Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	blood_n	body_n	flesh_n	8,072	5	6.9865	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47759	Satan dis-rob'd from his disguise of light, or, The Quakers last shift to cover their monstrous heresies, laid fully open in a reply to Thomas Ellwood's answer (published the end of last month) to George Keith's Narrative of the proceedings at Turners-Hall, June 11, 1696, which also may serve for a reply (as to the main points of doctrine) to Geo. Whitehead's Answer to The snake in the grass, to be published the end of next month, if this prevent it not / by the author of The snake in the grass.	Leslie, Charles, 1650-1722.	1697 (1697)	Wing L1149A; ESTC R2123	80,446	76

Wit and their Time to Gloss and Cover their Errors which does but Expose them the more And since they now do pretend in Discourse and otherwise to be the same with the Church of England in Faith and Doctrine that they wou'd with a Noble and a Christian Courage Fairly and Above-board Retract and Condemn whatever they have said or wrote to the Contrary This is Incumbent upon them to Rescue the many Souls Deluded by them For that they are so Deluded none can deny I have many times heard several of them some of their Preachers plainly own all the Gross things Charged upon them even Denying any Merit or Salvation by the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed That Christ is now a Man That there will be any Resurrection of our Dead Bodys or Future Universal Judgment Now where did they Learn these Doctrines There are none of any other Communion who believe few that ever heard of such things Therefore it is certain that these have been Deluded And who have Deluded them And nothing will undeceive them but seeing their Leaders downright Retract these Errors While they seem to excuse them they Confirm their Ignorant Followers in them Whose Blood will be requir'd at their Hands if they do not all that is in their Power to retrieve them What shall I say more To my Perswasions I will add my Prayers for them Which I do daily offer for their Conversion And thus to God and his Mercy I leave them through Jesus Christ who shed his Blood for them Dyed Rose and Ascended OVTWARDLY and will in the same Body come again to Judge them In which Day may they hear a Favourable sentence from Him and with us be one with him to all Eternity Amen Oct. 14. 1696. SOME GLEANINGS WITH Other further Improvements I. 1. THomas Ellwood is not onely Chargeable with what he has wrote in this Answer which has been Examined but the whole Body of the Quakers except Turners-Hall and those in Communion with them because it has been approved of by The second days Meeting as all Books are that they give forth which is their Supreme Authority in such Cases 2. Looking over his Answer again I cannot but Remark a Bold stroke of his p. 34. Thomas Danson being a Presbyterian Minister said G. Keith did Head that Christ as Man had a Crea●ed Soul Nay hold there Replies T. E. Thom. Danson spake of the Son of God i. e. That Christ is not the Son of God If he thinks to come off by that Limitation in Danson's words As Man it will not Rescue him For even As Man He was The Son of God Luk. 1.35 And as to his Eternal Generation He was the Son of God from all Eternity Therefore T. E. is to tell us in what sense he oppos'd Christ's being The Son of God And with the assurance of a Nay hold there As if some great Absurdity had been coming upon him II. 1. I told you in my Conclusion of the great Ignorance of the Generality of the Quakers And that many of them do at this day plainly own the most Blasphemous and Hereti●● Doctrines which have been objected against them And thence I infer'd that whatever Face their Writers since the late Controvers● against them have put upon their Principles yet this shews undeniably that such Heresies have been taught amongst them and are still so understood by their People And that vehemently A present Preache● of theirs not long since being Pressed to acknowledge the Man Christ without us and the necessity of Faith in him Answered The Man Christ a F rt Horrid It Astonishes to Repeat such disdainful Blasphemy Tho it be necessary towards undeceiving of the World I know the Man and to whom he said it He deny'd before me and several others at another time That Christ's Body Rose out of the Grave That our Bodys should Rise That there wou'd be any General Judgment Or that the Scriptures were all True This is a Teacher Thus he has been Taught And thus he Teaches others And it is no wonder that they who are thus Taught to believe no outward Christ now in being shou'd use him with the utmost Contempt And his Worshippers with the greatest severity as being the Grossest sort of Idolaters to worship a Dead God who is no more in Being But the Quakers Faith is in an Inward Christ Viz. Their Light within And Inward Blood Inwardly shed c. 2. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience Says Isaac Pennington in his Questions to the Professors p. 25. Was it the Flesh and Blood of the Vail or the Flesh and Blood within the Vail I have before observed that they call Christ's Body the Vail or Garment which he wore without taking it into his own Nature or being any Part of Christ For say they in a Book Compos'd by a great Club of them Intituled Some Principles of the Elect People of God in scorn called Quakers Printed 1671. p. 116. The Scriptures do expresly distinguish between Christ and the Garment which He wore between Him that came and the Body in which He came between the substance which was Vailed and the Vail that Vailed it There was the outward Vessel and the Inward Life This we certainly know say they and can never call the Bodily Garment Christ So that the Blood of Christ's Body was none of His Blood it was but the Blood of his Garment or Vail which the Quakers do not acknowledge to be Christ And which Isaac Pennington says cannot Cleanse the Conscience What Blood then is it which Cleanses Not the blood of the Vail that is of Christ's Body but The Flesh and Blood within the Vail i. e. of the Spirit which was within Christ's Body And this Spiritual Blood must be Spiritually that is Inwardly and not visibly shed This totally excludes the outward Christ and the outward Blood from having any Efficacy towards our Salvation Which Isaac Pennington explains yet fuller ibid Was it says he The Flesh and Blood of the outward Earthly Nature or the Flesh and Blood of the Inward Spiritual Nature Was it the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the First Adam's Nature or the Flesh and Blood of the Second Adam's Nature This is Nonsense for Christ himself was the Second Adam and this Quere is whether he took Flesh and Blood of His own Nature But by the Second Adam the Quakers mean onely the Eternal word of God exclusive of the Humane Nature And they plainly here Exclude the Flesh and Blood which Christ took of the First Adam's Nature 3. Pursuant to this Notion the Quakers do not confine this Blood not ●● the Vail i. e. Of Christ's Body but the Blood within the Vail i. e. the M●stical Blood of the Spirit that dwelt in the Body of Christ they do not Confine this Blood to Christ alone but say that it is in themselves for they make i● to be nothing else than The Light within And from hence they

the notion of Inward Blood of the Light within they knew no more than Bruit Beasts Therefore Repent says he for God will suddenly overthrow your Faith i. e. in the outward Blood 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 Righteouss of Christ we own but it is Hid from you All Till the Lord do open an Eye within you i. e. To see the Righteousness of The Light within which is Imputed that is as some Learned Quakers have Expounded it before those I can name In-putted Putted within them Now here by Sol. Eccles's Words the Quakers have a Notion of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness which none in the World have but themselves Others mean by it The Merits of and Satisfaction made by the OVTWARD Obedience and Sufferings of the OVTWARD Jesus which are Imputed that is Apply'd to us by our INWARD Faith in Him and Obedience to His Laws So that here is both Outward and Inward The Object of our Faith and Meritorious Procuring Cause of our Redemption wholly outward or without us i. e. The Man who is also God Christ Jesus The Inward is the Application or Imputation of His Righteousness or Full and Compleat Obedience to the Law of God and Undergoing the Curse of it as the Satisfaction Requir'd for our Transgressions of it Apprehended and fully Believed on in our Hearts Now the Quakers opposing this by setting up the Inward shews that they wholly throw off the outward Else they do not oppose this But T. E. would fain have it to pass That they only speak against those who wholly throw off the Inward which none ever did He says p. 121. That they oppose those only who Deny Him Christ to be with Respect to these Offices At all within and shut Him Wholly out making the Work of Mediation Sanctification Justification and Salvation to be Only and Altogether outward Who ever made the Work of Sanctification c. to be WHOLLY outward This is the Impudent and Impious Fiction I have so oft taken Notice of of Imposing the most gross and Notoriously False Principles upon others that in such a Dust as they have Raised their own Vile Heresies may Pass Undiscover'd The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness and the Shedding of His Blood as above Explain'd is the Common Belief of Christendom Now T. E. is Desired to tell us in his next what that Blood of Christ was and what the Imputation which Sol. Eccles said that the Pope the Episcopal the Presbyterian c. knew no more of than Bruit Beasts What other it could be than the Imaginary Blood and Sufferings of their Light within If it was any thing else they will please to tell us V. W. Burnet G. W's Antagonist seeing how they Endeavour'd to depreciate the Outward or Material Blood of Christ and turn all the Merit of the Redemption of Man to the Inward or Mystical Blood shed within them argues thus All things under the Law in the Type was Purged with Blood and this Blood was Material Blood and not Mystical and that Blood which Christ shed in Order to the Effecting the Salvation of Man must needs be Visible and Material Blood To this G. W. Replys as quoted by T. E. p. 118. To say that Material Blood was the Type of that which was Material is to give the Substance no Preheminence above the Type or like as if one should say one Type was the Type of another By this G. W. makes Christ's Outward or Material Blood not to be the Substance or Anti-Type whereof the Legal Sacrifices were a Type But that it self is a Type i●e of the Mystical Blood or Light within And his Proof is That no Material thing can be the Anti-Type and therefore that Christ's Material Blood could be no more than a Type and therefore that i● it was Typify'd by the Legal Sacrifices one Type was the Type of another which he makes the Absurdity And T. E. Retorts thus upon W. ●u●●● p. 122. This is to give the Substance no Preheminence above the Ty●e when the Substance or Anti-Type is Denyed to be Mystical and made Only Material because the Type thereof was only Material and not Mystical Ans 1st W. Burnet never said that Christ was ONLY Material as if there had been no Mystery in His Incarnation Passion c. no Christian ever said this This is the Quakers never failing Artifice of Imposing Manifest Lyes upon their Adversaries that they may Consute them But W B. Disputed only against those who would not Allow Christ's outward Material Body and Blood but only their own Light within to be that which was Typified by the Sacrifices under the Law and even by the Sacrifice of Christ Himself 2dly T. E's Consequence is not good for supposing that Christ was only Material it will not follow that His Body had no Preheminence above that of a Bullock such as was Sacrificed under the Law And none who had any Reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ Durst have made such a Blasphem●us Comparison 3dly None say that the Legal Sacrifices were only Material and n●t Mystical for they were Types of Christ and so Mystical So that T. E's Premises are all False and his Inference not Conclusive Next he comes to Excuse that Aph●rism of G. W's That one Type cannot be the Type of another And he says that G. W. in Words following those above cited applies this to Circumcision What then Let him apply it to what ●● he will But do's he not apply it in this place to Christ Let any one that can Read English judge VI. G. Keith objects G. Ws Explanation of Acts xx 28. The Church of God which He Purchased with His own Blood viz. Now the Blood of God says G. W. or that Blood that Relates to God must needs be Spiritual He being a Spirit and the Covenant of God is Inward and Spiritual and so is the Blood of it This Excludes the outward blood of Christ from being the Blood of the New Covenant And from so much as Relating to God unless G. W. holds with the Anthropomorphits and Muggleton That God is Material and has a Body For he says That the Blood of a Spirit can only be Spiritual To this says T. E. p. 131. Will G. Keith say That the Blood of Christ which was outwardly shed had no Spirituality in it nor might in Any Sense be called Spiritual considering the Miraculous Conception of the Body c. No. G. Keith nor any body else will say so except such as T. E. G. W. c. And this is nothing at all in Excuse of G. W. But exposes him and his Stickler much more For suppose Christ's Blood had some Spirituality in it and in some Sense might be called

Spiritual as the Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and Spiritual Rock in the Wilderness 1 Cor x. 2.3 Will this if there be no more in it makes His Blood to be the Blood of God And what is this to G. W's Argument That a Spirit cannot have Material Blood and therefore That if the Blood of the New Covenant be the Blood of God it cannot be Material Blood i. e. That the Material Blood of Christ was not the Blood of God otherwise than as the Spiritual Meat and Spiritual Drink and All things are His. This lets us into the Heart of the Quaker Divinity VII G. W. says in a Book of his call'd The Voice of Wisdom p. 36. That the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finit but Infinit T. E. says p. 113. That these Words are an Inference from a Position of his Adversaries one Thomas Danson viz. That the Righteousness whereof Christ is the Subject and that whereof He is the Efficient are of one Species or Kind 'T is true that G. W. mentions this But not as finding any Fault with it For he says the same and more himself in the same page viz. That Righteousness which God works in us by His Spirit it s of the same Kind and Nature with that which worketh it for the Saints are made Partakers of the Divine Nature 2 Pet. 1.4 T. Danson made the Righteousness of the Man Christ of the same Species or Kind with ours as His Human Nature is But G. W. makes the Righteousness of God to be of the same Kind and Nature with ours which is Blasphemy and far beyond what T. Danson had said with which G. W. found no Fault unless that he had said too little of the Oneness of the Righteousness of God and ours But he brings this former saying of Danson's to Confront that Position of his which G. W. sets down viz. That the Righteousness which God works in us is but Finite as well as other Effects This G. W. opposes and brings the above-quoted saying of Danson's as a Contradiction to this and then Proves against Danson according to his skill that the Righteousness which God effects in us is not Finit but Infinit This is in opposition to the above saying of Danson's That it was but Finit And if G. W. thought it but Finit why did he oppose Danson in this But he not only says that it is Infinit but goes on to Prove it For says he Christ is Gods Righteousness and Christ is formed in us Gal. iv 19. Thus miserably Perverting the Scripture But they are Desir'd to tell us how Infinity can be Formed 2dly How formed in that which is Finit G. W. in the same place Exclaims against those who would make that Righteousness in them the Saints but Finit When as says he Christ His Infinit Righteousness and the Saints are in one another Here he makes the Righteousness of Christ and of the Saints to be the same and corrupts that Text Heb. ii 11. to Prove it which he Repeats thus He that Sanctifieth and they that are Sanctified are one Whereas the Text is are all of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And concludes thus Then God's Righteousness in us is not Finit but Infinit Yet T. E. would make us believe that he said no such thing But this is no Novelty with him VIII Again p. 134. he justifies this saying of G. Ws That Blood and Water that 's said to Cleanse is not of another Kind but agrees in one with the Spirit And Demands in great assurance Is not that True No. Mr. E. it is not True but far from Truth That the Blood and Water are not of another Kind from the Spirit They are Material and outward Blood and Water which through the operation of the Blessed Spirit do cleanse But this makes them not of the same Kind with the Spirit more than Christ's Human Nature is of the same Kind with His Divine Nature or than a Man's Body is of the same Kind or Natu●● with his Soul And this still shews more and more your Contempt and Denyal of the outward and Material Body and Blood of Christ for your Justification IX T. E. p. 136. brings in W. Penn justifying this saying of Isaac Penington viz. Can outward Blood Cleanse the Conscience And W. P. says We do Deny that outward Blood can be brought into the Conscience to Perform that Inward Work which they themselves i. e. the Professors as the Quakers call'd their Opponents Dare not nay do not hold Yet T. E. says p. 135. that Isaac Pennington put this Question Can outward Blood cleanse the Conscience to the Professors who place ALL upon the OVTWARD You must Excuse him he Began and was Resolv'd to go Quite through with this Topick in every Case to Misrepresent his Adversaries Meaning and if he cannot Find Faults to Make them But here he stands fairly Corrected by the more Ingenious W. P. whose Authority he Pretends to Maintain who says that the Professors Dare not nay Do not hold this G. Keith as quoted by T. E. p. 137. has given a clear Answer to this poor Subterfuge of Supposing that any did think the outward and Material Blood of Christ was to be brought into the Conscience and there Materially Apply'd which none sure in this World ever Imagin'd G. K. says The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience is by the Application of a Living Faith in Christ whose Blood it was the Spirit of God working that Faith in me This is Full and Orthodox But says T. E. in answer to this Why do's he say The way that Blood has been brought into my Conscience as if it had been Really and Materially brought in there This is Intolerable and shews that they either can not or will nor take an Answer T. E. p. 136. tells of a Distinction which W.P. made betwixt the Pardon of Past Sin and the Present Sanctification of any Person and applys it to this Purpose as if the outward Blood of Christ could have no Tendency but only to the Former But this instead of Solving the Matter serves only to Discover the strange Confusion and Ignorance of these Men in the Mystery of the Gospel as if Christ's Blood outwardly shed were not as Effectual to our Sanctification as to our Justification to Procure for us the Graces of the Holy Spirit towards Living acceptably to God for the Future as the Pardon of Sins that are Past. SECT 3. Concerning the Resurrection of the Body I. T. E. is in Great Confusion upon this Head making Tedious Repetitio● and long Digressions about the Bush not knowing what to say and yet that he might appear to say something But I will Reduce his Immethodical Ramblement into this Order 1st To shew his weak and Fallacious Excuse for that Great Opposition which the Quakers have given to this Article of our Faith 2dly That T. E. instead of Vindicating others has himself down-right

Banter And why say they must the Felicity of the Soul Depend upon the Body I suppose they mean but in Part as a Widower may have some Happiness tho Great Grief with it But why not upon that Body it had before as well as upon a New Body For let me ask these Quakers who say that the Soul will have a Body in Heaven tho' not the same body it had before will that New Body be any Addition of Happiness or Advantage to the Soul If not To what Purpose is it But if so then is the Soul in an Imperfect State before it gets that Body and all the Quaker Objections Return upon themselves Let them then speak out and own the True Quaker Opinion viZ. That the Soul do's Receive that Heavenly Body Immediately after Death Nay I have heard some say That they had it already and all the Resurrection that ever they expect Indeed they know not what they mean by it and that Heavenly Body which they talk of most of them understand nothing by it but the Soul it self or an Heavenly Frame or Disposition of the Soul which they think they have attain'd already or may be some of them may think they may have it in an Higher Measure after their Death And this is all the Resurrection and all the Heavenly Body that they Mean when they use these Words II. T. E. p. 153. brings in the subject of their Infallibility and stands stoutly by it G. Keith had objected against this out of a Book of G. W's call'd The Voice of Wisdom before mentioned where G. W. Boldly avers p. 33. That they that want Infal●ibility they are out of the Truth and their Ministry is not of the Spirit seeing they speak not from the Spirit but from their own Hearts which are Deceitful where they want Infallibility And their Common Salvo to those they would Impose upon That they only Plead for the Infallibility of the Spirit i. e. of God which none ever Deny'd will not do in this Place For p. 32. Danson whom G. W. opposes had put his Objection so Clear as to obviat that Distinction His words are these As for your Participation of the Infallible Spirit if that were granted that Infers not a Participation of the Spirit 's Infallibility As indeed it do's not more than of its Omnipotence Omniscience or any other of the Divine Attributes But G. W. do's violently oppose this and says most ignorantly that This tends to Divide the Spirit from its Infallibility as if such as Partake of the Spirit do not Partake of its Infallibility was there ever such Folly as this Truly I think not nor such Mad Enthusiastical Delusion ever heard of before in the World For they may Pretend to Partake of God's Omnipotence by the same Reason and with as much Justice Was W. P. Infallible in not only saying but Printing it That Christ was born at Nazareth Or if there was an Error in the Press and Nazareth put for Bethlehem from the Likeness of the Words was T. E. Infallible in Printing this over again as before is told without Correcting of it Were these Quakers Infallibly Guided into the Meaning of that Scripture Matth. xi 30. My Yoke is easie and my Burden is Light who quoted it at a Conference before those whom I know as a Proof for their Light within A little Human Learning would have done well here to have understood the Meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text which signifies Light not as oppos'd to Darkness but to Weight of a Burden which common sense much less Infallibility could not have mistaken in this Text. Was William Walker a Great Quaker Preacher Infallible who mistook John xiv 2. In my Father's House are many Mansions for In my Father's House are many Manchets And made the Application what Plenty of Provision was in Heaven fine White Bread little Manchets and Many of them This I have from those who heard him and heard other Quakers Improving upon his Doctrine what Fine Bread there was in God's House In-numerable Instances of the Like Ignorance might be Given and of Lying Prophesies the Rankest Treasons and Blasphemies Pronounced In The Name of the Lord for which I Refer the Reader to The Snake in the Grass where he will find a Plentiful Collection of them and Un-denyably Vouched Now George Fox their First and Great Apostle in his Answer to the Westmorland Petition 1653. p. 5. says All you that Speak and not from the Mouth of the Lord are False Prophets And in his Saul's Errand c. 1654. p. 7. says They are Conjurers and Diviners and their Preaching is from Conjuration that is not spoken from the Mouth of the Lord. If G. Fox told a Lye in this then by his own Rule he was a Conjurer because he spoke not from The Mouth of The Lord. And if he spoke Truth He is as much a Conjurer and all the Quaker Preachers with him who either Preached False Doctrine or Mis-understood or Mis-apply'd any Text of Scripture or any other Man's Meaning of which we have pretty Broad Instances now before us because No Mistake of any sort can come from The Mouth of The Lord. SECT 4. of Christ's Coming to Judge the Quick and the Dead I. GEorge Whitead says as quoted p. 160. Now what is that Glory of the Father in which His Christ's coming is Is it visible to the Carnal Eye And when was that coming to be Is it now to be looked for outwardly But further we do acknowledge the several Comings of Christ according to the Scriptures both that in the Flesh and that in the Spirit which is Manifest in several Degrees as there is a Growing from Glory to Glory But Three Comings of Christ not only that in the Flesh at Jerusalem and that in the Spirit but also another Coming in the Flesh yet to be Expected we do not Read of but a Second Coming without Sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles days was looked for The First Coming of Christ he confesses to be that in the Flesh at Jerusalem The Second be makes to be His Inward Coming into our Hearts which he says was looked for in the days of the Apostles i. e. Christ was so ●ome at that time in their Hearts But the Coming to the Future Judgment he calls the Third Coming and this be Utterly Denys And T. E. Endeavours to support him by Matth. xvi 28. where Christ said That some standing there should not tast of Death till they saw the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom i. e. till the Destruction of Jerusalem which was a Glorious Manifestation of the Power of Christ in Fulfilling those Judgments which he had Threatned upon the Jews And it was likewise a Type of the Final Judgment and Destruction of the World But T. E. knowing nothing of this would understand those Scriptures which speak of Ghrist's coming to Judgment to mean only His Inward Coming in the Heart