Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	know_v	scripture_n	speak_v	7,222	5	4.9707	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

time did presume to read the Paper against the mind of most of the Friends present and T. L. S. J. S. R. J. D. and A. M. were so far from giving any check to this disorderly Proceeding and Imposition upon the true Liberty and Right of the Meeting that they encourag'd it and one of them without the least occasion given did threaten to bind an honest Friend to the Peace S. Jenings calling out for a Constable Thus these who by their Place should be good Examples of Justice and good Order are Transgressors of it 6thly For their proffering to refer the Differences in matter of Doctrine either to the Yearly Meeting here or to the Yearly Meeting at London by their drawing up a Confession and transmitting it to them which they blame G. K. for refusing G. K. saith that he told them he had good cause to refuse referring it to the Yearly Meeting here there being a Faction that prevailed in the last Yearly Meeting to hinder Justice to be done to the Truth but he did not refuse to refer the Difference to Friends in England as having any fear that they would condemn his Doctrine but if he had promised any such Referrence or Submission as was required it would have been called a Breach of his Promise if he had preached any of these Doctrines disputed betwixt them and him and if God had moved him to preach them he should either have disobeyed that Motion or seemed to break his Promise and therefore he refused to come under any such tye especially seeing it could not be expected that an Answer could come from England in less than a years space And by a marvellous Providence of God within a few days after this debate Friends Letters came to us confirming G. K's Doctrine in every particular than in Difference betwixt him and them and since that they cry our Who denies these things when it ●s well known and can well be proved many did deny them And whereas they further say That they would have given a Confession out of a Book of G. K 's concerning the main matter in Controversie is but a deceitful Cover like to others that Book giveth them no strength in the matter of Controversie but if they think it doth they should have mentioned it for nothing is more deceitful than bare Generals However let it be well noticed they grant there is a main matter of Controversie in Doctrine betwixt us but they should have told what that main Matter of Controversie is to wit Faith in Christ without us as he died and rose again being necessary to our Salvation according to Rom. 10. 9 10. but this they dare not openly do fearing the People as the Pharisees feared the Jews of old in the case of John 7thly Whereas they say This Meeting having tenderly and orderly dealt with him for his abusive Language and disorderly Behaviour c. There cannot be a thing more falsly hypocritically and impudently alledg'd for they did not so much as call him before them at that time so far as he can understand altho' one of them lately told G. K. that they sent W. Byles for him but nothing of this was intimated to any of his Family and he being absent from the Town and knowing nothing of their further intention against him did not purposely absent himself it was unchristian and short of Heathen Justice to condemn him and his Friends without hearing them they never yet having had any fair hearing to clear themselves for even Nicodemus could say John 7. 51. Doth our Law judge any man before it hear him And did not our Friends at London blame the Baptists for clearing Tho. Hicks and condemning W. P. and others without a fair hearing of them nor was that enough that they sent for them for they being then absent was a sufficient excuse and so it was to G. K. if they had sent for him nor was he ever brought upon Trial in order to any Conviction before these of the Ministry but that mock-Tryal that they had at Burlington last where A. Cook accused him of being Guilty in two particulars viz. That four or five Years ago he heard him blame Friends of the Ministry at the yearly Meeting at the Center for misquoting the Scripture To which G. K. answered he did not blame them so far as he can remember but caution them not to misquote the Scripture as many can witness which was seasonable and necessary seeing too frequently Scriptures are both misquoted and misinterpreted as particularly not long ago in a publick Meeting A. Cook did expound these words Isa 53. 5. By his stripes we are healed not of Christ's stripes that he suffered without us but of the stripes that he giveth us in our Hearts and when T. Fitzwater prayed in a pub Meeting Lord Jesus who art still crucified without the gates of Jerusalem and at another Meeting told That men crucified Christ without the gate when their minds went from the Light in them and according to this perverse Exposition when the Scripture saith Let us go forth therefore unto him without the Camp Heb. 13. 13. the sence would be Let us go forth from the Light in us which to be sure is very false and absurd Doctrine And further G. K. did expostulate with them against A. C. that he should so many years conceal this and now bring it forth was contrary to Gospel-Order The next thing whereof A. C. accused G. K. was That he heard him revile his Brethren of Pensilvania to Friends of Rhode-Island calling some of them Heathens c. To which G. K. answered that he denied that he reviled any of them but if he had A. C. had no witness to prove it and the Scripture saith Receive not an Accusation against an Elder but before two or three Witnesses A. C. said Friends ye know the Scripture saith the ear tryeth words as the mouth tasteth meat if I speak from a true Spirit ye have a discerning and then what need of Witnesses To which G. K. replied This is a great Abuse for at this rate one might accuse A. C. of Adultery and if he can get but some men pretending to a spirit of Discerning say that he speaks true tho' the thing be false he shall be condemned This is an Invention that A. C. hath hit upon which the Priests that accused Christ had not found out or had they found it out it would not have done for the Law required Witnesses and so doth the Gospel but the prevailing Party in the Meeting was so far from giving check to this most unjust and unchristian way of accusing G. K. without Witnesses that they suffer'd S. J. to assault him with a new Charge which he could not prove And therefore their usage and dealing with G. K. at this said Meeting was most unfair and unjust in that G. K. was the first Complainer and they had delayed doing Justice to Truth in bringing W. Stockdale to

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