Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	proper_a	sense_n	signification_n	2,806	5	9.7840	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43233	Controversy ended, or, The sentence given by George Fox himself against himself and party in the persons of his adversaries ratified and aggravated by W. Penn (their ablest advocate) even in his huffing book of the vindication of G.F. &c. : being a defence of that little book intituled, The spirit of the Quakers tryed ...	Hedworth, Henry.	1673 (1673)	Wing H1351; ESTC R19542	43,134	72

for you to Speak and Preach that which ye have not received from Heaven Whence I further Argue thus He that Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven is a Blasphemer But G. F. Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven therefore G. F. is a Blasphemer It remains now that I prove the Minor Proposition of the former Argument namely G. Fox is not infallible and that also I shall do out of G. F's words thus He that so quotes Scripture as that he expresses the Pronoun Ye where it is to be understood or renders the Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by with or among or to or puts He for We or leaves one something that ought to be expressed or adds to Scripture words He that doth any one of these things or that which is manifestly equivalent such an one is a Perverter or Corruptor of Scripture and not infallible But G. F. doth some one of these things or that which is manifestly equivalent therefore G. F. is not infallible The same medium proves the Minor of the second Argument viz. G. F. Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven Thus he that perverts or corrupts the Scripture in any of the forementioned Instances or one that is manifestly equivalent Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven But G. F. doth so pervert the Scripture Therefore G. F. Speaks and Preaches that which he hath not received from Heaven The Minor of this and of the former Prosyllogism namely that G. F. doth so pervert the Scripture was proved in my Epistle by fifty Instances out of G. F's Book and I appeal to every unprejudiced Reader whether there be not as much weight in every one of them as in some of those for which G. F. chargeth his Adversaries with perverting of Scripture And whether there be not in many of them greater weight than in any of those And if it should prove that but two or three of those fifty Instances are full to my purpose it would be enough to prove what I have undertaken namely That G. F. is according to the true sense of his own words a Deluder and Blasphemer I have been forced to this way of syllogyzing that Mr. P's fallacious way of handling my Argument may more readily appear though I believe the common people did understand it as well if not better in that vulgar way wherein I propos'd it in my Epistle But to return The evidence of all the Premises is matter of Fact obvious to the eyes of every man that can but read English and discern one word or phrase from another or when he finds more or less in any Sentence for what can be lighter than the adding of a Pronoun to a Verb where it must be understood But I must not go too fast though my Argument proves G. F. to be a Deluder of People and a Blasphemer and so a Lyar yet it doth not prove him to be a false Prophet or Impostor therefore I added that large and indeed blasphemous Testimony of Solomon Eccles who saith Wo G. Fox is a Prophet indeed and hath been faithful in the Lords business from the beginning It was said of Christ That he was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not So it may be said of this true Prophet whom John said he was not I added also the Quakers common Principle which doth not permit any one to be of the Ministry as they call it but Him or Her that hath an immediate Revelation or a Prophet Now if G. F. be a Prophet and a Prophet indeed not only of the Ministry but the most eminent therein and the Patriarch of the Quakers and if he be a Deluder and Blasphemer even when he Speaks Preaches then it follows roundly that G. F. is a false Prophet or an Impostor This is the substance of that Argument which Mr. P. undertook to overthrow Let us now see how he hath acquited himself in that warfare First He doth not charge me with one word of false quotation that I remember either out of Scripture of G. F's Writings so that I take it for granted that the quotations are all true and genuine 2. He grants that G. F. is a Prophet or sent of God by his eternal Spirit to turn people from Darkness to Light p. 67. 3. He doth not deny at least for the most part but that what I have ascribed to G. F. as Scripture words quoted by him is such and consequently distinguished from G. F's Paraphrases Explications or Inferences But he doth deny 1. That G. F. his affirming things to be true which are false and false which are true to be obvious to their eyes or senses That is He denies that G. F. his putting them for him Col. 3.10 thereby changing the Antecedent with for in Ephess 2.6 the corruption he blames in others Conscience for Thoughts Rom. 2.15 God for Lord Rom. 14.9 God for Christ Col. 3.16 and so of the rest He denies I say that these and the like falsities in G. F's quotations of Scripture are obvious to his senses and yet 1. they are words written and therefore proper objects of sense and 2. the change of the words which is the falsity in this case is in his answers not denyed but excused So that this his first Answer comes to this That W.P. doth deny that to be obvious to his sense which he reads and acknowledgeth by excusing And if this answer may serve his turn I must confess I am non-plust for when I have shewn an Object of sight to a mans eyes by noon-day light and when he perceives it and acknowledgeth it by manifest implication If he still persist to deny it expresly I cannot help it nor I think any man in the World I may well be said to fetch Arguments out of Bedlam as he sayes If I should prosecute such a man any further But for the sake of some that will believe their Sense and Reason I will proceed 2. He utterly denies that such falsity as I have spoken of renders G. F. either a false Prophet or Impostor Lyer he doth not deny Now 1. I must confess I have not so subtil a wit as to put a difference between a lying Prophet and a false Prophet and if my Argument will serve to prove G. F. a lying Prophet I will not contend whether the name of Impostor be proper for him but use it without scruple till I be better informed concerning it 2. Let it be considered what it is that W. P. denies and it will amount to as much as if he had confest it For he denies that such falsities or changes of Words and Phrases in citing Scripture as G. F. by his infallible Spirit calls perverting and corrupting of Scripture are such which is all one as to say that G. F. is not infallible and if he be

not infallible he is judg'd by himself to be a Deluder and Blasphemer Now hath not W. P. vindicated G. F. to purpose Or has he not under colour of vindicating him condemn'd him and that with the most opprobious terms he could devise This that I say is very manifest so that if I would spend my time or the Readers so unprofitably I might here transcribe almost all that he saith as any way pertinent to the Argument and all his vilifying Speeches on that account and retort them upon G. F. to whom they do in truth belong and not to me For though I have in some instances imputed faultiness to him for small variations from Scripture words because I saw that those variations countenanced some error yet I am confident it would never have entered into my head so to do unless I had first found him blaming his Adversaries for perverting Scripture upon far slighter yea and ridiculous accounts Might I not here tell G. F. as W. P. tells me p. 50. Had he not been void of all sense himself and reason too he would never have suffered so much weakness and untruth to pass the Press without correction And p. 21. That no man in that compass could have manifested more weakness folly malice and untruth as well in defending of his own as in opposing our Principles then G. F. hath done in his Mystery of the Whore Witness the quotations before mentioned and W. P. Again p. 52. with a little variation But that a man should make 22 corrections of so many Texts of Scripture corrupted by the Translators and twelve or thirteen of them to depend upon the rendring of the Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in and not otherwise befits no man that loves to be profitably imploy'd but it therefore suits G. F. which is so over-run with c. That on Ship-board a kind of publick place or else I should not mention it he suffers as the Passengers inform elder men than himself and Prophets too to minister to him in the lowest Offices such as untying and pulling off his Shooes c. But how should Mr. Pen know that I am so over-run with the lazy Did his infallible Spirit reveal it to him for otherwise he doth but guess who I am Here he scorns me with saturnal Dreams See the tender Conscience of this Quaker He dare not use the word Saturn when it is a meer signification of a certain day in the week as John or Thomas is of a man but when if serves to abuse his Neighbour he can use it without scruple Again p. 53. I look upon it saith W. P. as conceited and presumptuous for any man to undertake what he cannot prove and not less base to affirm a man miscites perverts and corrupts Scripture when he renders the genuine sense of it Had Mr. P. so soon forgotten what he had read in the Page immediately foregoing Epist p. 6. Or Doth he think that Destroy ye this Temple is not the genuine sense of Destroy this Temple is this to vindicate G. F. to render him base And may not Mr. Pen p. 62. confess himself troubled as well for G. F. as for me not at his great skill but folly When he finds him asking his Adversaries so like a Critick Where doth the Scripture speak of humane the word Humane And will not W. P's words p. 6 † serve pertinently against G. F. viz Certainly then this word Humane is not of such dangerous consequence nor inconsonant to Scripture-language as this idle and ignorant person would render it But I must hasten And yet give me leave a little to borrow Mr. P's pathetick figure of speaking p. 80. thus And that which is more to be wondered at this miserable man even while he denies G. F. to be a false Prophet or Impostor doth manifestly assert him to be a Deluder and Blasphemer I heartily pity the man and am really affraid he has overcharged the strength of his brain for with me such manifest contradiction is but a smaller degree of distraction O stupendious folly Thus doth Mr. P. treat his Adversary These passages out of many more of the same complexion I have taken out of W. P's vindication of G. F. from the first instance of Scripture mis-recited in his language corrupted taken from John 1.9 which may be by me applyed to them according to truth but are by W. P. to me by abuse of my Words and Person as may casily be perceived by any intellgent Reader But that which is matter of wonder if any thing be so in this Author is That he spends near two and thirty pages upon this Head and concerning the Light and not one word that I can perceive whereby G. F. is any way vindicated from my chief exception which lay in this That every man whom the Light lighteth is not of necessity or effectually enlightned But G. F. reads it Every man that cometh into the World is enlightned I added for explanation of my sense Rom. 2.4 That the goodness of God leadeth to repentance those that are impenitent and not led to repentance I added moreover Mat. 5.15 and Luk. 11.33 36. but of this Mr. P. hath deep silence He spends near 16 pages about the translation and reference of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming whether to Man or to the Light and about the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lighteth or enlightneth which were transiently mentioned by me in less than three lines and not insisted on and may be determin'd either way without prejudice to my chief Exception He joyns Greece and Italy together calling me Pseudo-linguist to abuse me for my use of the Greek-Tongue yet has not charged me with any error therein which himself or his Authors have not recanted I said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 coming might refer to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Light as well as to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man He wonders that a man so mean in that Tongue should undertake to thwart the current of all indifferent Translators He ostentates his skill in the Oriental Tongues out of the Latin Translations of them which Tongue by the way cannot render the Greek of this Text so well as our English can The question is concerning the Greek The Arabick and Aethiopick as he cites them are on my side The three French and the Low-Dutch Translations as he renders them are for me Erasmus grants that the sense is ambiguous which is as much in effect as I say Mr. P. in translating Erasmus's words saith too ambiguous wherein he wrongs Erasmus Doth he learn that of the New Academy at Paris His Maldonate saith My sense is neither false nor absurd Grotius saith I do much approve of the Exposition which is extant in Cyril and Augustine that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 COMING be referred to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE LIGHT Dr. Hamond reads it so And are not these four indifferent Translators and Expositors