Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]Stoughton, John
History
Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]
Stoughton, John
Great Britain -- Church history
For example, one of the positions which he lays down is this:--“I
believe that there is One principal Minister of God and Christ,
principally sent from heaven to sanctify the Church, who, by reason
of His eminency, and intimacy with God, is singled out of the number
of the other heavenly ministers, or angels, and comprised in the Holy
Trinity, being the third Person thereof, and that this Minister of God
and Christ is the Holy Spirit.” Further, he observes, “the Trinity
which the Apostle Paul believed, consisteth of One God, One Lord, and
One Spirit, but not of three Persons in One God.” And he proceeds
even to adduce the usual arguments for the personality of the Holy
Spirit:--a doctrine which he admits throughout a singular Tract,
published by him at an earlier period.
[Sidenote: BIDDLE.]
In another article of faith, he avers, “I believe that Jesus Christ,
to the intent He might be a brother, and have a fellow-feeling of our
infirmities, and so become the more ready to help us (the consideration
whereof is the greatest encouragement to piety that can be imagined),
hath no other than a human nature; and, therefore, in the very nature,
is not only a Person (since none but a human person can be our
brother), but also our Lord, yea, our God.”
His use of the word Trinity, which it seems he never dropped, he
explains by saying, that the Trinity which the Apostle Peter (Acts ii.
36) believed, consisteth of God the Father, of the Man Jesus Christ our
Lord, and of the Holy Spirit, the gift of God through our Lord Jesus
Christ.[496]
In Biddle’s Catechism, which John Owen couples with the Racovian,
and elaborately answers in his _Vindiciæ Evangelicæ_,[497] the
author so far from explaining away the language of Holy Writ, pushes
its literal interpretation, respecting one subject at least, in a
very bold, rude fashion, to such an extreme, that he attributes to
the Almighty, a bodily and visible shape, with human affections and
passions. Consequently, he objected to the terms _infinite and
incomprehensible_, as forms of speech not used in Scripture, and not
applicable to the Supreme Being. Tertullian, it may here be noticed,
ascribed corporeality to God, but he seems to have meant by it nothing
more than substance and personality.[498]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account