Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	year_n	young_a	youth_n	79	3	8.1147	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65834	An antidote against the venome of The snake in the grass, or, The book so stiled and the Christian people called Quakers vindicated from its most gross abuses and calumnies in certain reflections detecting the nameless author's malice, outrage, and persecution against the said people : unto which is annex'd a brief examination of the author's second book stil'd Satan dis-rob'd : also, some notice taken of his discourse for The divine institution of water-baptism.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1697 (1697)	Wing W1889; ESTC R27066	123,381	290

reproachful Title Or The Quakers last Shift to cover their monstrous Heresies and being By the Author of the Snake in the Grass I did suppose it to be the Second Part to the same Tune or much of the same Nature with the former full of Bitterness and Scorn by the reviling Title and no fair Reply to T. Ellwood's Answer and so it appears and I expect will be made farther appear if T. Ellwood deems it worth the while to undertake it But that which appear'd most strange to me and some others was in the Title of the said Book it is thus declared Which also may serve for a Reply as to the main Points of Doctrin to Geo. Whitehead 's Answer to the Snake in the Grass to be published the end of the next Month if this prevent it not Which appeared very strange to me and the Man 's presumptive Falshood the greater I having a great part of the Copy of my Answer to The Snake in the Grass in my Hands when I first saw these Words in Print and the rest of my Copy then in the Printers Hands which we did not hear they lent him to make Reply to and when I lookt over his Book I neither found any repetition of my Answer nor Reply thereto However he 's so confident and boasting in his own Work that he takes it for granted That not only the Quakers are put to their last Shift but also that this pretended Reply to T. Ellwood's Answer to G. Keith's Narrative may also serve for a Reply to G. Whitehead's Answer to The Snake in the Grass Which would seem a cunning Piece of Divination indeed to Reply to a Book before he sees it or knows it But if he will still have his said Reply a sufficient Reply thereunto he may go on in 's own Conceit and save himself a further Labour of Replying lest he give himself the Lie by giving the World to understand that what he has said may serve for a Reply to Geo. Whitehead's Answer may not serve for a Reply However he seems to have taken upon himself a heavy Task in being an Advocate for George Keith and more heavy to reconcile the Contradictions charged upon him by Tho. Ellwood John Pennington and his Brother Edward and partly for Baptists and Presbyterians and all against the Quakers in his Reply but very partial in carping at our Words and Answers in many places without taking notice of the unwarrantable Expressions Absurdities and Contradictions of our Adversaries and yet in general Terms excuses them but in no small Contradiction to himself and the sad Account and ill Characters he has given in his Snake in the Grass 2nd Part Sect. 3. pag. 17. 18. both of Presbyter Anabaptist Independent Quaker c. as all under Enthusiasm of Rome's dressing in several Shapes and Forms and as a plentiful Harvest of Rome 's reaping c. But now he can advocate and take part with any of them against the Quakers like some mercinary Soldier of Fortune I do not intend to spend much time here to Answer his said Reply though 't is no great Difficulty to do but to take notice of a few Passages in it wherein I and some others are concerned and injurionsly dealt with therein 1. My excepting against that made Expression Co-creator as used by the Baptist telling of God being Co-creator with the Father I confess I am no more reconciled to the Expression now than I was when first I questioned it as unscriptural whereby I never intended not to allow the Word to be God or to the Son of God as I am most injuriously accused p. 2. For divers of my ancient and first Writings in Print shew the contrary that I own the Word to be God and Creator too But the Phrase God Co-creator with God I think still implies Two Creators and consequently Two Gods 'T is not the Particle co with in this Case will excuse the Matter for co or con is simul together as Co-workers Co-partners which are more distinct Agents than one But the Creator is but one God one Word one Spirit and so one Creator But this invented word Co-creator was brought by the Baptists for proof That the Light in Man wherewith the word God as Co-creator lighteth every Man is the Light of Reason the Light of Nature c. consequently but a created Light which I deny Seeing that it is the same Life that was in the Word that was the Light of Men John 1. 4. What good Doctrin or good Sense were it then to say That the word God was Co-creator with the Father of his own Life Light and Power And no better Sense can I make of the Baptist's Notion of the Light in this Case nor of this Man 's excusing him Besides a learn'd and more moderate and ingenuous Person has lately made the like Exception against the word Co-creator in a printed Paper called Reflections upon some Passages in G. Keith 's Narrative where he saith It seems to me that the word Co-creator might justly be rejected by G. Whitehead being a word neither us'd in the Holy Scriptures nor by any of the ancient Councils and it seems to import a Conceit that there are Two Efficients of the Creation one having a creative Power distinct from the other Yet withal he is pleased to give this gentle Reflection on me by the way Tho' G. W. has not spoken with that Caution and Accuracy which he should have us'd in a Matter of so grand Importance which I do the more easily bear from him because of his Moderation Suppose that in some Passages in some of my former Writings as to the Circumstance of Words or Expressions there may be some Deficiency or want some Explication or Distinction or something dubious and the Particulars thereof were shewn me I hope I should not be wanting to give my Explication to the Satisfaction of the Moderate and Ingenuous As to the Matters intended by me I know the Lord gave me a true Sense and Sight by his Power in my young and early Years he having inclined my Heart after him from my Youth I bless his Holy Name The same Person whom I cited before goes on viz. I do not conceive that he i. e. G. W. denies either the Divinity or Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ The Father is Creator the Son Creator the Holy Ghost Creator and yet they are not Three Creators but One Creator Thus he Consequently not properly called Co-creators for that would imply Three Creators And I think I might more warrrantably oppose the same than my Adversary imply Three intelligent Beings in the Godhead by his definition of a Person that every intelligent BEING is a Person that is the meaning of the word Person saith he p. 5. Whence it follows That if there be Three distinct Persons in the Deity they are Three distinct intelligent Beings unless he 'll argue as one of his Brethren did They are not Three Substances