Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	body_n	person_n	union_n	5,124	5	9.6609	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36551	A synopsis of Quakerism, or, A collection of the fundamental errors of the Quakers whereof these are a taste, viz. 1. That there are not three persons in the God-head, 2. That Christ did not make satisfaction for the sin of man, 3. That justification is not by imputed righteousness, 4. That our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification, 5. That a state of freedom from sin, is attainable in this life, 6. That there is a light in every man, sufficient to guide him to salvation, 7. That the Scripture is not the word of God, nor a standing rule of faith and life, 8. That there is no resurrection in the body, 9. That there's no need nor use of ordinances, baptisme, Lords Supper, &c. : collected out of their printed books : with a brief refutation of their most material arguments, (and particularly, W. Pens, in his late Sandy foundation shaken) and an essay towards the establishment of private Christians, in the truths opposed by those errors / by Tho. Danson ...	Danson, Thomas, d. 1694.	1668 (1668)	Wing D218; ESTC R8704	44,296	95

Consession was extorted by clear evidence Luke 4. 34. And Holy Harmless Vndefiled se●●rate from Sinners Heb. 7. 26. since he left the Earth 2. Because Christ Obedience was not originally due to God i● it had one debt could not have paid another I do not mean that Christ as Man was not subject to the Law of God because of the Union of the Humane Nature from the first moment of it's existence to the divine Nature in the Person os the Son of God For this seems contrary to Scripture Gal. 4. 4. Made of a Woman made under the Law and the personal Union seems no more to dissolve the Obligation of Christ as Man to the Law then to take away the Essential Properties Parts or Faculties of Body and Soul whereof his humane Nature did consist And if that Union did dissolve the Obligation of Christ as Man to the Law then Christ as Man could not be Holy by a true Inherent Righ●eousness of the humane Nature which lies in the Conformity to the Law of God given thereunto and so had not been capable of Meriting at all But in two respects may Christ's obedience be said not to be Originally due 1. In that he being a Person before he became Man he was at his Election whither he would become Man or not that is a rational Creature which of course or Ipso facto as we say upon it's existence becomes a Subject as the Connexion imports Made of a Woman mad● under the Law Gal. 4. 4. and so had the refusal of being under the Law● and he becam● Man that he might come under the Law 2. When he was Man he was not under an Obligation to obey to any such ends as to satisfie divine Justice and merit Life for them who had demerited Death For it not being in the compa●● of any meer Mans power there was no such Obligation upon any meer Man as to obey or suffer by way of Satisfaction for another man● Disobedience or to recover thereby the happiness another man had lost and make a new purchase of what he had forfeited and God had sei●ed into his own hands 3. The third Ground of the merit of Chri●● Obedience is the Dignity of the Person know not what other reason but the Digni●● resulting from the Divine Nature to the H●mane that the Blood of the Son of man is ca●led the Blood of God Acts 20. 28. God purchas● the Church with his own Blood The action of o●● Nature is the action of the whole Person Act●ones sunt Suppositorum we say in the Schools an● we distinguish between Principium quo an● quod A man is said to think and to speak because they are both the acts of the Person though the one he does by vertue of his Soul the ther of his Body And as sence is dignified by being under the command of Reason in a man which it is not under in a Bruit so is the Humane Nature by Union to the Divine As for the Cavil of Socinians whose Vomit the Quakers have now licked up that the dignity of the Person comes not under Consideration because t is not the God-head or Divine Nature that suffers it is very futilous They might with as much reason say t is all one whither I strike my Prince or a private Person or an Enemy or my Father because my blows do not fall upon Authority or Relation but on the person in Dignity or related to me as Grotius well observes De Satist Chr. c. 8. And it contradicts the common sence of all Nations who proportion their Punishment to the digni●y or the Person injured I shall answer one Objection though not in W. Pens Book Object How can God be said to forgive freely when he requires Satisfaction Are not these two Contradictory Answ 1. There is no contradiction between Forgiveness and Satisfaction because they are not ad idem they respect not the same Persons If Satisfaction were required of us we could not be said to be forgiven Answ 2. There are divers acts of Grace whereby God makes way for Satisfaction and the benefits of it 1. A Relaxation of the Law which term in the Civil Law notes an Act of a Superiour whereby the Obligation of a Law in force is taken away as to some Persons and things In the case before us there was such an act of Gods whereby he admits a surety whereas the Law threatned the Sinner himself A relaxation of the Law I say there was as that is opposed to an Abrogation which is not here for then the Elect whilst Sinners in state were not under the Curse of the Law which to affi●m were to contradict the Apostle Gal. 3. 13. and as a Relaxation is opposed to a favourable Interpretation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for then the surety were in the primary Obligation as when one Person enters into a Recognisance with another for his appearance in Court But Christ was not bound with Man in the Covenant of Works to see the Law kept or undergo the penalty which Relaxation was an Act of Soveraign●y to the exercise whereof his own grace and nothing foreseen in us did prompt him 2. Another act of Gods Grace is the Nomination and Appointment of a surety Christ was made a surety Heb. 7. 21. and by the Father Heb. 10. 7. I come to do thy will sayes Christ to his Father of his undertakement as our surety which is an act of Grace for the Debtor not the Creditor the Malefactor not the Judge is to find a surety A Representation of both these acts we have Gen. 22. 2. 13. where God admitted and provided a Ram for a Sacrifice instead of Isaac though the Letter of the Command was to offer Isaac himself 3. Gods Actual Acceptance the Payment or Satisfaction made and tendered by Christ which appears as otherwise so especially 1. By his Resurrection 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Flesh was justified in the Spirit that is by his God-head so called because t is in Nature Spiritual 1 John 4. 24. compared with 1 Pet. 3. 18. where t is said of Christ That he was put to death in the Flesh but quickned by the Spirit that is his Humane and Divine Nature And they instruct us in this Truth that Christ's Resurrection was not only an Effect of Divine Power but also of Christs Justification from our sin charged upon him in his Death and so a Foundation laid for our Actual Forgiveness to be built on by Faith That passage also contributes some Assistance Math. 28. vers 3. where the Angels of the Lord descended from Heaven and rold away the St●ne from the Door of the Sepulchre which would have been an Impediment to his getting out For what can the Creditors release of the Surety out of Prison signifie but that he is satisfied and the Debt paid 2. By his Intercession which being grounded upon his Satisfaction supposes it to be what it pretends full and compleat

Card. Pool that when one asked him how be should do to understand the former part of Pauls Epistle to the Romans Replied by practising the latter the former part being Doctrinical and hard the latter Practical and plain In vita Card. Poli. The neglect of such Advice hath provoked God to give men over to strong Delusions to believe Lies gross Figments such as I have here presented thee with Reader I shall not detain thee any longer but recommend thee and this small Piece to the Blessing of God by which if thou art preferved from being led away with the Errours of the Wicked and falling from thy own stedfastness I have obtained my end and shall therein rejoyce for e●er Thy Servant in the Gospel Tho. Danson London Decemb. 13. 1668. A Synopsis of Quakerisme 1. Errour That One God does not subsist in Three Persons THree things I must necessarily premise before I come to the proof of the Proposition which the Quakers deny 1. I must necessarily explain the word Person the usual Definition is Rationalis naturoe individua Substantia or an individual Substance of a rational Nature which Aquinas desends sum Par. 1. Q. 29. art 2. but some think it lyable to some Exception as whereby the humane Soul separated from the Body and the humane Nature of Christ are made Persons and therefore add to it Quoe nec est pars alterius nec ab alio Sustentatur i. e. which is neither the part of an other nor is upheld by an other I shall not interpose my Judgment in the case as remembering that I write for the Unlearned I shall chuse to borrow that of the Learned Wottan on John 1. vers 1. 2. pag. 29. which is the plainest and will not be gain-said I suppose by any Learn●● Man A Person is an individual Subsistence or Subsistent rather in an intellectual Nature or a several or singular thing that subsists by it self in a nature indued with Vnderstanding 1. The thing which we call a Person is by nature indued with Reason and Understanding A man we call a Person but we give not that name unto a bruit B●ast An individual or singular Creature of that kind is called in the Schools Suppositum 2. A Person notes some one indued with Reason and Understanding which is several and distinct by himself from another And hereby we exclude 1. Qualities or Vertues as Fortitude Temperance c. from being Persons though found in a rational Nature and distinct one from another because they subsist not by themselves but in a subject For a Person is entire of it self and must not depend on any thing as a property thereof And hereby we exclude 2. The Soul separated from the Body for the Soul is a part of the humane Species or of mans Nature and Retinet naturam unibilitatis as Aquin●s speaks Sum. p. 1. Q. 29. art 2. is to be looked upon as a part still in its Separation the Separation of it from the Body being a violence offer'd to it and therefore can no more be called a Person than the hand or foot ●ut off the Body or then a part the foot for instance of a Beast can be call'd a Suppositum 2. That the word person cannot properly be attributed to Father Son and Holy Ghost because they do not subfist in a several and distinct Nature of the same kind for if each of them had a several and not one individual Nature then they should be not only Three Persons but Three God● which need not be a wonder for as Divines say Deus creaturae nihil habent commune praeter nomen God and the Creature have nothing common to them both but names which Rule must be understood with the Limitation that other Rule suggests Nomina de De● creaturis non univoce nec pure aequivoce Sed analogice dicuntur secundum analogiam Creaturarum ad ipsum Aquinas Sum. par 1. Q. 29. Art 3. That the names common to God and the Creatures do not signifie simply the same thing nor wholly different but something wherein the Creature bears some Analogy to God 3. Yet may this word person be used by us and t is used in the Scripture of the Father Heb. 1. 3. to express the distinction of Father Son and Spirit in the God-Head and one from another And the reason why it may be used is this because a person signifies that which is most excellent and perfect in Nature and what the Scripture hath revealed to us concerning that distinction in the God-Head cannot be apprehended by u● under any other Notion or Resemblance which therefore we Attribute to God ye● after a most excellent manner For the nature of Man being finite may be multiplyed into many several Men or Persons of the same kind or Nature But the divine nature being infinite cannot possibly admit of a Multiplication For that there should be two infinite Natures implies a Contradiction Therefore when Father Son and Spirit are said to be Three and yet but one God we know not what to call those three but Persons for there is that ascribed to them viz Properties and Operations which cannot agree but either to Three Gods or Three Subsistents that is persons though not strictly yet proportionably or Analogically so call'd in the God-Head And thus I think I have in effect answered all the Arguments of the Antitrinitarians before I meddle with them For their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or grand Errour is that because the word person is not praedicated of Father Son and Holy-Ghost and of the Creature vnivoce that is the same word does not signifie wholly the same thing in God and the Creature Therefore they deny Personality of Son and Spirit whereas though the name person does not agree to them in the sence of it's first Imposition yet it does as to what we intend to signifie thereby answerable to the notion the Scripture hath Impressed on our minds Vid. Aquin. Sum. Q. 29. art 3. p. 1. In the next place I shall propose one Scripture and from thence gather some Conclusions the proof whereof will be all I shall offer and as much as will be needful for private Christian's Confirmation in the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity 1. John 5. 7. For there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy-Gho●t and these Three are One. The causal Conjunction for implies a re●son of somewhat foregoing viz That Jesus Christ was the Son of God vers 5. And so these words contain an Argument drawn from indubitable Testimonies And from them we may deduce Prop. 1. That there is but one God one in this verse is explained as meant of God vers 9. The Witness of God is greater referring to the Witness concerning Christ vers 7. not to vers 8. for none of those Witnesses are God Prop. 2. That Father Word and Spirit are Three Subsistents or persons 1. He attributes the Act of bearing Record to them

affirm Cons 3. That it was unworthy of God to pardon but not to ●nflict punishment on the Innocent or require a Satisfaction where there was Nothing due Answ 1. I do not say nor do we generally that is was unworthy of God to pardon Sin without Satisfaction because he did not think fit to do it That will be no better Consequence than to say if it had pleased God to Create the World Then it had been unworthy of God not to have Created it For God proceeded on good Grounds in reresolving the contrary 1. For though his Love to Righteousness and Hatred of Sin had been never the less if he had not punished Sin yet man might have been apt to have mis-judged him The sinner concluded God to be such an one as himself i. e. one that made as light a matter of sin as he did because of Gods patience towards him Psal 50. 21. 2. Impunity might have been abused sor an Incouragement to sin Eceles 8 11. and other reasons might be given 3. The reason why it was not unworthy of God to punish the Innocent is because of his free consent and Volenti non fit injuria and because as God he had a Soveraign and as man a special deputed Power over his life and the comforts of it Joh. 10. 18. He had a commandment to lay down his Life 3. According to Pen's Opinion Christ though Innocent and but a meer-Man Suffered only for an Example p. 19. and why not then for Satisfaction to Divine Justice that being a Nobler design 4. Christ when he suffered was not Innocent and when God required Satisfaction of him it was due from him Christ was guilty of our sin when he suffered for it For Guilt is but Obligatio ad Poenam an Obligation to undergoe Punishment which Christ was under by Contract Christ was a surety Heb. 7. 22. when our deb● was demanded of him And the surety is a truly a Debtor as the Principal though the manner of becomming such be different Cons 4. It deprives God of the Praise of his Love Cons 6. It Robs God of the Gift of his Son for our Redemption Cons 8. Then we are not beholding to God Answ I put these together because he here contradicts himself for if the Son was Gods Gift for our Redemption how are we not beholden to God or how is God deprived entirely of the prai●e of his Grace in our Redemption Cons 5. It represents the Son more kind than the Father whereas if he be the same God then either the Father is as loving as the Son or the Son as ●●gry as the Father Answ 1. Consider the Father and Son as God they are equally kind to Mankind and equally angry at mans sin as appears by their purposes of Mercy and Punishment discovered in the Promises and Threatnings 2. Our Doctrine represents not the Son kinder than the Father but intimates a distinct manner and order of Kindness or Operation about our Salvation answerable to the order of their being that as the Father is the first so the Contrivement of our Redemption is more peculiarly his Act the Undertakement of our actual Redemption peculiarly the Act of the Son It is a rule in Divinity Vnum idemque opus or operatio vel actio rather Opus enim est effectus actionis ad extra diverso respectu Personale est essentiale External Actions of God are in a diverse respect Essential and Personal The Decree of the Son of Gods Incernation the Creation of his Body and Soul the parts of that Nature he subsisted in were Acts ●ommon to Father and Son as one God or essential Acts but the Election of the Son to be our Redeemer in our Nature is the peculiar Act of the Father● The assumption of our Nature the peculiar Act of the Son or personal Act. Cons 6. It Robs God of the Gift of his Son for our Redemption in affirming the Son purchased that Redemption from the Father by giving himself to God as our Compleat Satisfaction Ans No such matter The designation of the Son of God to be our Redeemer considered as the Fathers personal act is a fruit of the meer love of God the Father yet the actual collation of Redemption in its effects and benefits depends on Christs purchase or as the Schools distinguish the actus volendi or the Fathers gift of the Son for our Redemption to use Pen's phrase depends on nothing without himself but the res volita or the Redemption it self our actual freedom from sin and wrath depends on what Christ did and suffer'd as an end upon its means Cons 7. By Christs payment of our debt it is not forgiven but transferd we owing that now to the Son which was owing before to the Father Ans He might as well say when a surety pays the debt the debtor owes that to the surety he owed before to his Creditor and so he is no better provided for than before to use W. P's words which is not true but when counter-security is given the surety by the principal Cons 9. If Gods justice be satisfied for sins past present and to come God and Christ have lost their power of injoyning godliness and punishing disobedience Ans 1. Christs obedience was not intended to exempt us from a personal obedience to the Law but from it only as a condition of life And we are only so far made righteous by Christs obedience as we are unrighteous by our own disobedience 2. God cannot punish disobedience by vertue of the Covenant of works upon a justified person for then he should exact satisfaction of the Debter after he had received it of the surety And why may we not say God cannot do what were unjust for him to do A moral though not a natural impotency may be ascribed to God Error 3. That we are not justified by imputed righteousness W. Pen. THe word justifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies justum facere and in the Scripture usage it is a foren-sick word and signifies to pronounce righteous and so is opposed to condemnation and accusation Rom. 8. 33. The word impute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supputo to cast account and the Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to think imagine and reason and hence in Scripture it is applied to a legal act whereby the righteousness of one viz. Christ is admitted for another and so far accounted and esteemed that others as that he obtains the benefit of it to all intents and purposes as if it had been his personal righteousness I shall produce for the word and thing but one Scripture which is express for us Rom. 4. 6. As David describes the blessedness of the Man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works that is the Righteousness of another without Works of her own else there were contradictio

Confirmation of it I say to urge these Arguments were to launch into an Ocean of Discourse I shall therefore only give a taste of their Arguments and so leave their Tenent to the judgment of the Understanding The Quakers Arguments will discover their meaning without any Explication of the terms Arg. Your Scripture is without but the Word of God is within Rom. 10. 8. The word nigh thee even in thy heart Fisher p. 31. Answ 1. Our Scripture is within as well as without That Command Let the Word of God dwell within you Col. 3. 16. is in a degree obeyed by every Saint And therefore by this Argument Scripture is the Word of God 2. That very Scripture Rom. 10. 8. speaks not of the Light within but of the Scriptures for the Apostle calls it the Word of Faith which he preached latter Clause of the Verse which he tells us was the Doctrine contained in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets Acts 26. 22. where we may observe that the Quakers urge th● Scriptures for their Tenents against us only as Argumentum ad hominem to confute us by our own Principles not that they own the Authority of Scripture Arg. 2. If there was a rule before the Scripture wa●●ritten then that is not our rule But there was a rule before the Scripture Fishers Quakers Folly c. p. 29. Whitehead by way of Question to the same effect what was their rule who spake forth the Scriptures Voyce of Wisdom Quest 4. Answ The matter contained now in the Scripture was always the Rule before it was committed in Writing though it was not always in the same manner nor degree conveyed and published Since the Gospel preached to Adam Gen. 3. 15. there hath not been any addition quoad Essentiam but only quoad Explicationem not in substance but in cleerness of Discovery In that respect God is said to have spoken to the Fathers by the Prophets at sundry times or as the Greek Reads by many parts or peece-meal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 1. 1. And the way of conveyance hath been different in diverse manners 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the same Verse viz. Visions Dreams c. In opposition to both which God is said to have spoken to us by his Son in his Person and Apostles who have left us a clear Comment on the old Testament And we are not now to expect any new Discovery of Truth Ex parte rei revelatae vel Objecti as to the matter revealed but only Ex parte actus revelandi vel subjecti as to the Persons whom God Inlightens gradually to discern the evidence of what is revealed in Scripture Arg. 3. What was the Gentiles Rule who had n●t the Scripture Answ 1. So much of the matter contained in the Scriptures as is written on their Hearts For the Scriptures gives us a Copy of all that is Written there with many Additions a new Object of Faith God in Christ Old Duties inforced by New Arguments Love to one another pressed by the example of Christs redeeming Love John 3. 34. Sins against Light of Nature as Uncleanness disswaded from by Arguments drawn from Union between Christ and our Bodies Christs property in them by Redemption c. 1 Cor. 6. 14. to the end 2. When we affirm the Scriptures to be the only rule we must in reason be supposed to intend to them who have them not who have them not 3. We must understand this Point in Conjunction with the former the Light within and so we say that they who have not the Scripture since it's Publication have not any other way a Discovery of God sufficient to lead them to him and so to Salvation which we intend when we affirm the Scripture to be the Word of God Arg. 4. What is their Rule who cannot Redd the Scriptures Must they be Condemned who cannot Read them Answ 1. The same Rule with thei●'s who can viz. the Matter contained in the Scriptures however conveyed whither by Eye or Ear. 2. They shall not be condemned for their natural Incapacity unless accidentally as their neglect of Learning to Read that they might be able to Read the Scriptures is their Sin but for their Unbelief and Disobedience to the Doctrine of the Scripture by what means soever come to their Knowledge As for that Notion of the Quakers in the Terms of the Question that the Scripture is but a true Declaration of the Word of God in the Hearts of Believers as Whitehead explains p. 16. I say but this Answ 1. The Scripture is a Declaration of what ought to be in the Hearts of Believers and not only of what is 2. The Pen-men understood not all they wrote 1 Pet. 1. 10 12. And there are Prophecies and Histories of things done before the Pen-mens Birth as well as personal Experiences Errour 8. That there is no need of any outward Teaching Cease from your out-side lights and return to the Light of Christ in you and this Light is not a Chapter without you in a Book James Naylor in his Glory of the Lord shining out of the North. p. 2. THe only Argument I shall urge is from Eph. 4. 11 12 13. He Christ gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists for the perfecting of the Saints Whence I draw this Argument If Christ hath setled Officers in his Church till it be made perfect in grace then there is need of outward teaching during its whole state in this life But he hath made such settlement c. The Antecedent is evident in the Text before us The consequence goes upon ● supposition of what I have before proved viz. that no members of the Church arrive to a perfection of grace in this life and therefore cannot be said at any time not to stand in need of teaching The Scriptures which the Quakers urge against the need of outward Teaching are these Their first Scripture Heb. 8. 11. And they shall not teach every Man his Neighbour and every Man his brother saying know the Lord. Answ That place cannot exclude outward teaching unless it could be no means of knowledge or unless there could be no knowledge of God but what were of ●mmediate revelation to the subject in which it is sound For compare this place taken out of Jer. 31. 34. with Isa 2. 3. speaking of the times of the Gospel in which the promise before us was to receive its full accomplishment and we finde that Out of Zion was to go forth the Law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem i. e. The knowledge of God to be conveyed by Ordinances for which Zion ●he Hill whereon Jerusalem the City wherein ●he Temple the Seat of Ordinances stood See Psal 87. 2 3. Psal 122. are often put And the fulfilling of it Christ and his Apostles did frequently teach in Zion or the Temple and so in Jerusalem Math. 26. 55. And the great Commission Apostolical was To preach among all Nations