Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	great_a	name_n	11,099	5	4.9414	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47166	Quakerism no popery, or, A particular answere to that part of Iohn Menzeis, professor of divinity in Aberdeen, (as he is called) his book, intituled Roma mendax Wherein the people called Quakers are concerned, whom he doth accuse as holding many popish doctrins, and as if Quakerism, (so he nick-names our religion,) were but popery-disguised. In which treatise his alleadged grounds for this his assertion, are impartialy and fairly examined and confuted: and also his accusation of popery against us, justly retorted upon himself, and his bretheren. By George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1675 (1675)	Wing K194; ESTC R213551	62,351	126

in Infants it is unreasonable as well as contrary to Scripture that it doth infe●r any reall guiltiness where it is not in the least consented unto I remember what Bernard sayeth of it Non nec●t sensus ubi desit concensus The sense of it hurteth not viz. to bring on guiltiness where the consent is wanting Now if it were their sin it would certainly hurt The same Cassander showeth a form of agreement among divers Protestants and Papists how that the Materiale of it doth remain in the Regenerated that is to say a certain evil or infirmity or weakness but that the Formale of it is removed which Formale is the guiltiness of it to wit which it had before This Eight and Last Instance may be justly also re●or●ed upon I. M. and his Brethren who teach That by reason of this Principle in Infants they doe all come into the world guilty of Eternall Damnation and that many Infants doe really perish Eternally which is a Popish doctrin wherein they doe both agree contrarie to the Scripture which sayeth The soul that finneth shall die Importing that the soul that doth not actually sin shall not die which Popish error Zuinglius did manifestly impugne De Baptismo Having thus passed through all the Eight Instances alleadged by I. M. wherein he chargeth us as guiltie of Popish doctrins I desire the Reader to take a serious review of what I have answered on every particular head and he will find that upon all of them I have made it manifest that either we doe not hold the same doctrin with Pap●sts or if some papists seem to hold the same others of the Papists as Numerous and sometimes more hold the contradictory wherein I. M. and his Brethren aggreeth with them And so how the same charge is more justly retorted upon himself and his Brethren And Lastly that there is not one principle or doctrin held by us wherein any of the Papists seem to aggree with us but we have famous protestants whom I. M. doth acknowledge to be Protestants who therein doe aggree with us also And therefore if any of these doctrins can prove that our religion is but Popery disguised it will prove as effectually that the religion of those protestants who agree with us in all these things is also but Popery disguised which yet I suppose he will be loath to acknowledge SECT X. Where severall other alleadged lesser agreements in point of Practise and divers other Calumnies of that kind are considered and examined AS for his Criminations page 22.23 that Quakers have so much indignation at these who goe under the name of Puritans and so much correspondense with Romanists with whom before they could not converse I answere to the First as we love all men to those who are the rightest sort of Puritans we have a speciall kindness for in whom the true Puritanicall Spirit is alive by which they were seperated in good measure from the dead and dry formalities of the worlds religion and also from their profane customs And who will narrowly compare them and us will find a greater mearness betwixt us then is indeed betwixt us and any other people and although they differed from us in some of these principles above mentioned yet in others more in number they aggreed with us and which is most we have more unity with their spirit then with the spirit of any other people in the Nation But that spirit is much lost in those dayes among many who bear that name As to the Second for our Converse with Romanists I suppose it is not greater with them then with other people if the Lord hath delivered us from that peevish and narrow humour of some Presbyterians wherewith some of us hade been deeply tinctured and enlarged our hearts with true love both to Papists so called or any others differing from us so as we can converse with them either about our worldly lawfull occasions or in order to be instrumentall unto their conviction and better information We ought not to be blamed providing we keep free of complying with them in any sinfull thing farr less should I. M. blame us who himself hath been known as I am informed to converse with EXCOMUNICAT PAPISTS so as to eat and drink with some of them a thing repugnant unto the disciplin of their Church Again whereas he querieth have not persons gone under the character of Quakers in Brittain who have been known to be professed Priests M●n●ks or Iesuits in France and Italy This informatory question may be returned with another of the same nature have not Papists if not Priests Mon●ks or Iesuits gone under the character of Protestants both in England and Scotland yea in Aberdeen will it therefore follow that the Protestant religion is but Popery disguised It is most certain that many Papists so called did outwardly conform to the Protestant religion so farr as to goe to their publick assemblies and be present at their worship as seemingly owning it and yet dissenting from it in their hearts for which I have heard they hade a dispensation from the Pope And some of the popish writters have writ against the lawfulness of such a practise which showeth that some have done it yea some in Aberdeen have been known to doe so will it therefore follow that Protestants in Aberdeen are but disguised Papists And yet the Case is the same He proceedeth to tell that he heard a chief Quaker confess before famous witnesses that one giving himsel● out for a Quaker in Kinnabers family was discovered to be a Popish Priest I answere if it hade been so how the thing was whether true or false I have not hade opportunity yet to examin i● proveth no more that Quakerism is Popery disguised then that because a Hypocrite doth give himself ou● to be a true christian Hypocrisie is true christiani●ty disguised And if it be true as I. M. saith tha● Romanists espcially Iesuits can transform them●selves into all shapes admitt then that some Iesui● doth transforme himself into the shape of I. M himself or at least of his religion will it fol●●ow that I. M. is a Iesuit or a Romanist but disgu●sed or his religion Iesuitism but seeing these to whom that popish priest is alleadged to have given him●self forth to be a Quaker did discover him wha● indeed he was and so did not acknowledge him to be what he pretended This showeth that Quake●rism and Popery are not of so near a relation fa●less one thing If he could prove that any Romanist Priest Monck or Iesuit were received by any of ●he Quakers as one with them in Religion whom yet they did know to be Romanists it would be some presumption but he is so farr to seek for a proof of this that I suppose he can not give any one Instance that ever a Quaker received a Romanist as a Quaker even unwittingly which yet if he could doe could only prove the Quaker at that ●ime was in a