Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	flesh_n	reap_v	sow_v	14,782	5	11.5940	5	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

how can this consist with his now saying that we are Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation Again in his Sandy Foundation from P. 24 to P. 32. he pretends to bring arguments from both Scripture and Reason to refute the Justification of impure Persons by an imputative Righteousness I shall quote a few passages out of many to shew the inconsistency of his late and former Doctrine about Justification from the guilt of Sin P. 25. from Ezek. 18. 20 26 27 28. He draws this Argument That the Condemnation or Justification of Persons is not from the imputation of anothers Righteousness but the actual performance and keeping of God's Righteous Statutes or Commandments otherwise God should forget to be equal Again in P. 26. he saith Christ is so far from telling them of their being Justified abiding in his Love by virtue of his Obedience imputed unto them that unless they obey his Commandments and obey for themselves they shall be so remote from an acceptance as wholly to be cast out in all which Christ is but our example Where note Reader the words BUT our example Again in the same Page Nor let any fancy saith he that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them as to exclude their Obedience from being requisite to their acceptance BUT only as their pattern Where note again Reader these words but only as their pattern This is plain Socinianism Again in P. 27. he thus argueth If rejoycing and acceptance with God or the contrary are to be reaped from the Works that a Man soweth either to the Flesh or to the Spirit then is the Doctrine of acceptance and ground of rejoycing from the works of another utterly excluded every Man reaping according to what he hath sown and bearing his own Burden Thus Reader thou seest how earnestly he hath contended against all Justification from the Righteousness of Christ wrought in his own Person without us though in this late Paper of Gospel Truths he seems fully to assert it I shall not need to insist at large to shew his fallacious way of stating the question about Justification by Christ's Righteousness without us and of his reasoning against it As if these against whom he argueth did plead for a Justification or Righteousness of Christ actually imputed to Men wholly unsanctified and remaining altogether in a state of disobedience wherein hemost unfairly represents them But whereas he pleads at such a high rate that none are Justified while having the least Sin or impurity so as that none are Justified but who perfectly in all points without the least sinful defect or imperfection obey the Law of God and come up in their Obedience to the outmost demand of the Law as the whole strain of his Arguments run by this rate of arguing either W. P. and all his Brethren are under a state of Condemnation and the Curse of the Law If they have the least impurity or sinful defect and have not attained a sinless perfection which yet can be proved sufficiently they have not attained and some of them have so much ingenuity in them as to confess they have not yet arrived unto And W. P. would do but equally in the case to tell us whether he is such a Sinless Person that answers every demand of Justice and who in his obedience comes up to the highest perfection of Holiness that the most Holy Law of God doth now at this present require of him If he thinks he is he is miserably mistaken while his sinful Imperfections in his asserting such gross Untruths for Truths and some of them against the Conviction of his Conscience are so manifest that he who runs may read them besides a great vein of Pride Levity and Vanity of Mind and Scornful Disdain that appears running through his pretended Answer to the Bishop of Cork his modest Observations and his most uncivil Language and Epithets he hath used in his former Books never to this day repented of so far as we can understand given by him to his Opponents in his several Books of Controversie whereof the Author of The Snake in the Grass hath given a large Catalogue Section 3. His Fallacy in seeming to own Justification by Christ the Propitiation whereas by Christ the Propitiation he doth not mean the Man Christ without but the Light within His bold attempt in his Sandy Foundation to throw down three great Fundamentals of Christianity viz. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity The Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction and the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's imputed Righteousness His excluding Faith in Christ Crucified from being necessary to Justification and placing it wholly on Repentance and Obedience his agreement with G. W. therein BUT under this seemingly fair acknowledgment of W. P. that we are only justified from the Guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation let us search whither there be not even in this acknowledgment The Snake in the Grass If W. P. remain in his former Perswasion as he affirmeth he doth by his former Books I shall clearly prove that by Christ the Propitiation he doth not mean the Man Christ Jesus as he outwardly suffered Death and the shedding of his Blood outwardly for the Remission of our Sins being the great and only Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Men and thereby by his most perfect Satisfaction paying to Divine Justice the Debt of our Sins In his Christian Quaker p. 97. he contendeth That the Sacrifices and Lamb in the Passover under the Law were not proper Figures of Christ without but of Christ the promised Seed within One outward thing saith he cannot be the proper Figure of another nor is it the way of Holy Scripture so to teach the outward Lamb shews forth the inward And in Page 145 he saith As the outward Jew had an outward Priest at whose mouth he ought to seek the Law so the Jew inward and Circumcision in Spirit has an inward and Spiritual High Priest the King Ruler Judge Law-giver High Priest Law Rule Temple are all Spiritual i. e. Inward And in his Rejoynder to J. Faldo p. 284. he affirmeth That Christ offers himself in his Children in the nature of a mediating Sacrifice to appease the Wrath of God Again in his Sandy Foundation from p. 16 to p. 24. he disputes against the Satisfaction of Christ giving this Title to his Disputation The vulgar Doctrine of Satisfaction being dependent on the second Person of the imagined Trinity refuted from Scripture to p. 20 and from p. 20 refuted from right reason to p. 24 where p. 17. arguing from Jer. 31. 31 33 34. he saith Here is God's meer Grace asserted against the pretended necessity of a Satisfaction to procure his Remission And p. 18. he argueth thus And forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors Where nothing can be more obvious saith he than that which is forgiven is not paid And if it is our Duty to forgive without a Satisfaction received and that God is

in a publick Meeting with Blasphemy for asserting it but whither the Body of Christ now since his Ascension is in all things and every where If not every where then but some where and that some-where is a Local Heaven which W. P. hath said is Mahometan E. Burrough charg'd John Bunnion with Wickedness for saying Christ was in Heaven in our Nature And for the same did G. Whitehead blame John Horn as I have shewn in my Narratives And saith G. W. in his Nature of Christianity p. 41. That Christ existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right hand What Scripture hath he viz. his Opponent R. G. for these words W. Bailey will have it That Christ ascended into Heaven in no body but what came down from Heaven All which and much more is proved out of my three Narratives the third especially And whereas he saith Let it be never so true it cannot affect the People if not the act of the People the Church of England has Doctors of very differing Sentiments c. I answer what any one of your Teachers have asserted in Print especially it affects your Second days Meeting that licenseth all your Teachers Books and yet profess to be all one and the same in all that ye believe as God and Truth is the same And if the Church of England hath Teachers of different Sentiments in lesser Matters yet not in Fundamentals so far as she knows and if they had and she should know it and not censure them it would affect her From all which it appears that W. P. and his Brethrens Conciseness in their Gospel Truths was on purpose in general Terms to cover their gross Errors And where Men are sound in the Faith and of known Sincerity what is implied in their words may in Charity and Justice be granted but not if they be Insincere and given to equivocate as is the present Case Section 6. His Fallacy in asserting that his owning future Rewards and Punishments in his Sense doth imply his owning the Resurrection of the Dead which it is proved he hath disowned His unjust Offence at the Bishop's Censure of his unsound Notion of the Light within and his uncivil Treatment of the Bishop on that account as if he were a meer Natural Man a Persecuter a Nicodemus in the Knowledge of Regeneration The Bishop's Doctrine of the Light within more sound and intelligible than that of W. P. By W. P 's Definition of Light within and Sight within a Natural Man is capable to understand it though in contradiction to himself W. P 's Ignorance in making the natural rational Faculty to be all the Spiritual Sight even in Regenerated Persons The Bishop's Doctrine of the Light within and Spiritual Sight of regenerated Persons as more sound so more sublime than that of W. P. IN Page 43 he proceeds in the like Fallacy and Equivocation alledging That their acknowledging the future state of the Just and Unjust implys the resurrection of the Dead which as it is true in a Scripture sense it is as false in his sense and in the sense of all others of his Heathen Brethren many of whom professed to believe the immortality of Men's Souls both Greek and Latin yet that profession did not imply they believed the resurrection of the Body either of the Just or Unjust for they generally disbelieved it and opposed the Christians for asserting it And that W. P. himself hath opposed the Resurrection of the Body is above sufficiently proved In his Page 51. and 52. W. P. seems not a little moved with the Bishops saying their discourse about the Light within as far as he can see is perfectly such as we usually call Banter that is when Men have a faculty to speak things seemingly profound but in the end neither themselves nor others can make any distinct Sense of what they have said This Modest Censure of the Bishop upon his discourse of the Light within in his 5th 6th and 7th Sections W. P. calls one of the severest Persecutions This to me saith he is one of the severest Persecutions because Spiritual things are only to be Spiritually discern'd and understood I would fain know saith he how a regenerate Man can possibly make a Carnal Man understand the new Birth yea he chargeth it to look Antichristian as well as unreasonable and he quotes diverse places of Scripture which he at least implicitly levels at the Bishop as if the Bishop were the Unregenerate and Natural Man that because he is so he cannot understand W. P's profound Doctrine of the Light within And the Bishop is he that is born after the Flesh who persecutes W. P. that 's born after the Spirit and his Brethren with Tongue and Pen when he and others such as he can no longer commit violence upon their Persons and Estates and as if the Bishop were a very Nicodemus in the Doctrine of the new Birth All which it plainly appears and much more W. P. indirectly and implicitly levels at the Bishop otherwise why quotes he such places of Scriptures with such large discourses on them if not to point to him and that his want of the new Birth and being but a Natural Man tho' not wanting Academical Learning made him uncapable of understanding W. P's Spiritual Doctrine about the Light within and after his instance of the blindness of the Scribes and Pharisees and the High-Priest of the Jews in not discerning the Messiah when he came he infers let the Bishop also have a care and he further tells the Bishop he should be glad to see the Bishop's evidence for the knowledge of God by the Revelation of the Son of God in his own Soul To give my sense freely so far as I am able to understand the Bishop hath given a better account and evidence of his knowledge in the Mystery of God and of Christ by his Christian Scriptural and sound expressions than W. P. and I suppose in his manner of Life is nothing inferior to him And what evidence of his true knowledge by Internall Illumination or Revelation can W. P. give or has given that the Bishop cannot give yea hath not given in this very case Is it enough for W. P. to say he has it and the Bishop has it not Or wherein do W. P's fruits of a holy Life give more evidence of his knowledge and experience of the new Birth than these of the Bishop I shall first take notice of the Bishop's sound words in giving his sense how the Conscience of Man is enlightned to know and believe aright the Doctrines and Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation Conscience saith the Bishop opened by the holy Spirit under the Ministry of the word Acts 16. 14. does and must take in its Light from holy Scripture quoting Psal 19. 8. Eph. 1. 18. Psal 119. 105. Isaiah 8. 20. Now these things saith he are intelligible this Rule is fixt and certain nothing of which can be said of your Light within

essentially but to Men he is so by his Operations in them and so is called Light to Men by a Metonimy of the Name of the Effect given to the Cause Such is Mens weakness at least in this Mortal State that we have no immediate Knowledge of the Essence of any Creature we know their Essence but by their Operations nay we have no immediate Knowledge either of the Essence of our Bodies or of our Souls but only by their Operations Hence it is that the greatest Philosophers are at a loss to define the Essence of any thing because our Knowledge doth not immediately reach their Essence but only by their Operation when we see the Body of a Man Beast or Tree we see not the Essence of these Bodies but the outward Forms and Shapes and Colours of them all which are but their accidents and not their Essence or Substance and if we have no immediate Knowledge of any Creatures Essence or Substance great or small how can or dare we presume to say or think we see even with our inward Eyes or Sight what W. P. calls the natural rational Faculty for that 's all the inward Sight even of the Light within that he acknowledgeth in the best of Men the Essence of the Divine Word the Word God by whom all things were created by immediate Sight or Perception for as John said John 1. 18. 1 John 4 12. No Man hath seen God at any time to wit as in himself in his own infinite Essence and essential Glory And as Paul said He dwelleth in the Light which none can approach unto whom no Man hath seen or can see 1 Tim. 6. 16. If then we see not or know not this Divine Work-man who is in us and in all things because he is omnipresent by any immediate Perception Sight or Knowledge of him it is only by some inward Manifestation and Operation of him in us which is only and alone what he pleaseth to give us as a most free Agent Section 8. W. P 's equivocating way of giving his Sense of the Light within His Contradiction to G. F. who affirm'd that whole Christ God and Man was in Men both Flesh and Spirit His and G. F 's and G. W 's Ignorance and Error as if God had parts and did suffer in his Godhead by Mens Sins He denieth the special Illuminations of the Holy Spirit given to all the Faithful concerning Christ His and his Brethrens Fallacy in stating the Question about the Sufficiency of the Light within to Salvation the Question truly stead and resolved His Fallacy in affirming the Doctrines of God of Christ of the Holy Ghost Remission of Sin Justification from the Guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation the Resurrection of the Dead to be Fundamentals of the Christian Religion seeing in his Discourse of the General Rule be hath excluded them from the absolute Necessaries of Religion in order to eternal Salvation IN the next place let us consider whither the common Illumination that Christ giveth to all Men as he is the Word God in all Men be a sufficient Medium or means to furnish us with all necessary saving Knowledge and Faith and other Evangelical Virtues without all special and peculiar Illuminations of Christ by the Holy Ghost in the use of the ordinary outward means as the Holy Scriptures especially preached or read to us or by us which is the proper and true state of the Question which W. P. seeks to jumble by shifting the terms of the Question and his equivocating way of his giving the Sence of the Light within as one time to be Christ the word God the Work-man another time the Manifestation of Christ which is not the Work-man but his Work and Operation in the Souls of Men universally And W. P. to hide his Fallacy will rather have to be understood by the Light within every Man Christ himself the word God than his Illumination in every Man though contrary to what both himself and G. W. hath professed elsewhere who have affirmed that they are wronged by their Adversaries charging them with holding that Christ is in every Man Which say they we never affirmed that Christ was in every Man but a Light from Christ was in every Man and since that they vary it thus that they do not affirm that whole Christ is in every Man or in any Man though contrary to the Doctrine of their great A postle G. F. who hath affirmed Great Myst p. 249. that they i. e. the Quakers have whole Christ in them Christ-God and Christ-Man Flesh and Spirit which W. P. hath desended arguing that seeing they eat his Flesh it must be in them falsly reasoning from a Metaphorical eating to a literal Now if the by the Flesh of Christ which W. P. saith they have in them they mean not Christ's Body of Flesh which was Nailed to the Cross and yet have whole Christ in them both God and Man Flesh and Spirit it evidently followeth that that outward Flesh was not part of him for they have whole Christ in them God and Man Flesh and Spirit and yet they have none of that Flesh in them which was Nailed to the Cross besides how improper or rather absurd it is for W. P. to talk of whole Christ considered as the word God and measures or parts of Christ seeing the Godhead of the Word which is one and the same Godhead of the Father hath no parts nor passions as both the Doctrine of the Church of England and of all true Christian Churches doth hold though G. F. hath made the Godhead to have parts and that the Soul of Man is a part of God and G. W. hath affirmed that Christ suffereth by Mens Sins as he is God or in his Godhead See his Divinity of Christ Page 56. And let W. P. shift and shuffle and wind and turn ever so much he can never make it intelligible to any Man that the Light within simply as the word God and abstractly considered without all special Illumination and without the Doctrine of the Gospel as outwardly delivered us in the Holy Scriptures doth teach us and all Men all things necessary to Salvation seeing by his plain confession in his discourse concerning The general Rule of Faith and Life he acknowledgeth that the Light within by its common discoveries giveth not to Men the knowledge of Christ's Incarnation Birth Death and Sufferings but that they belong to extraordinary Revelation And therefore that knowledge and Faith to wit of Christ's Incarnation Birth Death and Sufferings by W. P's Doctrine is not necessary to his Salvation though he has a Historical Knowledge and Faith of it yet that is not necessary for it is not certain to him whither true of false he has no extraordinary Revelation of it and that in common to all Mankind teacheth nothing of it And W. P. and his Brethren are guilty of a great Fallacy and piece of Sophistry to cry out against all their