Selected quad for the lemma: father_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A43233
|
Controversy ended, or, The sentence given by George Fox himself against himself and party in the persons of his adversaries ratified and aggravated by W. Penn (their ablest advocate) even in his huffing book of the vindication of G.F. &c. : being a defence of that little book intituled, The spirit of the Quakers tryed ...
|
Hedworth, Henry.
|
1673
(1673)
|
Wing H1351; ESTC R19542
|
43,134
|
72
|
What! eight times after the same manner Where was W. P.'s Conscience But can be not make sense of it Yes yes Suppose a Comma at the first made where and being understood explaineth the sense was maketh it more clear That 's one way Again Take the middle Clause and put in last interchanging the World and it thus And so to the Word Christ Jesus before the World was made him by whom it was made All this stir is to make it sense as for Scripturee 't is such as God's infallible Spirit in G. F. wirtes And may not a man at this rate excuse the groffest non-sense that ever was writ Go thy wayes for an admirable Advocate Once more let me ask the Reader what he thinks of the honesty of W. P. and whether he will excuse me hence-forward if I mingle any more Discourse with him It may benefit some or other therefore I will yet proceed a little further 13. Who can read Deut. 30.10 11 12 13 14. and not perceive that by the word very night unto them in their mouth and in their heart is meant the Word written And yet G. F. would have it to be the inward immediate Word and therefore in thy mouth must be left out as not well agreeing with that notion 14. It 's for the sake of that Notion that the Power of God is said by him to be the Gospel and the Gospel the Power of God as if they were convertible terms whereas the Apostle Paul sayes only That the Gospel is the Power of God not simply and absolutely but in a certain respect to Salvation to every one that believeth This I express't fully in my Epistle but W. P. would not see it but cries out Gross folly c. 15. Next you must know that the Quakers detest the thought of Christ's having the Essence of a man in any place remote from their own dear hearts and therefore when G. F. cites that Scripture Luk. 24.5 6. He must leave out of the very heart of the Text He is not here And W. P. will have it very aptly used to express the Mystical Resurrection but still he is not here must be out for that doth not quadrate with their fancy 16. And G. F. cites that Text Ephes 5.30 defectively to prove Christ not absent from his Church and W. P. avows it Indeed G. F. sayes He is deceiced who saith Christ is distinct from the Saints Myst p. 16. 17. But upon that Text Luk. 17.21 W. P. gives my chief exception a go-by takes no notice of G. F's changing The Kingdom of God into plain Heaven But if he had he abhors to think that Heaven is a visible place to be liv'd in bearing some resemblance to this visible World p. 12. 18. Amos 3.13 There G. F's applying that to Christ which is spoken of the Lord God favours their Doctrine of no distinction between God and Jesus Christ the Mediator and W. P. defends it on that account 19. The like may be said of 1 Cor. 15.28 where W. P. according to his usual candour tells me of Col. 3.11 but takes no notice of G. F. his citing Chapter and Verse which he is not wont to do 20. Joh. 1.1 God is the Word is defended by the same perverse Doctrine 21. So is his adding He or Christ to the Father Joh. 10.29 22. His palpable diminishing from Phil. 2.11 hath the same tendency and W. P. owns it G. F. in his own Cause would have exclaimed here as he doth upon the Ministers of Newcastle 23. W. P. talks of Brazen but I wonder with what face he could give such answer to John 15.25 which if it be not as G. F. cites it an addition to Scripture I never saw one nor ever shall What call for plain Scripture from another and at the same instant urge Scripture with addition himself He thinks if he can but make G. F. speak sense and truth in his Opinion he has done enough He may as well say all G. F.'s Book is Scripture for he believes it all as infallible as Scripture as if there were no difference between a Quotation and a Comment or Exposition But G. F. has said it Christ is not distinct from the Father That 's enough for W. P. though it subvert the Gospel 24. The like ground there is for inserting Christ into the Text 2 Pet. 2.1 which I have mentioned 25. And for putting God for Lord Rom. 14.9 26. And so he would confound God and the Holy Spirit by putting the one for the other 1 Cor. 2.10 14. And why did not W. P. answer what I urg'd rather then pass it by and call me Busy-body which is very easie 27. Add to these Col. 3.16 and John 17.5 which I am about to speak and we have 11 Texts abused to serve that goodly Doctrine of the Father Son and Spirit their not being distinct but all one A very trivial Matter that doth but subvert the Faith of Christ and introduce another Gospel 28. When G. F. sayes This is Scripture If we find it not there we must say He is mistaken and then he is fallible If he give us the sense of Scripture in other words and obtrude them for Scripture he corrects the Scripture instead of citing it Christ saith John 17.5 And now O Father glorifie thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the World was But G. F. Christ who was glorified with the Father before the World began W. P. cries out Sottish Ignorance and Enmity with a witness Did ever Christ of his Apostles or any sober man living chide or reprove a person if he did leave out or put in or change a word not in the least perverting the sense Yes G. F. doth it for expressing ye where it must be understood It seems then G. F. is no sober man in W. P's account and if so I know not how he should be a true Prophet But I have shew'd in my Epistle that he perverts the sense and that the Phrase is to be understood of the glory which Jesus had not in possession but in decree with the Father before the World was Here Mr. P. cries out lamentably That ever any man should undertake to correct others in that which doth not deserve it whilst the beam is in his own eye and is himself most guilty This is like the rest sutable to the honesty of Mr. P. that he should compare an Exposition of Scripture with a quotation of it And because the chief artifice of his Book is to render me odious and detestable under the name of Socinian mongrel-Socinian Bidlean and the like and for that takes no small occasion from my exposition of this Text I shall shew 1. that two great Authors no Socinians are of the same mind Grotius upon those words The glory which I had adds Destinatione tua in thy Decree Augstinus Et nuno clarifica me And now glorifie me Hoe est sient
unno it a nuno sient tune praedestinatione sie nuno perfectione That it us then so also now as then in Predestination so also now in Perfection Secondly I shall declare the Opinion of the Leading Quakers concerning the Essence or Beeing of our Lord and Mediator Jesus Christ so far as the equivocation of their Writings will permit And it was as much as all the reputation of the Quakers is worth to be plain in this point therefore we must not expect it from them First Then for the God-head or Divinity of Christ in the confession whereof Mr. P. and G. W. do so much glory and boast Mr. P. in his Sandy Foundation hath brought many Texts of Scripture and five Arguments from right Reason to prove that God is the Holy ONE not it Holy THERE that ONE is God and God only is that Holy ONE He rejects there that impertinent distinction that he God is ONE in Substance but THREE in Persons or Subsistencies G. Whitehead defends this Position of W. P. in his Book called The Divinity of Christ where in the Name of the Quakers he confesseth That there are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and that these Three are One both in Divinity Divine Substance and Essence not three Gods nor seperate Beeings That they are called by several Names in Scripture as manifest to and in the Saints and are One infinite Wisdom One Power One Love one Light and Life c. I should have given G. F. the preheminence for I believe he is the Author of this Opinion among the Quakers he saith Myst. p. 142. Christ is not distinct from the Father and p. 199. they are not only One but all One. Hence it is manifest 1. that when they say Christ is God they mean nothing by Christ neither Substance nor Essence Person nor Subsistent especially in the sense of their Adversaries Wisdom or Power Light or Life or any thing else that is really distinct from that which the Jews mean by the God of Israel or the Mahometans by one God He that believes less must be an Atheist 2. That the Propositions Christ is God and the Father is God are of the very same import and signification even as to say W. P. is a Man or The Author of the Sandy Foundation is a Man So that respecting the time before Jesus was born the Father the Son or Christ did as much signifie one and the same intelligent and happy Person or Hypostasis as Paul and the Apostle of the Gentiles the same individual Man or Person And this is that Opinion which Ecclesiastical Writers attribute to Sabellius and they that maintain it are called by them Sabellians The consequence whereof is that the Son of God or Christ as God was at that time nothing but another Name of God or the Father and had no more Life Knowledge Power or Property distinct from the Life Knowledge Power or Properties of God or the Father than he that is not has from him that is And so all that the Quakers contend for when they seem so zealous for the Divinity of Christ is nothing in the World beside their own glory and the disparagement of their Adversaries save that God or the Father was or might be in those dayes called Christ or the Son of God or the Light c. Thus much touching the Divinity of Christ according to the Leading Quakers Now for his Humanity or his being a Man And we shall find that what-ever W. P. talks of Christ as Man and as God yet that he equivocates and deludes his Reader believing no such thing as Christ his being a Man or else he dissents from his Brethren which I suppose he will not own 1. G. F. for it 's fit he should lead doth in an insulting manner crow over his Antagonists for using the word Humane when they speak of the Nature of Christ see my Epistle p. 37. Where doth the Scripture saith he speak of Humane the word Humane In his Epistle before the Divinity of Christ Is God a Man No he is a Spirit Is the Holy Ghost a Man It is called the Holy Spirit and Christ was a Man the Man Christ Jesus If G. F. believed Christ to be now a man why did he not retain the Present Tense is but change it into was very roughly But that which we find in the Postscript of that Epistle will put the matter out of question where that Author out of Scripture defines a person to be a Man or Woman sometime the Body the Face or visible appearance of either He cites many Texts out of the Old Testament for that use of the word Person and saith that in the New it is mentioned with the same acceptation as before in the Old As for instance saith he Thou regardest not the Person of Men Mat. 22.16 Mark 12.14 Luk. 20.21 In the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. faciem hominum the face of men he cites Gal. 2.6 2 Cor. 1.11 Jud. 16. where the same word is rendred Person and concludes That the word Persons is attributed to men How now If Christ is a Man and a Man is a Person will not Christ be then a Person No such matter according to these mens Logick for immediately he goes about to vindicate the Greek Text 2 Cor. 2.10 from being translated Person of Christ and sayes it is translated face of Christ or sight of Christ and our Poly-glottist W. P. saith p. 11. Christs Person is strictly considered an unscriptural expression and will needs make me manifestly guilty of perverting Scripture for using it But what weight there is in his friends answer to that Text I see not for if a Person be a Man or the face of a Man as he defines it then if Christ be a Man he will be a Person and his face will be the face of a Person And if Christ be not a Person then he is not a Man for the definition of a thing and the thing defined are convertible But that they do absolutely deny Christ to be a Person or Man I prove further out of G. W's Book Christ Ascended p. 24. This manner saith he of excluding God's right hand and Christ to a limitation out of his People in a personal Beeing which are no Scripture terms still implies him to be a personal God or Christ like the Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians conceits of his Where note that he doth with equal contempt reject a personal Christ as a personal God and so Christ is no more a Person that God and consequently no more a Man for they deny God to be a Person Again p. 31. Is the Essence or Beeing of the Son of God personal And p. 37. He challengeth his Adversaries saying What rule in Scripture hast thou for these words visible God visible Christ c. And a little below Thou like the old heretical Egyptian Monks the Anthropomorphites and