop otherwise why quotes he such places of Scriptures with such large discourses on them if not to point to him and that his want of the new Birth and being but a Natural Man tho' not wanting Academical Learning made him uncapable of understanding W. P's Spiritual Doctrine about the Light within and after his instance of the blindness of the Scribes and Pharisees and the High-Priest of the Jews in not discerning the Messiah when he came he infers let the Bishop also have a care and he further tells the Bishop he should be glad to see the Bishop's evidence for the knowledge of God by the Revelation of the Son of God in his own Soul To give my sense freely so far as I am able to understand the Bishop hath given a better account and evidence of his knowledge in the Mystery of God and of Christ by his Christian Scriptural and sound expressions than W. P. and I suppose in his manner of Life is nothing inferior to him And what evidence of his true knowledge by Internall Illumination or Revelation can W. P. give or has given that the Bishop cannot give yea hath not given in this very case Is it enough for W. P. to say he has it and the Bishop has it not Or wherein do W. P's fruits of a holy Life give more evidence of his knowledge and experience of the new Birth than these of the Bishop I shall first take notice of the Bishop's sound words in giving his sense how the Conscience of Man is enlightned to know and believe aright the Doctrines and Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation Conscience saith the Bishop opened by the holy Spirit under the Ministry of the word Acts 16. 14. does and must take in its Light from holy Scripture quoting Psal 19. 8. Eph. 1. 18. Psal 119. 105. Isaiah 8. 20. Now these things saith he are intelligible this Rule is fixt and certain nothing of which can be said of your Light within