Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	beget_v	father_n	word_n	2,039	5	4.4451	4	false

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

Spirit and these three are really one yet in his former Books particularly in his Sandy Foundation never yet retracted by him he hath sufficiently discovered his gross and vile error in that fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith thus arguing not only against their being Three Persons but their being Three otherwise than Nominally which was the Sabellian Heresie since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their opinion necessitates them to confess then unless the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct Substances and consequently three distinct God's And he bringeth Five Arguments against their being a Holy Three P. 12 13 14. In his Third Section he seemeth to profess his and his Brethrens Faith in Scripture terms But this his professed Faith is quite inconsistent with what he hath delivered in his other Books here he saith That the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among Men and was and is the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth his beloved Son c. who tasted Death for every Man and dyed for Sin that we might dye to Sin But as it hath been above shewed out of his Sandy Foundation he hath argued against any such distinction as of the Father and the Son in the God-head as inferring a plurality of God's and though here he professeth to believe that this only begotten Son dyed for Sin yet in his Serious Apology Page 146 he saith That the outward Person that suffered was properly the Son of God we utterly deny And in his guide mistaken P. 25. Christ Co-essential and Co-eternal with his Father c. of being made Man of his Dying Rising and Ascending into Heaven c. he saith of all this that it is confused Babble and by Rote Canting by paths of vain Tradition and Invention results of Factious and corrupted Counsels And in his Rejoinder to John Faldo Page 299. he plainly denyes that the Body of Christ was any constitutive part of Christ and for seven leaves together contends against John Faldo That Christ did not Dye nor hang on the Cross but only the Body which he will not have to be any part of him To this Doctrine of W. P. doth that of G. Whitehead agree a Man as great or rather much greater among the Quakers as W. P. who saith in his Dipper Plunged P. 13. Jesus Christ God-man is not Scripture Language And in his Christian Quaker P. 140. 141. though he grants that Christ had a humane Body of Flesh and Bones yet he denys that he consisted of it and saith he distinguisheth betwixt Christ's having a Body and consisting of it And in a Book given forth by the Quakers from their second days Meeting whereof G. W. is supposed the Author called A Testimony for the true Christ and his Light in confutation of R. Cobbet printed 1668. They deny the Humanity of Christ as Humanity signifieth the Earthly Nature of Man's Body as coming from Humus the Ground but as Humanity signifies Meekness Gentleness Mercifulness as opposite to Cruelty in this last sence they own Christ's Humanity but deny it in the former which yet is the true sense of Scripture and of all true Christians Section 2. His Fallacy in pretending to own Justification by Christ the Propitiation in Contradiction to what he hath delivered in his Serious Apology and Sandy Foundation and his fallacious way of stating the Doctrine of Justification wherein he misrepresents his Opponents IN his fourth Section as seemingly Orthodox as he professeth himself to be as fallacious and insincere he is seeing he knoweth in his own Conscience that what he hath here delivered is utterly inconsistent with what is extant in his other Books never as yet retracted by him nor doth either he or his Brethren own any change of perswasion from what they had ever since they came under the profession of Quakers but as one of them hath lately said in Print As God is the same and Truth is the same so his People are the same viz. the Quakers I shall first set down his present profession of what he believes concerning Justification as followeth That as we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done so there is an absolute necessity that we receive and obey to unfeigned Repentance and amendment of Life the Holy Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ in order to obtain that Remissionand Justification from Sin c. But in contradiction to this see what his Doctrine is in his Serious Apology P. 148. And indeed says W. P. this we deny viz. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption which does now deluge the whole World Note Reader If according to W. P's former words we Only are Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation and not by works of Righteousness that we have done then it is plainly evident by the same Doctrine that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us for these two manners of Speech are perfectly equivalent viz. That we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the propitiation and that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person wholly without us The word Only plainly importing the Righteousness of Christ Wholly without us unless there be some great fallacy in W. P's words as the sequel will make appear a little after But if we take these two quotations in their genuine Sense the one that we are Justified by the Righteousness of Christ Only i. e. Wholly without us from the guilt of Sin and the other that this we deny i. e. that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils c. it is a perfect inconsistency and contradiction And yet now W. P. doth teach the same Doctrine which formerly he called the Doctrine of Devils without any change of his perswasion as he plainly tells in the conclusion of his Paper This saith he hath all along been the general stream and tendency both of our Ministry and Writings as our books will make appear But what a Forehead of Bras must W. P. have with so great confidence to assert so known an untruth Again the same W. P. in his forecited Serious Apology thus argueth P 148. against Christ's imputative Righteousness Death came by actual Sin not imputative therefore Justification unto Life came by actual Righteousness not imput ative Note Reader If we are not Justified by Christ's imputed which he calls imputative Righteousness as here he asserts

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

of the written word preached or read which is the Rule of Faith appointed and given us of God for that end and purpose W. P. doth not acknowledge but will needs have it that we receive all our Light from the inward Principle which sometimes he calls Christ at other times the Light of Christ otherwhile as in page 49. a Manifestation in the Soul of Man of Christ the word God the Light of the World c. without all Instrumentality of either the Holy Scriptures or Ministry of Men For to grant any such Instrumentality would quite marr his Notion of the Light within being not only the Guide and Ruler but the Rule it self of Faith and Life to all Mankind and he earnestly opposeth that Faith which is wrought by the outward Ministry of the Word in Preaching or Reading concerning Christ's Death and Sufferings Resurrection and Ascension c. as being but the Historical Faith that must pass away as the old Heavens For if he did grant the necessity of Scripture-Doctrine-Light received from without as well as the necessity of the Spirits internal Light or Illumination in God's ordinary way of working going along with the Doctrine-light of the Scripture there would be no Controversie betwixt the Bishop and him provided he did also grant that there is necessary a special Illumination of Christ by the Holy Spirit to be infused or inspired into the Souls of the Faithful to enable them to take in and understand the Light of the Doctrine of Salvation delivered in the Holy Scriptures Should W. P. own these two great things asserted here by the Bishop the Controversie should be none at all betwixt them but seeing he denies them both and the Bishop affirmeth both the Controversie remaineth great betwixt them and the Bishop hath far the advantage of W. P. that he hath proved his Doctrine from Scripture and thus he fairly distinguisheth Christianity from Deism neither of which W. P. hath done nor ever can do It hath been ordinary in the People called Quakers even their chief Teachers as to deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God so to deny them that is the Doctrine delivered in them to be Light in any Scripture Sense turning all these places of Scripture that mention Light as with respect to Mens Knowledge and Faith to Light within only exclusive of all doctrinal Light of Scripture without as being the Rule of Faith or any necessary means of our Instruction in God's ordinary way of working though it has been God's ordinary way in all Ages by outward means of Doctrine delivered by Men as well as by the Spirits inward Illumination to beget in Men the saving Knowledge and Faith of the things necessary to Salvation the extraordinary Revelation of these Truths without all outward means of Instruction being given only to some singular Persons as the Prophets and Apostles but was never given in any Age to all Mankind nay nor to all the Faithful in any Age for even in the days of the Apostles when Prophetical Inspiration and extraordinary Revelation did most abound in the Church it was not given to all the Faithful but only to some as the Apostle Paul said Do all Prophesie Intimating they did not though a Manifestation of the Spirit was given to every one to profit withall yet that was not the extraordinary Revelation given to the Apostles and Prophets but the ordinary given to the Faithful to enable them to believe and understand what was outwardly taught them by the Apostles and Prophets Words and Writings Having thus taken a view of the Bishop's Christian sound Scriptural Doctrine both of Christ's Light within by the Illumination of the Holy Spirit and of the Scripture Light without as joyntly necessary in God's ordinary way of working to the Faithful the which Scripture Light as in respect of the Doctrine Laws Commands Precepts and Promises of God delivered therein the Bishop hath well proved from Psal 19. 8. Psal 119. 105. Isa 8. 20. and which Scripture-light may in a true sense be called though more remotely the Spirits Light In the next place let us take a view of W. P.'s unchristian and unscriptural Doctrine of the Light within which he saith in his page 48 is with him and his Brethren a Fundamental which one while he calls Christ the Word God another while the Light of Christ a Manifestation in the Soul of Man of Christ the Word God This Light within his great Fundamental as given to all Mankind even to them who have not the Scripture nor any external Revelation of Christ as he outwardly came in the Flesh he will not have it to be the Law of God in the Heart of Man nor the Impressions and Principles which are born and come with us into the World page 50. As the Work is not the Work-man so they are not properly the Light of Christ but the blessed Fruit and Effect of the Light of Christ the word God in Man which shines in the Heart and gives him the Knowledge of God and of his Duty to him so that the innate Notions or inward Knowledge we have of God is from this true Light that lighteth every Man coming into the World but is not that Light if self But why then doth he so confound the Work with the Work-man as one while he tells us the Light within is Christ another while a Manifestation in the Soul of Man of Christ the Word God Is not the Manifestation of Christ in the Soul of Man a Work of Christ How then is it Christ himself the Word God W. P. may remember how his Brother G. W. in his Light and Life recommended by him hath argued against the Body of Christ being Christ for if it were it would have this Sense the Christ of Christ or the Jesus of Jesus which to him is Nonsence Is it not great Nonsence to say The Manifestation of Christ to wit the Act or Effect of his Illumination in the Soul is Christ himself The Body of Christ together with his Soul are constitutive parts of his Manhood Nature personally united to his Godhead and may and do receive the Name of Christ and Jesus as the parts do receive the Name of the whole but the Manifestation of Christ in the Soul of Man is no part of Christ's Manhood nor of his Godhead which hath no parts but is only a Work of Christ in the Soul of Man by which it is enlightned And as the Work supposeth the Work-man or Worker to be present in the Soul to wit Christ considered as the Word God which the Bishop to be sure in the true Sence will acknowledge so the Work-man supposeth the Work as necessary to be wrought in the Soul for Christ as he is the Word God considered simply whither as in himself or as in Men is no Light to Men but as he hath his Work and Operation in them to enlighten them though in and to himself he is Light and Life

Opponents as guilty of Blasphemy for denying the sufficiency of the Light within to Salvation without any thing else Seeing that Light within is Christ for it is as much as to say Christ is not sufficient to Salvation And thus some of them have charged me in particular to whom I have answered that seeing Christ is truly Christ without us as well as within us and much more gloriously manifested in the Flesh without us If it is no blasphemy to say Christ without us cannot save us without his being in us as they will readily grant so nor is it Blasphemy to say Christ within us cannot save us without Christ without us And with respect to Christ's inward Teaching and Illumination they grosly and fallaciously prevaricate in stating the question as whither the Light within to wit the Word God is a Light sufficient to Teach or Guide every Man the way to Eternal Salvation Thus they think to have their Opponents every way at a disadvantage and to catch them in their Dilemma if they say Yea the Quakers have gained the point as they imagine If they say Nay they are guilty of Blasphemy against Christ the word God within them as not being sufficient But this Sophistical Dilemma is easily discovered and answered for by the sufficiency of the Light within every Man to guide to Salvation is not meant what Christ the Word God can reveal to and in every Man for who questions that that he can do it abundantly but the true state of the question is What he doth reveal to and in every Man that is or may be a sufficient discovery to him for his eternal Salvation W. P. and his Brethren hold the affirmative the Bishop and all true Christians Yea all but meer Deists hold the Negative viz. That Christ considered as the word God doth not reveal to and in every Man As for example not to any of the Quakers or any others here here in England all that is sufficient to their Salvation by the common Illumination without special superadded Illuminations of Christ by the Holy Spirit that is more excellent than the common in the use of the outward means to wit the Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures outwardly Preached or at leastwise read to us or by us If they say it doth then let them not only tell us but prove to us intelligibly to convince our Natural Rational Faculty which W. P. calleth the Eye or Sight whereby the Soul of every Man is capable to discern what the Light within sheweth that the Light in them by its common Illumination without all outward means of Instruction from or by the Holy Scriptures hath taught them one or more of the Twelve Articles of the Apostles Creed according to the true sense of Scripture and generally received by all true Christians If they confess it hath not taugh them any one of them it evidently follows that they think not any one of them is necessary to their Faith or Christianity i. e. their Deism for Salvation And yet it is strange that W. P. should be so fallacious as as to affirm that the Doctrines of God of Christ of the Holy Ghost of remission of Sin and Justification from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation the Resurrection of the Dead are Fundamentals of the Christian Religion none of which the Light within them without Scripture hath taught him to believe as I think he hath plainly confessed and yet it hath taught him all that is necessary to his Salvation without Scripture he having denyed that the Scripture is the Rule of his or their Faith as touching any of these matters and consequently not so much as the Instrument whereby the Holy Spirit has wrought that Faith in him therefore what Faith he or they have of these things is but Historical and Uncertain and as the old Heavens that must pass away and which hath already passed away from them seeing they pretend they are come to the new Heavens already And yet he is so fallacious to say P. 97. It is generally thought that we do not hold the common Doctrines of Christianity but have introduced new and erroneous ones in lieu thereof This I have sufficiently proved to be true here and elsewhere and so have others done the same But what followeth Whereas saith he we plainly and entirely believe the Truths contained in that called the Apostles Creed Yes say I just so as he may say they plainly and entirely believe the Truths in the Turks Alcoran which may be supposed to have some Truths though many more falsities This saying of his seems to have a mental Reservation as if there were some things in that Creed that were not Truths W. P. would do well to tell us plainly what they are Section 9. Several places of Scripture rescued from his Perversions None are saved by the common discoveries of the Light within without special Revelation and Illumination which yet renders not Salvation impossible to virtuous Gentiles His Ignorance and Error about the Nature of the Light within considered as the Word God In his shewing what the Light within teacheth every Man he leaves out the chief matter that was necessary to his Argument to prove it sufficient without any thing else AND as for the places of Scripture which W. P. hath brought to prove the sufficiency of the Light within with respect to the common Illumination for every Man's Salvation without any super-added special Illumination and all external Light of the Holy Scripture which are these following John 8. 12. John 1. 9 14. Titus 2. 11 12. Eph. 5. 13. John 16. 7. Prov. 1. 20 to 24. John 8. 24. they are all one or two at most excepted that may be understood of the common Illumination as John 1. 9. to be understood of the Special Illumination given to Men under a Gospel-Ministry as is evident by the due consideration of them as for John 1. 9. allowing it to be meant of the common Illumination and diverse other places of Scripture that might be brought to prove that there is such a common Illumination from the word God in all Men as a preparatory Ministration this doth not prove that that common Illumination is sufficient without the special that is given to the Faithful And whereas he saith in his 6th Article or Section of his Gospel Truths They that turn not at the reproofs thereof to wit the Light within with respect to its common Illumination and will not repent and live and walk according to it shall dye in their Sins and where Christ is gone they shall never come Tho' there be a Truth in the words he has here set down yet he quite misapplies that place of Scripture John 8. 24. and fallaciously leaves out the foregoing words which are these For if ye believe not that I am he ye shall dye in your Sins and as it is in v 21. And whither I go ye cannot come by which words it is plainly evident