Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	father_n	holy_a	son_n	5,346	5	6.2821	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47180	Some of the many fallacies of William Penn detected in a paper called Gospel truths signed by him and three more at Dublin, the 4th of the 3d month, 1698, and in his late book called A defence of Gospel truths, against the exceptions of the B. of Cork's testimony concerning that paper : with some remarks on W.P., his unfair and unjust treatment of him : to which is added a synopsis or short view of W. Penn's deism, collected out of his book called A defense of the general rule of faith, &c. / by George Keith.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1699 (1699)	Wing K214; ESTC R2685	46,816	106

only against their being Three Persons but against their being Three or Three He 's arguing That if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then unless they are Three distinct Nothings they are Three distinct Substances and consequently Three distinct God's Which is as weakly and Sophistically argued by W. P. as if he had argued If the three Dimensions of a Body be three distinct Dimensions then unless they are three distinct Nothings they are three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct Bodies which I only bring to shew the silly Sophistry of his Argument but not that I think this glorious Mystery of the Trinity can be duly represented by this Similitude or any other natural Similitude whatsoever though it is a certain truth that the distinction of the three divine relative Properties in the divine Essence prove them no more to be Three Gods than the distinction of the three Dimensions in a Body prove that they are three Bodies And had W. P. given the Profession of his Faith in all the other Texts of Scripture that are commonly understood by true Christians to prove the true distinction of the Father Son and Holy Ghost in their relative and personal Properties Yet seeing as hath been fully proved W. P. hath quite another sense of all those Texts than the true Scripture sense received by all true Christians the Bishop might well enough charge W. P's Faith with being defective for his imposing a wrong sense on the sound Scripture words as he hath done and which it is like the Bishop had just occasion of suspicion he had done in some of his books Doth W. P. think that if a suspected Papist to clear himself of being free of that Popish Error of Transubstantiation should profess his Faith in that one Text of Scripture Take eat this is my Body would this justly clear him of that Suspicion seeing he may be guilty of that Error for all his Scripture Confession it being the common Policy of the greatest Hereticks to profess their Faith in Scripture words while by their other words they have made it appear that they have a Heretical Sense as in the present case is fully evident In Page 31. To excuse his Equivocation about his owning Jesus Christ to be the Son of God he tells the Bishop we call him the beloved Son of God the only begotten of the Father And in Page 32 and 33 he tells they have called him Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary and Conceived by the Holy Ghost again and again yea that they have not confessed his Name less than nine times in that Paper And from this takes occasion to blame the Bishop with uncharitableness and being beside the business And if we have said so saith W. P. must not the Bishop be extreamly beside the business His uncharitàbleness is as obvious I will not say his Untruth What shall I say to his Story of some of our Friends whom he makes to affirm that Christ is not ascended into Heaven he is in us Can it touch us or should he have said it and not have proved it Is that fair and candid Is it charitable supposing it were true which does not appear Or is it just to insinuate upon the People as dubious But let it be never so true saith he it cannot conclude the People if not the Act of the People The Church of England has Doctors of very different Sentiments would the Bishop think it fair the common Belief of the Church should thereby be concluded And in Page 35 he saith So that though we did not dwell upon Points but were concise in our Expressions yet whatever is implied or is implicable from any Assertion Justice as well as Charity always grants and so would the Bishop have done had they been uppermost in his Mind when his Pen run so fast against us It is prodigious Fallacy and Presumption in W. P. thus to treat the Bishop or any Christian Man when he did know in his Conscience how far both he and his Brethren for all his seeming fair Confessions were and still are guilty in both these things in which the Bishop very modestly doth but blame them for not expressing those Matters more fully and clearly to take away Suspicion out of the Minds of some who might be jealous of their Sincerity as they have but too great ground so to be For as to the first viz. Whither he that was born of the Virgin Mary and dyed c. was the Christ and the Son of God truly and properly To this W. P. hath expresly opposed in his Serious Apology p. 146. That the outward Person that suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny It 's true W. P. hath called him that was so born Christ and the Son of God yet that will not prove that he believed him so to be truly and properly The Socinians call Christ the Son of God and yet deny his eternal Generation And so W. P. and G. W. and others of them call the Man that was born of Mary Christ and the Son of God by some Figure because the Son of God the true Christ was in that Man as the thing containing gets the Name of the thing contained by a Metonimy But still they deny that that Man was properly the Son of God or that he was God And accordingly G. W. hath found fault again and again with that Expression of Christ his being God-man calling it unscripture Language and alledging it is no where to be found but in the Pope's Canons Hence it is that they deny that Christ hath our Nature in Heaven or that he consisteth of a Humane Nature or Body though they grant he had a Body but deny that he consists of it as any part of him as a Man may have a Coat or Garment but doth not consist of it The Foundation of which Error is that they do not believe the Hypostatical or Personal Union of the two Natures so as to constitute one Christ they will have Christ to be nothing properly but the Godhead and that is the Father and the Holy Ghost as well as the Son as I have plainly proved in my third Narrative especially And as concerning their denying Christ's Ascension into Heaven first seeing W. P. denieth the Locality of Heaven as well as of Hell he must needs grant that Christ's Body is either no where ascended or is every where which last he seems to be for p. 35. quoting Eph. 4. 10. that he ascended far above all Heavens that he might fill all things Then saith he he is in Man certainly But as he was the Divine Word he did fill all things and was in Man before he ascended but this Text doth not prove that his Body filleth all things for the Question is not Whither the Godhead is present in all things which yet is well known some of the Quakers have denied and some of them in Pensilvania charged me

Propitiation in order to remission of Sins can hardly disbelieve any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion so by good consequence contrariwise whoever believes not in Christ as a Propitiation in the true sense of Scripture generally received by all true Christians to wit as outwardly Crucified Dead and Raised again c. can hardly believe any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion but W. P. believes not in Christ as a Propitiation in order to remission of Sin c. in the true sense of Scripture generally received by all true Christians therefore W. P. hardly believeth any fundamental Article of the Christian Religion to wit as peculiar to the same The first proposition is proved by the Rule of contraries from W. P's assertion as I think he will readily confess the second proposition which is the Assumption is fully proved from what is above at large quoted by me out of his former Books never to this day retracted by him And though he reckoneth up the Doctrine of the Trinity viz. of the Father of Christ the Son and of the Holy Ghost the Doctrine of Heaven and Hell the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust to be Fundamental Doctrines yea and the main of Christian Doctrine yet from what is above proved out of his Books he hath plainly opposed the true Christian Doctrine both of the Holy Trinity and of Heaven and Hell and as plainly he hath opposed the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust in their respective Bodies as I have fully proved in my third Narrative and so have his Brethren G. Whitehead Richard Hubberthorne and others only at present I shall quote these following passages out of some of his former Books in his Reason against Railing in answer to Tho. Hicks P. 138. he thus plainly argueth against the deceased Saints looking for any future Resurrection of the Body which Tho. Hicks argued for Is the Joy of the Ancients saith W. P. now in Glory imperfect or are they in Heaven but by halves But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Window to be without its beloved Body a better sort of Purgatory Again P. 134. If a thing can be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for the absurdity of it is rather out-done than equalled by this carnal Resurrection Again in his answer to J. Faldo called the Invalidity of J. Faldo's Vindication P. 369. It 's sown a Natural Body It 's raised a Spiritual Body and I do utterly deny saith he that this Text is concerned in the Resurrection of Man's carnal Body at all but the States of Men under the First and Second Adam Men are sown into the World Natural but they are raised Spiritual through him who is the Resurrection and the Life and so they are Sons of the Second Adam Nor need any to wonder why W. P. and his Brethren should disbelieve all these fundamental Doctrines of Christianity which now he professeth to own and that as Fundamental but still quite in a most differing Sense from all true Christians for with what certainty can he or they believe them they acknowledge not the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule of their Faith in any of these things or indeed of any others they have no certainty of the Truth of any of these he now calls Fundamentals from the Rule of Faith set up by them which is the Light within them with respect to its ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind but none of these Fundamental Doctrines above mentioned fall within these ordinary Discoveries as W. P. hath confessed for they belong to extraordinary Revelation And if he should affirm they did belong to the ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind he cannot prove it What obscure Knowledge any of them called Heathen Philosophers had of any of these great Mysteries W. P. cannot prove they had it from the Light within but Traditionally either from the Jews and ancient Patriarchs and Prophets or from some among themselves prophetically inspired as it is reported of the Sybils the which report were it true doth not prove that the Knowledge and Faith of these great Fundamentals did fall within the ordinary discoveries of the Light within given to Mankind in general Section 5. His uncivil Treatment of the Bishop as if he did render the Text 1 John 5. 7. defective whereas the Bishop only charg'd the Defect on W. P 's Confession which though given in Scripture words yet not in the true Sense of Scripture His Fallacious Argument against the Holy Trinity answered His Fallacy and Equivocation about his calling him who was born of the Virgin Mary Jesus Christ and the Son of God whereas he hath denied him to be properly so And his abusive Treatment of the Bishop on that Head IN his Page 30 he proceeds in his unchristian and uncivil Treatment of the Bishop unjustly charging him as if the Text 1 John 5. 7. were defective with the Bishop and as if he did render the Text it self short which saith W. P. with submission I think is a bold Attempt in one of his Station If he believes the 39 Articles But all this is nothing but a Scandalous Reflection on the Bishop and a Shuffling and Cover wherewithall to hide his own Error and Incredulity The Bishop might well enough without charging any defect on the Text as he doth not in the least charge a defect on this Confession of W. P. and his Brethren because though given in one Scripture Text yet he had just cause to question not to be given in the true sense of that Scripture for most that are unsound as touching the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity even Socinians as well as others will profess yea and have professed to give their Faith in the Text yea and all other Texts of the like nature who yet are professed Unbelievers of the true Doctrine of the Holy Trinity And though W. P. and his Brethren will frankly confess they believe that the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are one God one in Substance and Essence and thus think to clear themselves of Sociniansm yet he and they at the same time are grosly guilty of Sabellianism acknowledging no distinction betwixt Father Son and Holy Ghost other than Nominal or at most in Manifestation and Operation ad extra and with relation to the Creatures So that W. P's Notion and Faith of the Holy Trinity which he calls the Scripture Trinity but it is not the Scripture Trinity but the Sabellian Trinity is no other than this that as the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God one Essence and Being so the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father and the Holy Ghost is the Son and the Son is the Holy Ghost for as I have quoted him above in his Sandy Foundation he disputeth not

God as to Preach and Pray by it But can it be supposed that Men are acted or moved by the Spirit of God to bring forth so many false Doctrines vile Heresies and Errors and gross Untruths and Fallacies and uncharitable Judgments and Perversions of their Opponents words as they commonly do in their writings generally But what way to the Kingdom do they Preach Possibly they will say Christ who said he was the way But how do they Preach him to be the way Just as W. P. hath here and elsewhere Preached him in Print to wit as the Word God and the Light within whose Nature is to discover Sin and lead out of it all such who Love and obey the Convictions of it and that only and alone by the common Illumination which by W. P's confession discovers nothing of Christ as he became a Propitiation for our Sins by his Death on the Cross The great subject of the Apostles Preaching was Christ Crucified and remission of Sin by Faith in him and how all Spiritual Blessings yea the gift of the Holy Spirit himself comes to us by the Crucified Jesus and Faith in him but little or nothing of this sort of Preaching is to be found either in your Meetings or Books but much against it though to cover your Vile Errors you will now and then seem to own it but forgetting your selves quickly disown it all again Yea W. P. knoweth in his Conscience how both publickly and privately he hath blamed me and charged me with my being an Apostate for my asserting the necessity of Friends Preaching this Faith to wit in Christ as he dyed for our Sins c. as being absolutely necessary to Regeneration for us to have this Faith and to know and experience Christ formed in us and to live dwell and Rule in us For this my Christian Testimony he charged me at Ratcliff Meeting that I did what in me lay to pluck up the Testimony of Truth by the Roots And at the Yearly Meeting at Grace-Church-street in the Year 1694 he stood up and accused me before some hundred Friends of them called the Ministry and others that I was seeking to bring in a New method of Preaching among Friends which was to Preach Christ without and the necessity of Faith in him in order to bring People to the knowledge and experience of the new Birth and Christ in them as he dwells in the Saints And also he knows in his Conscience when and where and to whom he hath accused me for Preaching Christ without in opposition to Christ within which God knoweth I never did And therefore in his so doing he hath falsly accused me though his and his Brethrens false Notions of Christ within as above explained I have opposed and by God's help shall oppose and witness against while I live But the true Scripture sense of Christ within as the Word God and of Christ the Word made Flesh without us who is still but one Christ and of his sufficiency to our Salvation both as without us and within us without us as he came to procure and purchase it for us by his Blood and Merits and within us by his Spiritual appearance and special Illumination of the Holy Spirit in the use of the outward means to apply it to us and to work the blessed and glorious effect of it in us I have owned and still hope to own it to the end of my days As for W. P's Arguments against Baptism and the Supper as outwardly administred I know not one of them but I have fully answered that may seem to require an answer and many more in my late Book called The Arguments of the Quakers against Baptism and the Supper Examined and Refuted which he ought more particularty to have answered being so particularly concerned than to have brought them up again as if they had been new Dishes which are nothing but the Old after some Fashion new dressed If the Bishop thinks fit to notice them he may for me to meddle with them were but Actum agere to do what I have already done Section 11. His uncivil Treatment of the Bishop of Cork as if he were Ignorant of Regeneration and the way how it is wrought The Bishop has soundly and Christianly explained the Doctrine of Regeneration and the way how it is wrought W. P's great Fallacy in his definition of Regeneration and the way how it is wrought His Fallacy in seeming to agree to the Bishop's Assertion from that Text Rom. 10. 9. His Fallaeious Argument that because the Spirit Leads and Rules therefore the Spirit is the Rule detected the Ruler and the Rule distinct The great Blessing and Advantage of the Scriptures being a means to preserve us by the Grace of God and assistance of his Holy Spirit from Satan's Delusions and Impostures IN his 26th Page he saith I think nothing makes a Man a true Christian but Regeneration the Power of the Son of God revealed in the Soul converting it to God And in his P. 29 he saith I would have my Reader reflect well upon this great and Essential Truth Tho he were as Big as a Bishop Reader what thinkst thou of this Uncivil Proud and Disdainful Treatment But so far as I understand W. P. sheweth himself as if he were much more big than a Bishop he treats the Modest and humble Bishop as if he were one of his meanest subjects But for all W. P's pretence to be so Skilful in that great and essential Truth of the necessity of Regeneration and the manner and way of its being wrought above and beyond the Bishop the Bishop has beyond all doubt in his short Testimony in three or four lines on that Head made it evident that he understands the Mystery of Regeneration and the manner how it is wrought better than W. P. for all his Big and Lordly thoughts he has of himself and for all his Big talk of the new Creature and Self-denial there is great a deal more of it in his Books than in his Life But mark how W. P. describes the manner how Regeneration is wrought That it is by the power of the Son of God revealed in the Soul converting it to God which are such general words and terms and true when taken in a true Scripture sense that not only every Bishop but every Curate of the Church of England and every ordinary Christian can say the same But under these general Words W. P. hideth a great Fallacy what doth W. P. mean by the power of the Son of God revealed in the Soul converting it to God No other thing but the power of the common Illumination of the Light within given to Infidel Jews Mahometans and all moral Heathens who if they are but meer Just Men according to W. P's Gospel and System of Divinity they are Regenerated Persons though they have no special Illumination of the Holy Spirit giving them any inward and spiritual knowledge and Faith of the Son of