Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	article_n	church_n	creed_n	2,425	5	10.1630	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47759	Satan dis-rob'd from his disguise of light, or, The Quakers last shift to cover their monstrous heresies, laid fully open in a reply to Thomas Ellwood's answer (published the end of last month) to George Keith's Narrative of the proceedings at Turners-Hall, June 11, 1696, which also may serve for a reply (as to the main points of doctrine) to Geo. Whitehead's Answer to The snake in the grass, to be published the end of next month, if this prevent it not / by the author of The snake in the grass.	Leslie, Charles, 1650-1722.	1697 (1697)	Wing L1149A; ESTC R2123	80,446	76

oppos'd this Article of the Resurrection First His Excuse for the Quakers opposition to the Doctrine of the Resurrection He would as in Former Cases Deceive his Readers by Supposing against all Sense and Reason That we so understood the Resurrection as if the Body were to Rise in the same Grossness and Carnality that it has in this Life And that this was all that they oppos'd But such a gross Notion of the Resurrection no Christian ever held And G. Keith has sufficiently Explain'd himself even as quoted by T. E. p. 145. 146. That the Body when Raised again shall be the same as to Substance but not as to the Grossness and Carnality as now and did Illustrate it by the Chymical Extraction of Spirits out of Herbs c. and by the Change that is wrought in the White and Yolk of an Egg whereof a Chicken is made out of the same Substance Yet T. E. will not understand him But gives us a Dull Piece of Buffoonry and tells him p. 147. That if he and G. K. were Fellow-Commoners at a Chicken he would take the Substance and leave the Rest to G. K. And p. 148. That to make his Instance of the Extraction of Spirits to be Parallel with the Notion of the Resurrection which the Quakers oppos'd the Gross Body of the Herbs which he says may be made so Subtile and Volatile must still remain the same Gross Body of Herbs that it was before notwithstanding of its almost unconfinable subtilty by Chymical Operation And in the same page Explaining what sort of Resurrection they oppos'd says We have always Denyed the Body which shall be Raised to the same Body that Dyed with Respect to GROSSNESS and CARNEITY Which all that they oppos'd Denyed as much as they And p. 145. he says That which W. Penn reputed as absurd was that a Body should be Changed from an Earthly or Animal Body to an Heavenly Body and yet after such Change continue to be the same Earthly or Animal Body that it was before And Mr. Penn might Repute this to be Absurd And Disprove it Effectually and get the Victory over it and Triumph But he can name no body that ever held any such Absurdity That an Earthly Body Changed into an Heavenly Body may be the same Body it is True But that it should be the same Earthly Body none ever said It is a Contradiction it is to say that it is Changed and not Changed But how is it possible says Mr. Penn ibid. that it should be the same and not the same Very easily Is Mr. Penn the same Man as before he turn'd Quaker No sure There is a Great Change wrought in him Yet it is the same W. Penn or else He never Changed But says he in his Reason against Railing p. 134. If a thing can yet be the same and notwithstanding Changed for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Trans-substantiation for the Absurdity of it is rather out-done than Equal'd by this Carnal Resurrection But Mr. Penn is so far out in his Reasoning here That a thing being Changed shews it to be the same If you Dye one piece of Cloth it is no change in another piece of Cloth And it were no change in the Cloth if it was not the same Cloth that was changed And if Mr Penn thinks Trans-substantiation a Less Absurdity than this we may yet see another change in him But to return to T. E. Notwithstanding of all that can be said or Done he still holds to it That we believe no Change of the Body in the Resurrection and puts it upon G. Keith p. 143. So that it seems says he according to G. Keith it must be a Terrestrial Elementary Body after it is Re-united to the Soul in Heaven Though G. Keith has not only said but Argu'd to the Contrary even as quoted in the same place by T. E. Therefore we see he is Resolv'd He will not Badge an Ace It must and shall be so For otherwise the Quakers are Undone Because if this be not the Notion of the Resurrection which they oppose then there is nothing left but that they down-right oppose that Doctrine of the Resurrection which has been all along Receiv'd in the Catholick Church and makes one of the Articles in her Creed But this will yet further appear in the second Point viZ. That T. E. has not only Negatively as in the first Point but even Affirmatively and in Plain Terms Deny'd the Resurrection in this his seeming Vindication of it By the Resurrection as ever Understood in the Church is Meant the Resurrection of the same Body which Dyed It is not otherwise a Re-surrection i. e. a Rising again For that cannot Rise which never Lay down and that which was not Before cannot be Again The Quakers will sometimes say as T. E. p. 151. that there is a Resurrection and that of Bodies and that there is an Heavenly Body Because these are Express words of Scripture But they Deny the Resurrection of our Dead Bodies Or that ever they will be made Heavenly Bodies What they Mean by a Heavenly Body themselves nor all the World can tell One of their She-Preachers told a Friend of mine That it was the Holy Ghost But that they Deny the Resurrection of the same Body which Dyed T. E. makes very Evident p. 149. where he Disputes That the Natural and the Spiritual Body are Two Distinct Bodies and not the same Body in Different States and Qualifications Thus he Expounds the Apostle's words 1 Cor. xv 44. He does not say The Natural is made a Spiritual Body or the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body is but one and the same Body but he sets them in opposition as Two Distinct Bodies And The Body says he that is put into the Grave is a Natural Body but the Body that is Raised is a Spiritual Body and that none might think this Spiritual Body was the same he adds There is a Natural Body and there is a Spiritual Body Thus T. E. understands that Scripture and goes on to Prove it further by the Comparison of the first and second Adam and says that the Spiritual and Natural Body are no more the same Body than the first and second Adam are the same Man i. e. than Christ and Adam are the same And to shew their utter Ignorance of the Doctrine of the Resurrection T. E. p. 140. c. quotes W. Penn and G. W. and joins with them himself in Proposing as a Great Absurdity that the Soul hath not its Perfect and Compleat Happiness before its Re-Vnion with the Body and Ridicules this by saying that the Deceased Saints are in Heaven but by Halves That the Soul is in a state of Widowhood which is a sort of Purgatory And that it is Vnequal the Soul should be Rewarded so long before the Body its Beloved Companion But it is rather Punished if it be in Purgatory as these Men presume to

Spiritual as the Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and Spiritual Rock in the Wilderness 1 Cor x. 2.3 Will this if there be no more in it makes His Blood to be the Blood of God And what is this to G. W's Argument That a Spirit cannot have Material Blood and therefore That if the Blood of the New Covenant be the Blood of God it cannot be Material Blood i. e. That the Material Blood of Christ was not the Blood of God otherwise than as the Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and All things are His. This lets us into the Heart of the Quaker Divinity VII G. W. says in a Book of his call'd The Voice of Wisdom p. 36. That the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finit but Infinit T. E. says p. 113. That these Words are an Inference from a Position of his Adversaries one Thomas Danson viz. That the Righteousness whereof Christ is the Subject and that whereof He is the Efficient are of one Species or Kind 'T is true that G. W. mentions this But not as finding any Fault with it For he says the same and more himself in the same page viz. That Righteousness which God works in us by His Spirit it s of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made Partakers of the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1.4 T. Danson made the Righteousness of the Man Christ of the same Species or Kind with ours as His Human Nature is But G. W. makes the Righteousness of God to be of the same Kind and Nature with ours which is Blasphemy and far beyond what T. Danson had said with which G. W. found no Fault unless that he had said too little of the Oneness of the Righteousness of God and ours But he brings this former saying of Danson's to Confront that Position of his which G. W. sets down viz. That the Righteousness which God works in us is but Finite as well as other Effects This G. W. opposes and brings the above-quoted saying of Danson's as a Contradiction to this and then Proves against Danson according to his skill that the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finit but Infinit This is in opposition to the above saying of Danson's That it was but Finit And if G. W. thought it but Finit why did he oppose Danson in this But he not only says that it is Infinit but goes on to Prove it For says he Christ is Gods Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. iv 19. Thus miserably Perverting the Scripture But they are Desir'd to tell us how Infinity can be Formed 2dly How formed in that which is Finit G. W. in the same place Exclaims against those who would make that Righteousness in them the Saints but Finit When as says he Christ His Infinit Righteousness and the Saints are in one another Here he makes the Righteousness of Christ and of the Saints to be the same and corrupts that Text Heb. ii 11. to Prove it which he Repeats thus He that Sanctifieth and they that are Sanctified are one Whereas the Text is are all of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And concludes thus Then God's Righteousness in us is not Finit but Infinit Yet T. E. would make us believe that he said no such thing But this is no Novelty with him VIII Again p. 134. he justifies this saying of G. Ws That Blood and Water that 's said to Cleanse is not of another Kind but agrees in one with the Spirit And Demands in great assurance Is not that True No. Mr. E. it is not True but far from Truth That the Blood and Water are not of another Kind from the Spirit They are Material and outward Blood and Water which through the operation of the Blessed Spirit do cleanse But this makes them not of the same Kind with the Spirit more than Christ's Human Nature is of the same Kind with His Divine Nature or than a Man's Body is of the same Kind or Natu●● with his Soul And this still shews more and more your Contempt and Denyal of the outward and Material Body and Blood of Christ for your Justification IX T. E. p. 136. brings in W. Penn justifying this saying of Isaac Penington viz. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience And W. P. says We do Deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience to Perform that Inward Work which they themselves i. e. the Professors as the Quakers call'd their Opponents Dare not nay do not hold Yet T. E. says p. 135. that Isaac Pennington put this Question Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience to the Professors who place ALL upon the OVTWARD You must Excuse him he Began and was Resolv'd to go Quite through with this Topick in every Case to Misrepresent his Adversaries Meaning and if he cannot Find Faults to Make them But here he stands fairly Corrected by the more Ingenious W. P. whose Authority he Pretends to Maintain who says that the Professors Dare not nay Do not hold this G. Keith as quoted by T. E. p. 137. has given a clear Answer to this poor Subterfuge of Supposing that any did think the outward and Material Blood of Christ was to be brought into the Conscience and there Materially Apply'd which none sure in this World ever Imagin'd G. K. says The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience is by the Application of a Living Faith in Christ whose Blood it was the Spirit of God working that Faith in me This is Full and Orthodox But says T. E. in answer to this Why do's he say The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience as if it had been Really and Materially brought in there This is Intolerable and shews that they either can not or will nor take an Answer T. E. p. 136. tells of a Distinction which W.P. made betwixt the Pardon of Past Sin and the Present Sanctification of any Person and applys it to this Purpose as if the outward Blood of Christ could have no Tendency but only to the Former But this instead of Solving the Matter serves only to Discover the strange Confusion and Ignorance of these Men in the Mystery of the Gospel as if Christ's Blood outwardly shed were not as Effectual to our Sanctification as to our Justification to Procure for us the Graces of the Holy Spirit towards Living acceptably to God for the Future as the Pardon of Sins that are Past. SECT 3. Concerning the Resurrection of the Body I. T. E. is in Great Confusion upon this Head making Tedious Repetitio● and long Digressions about the Bush not knowing what to say and yet that he might appear to say something But I will Reduce his Immethodical Ramblement into this Order 1st To shew his weak and Fallacious Excuse for that Great Opposition which the Quakers have given to this Article of our Faith 2dly That T. E. instead of Vindicating others has himself down-right