Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
spirit_n father_n nature_n son_n 13,355 5 6.0279 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A64913 Truth and innocency defended being a sober reply to some excesses in a treatise written by John Norris, concerning the divine light, wherein his personal reflections and misrepresentations of the Quakers about their principle of the light are further considered. Vickris, Richard, d. 1700. 1693 (1693) Wing V341; ESTC R22212 75,043 73

There are 3 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

blessed Name viz. Christ Iesus signifying the anointed Saviour having relation to his Heavenly Manhood which he took upon is distinguished from the Word or Logos as 't is God himself in the abstract or as precisely taken yet we do not thereby divide him from his intire Immediate Union and Being as God in himself blessed for ever more Phil. 2.6 7. No more then the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 11.3 And the Head of every man is Christ and the Head of Christ is God Paul in this place must needs intend the Man Christ and this agrees with what Christ said of himself My Father is greater then I John 14.28 And this also agrees with the Confession of the Christian Faith set forth in the Lithurgy of the Church of England viz. The right Faith is that we believe and confess that the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and inferiour to the Father as touching his Manhood who although he be God and Man yet he is not two but one Christ one not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but taking of the Manhood into God c. I have been the more perticular in reciting this Confession foreseeing I may have occasion to make use of it before I finish this Reply Having made this digression and thus truly stated our Faith and perswasion concerning this Divine Principle of the Light within what it is I shall consider I. N's objections against it grounded upon the aforementioned quotation out of R. B's Apol. 133. By these words of R. B's Position viz. By the Seed Grace Word of God and Light we understand not the proper Essence and Nature of God precisely taken and he gives the Reasons which I need not repeat● but we understand a Spiritual Heavenly and Invisible Principle in which God as Father Son and Spirit dwells That which Iohn Norris infers from hence is that R. B. makes the Light though a Substance not the same with but really distinct from the Substance or Essence of God This Consequence as so laid down I deny as being injurious to R. B's sence for though he says the Light c. wherewith every man is enlightned and hath a measure of it c. is not the proper Essence and Nature of God Precisely taken as in its own intire fulness It is manifest by his following words he understands or intends the Deity or Godhead it self in the abstract as he was and is everlastingly in himself a most pure simple Being void of all Composition or Division as he well observes I may add incomprehensible dwelling in the Light which no man can approach unto whom no man hath seen or can see 1 Tim. 6.16 And again No man hath seen God at any time the only begotten Son which is in the Bosom of the Father he hath declared him John 1.18 and 6.46 And God it said to be in the Light 1 John 1.7 And therefore God as so considered and precisely taken in his proper Essence Nature and Fulness dwelling in himself cannot be properly said to be mans Light otherwise than in and through the Mediator he being so inapproachable as before For the same Divine Being which covereth himself with Light as with a Garment Psal. 104.2 dwells in the Light dwells in his Son our blessed Lord Christ Jesus who is in the Father and the Father in him whom the Father hath sent and who in Gods divine Light is come a Light into the World that whosoever believeth on him should not abide in Darkness John 12.46 Here God is in Christ reconciling the World unto himself 2 Cor. 5.19 And Christ is Light Approachable and Communicable in measure to the Children of men To him God hath not given the Spirit or Light thereof by measure John 3.33 But unto every one of us is given Grace according to the measure of the Gift of Christ Ephes. 4.7 Thus God in Christ as with relation to his manifestation to us and in us is distinguished but not divided from the proper Essence and Nature of God himself precisely taken But R. B's supposing the measure of the Light or Seed of God as in man not the Essence of God precisely taken implies it may be in some sence taken to be the Essence and Nature of God And this is doubtless what R. B. intended and is all that can be fairly deduced from his Words and not what I. N. infers that he makes the Light not the same but a distinct Substance from the Substance or Essence of God and this is manifest in R. B's explanation of this Spiritual Heavenly and Invisible Principle in which God as Father Son and Spirit dwells that he understands Christ the Heavenly Man by Vehiculum Dei and the Spiritual Body of Christ the Flesh and Blood of Christ which came down from Heaven which is all one thing and represent Christ of which all the Saints do feed and are thereby nourished unto Eternal Life as may be read at large in the 6 th of Iohn the Evangelist where Christ perceiving his Disciples to murmur at this as a hard saying which they understood not he explains what he meant by his Flesh and Blood viz. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing the Words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life John 6.63 From whence it follows that R. B. makes the Spiritual and Heavenly Principle to be Christ Who was and is that true Light which lighteth every one that cometh into the World Iohn 1.9 Again I am the Light of the World he that followeth me shall not abide in Darkness but have the Light of Life Joh. 8.12 Now if this Light be Christ and if Christ be both God and Man and as such that true Light as is most certainly true it inevitably follows that he has a two-fold Nature yet but one Christ and one Light one undivided divine Substance according to the aforementioned Confession of Faith One not by Conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God This is plain Now by taking the Manhood into God Christ hath not made void his Union in Substance with the Father nor is he a divided Substance from the Substance of the Father and Essence of God nor do R. B's words infer such a thing But that by means of his Heavenly Manhood he appears as in a middle Nature subject as with respect to Man to the Condescention of a Mediator and therefore may be resisted hurt wounded crucified or slain as to man and in man as in a Seed by the Stubbornness and Wickedness of man's will though as God dwelling in himself he is not nor cannot be subject to any of these things But Christ our High-Priest was and is and such a High-Priest became us For we have not a High-Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities But was in all points tempted like as we are
their Principle or not which is the chief thing to be considered and my present business to examine J. N. asserts The Quakers usually talk of this Light within as of some Divine Communication and Manifestation only By this assertion I conclude he represents the Quakers to own the Light within to be an accident and not a substantial inherent Principle of divine excellen●y I shall gently pass by his discant upon the word Inherent which though it be not used as an attribute strictly belonging to this Substance yet Omnipresence is and this word Inherent bearing a relative sence of the nearness or presence of that Substance to our minds is not such an ill suited Term as he would make it This construction of his words Communication and Manifestation only to be an accident he endeavours to evade by lessening the weight of my Argument from the first of Iohn the Evangelist but before I consider that I shall pursue my conclusion viz. that he makes the Quakers Light to be an accident It is obvious his words Communication and Manifestation only is opposed to the Divine Substance it self as the formal and immediate object of our Faith and Knowledge in which sence the Quakers profess and own the Light but Communication and Manifestation only is a created effect and consequently neither the formal object in the sence aforesaid nor indeed the efficient cause of our illumination but the illumination it self which being the product of some previous Agent can amount to no more then an accident which differs from a Substance as the effect from the cause Having thus distinguished upon the Proposition I see no reason I. N. has to fault either my Conclusion or Argument from the first of Iohn that the Life of the Word is the Light of men and my inferring from thence that it is a Substance considering he confesses the Word and the Life of the Word to be real Substances and that it must be granted the Life is the Light I am the Light of the World said Christ Jesus he that followeth me shall not walk in Darkness but have the Light of Life John 8.12 These viz. Light and Darkness are of contrary Powers really and not fantastically exprest consequently this Light must be a Divine Substance in opposition to an Accident As to I. N's distinction between Efficiently and Formally as applied to the Light I think it over-nice because he makes the Light in both respects the cause of our Illumination the one as the enlightner of our Understanding the other as the object of our Conception and what 's the difference more then in the Mode or Form of expression seeing in both senses he must needs be understood to infer the Light to be a Real Substance And forasmuch as he hath at length granted me the Quakers make the Light to be so too viz. a real Substance let him not henceforth say they talk of it as a divine communication and manifestation only which term Only whatever he thinks of it or however subtilly he seeks to evite it is exclusive of substance in general upon the explication and reason I have given and consequently a misrepresentation of their Principle● like as if he should say the Gospel which is the Power of God to Salvation were only a Declaration of good things would not this be exclusive of the Power which is the Substance I. N. says Though it be too plain to be denyed that the Quakers make the Light to be a Real Substance yet 't is also as plain that they do not make it the very Substance of God for which he quotes the following passage out of R. B's Apol. pag. 133. By this Seed Grace and Word of God and Light wherewith we say every man is enlightned and hath a measure of it which strives with them in order to save them and which may by the stubbornness and wickedness of man's Will be quenched bruised wounded pressed down slain and crucified we understand not the proper Essence and Nature of God precisely taken which is not divisable into Parts and Measures as being a most pure simple Beeing void of all composition and division and therefore can neither be resisted hurt wounded crucified or slain by all the efforts and strength of men But we understand a Spiritual Heavenly and Invisible Principle in which God as Father Son and Spirit dwells and this we call Vehiculum Dei or the Spiritual Body of Christ the Flesh and Blood of Christ which came down from Heaven of which all the Saints do feed and are thereby nourished into Eternal Life I observe that R. B's Position is so clear and well applied with Arguments that what he asserts he doth at the same time in effect prove by evident Reason and Invincible Consequence which I perceive I. N. in his own words had neither cause nor mind to dispute Now the Question is not whether the Quakers believe the Light to be a Real and Spiritual Substance but what they believe this Substance is and here if he expects I should follow him in his Philosophical Notions and explanation of this Principle he will find himself mistaken for that 's besides my Province nor have I so learned Christ but according to the Testimony of Holy Writ and Language of the Holy Ghost therein revealed I may treat something of it● believing it is a great Presumption and unjustifiable Curiosity in any man to dive farther into this Mystery then what God hath or doth please to reveal And yet it is a greater Presumption and I can hardly forbear calling it Prophane to deride and vilifie those Holy Words and Expressions in the mouthes of his People which God hath been pleased to make use of to reveal himself by and prefer others which his Spirit hath not taught if my Adversary shall still think it adviseable to continue this practice of rendering such Scripture-Language loose and canting I shall leave him to the Reproof and Judgment of that Spirit which in time will be found too wise and strong for him We believe that this Divine Light is Christ Jesus the Son of Gods love to lost man the ingrafted Word the same that became Flesh and that dwelleth in the Saints Iohn 1.14 The Word became Flesh and pitched his Tent in us who is from Everlasting the Second Adam or Lord from Heaven the quickening Spirit 1 Cor. 15.45 47. Who is the Image of the Invisible God the first Born of every Creature by whom all things were created and for him 1 Col. 1.15 16. And therefore he is in all things though with respect to operation as I observed formerly after a di●ferent manner and measure We believe him to be the Propitiation and Sacrifice for the Sins of the whole World the Mediator and Intercessor betwixt God and man even the Man Christ Jesus 1 Tim. 2.5 Then which there is no other Name under Heaven given amongst men whereby we must be saved Acts 4.12 That though this
to Man to be his natural and ordinary way of understanding To be contrary to Scripture Reason common Experience and natural Consequence But let us consider what Argument doth I. N. bring either of Scripture or Reason to enforce or maintain the Credit of his Notion None but makes the two following Queries 1 st What less then that meaning the very Essence of the Deity strictly speaking can be a Light to the Soul I answer that wherewith every man is enlightned or that Lighteth every Man and is measurably given to man is the proper Light of the Soul for though in it self or as in Christ it is the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in him so the Life of the Word is the fulness in the Word and Christ is that Word and that Word is God But a measure of that Life of Christ in us is our Spiritual Divine Light which measure of Life is not divided from his Life but proportioned to us as the Beams from the Sun which may be intercepted and vailed by the thick Clouds of Darkness and Wickedness that overspreads mens hearts His other Query is either grounded upon an ignorant or wilful Presumption That what is not the very Essence of the Deity strictly speaking is not God but Created his query is How can any thing that is not God or that is created be so viz. a Light to the Soul Here he miserably begs the Question upon at best a mistaken Notion viz. That there is no middle Substance betwixt the Godhead and us the contrary thereto I have made appear viz. That there is a middle Substance which is Christ the Heavenly Man the Mediator not created but begotten and this doubtless he very well knew was the Quakers Principle quoting a passage out of the same page wherein it is expressed in G. K's Way to the City of God where reprehending that mistaken Notion sayes he They have supposed that the Spirit or Mind of a Man or an Angel● is next unto the Go●head which I deny for the Heavenly or Divine Substance or Essence of which the Divine Birth was both conceived in Mary and is inwardly conceived in the Saints is of a Middle Nature This Middle Nature he calls a Divine Substance or Essence not as if it were the Godhead it self or a Particle or Portion of it and so doubtless he held the distinction upon the same reason and ground as is given by R. B. Thus it appears G. K. as well as R. B. makes the Divine Light a Spiritual Divine Substance and that Substance Christ revealed and made manifest in men who is both God and Man or God united with the Manhood as may abundantly appear out of his Writings The Way cast up and The Way to the City of God consequently not made nor created but begotten according to the aforementioned Confession of Faith of the Church of England But J. N. still goes on and says 'T is plain that they do not make the Divine Light the proper Substance of God but a certain Middle Nature which elsewhere viz. in his Treatise of the grosness of the Quakers Principle he makes to be a Creature or a Material Creature in which he is grosly abusive as may be farther manifested in its time and place But here he is out again for this certain Middle Nature he speaks of from that passage out of G. K. before recited Is the begotten of God as his Words plainly intimate and consequently must be his proper Substance as with respect to the Godhead of Christ for it cannot be supposed that the begotten of God can be otherwise This J. N says layes a sufficient ground of Difference I grant him his Difference but not that it stands upon a ●irm Ground because it confounds the distinction between the Godhead it self and the Godhead as united with the Manhood and tends to make void the Office of Christ as our High-Priest and Mediator through his Middle Nature as well as our blessed Light and Saviour In the close of this Section J. N. appeals to me in these words If my Adversary has but the Vnderstanding and Ingenuity of Man I dare appeal to him whether he be not fairly answered and confuted as far as concerns this perticular Whether I have the Understanding or Ingenuity of a Man or no 't is silly in him to appeal to me if he did not think I had and if he did 't was Idle and Impertinent in him to question it But since he has appealed to me leaving the Judicious Reader to think as he please I I must ●●eds give the Verdict against him And now by all that is said by him● and quoted on this subject from R. B. and G. K. how doth it appear that the Quakers are dark Aukward untoward and unprincipled in the way of representing their Principle viz. The Light within Thereby discrediting as he says one of the noblest Theories in the World unless their manner of representing it according to Scripture-Testimony and Language be so in his esteem and account That there is a difference in understanding about the Light is manifest I do not say in Principle but in the Explication thereof at lea●● we agree● 't is a Substance we both profess it to be a Divine Substance J. N. says the Quakers Represent their Light not as God himself but only as a Divine Communication and Manifestation I have already cleared this and opposed to it our Belief of the Light to be Christ a Divine Substance He goes on and says that is A something communicated or exhibited by God The Quakers say this Something as he calls it communicated and exhibited to us by God is his Son Christ Je●us who is the Heavenly Man or Lord from Heaven the Second Adam the quickening Spirit J. N. says he makes the Light to be the very Essence and Substance of the Deity strictly speaking This must needs be understood of the Godhead it self and as opposed to the Quakers Faith viz. That it is Christ the Son distinguished from the Godhead of the Father by his heavenly Manhood united with the Godhead in himself and is in all men in a degree and measure but more especially in his Children and true Believers that they also may be one in God the Father and the Son as they are one Iohn 17. I say J. N's Notion or Explication of the Light as before mentioned seems to be exalted above and exclusive of Christ in his heavenly Manhood who therein is our blessed Light and Saviour and does not this notion plainly confound the distinction and divide his Substance seeing the very Essence of the Deity strictly speaking and the Godhead it self are Synonimous Terms and signifie God as head of Christ who as so considered is the Anointer and not the Anointed for it is the Man Christ that is anointed with the Holy Spirit and not the Word or Logos strickly speaking or precisely taken for so he is God himself as is well