Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A65854
|
The Christianity of the people commonly called Quakers vindicated from antichristian opposition sincerely tendered in behalf of the aforesaid people and their ancient friends by some of them.
|
Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.
|
1690
(1690)
|
Wing W1912; ESTC R27067
|
25,012
|
34
|
unfairly quoted G.F. upon trust leaving out what 's most material both Distinction and Explanation about the Soul or Spirit of man both with Relation to its Creator and to the Creature man being spoken of in both respects by our Friends 1. Where G.F. insists on the Words God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a living Soul It was to this Breath of Life as immediately coming from God that our Friends Words related as his Question plainly shews i. e. Was not that of God and of his Being which came out from God meaning that divine Breath or Spirit of Life by which Man became a Living Soul and from whence came not only Man 's natural Breath and Life but also his spiritual and this does distinguish between the divine Being and the Creature Man and not confound their Beings And for the Soul or Spirit of sanctified Man to center with God this is not to render it the Being of God or God himself We know none professing the true God and Christ so grosly absurd as to say That Man made himself or was his own Maker Saviour or Redeemer 2. Our Friend speaks plainly in the same Book quoted against him Gr. Myst. Fol. 90 91 100. That the Soul should be subject to the Power of God that Christ is the Bishop of the Soul who brings it up into God the Soul being in Death in Transgression Man's Spirit not sanctified c. This could not intend the Being of God for that never sinned though there be something thereof in the Soul even in that reasonable Soul or Spirit of Man which God by his divine Word Breath or Spirit formed in Man Zech. 12.1 and so made Man a living Soul On Jonathan Clapham's Authority and Report R. Hubberthorn is charg'd by this credulous Dr. That he expresly said The Soul was the Being of God Quoting R.H. his Truth and Innocency and Clapham's Discovery Epist. to the Reader for proof How envious and unjust is it thus to condemn Persons upon report of their Enemies who regard not Truth but revenge and perversness as in this We find not in all R.H. his Answer to Clapham any such Expressions as that the Soul of Man was the Being of God but rather the contrary yet that 't is immortal That the first Man Adam was made a Living Soul that the immortal Life in the Soul came from the same Being and so says Clapham that the Soul came indeed from God and is Immortal and that God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a Living Soul that the Soul is to be watched over that Peoples Souls are to be redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb raised up by the Power of God out of Death R.H. his Collect. p. 30.38 How can the Charge before stand with these Passages i. e. That the Soul of Man should be the Being of God and yet to be watched over by his Ministers redeemed by Christ and raised up by his Power That divine Sense which he hath given us would never admit us so to confound the Being of the Creature with the Being of the Creator as to render them both one and the same Being For though the Soul of Man be a Spiritual Being it is not God nor Christ but is saved by him This Adversary by his Instance in his second Charge which he takes upon Trust from our old Adversary Jonathan Clapham his saying that R.H. in his Book against Sherlock p. 30. brings Phil. 2.5 6. To justifie the Quakers Equality to God We look upon this Charge to proceed from meer Malice and as a foul Abuse of R.H. his words for the same Mind that was in Christ to be in us Phil. 2.5 6. was in respect to his Humility and Obedience There 's no mention of the Quakers Equality to God in R.H. his Answer But of Christ being Equal with God on Phil. 2.5 See his Collect. p. 34 Charge 3. Against W.P. and R.H. about the Term Trinity That God is the Holy One c. That few are so blind as either to affirm or believe that there are three Subsistences and but one Divine Being c. Obs. Pray where is the Unchristianity or Antichristianity here If he believes the contrary Viz. That God is not the Holy One that there are three Subsistences or Bottoms in the one Divine Being This appears not to us either consistent with the Holy Scriptures or good Sense See Deut 6.4 Mark 12.29 32. 1 Joh. 5.7 Joh. 10.30 Besides he has dealt very unfairly in this Charge taking no notice either of the Doctrin opposed by our Friendâ— which was that of Three distinâ—t and separate Persons in the God-head which we do not find their own Articles of Religion will warrant nor yet of their Arguments to the contrary See our Friend's Book Divinity of Christ yet the Dr. grants they i. e. the Quakers seem to own the Thing but not the term Trinity he might have added of separate Persons in the Deity because the Father Son and Holy Ghost are One and Inseparable and then his Sentence or Charge against us is because we are not satisfied with those unscriptural Terms of Trinity of Three separate Persons or Subsistences in the God-head and reverently profess the Father Son and Holy Spirit in the words which the same Spirit hath taught us in the Holy Scriptures Thus uncharitable and envious some of the Priests have appeared against us to condemn us as no Christians because we could not in point of our Christian Conscience come under their imposing unscriptural Terms upon us whilst they cannot deny but grant that we own the Thing or Doctrin intended Charge 4 5 6 and 7. Against some of our Friends for manifesting their Dislike of the Terms Human Personal Christ and that he took to himself an Human Soul and some Adversaries terming Christ himself an Human Body and some Friends asserting the Oneness of Christ's Body 1 Cor. 12.20 and his Heavenly manhood and Christ as but one in all his Saints Obs. Here again the Dr. has condemned our Friends as Unchristian about Unscriptural Words and Terms imposed upon us whilst we deny not the Thing it self namely the real Manhood of Jesus Christ as he is compleat Man the Heavenly Man yet his Soul Divine and Body Heavenly Spiritual and Glorious And cannot the Dr. with all his Learning find out an Oneness between Christ in Heaven and his Members on Earth and between his Members or Church on Earth and his glorious Body in Heaven so as to admit his Body in the fulness of it in Heaven and Earth to be but One are not his Members in spiritual Union with him 1 Cor. 12.12 And why the Man should either Antichristian or Unchristian any of our Friends because they think the Term Human too low to give to the Soul of the Messiah whilst he cannot prove it so termed in Holy Scripture we are yet to seek He still imposes without Proof or Demonstration as if his
own bare ipse dixit must bear us all down But note by the way that our Friends questioning the Term human as applied to Christ or to the Soul of Christ is still in honour and respect to Christ they taking the Term as originally relating to the Earth of which Man was made and not opposing it simply as it relates to Mankind nor questioning Christ's being perfect Man in Soul Spirit and Body as well as God over all in respect to his Divine Power and Oneness with the Father but being the Heavenly Man the Lord from Heaven the Question is if Human be not too low a Term for his Soul Charge 8 and 9. Against our Friends E.B.W.P. and F.H. 1 st For asking Where dost thou Read in all the Scriptures that God doth require satisfaction for the Sins of the Elect or laid any thing to their Charge 2 ly For cautioning against saying That God should condemn his innocent Son that he having satisfied for our Sins we might be justified by the Imputation of his Righteousness 3 ly And against F.H. for saying You are only talking of Christ at a Distance and his Righteousness as far from you as betwixt Earth and Heaven and here is your Justification Godâ—s Righteousness in you justifies Obs. Now seeing this our Adversary has put all these Passages under the Title of Unchristianity and Antichristianity charged on the Quakers Ancient Friends May we not justly place the contrary upon him that his Christianity is 1. That God requires satisfaction for the Sins of the Elect and charge them 2. That he did condemn his Innocent Son to satisfie Divine Justice for our Sins and to justifie us by the Imputation of his Righteousness whilst Christ is at a Distance and his Righteousness as far from us as betwixt Earth and Heaven and not in us Now first observe His thus excluding Christ Jesus and his Righteousness and Justification out of his People and so leaving People in their Sins all their days is expresly contrary to Holy Scripture Testimony contrary to the Righteousness of Faith and Testimony thereof say not in thine heart who shall ascend into Heaven that is to bring Christ from above c. Rom. 10.6 7 8. as well as to the Nature Intent and Tendence of Justification Redemption Pardon and Acceptance with God in Christ Jesus See Rom. 8.33 Who shall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect It 's God that justifieth and 1 Cor. 6.11 Such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God and Heb. 13.20 21. Where the Apostle both prayed for their perfection and that God would work in them that which was well pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ our Lord. See also these Scriptures Isa. 26.12 and ch 60.21 Psal. 32.1 2. Rom. 4.6 and ch 8.1 Titus 2.14 and ch 3.3 4 5 6. 2 Cor. 13.5 Rom. 2.13 Heb. 3.14 2 ly To place Man's Justification in a sinful unjust State upon such a kind of satisfaction supposed to Divine Justice that is Vindictive as they call it as by God's condemning his Innocent Son to undergo his Wrath and Punishment due to the Sin of the World in the Sinner's stead as many of our Opposers hold and this seems to be of the same Notion This is to justifie the Wicked and condemn the Just which to do is an abomination to the Lord Prov. 17.15 And thus to render the most dear and innocent Son of God the Subject of his Father's Wrath and of the Execution of his vindictive Justice to indemnifie Offenders continuing in their Sins How can this consist either with Divine Justice it self or with that most glorious Union Divine and Superlative Love that is and ever was between them And though we confess Christ's satisfaction in the Sense that God was always well pleased and satisfied in his dear Son in all he wrought and suffered for Mankind for Man's Redemption yet we find not in Scripture that ever he required such severe and rigid Satisfaction and Payment of our Debts from his Son in our stead or for the Sins of Men and thereby to acquit pardon and justifie the Guilty This Notion or Term Satisfaction and the Understanding of it is confest by Dr. Owen to depend upon some Notion of Law in his Declaration and Vindication and directly opposed and argued against by Dr. Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester in his Discourse of the Sufferings of Christ. Page 269 270 271 272 273 275. For he saith It is easie to observe That Socinus his Arguments are levell'd against an Opinion which few who have considered those things do maintain and none need to think themselves obliged to do it which is that Christ pay'd a proper and rigid Satisfaction for the Sins of Men considered under the Notion of Debts and that he pay'd the very same which we ought to have done Charge S.F. In his 9 th Charge again takes upon Trust Clapham's Quotation of a Book Entitled Saul's Errand to Damascus P. 8.9 In these words viz. Christ in the flesh with all that he did and suffered therein was but a Figure and nothing but an Example Obs. We deny these words as a plain Abuse Miscitation and Perversion For in the said Book of Saul's Errand Christ is confest as both the Substance of all Figures Types and Shadows and Example of his People The words are Christ in the Flesh without them is their Example or Figure which is both one as they intended who so writ for his being their Example 1 Pet. 2.21 and 4.1 and 1.15 and John 13.15 are quoted See also Luke 2.31 He was called a Sign Now hence to say he was But a Sign this were a gross Perversion Christ was our Example Now hence to say he was nothing else is an Abuse and alters the Sense as our Adversary has here done upon Trust condemning our Friends as Unchristian c. upon a false Report which is besides all Justice Morality and judicial Proceedings But whether the Word Figure may be in any tollerable sense attributed to Christ is the Question We find in some sense it is with other Words of like Nature and some meaner Characters are given to him as not only Example Figure Form of a Servant Similitude Habit Image c. but he was said to be made Sin and a Curse for us though he knew no Sin nor ever sinned 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 3.13 1 Pet. 2.22 His Humiliation Lowliness and suffering for us did not hinder him of his most excellent Glory and Dignity But to the Point in Hand in Heb. 1.3 The Son of God is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In some rendered Figura Substantiae the Figure of his Substance And Phil. 2.6 7. He took on him the Form of a Servant where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Form or Figure and he was made LIKE unto Men and was found in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉