Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	body_n	eternal_a	great_a	118	3	2.0934	3	false

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

was accepted with him Acts 10.35 So now in every Profession of the Christian Religion he or she that fears God and worketh Righteousness that hungers and thirsts after the Lord with desire to know more of his Will that they may do it and who walk faithfully with him according to what they already know of him such are accepted with him according to the Sincerity he finds in them though clouded in their Understandings through Education or Tradition Such as these we do not deny to belong to Christ and to be dear unto him and taken care of by him Yet that makes not any of those intire Bodies of People amongst any of whom these are to be the true Church of Christ G. Keith mentions also these Words as out of a Paper of Solomon Eccles The Quakers are in Truth and none but they I have not seen that Paper that I remember nor know how fairly he hath cited the Words but before G. Keith out of a pettish Spleen forsook the Quakers he I suppose would have said the same The Quakers so called are in the Truth no Body of People that we know of are so inwardly gathered to the Truth as the People called Quakers are He also flings at us a saying of E. Burrough's to the People called Quakers thus The Tabernacle of God is with you and his dwelling Place is among you and only among you is God known p. 64. of his Works E. Burrough's Words are You who are called Quakers who are so not only in Word nor in shew but in Life and in Power whom God hath called and chosen to Place his Name in and to take up his Habitation among above all the Families of the Earth the Tabernacle of God is with you c. This also is very true if it be truly understood For though the Lord is good and gracious to all and doth answer the Breathings and good Desires of the honest hearted and doth visit them in loving Kindness and extend of his Mercies and Goodness unto them in every Profession and amongst every gathered People yet his Tabernacle and Dwelling Place is with and among his peculiar People and he is not so known among any other People as an imbodied People in that full inward spiritual living sensible experimental Manner and Degree as he is known among us his Poor despised People called Quakers whom G. Keith has taken all this Pains to wreak his Revenge and Malice upon and to stir up and engage all other People against if he could But the Lord who sees the Wickedness of his Heart knows how â—oth to reward him and to preserve us in whom alone we trust Out of the same Book of W. Penn G. Keith picks another Passage which he says is either perfect Nonsense or Antichristian Doctrine and because he cannot tell which he concludes or rather indeed both It is a question whether perfect Nonsense may be properly called Doctrine either Christian or Antichristian But upon due Consideration I think he will find neither Nonsense nor Antichristian Doctrine in it It is in p. 310. of W. Penn's Rejoynder to I. Faldo and it is given as a Reason among many others why the Body of Christ which was nailed to the Cross simply considered by it self and abstractly from that Divine Life and Power which dwelt in it should not be called the Christ viz. Because that Flesh of Christ is called a Vail but he himself is within the Vail which is the Holy of Holies whereinto Christ Jesus our High Priest hath entred Heb. 10.20 21. And as he descended into and passed through a Suffering State in his Fleshly Appearance and returned into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence he humbled himself which was and is the Holy of Holies then obscured or hid by his Flesh or Body the Vail while in the World So must all know a Death to their Fleshly Ways and Religions yea their Knowledge of Christ himself after the Flesh or they stick in the Vail and never enter into the Holy of Holies nor come to know him in any spiritual Relation as their High and Holy Priest that abides therein First Where 's the Nonsense here the perfect Nonsense this great Iudge of Sense complains of Why if he cannot find it he 'l make it rather than not Cavil For says he His saying Christ hath entred into the Holy of Holies within the Vail and that Vail is his Flesh and that Holy of Holies is himself What Nonsense is this says he VVas not Christ always in himself But where did W. Penn say That Holy of Holies is Christ himself Find me those Words in the whole Paragraph Nay does he not plainly say otherwise Does he not expresly call that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence Christ humbled himself and into which he returned the Holy of Holies Read the Words again And as he descended into and past through a Suffering State in his fleshly Appearance and returned into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory from whence he humbled himself which was and is the Holy of Holies So c. Pray what is the Antecedent here to the Relative VVhich but the Word State going before G. Keith is too well versed in Grammar not to know and see this I would he were but half so well versed in Honesty For this is a plain dishonest Perversion for which he deserves at least the Contempt and Censure of every honest Reader who by this Instance may see the ways G. Keith takes to make his Opponent speak Nonsense or Antichristian Doctrine He goes on with the like Honesty in his second Note upon these Words of VV. Penn thus His entring in within the Vail of his Flesh is either perfect Nonsense or it hath this Sense That he hath put off his Body be had on Earth and is sâ—parated from it This is a plain Perversion also For his entring in within the Vaâ—l is clearly explained by those Words of his returning into that State of Immortality and Eternal Life and Glory called the Holy of Holies which he was in before he humbled himself to take on him that Flesh which was called a Vail because it vailed or hid from Men the Glory of his Godhead that dwelt in it Both Vail and Holy of Holies are Metaphorical Expressions borrowed from the Legal Tabernacle And as there in the Type they were used to set forth a difference of Places wih respect to Degrees of Holiness So here in the Antitype they are used to set forth a difference of States with respect to Degrees of Glory The State of Christ's Humiliation when he appeared in the form of a Servant in that Body of Flesh which was called The Vail was very glorious But the State of his Exaltation into that Immortality Eternal Life and Glory which he had with his Father before the World began which is called The Holy of Holies is a far more

I ask him â— 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 Anâ—â—eâ—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 Wordâ— I know noâ— 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

Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Text snippets containing the quad