Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	church_n	member_n	visible_a	3,184	5	9.3025	5	false

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

ye see how the citations they bring in their Paper clear me and shew T. Ellwood his injustice against me You see there is the Light within not the Light without in the Citations they have brought to clear me and to blame T. Ellwood And here is another thing they find fault with as to T. Ellwood's wronging me as if I had made a meer Verbal Confession a sufficient qualification to a Member of the Church of Christ See here they cite my Book Reasons and Causes p. 22. Take notice how they notifie his Forgery that he leaves out my words T. Ellwood says I make a meer Verbal Confession a Qualification for being a Member of the Church But I say not so as if a Verbal Confession were enough but as well a Conversation such as becomes the Gospel is necessary to qualifie a Member So my Book is Such a Conversation as becomes the Gospel p. 36. Reasons and Causes c. I appeal to you is not this more than a Verbal Confession T. Ellwood charges me to say That a meer Verbal Confession is enough to make a man a Member of the Church of Christ Now p. 103 T. Ellwood accuseth me unjustly as his own Brethren do observe for giving a false Quotation out of R. Barclay's Book called the Anarchy c. but they clea● me and declare it to be true as it is T. Ellwood quibbles about Substance finding fault with my Saying Somewhere it agrees in Substance with R. B. as elsewhere in express words Now these men take notice that T. Ellwood is unfair in taking that liberty to himself he will not allow to me They observe he admits of Substance of Doctrine in his own Citations but will not allow it to me Another thing T. Ellwood accuses G. Keith as they observe in their Censure that he blames them for going too much from the outward to the inward But these are not my words nor sence And they censure T. Ellwood for making a strained Consequence on my words for tho' I blamed them for not rightly preaching Christ withou● yet not for going to the inward Light for if they did go rightly to God's Light and Gift in their Hearts they would not hold such gross Errors But he says I blame them for going from the outward to the inward which is not so See p. 22. Again they censure him in his blaming me for not naming the Day Month or Year wherein that Yearly meeting at Philadelphia was held which he makes the ground of his perversion and would excuse it You see he argues like a rare Logician He says I do not name the Year nor Day nor is it in p. 14 nor p. 18. But what then I do it in another page This is rare Logick Now I say you have both in p. 3. quoted from The Plea of the Innocent Which p. 3. T. Ellwood has quoted for another purpose but could not see it for that And all this Proof is that I did not tell it in p. 14 nor p. 18 but I did it in p. 3. His Argument is a Sophism and is faulty in not making a sufficient enumeration Again they censure him for charging me with Nonsence Pray may not a meeting held six months after contradict a meeting going before Very well But he has given out that I am so weak a man that I cannot write sence This morning one came to me with Henry Goldney and said People would hoot at me in the Meeting but it is fulfilled on themselves thinking me craz'd And so here is a Paper against me that I cannot speak sence And why Because he feigns that I said a meeting six months before contradicts a meeting held six months after it when there is no such thing but that a meeting six months after contradicts a meeting six months before When Tho. Ellwood could not prove that I began the Separation at Philadelphia by any Evidence of Matter of Fact he essays to do it by false Logick arguing That the Cause must be before the Effect Therefore because I say Th. Loid and they that were Magistrates went away this was the beginning of the Separation and a cause of it And so when he cannot bring a reason in Matter of Fact he will go to false Logick for it So I answer'd his Argument saying All learned men that write of causes and effects acknowledge that a priority of time is not necessary to the cause but it is enough that there be a priority of nature the first moment the Sun was created there was light And then besides the cause cannot be the effect says he if their going away from that meeting were the cause of the separation it was not the effect But I said to him formal and material causes may be both cause and effect As for example The formal and material causes of a man are his Soul and Body and they are the man The material and formal causes of this House are the Stones the Bricks the Timber and the Fashion Now here these causes are the effect Now Th. Loid's going away was a cause of the Separation and yet was a beginning of the Separation And is it not shameful They accuse me of Separation but they run to a perversion of Philosophy to prove it by that the cause is before the effect when they have no other Arguments against me but false Logick and vain Philosophy and Deceit and his own Brethren here in this Paper do censure him for his arguing unfairly by Logical nicety Here is another Observation of these honest men they censure him for saying he did not understand that the Doctrine of the Faith of Christ as he died c. being necessary to our Salvation was reputed a Doctrine in Controversie betwixt us Whereas the principal Doctrine in Controversie between them and me was about the Faith of Christ as he died c. whether necessary to our Salvation Here is something also to take notice of that he blames me as not fair for not putting my Name to my Book nor the Name of the Printer Now the Quakers have done so in England in Suffering Times and yet the Printer in America was prosecuted by an Act of Parliament for not printing his Name to some of my Books and they took away his Letters and Frame But I find that which is Persecution in England is esteem'd good Justice in Philadelphia Quaker N. Marks I have something to propose to you if you please We are all in general very apt and too apt to have a good Opinion of ourselves it is very near to Mankind to do so You have very well answer'd the Design of this meeting in this you have heard him with a great deal of temper I desire you further to consider that all considerate men when they hear one part hear but with one Ear. So far as G. Keith thinks fit to make this publick you may expect an Answer and I hope you will reserve one Ear to hear that

must look to Jerusalem for Justification to the blood that was there shed contrary to Deut. 30.13 14. and Rom. 10. Is not this abominab●e Perversion of Scripture to confirm his Antichristian Doctrine Light and Life pag. 61. What Confusion what a Labyrinth and Uncertainty is he in and does he bring his Hearers into saith G. Whitehead of Will. Burnet because according to Scripture he asserts that Men must be directed to Christ for Justification and Salvation both as he suffered at Jerusalem and as he rose again and is ascended into Heaven above the Clouds and Firmament Next you shall hear Solomon Eccles's Letter That the blood of Christ is no more than the blood of another Saint Quaker N. M. I beg a Favour Here are several things urged as false Doctrine which refer to several places of Scripture which Scriptures ought also to be read G. Keith They have been read except Deut. 30. Rom. 10. is a repetition of Deut. 30. This is only to prolong time and hinder me to proceed in my Proofs But if the Auditory please I will read both Deut. 30. and Rom. 10. Auditory There is no need go on and read Solomon Eccles's Letter G. Keith Before I read the Letter let me read these Lines in G. Whitehead his Light and Life pag. 8. W. B. saith he tells of looking to Jerusalem to Jesus Christ as he was there crucified or to that blood that was there shed for Justification Contradiction That Christ that restoreth man's loss is both to be sought and found in Heaven c. but in contradiction to both the Reception of the Spirit the only means the gift of Christ to us and his being revealed in us by his Spirit Here you see G. Whitehead makes it a Contradiction that we must look to Christ as he died at Jerusalem and as he is now in Heaven Judge ye if this be a Contradiction but in Contradiction to both he saith it is a Contradiction to direct to Christ our Saviour as he died at Jerusalem and that Christ that saveth us is revealed within us by his Spirit Now the Letter which G. Whitehead does own it is a Letter of Solomon Eccles it is this Robert Porter TAKE heed of belying the Innocent for I hear that thou hast reported to a Friend of mine that I should say That the Blood of Christ is no more than the Blood of another Man I never spake it but do very highly esteem of the Blood of Christ to be more Excellent and Living and Holy and Precious than is able to be uttered by the Tongues of Men and Angels I mean the Blood which was offered up in the Eternal Spirit Heb. 9.14 But the Blood that was forced out of him by the Soldiers after he was dead who before that bowed his Head to the Father and gave up the Ghost but thou sayest that was the Blood of the New-Covenant which was shed after he was dead which I do deny yet I did say That was no more than the Blood of another Saint These were my Words which thou art wresting to thy own Destruction And for the other Lye that thou chargest me withal that I should say That the Blood of Christ should fall to the Ground within a twelfth Month it is false and never was spoke by me But I did say That the Baptists and Independants and Presbyterians and Pope are all of one Ground and none of you understand the Blood of Jesus Christ no more than a brute Beast therefore repent for God will suddenly overthrow your Faith and your imputative Righteousness too for the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness which he did at Jerusalem and without the Gates the Pope the Episcopal the Presbyterian Independants and Baptists shall fare all alike and shall sit down in Sorrow short of the Eternal Rest But the true imputative Righteousness of Christ we own but it is hid from you all till the Lord do open an Eye within you Stranger Who Printed that Letter G. Keith W. Burnet the Baptist Preacher Have you any Testimony of their owning that Letter T. Slaughter I can answer to the Letter G. Keith It may be thou art the Man T. Slaughter I am not the Man but I have had a Copy of the Letter It was writ to one Porter at Whe●stone and the Letter is true Auditors Pray Sir where do you live and what is your Name T. Slaughter My Name is Thomas Slaughter I live at Darking I have a Son that is a Tallow Chandler that lives in Bow-Lane where you may have an Account of me G. Keith George Whitehead doth not question the Letter to be true but defends it and as much opposeth Justification by the outward or material Blood of Christ as Solomon Eccles doth Here is a weighty Passage George Whitehead says in his Book Light and Life which T. Ellwood transcribes and vindicates T. Ellwood represents G. Whitehead And this is one of the Books they say in their printed Paper they have sent and read at this Meeting I have not answered And this is G. Whitehead in Effigie I had charged G. Whitehead for saying That Christ's material Blood shed at Jerusalem was but a Type of the Blood we were justified by T. Ellwood finds fault with me for this And you shall see T. Ellwood's Vindication and how far G. VVhitehead has owned or disowned S. Eccles's Letter All things under the Law says VV. Burner in the Type was purged with Blood and this Blood was material Blood and not mystical and that Blood that Christ shed in order to the effecting the Salvation of Man must needs be visible and material Blood These are VV. Burnet's Words Now G. VVhitehead says Baptist All things under the Law in the Type was purged with Blood and this Blood was material Blood and not mystical and that Blood that Christ shed in order to the effecting the Salvation of Man must needs be material and visible Blood Answ. Do but mark here what sad Consequence he has drawn as if one should Reason that because the Type was material visible and not mystical therefore the Antitype or Substance must needs be material and not mystical By this all Mysteries or Divine things are excluded from being either Spiritual Antitype or Substance whereas it was the Heavenly things themselves that are in Christ in which consists the Substance and End of Types and Shadows But to say that material Blood was a Type of that which was material this is to give the Substance no Preheminence above the Type especially if neither of them be mystical nor in being or like as if one should say one Type was a Type of another Whereas both the Heavenly and more perfect Tabernacle and Altar with the Heavenly things are all a Mystery and Spiritual the Offering and Living Sacrifices are Spiritual the Passover Spiritual the Seed Spiritual the Bread the Fruit of the Vine Spiritual the Oyl the Flesh and the Blood which give Life to the Soul yea the

I have a Paper that some persons concerned in this Challenge have sent that they desire may be read Which was consented to G. Keith The truth is I could be almost content to go away and say nothing to it there is so little of value in it They say I began with them but they began with me in Pensylvania I was doing my duty in preaching Christ without and Christ within they charged me with preaching two Christs I went to some of them about it but they took their part against me I laid it before the Ministry at the Yearly meeting they also took their part Now you know he that affirms on him lies the business of proving W. Pen when I was opening a place of Scripture he charges me with being an Apostate and Impostor Here he charges me with being an Apostate I say to him it belongs to make his charge good but he goes away At the Yearly meeting I put it to him to make it good I do not doubt but this meeting will sound through the Nation They urge me to Printing I say again I have not either Estate or Time to print Book upon Book And tho' I have not answer'd the said two Books why may not I say as they do They are not worth answering As for example There is a Book called The Snake in the Grass I would not vindicate all things in it but they have been urged to answer it their Answer is it is not worth answering This man that prints this half-sheet says it cannot be supposed that G. Keith can answer eighteen sheets of Paper in a Meeting Why can it be ●upposed But G. Fox can answer an hundred sheets of Paper in a few Pages He has answer'd Books of ten or twelve sheets in a few lines And as for their upbraiding my Friends for not bearing the charge of Printing my Books they that own me here are not many of them rich and I would not put them to it But now there is the thing the Controversie is whether the rich Church or the poorer Church be the Ch. of Christ G. Keith's is the poor Church and theirs is the rich Church and I am not asham'd of my Poverty seeing I have not done any dishonest thing I have weaken'd my Estate by printing what I have printed already there is a Printer here that can own I have paid near forty pounds to him for Printing Now they upbraid me for my Poverty Their Church is the true Church because the rich Church and ours the false Church because the poor Church Quaker N. Marks You should hear one side but with one Ear and leave the other free for the other side G. Keith I am perswaded the Reasons given in the Paper read at the beginning were no just Reason for their not appearing But though some comparisons are odious yet give me leave to make a comparison May a Malefactor make this excuse You shall not call me before a Justice without my consent If a man rob me I may complain of him as a Robber and without his consent call him to account but here is a strange thing injuring men may not be called to account without their consent it will trespass against the Law and intrenches upon liberty of Conscience I was advised to go before the Lord Mayor of London and I did and told him I hoped it would give no offence to Authority for the things I was concerned in were the common Doctrines of Christianity if there be any Tumult says I it shall not be on my side And the Lord Mayor was pleased to consent to it Now their printed Paper seems to reflect on the publick Authority and not what I have done And thus the Meeting peaceably ended between the second and third hour in the Afternoon Note If any of my Adversaries object That divers of these Proofs here brought were brought formerly in my Book against W. Penn and G. W. call'd A short List of the vile and gross Errors which T. Ellwood hath replied to in his printed Book called Truth defended I answer I know not any one of them that he has sufficiently answer'd unto to give the least Sati●faction to any sound Christian his Answers being meerly Evasions and Perversions as I should have shown if he had appear'd But beside there are many new Proofs here brought beside the former which I am well satisfied they can never truly answer but by a sincere and free Confession of their gross Errors and a hearty retracting and relinquishing them And if any that were present at that Meeting or may happen to read this printed Account with the proofs brought out of their Books in full Periods and Paragraphs as often as there was any occasion are desirous to see the Books and to read the Proofs in the said Books that were then brought or any others that may be brought I freely offer them that are sober and impartial persons to let them have the free sight and view of them leisurely to read and consider them if they please to call at my House And I the rather make this Offer because divers of these Books are not easily to be had not being in the hands of many And because I had not time enough to read divers other great Proofs that I had being hinder'd with the impertinent Digressions of those that interposed whom we had no just Cause to hear pretending no Deputation from the persons they spoke for and therefore only were permitted by Favour to shew their Impertinencies I therefore think fit to add some other few very considerable Proofs out of these mens Books and perhaps one or two out of Books approved and commended by them and some few more of W. Penn's and George Whitehead's Self-Contradictions AN APPENDIX CONTAINING Some other Considerable Passages for Proofs out of these Mens Books relating to the foregoing Heads and some few more of W. Penn's and G. Whitehead's Self-Contradictions which were design'd to have been read at the Meeting at Turners-Hall 11th of the Month call'd June 1696. but for the Diversions made could not then be read IN George Whitehead's Book called The Divinity of Christ he hath this most unsound and scandalous passage concerning Christ how a Sacrifice and his Blood In his Answer to T. Danson's Synopsis of Quakerism p. 70. first he sets down the words of John Owen thus The Sacrifice denotes his Human Nature whence God is said to purchase his Church with His own Blood Acts 20.28 for He offer'd Himself through the eternal Spirit there was the Matter of the Sacrifice which was the Human Nature of Christ Soul and Body His Soul was made an Offering for Sin Isa 53.10 His Death had the Nature of a Sacrifice Against these sound words of John Owen he quarrels and contradicts thus Answ These passages are but darkly and confusedly express●d as also we do not read in Scripture that the Blood of God by which he purchas'd his Church is ever call'd