Selected quad for the lemma: love_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
love_n	call_v	ghost_n	holy_a	2,960	5	5.1813	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39298	An answer to George Keith's Narrative of his proceedings at Turners-Hall, on the 11th of the month called June, 1696 wherein his charges against divers of the people called Quakers (both in that, and in another book of his, called, Gross error & hypocrosie detected) are fairly considered, examined, and refuted / by Thomas Ellwood.	Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713.	1696 (1696)	Wing E613; ESTC R8140	164,277	235

though that Book not treating so directly of that Subject hath not so many Instances in it as are in other Books of his In that very Page 47. out of which he takes his first Quotation against G. Whitehead upon Iohn 17.5 And now O Father glorifie me with thine own self with the Glory which I had with thee before the World was G. Whitehead says Was not he the true Christ the Son of God that so prayed unto the Father And in the same Page just after the Words G. Keith carps at upon the Baptist's saying Which Word was God yet he was not a Saviour as he was the Word or Creator of the World c. G. Whitehead replies How then doth He say I am God a Saviour c. And in Page 48. upon the Baptist's saying He was not a Saviour as the Root and Creator of Man but as he was to be the Offspring of Man c. G. Whitehead Answer'd Do but mark the Confusion and Darkness of this Man who hath denyed that God the Word or Creator of Man is a Saviour and Christ as he was the Root and Creator of Man and as He was the Eternal Son of God from the Days of Eternity he hath denied to be a Saviour but as he was the Off-spring of Man Do but Eye the tendency of this Doctrine thus to deny the Son of God to be a Saviour whereas it is through the Son of God that Eternal Life is received Iohn 3.16 And God's Love was manifest in sending his only begotten Son into the World So here the Efficacy of the Son of God and the Eternal Word is proved against the Baptist's false and unscripture like Distinction It was in the Year 1668. that this Book was Printed In the Year 1669. G. Whitehead writ another Book which I mentioned before called The Divinity of Christ and Vnity of the Three that bear Record in Heaven with the blessed End and Effects of Christ's Appearance coming in the Flesh Suffering and Sacrifice for Sinners Confess●d and Vindicated by his Followers called Qu●kers In that Book between the Epistle and the first Chapter giving a brief Account of what we own touch●ng the Divinity and Godhead of Christ he says That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these Three are one both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor separate Beings That they are called by several Names in Scripture yet they are Eternally One in Nature and Being One Infinite Wisdom one Power one Love one Light and Life c. Then adds We never denied the Divinity of Christ as most injuriously we have been accused by some prejudiced Spirits who prejudicially in their perverse Contests have sought occasion against us as chiefly because when some of us were in Dispute with some Presbyterians we could not own their unscriptural Distinction and Terms The Father's begetting the Son and the Spirit 's being sent we witness to and own Yea the Son of God is the brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Substance So the Manifestation of the Father of the Son and Holy Spirit we confess to c. And that Iesus Christ being in the Form of God thought it no robbery to be equal with God and yet as a Son was sent of the Father c. So that the Deity or Divinity of Christ in his Eternal Infinite Glorious State we really confess and own In the Book it self p. 18. He says He Christ was equal with God in Glory before the World was Again p. 19. It was never any Design or Plot of ours to endeavour to prejudice the Minds of any against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost as falsly and blasphemously we are accused by this our prejudiced Opposer Again p. 22. We never disowned the Deity of Christ or Holy Ghost as falsly and injuriously is insinuated against us Again p. 26. Charging us with designing to blast and overthrow the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost upon which Blasphemers and Blasphemy and damnable Speeches are hideously cast upon us but most unjustly and falsly For no such design ever had we as either to blast or overthrow the Deity of Christ or Holy Spirit we having openly professed and declared the contrary both in Words and Writings Again p. 32. That the Divine Essence or Godhead can be but one and this in each of the Three we never denied Again p. 38. I have heard of some beyond the Sea who were accused with denying the Divinity of Christ but I know of none here that either deny the Divinity of Christ or him to be of one Substance with the Father Again p. 41. Christ being the Brightness of the Glory of God and the express Image of his Divine Substance as also truly called the Son of his Love c. Second Part of the same Book p. 3. We never denied the Deity or Divinity of either Father Word or Holy Ghost Again p. 39. His Opponent T. Danson having charged the Quakers with denying Christ to be God G. Whitehead Answers This is an apparent slander cast upon us as our Books and Writings do shew that we never denied Christ to be God or his Divinity c. Again p. 54. As to Socinianism as he calls it we are neither discipled in it nor baptized into Socinus his Name neither do we own him for our Author or Pattern in those things which we believe and testifie nor yet do we own several Principles which I. O. relates as from Socinus and principally that of Christ's being God but not the most High God It was never our Principle for tho' we do confess to his Condescension Humility and Suffering in the Days of his Flesh wherein he appeared in the form of a Servant being made in Fashion as a Man Yet his being in the Form of God and being glorified with the same Glory he had with the Father before the World began and his being God over all blessed for ever These things we professed and believed in the beginning and do the same still it never being in our Hearts in the least to oppose or desert them Again p. 58. As to a great part of his I. O's Book wherein he goes about to prove the Divinity or Deity of Christ c. We are unconcerned therein having never denied Christ's Divinity Here one would think were Instances enough of G. Whitehead's and ours owning and confessing Christ to be God to make G. Keith blush for charging him with denying it But because I know G. Keith hath too far and too long abandoned Modesty and Vertue to be easily drawn to blush I will add some more out of another Book written by G. Whitehead and Printed the same Year 1669. called Christ ascended above the Clouds c. in Answer to one Iohn Newman a Baptist who having it seems asserted that The Word was in the beginning but Christ was in time not till he had taken

I ask him ● seeing he would restrain all to the fleshly Appearance and make all the Apostles c. to have pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him If he hath so considered him to be God the Saviour or the Son from the Substance of the Father as some of his Brethren have confessed the Son is And what Scripture-Proof hath he who pretends so highly to Scripture and blames us though falsly for not holding to it for these VVords He existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right Hand And where doth the Scripture say He is outwardly and bodily glorified at God's right Hand Do these Terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the VVorld began in which he is now glorified The Exception here is not against the thing but the Terms by which it is exprest The Thing that Christ hath a bodily Existence without us and is therein glorified and that at God's right hand is so far from being denied that it was never doubted But that this should he exprest in such Terms as the Holy Scripture doth not afford and which would limit Christ to any certain place or exclude him by the Word outward from being in his Saints is justly excepted against as contrary both to the Nature of Christ and Scope of the Scriptures And therefore G. VVhitehead asks his Opponent what Scripture-Proof hath he VVhere doth the Scripture say so And the more to lay open his Opponents absurdity in this Case goes on questioning him in the same place p. 41. thus And then VVhat and where is Gods right Hand Is it visible or invisible within us or without us only Now G. Keith might as well from hence infer and charge G. VVhitehead with denying that God has a right Hand as he doth from the other Questions That Christ hath no bodily Existence without us and both a like absurdly and falsly For he himself says in another place also of his Book called Truth 's Defence p. 165. When his Opponent would have drawn a Conclusion and inferred a Charge from a Query What is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate And blaming his then Opponent for urging Matters of Doctrine in unscriptural Terms he says in Truth 's Defence p. 169. Why is it that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion but to let us understand that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly there Delivered and Recorded And therefore says he for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no Reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life And p. 170. he adds Now if this were but received among those called Christians that nothing should be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or Principle of the Christian Religion in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scripture in plain express Scripture Terms of how great an Advantage might it be to bring a true Reconcilement among them and beget true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord Yet G. Keith himself who but in the Year 1682. wrote thus doth now which shews his inconsistency with himself and Injustice to G. Whitehead charge G. Whitehead with denying the thing it self because he did but ask his Opponent for a Scripture-Proof of a thing laid down not in Scripture Terms So industrious is he now to seek an Advantage instead of furthering a Reconcilement among them called Christians to hinder any such Reconcilement and cause a greater distance between them and instead of begetting true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord to break and destroy as much as in him lies that Love and Peace that hath been and but for him and such other Incendiaries might be and increase among them But though G. Whitehead did reject the Baptists unscriptural Terms yet that he owned the Manhood of Christ as well as his Divinity may be seen in another Book also of his called The Quakers Plainness detecting Fallacy a Book not written t'other Day but in 1674. two and twenty Years ago where p. 18. answering an Objection that we own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ he answers Where proves he these words to be ours Have we not plainly and often confest also that the Divine Nature or Word Cloathed with the most holy Manhood and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham was and is the Christ. Before I pass to G. Keith's next Proof I must here take notice of a Marginal note which G. Keith makes in his seventeenth p. relating to the Book he last cited of G. Whitehead's called The Nature of Christianity The Reader may take notice that in p. 15. when it was Objected to him that the Book which he then mentioned was written An●●e●tly and that he had written in Vindication of our Principles since He there to turn off the Objection says I do say If it were my last Word● I know no● that I over Read a line of this Book till I came last to England But here quoting another Book of G. Whitehead's which he could not pretend Ignorance of in as much as he himself was not only concerned with G. Whitehead in the controversy on which that Book was written but had also a part in the same Book against his Country-man Rob. Gordon whom he Principally had undertaken to Answer in another Book called The Light of Truth Triumphing Published but the Year before Now to secure himself if he could from the like Objection he adds here his Marginal note thus Note There is an Additional Postscript by me G. Keith put to this Book of G. Whitehead Nature of Christianity the which Postscript I left in a Manuscript at London and with the Quakers Printed with this of G. Whitehead I acknowledge says he my want of due Consideration that I did not better consider G. Whitehead's words in that Book having many Years ago Read it but too overly and not having seen it since for many Years till of late Does this sound likely Does it savour of Sincerity and plainness Or does it not rather look like a silly shifting Excuse for his Condemning that now which he owned then and yet pretending to be the same in Judgment that he was then He goes on in his note thus But I am sure I did really then believe as I now do that Christ as man did outwardly and bodily exist without us for proof of which see my words in that Additional Postscript p. 73. where at N. 11. I blame R. Gordon for saying That the now present Glorified Existence of that Body or man Christ that suffered at Jerusalem is denied

his Narrative where he hath repeated these Charges against W. Penn and G. Whitehead and I as before have endeavoured to free them from his Perversions and Abuses The Fourth Error he bestows on me is That I deny that the Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within is the real Purchase of Christ's Obedience unto Death arguing that if so that would not be the Free Gift of God p. 121. Here are two notable Pieces of Art he has shewed in the framing of this Error First He has changed my VVords from The Gift of the promised Seed to The Gift of the Divine Grace or Power within Which quite alters the Sence of the Place For whereas I inferred from his Words that the Gift of the promised Seed was not a free Gift or did not proceed from the free Love of God to Man contrary to Iohn 3.16 but was the real purchase of Christ's most holy and perfect Obedience unto Death when he came which was the Error and Absurdity I drew upon him from his own Words He to slip from under that changes the Words as I shewed before from the Gift of the promised Seed to the Gift of the Divine Grace and Power within referring to Rom. 5.15 Eph. 4.7 8. and Psalm 68.18 which latter Places mention Christ's giving Gifts unto Men when he ascended up on High after his Death and Resurrection So turning the Free Gift of God in promising the Seed and giving his only begotten Sun to the Gift of Divine Grace and Power within which Christ the promised Seed gave when he ascended up on high and then charges me with Error in denying this Gift given by Christ to be the real purchase of his Obedience unto Death whereas it was the Gift of Christ himself as the promised Seed that I spake of which was the Effect of God's free Love not the purchase of Christ's Death The other piece of his Art is in turning this upon me saving He denies Whereas I neither denyed nor affirmed but shewed him the Absurdity and Error of his own Words The Fifth Error he assigns me is That I blame him for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth p. 129. I desire the Reader to examine that Place in my Book and he will see that I do not blame G. Keith for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth But I expose his Confusion and Folly in saying it is the same in substance that it was on Earth and yet saying It is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure ethereal or Heavenly Body as if Christ's Body when on Earth had not been a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but an Ethereal or Airy Body Or as if Flesh Blood and Bones were not of the substance of an outward visible tangible Body such as was that which was nailed to the Cross at Ierusalem The Sixth Error he allots me is That I deny that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary p. 136. In this as in the rest he is extreamly unjust In this place also we treated of Christ as he was the promised Seed And he undertaking to prove in p. 22. of his Book called The True Copy c. from Mat. 1.1 That the Seed of Promise came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary I pinched him up close with his own words in that same Book of his p. 20. where he had said It is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ that is the Seed of the Woman or Seed of Abraham but the Godhead and Manhood jointly considered and most gloriously united Hereupon I shewed him that in urging Mat. 1.1 to prove the Seed of Promise as he had defined it came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary he shewed himself to be of a corrupt Judgment and contradicted his former Saying I was so favourable before as only to say Should I not serve him right if from hence I should conclude against him that he holds the Seed of Promise as consisting of Godhead and Manhood united to have come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary since he blamed S. C. for denying it But I think I have just cause now to set it harder on him and charge it home upon him as a vile and gross Error That he holds that Christ who he says in the same place was the Son of God by an eternal Generation before the World began the promised Seed which he says is neither the Body of Christ strictly considered nor the Soul of Christ strictly considered without the Godhead nor the Godhead strictly considered without the Soul and Body of the Manhood of Christ but the Godhead and Manhood join●ly considered and most gloriously united that Christ the promised Seed or Seed of the Woman thus defined did come by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary And I hope he will think himself or that others however will think him obliged to clear himself of this Error which is vile and gross enough before he take upon him to arraign others The Seventh Error he abuses me with is That I pervert the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost p. 138. by which I infer that Christ came not by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary and in so doing he says I make the Holy Ghost to be the ma●erial Cause of that Generation as if that Holy Thing conceived were of the substance of the Holy Ghost whereas the Holy Ghost was the Efficient Cause thereof but not the Material Cause Perversion is so natural to him that he can do nothing at this sort of work without it That he might fasten an Error upon me he perverts yea al●ers the words of that Creed For the words of that Creed in that Clause are Conceived by the Holy Ghost and so I gave them in my Book he has changed the word by to of and renders it Conceived of the Holy Ghost Whereas the word by imports the Holy Ghost to have been the Efficient Cause that by vertue of which Mary conceived But the word of imports him to have been the Material Cause as if the thing conceived had been taken of the Matter or substance of the Holy Ghost To avoid which I following the express words of that Creed said the common Creed called The Apostles says Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost though born of the Virgin Mary Now how shameless is this Man to charge me with vile and gross Error in perverting the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost When it plainly appears from his own Book that it is he himself that has altered and thereby perverted the words of that Creed and not I Besides