Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	place_n	scripture_n	true_a	4,433	5	4.8987	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47140	An exact narrative of the proceedings at Turners-Hall, the 11th of the month called June, 1696 together with the disputes and speeches there, between G. Keith and other Quakers, differing from him in some religious principles / the whole published and revised by Goerge Keith ; with an appendix containing some new passages to prove his opponents guilty of gross errors and self-contradictions.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.; Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.; Penn, William, 1644-1718.; Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713.	1696 (1696)	Wing K161; ESTC R14328	86,182	64

the Blood of the Human Nature nor that the Soul of Christ was the Human Nature or was put to death with the Body for the Wicked could not kill the Soul though his Soul was made an Offering for Sin and he poured it out to Death he bore the Sin of many and made intercession for Transgressors but what Death and in what manner was it is a Mystery truly to know for his Soul in his own being was immortal and and the Nature of God is divine and therefore that the Blood of God should be of human or earthly nature appears inconsistent and where doth the Scripture call the Blood of God Human or Human Nature Neither do we read that the Blood which beareth Record in the Earth and agrees in one with the Spirit and which purgeth the Conscience washeth and cleanseth the Believer in the Light from all Sin was ever called by the Apostles the Blood of the Human Nature Nor do we read that the Saints did eat and drink Flesh and Blood that was of a human nature to receive Divine Life in them thereby for the Water of Life and Blood of Christ which are said to wash sanctifie and justifie which agrees with the Spirit in those Works and Effects We never read that they are called in Scripture by the name of Human Nature for the Spirit that quickens is divine and it is the Spirit that gives Life the Flesh profiteth nothing John 6. Now this unsound Doctrine of G. W. doth so well agree with that in John Humphrey's two Letters abovementioned that John Humphrey seems to have been his Disciple in the Case and it is certain this sort of Doctrine of G. Whitehead hath corrupted the Minds of many We see he will not own either the Flesh or Blood of Christ or Soul of Christ to belong to the human nature Annotat. Before I understood the Mystery of Iniquity and Antichristianism that lay hid under the finding fault with this name or term Human Nature of Christ and his Humanity observing that divers found fault with it I was ready to excuse them thinking that tho' they disowned the term Human yet they owned that signified by it to wit the real Manhood of Christ having a real Soul and Body that is not the Godhead but most gloriously united therewith And accordingly I did in part excuse them as in my Book The True Christ owned pag. 20 and pag. 105 I cited some words of Hilarius Lib. 10. de Trinitate Quid per Naturam Humani corporis concepta ex Spiritu S. caro judicatur i. e. Why is the Flesh conceived of the Holy Ghost judged by the nature of an Human Body But neither Hilarius nor I judged that the Body though conceived of the Holy Ghost was any part of the Substance of the Holy Ghost the Particle of in that place denoting the Holy Ghost to be the Efficient Cause of that Conception but not the Material But that my Mind and Sense that Christ had the true Nature of Man of Soul and Body neither of which were the Godhead was sound then as now and the same as now plainly appears from Page 20. of my Book above cited where I say Human Soul may signify the true Soul of Man having all the essential properties of man's Soul and its whole Perfection And if in this sense any will say That Christ hath a Human Soul and call the Manhood of Christ his Humanity there needeth no contention about it For in the Latin Tongue we have not a word so proper as Humanitas to signify the Manhood and if we may say Humanitas in Latin we may say in English Humanity G Whithead his Objection against the word Human as signifying Earthly hath the same force against calling Christ Adam coming from the Hebrew word Adamah that signifieth Earth And the Scripture calleth the Man Christ the second Adam and certainly the Man Christ had not only that which was Heavenly but had even our Earthly part but without sin his Body being nourished with Earthly Food which Body now glorified is Heavenly But that I differed as much in Doctrine from G. Whithead then as now as concerning the Blood of Christ and the sense of that place of Scripture Acts 20.28 what that Blood of God was wherewith he purchased his Church he affirming it was the Blood not of the Human Nature or Humanity but of the Divine Nature as may be seen above appears in my Book above-mentioned The true Christ owned pag. 94. I expresly say I grant that there is such a figurative speech of the Communication of Names and Properties whereby the Man Christ is called God and also God is called Man and God is said to have shed his Blood although Christ as God hath not Blood to shed but only as Man yet by reason of that most rare and wonderful Union betwixt the Godhead and Manhood the Blood of the Man Christ is called the Blood of God Acts 20.28 This may serve as one great Instance to shew That as I am not changed in this Doctrine from what I was many years ago that Book of mine being printed Anno 1679. so I did then as widely differ from G. W. in that great Article of Faith as I do now But I confess I knew not that any such absurd Doctrine was in his Books till of late that I made a more narrow search occasioned by his defending the same Errors in his Pensilvanian Brethren Again In the same Answer to T. Danson's Synopsis T. D having affirmed that there is a continual need of Faith and Repentance in this life G. Whithead answereth That there is a continual need of Repentance this I deny for true Repentance where it is wrought and the fruits of it brought forth this is unto Salvation never to be repented of and is attended with a real forsaking of sin and transgression Annot. G. Whithead's Ignorance greatly appeareth in this that he thinks Repentance and Perfection inconsistent but it is a strange Perfection that destroyeth an Evangelical Virtue and a Fruit of the Spirit such as Repentance is and what is Repentance A change of the mind or a transformation of the mind as the Greek word Englished Repentance implieth or more particularly true Evangelical Repentance is a great aversion and perfect hatred of the soul to all sin and a deep humiliation before God with godly sorrow and contrition of soul for sins past which is very consistent with and very becoming the most perfect and holy men that ever lived since all have sinned It seems it is from this great Error that he and many others of his Brethren seldom if ever pray for Forgiveness of sin at least for themselves for if there be no need of Repentance it will follow that there is no need of praying for Forgiveness But all sound Christians of true spiritual experience do know that both Repentance for sin and praying for Forgiveness of sin are well consistent with the greatest degree

Who would have thought but that the yearly Meeting if they had any regard to the honour of Christ's blood would have shown greater zeal against these Men than to excommunicate me for opposing their vile errors in Pensilvania and for rendring that precious blood shed for us as an unprofitable thing so trampling it under foot But ye see they have little at all censured them and if you will believe their Patron as ye have cause they owning his Books nothing at all Th. Ellwood affirms I am guilty of Forgery for saying that the yearly Meeting passed any reproof on those passages and whereas I was accused for saying the light within was not sufficient to salvation without something else I have a Letter from B. Chambers one of the principal Evidences that were against me he owns that I mean by that something else not humane Learning not the Letter of the Scripture not outward preaching but I mean only the Man Christ Jesus and his death and sufferings and resurrection c. Now here is a new book of Caleb Pusey come out he calls it a modest account of the difference in Principles between G. Keith and his Adversaries and he would father it on me tho it was not in my thoughts that Jesus of Nazareth cannot be something else than the light within I tell you he would father it on me because I say there is but one only Christ Now I say Christ without does not admit of another Christ within and Christ within does not admit of another Christ without us But Christ without us admits of something else within us and that is his Spirit and Grace And Christ within us admits of something else without and that is his man-hood This is not another Christ than what the Scripture speaks of but the Light within is one thing the body of Christ is another thing Now they of Pensilvania and Th. Elwood give out that I differ from them in Doctrine these men say I do not What Confusion is here among them that say they are in Unity I say the Light within is not sufficient without the Light without Christ without us yet the Sufficiency of the Light and Grace of God within in a true sense I deny not but own And whereas they say the most of my Proofs I have brought have been from Philosophy but it has been only that I may by true Philosophy overthrow their false Phylosophy which destroys their Faith I need not bring Scripture to prove these Points because they now profess to own them but the thing is the Honour of Infallibility and that they have accused G. Keith that G. Keith has not charged them truly And here are the two things their own infallibility and that I have unjustly accused them Now whether I have or no see by the Articles But if they grant or yeild that they have any Errors in any of their Books or unsound passages that they need retract and correct then they are found the false Accusers against G. Keith and G. Keith's found Innocent But this will be hard for them to own First That they have Erred And Secondly That they have falsely accused G. Keith for saying they did Err. I have here a Testimony from W. Penn to prove that Bodily Death did not come in by Man's Sin and then it followeth that the Resurrection of the Body doth not come by Christ's Resurrection W. Penn's words are in Answer to Muggleton and Reeve p. 55. If the Flesh of Beasts is capable of Dying rotting and going to dust who never sinned why should not Man have Dyed and gone to dust though he had never sinned You see this is almost expresly in terms And whereas J. H. calleth one of my Articles a Carnal Reprobation There is nothing about Reprobation in my Articles and the word Carnal is not in-any of the Ten. Auditor Now let him that Answers for W. Penn and Geo. Whitehead tell us what he says to them Articles But they said nothing to them good or bad rare Defendents G. Keith I happened to charge W. Penn with self contradiction will you hear that proved It was in my Printed Paper G. Keith has contradicted himself How Not as to Principles or Practices but as to his Opinion of W. Penn and G. Whitehead but I distinguish betwixt G. Whitehead and VV. Penn Orthodox and G. VVhitehead and VV. Penn Hetrodox so far as I quoted them as Orthodox I stand to these quotations but when in other Books and places they have contradicted them they are accountable for their Contradictions and not I. So not the G. VVhitehead Hetrodox and guilty of these vile Errors I have commended but the G. VVhitehead Orthodox and the like of W. Penn. Now I beg your Patience for one or two Quotations more before I have done It is out of Tho. Elwood to shew you that Tho. Elwood charges me with forgery because I said the Yearly Meeting did censure some of these unsound Papers Here is the passage it is but short p. 84. T. Ellwoods further Discovery Here ye see Friends saith T. Elwood that that Paper of the Yearly Meeting is so far from owning them of the other side as he calls them that is the Friends in America to be guilty of unsound and Erronious Doctrines which G. K. here Expresly saith it doth that it doth not undertake to determine whether the Offence said to be given by some persons was throuhg Erronious Doctrines and unsound Expressions or through weakness frowardness want of VVisdom and right understanding And yet this man hath the confidence and falseness meaning G. K. to say positively that paper doth own them guilty of holding unsound and erronious Doctrines This was my Charity to them that I thought they censured them in some part or degree at least Now these are their words in their Yearly Meeting Paper 1694. London from which I gathered that they censured the words of those in Pensilvania And although it appears that some few Persons have given offence either through Erronious Doctrines unsound Expressions or weakness forwardness want of Wisdom and right understanding I construed or to be equivalent to and as sometimes it is Now see if I was not more charitable to the Yearly Meeting than he is to them Here you see that that Paper of the Yearly Meeting is so far from owning them guilty of unsound Doctrines which G. Keith says it does c. By all which it is plain that not only Th. Elwood but all that approve his Books approve and justify all these Vile Errors I have proved them in Pensilvania guilty of and if he may be credited the Yearly Meeting at London 1694. is equally guilty with them Quaker This is only thy different apprehension G. Keith He says the Yearly Meeting has not found fault with any of these Expressions Now let me read one Passage more it is but about six Lines and I have done with the Printed quotations at present pag. 99. He blames me

of all people on the face of the Earth many of the Preachers and Writers among the Quakers that I know of have been most guilty in this thing and doubled this guiltiness in fathering these sinful Words and their sinful Passion on the Spirit of God as W. Penn did when he called me Apostate and Impostor for defending Christian Doctrine common to all Christendom saying He was transported by the Glorious Power of God For my own part wherein I have at any time either in word or Writ exceeded in giving any uncharitable Names to any or in any uncharitable practise or behaviour I declare I am sorry for it and have begged and do beg God's forgiveness for it for his dear Son's sake and also the forgiveness of any whom I have at any time justly offended in Words or behaviour and I bless God who has taught me more patience by the late Exercises I have gone through of the strife of Tongues and I hope I can in measure say that I witness that place of Scripture fulfilled That tribulation worketh patience and patience experience and this I have divers times acknowledged to my late Adversaries who have made ill use of it against me but I never knew they made any such acknowledgment to any I am sure never to me whom they have most unworthily abused both by Word and Pen. And now before I have quite done with William Penn let me put him in mind of his Promise That he would answer me in the face of the Nation for I think I have made good my word that I have put him to prove his Charge against me that I am an Apostate in the face of the Nation and let him not put off this Work that belongs to himself to any Deputy or busy Intruder as Th. Elwood or John Pennington who have already sufficiently shewn their folly in print but let him perform his Promise by himself and also remind his words in his Christian Quaker pag. 1. who saith I was not willing that any should answer for my faults if any there were and if innocent I osteemed my self both sufficient and obliged to my own relief Some of Tho. Elwood his Vile and Gross Errors truly collected out of his Book falsly called Truth Defended I Shall pass by at present his many Forgeries and Perversions and Abuses against me in this his last Book and his two former Books to the first of which I have answered in print having collected out of his two last Abusive Books above an hundred manifest Perversions Forgeries and Falsities he hath heaped up against me which I have in readiness to shew and which I keep by me for a reserve until I find an occasion to publish them either by print or otherwise therefore I shall only now make an Index of some of his Vile and Gross Errors contained in his last Book called Truth Defended 1. The Blood that came out of Christ's Side its shedding was not done to compleat the Offering because before that Christ said Consummatum est it is finished p. 99. Note this is as much against his Death for before his Death he said it is finished 2. He justifies George Whithead's Doctrine and Words denying that the material Blood of the Beasts were Types of Christ's material Blood and yet fallaciously seems to own it p. 106. 3. He justifies W Penn's Doctrine saying The one Seed cannot be an outward thing for one outward thing cannot be the proper sign of another outward thing p. 113. 4. He denieth 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. This is contrary to Rom. 5.15 Eph. 1.14 and 4.7 8 compared with Psal 68.18 5. He blames me for saying Christ's Body is the same in substance it was on Earth p. 129. now if not the same in substance then that Body he had on Earth is not in being or he must hold the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in that case 6. He denieth that Christ came by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary p. 136. and in so doing he must deny him to be the Son of David and Abraham 7. He perverteth the Apostle's Creed in that Clause Conceived of the Holy Ghost p. 138. by which he infers that Christ came not by Generation of and from the Properties of Man in Mary and in so doing he makes the Holy Ghost to be the material 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 8. His false way of reasoning against the Man Christ's being created from my reasoning if not created therefore not Man by retorting if created therefore not God and in this he chargeth me to be deeply drenched into Socinianism but this is his ignorance This is as foolish as to argue A. B. is no English Man therefore is no Man whereas it is good arguing A. B. is no Man therefore no English Man the Socinian Error is not that Christ is a Creature but that he is a meer Creature viz. only Man and not both God and Man p. 139. 9. His blaming me to make light of the work of Generation in comparison of Christ's Incarnation therefore according to him Regeneration is greater than Christ's Incarnation Oh great Blasphemy pag. 155. 10. His saying That the Author of Regeneration is Christ chiefly as he is manifested inwardly in the heart p. 152. This is as absurd as to say The Beams of the Sun that descend on the Earth are the chief cause of the Earth's fruitfulness and not the Sun it self that is in the Firmament My answer to John Pennington's Book falsly called An Apostate Exposed In his said Book he brings no matter against me either as to Doctrine or Life but sets down some Citations out of my Books and the Doctrine in all these Citations I own But that I thought it had been the Doctrine of the Quakers in general and of George Whithead and William Penn in particular in that I own my mistake but this is no contradiction or proof of my Apostacy for I did not positively say they had no Errors but according to the best of my knowledge they had no Errors this is no contradiction for Contradictions according to that true Maxim are secundum idem ad idem eodem loco tempore ratione But he hath not so much either Logick or common Sense to understand that this is no contradiction or what a true Contradiction is as neither his quondam Tutor Tho. Elwood hath As concerning Caleb Pusey his Book falsly called His Modest Account I have a full Answer to it in readiness but there is no present need of its publication But let it be noticed that my Adversaries have owned it as having unity with it and no doubt it was approved by

the 2d Days meeting I only at present note these few gross things in it First He mis-states the Question which was not That the Light within is sufficient for Salvation without something else for the Light within or Grace within Paul and Peter c. is sufficient to Salvation without thousands of some things else as without thousands of Caleb Puseys and all of us but not without the Man Christ without us But the true state of the Question was and is That whereas they blamed my Assertion viz. The Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without something else They are obliged to hold the Contradictory which is The Light within is sufficient to Salvation without any or every thing else true Contradictions being betwixt the one Particular the other Universal but it hath been my Lot to have to do generally with such ignorant Men of late in dispute that know not either by true Logick or common Sense what a true Contradiction is 2. Page 8. His false quotation of my words citing my Book called A Refutation pag 38 39. where he brings me in saying It is a real degree of Blasphemy to say This Light cannot make Satisfaction c. But I use no such words therefore this is a gross Forgery which I charge upon the Second day's Meeting for in all that Treatise I neither said nor intented any thing of the Light within making Satisfaction for the Question there treated of by me was not about Satisfaction but Revelation what the Light within could reveal And I was so far from affirming the Light within as we give Obedience to it to make any Satisfaction for our sins that I plainly said pag. 41. ad finem That man's most exact Obedience to the Light in him cannot be an Atonement or Propitiation unto God for sins past or present 3. His Fallacy or Forgery pag. 12. in feigning a Contradiction on me concerning the express Knowledge of Christ necessary and not necessary whereas I never said it was universally necessary but only to such who have the occasion to hear it preach'd therefore I distinguished betwixt the Express and Implicit saying this last was universally necessary the former only to Particulars 4. Pag. 15. His most gross Assertion which is justly charged on the Second day's Meeting who have approved his Antichristian Book That surely Jesus of Nazareth cannot be something else than the Light Spirit and Power within For at this rate the Jews who own and confess to the Light within and Pagan Philosophers who blasphemed against the Man Jesus of Nazareth yet confessing to the Light within may be said to confess Jesus of Nazareth and if Jesus of Nazareth be not something else than the Light within then it is in vain to preach any Christ without that was born at Bethlehem and conversed at Nazareth But he is guilty of gross Forgery to infer it from my words He says pag. 14. The Word only is alone and admits of nothing else but I answer It admits not of another Christ but it admits of something of Christ without us that is not within us as Christ that died for us is the only Saviour this only admits not of another Saviour or Christ within us yet it admits of something of Christ within us that was not outwardly crucified viz. His Grace and Spirit As concerning the pretended Confession of Faith called Our Ancient Testimony renewed of our Adversaries from Pensilvania subscribed by Caleb Pusey and above Thirty six more though the Scripture-Words as therein recited we own yet seeing they and particularly he who have differed from us in Pensilvania have declared a contrary sense to all these Places of Scripture touching the things in Controversy betwixt us and have neither in that Confession nor elsewhere renounced their former Errors whereof they have been proved guilty their Confession is but a mere Sham and Mock-Confession G. K. ERRATA Page 17. line 7. for Days read Words Page 48. line 44. read clear me A Sermon preached at the Meeting of Protestant Dissenters called Quakers in Turners-Hall London on the 16 th of the Second Month 1696. Being the Publick Day of Thanksgiving for the Deliverance of the King and Kingdom By George Keith To which is added A Testimony of Fidelity and Subjection to King William the Third from the aforesaid People on behalf of themselves and others of the same Persuasion with them Printed for B. Aylmer at the Three Pigeons in Cornhill THE General History of the Quakers containing the Lives Tenents Sufferings Tryals Speeches Letters and Travels of all the most Eminent Quakers both Men and Women from the first Rise of that Sect down to this present time Collected from Manuscripts c. A Work never attempted before in English being written originally in Latin by Gerard Croese and now made publick against their present Yearly Meeting in London To which is added Fox's Conference with Oliver Cromwell The Tryals and dying Speeches of the Quakers executed in New-England An Account of their Marriages and Burials A Quaker's Letter to King Charles II. charging him with several vile Practices Keith's Learned Speech at his Tryal in Pensilvania The Tryals of Mead and Pen. Pen's Speech to the Judges His Conference with the Princess Palatine His Sermon before Her The Princess's Letter to Geo. Fox Margaret Fox's Letter to a General Meeting of Women held at London in the year 1692. A very particular Account of the Women Preachers Hester Bidly's Speech to the late Queen Mary Her Entertainment at Versailles by King James Her Letter to the French King Her Discourses with him The great Sufferings of two Quaker Women in the Island Malta The Rarity of Mary Fisher's Voyage to Adrianople The Audience given this Maiden Quaker by the Grand Signior The Present State of the Quakers As also a Letter writ by George Keith and sent by him to the Reverend Author of this Book containing a Vindication of himself and several Remarks upon this curious History Price Bound 5 s. Printed for John Dunton at the Raven in Jewen-Street † Note There is an additional Postscript by me G. K. put to this Book of G. W. Nature of Christianity the which Postscript I left in a Manuscript at London and with the Quakers printed with this of G. W. I acknowledg my want of due Consideration that I did not better consider G. W. his 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 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 above-mentioned p. 73. where at n. 11. I blame R. G. for saying That the now present glorified Existence of that Body or Man Christ that suffered at Jerusalem is denied by some Teachers among us I confess I happened to find divers Passages in G. W.'s and other