Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	call_v	reason_n	4,039	5	4.9623	4	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

is to be observed that they think all is safe as to the minor and therefore they altogether passe it by Now although it is sufficient to invalidat the argument if the major be false yet we have somewhat of great moment to say to the minor that is enough to overturne any baptisme that they have for we put them to explaine who these are that all along since the Apostles have taught the doctrine which the Apostles taught for the words are lyable to divers senses If they mean the church of Rome and her bishops and teachers we altogether deny that they have taught the same doctrine which the Apostles taught and we suppose the Students if they follow their master I. M. will not affirme it And indeed for the same reason the best primitive Protestants denyed that the church of Rome in their day had any lawfulll ordination at all seing she continued not in the Apostles doctrine and faith as that famous Protestant Sadeell doth argue at great length lib. de legit voc min. where he affirmeth that the succession of faith is as the soul which gives life to the succession of the bishops as unto a body but that succession without this faith is a dead thing and unprofitable carcase Now the same reason doth militate as strongly against Water-baptism and that also called the supper upon our present adversaries principle that none have power to administer the one or the other but those who have a mediat outward call conveyed downe from the Apostles by a visible succession of ordained Bishops and Presbyters for we say There hath been no such visible succession nor visibly ordained Bishops and Presbyters who all along have had the true faith and taught the true doctrine of the Apostles therefore their ordination and power to administer the Sacraments is void and null And this is further confirmed by the authority of Cyprian who taught with great earnestnesse that the baptisme of all hereticks was void and no baptisme but so it is by our adversaries confession that the Church and bishops and teachers of Rome have been Hereticks for many hundred years before the reformation Therefore c. We say then the argument is fallacious as to the Minor supposing what is not to be supposed in their sense videlicet that either the teachers of the church of Rome or any other claiming a visible and mediat call from the Apostles times conveyed through a visible church unto them have thaught the doctrine which the Apostles taught a thing we altogether deny and it lyeth on them to prove But that Christ hath had some all along who have both believed and taught the doctrine of the Apostles and that his presence has been with them we acknowledge but we deny that these have been all along a visible church and teachers having a mediat call and ordination and in this we agree with the best Protestants for indeed the true church hath been hidd even as a few grains of corne among an exceeding great quantity of chaff and stubble and she who hath called her self the church by reason of her outward succession was not the true church though some of the true church lay hidden in her as corne is hid in a great quantity of chaff and that the church is properly to be placed in the alone graines of corne and not in the chaffe Sadeell doth also shew out of Augustine Epi. 48. Another fault wee find in the Students argument that supposeing Water-baptism had been commanded to the Apostles by Christ Matth. 28. which yet we altogether deny it insinuateth that it was as long to continue as Christs presence with his church for if teaching had continued though Baptism with water had discontinued as our adversaries grant that anointing with oile and miraculous curing the sick is discontinued yet the promise was ground enough to encourage them and if all be still binding that Christ commanded to his Apostles why go they not forth we mean the nationall teachers into all the world and teach the nations who do not so much as believe the Gospell historically If they say this was a command to the Apostles and not to them why are they so partiall as to take one part to them and reject another But we shall now come to a more particular examination of their Major we have told them that the Apostles baptized some with water out of a condescendency as Paul circumcised Timothy and not from that command Matth. 28. which saith nothing of Water-baptism Their first reason against this is they should have Baptized with water of their owne will and without any sufficient authority But we deny this consequence and they themselves have furnished us with a sufficient answer where they say Paul circumcised Timothy but not without a command for the Law of charity and other generall precepts obliged Paul so to doe though it was a thing indifferent of it selfe the same we say as to their baptising with water the Jewes having so great an esteeme of Water-baptism and thinking it necessary the Apostles used it although it was a thing indifferent of it selfe after Christs ascension and giving of the holy ghost the Law of charity and other generall precepts oblidging them but this proveth not that the Apostles had any command from Matth. 28. or any such command any where else that made Water-baptism of it selfe to be a necessary duty to the end of the world And wheras they querie will G. K. grant that it was once lively We answer yes under John yet it followeth not that it was to continue becaus John had no commission to the nations but only to the Jews and that the Apostles Baptized whole families and thousands if they so did will not prove that it was necessary of it selfe more then that Circumcision was and yet even then many thousands of believing Jewes were Zealous for Circumcision see Act. 21 20 21. yea many Bishops of Ierusalem were circumcised after this as Eusebius relats the reason therfor was that people were Zealous of Water-baptism because of John and therfor the Apostles condescended to it out of the law of charity Another question they make where is water baptism buried We answer where the other shaddowes are buried for it was but a shaddow and carnall ordinance Heb. 9 10. the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again the true water baptism hath been out of use all the time of the Apostasie for the apostate church hath had no true baptism and so in that respect it hath been buried and being but a shaddow is not to be raised up again And it is observable that in the revelation wher it is prophesied of the returne and restoration of the church ther is not any thing mentioned of the restoring either Water-baptism or the use of bread and wine as signs c. And so their second reason is answered that Water-baptism is no more to be used out of condescendency to the weak then

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

not have dropped thus And therefore we shall returne it upon them that they may not forget it when they writ next That of the 13 Rom. can not be understood of the magistrats punishing men for matters of Conscience because it being written to the church of Rome to shew them their duty towards their present magistrate which was Nero that cruell and persecuting Emperour and then it would follow that Nero had had a lawfull power and authority to punish even Christians for errours in matters of religion though himselfe was a professed infidel and seing the magistrate is to exert his power according to his knowledge it would follow that Nero exercised a lawfull power in causing kill the Apostles and persecute the Christians which will make that horrid crime very slender seing it was no more according to the Stud. but the exerciseing that lawfull authority he had received from God according to his knowledge Pag. 122. They build an airy triumph upon their owne mistak alledging that since their magistrats are not under that pure dispensation it is lawfull for them to resist evil and so that of Matth. is not a repeal to them But they have here either wilfully or ignorantly forgotten the other branch of the distinction for granting their Magistrats may as we deny not and that lawfully resist evill in Civil matters yet not in matters of Conscience and this is that which was incumbent upon them to have proven But it may be worth the Readers paines specially to notice their reasonings in this 122. p. in answer to that objection given in by us from the parable of the tares Matth. 13. where the servants are expressly forbidden to pluck them up Here they play fast and loose to purpose and to facilitate their own work make no difficulty to fasten contradictions upon Christ himselfe 1. They say It is clearly repealed becaus murtherers witches traitours are tares as wel as hereticks and if the one were to be eximed so would the other Is not this the way to argue against Christ and to charge contradictions upon him not upon us wherein they fasten an absurdity upon him who gave this command or else they must acknowledge that by these tares are to be understood some sort of evil doers with whom the magistrats are not to meddle But since the Students say this is repealed they must confesse it sometimes stood in vigour it being once commanded we would willingly be informed then of them and they may remember it when they write next how long this command stood and to whom it belonged since it had its rise from Christ and was none of the old covenant precepts or if it be one of these uselesse Gospell commands they dreame of which it is unlawfull for us to obey But to goe on they say that ly the tares is to be understood bemasked hypocrits who being scarce discernable from the wheat are therefore not to be meddled with Very wel then where the magistrate can not discerne heresies according to themselves he is not to punish and then what comes of that authority was acknowledged Nero had from Rom. 13 who was as uncapable to discerne hereticks as hypocrits And then seing as before is said they are not to judge of hidden things experience hath aboundantly shewne how much the true discerning of heresie is both uncertaine and difficult even to Protestant magistrats who have called that wheat to day which they have called tares to morrow and therefore ought according to this rule to forbear medling in such matters Their second argument pag. 123. drawne from Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2 14. which is parallel with it is before answered Afterwards they goe about to play the Polititians shewing both here and in the following pag. how the publick peace is disturbed by suffering of sundry Religions and this they reckon so certain that they conclude it is known by all that are but indifferently versed in histories c. Now if this conclusion hold true it is impossible either for France Germany Holland or Zwitserland to be in peace without either the Papists rise up and cutt the Protestants throats or the Protestants theirs and who but such as the Students can be ignorant that after much blood-shed and contention who should oppresse and destroy each other they have learned by sad experience that it is safest and most conducible to the peace and contributs most to the publick benefit not to meddle with each others consciences notwithstanding that these pitifull States-men can prattle to the contrary who have shewne themselves in this to be very indifferently versed in history But they proceed affirming that since the Magistrat is keeper of both tables to whom is entrusted not only the care of mens bodies but souls he ought to punish not only for evil but also for religious offences If all this were confessed would it follow that he were to punish Religious as Civil offences by a Civil censure Surely nay no more then he must punish Civile offences by an Ecclesiastick censure Now it remains for them to prove that offences in things purely conscientious should among Christians be punished by the externall sword which they have not as yet done and let it be here observed that not withstanding all their clamours for the Magistrats priviledge and that the Q. detract from him that all the power dignity and honour they put upon him is to be the Clergies burrow for as they allow him not authority to judge who are Hereticks and who not but he must only serve to be their executioner and persecut such as they find prejudiciall to their interest for though they will have it to be lawfull for Preachers such as their Bishops to be Magistrats as Chancellour Counseller Iudge c. Yet no Magistrat nay the King himself must take upon him to be a Preacher though we could never see any thing in all the New Testament making this unlawfull yea and David and Solomon in the Old who were not of the tribe of Levi were both Prophets and Preachers and pen-men of the Scripture This trick even the Protestant Clergy have learned from their father the Pope who shewed the Clergy long ago the way to make themselves Princes and Iudges but to be sure to shut out the Magistrate from meddling with their function So it may be easily seen here whether the Q. or the Students be greatest friends to the Magistrate Lastly They conclude that since those that broach heresy do evil and that the Magistrate is the executer of God's wrath upon him that doeth or acteth outwardly evil without any restriction c. it is not lawfull for us to add a restriction where the Spirit of God hath put none Who can but admire the impudency of these Students which doe that which in the following line they affirme is unlawfull by adding outwardly which is a restriction For the words in the text are not outwardly evil but evil which being taken without any