Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	body_n	soul_n	understand_v	5,748	5	6.7898	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65881	The Quakers plainness detecting fallacy in two short treatises : I. The first in answer to an abusive epistle, styl'd, The Quakers quibbles, and the comparison therein between the Muggletonians and the Quakers, proved absurd and unjust, II. The second, being a brief impeachment of the forger's compurgators (in their Quakers appeal answered) whose injustice, partiality and false glosses have given the chief occasion of these late contests / by George Whitehead.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1674 (1674)	Wing W1949; ESTC R38608	33,527	88

asking them 1. If the Son of God was not in Being in the Beginning and from Everlasting 2. If he was not truly the Christ of God being the Son of God before he took Flesh upon him or was born of the Virgin Mary 3. If Carnal Eyes could see him simply as the Eternal Son of God or his Glory as of the only begotten of the Father 4. Where doth the Scripture say that the Human Nature is the Christ 5. Or that Christ is a Person or Personal Being consisting of Human Flesh and Blood without us 6. Or that his Glorious Body in Heaven is a human Body 7. Whether the Man Christ Jesus the Mediator be really separate and remote from his Church or Members so as not to be present in his Church here on Earth 8. If Christ be separate remote or divided from his Church how is he the Head thereof or his Church a living Body without or divided from the Head If you profess you know Christ do not impose your implicite Notions unscriptural and uncouth Terms about him but declare your Experience of him Farther as to what we hold concerning the Christ of God in Answer to his 20th Page 1. Christ who was the Word in the Beginning in due Time came in the Flesh. 2. That though the meer Body of Jesus was not the entire Christ yet the Name Christ is sometimes given to the Body though not so properly as to the whole Man Christ. 3. That God was in Christ and the Father and Son are inseparable 4. That the Distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only-begotten of the Father and also known as Co-Workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery 5. The Man 's accusing the Quakers with this Doctrine That the Father is the Son and the Son the Father and so God the Christ of himself and Christ the God of himself Somewhat like as Muggleton does in this Particular p. 20. Though these are none of our Words yet this favours of meer Ignorance and Envy we do not own any such Separation between God and Christ as these Words The Christ of himself and the God of himself do imply Socinian-like but that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as also that the Son is the mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of Peace see how plain it is Isa. 9.6 6. That Christ is not a Person without us p. 21. is not our Doctrine or Phrase that I know of or remember only that the Title is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God many Men having Gross Apprehensions about the Phrase PERSON WITHOUT But Christ is confest by us both as without us and within us 7. We are charged that we must hold That Christ dyed not but only the Body that he assumed that was prepared for him p. 21. Now you Promoters of this Q. Quibbles for an Ingenuous Pamphlet I ask you if any more of Christ properly dyed then the Body Do you hold that his Soul Spirit or his Divinity dyed If not the Charge is foolish and silly if you do then are you like Reeve and Muggleton who have bla●phemously said that Christ's Soul and Godhead-Life dyed When as Christ's dying and being buried 1 Cor. 15. was properly that the Body dyed and was buried to wit the Body of Jesus See Mat. 27.58 Mark 15.43 45. Luke 23.52 46. and 24.3 John 20.21 As to what we say about seeing the Son of God spiritually and not carnally Or between the seeing him savingly and not so seeing him c. The Man is hugely taken with J. Ives's Answer to our Distinction That he cannot but own it to be very good and pertinent Jeremy ' s Words were saith he That then I or any man might say by the same Reason that W. Penn or G. Whitehead was never seen with bodily or carnal Eyes because the Excellency better Part of them viz. their Souls was never seen though their Bodies be seen which is not the Man p. 23. To which I reply It 's not improbable that if we had made such a Comparison you Baptists would have cryed out O Blasphemy 1. To compare the Names W. Penn and G. Whitehead with the Name Christ. 2. To compare the seeing G.W. W.P. with the seeing the Christ of God 3. It implies the Name of Christ to be no more excellent then the Name George or William Oh Ignorance in the Abstract 4. Did not the Name of Christ as well concern the more excellent Part or Divine Nature as the Manhood and far Excell those fleshly or outward Names of Distinction given to us as meer Men and Creatures and that by Earthly Parents or Relations and not from a Spirit of Prophecy as to respect some divine Qualification or new Nature for that must have a new Name therefore I must look upon J. Ives's Answer and Similitude to be both impertinent and irrational Sect. III. Our Opposer self-condemned his irreverent Quibbling about Christ and their Ignorance of the Spirit 's Evidence who seek for Signs c. AS for your standing Gaping well nigh an Hour for an Answer p. 24. If many of you had not gaped and hidiously bawled often to hinder our Answers but had been civil you had been more answer'd then you were His Charge That we are fit for no man to dispute with except some of Mugleton's Disciples p. 25. is far enough from approving himself an indifferent Penn But will the Baptists own this that they are such as Muggleton's Disciples when they propose for or admit of Disputation with us As for W. Penn's using the Words Lying and Forgery and Lyar and Forger in his Books against Thomas Hicks this the Man accounts gros Language that will hard●y stand with good Manners nor suit with a civiliz'd man much less with a good Christian and to say it is a Lye is Billings-gate Rhetorick more fit for Scoulds that are duck'd c. p. 25. This is made a very capital Crime with this Author who bids us speak Evil of no man but be gentle shewing all Meekness c. And yet he himself calls W.P. the Author of a Lye a Fool unjust p. 13. and calls us Fools Obstinate c. and so hath condemned himself both as a partial and a self-contradictory Pen. But why is W.P. the Author of a Lye The Pretence is for taking the Words out of T.H. 's Mouth before he had made an End of his Sentence as when he said most of the Particulars he would prove W.P. then saying most of them then not all which was upon a Stop that T.H. made there as he and many others apprehended Howbeit when T.H. added The rest he would prove by Consequence W.P. insisted not on the first Words but refused to admit of his Consequences be having told the World in

his Dialogue that they were the Quakers Answers c. but this Writer against us carps and traduces on every slight Occasions Would the Baptists think it fair to be publisht in Print for Lyars Fools and unjust on such an Account But for W.P. his accusing T. Hicks with being both a Lyar and Forger he hath both proved him such an one in his Books and further urged to prove his Charge against him publickly since his Abettors have endeavoured to cover and uphold him But it seems it is the Language Lying and Forgery and Lyar and Forger that is found Fault with here and not the Application thereof when as the Scriptures prove such Language as Thou lovest Lying rather then to speak Righteousness ye are Forgers of Lyes c. See Psal. 52.3 Job 13.4 Joh. 8.55 Rev. 2.2 3.9 21.8 Tit. 1.12 His accusing some of the Quakers with quibling as much about the Word Body as about the Word Christ I look upon it as no better then quibbling against us instead of proving us guilty by plain Scripture for to say the Church of Christ is his Body and that there is one Body and one Spirit and that they that are joyn'd to Christ are Members of his Body this is according to Scripture-Language as also that the Body is one and hath may Members so also is Christ and are not the Saints spiritually united into Christ and unto his spiritual and glorious Body Is Christ Head of his Church in any other Body then that whereof they are Members and united to him And will this admit of Christ's being Head of two separate Bodies or of Three Christs as his stating the Distinction upon G. Keith That Christ was most properly taken for the Divine Nature less properly for the human Nature least properly for the Carkas● pag. 28. whereas this is so far from G. Keith's proving Three Christs that the words Human Nature and Carkass were J. Ives's not G. K's as the first is herein granted though G. Keith owns the words Divine Nature Manhood and Body of Christ and confess'd the Name Christ to be given to the Body when crucified and dead though less properly then to the Divine Nature and intire Manhood since that the Son of God was the Christ of God before he took upon him the Body prepared for him as J.I. hath granted in his Book Inocency above Impudency p. 37. By his Argument That Christ is the Son of God Ergo the Son of God is Christ as I answer'd though I could not be heard that the Name Christ was mutually and reciprocally given in Scripture to the Body and Spi●it of Christ as Christ dyed and was buried when it was properly the Body of Jesus for his Soul or Spirit was immortal did not dye but was in Paradyse when his Body was buried and that Spiritual Rock which ●ll Israel drank of was Christ. Doth the Scripture herein make Two Christs No sure No more will G.K. his Distinction bear Three Christs in Three d●stinct Persons as the Man unscripturally and quibblingly words it pag. 28. And further It is very strange that W. P. in correcting the Baptists and others to set up his own as the True Church must be impos'd upon to produce some of those Gifts or Visible Demonstrations or Eminent Signs as were in the Church in the Apostles Dayes pag. 29. and 9. when as he never made that a Reason or Ground to correct others for want of such Signs as the Gift of Tongues Miracles c. but for some Un-Christian Principle or Practice however in this Case our present Opposers do argue as exactly like the Jesuits Papists against the Protestants for correcting them as if they had serv'd seaven Years at Rome But let it be remember'd how the Baptists themselves were in this manner excepted against after their first Separation from other Churches and gathering into a Church of their own It was objected against them If the Lord be with us where be all those Miracles which our Fathers told us of Where be the Gifts of working Miracles which were in the primitive time c And what Defence did the Baptists make for themselves herein but that the seeking after and Working Miracles in that outward way that is sometimes in Scripture spoaken of and that these men intend is not essential to a Believer and so not to a Church nor an Administrator See p. 69. of their Book entitul'd A Way to Sion by D. King printed at London reprinted at Edinburgh 1656. Also That Miracles did not prove them Disciples That Miracles do not now distinguish a true Church from a false Ibid. p. 135 136. Yet as if they had quite forgotten these things and the Oppositions and Sufferings which they formerly met withal they bring their Adversaries Objections against us And seeing if we should only tell men We are in the Truth the Light within them will testifie to our Way it is demonstrable by the Effects that we have the Spirit and are in the Power of God and that it is within while the Baptists so say they have it as he saith p. 31 32. and that all this will not decide the Controversie or manifest to our Opposer a real Discrimination between us to demonstrate us to be in the Truth Now as we have not this way imposed a Faith upon our Opposers so we shall not thus impose upon either this man or the Baptists but desire he and they may without Prejudice seek and try further and Try all things and hold fast that which is Good and we doubt not but where or in whom the Spirit of Christ lives and rules it will manifest it self by its Fruits for it is Self-Evidencing and will discover who are the Lord 's peculiar People and who not But this Quibbler imposeth upon W. P. to bring something for Proof of his Church which the Baptists nor no False Church can pretend to and produce pag. 30. Though this seems to be a hard Task especially as to what may be pretended yet it is no difficult mater for W. P. and many more to produce or demonstrate some such Effects of that Living Testimony Presence and Power of God among us as no false Church can produce although herein neither W. P. nor any of us will admit of Prejudiced Envious Spirits to be our Judges or Witnesses in these matters but we have a Record in Heaven and also in many Consciences of the blessed Power and Presence of God with us amongst us Turning many from Darkness to Light and from Satan's Power to God And many there are among us gathered out from Baptists and other Churches and Peoples who are Living Witnesses both of the blessed Operation and Effects of the Power and Ministry of Christ Jesus among us which yet if the Baptists should object and say They see no such thing I answer That is because they have not Honestly made Tryal but stood in Prejudice and Gainsaying

as many did against Christ the Apostles and Primitive Church of old However it is very Uncharitable for them to conclude us No Christians Either because They will not see us to be such or because that at their faithless Demands We do not produce such mighty Signs as they call for in their own Wills and Times But a Foolish Adulterous Generation seeks a Sign being in the Unbelief not acknowledging the Sufficiency of the Spirit 's Teaching and Evidence in that they own not the SPIRIT to be their RULE Sect. IV. The Quakers clear from L. Muggleton's Principles and the Baptists Agent 's comparing them together proved Scandalous and Wicked c. TOuching the Comparison that is made between the Quakers and Muggletonians it 's both Idle Quibbling and Envious Canting to traduce and scandalize us what if W. P. does not pretend to more then Muggleton does nor to so much in some things does it therefore follow the Quakers are Impostors or like him who holds apparent Blasphemies in many Things wherein W. P. and others of us have given publick Testimonies against him The Baptists may be ashamed of such gross and abusive Insinuations as this comparing the Quakers and Muggletonians yea and that in some Things wherein the Baptists and Muggletonians might as well yea and more truly be compared As where it is said Muggleton sayes He is one of the two Witnesses spoaken of in Rev. 11. that God hath given Power to prophesie and the Quakers say they are the true VVitnesses to the Light and have received Power to preach the Everlasting Gospel c. And I may as well add do not the Baptists profess themselves both to be true Witnesses of the Christ of God and Preachers of him too Muggleton hath several Disciples and Followers that believe him and so have the Baptists Muggleton curses and damns the Quakers and what do Baptists less to Quakers and all others that will not be dipt by them or do oppose them But 1. Muggleton sayes He has received Commission from Heaven 2. That he had it by divine Revelation 3. That he is inspired by the Spirit of God 4. That he pretends to Infallibility And what if Quakers pretend to these as led by the Spirit of Truth The Apostles and true Church did not only pretend to but experience the same does it therefore follow that they must be compared with the Muggletonians and be deemed Impostors And the Baptists the true Ministry and Church and yet have no Commission from Heaven either to dip or damn People but deny divine Revelation immediate Inspiration and Infallibility Let them answer for themselves It 's said Muggleton denyes that the Father and Son are two distinct Persons And have not the Baptists done as much in these Words Jesus Christ God Man a Person without you See Dial. 1. p. 9. wherein they imply the Father and the Son or God and the Man Christ to be but one Person without us whereas we tell them 't is not a Scripture-Phrase But seeing Muggleton pretends some Things that both the Baptists and Quakers hold would the Baptists be therefore included in the Comparison with the Muggletonians Might they not at this rate as well make all Protestants to be Papists yea Jews Mahometans c. because all agree in some Truths But the Comparison-Maker was not so honest as to shew wherein the Quakers differ with and oppose Muggleton as a Blasphemer and Impostor As Muggleton holds these false and Blasphemous Doctrines which the Quakers utterly deny 1. That the Breath of Life God breathed into Adam which made his Soul to live is mortal and doth dye 2. That Adam ' s Soul did dye viz. with the Body 3. That the Soul of Man is mortal Do not some of the Baptists hold the same 4. That to say the Soul departs from or slips out of the Body when it dyes is an ignorant dark Opinion of most People contrary to Sense Reason or Faith 5. That Death took Christ's Soul into it 6. That Lazarus his Soul was dead in the Grave where his Body was those four Dayes 7. That not only Adam ' s Soul did dye but also that the Soul of Christ did dye 8. That all mens Souls ever since are dead being mortal Thus far all the Baptists who hold the Mortality of the Soul agree with Muggleton 9. That Solomon was ignorant in this Point in saying the Body to the Dust and the Spirit returns to God that gave it 10. That God was born of Mary 11. That God is not an Infinite Spirit filling all Places 12. That the Godhead Life dyed that when Christ dyed God dyed 13. That Christ being God embodyed with Flesh and Bone one Person without us cannot be in the Quakers 14. That there are many vast Places in the Earth where God is not at all 15. That God himself is a single Person in Form of a Man and no bigger in Compass and Bulk and was so from Eternity then a Man even of the same Stature as the first Adam was 16. That Reason is the Devil 17. That all Men have received the Seed or Spirit of Reason from the Devil or raprobate Angel 18. That the Devil became Flesh Blood and Bone 19. That Cain was none of Adam ' s Son or Begetting but the first Devil in Flesh. 20. That Eve was with Child of Cain by the Serpent-Angel before Adam knew her 21. That then the Condition of Eve was much like the Condition of Mary the Virgin being with Child by the Holy Ghost before Joseph knew her 22. That the Devil that tempted Christ was a Man Thus far of Muggleton in his Looking-Glass for G. Fox and other Books of his and John Reeve's are replenisht with such absurd and blasphemous Stuff which we never were guilty of but alwayes abhorred and often testified against as we have had Occasion therefore let the World judge how grosly and wickedly we are dealt with and scandalized in the Baptists or their Abettors comparing us with Muggleton between whom there is as much Distance and Opposition as betwixt Heaven and Hell Light and Darkness Sect. V. The Quakers furher unjustly compared and Baptists proved to Deny the Divinity of Christ. Pag. 36. BUt we are further catechised If our Ministers ought to be believed on easier Terms then Christ and ●is Ministers were that is on such Signs and Wonders and Miracles and Gifts of the Holy Ghost as God did bear them witness with Acts 2.22 Heb. 2.3 4. And why must we be put upon this Proof or else be judg'd not only No Christians but Impostors but because we bring New Doctrines and New Revelations as we are accused But what these New ones are and wherein contrary to the ancient Christian Apostolical Doctrines we are not yet convinc'd by all the Oppositions we have met withal It is further added That some of which are not such New Discoveries from Heaven manifest by the Light within as pretended being in Truth but

as we had been some Time remote from the City And although W. Kiffin left the Meeting before the End thereof he could both be Judge and Witness as well as the rest for him from the Perusal and comparing of his Proofs with the Quakers Books which the rest might have done privately as well now my present Business is to prove them both Vnfair False Witnesses as well as Vnjust Judges even as to Citations as will appear plainly although they would fain have had us acquiesced with their Judgments as being Infallible Judges because appealed to but here it s proved That the Quakers Books do not agree with what T.H. hath laid to their Charge and that all his Quotations are not truly recited out of their Books take these following Instances being compared out of their own Relation aforesaid with what is briefly noted thereupon Sect. I. About the Soul BEcause T. H. hath made a great a doe divers Times about the Soul as charging it as the Quakers Opinion one white that the Soul is God another while that the Soul is Part of God and of God's Being without Beginning and Infinite Dial. 1. p. 16. Dial. 3. p. 2. I shall begin with this where after he hath cited W.P. as charging T.H. with Perversion Iujustice Misciting and Abusing the true Meaning of what is truly cited he here breaks off W. P.'s Words and then faith to his Auditors You hear what W. Penn hath said touching this Charge p. 8. Whereas he hath but cited the Preamble of W. Penn's Answer and left out the very Substance thereof See Reas. ag Rail p. 65. Is this fair Dealing or true to say You have heard WHAT W.P. hath said when they have not heard the very Substance and chief Part of what he hath said in this Case which follows after T. H.'s Citation W. P. thus viz. G. Fox saith thus God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul and is not this of God of his Being c. and is not This that came out from God Part of God and from God Where nothing can well be clearer then that G. F. intends that Divine Life Power and Virtue by which Adam in Soul and Body came to live to God with other Passages about the Words Breathed Inspired after which he addeth But this Ungodly Person would infer from our asserting That the Breath God breathed into Adam's Soul whereby it liv'd to God was of God's Divine Life That the Soul of Man as a meer Creature or created Capacity is of God's own Being and Substance c. See further Reas. against Rail pag. 66 67. And further let it be observed wherein T. Hicks hath dealt Unfairly by G. F. in this matter Though it be true that G. F. saith That God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul and askt Is not this which cometh out from God of God being without Beginning Infinis in itself c Gr. Myst. fol. 29 68 90 100. But then T. Hicks having left out those Passages that chiefly explain G. F's Sense in this matter takes it for granted without Distinction that it is our Opinion That the Soul is God as he hath charg'd us and this he hath made one main Reason for his accusing us with Denying all future distinct Beings or Rewards of Men after Death which must procede either from his Mistake or wilful Perversion he taking G. F's Question about the Soul to intend the meer Spirit of Man that God form'd in him or the Soul that is a Reasonable Creature which could not be intended in G. F's Question which concerns that Immediate Breath or Spirit of Life which came out from God by which Man became a living Soul wherein what is more evident then that G.F. doth not at all confound the Being of Man with the Being of his Maker though God may be truly said to be the Being of Beings the Life of Lives so the Soul or Life of Souls even of all Mankind with respect unto this G. F's words appear very plain where he saith God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul for that which came out from God was the Cause that MAN became ALIVE a living Soul and is not this of God Gr. Myst. pag. 68. See how plain and distinct these words are between That which came out from God and Man himself and whether it was not an Abuse in T. Hicks to leave out those G. F's explanatory words which are in the very same Page that he quotes and misconstrue his Question and Words to another Intention then they will bear while G. F's words relating to that which came out from God do not at all mention Man's Soul or Spirit that I do or can find Although T. H. and his Brethren take Soul in G. F's Question for the Spirit of Man or the Reasonable Creature so far as I can gather as W. Kiffin and the rest do in their Epistle entituled Heart-Bleedings for Professors Abominations and annext unto their Confession of Faith printed 1651. where they have these Phrases viz. The Spirit which God formeth in Man Our Spirit or Soul a Creature The reasonable Soul c. Here they grant man's Spirit or Soul to be the same whereas when G. F. speaks of the Soul in that sense he hath this Phrase The Soul being in Death in Transgression man's Spirit there is not sanctified Gr. Myst. p. 91. These plain words T. H. also hath left out though in the very next page to what he quotes What is more plain then that G.F. could not intend that Soul or Spirit of Man which could be in Death in Transgression to be either God his Divine Life Being or Part of God but of Man only for the Being of God can never be either in Transgression or Corrupted because God is Incorruptible And now from the Understanding that I have of G. F's words about the Soul as in divers places of his said Book He speaks of the Soul as under a two fold Consideration 1st with respect unto that Breath of Life which God breathed into man by which MAN became a living Soul 2 dly with the respect to Man himself as being thereby made a living Soul And of Man as under a three fold Consideration 1. As Man was in the Beginning before the Fall being made Alive a Living Soul by the Breath or Spirit of God 2. To Man faln and in the Fall from God wherein his Soul or Spirit is brought under Death in Sin and Transgression and so is polluted with Sin while Unsanctified 3. To Man as restored and his Soul quickned to God again by the Spirit of Life and so saved by and in Christ Jesus who is the Bishop of the Soul This I do understand and plainly gather from the Tenour of G. F's Words and Answers But sith Thomas Hicks's Charge against the Quakers was that they are No Christians and that one