Selected quad for the lemma: opinion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
opinion_n	body_n	bread_n	consecration_n	586	5	10.7324	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

that way But that which W. Penn reputed absurd was that a Body should be said to 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 This is that of which W. Penn said How is it possible that it should be the same and not the same And if a thing can yet be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never much so make stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation And indeed as easily may G. Keith defend the one as the other And if among those of the Protestant Parties he now Courts he should miss of the End of his turning from the Quakers it is not altogether unlikely but that he may try what Earnings he can make among them that hold that Doctrine He says It is not Transubstantiation if I say a Saint's Body is the same at the Resurrection for Substance as it was when it went into the Grave leaving the faces or drossie Part of it behind I say that is beside the Question But the Question is Whether a Natural or Carnal Body that is a Body consisting of Flesh Blood and Bones can be raised out of the Grave without Flesh Blood and Bones and yet be properly and truely said to be the same natural or carnal Body that it was while it consisted of Flesh Blood and Bones For if he would argue from the Substance of a Body he should first have defined what the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body is that it might have been agreed whether the Faces or drossy Part as he calls it by which I understand him to mean the Flesh Blood and Bones be the Substance or any Part of the Substance of a Natural or Carnal Body He seems to hold that it is not For he blames W. Penn for holding that Carniety is essential to a Carnal Body that is that Flesh is essential to a Body of Flesh and he says thereupon see how contrary this is to common Sense and Vnderstanding But sure I think every one that has but common Sense and Understanding may have ground to Question Whether he has not lost his To manifest how contrary it is to common Sense and Understanding and withal to give his Auditors to understand that he is not only a mickle Philosopher but a little Piece of an Hen-Housewife too he says There is no VVoman that sets an Hen to breed Chickens but knows the contrary You know says he the Substance of the Egg the VVhite and Yolk by the force and heat of the Hen sitting on the Egg is changed into a Chicken Is here s●●s he any Transubstantiation First observe he grants the White and the Yolk to be the Substance of the Egg. Next that this Substance of the Egg the VVhite and the Yolk is changed into a Chicken Now unless he will affirm that the Substance of a Chicken after it comes to be a Chicken is the VVhite and Yolk I see not how he will avoid a Transubstantiation that is a changing of the Substance of the Egg which was VVhite and Yolk into the Substance of a Chicken which of all the Chicken I have eaten of I always took to be Flesh Blood and Bones If he thinks otherwise and it should ever happen that he and I should be F●llow-Commoners at a Chicken let him but let me have what I call the Substance of it and I will readily resign all the rest to him even the VVhite and the Yolk if he can find it and in requital of his Courtesie some part and the most solid of that which I call the Substance too which will not be unsuitable to a Cynical Philosopher But whereas he makes himself a little sport with VV. Penn's Philosophy he might have considered that what VV. Penn writ on that subject was not to entertain the Schools but to inform common and vulgar Capacities and therefore he handled it Scripturally not Philosophically using the Terms he writ in according to the ordinary Signification and common Acceptation of them What he says of a Chymical Operation I take to be but a Chymical VVhimsie in his Head or a Chimera which he pleases viz. That a gross Body of Herbs or other Substance can by Chymical Operation be made so subtile volatile and spiritual without any Transubstantiation or Change of the Substance that a Glass can scarce confine or hold it I don't think many have that understanding that he pretends to have of Chymical Operations That a subtile volatile spirituous Substance may by Chymical Operation be extracted from a gross Substance or Body of Herbs is easily apprehensible And that which is so extracted is usually called the Spirit of that Body out of which it is drawn not the Body it self But that the gross Body it self of Herbs or other Substance can be made so subtile and volatile as scarce to be contained in a Glass requires better Proof to gain belief than his bare saying it Besides if the gross Body be made so subtile and volatile as he says how is the Faeces or drossy part left behind as he says But that which must make his Chymical Conceit bear any right Parallel with that Notion of the Resurrection which VV. Penn opposed must be that this gross Body of 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 it s almost unconfinable subtility by Chymical Operation as they hold the Body that dies and is laid in the Grave to be changed in the Resurrection and yet to be the same Body after the Resurrection as it was when it died and was laid in the Grave This is that which VV. Penn compared to the Absurdity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Folly of which Doctrine not to meddle here with the Impiety of it lies in this that the Patrons of that Opinion affirm the very Substance of the Bread and VVine after the Words of Consecration as they call them are spoken to be really changed into the very Substance of Christ's Body and yet the Accidents of the Bread and Wine enforce the Senses to confess that the Substance of the Bread and VVine remains in them as before I perceive he has done and that quickly with his Third Head about the Resurrection Which as he has stated it he needed not at all have attempted to prove our denial of For it is a known thing that as we have always asserted a Resurrection of Bodies so we have always denied the Body which shall be raised to be the same Body that died with respect to Grosness and Carniety and that 1. From the Principles of our Opposers about it who hold that it is wonderfully changed and therefore it is a wonder it should be the very same 2. From the Reason and Nature of the thing which will not admit a Natural Carnal Body to be a suitable

by some Teachers among us And to be sure he did then really believe and had good cause so to do that G. Whitehead and all the Quakers did so believe as well as himself which he had no cause since to disbelieve and therefore he did than Vindicate them all as well as himself charging Gordon with a Lye and false Accusation for saying the contrary And yet whatever pretence he may make of his Ignorance what was in other Books of G. Whitehead's written but a little before he may not be supposed Ignorant of what was in that Book which he himself had a share in out of which yet he now makes his greatest Cavil on this Head against G. Whitehead He adds in his note I confess I happened to find Divers Passages in G. Whitehead's and other Quakers Books that seemed to me unsound but in an excess of Charity I did construe them to be better meant than worded and that they had rather unwarily slipped from them than that they were the expressions of their unsound mind c. How long it is since this Accident befel him that as he words it he happened to find those divers passages which seemed to him unsound he does not tell But the tenour of his words import it to have been long ago For if ever he did to be sure he has not exceeded in Charity towards the Quakers of late Years But whenever he had found any passages either in G. Whitehead's or other Quakers Books that had seemed to him unsound had he been really sound himself and soundly tho' not excessively Charitable he would have Charitably and Friendly in a private manner have opened such passages to the respective Authors of such Books and have understood from themselves their Sense and Meaning therein that thereby he might have both inform'd and reform'd their Minds and Judgments in the passages if they had been really unsound or they have rectified his mistaking understanding by manifesting to him the soundness both of their minds and words And this Friendly Office he might more easily and inoffensively have undertaken if as he says he construed those Passages which to him seem'd unsound to be better meant than worded and that they had rather unwarily slipt from them than that they were the expressions of an unsound Mind But tho' he has not told us when that excessive Charity of his began yet he pretty plainly intimates when it ended and why by saying I construed those passages better meant than worded until that of late I had found them to Iustify the same and the like unsound words in my Adversaries in Pensilvania and to hate and excommunicate me for telling them of them Ay there 's the Hing of the business their Excommunicating him as he calls it that is their declaring him to be gone out from them and their Communion and to be no longer one of them From that time forward and some time before his excess of Charity turned to an excess of Enmity and then he saw the same things and Persons to be far worse than he saw them before because he saw them with a far worse Eye But to go on to his Charge and Proofs The next Proof he brings that G. Whitehead has denied the Existence of Christ in a body without us is out of a Book of G. Whitehead's called Christ ascended above the Clouds Printed in 1669. in answer to Io. Newman a Baptist. The Quotation begins thus p. 17. Io. Newman his Opponent's words were from Rev. 1.7 Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body Visibly come again p. 21 22. G. Whitehead answereth These are not the words of Scripture but a●●ed altho' to add or diminish be forbidden under a Penalty Rev. 22.18 19. Yet this Mans presumption leads him to incur that There G. Keith breaks off with a dash thus thereby leaving out what follows next in G. Whitehead which is thus See also for answer to him Rev. 1.8 and 13 14.16 In none of which is Iesus Christ either called or represented as a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones visibly to come again The leaving out these words was not fair in G. Keith because they shew upon what ground G. Whitehead opposed the Baptists and what sort of Body it was they disputed about viz. a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones Certain it is indeed that that Body which was pierced on the Cross was a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones And the Baptists from Rev. 1.7 said Those that pierced him in his Body of Flesh shall see that Body visibly come again not so much as mentioning any change in it G. Keith thereupon Nar. p. 17. says Is there any thing here offensive Nothing adds he but what is the declared Opinion of the Church of Rome the Church of England the Presbyterians Independents Baptists and mine all along He had forgot it seemes tho' I lately put him in mind of it that in his Book called The way cast up Printed 1677. long after the Book he carps at he said That Body that was crucified on the Cross at Ierusalem and is now ascended and glorified in Heaven is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal or Heavenly Body p. 131. And although to shew his own Confusion he there says That Body notwithstanding its being changed from being a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal or Heavenly Body re-mains the same in substance that it was on Earth making the change from being a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones to be a change not in subs●●●ce but in mode and manner only of its being Yet he had no reason to cavil with or blame G. Whitehead for opposing the Baptists notion of a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones now in Heaven since he himself declares it is no more a Body of Flesh Blood and Bones but a pure Ethereal Body which the Baptists I am confident never dreamt of and which I suppose none of the Churches or People he has named will agree with him in if he will now agree with himself But he would have found less cause or colour to quarrel with G. Whitehead about that description of Christ in Rev. 1. if he had considered what himself hath writ further upon that Subject in his said Way cast up p. 141 142. N. 6. Where treating of Christ the Heavenly Man he says And as Iohn Rev. 1. describeth him he is a wonderfully great Man even that Son of Man whom Iohn saw after his Ascension in the midst of the Golden Candlesticks even he that liveth and was dead ver 18. to shew that it was the Man Christ and he had in his right Hand seven Stars which are expounded to be the Seven Angels or Pastors of the Seven Churches Now mark This sheweth saith he it is not his external Person or outward Body

honoured G. Fox which he told the Rector he could not I gather from G. Keith's Words that this Paper of G. Fox's which he charges with very unsound and unchristian Doctrine is of older Date than his Book in Answer to the Rector Is he not ashamed so openly to contradict himself as to charge a Man that he was guilty of very unsound and unchristian Doctrine at the same time that he had proclaimed him such a worthy Instrument of the Lord 's making and had affirmed he was then safe in the Hand of him that holdeth the seven Stars and the seven golden Candlesticks in his right Hand In p. 56. Having done with G. Whitehead he falls upon W. Penn again first For some Passages which he calls unsound and scandalous and then for some Contradictions as he would make them The First Passage he brings against him is out of his Rejoynder to J. Faldo p. 179 180. about the Excommunication of Robert Norwood by Sidrach Sympson an eminent Preacher among the Independents Where W. Penn not to defend Norwood but to shew Fald● that he had dealt by the Quakers somewhat like as Sympson had done by Norwood sets down Norwood's Opinion and Sympsons Charge against him upon it Norwood it seems denied the Locality of Heaven and Hell and believed the Soul to have been breathed from God and therefore assigned to it something more of Divinity than the usual opinion doth Sympson stretched this to be a denial of any Heaven and Hell at all and a rendring the Soul God it self W. Penn shewing how severely Norwood was dealt with only for Opinion added in a Parenthesis and that not very offensive This Expression G. Keith catches hold of and deals by W. Penn as Sympson did by Norwood that is he stretches it to the worst Construction he could make and far beyond what it could bear For whereas by the Word Locality of Heaven and Hell it is probable no more was intended than that Heaven and Hell were not certain particular Places or parts of the World set out bounded and limited to any certain and determinate Dimensions as the Heathen Poets described their Elysium to be G. Keith would represent W. Penn as thinking it not very offensive to deny that Christ's Body that was raised from the Dead is in any Heaven that is an outward place or without us And then stretches out his Throat with a loud Appeal to all sincere Christians that this is really so offensive that the denying of that one Truth of such a Locality I suppose he does not mean but of Christ's Body not being in any Heaven without us is a plain denial of one of the greatest Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith and so makes void the whole to any that holds such a damnable Opinion which I am perswaded Rob. Norwood did not hold and I am con●ident W. Penn never dreamt of For though he said of Norwood's Opinion it is not very offensive as he understood it and compared with what Sympson represented it Yet his calling it not very offensive shews he held it to be offensive and was offended at it His Cavil upon the other part of Norwood's Opinion by which he would reflect upon W. Penn is that the Soul of Man is a created Being and hath nothing of Divinity essential to it p. 57. Norwood's Opinion as W. Penn mentioned it has no such Word as essential in it He only said he believed the Soul to have been breathed from God thereby assigning to it something more of Divinity than the usual Opinion doth And G. Keith here acknowledges That the Divine Power that made the Soul of Man is in it and operateth in it more manifestly than in the inferiour Creatures Therefore he might have spared all this Cavil But he has not yet done with Norwood because he is not yet willing to have done with VV. Penn Norwood in his Answer to Sympson's Excommunication who had charged him with withdrawing himself from the People of God said Are none the People of God but your selves This VV. Penn said was Argumentum ad hominem to I. Faldo who had represented the Quakers as worse than the Heathens and Mahometans G. Keith catches at this too and reckons though without his Host this is as good an Argument for him against VV. Penn and the Yearly Meeting that denied him because they call themselves the Church of Christ as if says he they were the only Church of Christ. He once thought them so no doubt and if he does not think them so now he must think some other Body of People to be it For as Christ has a Church so he has but one Church in the World I speak not of particular Gatherings with respect to Place but of all that are of one and the same Fellowship in all Places throughout the whole World Neither speak I with respect to particular Persons but with respect to a gathered People which is both the common and the true Notion of a Church That we the People called Quakers are the Church of Christ is no Presumption in us to affirm nor ought to be offensive to others to hear since we therein claim no more to our selves than every other Body of professed Christians challenge to themselves namely that they and they only as a gathered People are the true Church of Christ. But for this Protestantism had never been neither Name nor Thing Had the Protestants believed the Church of Rome to be the true Church of Christ they would not have withdrawn from her Communion as neither would the several sorts of Protestants have successively separated from one another had they believed those they separated from to be the true Church of Christ. For who but G. Keith would be so Mad to disjoyn himself from that People which he believed to be the true Church of Christ Yet I do not think that of the several sorts of Professors of Christianity who have left those Religious Societies or Fellowships they were once of any were so devoid of Charity as to think there were no good Persons none that feared God none that sought and breathed after him and sincerely desired the Knowledge of his Will that they might do it among those People whom they parted from But that honesty and those good desires in such particular Persons though it had and hath acceptance with the Lord and was and is answered by him with sweet and comfortable Discoveries of himself unto them yet it makes not those Gatherings or Bodies of People amongst which such particular Persons are to be the Church of Christ. So we whom the World calls Quakers whom the Lord God hath raised up in this Age and gathered by the invisible Arm of his Divine Power to be a peculiar People to himself though we dare not but own and declare our selves to be the Church of Christ yet we have always acknowledged and do that as of old in every Nation He that feared God and wrought Righteousness