Selected quad for the lemma: friend_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
friend_n	word_n	write_v	writing_n	104	4	8.7377	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A96468	Truth further defended, and William Penn vindicated; being a rejoynder to a book entitutled, A brief and modest reply, to Mr. Penn's tedious, scurrilous, and unchristian defence, against the bishop of Cork. Wherein that author's unfainess is detected, his arguments and objections are answered. / By T.W. and N.H.	Wight, Thomas, ca. 1640-1724.	1700 (1700)	Wing W2108; ESTC R204122	88,609	189

which is no where done in any one text of Scripture but is to be gathered out of many Answ Is it not strange Reader that the Bp. who so strangely condemned that Paper of Gospel Truths as short and defective for not being more explicit and full in others as well as in this point should now a second time be so very defective himself as not to tell us where those many Texts are by which the Trinity was to be proved No that he has not done for a good reason too because in all the Scriptures a more full proof could not be found then 1 John 5. 7. But the Bp. to help himself tells us of the Thirty Nine Articles and Nicene Creed To which we answer their foundation in that point ought to be the Holy Scripture if so why had not the Bp. cited or referred us to those Scriptures but in stead of confirming the Trinity we think he has rather lessened the proof thereof while he tells us the Apostles purpose was to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God for altho' the Apostles could not prove the Trinity without proving Jesus Christ to be the Son of God yet as the Bp. assignes that Text. by the context chiefly to prove Christ was the Son of God we ask doth he not thereby lessen the proof of the Trinity vvhile as we said above we can no where find so full and plain a Text in all the Holy Scriptures to prove the Trinity we are sure we design not to strain or misrepresent the Bp's sense but what we have said we think naturally follows from his own words and far less then we could have said on the matter As to his appeal to his Paper we agree in that point provided W. P's Defence be compared with it and there the Impartial Reader will see whether W. P. hath wronged the Bp's Sense or not and whether the Bp. hath not now confirmed W. P's asking How came the Bp. to render it a by passage and the Text it self short and otherwise intended by the Apostle then an Article of Faith about the Trinity see p. 33. of W. P's Defence in two places and thus we end as to what the Bp. has said about the Trinity P. 6 7. The Bp. tells us we must give a more explicit confession of our Faith if we expect to be accounted Christians for other reasons then he has given especially says he this for one that a great Person among them who professes as concerning their Principles he was deceived by them thinking they had held sincerely the Principles which by a more diligent search he finds they hold not Answ George Keith being the person he means as appears in the Margin we must take leave to say the Bp. is greatly mistaken for he is neither great among us nor indeed of us at all having been denied by us some Years past and as to that Man he must either have been a great Hypocrite formerly or a foul Apostate now from us The former if for about thirty Years he walkt among us and defended our Principles by word and writing and yet at the same time was not convinced of the verity of them an Apostate to be sure if being convinced of our Principles and from that perswasion defended them while now he retracts and condemns some of the very same Principles he then defended The Bp. proceeds about G Keith p. 7. assures us meaning G. K. and has Printed Testimonies out of their Books to prove they deny Answ As to G. Keith's confident assurance we question not that he having given us sufficient proof thereof already by plainly perverting and misrepresenting our friends words and writings as well as contradicting what he has before writ in defence of us and our principles and did we only refer back to our friends reitterated as well as G. K's own former writings they would sufficiently prove us Orthodox as to the four following points brought by the Bp. from G. K's Third Narrative however because the Bp. shall not have occasion to say we pass them over we will briefly consider them 1st That they i. e. the Quakers deny Faith in Christ as he outwardly suffered at Jerusalem as he rose again ascended and now sits at the right hand of God to be necessary to Salvation Answ If G. K. doth here mean that the Knowledge of the outward death and suffering of Jesus Christ is so necessary to salvation as without the knowledg of which all Men are damned and eternally lost we answer we dare not be so uncharitable as to conclude that the many millions of Men who are and have been in the World and who never had or heard of the outward history of the sufferings and death of Christ c. are so damned provided they yield obedience to the Spirit of God in them selves and thereby from unholy become Holy Men. But if he mean with respect to the Quakers and such who have had the knowledg of the outward history as recorded in Holy Scriptures we hold it absolutely necessary so to believe 2ly That we deny Justification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed Answ To this head we have spoken before and the Bp. himself hath allowed W. P. Orthodox in what is written in Gospel Truth so we need say no more of this now 3ly That we deny the Resurrection of the Body that dieth If he mean the same Numerical Body of Flesh Blood and Bones which we have here on Earth we know not where he will find Scripture for that But on the contrary he may find the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. 36. calling such curious Body Enquirers Fools Now as to us we fully own and truly believe the Resurrection of the Body according to the Holy Scripture but are not so nice and inquisitive as to enquire what sort of Body God will give us leaving that to his Divine Will who will give us such a Body as pleaseth him and this is Scripture language and agreeable to 1 Cor. 15. 36 37 38. and cited by W. P. in his Defence against the Bp's Testimony in which Book he hath briefly but fully asserted our Belief in this point which we do not find the Bp. makes any return to in his Reply by which as we take it he tacitly allows him Orthodox therein notwithstanding he now brings up this of G. K. against us 4ly That we deny Christ's coming again without us in his glorified Body to judg the Quick and the Dead Answ This charge is false because we own it in express words and would G. K. with the rest of our Adversaries let our plain words and Sense mean what they say and import there would be no room left for this malitious charge as well as many others for many of our Friends have very often publickly in print asserted our Belief in this point and W. P. in particular whom I will cite on this occasion besides in other of his writings hath fully owned the same in

prevent the prejudices that the attempts of a course and scurrilous Pen at Dublin just before might provoke in some against us As to the points touched upon in the Gospel Truths Thus W. P. Now Reader we do not blame the Bp. barely for taking no notice of this part but we think it became him either to have disproved what W. P. here said or not continued his Reflections now in his Reply for the brevity of that Paper while he had not only the above notice but had also Robert Barclay's Apology and the Rise and Progress of the People called Quakers which fully and clearly vindicates at large some of those Tenets he now again censures as short exprest in that Paper as we shall shew in their places But the Bp. proceeds thus Ibid. 2 The first charge in his Book against the Bp. is that he did not prove such a Reader as he profest himself Mr. P. would have had him such a Reader that had rather they should be in the right then in the wrong the Bp. never profest himself such Answ How will the Bp. be able to Reconcile this to the Words in his Testimony where he says in the begining of it Friends I am such a Reader as in your Paper you desire This in Answer to Gospel Truths which desired a Sober Reader in these Words If thou hadst rather we should be in the right then in the wrong c. Manifest Contradiction But the Bp. to bring himself off goes on thus Ibid. 2 Mr. P. desires a strange partial Reader who should have more inclination and affection to the Quakers that is his Adversaries Opinion then his own or who would rather be in an Error himself then that his Adversaries should be in any Answ Is there no difference betwen desiring a People were in the Right then in the Wrong and between chusing rather that Himself were in the Wrong then his Adversaries should be so certainly a great deal and it looks as if the Bp. were hard put to it when he thus argueth Did W. P. intend or desire such a Reader as the Bp. stateth No but such an one that had rather we were in the Right then in the Wrong and explains it thus One that thought it but reasonable we should be Heard before Condemned and that our Belief ought to be taken from our own Mouths and not at theirs that hath prejudged our Cause In short 't is very plain he only desired an Impartial Reader such as the Bp. only pretended to be Ibid. 2 The Bp. tells us He neither had nor has any personal quarrel with W. P. But says the Bp. all he impleads him of meaning W. P. is his Doctrine by spreading and defending such Principles which tend to the Subverting Christianity at which no Bp. ought to connive Answ As this is only a general as well as a false charge so needs no other Answer here but a positive denial until we come to particulars where we shall see how well the Bp. will prove his Charge As to his not conniving to be sure he 's at his liberty to implead but if he should do so again we must desire him to approve himself a fairer Adversary then he hath yet appeared either in his Testimony or now in his Reply P. 2 Says the Bp. To omit things less material P. 24 He would insinuate the Bp. Guilty of Insincerity in saying it was the first time he ever heard the Quakers own the Necessity of Christ as a Propitiation in order to Remission of Sins and justifying them as Sinners from the guilt and tells the Bp. where possibly he might have read it The Bp. makes Answer thus Possibly the Bp. may have Read more then either he did or now does actually remember he never had so much as many of the Quakers Books much less has he them in his memory Answ Here is first an Instance of the brevity of the Bp's Reply while he takes a large stride from P. 20 to 24 where W. P. Enumerates and Charges the Bp. with unfair dealing by us which the Bp. passeth over without notice with saying to omit things less Material next as W. P. said so say we that 't is next to impossible it should be the first time he so heard of the Quakers since he had read R. Barclays Apology which largely treats of this head But the Bp. Confesseth he possibly may have Read more then he Remembers which seems a tacit granting the matter But suppose he did not actually remember this point can it be possible he should forget that he had Read any of the Quakers Books since he told W. P. so very lately he had Read Robert Barclay and his Book called the Rise and Progress of the Quakers the former largely and the latter as fully as now in Gospel Truths owning the Doctrine of Justification Whence it follows if the Bp. had been an Impartial Reader as he pretended and one that was unwilling to represent us wrong or render us defective in our Belief he would certainly have first searched those two Books before he had made this point a new discovery so to the Impartial Reader we refer the Bp's sincerity or kindness to the Quakers herein and Proceed Ibid. 3 The Bp. tells us That he has a Book now before him Intitled The second Part of the serious Apology for the Principles and Practices of the People called Quakers by W. P. Printed 1671. In which P. 148. are these Words This namely Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us in the Words before We deny and boldly affirm it to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World Then the Bp. adds This the Bp. does not understand to be owning Justification by Christ he therefore now was glad to find Mr. P. more Orthodox in 1698. Then he was in 1671. Answ We would have been also glad to have found the Bp. more fair and ingenious not to say worse which it will bear then to leave out the Explanatory Part of W. P's Words which is as far Remote from a fair Adversary as an Impartial Reader Whereas had he been so just as to leave them in tho' they would not have suited the Bp's purpose yet together with W. P's plain Sense in several following Arguments would have made W. P. as Orthodox to the Impartial Reader in 1671. As the Bp. allows him to be 1698. For next to the Words i e His own Person for us follow these Words wholy without us which Words the Bp. hath wholly left out and instead of them hath substituted these Words in the Words before and the Bp. hath not only thus done but hath as we believe wilfuly overlooked since the place was before him W. P' s. plain sense and meaning in his foregoing Words in the same Page which are these For in him namely in Christ We have Life and by Faith