Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	assume_v	humane_a	union_n	3,291	5	9.5119	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66115	Remarks of an university-man upon a late book, falsly called A vindication of the primitive fathers, against the imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum, written by Mr. Hill of Killmington	Willes, John, 1646 or 7-1700.	1695 (1695)	Wing W2302; ESTC R11250	29,989	42

catechize the Apostle for not using the Word Person as he very ridiculously exposes himself since there is as much reason for the one as the other But besides his Lordship has several times mentioned Person in relation to the Trinity which none of the Apostles or Evangelists have ever done But had he not done it yet the Reason which he gives in answer to his Socinian Adversary may be sufficient to excuse it And therefore I shall here beg leave to transcribe those Words When Christ commanded all to be Baptized in the Name of the Father Pag. 99 100. Son and Holy Ghost he plainly mentioned Three if therefore I to adhere to Scripture Terms had avoided the frequent use of any other Word but the Three I thought how much soever this might offend others who might apprehend that I seem'd to avoid mentioning of Trinity or Persons which yet I shewed flowed from no dislike of those Words but meerly that I might stick more exactly to Scripture Terms yet I had no reason to think that Men of the other side would have found such Fault with this Father Son and Holy Ghost are the Three of whom I discourse so instead of repeating these Words at every time I shorten'd it by saying the Blessed Three Now it is a strain particular to our Author who I suppose had it from the Socinian Writer to enlarge on this But now let us look into our Author and see if he is not guilty of as great Faults or Heresies as those which he falsly objects against the Bishop His Lordship's Pag. 22 23. Words which he censures are these The Second of this Blessed Three was united to a perfect Man that is according to our Author 's own Interpretation the Second Person in the Holy Trinity took our Flesh which directly follows from his Criticism upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that from the Humane and Divine Nature thus united there did result the Person of the Messias who was both God and Man This he condemns as false Doctrine because it denies the Personality of Christ to be Eternal but if this be false Doctrine I deny it too For I neither acknowledge or believe that Christ who was God and Man was Eternal but only the Second Person in the Trinity who in the fulness of time took our Flesh and by that Union became Christ our Anointed High Priest and the Messias that was to come into the World And I dare positively affirm that from this Union resulted the Personality of Christ that is the Messias though our Vindicator of the Doctrine of the Church and the Ancient Fathers does positively deny it His Words are these That though the Character and Offices of Christ resulted Pag. 23. from the Incarnation yet not the Person or Personality Now I would desire to know whether this is the Doctrine of our Church if not 't is Heresie and destroys the reality of the Incarnation The Athanasian Creed which we profess to adhere to makes Personality to consist in the Vnion of God and Man As thus Who although he be God and Man perfect God and perfect Man God of the Substance of the Father and Man of the Substance of his Mother yet he is not two but one Christ And thus it is explained For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh if separated and taken apart make two distinct Substances yet as they are united are but one Man or Person so that is after the same manner God and Man of a reasonable Soul and humane Flesh subsisting which takes in the whole 〈…〉 Man is one Christ And although he was God the Second Person from all Eternity yet before he took the Manhood into God he could not be the Person Christ Jesus or the Messias Our Author very confidently and erroneously affirms that the assumption of the Humane Nature to the Divine contributed nothing of Personality to the Messias But certainly the Athanasian Creed if Words were design'd to express the Sense of a thing teach the directly contrary Doctrine For why should it say that God and Man is one Christ if it did not mean that the compleat Person of Christ resulted from that union I would ask our Author whether the Man Christ Jesus be a Person or not If he be whether it is only as he is God or Man or as he is both If he is only as he is God what becomes of the Man and of the Substance which he had of his Mother For if it does not enter into the Personality it is nothing but an accident that might be destroyed at Pleasure and yet the Messias that is perfect God and perfect Man should remain the same Person still Now I wonder with what Confidence a Man that pretends to vindicate the Ancient Doctrine of the Church to censure others for Heresle and to refer his Vindications to the Sense and Judgment of the Church Vniversal the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England the two famous Vniversities and the next Session of Convocation should deny an Ancient Doctrine of the Church the direct Sense of the great and most Orthodox Athanasius which the Creed so called is supposed to be the Summ of and the present Faith and Persuasion of our own Church of England which God grant may long stand fixt and immovable in the Simplicity and Purity of its Primitive Doctrine against all false Pretenders to Truth and all uncharitable Censurers of its Faith But we have not yet done with his Errors In the Pag. 23. same Paragraph he tells us That though the Character and Offices of Christ resulted from the Incarnation yet not the Person or Personality for to this the Humane Nature was assumed or pre-existent If the Humane Nature was assumed to Christ then he was Christ that is the Messias before he was Incarnate which is unintelligible What he means by the Humane Nature's being pre-existent to the Personality or Person of Christ I can't find If he believes that the Humane Nature of Christ did exist before it was united to the Godhead I presume 't is downright Heresie for that makes them two distinct Persons at least it makes him the Messias before the union of both Natures But besides as soon as Christ was born he was stiled Christ the Lord by way of Eminence to shew that he was then truly God and that he was Christ our Saviour only by that Union of both Natures in him and not before And therefore I presume that the Humane Nature did not pre-exist before he was one altogether not by confusion of Substance but by unity of Person Whatever he means by this Term I can find nothing but down-right Absurdity and Contradiction in it Now I was much wondring how our Author came to light upon this Notion That nothing of the Personality of Christ resulted from the Humane Nature But finding by the Thread of his Discourse that he had read somewhere that when two

contrary Qualities meet together that which is the predominant wholly destroys the other hereupon he concludes that in the Union of God and Man the former being the more prevalent destroyed the latter and consequently there could result no Personality from that Nature which was destroyed I was almost brought over to his Opinion and I found it to be such a pretty Philosophical Conceit that I durst not venture to attack it I shall conclude this with this Sentence which is amongst the Works of Athanasius though ascribed to another Siquis confitetur Filium Dei quasi Phantasma sic in Carne visum fuisse Anathema illi c. But however we must not yet leave him Let us therefore Pag. 25. see his Remark upon his Lordship's saying That we believe that Christ was God by Vertue of the indwelling of the Eternal Word The Jews could make no Objection to this who knew that their Fathers had Worshipped the Cloud of Glory because of God's resting upon it By which says our Author he lays a Foundation on which we may properly Deifie Christ's Humane Nature Here I must inform our Author that by indwelling I suppose his Lordship understands the Presence of God and not the Place or Habitation where he dwells and that for this Reason because his Lordship had before told us That a constant and immediate visible indwelling of the Jehovah was according to Scripture Phrase said to be Jehovah which was applyed to nothing else By which his Lordship can only mean that that Appearance was always taken to be God by which he did presentiate himself And if so as I believe every rational Man that considers it will imagine we could have dispens'd with our Author 's omitting his little Criticisms upon Habitation Resident Residence and the like For by the Pag. 28. Cloud of Glory his Lordship seems only to mean the Schechinah which the Rabbins according to our Author 's own Confession interpret that Lucid Glory by which God presentiated himself And if this Interpretation be allowed as I know not how it can be denied I know no reason why Schechinah may not be taken figuratively for Jehovah And though Schechinah may be sometimes called the Glory of the Jehovah yet there is no reason why it may not in a different expression signifie Jehovah as well as Infinite Power Majesty and the like are often us'd to signifie God though we often call him a God of infinite Power and Majesty And though it would be very absurd to say infinite Power of Infinite Power or O Infinite Majesty shew me thy Majesty as our Author plays upon Words yet it would be Sense to say O Infinite Majesty shew me thy self thy Glory which I take to be meant of God himself as seems to be plain in that place where Moses desires to see the Glory of God which is truly meant of God himself notwithstanding all our Author says to the contrary as is plain by God's telling him that he should see his back parts but his Face should not be seen that is in a direct Answer to part of Moses's Request that he should see the back Parts of his Glory so that if this Sense be admitted as I don't see it can be denied our Critick's impenetrable Syllogism as he calls Pag. 26 it will vanish with all his other sophisticated Shews of Arguments But now that we may see what a mighty knack at Invention our Author has attain'd to he comes now to make the Bishop speak things which I believe I may positively affirm were never in his Thoughts I am sure they Pag. 30. are not in his Book That is he has a mind the Bishop should assert such things and since he does not he finds he is able to do it for him and therefore he resolves that the Bishop shall own them It is a very pretty way of answering an Adversary to make false Doctrine for him and then to censure it For here he brings in the Bishop to affirm That in Scripture Phrase Jehovah never imports any thing else but a constant and visible immediate Inhabitation and when he has made this Speech for his Lordship it is easily imagin'd into what Absurdities he leads him Now our Author would have done fairly to have told us where the Bishop says this and to have quoted the Place from whence he had it I must confess I can find no such thing in all the Bishop's Discourse 'T is true his Lordship says that a constant and immediate visible indwelling of the Jehovah was according to Scripture Phrase said to be Jehovah which was applyed to nothing else But does it hence follow that where ever the Name Jehovah is used in Scripture it is according to the Bishop applied to this Indwelling Our Author might have as well argued and with as much reason that because every Man is an Animal therefore every Animal is a Man For to me it seems an exact parallel Case I dare not do our Author so much Injustice as to call his Logick in question because he seems to have a particular knack at Syllogising but I must needs tell him that there is great reason for questioning his Integrity I come now to consider another Criticism of our Author's Pag. 32. upon these Words of his Lordship's viz. That Christ was God by Vertue of the indwelling of the Eternal Word in him that the Jehovah dwelt so immediately and bodily in Christ Jesus that by that indwelling he was truly Jehovah And again as in another Place that he was the true Jehovah by a more perfect indwelling of the Deity in him than that had been which was in the Cloud Now this says our Author must be grounded upon a Principle or Maxim that whatsoever the Deity immediately Inhabits that thing becomes God and the true Jehovah by Vertue of that Inhabitation I answer that his Lordship needs not ground his Assertion upon any such Principle or Maxim forasmuch as he affirms that Christ was the True Jehovah by a more perfect indwelling of the Deity in him than that which was in the Cloud The latter being temporary and as it began to be given in the Wilderness so was to discontinue But the indwelling of the Eternal Word in Christ is Pag. 35. Essential and inseparable and constitutes with the Manhood one and the same Personality And I know not how this is Heretical or can justifie Idolatry as our Vindicator would insinuate But if every thing must be Heresie and Idolatry which an angry Man is resolv'd to make so I know nothing but may be perverted to such a Sense since the greatest Truths must appear directly contrary if he may have the Liberty of putting what Glosses he pleases upon it and if the World will be so good natur'd as to believe that its true and genuine Feature which he makes it appear in And now it is time to see upon what account our Vindicator is moved with Indignation at his Lordship's