Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	divine_a	person_n	unite_v	6,435	5	9.4739	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65881	The Quakers plainness detecting fallacy in two short treatises : I. The first in answer to an abusive epistle, styl'd, The Quakers quibbles, and the comparison therein between the Muggletonians and the Quakers, proved absurd and unjust, II. The second, being a brief impeachment of the forger's compurgators (in their Quakers appeal answered) whose injustice, partiality and false glosses have given the chief occasion of these late contests / by George Whitehead.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1674 (1674)	Wing W1949; ESTC R38608	33,527	88

supposed that nighan hundred of the Anabaptists would clamor together and make a hideous Noise and Bawling to stop him that was about to speak and in such wise were we Beset Interrupted and Hector'd by their Companies in the Galleries and near us upon their Leaders Example insomuch that we must wait a considerable time ere we could be heard The Charge of Shuffling and Bogling at one single Question being afraid c. pag. 12. is unjust and scornfully aggravated for though there was some Intermission before an Answer was given it was not at all out of any Fear or to Shuffle about it but because 1 st It was not W. P's place then to Answer Interrogatories and unscriptural Questions when his Adversaries had given a Charge that we were no Christians and upon the Proof as they pretended instead whereof they fell to Catechising us 2 dly And if we had not at that Time answered one Word to the Question but held them to the Proof of their Charge judicious Auditors would have held us excusable To that of T. H's saying Most of the Particulars he would prove from our Principles and the rest by Testimonies p. 13. he said the rest by Consequence Though here T. H. made a Stop yet W. P. is charged with an Interruption a Lye a Fool and Vnjust when he did not insist on the Matter see their disingenuous Carping and Reviling Whereas many gross things were instanc'd and laid against him wherein he had most falsly and abusively personated us as so speaking and being our own Answers and VVords and our Method and Manner of Reasoning even in many Particulars which he had neither Testimony for nor are they deducible either from our Words or Principles However if he say He will prove them by Consequence this bewrayes his own Falseness in saying They were the Quakers Answers when they were but T. Hicks's Forgeries sta●●d in our Name and Person Sect. II. Of the Christ of God c. THat we have denyed Distinctions p. 15. is false for true and reasonable ones we deny not But if our Friends Words have not deceived this Man he saith we own nothing but the Divine Nature to be Christ p. 16. 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 Yet we must own that if he was the Son of God before he took Flesh he was Christ with respect to his Divine Nature as proceeding from the Father and that he was the Son of God before is not denyed that we know of in which Respect he was not seen with Carnal Eyes but with Respect to the Body which he took upon him in Time And as for two Natures viz. the Divine and Human united in one Person being the Christ p. 16. Then how consistent with this is it to say that the Human Nature or Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood is Christ p. 17 18. Which is all one as one while to say that Christ is made up of a Divine and Human Nature another while of a Human Nature or Body and yet that Body the Body of Christ. I must confess that if you impose upon us a Creed in such Impropriety of Speech and besides Scripture-Language and Phrase or otherwise unchristian us we must tell you that untill you bring us plain Scripture that saith the Human Nature is the Christ which Phrase some do conscientiously Scruple at least as being too low to entitle to the Christ of God we must rather patiently bear your Censure or Damnation then deviate from Scripture-Language in our Creed which is that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh that he is God Man the Son of God yea and God manifest in Flesh that as Mediator betwixt God and Man he is THE MAN Christ Jesus that Christ's Body of Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary and that suffered was crucified dyed and rose again the Third Day is called The Body of Jesus this Temple and a Body hast thou prepared me was not this the Son speaking to the Father As for J. Ives's great Question so much insisted on Whether Christ's Human Nature was a Part of Christ p 17. As it was not a Question in Scripture Phrase or Language so it was as abruptly and sillily obtruded begged instead of proving the Charge of our being no Christians As also thus to divine Christ into Parts is a Contradiction to the Human Nature being Christ. Pray you Baptists before you conclude a final Sentence upon us agree upon a consistent Creed that you intend to stand by if you will impose upon us to believe as you believe in Matter and Form upon Pain of Excommunication as Ethnicks or Heathens and finally of Damnation and then we may answer you further as we see Occasion you having already attempted to excommunicate us from among all Christians chiefly about Words wherein as yet you have not stated a plain and congruous Form among your selves And we need not think our selves oblieged further to answer you or defend our selves from your bare Charge of being no Christians until you have given us such a formal Creed and withal explain prove and reconcile these your Terms which you impose question and strive about some of you have endeavourd to tye us up to answer Aye or No unto as about your Expressions viz. Two Natures in one Person the Christ. Christ's Human Nature Part of Christ. The Body that was seen with carnal Eyes the Christ. Christ's Body of Flesh Blood to be Christ or Christ's Person The true Christ a Person without us or a Personal Being without us But let it be further observed that your Brother H. Grigg confesseth of Jesus Christ the Son of God thus viz. That he was of the same Essence or Substance with the Father the holy Spirit and that he had a PERSONAL EXISTENCE or Subsistence before he did assume our Nature c. See here they own a Personal Being of Christ before he assumed our Nature they should have agreed upon the Definition of Words Person and Personal Existence and Subsistence and clearly explain them to us in their Nature and Property as also the Nature and Extent of the Word Human both as they apply it to Body to Nature and as it relates to Man and not darkly and dubiously to impose them upon us in their ●uestions but rather be content with plain Scripture-Language and Words which the Holy Ghost hath taught which it seems these Men are not content with as also appears where W. Penn confest his Belief of Christ to be of the Seed of Abraham yet God over all blessed forever c. This was and is excepted against as not direct to the Question p. 18. Therefore upon their variable Terms about Christ I Propose these few plain Questions seriously

asking them 1. If the Son of God was not in Being in the Beginning and from Everlasting 2. If he was not truly the Christ of God being the Son of God before he took Flesh upon him or was born of the Virgin Mary 3. If Carnal Eyes could see him simply as the Eternal Son of God or his Glory as of the only begotten of the Father 4. Where doth the Scripture say that the Human Nature is the Christ 5. Or that Christ is a Person or Personal Being consisting of Human Flesh and Blood without us 6. Or that his Glorious Body in Heaven is a human Body 7. Whether the Man Christ Jesus the Mediator be really separate and remote from his Church or Members so as not to be present in his Church here on Earth 8. If Christ be separate remote or divided from his Church how is he the Head thereof or his Church a living Body without or divided from the Head If you profess you know Christ do not impose your implicite Notions unscriptural and uncouth Terms about him but declare your Experience of him Farther as to what we hold concerning the Christ of God in Answer to his 20th Page 1. Christ who was the Word in the Beginning in due Time came in the Flesh. 2. That though the meer Body of Jesus was not the entire Christ yet the Name Christ is sometimes given to the Body though not so properly as to the whole Man Christ. 3. That God was in Christ and the Father and Son are inseparable 4. That the Distinction of Father and Son is not only nominal as this Opposer implies against us but real in the divine Relation of Father and Son the Son as being the only-begotten of the Father and also known as Co-Workers in the Order and Degrees of Manifestation and Discovery 5. The Man 's accusing the Quakers with this Doctrine That the Father is the Son and the Son the Father and so God the Christ of himself and Christ the God of himself Somewhat like as Muggleton does in this Particular p. 20. Though these are none of our Words yet this favours of meer Ignorance and Envy we do not own any such Separation between God and Christ as these Words The Christ of himself and the God of himself do imply Socinian-like but that the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father as also that the Son is the mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of Peace see how plain it is Isa. 9.6 6. That Christ is not a Person without us p. 21. is not our Doctrine or Phrase that I know of or remember only that the Title is thought too low and unscriptural to give to the Christ of God many Men having Gross Apprehensions about the Phrase PERSON WITHOUT But Christ is confest by us both as without us and within us 7. We are charged that we must hold That Christ dyed not but only the Body that he assumed that was prepared for him p. 21. Now you Promoters of this Q. Quibbles for an Ingenuous Pamphlet I ask you if any more of Christ properly dyed then the Body Do you hold that his Soul Spirit or his Divinity dyed If not the Charge is foolish and silly if you do then are you like Reeve and Muggleton who have bla●phemously said that Christ's Soul and Godhead-Life dyed When as Christ's dying and being buried 1 Cor. 15. was properly that the Body dyed and was buried to wit the Body of Jesus See Mat. 27.58 Mark 15.43 45. Luke 23.52 46. and 24.3 John 20.21 As to what we say about seeing the Son of God spiritually and not carnally Or between the seeing him savingly and not so seeing him c. The Man is hugely taken with J. Ives's Answer to our Distinction That he cannot but own it to be very good and pertinent Jeremy ' s Words were saith he That then I or any man might say by the same Reason that W. Penn or G. Whitehead was never seen with bodily or carnal Eyes because the Excellency better Part of them viz. their Souls was never seen though their Bodies be seen which is not the Man p. 23. To which I reply It 's not improbable that if we had made such a Comparison you Baptists would have cryed out O Blasphemy 1. To compare the Names W. Penn and G. Whitehead with the Name Christ. 2. To compare the seeing G.W. W.P. with the seeing the Christ of God 3. It implies the Name of Christ to be no more excellent then the Name George or William Oh Ignorance in the Abstract 4. Did not the Name of Christ as well concern the more excellent Part or Divine Nature as the Manhood and far Excell those fleshly or outward Names of Distinction given to us as meer Men and Creatures and that by Earthly Parents or Relations and not from a Spirit of Prophecy as to respect some divine Qualification or new Nature for that must have a new Name therefore I must look upon J. Ives's Answer and Similitude to be both impertinent and irrational Sect. III. Our Opposer self-condemned his irreverent Quibbling about Christ and their Ignorance of the Spirit 's Evidence who seek for Signs c. AS for your standing Gaping well nigh an Hour for an Answer p. 24. If many of you had not gaped and hidiously bawled often to hinder our Answers but had been civil you had been more answer'd then you were His Charge That we are fit for no man to dispute with except some of Mugleton's Disciples p. 25. is far enough from approving himself an indifferent Penn But will the Baptists own this that they are such as Muggleton's Disciples when they propose for or admit of Disputation with us As for W. Penn's using the Words Lying and Forgery and Lyar and Forger in his Books against Thomas Hicks this the Man accounts gros Language that will hard●y stand with good Manners nor suit with a civiliz'd man much less with a good Christian and to say it is a Lye is Billings-gate Rhetorick more fit for Scoulds that are duck'd c. p. 25. This is made a very capital Crime with this Author who bids us speak Evil of no man but be gentle shewing all Meekness c. And yet he himself calls W.P. the Author of a Lye a Fool unjust p. 13. and calls us Fools Obstinate c. and so hath condemned himself both as a partial and a self-contradictory Pen. But why is W.P. the Author of a Lye The Pretence is for taking the Words out of T.H. 's Mouth before he had made an End of his Sentence as when he said most of the Particulars he would prove W.P. then saying most of them then not all which was upon a Stop that T.H. made there as he and many others apprehended Howbeit when T.H. added The rest he would prove by Consequence W.P. insisted not on the first Words but refused to admit of his Consequences be having told the World in

his Dialogue that they were the Quakers Answers c. but this Writer against us carps and traduces on every slight Occasions Would the Baptists think it fair to be publisht in Print for Lyars Fools and unjust on such an Account But for W.P. his accusing T. Hicks with being both a Lyar and Forger he hath both proved him such an one in his Books and further urged to prove his Charge against him publickly since his Abettors have endeavoured to cover and uphold him But it seems it is the Language Lying and Forgery and Lyar and Forger that is found Fault with here and not the Application thereof when as the Scriptures prove such Language as Thou lovest Lying rather then to speak Righteousness ye are Forgers of Lyes c. See Psal. 52.3 Job 13.4 Joh. 8.55 Rev. 2.2 3.9 21.8 Tit. 1.12 His accusing some of the Quakers with quibling as much about the Word Body as about the Word Christ I look upon it as no better then quibbling against us instead of proving us guilty by plain Scripture for to say the Church of Christ is his Body and that there is one Body and one Spirit and that they that are joyn'd to Christ are Members of his Body this is according to Scripture-Language as also that the Body is one and hath may Members so also is Christ and are not the Saints spiritually united into Christ and unto his spiritual and glorious Body Is Christ Head of his Church in any other Body then that whereof they are Members and united to him And will this admit of Christ's being Head of two separate Bodies or of Three Christs as his stating the Distinction upon G. Keith That Christ was most properly taken for the Divine Nature less properly for the human Nature least properly for the Carkas● pag. 28. whereas this is so far from G. Keith's proving Three Christs that the words Human Nature and Carkass were J. Ives's not G. K's as the first is herein granted though G. Keith owns the words Divine Nature Manhood and Body of Christ and confess'd the Name Christ to be given to the Body when crucified and dead though less properly then to the Divine Nature and intire Manhood since that the Son of God was the Christ of God before he took upon him the Body prepared for him as J.I. hath granted in his Book Inocency above Impudency p. 37. By his Argument That Christ is the Son of God Ergo the Son of God is Christ as I answer'd though I could not be heard that the Name Christ was mutually and reciprocally given in Scripture to the Body and Spi●it of Christ as Christ dyed and was buried when it was properly the Body of Jesus for his Soul or Spirit was immortal did not dye but was in Paradyse when his Body was buried and that Spiritual Rock which ●ll Israel drank of was Christ. Doth the Scripture herein make Two Christs No sure No more will G.K. his Distinction bear Three Christs in Three d●stinct Persons as the Man unscripturally and quibblingly words it pag. 28. And further It is very strange that W. P. in correcting the Baptists and others to set up his own as the True Church must be impos'd upon to produce some of those Gifts or Visible Demonstrations or Eminent Signs as were in the Church in the Apostles Dayes pag. 29. and 9. when as he never made that a Reason or Ground to correct others for want of such Signs as the Gift of Tongues Miracles c. but for some Un-Christian Principle or Practice however in this Case our present Opposers do argue as exactly like the Jesuits Papists against the Protestants for correcting them as if they had serv'd seaven Years at Rome But let it be remember'd how the Baptists themselves were in this manner excepted against after their first Separation from other Churches and gathering into a Church of their own It was objected against them If the Lord be with us where be all those Miracles which our Fathers told us of Where be the Gifts of working Miracles which were in the primitive time c And what Defence did the Baptists make for themselves herein but that the seeking after and Working Miracles in that outward way that is sometimes in Scripture spoaken of and that these men intend is not essential to a Believer and so not to a Church nor an Administrator See p. 69. of their Book entitul'd A Way to Sion by D. King printed at London reprinted at Edinburgh 1656. Also That Miracles did not prove them Disciples That Miracles do not now distinguish a true Church from a false Ibid. p. 135 136. Yet as if they had quite forgotten these things and the Oppositions and Sufferings which they formerly met withal they bring their Adversaries Objections against us And seeing if we should only tell men We are in the Truth the Light within them will testifie to our Way it is demonstrable by the Effects that we have the Spirit and are in the Power of God and that it is within while the Baptists so say they have it as he saith p. 31 32. and that all this will not decide the Controversie or manifest to our Opposer a real Discrimination between us to demonstrate us to be in the Truth Now as we have not this way imposed a Faith upon our Opposers so we shall not thus impose upon either this man or the Baptists but desire he and they may without Prejudice seek and try further and Try all things and hold fast that which is Good and we doubt not but where or in whom the Spirit of Christ lives and rules it will manifest it self by its Fruits for it is Self-Evidencing and will discover who are the Lord 's peculiar People and who not But this Quibbler imposeth upon W. P. to bring something for Proof of his Church which the Baptists nor no False Church can pretend to and produce pag. 30. Though this seems to be a hard Task especially as to what may be pretended yet it is no difficult mater for W. P. and many more to produce or demonstrate some such Effects of that Living Testimony Presence and Power of God among us as no false Church can produce although herein neither W. P. nor any of us will admit of Prejudiced Envious Spirits to be our Judges or Witnesses in these matters but we have a Record in Heaven and also in many Consciences of the blessed Power and Presence of God with us amongst us Turning many from Darkness to Light and from Satan's Power to God And many there are among us gathered out from Baptists and other Churches and Peoples who are Living Witnesses both of the blessed Operation and Effects of the Power and Ministry of Christ Jesus among us which yet if the Baptists should object and say They see no such thing I answer That is because they have not Honestly made Tryal but stood in Prejudice and Gainsaying

be the Divine Essence the Light must be so also for such as the Cause is such the Effect must be Thus G. W. in a Manuscript Whereas it is not thus laid down either in this Method or Form of Argument in any Manuscript of mine that I know of or an remember or find out and yet I do own That the Life which is the Light of Men that true Light wherewith every ma● is enlightened Joh. 1.4.9 in its own Being is God and Christ and not a meer Effect of Power as a made or created Thing but Divine and Increated It appears that these Witnesses have received divers Things on the Credit of their Brother T. Hicks who in like Manner layes down the Argument in his first Dialogue yet they have the Confidence to subscribe thereto though I confess I laid down my Reason to prove that Life which is the Light of and in Men Divine thus far viz. If that Life which is the Light of Men be of the divine Being then the Light must be so also Unto which I may now add the following Proposition But that Life is of the Divine Being or of a Divine Nature therefore the Light of Men spoaken of Joh. 1.4 9. must be so also I also grant that the Cause and Effect were spoaken of upon T. H. his esteeming the Light within but an Effect c. to explain my Sense of the Cause and Effect though not laid down in such an inconsistent Argument is placed upon me It was only admitted a● between that Divine Life and its immediate Illumination or Lightning in Man which naturally flows or proceeds from the Life So that if I should go meerly in the Form of Argument there being different Causes and Effects I should first distinguish between them As there are Causes and Effects or Products of one Kind or Nature so there are of different Kinds As the Sun and the Shining or Beams thereof are of one Kind and the Fountain and Streams thereof are of one Kind or Nature but so are not the Carpenter and the House that he makes c. as I plainly signified my Intention and Sense about that Immediate Light in Man being Divine Supernatural by a Reason of the contrary As the Light or Immediate Shining of the Sun in the Firmament is Natural because the Sun it self is a Natural Light so the Immediate Illumination or Shining of God in Man's Heart or Conscience must needs be Divine and Supernatural because he himself is so who is the Fountain of Light That Eternal Life which was with the Father 1 Joh. 1.2 is Divine and that Life was and is the Light of Men Joh. 1.4 And so 't is God who hath shined in our Hearts to give the Light of the Knowledge of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 4.6 And his shining we hope will not now be denyed to be Divine being immediately of and from himself and he so shined in their Hearts before they were come to the Knowledge of the Glory of God in the Face of Christ Jesus in Order to give them that Knowledge And I further add let it therefore suffice that it is my Principle That the Life which is the Light of Men mentioned Joh. 1.4.9 is Divine Supernatural and so Increa●●d and it was never my Judgment or Words that it was but a mere Effect as a Thing made but that in its own Being 't is no other then the Life of God and so himself and that every Measure or Degree of his Immediate Light Inshining or Illumination in Man is Divine and Spiritual and able to direct the Soul to God Christ from whence it cometh knowing also that God's Love and Grace in Christ is universal and free to all Mankind And why we should be Vnchristian'd for confessing Christ to be that Light which enlightneth every Man that comes into the World or for saying that the Light in Men is Divine I do not understand since T.H. himself hath confessed That Christ is the Life and Light of men Dial. 1. p. 22. Though this he hath often contradicted and since made it an Article against us to prove us No Christians that we hold That the Light wherewith every Man is enlightned is God when he himself hath confessed that it is Christ as namely That Christ is the Life and Light of Men. Sect. V. A slanderous Accusation of T. Hicks's against the Quakers removed AS to Matter of Fact Whereas we are charg'd to say That it concerns us to render our Adversaries as ridiculous as we can and to make our Friends believe they do nothing but contradict themselves and if this fail that we will insinuate by way of Question something that may be a Slander to them Dial. 1. pag. 72. and Qu. Ap. answ pag. 22. To prove this Charge T. Hicks saith that G. W. in his Answer to Mr Danson insinuates a Slander upon him by way of Question by saying That he styleth himself Minister of the Gospel at Sandwich but is not rather that Report of him true That he is given to Gaming and Bowls c And again T. H. addeth This Question was put meerly to slander him A notorious Untruth It was not put with any such Intent as meerly to slander him for it is true that such a Report was given to me of him and seem'd not improbable or then incredible to me such Recreations so call'd being common to men of his Coat It is true that by the Question before I did oppose a Gamster or Player at Bowls to a Minister of the Gospel but that I neither made the Report nor design'd to slander T.D. by way of Question or otherwise as I am slanderously accused see the following Certificate As concerning the Report that hath been made Question of touching T. Danson ' s exercising himself at Bowls c. when Minister at Sandwich I can certifie that I had this Report from an Independent who was an Inhabitant at Sandwich and who if Occasion require I question not but will evidence it and accordingly I made mention of this Report to George Whitehead witness my Hand Isaac Chatwode Now judge serious Reader how unjustly T.H. hath represented me as putting the Question meerly to slander T. D. whether he be concern'd or not I determine not which thing hath been perversly hinted in several Pamphlets against us And whether or no the said Question doth prove it our Answer Words or Principle to say That it concerns us to render our Adversaries as ridiculous as we can or that we will insinuate by way of Question something that may be a Slander to them as T.H. hath Dialogued the Matter in our Name after a most abusive sort beyond all Bounds of Honesty or Civility who farther attempts to prove that my Question before was put meerl● to slander him from what W. P. alledges in this very thing which is Who knows not that the Priests give themselves a Liberty in more