Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	aaron_n	call_v	number_n	67	3	6.6992	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47145	George Keith's Fourth narrative of his proceedings at Turners-hall divided into three parts : detecting the Quakers gross errors, vile heresies, and antichristian principles, oppugning the fundamentals of Christianity, by clear and evident proofs (in above two hundred and fifty quotations) faithfully taken out of their books, and read at three several meetings, the 11th, the 18th, and 23d of Jan., 1699 before a great auditory of judicious persons, ministers, and others, more particularly discovering the fallacious and sophistical defences of George Whitehead, Joseph Wyeth, and seven Quakers of Colchester, in their late books on all the several heads contained in the printed advertisement : to which is prefix'd, the attestation of five ministers of the Church of England, to the truth of the said quotations, and a postcript [sic] / by George Keith.; Fourth narrative of his proceedings at Turners-Hall	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1700 (1700)	Wing K167; ESTC R2430	153,412	130

The Son is an Example of Imitation or Caution for the Father to follow it had been more agreeable to have said The Father is an Example of the Son for the Son to follow than to say The Son is an Example for the Father to follow seeing Christ said I can do nothing of my self for what I see the Father do that do I. But to give an Instance what an Ambidexter G.W. is in twisting and twining and bending the Scripture In his Antidote p. 191. he saith That He spoke for Christ's Divinity as he was the Brightness of the Father's Glory and the express Image of his divine Substance in Answer to T. Danson Here he forsaketh his former Translation which was Figure and taketh the Translation in our English Bible which is Image But how will this prove the Divinity of Christ so as to be one Substance with the Father if the express Image signifie our Example of Imitation as G.W. doth argue in his Truth and Innocency His being an Example of our Imitation is no sufficient Argument to prove his being one Substance with the Father for the Socinians will grant him to be a very excellent Example of our Imitation yet this is no sufficient Argument to convince them That he is one Substance with the Father from his being an Example of Imitation Is it not plain from all this shuffling and shifting that G.W. rather than he will confess his former Errors will wrong his own Conscience and bring the most nonsensical Excuses that ever were heard of to defend his Infallibility than give Glory to God by a plain and free Confession of his Errors Next let us hear G. W's Defence of that Saying of W. P's One outward thing cannot be the proper Figure or Representation of another the outward Lamb shews forth the inward Lamb. He labours to vindicate W. P's Saying by thus arguing How will these Men saith he prove that the outward Paschal Lamb was the proper Figure or Representation of Christ's outward Person Pray what proper Resemblance had they Was not rather the Lamb in respect of its Innocency a proper Figure of Christ's Innocency as the Lamb of God once offered for Sin I answer And was not the Lamb's Innocency an outward thing i.e. without Men and also Christ's Innocency as he lived and walked among Men and was not his outward Person innocent But had not G.W. been extreamly blind and ignorant he had never argued nor asked so foolishly what proper Resemblance had they viz. the Paschal Lamb and Christ's outward Person for the Generality of Christians know that as by God's Appointment the Paschal Lamb and Sacrifices were proper Types and Figures of Christ's outward Person as he was to be slain for the Sins of the World so the Resemblance was not only in Innocency but in many other Respects the Lamb was to be killed so was Christ the Lamb was to be without Blemish so was Christ the Lamb was to be of the Flock so was Christ to be of his Brethren the Blood of the Lamb sprinkled on the Door-posts and Lintels of the Israelites saved them from the Wrath of the destroying Angel so the Blood of Christ that was outwardly shed applyed by Faith saveth true Believers from Wrath the Lamb was to be eaten wholly so we are to receive Christ wholly in all his Offices These and many other Resemblances there are betwixt the Paschal Lamb and Christ known in general to Christians yea to many Children which yet G.W. here declares himself to seem wholly ignorant of Godwin in his Book called Moses and Aaron numbers at least twelve Particulars of Resemblance betwixt the Paschal Lamb and Christ without us and yet this G.W. more like a Heathen than a Christian queries Pray what proper Resemblance had they But to return his Question Pray what proper Resemblance had the Paschal Lamb to the inward Blood Christ which G.W. saith is the Life and Light and Spirit of God within and the Holy Ghost Was ever the Holy Ghost or the Godhead slain in Men Or is there an inward spiritual Blood of Christ slain in Men that is not the Godhead But we shall come anon to treat more fully of this And how is that fulfilled in Christ within A Bone of him shall not be broken Whether Christ without us as he died and rose again is the Object of Faith c. G.VV. Truth and Inn. p. 54. defends a most Antichristian Saying of his in his Light and Life and to cloak it the more he gives the Quotation lame The Quakers at Colchester in their late printed Paper called Some Account gives it more fully But in the Book Light and Life p. 38. it is thus Bapt. Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the material Temple that they make it but a vain thing to look to Jerusalem to the Antitype of that Temple viz. to Jesus as he was there crucified or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification His Answer is The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype viz. neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Jerusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood knowing that neither the Righteousness of Faith nor the Word of it does so direct Rom 10. And is it the Baptists Doctrine to direct Men to the material Temple and Jerusalem the Type for the Antitype What Nonsense and Darkness is this And where do the Scriptures say That the Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Jerusalem whereas that Blood shed is not in being p. 40. But the true Apostles directed them to the Light which was so much opposed by the Baptists to walk in the Light for the Blood of Christ to cleanse them from all Sin Now let us hear his Defence Truth and Inn. p. 54. I ask these Men saith he where the Scripture doth so direct Men to go to the outward Temple at Jerusalem for Jesus Christ Nay doth it not contrarywise direct them See plain Scripture Deut. 30. 12 13 14. Rom. 10. 6 7 8. The same Answer in effect but in more Words quoting at full length Deut. 30. 12 13 14. and Rom. 10. 6 7 8. we find in that called Some Account from Colchester signed by seven Quakers there but likely enough to have been drawn up by G.W. himself though whether it was or not is not material to the case and on the Margin they say Must they then go on Pilgrimage Note This is a most shameful Evasion to cloak their vile Heresie of which yet to this very Day G. W. hath not plainly cleared himself nor ever can till he retract this and his many other Errors Can it be supposed that W. Burnet who was the Baptist that thus objected against the Quakers was for having the Quakers or any others go on Pilgrimage or on Feet to Jerusalem for Jesus Christ or his Blood G.W. knoweth in his Conscience the contrary yea in the

our Life and Soul of our Soul he proceeds very regularly to tell That in this Soul of Man or in the Spirit or Mind of it as the highest Power when it is regenerated and resigned lives the great King manifested here he dwells as in Mount Sion here he delights to be as in his Temple And in this Soul of Man unenlightened and unrenewed Christ lies hid and is as one dead note he doth not say dead as the Quakers say but is as one dead and unsavory unto the Soul and so the Soul is in Darkness Weakness Sinfulness Sorrow Fear Bondage Thus we see Magnus Byne doth so clearly state the Subject of the Controversie betwixt him and the Quakers his Opponents which was the Soul of Man the created reasonable Soul that is neither God nor Christ though he owneth that God and Christ are in the Souls of Men both regenerate and unregenerate but after different Manners that he leaves no room for any of the least Capacity of Understanding to mistake the true Subject of the Controversie and therefore George Fox whom Joseph Wyeth magnifieth as the APOSTLE in this Age could not be such a Sot as not to understand the true Subject of the Dispute which was the Soul of Man the reasonable Soul that which thinks wills loves which dieth not when the Body dieth and which again and again he calleth a Creature and the created Soul distinguisheth it from Christ in the Soul which he saith is the Life of our Life and Soul of our Soul The same Expression used by George VVhitehead in his Truth and Innocency Yet notwithstanding all this clear stating the Subject of the Dispute which was the Soul of Man and not that divine Principle in the Soul George Fox doth make a great Difference with him and sets himself in great Opposition to him and will needs have it That the Soul to wit the Soul of Man which was the only Subject of the Dispute is without Beginning coming from God returning to God again Also he opposeth Magnus Byne's Saying There is a kind of Infiniteness in the Soul viz. with Respect to the Largeness of its Desires which the whole World cannot satisfie as he explained himself but it is not Infiniteness it self which George Fox wrongly quotes by adding the Word IN making him say It is not Infiniteness IN it self which mars the Sense But George Fox in Opposition to M. B. will have the Soul of Man which was the Subject of the Dispute to be Infiniteness it self without Beginning Note Here a Quaker Daniel Philips objected That Disputants might differ about the Subject of the Dispute so as the Opponent might mean one thing and the Respondent another But I answered They might so when the Matter is intricate and obscure by Ambiguities of Words but it could not be so here the Subject of the Dispute being so clearly proposed that none but a Sot or Cheat could or would mistake the Subject which the Quakers will not allow G. F. to be having so great an Esteem of his Wisdom as the Apostle in this Age. And the like is to be said of all the Disputes betwixt George Fox and his other Opponents about the Soul which were only about the Soul of Man and not at all about God or Christ in the Soul for they all did contend there was a real Distinction betwixt the Soul and God or Christ who was in it But George Fox would allow none but still contended That the Soul concerning which they and he disputed was a Part of God without Beginning c. And in his Great Mistery page 91. he blames Magnus Byne for calling the Soul a Creature and saith he is in Babylon and Confusion And in his Dispute with the five Ministers of New Castle Great Mistery pag. 227 228. he saith The Soul whereof Christ is the Bishop is divine and immortal also he most grosly wrongs the five Ministers of New Castle and charges them with holding it to be their own Principle Great Mistery page 227. That the Soul is a Part of the divine Essence And in his Great Mistery page 29. he saith to them And so you five have judged your selves to be Blasphemers who said The Soul was Part of the divine Essence and yet it is Blasphemy to say so This he most unjustly chargeth in them quoting their Book called A Discovery of that Generation of Men called Quakers but in that very Book which was produced and the Words quoted as they are in that Book page 5. the five Ministers deliver it not as any Position of theirs but as one of the Quakers Positions having this Title on the Top Quakers Positions being the third in Number and in all being seventeen That the Soul is a Part of the divine Essence What Excuse can George VVhitehead or any of his Brethren find for this palpable Injustice in George Fox Could he be so sottish as not to distinguish betwixt the five Ministers Positions and what they call the Quakers Positions and which they expresly blame and disown and give their Arguments against And if he was not so ignoratly sottish in the Case what can it be construed but a wilful Lie thus for him to charge them And for a further Confirmation that George Fox did hold That that very Soul of Man which George VVhitehead calls the reasonable and rational Soul Truth and Innocency pag. 7 8 9. and which George VVhitehead confesseth hath sinned doth not sin and is not at any time a sinful Soul consequently is according to him a Part of God I bring a Quotation out of his Great Mistery page 337. George Fox quotes his Opponent saying The Soul of Man is a reasonable sinful Substance To this George Fox answers How can that which is sinful be reasonable And if that which is unsinful be reasonable and sinful be reasonable both then they are one in Vnity The Lord will take the Soul for an Offering for Sin Isa 5. 3. See how thou and the Prophet agrees here But what is that Soul that the wicked is not able to kill Is it not that which God hath in his Hand And this is a Lye to say That which is reasonable is sinful Note how grosly he perverts that Place in Isa 53. 10. When thou shall make his Soul an Offering for Sin This is understood of the Soul of the Man Christ who suffered without us and not of any Soul within us which yet is George Fox's Notion and this very Soul in Men this reasonable Soul George Fox will have it to be the Odering for Sin And because it is so therefore he concludes it is not sinful not capable of sinning yet George Whitehead saith The reasonable Soul is capable of sinning and hath sinned in Men though it never sinned in Christ See how these two Apostles do now contradict one anoother and yet none of them fallible Note again how George Fox thought he put a very puzzling Query to his Opponent to