Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	believe_v	faith_n	true_a	5,529	5	5.4270	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47118	An account of the great divisions, amongst the Quakers, in Pensilvania, &c. as appears by their own book, here following, printed 1692, and lately came from thence, intituled, viz. The plea of the innocent, against the false judgment of the guilty : being a vindication of George Keith, and his friends, who are joined with him in this present testimony, from the false judgment, calumnies, false informations and defamations of Samuel Jenings, John Simcock, Thomas Lloyd, an others, joyned with them, being in number twenty eight : directed, by way of epistle, to faithful friends of truth, in Pensilvania, East and West-Jersey, and else-where, as occasion requireth.	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.; Budd, Thomas, 1648-1699.	1692 (1692)	Wing K136; ESTC R14385	22,843	26

imprisoned or imbondaged with other words to that effect so cannot die Another called Rob. Young a great Preacher among them openly said as many can bear witness in one of these Meetings That he did not find Christ without in all the Scripture further positively affirming That Christ when he ascended into the Cloud was separated from his Body and tho' one or two checkt him a little for his assertion yet no further notice was taken of it to bring him to any Condemnation for his Blasphemy Also Arth. Cook in one of these Meetings accused G. K. for saying at the Meeting at R. Ewer's House That Christs Body that was crucified and buried is gone into Heaven was is in Heaven oven the very same Body which G. K. most freely acknowledged he had so affirmed and that Christs body was not changed in Being or Substance of Body but in Manner Condition And whereas at one of these Meetings G. K. had complained against J. Simcock that he had questioned G. K. at the Meeting at R. Ewer's saying Did Christs Bones rise which G. K. affirmed and proved from Scripture but the said J. S. boldly deny'd that he asked any such Question until J. Delavall and W. Bradford affirmed they heard him question it And not only J. Simcock Arth. Cook and others did openly blame G. K. both at the Meeting at R. Ewers and at others Meetings at the Yearly Meeting for imposing a Novelty upon his Antient Brethren but more especially and principally T. Lloyd who was the great Attorney for W. Stockdale and the great Mouth of all these that opposed G. K. in his Testimony to these sound Fundamental Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith did oft object against G. K's Imposing an Unscriptural Faith on his Brethren all which is so openly known to many that we judge they scarce have the Confidence themselves to deny it but what was this Unscriptural Faith that they did blame G. K. for imposing on his Antient Brethren even no other but this That we ought to believe in Christ without us in Heaven as well as in Christ within for Salvation and That Christ is in Heaven having the true Nature of Man both of Soul and Body the same he had on Earth for Being but wonderfully and most gloriously changed in Condition and Manner and is not only God in Heaven but both God and Man and yet one Lord Jesus Christ and many are Witnesses how at the School-house Meeting as well as at these other Meetings aforesaid T. Lloyd argued That Faith in Christ without us as he died for our sins and rose again was not necessary to our Salvation which his Son-in-law I. Delavall openly contradicted bringing for his Proof Rom. 10. 9 10. And at one of these Yearly Meetings T. Lloyd said Christ within did all which J. Wilsford contradicted saying That he did not believe for Christ without did somewhat when he died for us And at another of these Meetings Samuel Jenings having rudely uncivilly stopt G. K. in his Testimony when he was recommending to them seriously to consider whether it was not their Duty to preach Christ outwardly more than they did said If thou preached Christ without less others might preach him more whereof divers present took great notice and was very offensive to them as well as to G. K. and did signifie that S. Jenings was too much a Preacher at his own will as well as prejudiced against G. K. that because he would not seem to follow G. K. he and others would not preach what G. K. preached tho' true And this is but a hint of many more things that could be mentioned as Instances of their gross Ignorance Unbelief and Blasphemy that some of them showed themselves openly guilty of at these Meetings and others their being guilty of gross Partiality and Hypocrisie labouring to cover these men in their Impious Blasphemies against Christ Jesus the Son of Man Was it therefore any matter of Wonder or Crime that G. K. being zealous and servent for the true Faith and Doctrine of Christ so much openly contradicted by some of them and questioned by others at these Meetings aforesaid was stirred in spirit to use sharp words against them which yet were all true and therefore no Railing nor yet blame-worthy even as it is said of Paul That his Spirit was stirred in him when he saw the City viz. of Athens wholly given to Idolatry And suppose that G. K. did exceed at times the due bounds by great provocations on their side Is it not great Hypocrisie and Partiality of these men so severely to judge him and wholly to conceal nor only their own Ignorance Error and Blasphemy but the extream Passion the rude uncivil and unmannerly Speeches they uttered against him both in these Meetings and often since calling him Reviler of his Brethren Accuser of the Brethren Brat of Babylon One that always endeavoured to keep down he power of Truth drawing from the Gift of God calling him also Pope Primate of Pensilvania Father Confessor accusing him of Railing Envy extream Passion and a Turbulent and Uusubdued Spirit and not only so but most uncivily and unchristianly yea inhumanely otherwise treating him in these Meetings often six or ten all at once speaking to him and some pulling him by one sleeve and others by the skirts of his Coat more like Mad men than Sobet and some bidding him go out and when he essayed to go out prayed them to let him go others pulling him back and detaining him so that greater Confusion was scarce ever seen in any Meetings pretending to Christianity and why do they conceal all this their rude and base and inhumane Carriage as well as uncivil words towards G. K but to demonstrate their Partiality and Hypocrisie at least to give us a fair occasion to demonstrate it and what Partial and Hypocritical men they are whom GOD hath in great measure already discovered and we doubt not will further discover in due time And many of these men have discovered no less Ignorance and Error in the late Difference that hath happened betwixt G. K. J Fuzwater who hath openly in the face of a Monthly Meeting accused G. K. for denying the sufficiency of the Light and the rhing at last is come to this Issue that by the Act of a Monthly Meeting held ad Philadelphia the 26. 3. mon. G. K. is condemned for saying The Light is not sufficient without something else and at the next Monthly Meeting following T. Lloyd did acknowledge in the open hearing of all present whereof many are ready to bear Witness which we judge they will not deny That by that something else they knew that G. K. did hold as he hath oft declared both in publick Testimonies other occasional Discourses The Man Christ Jesus without us and what he did and suffered for us on Earth and what he now doth for us in Heaven Whereupon G. K. said