Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	church_n	faith_n	infallible_a	1,453	5	9.5102	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57953	Quakerism is paganism, by W.L.'s confession; in a book directed to Mr. N.L. citizen of London: or, Twelve of the Quakers opinions, called by W.L. The twelve pagan principles, or opinions; for which the Quakers are opposed to Christians examined and presented to William Penn. By W. R. a lover of Christianity.	Russel, William, d. 1702.; Roberts, Daniel, 1658-1727. aut	1674 (1674)	Wing R2358; ESTC R219761	57,659	96

there be no defect in either But to proceed In p 69. he saith The Apostles Doctrine contains Rules but the Light within that gave it forth was the Rule the chief or highest Rule for Guidance and Power and that wherein was the Power of Rule and Government to all true Christians And in p. 58. he is displeased much because his Antagonist doth not believe that their Light is sufficient to direct men to believe in Jesus Christ But is it not manifestly insufficient for that the Quakers who pretend to be guided by that Light do not believe in him as I have made appear Now when G. W. hath thus asserted the sufficiency and infallibility of the Light at the close of his Introduction p. 16. Dictator-like he comes forth like a Pope and General Council with a most dreadful Sentence against all that will not believe him in these words To deny the true God who is Light is Atheism But to deny his immediate Light in man is to deny the true God Surely this is a higher piece ofVncharitableness than Mr. Ives can be supposed to be guilty of in saying The Quakers are no Christians I could have alledged many more Testimonies but these are sufficient Now to prove that this is no new Doctrine let us hear what the Popish Priests say to this point The Papist saith It is that Body called the Church or Divine Revelation which is the Infallible Rule A Book entituled A Manual of Contr. written by a Pomish Priest lays this down for an Article of Faith That the Church of Rome is Infallible in all her Propositions and Definitions of Faith and is so to be received under pain of Damnation And this is known to be their professed Principle Bellar. de verb. Dei Interp. Those that speak against the Popes Decrees and Humane Institutions are false Teachers For the Pope hath Power and Authority to judg in all Controversies in Doctrine and to give forth the right meaning of the holy Scripture and no man may appeal from his judgment Charon's Third Truth chap. 2. having said That the Church and the Scripture are Judges together He adds But the Church is primarily and principally and with great preheminence and a little after The Scripture is not nor cannot be the last Rule and Soveveign Judg of Doctrine And chap. 3. p. 2. Faith that is necessary to Salvation comes from the Churches speaking and not from the Reading of the Scripture Without knowing of which after a sort yea and without believing or obeying it expresly a thousand millions are saved And to be short a man may be a Christian and a good Christian and be saved without the Scripture but not without the Church for the Scripture hath no Authority Weight or Power over us but only so much as the Church doth allow and assign unto it In a Boook entituled Reason against Railery c. p. 7. are these words It may be asked when one pitches upon a determinate sense of any place beyond what the Letter inforces by what light he guides himself in that Determination And then answers That that Light whatever it is and not the Letter is indeed the formal Revealer or Rule of Faith 〈◊〉 in the next Paragraph The Letter-Rule secluded I advanced saith he to prove That Tradition or that Body called the Church taken as delivering her thoughts by a constant Tenor of living Voyce and Practice visible to the whole World is the absolute certain way of conveying down the Doctrine taught at first In 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Stillingfleeton c. Part 2. p. 19. it 's said That Divine Revelation is firmer and more Authentick than either Scripture or our seeing and again It is the sole standing unextinguishable general Light set up for the assured Guidance of all men And p. 27. They are certain and know themselves certain and declare so much before the face of the Sun and all the eyes of Heaven by their stability fixedness and immovability in Faith In another Popish Book entituled A Rational Compendious way c. p. 31. The Roman Catholick Religion doth not teach any thing as an Article of Faith which is either an Error or a Corruption And p. 30. The Roman Church is infallible and perpetual Now from what hath been said we may draw this Conclusion 1. That if W. L. say true That he is no Christian who denies the Divinity of Christ If he means in the common sense viz. as he is the Second Person in the Divine Essence then the Quakers are no Christians for in that sense they deny the Divinity of Christ in denying the Trinity of Persons 2. That they do really deny the Humane Nature to be a part of Christ and that Sacred Person whom God hath Anointed with the Holy Spirit who is both God and Man The man Christ Jesus to be the Christ the Saviour of the World And so fulfil that Prophecy Even denying the Lord that bought them 3. From hence it follows That the Quakers have no Christ at all but one of their own setting up and adoring For the name Christ cannot be properly applied to the Divine Nature taken Abstractively as I have fully proved And they confess they own no other Christ but the Light within them which they say is only God though in truth it is but a created Light and they Idolaters in worshipping a Creature instead of the Creator 4. If he be no Christian that hath no Rule for his Faith and Practice then the Quakers are no Christians for they have no Rule for their Faith and Practice For 1. They confess the holy Scriptures are not their Rule 2. It 's apparent notwithstanding their high pretences they have not Divine and Immediate Revelation for their Rule for they cannot demonstrate it by Scripture right Reason nor any other way Thus I have used my endeavour according to the Exhortation of the Apostle 2 Tim. 2. 25 26. In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them Repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the Devil who are taken captive by him at his will The Lord open the eyes of their understanding and bless this Treatise to all those good ends and purposes for which it is intended To whom be glory in the Churches by Christ Jesus throughout all Ages World without end Amen William Russel Here followeth a Letter from the Baptized-Congregation in Reading concerning William Luddington Brother Ives I Received yours and advised with the Brethren about it and the Answer which is That we do not own William Luddington in any such Relation as Communion with us neither do we know any Principle of Religion that he is stedfast to But about ten or twelve years since he was here in Prison and blamed much for refusing to give God thanks for any of his Mercies or to joyn with them that did with many other strange Humours as Mr. Mason can tell you not suiting with Christian Religion But was looked upon by all to be a Quaker and sometimes a supposed Behmenist which uncertain Fictions best suited his wandring Fancy Sometimes he is for universal Communion with all sorts as he calls it And sometimes speaking against Forms and says He never preached for Baptism nor never would For that Text Mat. 28. 19 20. To the end of the World he says was to the end of that Age. And he had wrote a Book two years since to that purpose and going to print it But Mr. Maynard perswaded him to the contrary So that for this Ten years past we have been so far from any Communion that we have had little Religious Converse neither did we ever find he desired any with us And as for his writing on the behalf of the Quakers he hath done them so little service here that he hath only discovered his folly and made his best Friends ashamed of him and many others say they were deceived in him So that we may say He hath here met with the just reward of his folly and is discerned by all sober rational Christians and left only to be supported if by any by such giddy Brains that will lay hold on any rotten Post to support a Tottering Building But at last yours came and was so acceptable that your Enemies say you have gained great Credit by your discrcet managing that Business And you have morae raised the hearts of all your and the Lord's truly loving Friends towards you And as it is common for men that want Wisdom or good Argument for what they would have to supply it with Railing and abundance of words so your Adversaries have done But God hath furnished you better as appears by your managing this business To whose guidance we leave you with our prayers that you may be kept to the end And rest Your Brethren in Christ Signed by consent By Daniel Roberts Reading this 6th of Decemb. 1674.

is will be as hard a Task as it was to one Simonides to tell what God was but still we are as wise as before Ans Truly I don't expect to be made wiser by this discourse of thine about the Soul but give me leave to ask thee a few questions about it notwithstanding thy considence in saying It 's strange we should differ about we know not what 1. Dost thou believe the Soul of Man was Created 2. Dost thou not believe God to be Increated to subsist of and from himself and from no other 3. Dost thou believe it possible for the Blessed Creator of all things to become a Creature or for a Creature to be made God Blessed for evermore and to be without beginning and infinite He that can believe this may easily believe Transubstantiation I would have W. P. and W. L. consult together once more and see if they can invent some Answer that may Reconcile these 2 Propositions 1. That the Soul of Man was Created 2. That the Soul is God himself without beginning and infinite The first is asserted by God himself Esay 57. 16. The Souls which I have made The latter is asserted by themselves for they say the Soul is a part of God's Being c. and in this case that known Maxim will stand good Quidquid est in Deo est Deus Whatsoever is in God is God Now if they cannot Reconcile them if I come to be put to my choyce whether I will Believe God's Word or Their's I shall not only believe what God hath spoken but also that his Word will certainly stand against them for Evil. Jer. 44. ult For they have rejected the Word of the Lord and what Wisdom is in them Now I hope W. L. may see notwithstanding all that he hath said That though the Soul of Man be made Immortal and can never Die yet it had not always a Being it is not without beginning there being a time when it was not and that it is not infinite and God himself But I wonder W. L. should say that it is so hard to know what the Soul is he forgets sure that the Quakers have a light in them that they say can teach them all things if they cannot know what it is now the Scripture hath so plainly told them that Man hath a Soul surely they would have been hard put to it to have told us that and all other things Recorded in Scripture concerning God the Man Christ Jesus the Holy Spirit and the Souls of Men if they had not been written there Notwithstanding they have often told us That they could have known all those things contained in the Bible if they had never been written But I am glad we are not forced to be beholding to them for the knowledg thereof for if we were I have ground to conclude we must go without it for I have often asked What some of those things were that our Saviour did when he was upon the Earth that are not written But they could never tell me one of them Pagan Principle the 3d. THe Third Opinion charged on the Quakers is That Jesus Christ is not a distinct Person without us W. L. His Answer is These Expressions being not in Scripture are not owned by them and why we should impose them I know not Reader here is a plain confession that the Quakers do not own Jesus Christ to be a Distinct Person without us therefore T. H. is no Forger But I will examine his Reason why they do not own it It is saith he Because it is not expressed in the Scripture Now in case that supposition were true that cannot be the Reason why the Quakers do deny it 1. For first They deny the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians and therefore though they may sometimes make use of them against those that own them Argumentum ad hominem as I may make use of the saying of a Heathen Poet against a Heathen yet it 's shameful for a Quaker having exploded them in print from being a Rule of Faith to bring this as a Reason why they do not own it because as they say it is not written in Scripture and as W. P. doth in calling this Doctrine of T. H. Vnscriptural seeing all the real ground a Quaker can have to own any Doctrine is Because he is Taught it by the Light within and the pretence of any other proof to himself is but vain for that 's the Question Whether the Quakers themselves do believe Christ to be a Distinct Person without them 2. But Secondly These Expressions of T. H. are no more in effect than if I should say in other words That Christ is a Man without us and is he not called in Scripture the MAN Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2. 5. For surely to say he is a MAN is to suppose him both to be distinct and a Person without us Obj. But Christ is said to be in his People and to dwell in them Ans I grant it but the Scripture saith it is by the Spirit 1 John 4. 13. Hereby know we that we dwell in him and he in us because he hath given us of his Spirit Chap. 3. 24. And hereby we know that he abideth in us by the Spirit which he hath given us neither is this to be understood of the Essence but of the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit therefore it 's said so Ephes 3. 16 17. where the Apostle prayes that they might be strengthened with Might by his Spirit in the inner Man That Christ may dwell in your Hearts by FAITH 3. But thirdly I will prove that Christ is called a PERSON in Scripture Matt. 27. 24. Pilate saith I am innocent of the Blood of this JUST PERSON If they say he was a wicked man that said so then it seems a wicked Man did own more concerning Christ than a Quaker is willing to do But I can prove that the Apostle Paul useth that very Expression 2 Cor. 2. 10. For your sakes forgave I it in the PERSON of CHRIST and this doth not only prove Christ to be a PERSON but also that he is a DISTINCT PERSON without us Because Paul doth here tell the Church that in that Act he did Represent the PERSON of Christ he being in respect of his HUMANE NATURE absent and in Heaven and that he acted in his stead But surely the Opposition the Quakers make against the PERSON of Christ is wholly Vnscriptural Never any true Minister or Christian mentioned in Scripture did ever oppose this Doctrine of Christ's being a Distinct PERSON without us if they did let them shew it us in their Next 4. But Fourthly Seeing Syllogizing which they formerly condemned is now grown into Fashion among them I will give them one Argument to prove Christ Jesus to be a REAL and True MAN If all the Properties of a Humane Person were found in Christ then he was a Real and True Man But all the