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	unity_n	2,445	5	9.3406	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30899	Quakerism confirmed, or, A vindication of the chief doctrines and principles of the people called Qvakers from the arguments and objections of the students of divinity (so called) of Aberdeen in their book entituled Quakerism convassed [sic] by Robert Barclay and George Keith.	Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.; Keith, George, 1639?-1716.	1676 (1676)	Wing B733; ESTC R37061	83,121	93

which proceeds from the Spirit of God may also be called a manifestation But we say the seed it self is also a manifestation and those inward heavenly refreshments which God ministers unto the souls of his Saints are as reall substantiall spirituall manifestations of his goodnesse as the outward earthly refreshments to wit meat and drink are reall substantiall naturall manifestations Lastly they query if the manifestation be a substance whether is it one manifestation or all the manifestations To this we answer they that please to call the action or motion which proceeds from the Spirit of God an an efficient cause a manifestation may easily distingnish manifestation as it is a principle or quid permanens or as it is an action or quid transiens now to apply we say the substantiall manifestations of God inwardly to our souls are many as they are quid permanens and per modum principii for as God nourisheth our outward man not with bread and drink once only but often and many are our outward refreshments all which are substances agreeing in this that they are manifestations and pledges of Gods bounty unto us so doth he nourish our inward man with spirituall bread and drink not once only but often giving us daily the supersubstantiall bread as the words in the prayer may be translated and have been by some learned men and thus we have answered their last argument in their § 5. without recurring to any idea Platonica a term they vainly bring in to their argument to move people to laugh at their folly And thus we hope it is apparent that we have no need to retract our answers given in the dispute as they vainly imagin It would be more labour and expence of time and paper then the thing is worth to answer them in all their pittifull ridiculous reasonings in these matters in every particular Therefore not to weary the Reader nor mispend time we shall set down some few clear distinct propositions which shall clearly answer any seeming difficulties alledged by them in this whole Section as in relation to Christ. 1. Proposition The Word or Son of God hath the whole intire nature of Man Spirit Soul and Body united to him in the Heavens and he is the same in substance what he was upon earth both in Spirit soul and body 2. Christ in us or the seed is not a third spirituall nature distinct from that which was in the man Christ Jesus that was crucified according to the flesh at Jerusalem for the same that is in us was and is in him and as it is in him it s the fulnesse or spring of the same in us as the streame nor is there any difference but such as is betwixt the spring and the streame which are one in their nature and substance 3. We say that the same seed and life is in us which was in him and is in him in the fulnesse as water is in the spring and in us as the streame and this seed and spirituall nature which is both in him and us doth belong to him as he is the second Adam or man Christ therefore this seed being in us the Man Christ is in us not according to his whole manhood but according unto that which is proper unto it and yet without all division as the naturall life is in all the members but more principally in the head and heart without any division so this spirituall life and nature is both in Christ our head and in us by which he dwelleth in us as the spirit of man doth in the body and we eat and partake of his flesh 4. But if they argue that at least Christ hath three natures in himself we say Their own principle will conclude that as much as ours for the Godhead is one nature the nature of the soul is a second and the nature of the body is the third and our adversaries themselves teach that as God is three persons in one nature so Christ is three natures in one person 5. Although the word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should assume into union with it selfe not only two natures but three it should not make either two or three Chists but one for they grant that the Word hath assumed two to wit the soul and body of the man Christ and yet he is not two Christs but one even as the king is but one king although he possesse three kingdomes for ad multiplicationem obliquorum non multiplicantur concreta as your Logick teacheth 6. The seed and spirituall body of Christ both in him and in us belonging to Christ as he is the second Adam is as really and immediatly united unto the word as his outward body was for the wholl manhood of Christ was united to the Logos and the Logos to it and in it therefore the sufferings of this seed and spirituall body of Christ in us are as really his sufferings as these He accomplished at Jerusalem 7. This seed is not our soules but is a medium betwixt God and us and our union with God is but mediat through this whereas the union of God with this is immediat Therefor none of us are either Christ or God but God and Christ are in us 8. Seing this seed and spiriuall nature of Christ is one and the same both in him and in us it is most unreasonable to argue that there are as many Christs as men as it is unreasonable to argue that becaus the soul of man is in all his members that therefore as many members as many souls The element of the aire is but one only element although it fill the wholl universe betwixt the stars and the earth And the element of water is but one although it fill many channells 9. Christ outwardly died but once but inwardly he dieth in a spirituall and mysticall sense as often as any crucifie him to themselves by their unfaithfulnesse and disobedience as the Scriptures declare 10. As for the satisfaction of Christ without us we own it against the Socinians and that it was full and compleat in its kind yet not so as to exclude the reall worth of the work and sufferings of Christ in us nor his present intercession for if Christ his intercession without us in heaven doth not derogate from his satisfaction but doth fulfill it no more doth his intercession and sufferings in us 11. The sufferings of Christ in men are voluntary and yet without sin as his sufferings at Jerusalem were voluntary and without sin for as he joined not with them who outwardly crucified him in any Active way to coucurre with them or countenance them so nor doth he inwardly joine with men to countenance or concurre with them when they crucifie him by their sins 12. As there was no need that the Jewes should have crucified Christ outwardly so as purposely to sin that Christ might suffer for sin outwardly although the prophecies of Christs sufferings and Gods foreknowledge was certaine

their impertinencies follies and blasphemies which they obtrude upon us as arguments and in the issue their last probations resolve into meer assertions as much denyed by us as the things they undertake to refute therefore upon each section or subsection we shall but take notice what their arguments resolve into at last and as there is occasion set down some propositions that may serve as a key to open the Readers way through all these heaps of confusion and blasphemy wherewith they fill their pages As for the Scriptures brought by them Arg. 1. as Isa. 9. 2. Matth. 4. 16. Psal. 147. 19. 20. These prove not that they had no light for the light shineth in darkness Joh. 1. and Prov. 29. 18. doth not import that people have wanted vision from the beginning but that for some time they may want it to wit when their day of visitation is over which we deny not And whereas they tell us that the Greek particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often to be translated among and therefore so to be Col. 1. 26. and other places alledged by us we deny this consequence And that they say the Apostle is speaking of the outward preaching of Christ Col. 1. 26. is their bare assertion without any proof Also in their first argument they alledge a gross untruth upon G. K. as if he did hold in his book of Immediat revelation pag. 11. that the Jewes generally under the Law had no immediat revelation in the Seed let the place be read and it will clear G. K. where he distinguisheth a twofold sort of revelation in the seed according to a twofold condition of the seed the first sort of revelation is more hidd and obscure the seed not being compleatly formed but as under ground The second is more manifest and clear so as with open face to behold the glory of God The first sort of revelation is given universally unto all both Jews and Gentiles but the second is only given to the Saints in whom the seed is compleatly formed and brought forth As to their Queries we answer that Conscience and Reason are distinguished from the saving light of Christ in all men the revelation thereof as a naturall and supernaturall principle are distinguished and it was the naturall which Pelagius did exalt too much as our adversaries also do who affirm that men may be lawfull preachers without being renewed by the supernaturall principle of Gods saving light and Grace In the prosecution of their second argument 1. They deny the inward blood and sufferings of Christ referring us to their proofe afterwards which we shall in its place examine 2. They alledge that we hold an heavenly and spirituall nature in Christ which is distinct from the Godhead on the one hand and from the Manhood on the other which they call a third nature in Christ. But this their alledgance is false for that heavenly and spirituall nature is not a third thing distinct from both the Godhead and Manhood of Christ as shall be afterwards shown 3. They alledge that the Apostle doth not speak of any inward hearing or word but of the outward The Contrary is manifest from the Apostles own words in the same chapter the word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart Nor is their reason valid to prove it for the words vers 14 15. are not arguments made by Paul but objections adduced by him which he afterwards answereth and this is usuall with Paul in this Epistle As to their question wherein consists the nature and essence of faith we say it is a receiving of Christ laying hold upon him according to whatsoever revelation he makes of himself in mens hearts which is in some greater in others less but in all is in some degree In their third argument they undertake to prove that according to us the Scriptures are not necessary secundum quid or profitable but all in vain as for their example as they know examples prove not so is it vain and impertinent for we never compared the Scriptures to a mutilated and dim coppy they are a clear and perfect coppy as to all essentialls and necessaries of Christian religion but they are not the originall and seing we have answered them so many questions let them answer us this one Are not all these divinity books and Commentaries on the Scripture made by men not divinely inspired as a mutilated and dim coppy in comparison of the Scripture and whether is the Scripture or these books more perfect if they say the Scripture is more perfect then what need they the mutilated and dim coppy of these divinity books or what profit can they have by them which they cannot have rather by the Scripture Again here they confound the materiall and formall object of faith as if we did hold that inward revelation without Scripture did propound unto us the materiall objects of faith which is false for there are many of the materiall objects which are only propounded by the Scripture to witt such as the historicall part of the Scripture and in this respect we do not plead that inward revelation is the materiall object but the formall In their fourth argument they are so blind as not to take notice how we can give the same answer that they give concerning the Law that we who are under grace and obedience to the inward Law are dead as to the condemning power but not as to the commanding power thereof But that it is not the letter or any outward testimony of the Law that doth so powerfully convince a mans conscience as of other sinns so of covetousness as the Spirit of God doth in his inward convictions and smitings upon the conscience is clear from the experience of all these who have known and passed through the state which the Apostle spake of when he said I was alive without the Law but when the commandement came sin revived and I died Yea what law is that of the mind whereof he makes mention Rom. 8. but an inward Law by which the knowledge of sin comes and through which both the knowledge and remembrance of sin sticks more closely to the soul then through any outward law it can and did not Christ say that the spirit should convince the world of sin yea how many of those called Heathens who had not any outward law have declared that inward concupiscence was a sin As for their malicious accusation against us of our lust and covetousness we reject as not worth the noticing seing they assert it without any colour of proofe but it seems they have learned that wicked and devilish maxime calumni are audacter aliquid adhaerebit i. e. calumniat boldly that something may stick Their fifth argument is answered in the first as being a branch thereof Their sixth argument is built upon a false supposition that according to our principle all would be prophets and that no difference could be assigned betwixt prophets and pastors

differ widely for the want of sight in a stone is not privative as in a man but negative and surely there is so little witt or acumen in this argument of the Students and their prosecution of it that it proves them to be liker stones then men of reason and solidity And here they tell us that G. K. whom in their vain minds they call this great inspired Rabbi was very unfortunat in explaining this distinction and assigning its ground as may be seen in their Accompt but alas for them poor men they have egregiously baffled themselves in that very matter in their Accompt as is shewed in our answer thereunto But behold what dull and heavy disputers these men are If Positive permission were inspiration say they then a man might inspire us for he might positively permitt us This consequence is as dull and heavy as a stone although the weight of it falls not upon us but upon themselves to prove them altogether impertinent for their argument proceeds upon a wrong supposition that according to G. K. all positive permissions are inspirations a thing G. K. never dreamed of but only that some positive permissions to wit those of God are inspirations as he by his Spirit doth permitt men or allow them to doe or use some things as when God said to Adan in the garden of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat save one This was a positive permission and also if God spake this to him inwardly as is most probable and as Augustin supposeth an inspiration also when the Lord said unto Ezekiel cap. 4 15. Lo I have given thee cows dung for mans dung this was a condescendece and positive permission and also an inspiration But the Students proceed still more and more to baffle themselves in stead of baffling the Qu. and shew their ignorance and sottishnesse For thus they argue pag. 99. in prosecuting their third argument every inspiration say they puts us out necessarily to the doeing of the thing inspired and so commands us virtually And upon this bare alledgance the whole superstructure of this argument stands which yet is a manifest untruth and suffereth many undenyable exceptions for many times things inspired are not at all of the nature of things to be done but are simply things to be believed as when God inspired the Prophets with the knowledgs of things to come which neither could nor ought to be done by them and as when Daniel was inspired to know things which he was so farre from being commanded to write that he was forbidden Dan. 12 4. Again some inspirations are meer inward consolations and spirituall refreshments and renewings of strength only to enable us in generall to serve God as meat and drink is unto the body and that sometimes without words and sometimes with words by way of promise as when he spake to Noah Gen. cap. 9. from ver 8. to ver 18. where there is not any command given to Noah but only promises and yet Noah was inspired by the Lord as all the true Prophets were And wheras they alledge that inspiration includs in its notion an insuperable putting and prompting out to the thing inspired in all authors both sacred profane is meerly precarious for sometimes indeed it signifieth to command as where the inspiration is mandatory but at other times it signifieth to comfort refresh quicken influence and assist us without any particular command to any particular action yet we acknowledge the nature of all divine inspirations in the children of God is to incline lead move drawe and guid them up more and more into unity with God and so unto a further degree of holiness but not to determine them unto all particular actions and thus also their fourth Instance is disproved where they alledg that all inspirations of God determine us to one extream which is false if they mean an extream in the particular act if they mean an extream in the generall as to doe all in charity and to the glory of God we grant it but this doth not militate against what we affirme Their other two instances are but the former upon the matter repeated in a tautologicall way for want of new matter and are sufficiently answered above And thus their silly and faint reasonings in this argument are answered without any necessity of G. K. his returning to his bagge for new distinctions as they scornfully but foolishly insinuat Pag. 99. § 15. The Students tell us that G. K. finding himself beset with these inextricable difficulties as it seems misplaces this distinction in their Account and gives in another distinction of Particular and Generall inspirations this is but their meer alleadgance the distinction was right enough placed as any may see by the nature and coherence of the account nor did G. K. see any difficulty in their argument at all as indeed there is none in it But let us see how they refute this distinction of Generall and Particular inspirations or influences First they say he shall never be able to produce a ground for this distinction out of Scripture A learned refutation indeed and like unto their old way of puting us to prove what they can not disprove May it not as wel suffice us to say They shall never be able to produce a ground out of Scripture against it and the ra●her since we are defendants Secondly That which is called a generall inspiration could not put us out to any particular thing say they Answer If by puting us out they mean determine us insuperably or irresistibly thereunto we grant but this is no absurdity Thirdly They would alwayes leave us undetermined Answer nor is this absurd for in things that are permissive and left to our freedom in the Lord to doe them or not to doe them we need not any thing to determine us as to the particular act but may determine our selves being free agents although as to the nature and kind of the act in generall that it be in true love to God and to his glory we are determined by the Lord. Pag. 100. They are no lesse unsuccessfull in managing their other argument in comparing inward duties with outward for whereas they alledge for a proofe of their minor that if we were not to go about inward duties without a previous sensible inspiration there would be a progressus in infinitum This hath beene sufficiently answered above in the dispute that as to that inward duty of waiting we can not suppose that ever at any time an influence or inspiration can be wanting and this we say still we mean to true Christians who are faithfull unto God and do faithfully improve his influences As for others if they want influences either to inward or outward duties the cause is their unfaithfulnesse and so the way to have them upon all occasions is to be faithfull to answer Gods call who doth oft invite and call upon them who are unfaithfull But if they mean all inward