Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	godhead_n	person_n	union_n	3,927	5	9.3251	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47197	The way cast up, and the stumbling-blocks removed from before the feet of those who are seeking the way to Zion, with their faces thitherward containing an answere to a postcript, printed at the end of Sam Rutherford's letters, third edition, by a nameless author, indeed not without cause, considering the many lyes and falshoods therein, against the people, called Quakers, which are here disproved, and refuted / by George Keith ...	Keith, George, 1639?-1716.; Rutherford, Samuel, 1600?-1661.	1677 (1677)	Wing K233; ESTC R19568	115,272	246

Concerning Christ. 6. The second accusation a meere quible about the invented words of mans wisdom but the truth of the mystery is owned by the Quakers 7. Father Word or Sone and Ho●y Ghost are three otherwayes then in meere union operation or manifestion towards us onely but not three substances 8. Divers judged pious and learned men of the Ancients denyed and disputed against 3. hypostases and 3. persons as Jerom and Augustin 9. The third accusation a quible and false upon the matter 10. Christ is a singular man 11. Whatever excellency other men have the heavenly Man Christ Iesus hath the same and more also 12. The man Christ Iesus hath a substantiall dignity and excellency above all men in his manhood Nature 13. The Christian Quakers esteeme more highly of the man-hood of Christ Ies●● then either Presbyterians or Papists PAg. 9. to wards the beginning And yet every Article of this that they may for ever destroy the foundations of salvation is by them oppugned and subverted They puting a false Christ in stead of the true Iesus the Son of David our onely saviour denying Christ to be the second person of the Trinity denying Christ to be a singular person denying Iesus the Sone of Mary to be the alone true Christ but affirming Christ to be a common sort of thing to be found in every man as it was in the Son of Mary even the common Light to be found in the mind of every man in the world affirming Iesus the true Christ the Sone of Mary to be onely an ordinary vessell which containeth this Light as the Spirit of eve●y other 〈◊〉 man doth and so not onely pulling down our exalted Prince from his throne of glory but putting their false Prophets in his place cloa●hing them with the glory of his proper titeles as being Christ as well as he becaus containing the some Light with his 1. Answer Because the Author of the Postscript layeth the whole stre●s of all his accusations upon what he doth here lay down as the principls of the people called Quakers and for which as supposing all these to be truely alledged which ye● are extreamly false he goeth on at an high rate in divers whole pages both before and after these words of his already mentioned alledging that we deny all the Articles of the Christian ●aith strike at name thing of Christian religion thus robing us of the whole Gospell and turning us over into pure Heathenism shuts us out eternally from all access unto God and makes our salvation for ever simply impossible Therefore I have found it sit to sett down word by word these his particular charges which are the alone foundation of his whole discourse And allthough it may suffice to any sober man simply to deny these charges as applicable to us who are called Quakers and to informe the ignorant that they are a meere bundle of lyes and falshoods upon the matter and that this is enough 〈◊〉 overturn the foundation of his discourse and consequently the dis●ours it self that is built on it seing he doth not bring the least proof for what he alledgeth against us from the words or writings of any of that people but meer blind suppositions and false consequences which doe no wayes follow from our principle yet for the further satisfaction of the sober inquirer ● intend God willing and assisting me by his grace to goe through every one of these particulars and in the simplicity and nakedness of truth to give●●●ithfull accompt and declaration of our faith touching every particular which are eight in number The first whereof is that we put a false Christ in ste●● of the true Iesus the Sone of David one onely 〈◊〉 2. This is a false accusation for we acknowled● no other Christ but the one onely and true Chri●● Iesus the Sone of David our onely saviour 3. And that the soundnes and truth of our fait● may appear in this particular let the reader kno● that we do most faithfully believe and acknowled● Jesus Christ to be true and perfect God and true and perfect man 4. And that the nature and substance of his Go●-h●ad is not the nature and substance of his M●●-hood his Man-hood is not his God●head 〈◊〉 his God-head his Man-hood yet the Man 〈◊〉 God by reason o● that most wonderfull union 〈◊〉 the two naturs so that as the soule and body of a man are but one man by reason of 〈◊〉 union that is betwixt them although the soule be not the body nor the body the ●oule in like manner but in a more wonderfull sort the God-head and Man-hood of Christ are but one Christ without any confusion or transmutation of the God-head into the Man-hood or of the Man-hood into the God-head And the God-head of Christ is not any inferiour divinity or deity but the very same God-head of the Father so that Christ as God is equall with the Father and one and the same God with him of one nature and substance Again the Man-hood of Christ is a true and perfect Man-hood so that Christ as man hath a true and real soule distinct from the God-head yet forever united with the same in a most immediat and wonderfull manner of which union no other soul or Spirit of men or angels ever were or shall be partakers As also he hath a true and reall body so that whatever per●fection the Man-hood of any other man hath the Man Christ hath the same and that much greater and more excellent as may be afterwards shown 5. And thus the soundnes and truth of our faith may appear concerning the Lord Jesus Christ our ●lone faviour where wee agree with all that are 〈◊〉 and in the faith against the Socinians who deny 〈◊〉 true God-head of Christ and who also deny that Christ was before Mary whereas we believe that Christ was and is before all the First and the 〈◊〉 As also against them who deny the true and reall man-hood of Christ some denying him to have a true and real body of the Virgin Mary but onely ●antasticall as is said of the Manichees ot●ers denying him to have a true reall soule affirming that the naked God-head tooke flesh and suffered in that flesh which is said to be the heresy of Apollinarius as also against them who affirme upon the matter tha● there are two Christs and two Sons of God as if the eternall Word or Logos were the one Christ and Son of God and the man Iesus borne of the Virgi● Mary the other Christ and Son of God which i● said to be the heresy of Nestorius whereas the eternall Word and Man Jesus are not two Christs no● two Sons of God but one and the same subsisting in two naturs as the soule and body are one man according to what is already said which example 〈◊〉 soule and body the Ancients have much used to explaine this great Mystery as also they have used another to wit of a red hot

iron the fire in the 〈◊〉 answering to the God-head or eternall Word an● the iron it self burning and shining by the vertue an● power of the fire in it answering to the Man-hood 〈◊〉 Christ both which examples I judge to be useful and pertinent yet falling exceeding short of th● Mystery it self which is so great that is passeth● 〈◊〉 understanding of men and Angels The second particular is that we deny Christ 〈◊〉 be the second person of the Trinity 6. This is a meer quible about the invented words of mans wisdom which we deny albeit the truth of the thing it self we deny not but faithfully believe to wit that Christ as God is the second of the Three that bear record in heaven which three are the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are One as Iohn declared and we believe that these three that bear record in heaven are not three distinct natures and substances but the one in nature and substance not three Gods but One onely God not having three understadings three wills or three powers but one only understanding one only will and one only power 7. Yet they are three otherwise then in meer name operation or manifestation towards us onely being distinct in their relative modes or propertys so that the Father is not the Word nor is the Word or Son the Father allthough he be our Father nor is the Spirit that proceeds from the Father and the Son either the Father or the Son the Father is uncreated and unbegotten the Son or Word from everlasting is uncreated and yet begotten of the Father the Spirit is neither created nor begotten but proceedeth from the Father and the Son from everlasting the Father did not become flesh nor was born and crucified and rose but the Son or Word yet the Father is in the Son the Son in the Father the Spirit that proceedeth from them is was in them and with them from everlasting and is unto everlasting and whatever the Father doth the Word and Spirit do the same being one as in nature so in operation This Father doth all things by the Word and the Father and the word doe all things by the Spirit and yet as they are distinct in the manner or modes of being so also in the manner or modes of operation As the Father is first in the manner of his being so is he first in the manner of operation as the Son is second in the manner of his being so is he second in the manner of operation and as the Spirit is third in the manner of his being so is he third in the manner of operation Yet this priority is not a priority of time but of order for they were three before time even from everlasting and they all cooperat and work together And thus it may appear that we are sound in the faith as touching this great mystery and that we differr not in the matter or thing it self but onely as to the manner of expression which they themselvs grant is not by words divinely inspired as namely a Trinity of persons or three distinct persons Christ and the Apostles who declared of this mystery expressed it not in these termes of three distinct persons nor are these words recorded in Scriptures therefor we are not bound to expresse our faith in these unscripturall termes which the holy Ghost hath not taught nor indeed is there any need of those termes three distinct persons but rather they darken then explain the mystery which have occasioned not onely some of the vulgar but even some of them called the learned to erre grossely in their conceptions about the mystery it self as if the Father the Word and the Spirit were really three distinct substances each having a distinct understanding will and power and as if the word or Son were inferiour in nature to the Father and the Father greater then the Son as Origen is thought by some to have taught and as some do now teach and such although they affirme that the Word and the Spirit are di●tinct substances from the Father and that the Father is greater then they yet they do not acknowledg that the Word and Spirit are created or that they have their being from the Father by way of creation but only by way of emanation and they affirme that the Father is onely the most high God and the Word and Spirit inferiour unto him as being God onely by participation from and union with the Father and thus they think to defend themselvs as not being guilty of the Arian heresy whereas it was a branch of the Arian heresy to say that the Son or Word was not equall unto the Father But whither or not they be guilty of the Arian ●eresy sure I am they are in an error occasioned in great part by these unsound and unscriptural terms of three Persons in the Trinity for persons signify substances and not the modes or propertys of one Substance 8. And it is wel known that these words of Three Persons and 3 Hypostases have made great contention in former times and divers judged to be pious and learned men have denyed them and disputed against them as namely Ierome against three hypostases and Augustin disputeth solidely lib. 5. 7. de Trinitate that the words Three Persons are not properly applicable to the Mystery it self although he doth not know what other names to give them and surely it is too great presumption and curiosity in any men to dive further into this mystery then what God hath pleased to reveal or to give names unto it which the Lord hath not given And yet it is more presumption and smelleth rankly of a persecuting spirit to impose upon others these words which the Spirit of God hath not taught nor left upon record in the Scripture and yet becaus we do not own these words of mans wisdom and spirit to cry out against us as blasphemers and as denying the true Christ whereas we believe in and do own the true Christ according both to his God-head and Man-hood more according to the Truth and Testimony of the Scripture then our accusers do as I hope in its due place to shew The Third Particular whereof he accuseth us is that we deny Christ to be a singular Person 9. But this is another quible like unto the former for I ask him What doth he mean by the word Person whether the God-head or both united If he place the personality upon the Godhead it resolveth into the second particular already cleared but the Word or Godhead of Christ is not properly a person but an invisible Power and Life if he place it upon the Manhood as united with the Godhead this is contrary to their own doctrin who teach that the Word did assume the nature of Man but not the person otherwise he would be two persons and thus they distinguish the personality from the nature of man but this is a most

and their hearts inclined by the Lord to joyne with us in the same Testimony 8. Now as concerning Iohn Livingston whose exemple this Author commendeth to be imitated who when a certain per●on of that Profession being his former acquaintance came in love to visit him and also to give him true information concerning that people if ther had been place in him to receive it did in a most rude and Unchristian way refuse him accesse into his house yet having nothing justly wherewith to charge him and when he inquired of him what was the reason of his carrying so towards him he told him that he had joyned with a people that held blasphemous principles and when he again inquired what these blasphemous principles were he would not give an instance in one particular but found fault with him for speaking the plain Scripture language of Thee and Thou which Christ and the Apostles used to one person and of this rencounter B. F. a merchant in Rotterdam and I my self were both eye and ear-witnesses then present in company with the said person and it is a certain truth that this was the first time that Iohn Livingston spake with the said person after he was of that profession and yet he rejected him plain contrary to the Apostle upon supposition that he had been an heretick as he was not an heretick after the first and second admonition reject And wherein also he dealt contrary to many of his own brethren who have judged it their duty to speake with such and conferre with us and the Apostle willed that in meekness we should instruct them that oppose themselvs if peradventure God may give them repentance 9. But our great defence is that we are not Hereticks nor our principles hereti●all but truly Christian and Apostolick and it is the height of injustice to condemn us before we get a fair hearing and opportunity as often as need is to clear our selvs which neither this Author nor I. L. have ever given us And therefor I leave it with all sober people to consider whether this practice of I. L. doth not more resemble the Pope who forbids to converse with Protestants or read their bookes as being in his sense damnable Hereticks then either Paul or Iohn or Christ who often reasoned with the Srciber and Pharisees his greatest enemies and Paul disputed with the Iewes and Greek Philosophers that opposed themselves to the truth and bid reject none but such as were self-codemned which neither 〈◊〉 Author nor I. L. could justly say of any called Quaker 10. And here again I cannot cease to wonde● how this Author cryeth up Iohn Livingston and giveth him no less tittle then if he were another Elijah while he falleth out into such an exclamation ● saith he to see some on whom this Elijahs mantl● is faln c Which words plainly import that I. L. was a Prophet and had the same Spirit of Prophesy that Eli●ah had which is enough to make a mans teeth to water to perceive their pride and insolency on the one hand and there confusion and self-contradiction on the other while they plainly teach as I have already observed that the Spirit of Pr●phecy and immediat revelation and teachings of the Spirit are generally ceassed since the Apostles dayes as for I. L. himself whatever he was in former times sure I am in his latter dayes he was much in the dark otherwise he could not have so mistaken and misjudged us as he hath done if his habitation had been in the Light he would have seen and known better what wee had been But to passe this it doth not a little discover him to have been but a weak and cowardly man that at the meer will and command of men went over sea and subscribed his sentence of banishment with his own hand as others likewise did which the Author of Ius Populi doth plainly acknowledge I challenge the Author of the Postscript to shew me where any of the true Prophets of God or Ambassadours of Christ did such a thing surely this was no Propheticall act but rather a renuncing of all true obedience unto God not only to desert his ●lock but promise never to return to them nor to his native countrey on paine of death without leave of men Now put the case that God had commanded him by immediat revelation or given him an immediat message to return as he had wont to give immediat messages to Elijah did he not here bind himself up not to goe or else to make himself a transgressour guilty of death by his own hand-writting And if it ●e said there are no such immediat messages to be expected in our dayes then for shame let them forbear comparing him to Elijah or telling us of I. L. 〈◊〉 mantle 11. Surely it appears to me his mantle was ● cowardly Spirit which hath fallen upon many of them that they are runn away from their ●locks for they were not sent prisoners over sea but went away to shun greater sufferings and I. L. in his letter to his parishoners a little before his death is so ingenuons as to confess he failed in his duty in not bearing a faithfull Testimony before them who sentenced him and yet I find not that he ever mended this fault although he lived many years afterwards however he is now before his Judge and far be it from me to conclud he has not found mer●y with God nor should I have med-led with him if the great inju●tice of the Author of the Postscript had not constrained me and put me on a necessity so to doe But what if the Author of the Postscript knew no● so great an Ambassadour left behind upon Earth Surely there are many greater and more true Ambassadours then ever he knew and how did he know that he was a true Ambassadour I suppose he wi●● not deny his words to imply that I. L. was a very holy man 12. Now I ask him how doth he know this what is his rule in this case Not the Scripture for it 〈◊〉 nothing of such a man and as for the markes of true holiness how doth he know that they wer●●eally applicable to him seing an 〈◊〉 goe ●he length of all outwards and he can not know ●he inwards of a man without immediat revelation ●ndowning the Spirit to be the rule contrary to the Confession of faith and Catechism that say The Scripture is the onely rule and immediate revelation 〈◊〉 ceased SECTION VII 1. An Account of all the particulars upon which the Author of the Postscript layeth the whole stress of his accusations against us being eight in number 2. The first accusation false 3. We own Christ to be true and perfect God and true and perfect man 4. His God-head is not his man-hood yet the man Christ is God by reason of the most wonderfull union betwixt the two Natures 5. The Christian Quakers free of the errors of Socinians Manichees Apollinarians Nestorians and other Here●icks

foolish and groundless distinction that they have borrowed from the Popish School-men The Scriptur telleth us nothing of this nicity yet we do acknowledge the person of Christ. 10. And if by Person they understand his manhood or the man Christ Iesus we believe that Christ is man and a singular man that is to say he is not two or many men but one onely man as also he is singular for the excellency of his nature even as Man 11. So that whatever excellency any other man hath in his nature Christ hath the same and also far greater and more excellent in his who is the heavenly Man or Lord from heaven the second Adam that is a quickening Spirit whereas other men in comparison of him yea Adam the first Man is but of the Earth Earthly So that as farr as the most high heavens do excell the base and low Earth so farr doth Christ even as Man excell all other men and that not onely in accidents as the Popish school-men and the Presbyterian Teachers following them do teach but in nature and Substance And therefore as the Heavens do influence the Earth and make it fruitfull by the virtue that proceedeth therefrom so the heavenly Man Christ Iesus doth influence all other men by his Light and Life that they may be fruitfull in holiness and righteousuess and who remaine unfruitfull it is not for want of the Life and Spirit of the Heavenly Man as not influencing them but becaus that by unbeliefe they harden their hearts against his Heavenly breathings and influences And this distinction betwixt the very nature of the Soul and Spirit of Christ as man amd that of the soules of all other men is clearly held forth by Paul according to the wisdom given him of God that whereas the Soul of any other as namely the Soul of Adam was made a living Soul the second Adam is a quickening Spirit who quickens both the Souls and bodys of other men who in faith receive his quickening life and Spirit and whatever virtue the Souls of any other holy men have to quicken others they have it not of themselvs nor yet immediatly of God the Father but they derive it from the heavenly man or second Adam Christ Jesus who hath it immediatly of the Father who is the Mediator between God and Man even the Man Christ Iesu● 12. And this doth manifestly hold forth a substantial dignity and excellency in the nature of the Man Christ Jesus even as a man above the nature of all other men and Angels which the Papists and Presbyterian Teachers do both deny 13. And thus it may appear how much more we do esteeme of the Manhood of Christ Iesus then either Papists or Presbyterians SECTION VIII 1. The fourth accusation is false for we owne no other Iesus Christ but him who was born of the Virgin Mary 2. He was the true Christ of God before 3. That the man Christ Iesus was from the beginning 4. Some Scripturs brought and opened to prove this as Eph 3 9 Joh 6 38. 1 Cor 15 47 48. Joh 3 13. Eph 4 9. 1 Cor 10 3 4. the same proved from 1 Tim 2 5. and 1 Cor 11 3. 5. Christ was anointed from the beginning Prov 8 23. Psal 2 6. 6. The Man Christ before Abraham and John the Baptist. 7. Some more Scripturs opened as Psal. 110 34. Amos 2 13. Heb. 6 6. Rev 11 18. And some more Scripturs opened out of the Old Testament to prove that the Man Christ was from the beginning as Gen. 32 24. Gen. 19 24. 8. That the outward flesh and blood is not properly the Man but the Soul or inward man 9. More Scripturs opened out of the Old Testament as Ezek. 1 26 27. Dan. 7 9. 10. Christ his Soul and heavenly flesh and blood from the beginning 11. The Soul Life or Spirit of the Heavenly Man doth as far extend as his heavenly flesh and blood even to all the Saints 12. Though they have not the center or root of his Soul and Life in them but onely a measure ray or emanation of it 13. The Scripture no where saith that Christ did take his Soul but onely his outward flesh of the Virgin and so according to the flesh he was onely the Son of Mary David and Abraham by virtue of his outward conception and birth The fourth Particular whereof he accuseth us is that we deny Iesus the Son of Mary to be the alone true Christ. 1. This is a false accusation We own no other Jesus Christ but him that was born of the Virgin Mary who as concerning the flesh is the Son of Mary and the Son of David and the Seed of Abraham 2. And yet he was the true Christ of God before he took flesh and before he was the Son of Mary or David or of Abraham for his being born of the Virgin Mary made him not to be Christ as if he had not been Christ before But he was Christ before even from the beginning as I shall prove clearly out of Scripture Eph. 3 9. it is said expressly that God created all things by Iesus Christ. Now if all things were created by Jesus Christ then Jesus Christ was before all things for the cause is always before the effect at least in order of nature But to this they object that by Iesus Christ is meant the Word onely in this place whereas the Word onely is not properly the Christ but the Word as cloathed with the Manhood or the Man as united with the Word And so I answer that the Word onely is not properly the Christ without the Manhood but it is the Word made Flesh or made Man And therefore seing the Apostle by the Spirit of God hath declared that all things were created by Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ signifieth properly the Word made Flesh or made Man it is clear that according unto the Apostle the Word was mad flesh or Man even from the beginning 3. And this will yet more appear by comparing this place with other places of Scripture as Ioh. 6 38. For I came down from heaven not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me Now Christ spake this not simply as the Word or as God but as Man for as God he had no will of his own distinct from the will of the Father for the Father and the Word have but one onely will whereas the Man or Manhood of Christ hath indeed a distinct will which yet is always in union with the will of the Father And seing Christ spake this as Man it is clear from his own words that as Man he came down from heaven and was Man before he descended to take part of our flesh in the Virgins womb and therefore Paul calleth him the Second Adam the Lord from heaven and that heavenly Man 1 Cor 15 47 48. Also it is clear that Christ himself speaketh in the 6 of Iohn of his flesh and blood that did