Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	world_n	write_v	year_n	344	4	4.5475	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39298	An answer to George Keith's Narrative of his proceedings at Turners-Hall, on the 11th of the month called June, 1696 wherein his charges against divers of the people called Quakers (both in that, and in another book of his, called, Gross error & hypocrosie detected) are fairly considered, examined, and refuted / by Thomas Ellwood.	Ellwood, Thomas, 1639-1713.	1696 (1696)	Wing E613; ESTC R8140	164,277	235

he knows w●re Io. Horn's terms But I observe he takes occasion from hence to make Sport with G. Whitehead and W. Penn their Philosophy even so far as to ridicule Divine Inspiration For he says he has oft told G. Whitehead that he and W. Penn will needs embrace false Notions in Philosophy they will needs seem to be Philosophers by Divine Inspiration as well as Ministers and Preachers by 〈◊〉 Had not the Philosophy himself so much dotes on and glories in been as his own phrase was a Ditch and a foul Ditch too he would have been more cleanly in his Expression and not have made Divine Inspiration the Subject of his Frothy Flout But it is high time for him to tack about and deny Divine Inspiration if he aspire to Preferment in that Church against which he has formerly said so much for it Thus having answered all his Quotations against G. Whitehead concerning the holy Manhood or Divine Existence and spiritual Being of Christ in Heaven as he is the Heavenly Man shewed that G. Whitehead hath not denied it I shall give a few Instances out of G. Whitehead's Books those especially which G. Keith has pickt his Cavils out of to manifest his owning the Holy Manhood or Bodily Existence of Christ in Heaven In his Book called The Light and Life of Christ within p. 9. refuting the slander of his Opponent he says False it is That the Quakers Christ is not Gods Christ or that they deny the Man Christ or the Christ that is in the Heavens In his Book called Christ ascended above the Clouds p 16. when his Opponent had asserted that Christ cannot dwell in Man and given this as his Reason For Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God He does not deny that Christ is perfect Man as well as perfect God but denies the Consequence that therefore Christ cannot dwell in Man Mind his Answer which is this To say Christ cannot dwell in Man doth not only oppose his Spirituality Deity and Omnipotency but also is contrary to the Apostles plain Testimonies of Christs being in the Saints And if he be perfect God he can dwell in his People as he hath promised and surely his being perfect Man doth not put a Limitation upon him as a Let or Hinderance to disable him from being in his People whilst he who was Christ as come in the Flesh was also truly Jesus Christ within in his spiritual Appearance and we do not confine him under this or that particular Name Again p. 17. I grant that Christ arose with the same Body that was crucifi●d and put to Death and that he ascended into glory even the same glory which he had with the Father before the World begun Many more Instances might be added But the Reader may take notice that in my last Book called Truth Defended written about a year ago in Answer to two Books of G. Keith's and which he hath not yet replied to I gave a dozen Instances out of those Books which G. Keith has carped at to shew that G. Whitehead did own the Manhood of Christ one of which seeing he hath not taken notice of them I may repeat here referring the Reader to p. 161. of that Book of mine for the rest That which I now repeat is out of a Book called The Christian Quaker and his Divine Testimony Vindicated Part 2. p. 97. where G. Whitehead saith To prevent these Mens scruples concerning our owning the Man Christ or the Son of Man in glory I tell them seriously That I do confess both to his miraculous Conception by the Power of the holy Spirit over-shadowing the Virgin Mary and to his being born of her according to the Flesh and so that he took upon him a real Body and not a fantastical and that he was real Man come of the Seed of Abraham and that he in the days of his Flesh preached Righteousness ●rought Miracles was Crucifi●d and put to Death by wicked hands that he was buried and rose again the third Day according to the Scriptures and after he arose he appeared diversly or in divers forms and manners he really appeared to many Brethren 1 Cor. 15. and afterwards ascended into Glory being translated according to the Wisdom and Power of the Heavenly Father and is glorified with the same glory which he had with the Father before the World began c. Is it not strange Reader that G. Keith should have the face to charge G. Whitehead with denying the Manhood of Christ who hath so often and so plainly confessed to it What else is this but to pin a wrong Belief upon a Man to make him seem erroneous whether he will or no But this is worst of all in G. Keith who hath so often taken upon him to defend our Principles and Us against Opposers in his former Books And even but lately in his Serious Appeal printed in America 1692. in Answer to Cotton Mather of New-England having justified G. Whitehead and W. Penn in their Answer to Hicks and Faldo says p. 6. I do here solemnly charge Cotton Mather to give us but one single Instance of any One Fundamental Article of Christian Faith denied by us as a People or by a●y One of our Writers or Preachers generally owned and approved by us And in p. 7. he adds According to the best knowledge I have of the People called Quakers and these most generally owned by them as Preachers and Publishers of their Faith of unquestioned Esteem amongst them and worthy of double Honour as many such there are I know none that are guilty of any one of such Heresies and Blasphemies as he accuseth them And I think says he I should know and do know these called Quakers and their Principles far better than C. M. or any or all his Brethren having been conversant with them in Publick Meetings as well as in private Discourses with the most noted and esteemed among them for about 28 years past and that in many places of the World in Europe and for these divers years in America This more generally But with respect more particularly to our owning the Man Christ hear what he said in the Appendix to his Book of Immediate Revelation 2d Edit p. 133. And here says he I give the Reader an Advertisement that although the Worlds Teachers and Professors of Christ in the Letter accuse us as Deniers of Christ at least as Man and of the Benefits and Blessings we have by him yet that the Doctrine and Principles of the People called Quakers as well as the People do indeed more acknowledge the Man Christ Iesus and do more impute all our Blessings and Mercies that are given us of God as conveyed unto us through him unto the Man Iesus than any of them all And he gives the Reason too Inasmuch says he as we do believe and acknowledge that a measure of the same Life and Spirit of the Man Iesus which dwelt in him in its Fulness and

Words thus Now the Quakers would be so far from directing Men to go to the material Temple at Ierusalem that they make it but a vain thing to look to Ierusalem to the Antitype of that Temple viz. to Jesus Christ as he was there Crucified or to that Blood that was there shed for Justification he says now see the Answer which he gives thus The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Ierusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood knowing that neither the Righteousness of Faith nor the Word of it doth so direct Rom. 10. And is it the Baptists Doctrine to direct Men to the material Temple and Ierusalem the Type for the Antitype What Nonsense and Darkness is this And where do the Scriptures say The Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Ierusalem to it Whereas that Blood shed is not in being said G. Whitehead out of p. 40. of Burnets Book This Charge G. Keith exhibited once before in his Book called The True Copy p. 19. And in his Gross Error p. 1 2. And I have answered it already in mine called Truth Defended p. 108 109 110. Where amongst other things I shewed that there is a Typographical Error in the Passage he carps at and that whereas it is Printed thus The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype viz. neither to the outward Temple nor yet to Ierusalem either to Jesus Christ or his Blood it should have been either for Jesus Christ or his Blood This G. Keith could not well shun noting though he doth the rest of my Answer Therefore he says Nar. p. 27. T. Ellwood thinks to put a Trick on the Reader and says it is wrong Printed and that it should have been for instead of to And in the Postscript to his Gross Error calls it a dull and silly Juggle But I not only said it should have been for instead of to but proved it and that I think very plainly For I did not only say I find it hath been so amended with a Pen in the Book which I have which as having the least weight in it G. Keith takes notice of and says I do not say G. Whitehead mended it which is a very idle Cavil For though I do not know but G. Whitehead might mend it yet if he did not what then Could it be expected he should with a Pen mend a whole Impression But that which I gave as a more demonstrative Proof of the Place being misprinted G. Keith takes no notice of which was this viz. The former part of the Answer shews it should have been so for there it is the Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype mark for the Antitype not to the Antitype And as it is so there to the Type for the Antitype so it must be here also to the Temple or to Ierusalem for Jesus Christ or his Blood This plain Evidence G. Keith willingly shuns and says nothing to it But shuffles about and says G. Whitehead has it to to to several Times for which he quotes p. 38 39. and 61. That in p. 38. is the place in Controversie In p. 39. he uses the Word to as referring directly to Burnet's Words whose the Word to was saying Where do the Scriptures say the Blood was there shed for Justification and that Men must be directed to Ierusalem to it to that Blood that was shed there were Burnets express Words and therefore it was expedient G. Whitehead repeating his Words should use it So likewise in that other instance p. 61. where G. Whitehead setting forth the Confusion and Self-contradiction of his Adversary keeps in expressing it to his own Terms and therefore says Mark how one while W. Burnet makes that Blood and the shedding of it his Justifier Redeemer c. which he has confessed is not in being Then which G. Keith quotes another while People must seek their Saviour above the Clouds and Firmament contrary to the Righteousness of Faith Rom. 10.6 Another while they must look to Ierusalem for Justification to the Blood that was there shed The Word to was expresly Burnets there therefore G. Whitehead kept to it But in the very next Line when he spake his own Words he changed the Word to into for saying But if Men should look to Ierusalem for that Blood it is not there to be found for it 's not in being says VV. Burnet Now as this and what I have said before manifests that it was a mistake in the Printing So G. Keith's contending to have it wrong rather than right against the Author's Sense and Mind rather than with it shews him to be not only an unfair Adversary but a Man of an evil and malicious Mind For none else would have repeated a Charge of Error against another and persisted to urge it as G. Keith hath done this from a Word denied to be the Authors and so apparently proved to be a Typographical Error only as this was before In his Controversie formerly with R. Gordon he blames him sharply for serving him so and tells him Thou abusest my VVords taking occasion from a small Error in the Printing which is a disingenuous way of dealing and had not thy prejudice blinded thee thou might'st easily have Corrected it by the Sense So might he this had ●ot his prejudice not blinded him For I suppose he saw it at first however I shewed him it a Year ago but prevailed upon him to wrong G. Whitehead knowingly which is worse than if he had been blinded Yet so earnest is G. Keith in pursuit of his false Charge that upon G. VVhitehead saying Burnet's directing Men to Ierusalem for Christ is contrary to Deut. 30.13 14. and Rom. 10. G. Keith cries out Is not this abominable Perversion of Scripture to confirm his Antichristian Doctrine But as forward as he was to Charge another he was as backward to clear or defend himself For in my former Answer to this Charge Truth Defended p. 110. I shewed him that what he now calls in G. VVhitehead an abominable Perversion of Scripture is not more than if so much as he himself had written thirty Years ago in his Book called Help in time of Need not retracted by him p. 63. where he saith expresly thus And now we need not say Who will go down into the Grave and bring up Christ to us or who will ascend to Heaven to bring him down to us or who will go over the Seas and bring us Tidings of him from Jerusalem where he suffered in the Flesh Herein he had direct Relation to the Words of Moses and Paul in Deut. 30. and Rom. 10. Him says he whose Name is the Word of God Rev. 19. we of a Truth witness nigh us even in our Hearts so that we need not either ascend or descend or go forth c. Upon which I

I ask him ● seeing he would restrain all to the fleshly Appearance and make all the Apostles c. to have pointed to Jesus the Son of Mary this Son of Man with an Hosannah to this Son of David and to none before him If he hath so considered him to be God the Saviour or the Son from the Substance of the Father as some of his Brethren have confessed the Son is And what Scripture-Proof hath he who pretends so highly to Scripture and blames us though falsly for not holding to it for these VVords He existeth outwardly bodily without us at God's right Hand And where doth the Scripture say He is outwardly and bodily glorified at God's right Hand Do these Terms express the Glory that he had with the Father before the VVorld began in which he is now glorified The Exception here is not against the thing but the Terms by which it is exprest The Thing that Christ hath a bodily Existence without us and is therein glorified and that at God's right hand is so far from being denied that it was never doubted But that this should he exprest in such Terms as the Holy Scripture doth not afford and which would limit Christ to any certain place or exclude him by the Word outward from being in his Saints is justly excepted against as contrary both to the Nature of Christ and Scope of the Scriptures And therefore G. VVhitehead asks his Opponent what Scripture-Proof hath he VVhere doth the Scripture say so And the more to lay open his Opponents absurdity in this Case goes on questioning him in the same place p. 41. thus And then VVhat and where is Gods right Hand Is it visible or invisible within us or without us only Now G. Keith might as well from hence infer and charge G. VVhitehead with denying that God has a right Hand as he doth from the other Questions That Christ hath no bodily Existence without us and both a like absurdly and falsly For he himself says in another place also of his Book called Truth 's Defence p. 165. When his Opponent would have drawn a Conclusion and inferred a Charge from a Query What is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate And blaming his then Opponent for urging Matters of Doctrine in unscriptural Terms he says in Truth 's Defence p. 169. Why is it that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion but to let us understand that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith which God requireth in common of all Christians are expresly there Delivered and Recorded And therefore says he for my part what I cannot find expresly delivered in Scripture I see no Reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or Principle of the Christian Faith or Life And p. 170. he adds Now if this were but received among those called Christians that nothing should be required by one sort from another as an Article of Faith or Doctrine or Principle of the Christian Religion in common to be believed but what is expresly delivered in the Scripture in plain express Scripture Terms of how great an Advantage might it be to bring a true Reconcilement among them and beget true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord Yet G. Keith himself who but in the Year 1682. wrote thus doth now which shews his inconsistency with himself and Injustice to G. Whitehead charge G. Whitehead with denying the thing it self because he did but ask his Opponent for a Scripture-Proof of a thing laid down not in Scripture Terms So industrious is he now to seek an Advantage instead of furthering a Reconcilement among them called Christians to hinder any such Reconcilement and cause a greater distance between them and instead of begetting true Christian Unity Peace Love and Concord to break and destroy as much as in him lies that Love and Peace that hath been and but for him and such other Incendiaries might be and increase among them But though G. Whitehead did reject the Baptists unscriptural Terms yet that he owned the Manhood of Christ as well as his Divinity may be seen in another Book also of his called The Quakers Plainness detecting Fallacy a Book not written t'other Day but in 1674. two and twenty Years ago where p. 18. answering an Objection that we own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ he answers Where proves he these words to be ours Have we not plainly and often confest also that the Divine Nature or Word Cloathed with the most holy Manhood and as having taken Flesh of the Seed of Abraham was and is the Christ. Before I pass to G. Keith's next Proof I must here take notice of a Marginal note which G. Keith makes in his seventeenth p. relating to the Book he last cited of G. Whitehead's called The Nature of Christianity The Reader may take notice that in p. 15. when it was Objected to him that the Book which he then mentioned was written An●●e●tly and that he had written in Vindication of our Principles since He there to turn off the Objection says I do say If it were my last Word● I know no● that I over Read a line of this Book till I came last to England But here quoting another Book of G. Whitehead's which he could not pretend Ignorance of in as much as he himself was not only concerned with G. Whitehead in the controversy on which that Book was written but had also a part in the same Book against his Country-man Rob. Gordon whom he Principally had undertaken to Answer in another Book called The Light of Truth Triumphing Published but the Year before Now to secure himself if he could from the like Objection he adds here his Marginal note thus Note There is an Additional Postscript by me G. Keith put to this Book of G. Whitehead Nature of Christianity the which Postscript I left in a Manuscript at London and with the Quakers Printed with this of G. Whitehead I acknowledge says he my want of due Consideration that I did not better consider G. Whitehead's words in that Book having many Years ago Read it but too overly and not having seen it since for many Years till of late Does this sound likely Does it savour of Sincerity and plainness Or does it not rather look like a silly shifting Excuse for his Condemning that now which he owned then and yet pretending to be the same in Judgment that he was then He goes on in his note thus But I am sure I did really then believe as I now do that Christ as man did outwardly and bodily exist without us for proof of which see my words in that Additional Postscript p. 73. where at N. 11. I blame R. Gordon for saying That the now present Glorified Existence of that Body or man Christ that suffered at Jerusalem is denied