Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	distinct_a	person_n	property_n	2,539	5	9.4838	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40072	Certain propositions by which the doctrin of the H. Trinity is so explain'd, according to the ancient fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to natural reason together with a defence of them, in answer to the objections of a Socianian writer, in his newly printed Considerations on the explications of the doctrin of the Trinity : occasioned by these propositions among other discourses : in a letter to that author.; Twenty-eight propositions by which the doctrine of the Trinity is endeavoured to be explained	Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714.	1694 (1694)	Wing F1696; ESTC R14585	14,588	32

of it You say that the Hypothesis expresly acknowledgeth in each of the Two Persons not onely whatsoever Properties can make them to be distinct intellectual Beings and Substances but also all the Attributes that are necessary to Essentiate a God that is to make Him a Perfect God onely it saith the Father hath this peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Priviledge that He is First in order of Nature He hath no Essential or Real Perfection more than the other Two Persons onely He hath this Honour that their Original is from Him And hence you Conclude that it is not possible to say what are Three GODS if this be not an Account and Description of Three Gods But Sir doth our Author's Hypothesis give the FATHER no other Priviledge above the Son and H. Spirit than his being First in Order of Nature and their Original Doth not the Fourth Proposition expresly say that he is Self-Existent too And His being their Original is so far from being the same thing with Self-Existence that simply in it self considered it doth not so much as necessarily suppose His Self-Existence Doth he who faith that the Sun is the Original of the Illustrious Splendour in the Heavens and of the Light which pervades the World in so saying affirm that it is Self-Existent And I shall wonder if Self-Existence be but an Imaginary Perfection I should rather Conclude it the very greatest of all Real Perfections How then can you say That this Hypothesis gives the Father no other Priviledge above the other Persons but onely that He is First in Order of Nature Again Is not Absolute Independence a Real Perfection and Being the First Original of all things another But doth not the Sixth Proposition considered with the Fifth ascribe both these too to the Father onely And whereas you say farther That this Hypothesis gives the Second and Third Persons all the Attributes that are necessary to Assentiate a God What Earnings will you make of this since it saith not that those which are ascribed to them viz. infinite Goodness Wisdom and Power are all that are necessary to Essentiate a God in the Absolutely Highest Sence which the Name of God is ever to be understood in in Holy Scripture And now you can need no Answer to what you say in the last Words of this Paragraph viz. The Perfections of the Deity that are Real are Gods infinite Wisdom Power Goodness Duration and such like Therefore the Son and Spirit are Gods in the Highest Sence of that Word if they have all those aforesaid real and positive Perfections of the Divine Nature tho' it be granted at the same time that they are Originated from the Father You need I say no Answer hereto since you were now minded that Self-Existence Absolute Independence and Being the First Original of All things are Perfections peculiar to God the Father and that this is part of the Explication And upon this Account Athanasius S. Basil Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostom with several of the Latin Fathers interpret those Words of our B. Saviour My Father is greater than I to have been spoken not of His Humanity but His Divinity as Dr. Cudworth hath shewed in his 599 th Page of his Intellectual System of the Universe Nor certainly did our Lord ever say so little a thing as that the Infinite MAIESTY of Heaven and Earth is greater than any Mortal Man And having this Occasion to Mention Dr. Cudworth the Honour I have for the Memory of that Excellent Person constraineth me to say That the Account he gives of the Fathers Judgment of the Trinity is not Represented as it ought to have been in the former Socinian Treatise of Considerations on the Explications thereof And I so word that most Learned Performance of the Doctor because he was therein an Historian rather than an Explicator Your next Paragraph begins with this Question A Father begets Two Sons that have all the Properties of the Humane Nature in as great Perfection as their Father shall we deny that they are Men in the Highest Sence of that Word because they are Originated from their Father And this say you is the very Case before us But Sir this is not with your Leave the very Case before us 'T is nothing like it because 't is the Perfection of no Man to be Self-Existent nor are a Humane Fathers Sons immediately dependent on him for the Continuation of their Being as the Two Persons are upon God the Father as Light is upon the Sun and as Streams on the Fountain But if a Humane Father could be supposed to be Self-Existent and that his Sons had the now mentioned kind of Dependence upon him the Consequence must be that their Nature is short of the Perfection of their Fathers Nature notwithstanding the many Properties they agree in and therefore that they are not Men in so high a Sence as he is a Man seeing the Humane Nature would be supposed capable of Perfections which they have not but their Father hath What follows of this Paragraph is only applying the Point in Controversie to this Case but I have said enough to shew that there is not the least Affinity between these Two Cases The Substance of what you farther Object against this Explication is a Remark upon the Twenty Second Proposition And you say In these few Words consist the strength and Hopes of this Explication The unconceivably Close Union in Will and Nature between the Three Gods makes them to be One God I see Sir you as odiously word it as you can but you would have lost nothing by it had you kept to our Author's Words and said Three Persons or if you had pleased Three distinct Proper Persons instead of Three Gods Well Sir the unconceivably Close Union in Will and Nature between the Divine Persons is that as you say in which the strength and hopes of this Explication do consist But you Object That this is as much as to say that they are One God by that very thing which most incontestably declares them to be Three Gods And this you make out by this Question what is the Union of Will and Nature between distinct intellectual Beings and different Substances is it any other but this in plain English that they always will the same things and their Natures and Substances are united in the same Properties Attributes or Perfections That is to say as you proceed these Three intellectual Substances or Beings are each of them Almighty Omniscient most Good and the rest Why this is the very thing that makes them to be Three Gods Next you give us a Proof of this but you might have saved your self that labour for 't is readily granted if this be all the Union that is between them But in Answer to your Question it must never be granted you that the inseparably Close Union between the Three Divine Persons both in Will and Nature is no more than their Union in the same Will

and Properties for it is also their immediate Union in their Substances their Spiritual Substances as the Union between our Souls and Bodies is in their Substances And if they were acknowledged to be separate Substances and United onely as you say you would have made our Author ashamed of his Explication But if Sir you think you may do it however by saying that the Substance and Properties of the Divine Nature are the self-same thing I will now content my self to say onely this then you might have used the Word Substances as well as Properties and Attributes and then it would have appeared at first sight that there is no force in your Objection But your self doth also expresly here distinguish them in saying that their Substances are united in the same Properties Attributes or Perfections If you ask me what Account can be given to the satisfaction of any Rational Person of such an Union between the Substances of the Three Persons I will Reply that when you give me an intelligible Account of the Union betwixt our Souls and Bodies I do promise to give you a no less intelligible Account of the Union betwixt the Substances of the Three Divine Persons Nay as the Twenty Second Proposition tells you the Union between our Souls and Bodies is more unaccountable to Reason than is this Union because that is an Union between Substances of Perfectly unlike and even contrary Natures In reciting that Proposition you say Contradictory instead of Contrary but I suppose this was the fault not of your Pen but of the Press But if you will say that the Substances of our Souls and Bodies are onely united in their Properties I say they are not at all united in these because their Properties are of as different and contrary a Nature as their Substances But if they could be united in these yet the Union of their Substances must be more than their being united in their Properties except my Soul is as much united with your Body as with mine own for the Essential Properties of all Souls and Bodies are the same And now Sir I hope you are sensible that you might have spared your Last Paragraph viz. How is it possible that this Author should overlook such an Obvious Reasoning or not be Satisfied with it And say I How is it possible that so Acute a Person as your Writings speak you to be should be guilty of so plain a Flaw in that Reasoning and take it to be so Obvious I shall give you no farther trouble than while I desire you to take notice That I have not troubled you with more words than needs must and much less with Finesses to use your Own Word nor with any Subtle Distinctions as much Enamoured as you perceive I am with the School-men nor with any thing you may be tempted to call Scholastical Cant or Metaphysical Gibberish nor so much as with the Father's great word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But my Answer is as plain as a Pyke staff yet as full as plain to all the Reflections you have made upon the Explication But whether it be to the purpose too I must leave it to the Judgment of the fair and impartial Reader But I can sincerely avow That I have said nothing to any of your Objections merely because for my Credits sake seeing I undertook to Reply to them I must say Something Nor hath a Line come from me which is not agreeable to the sense of my Mind nor which I think not to be pertinent As I also solemnly Profess that since such Perfections and Operations as are unquestionably Proper to the Deity are attributed in H. Scripture to the Son and H. Spirit and that I cannot be Satisfied by the extremely laboured Glosses and Criticisms of the Socinians to depart from the most Obvious and Natural Sence of the Multitude of Texts wherein they are so as doubting whether many Texts are to be found which might not have more than one sence put upon them by the same Labour and Art And since Divine Honour is most Expresly declared to be due to the Son Iohn 5.23 and He hath the Honour of such a Doxology Apocal. 1.6 as according to the Original as well as our Translation I remember not an Higher given to God the Father in all the New-Testament And since too the Son and Spirit are all along most plainly described as distinct Persons both from the Father and from One Another even as plainly as Words can do it and yet all this while the Unity of the Deity is fully Asserted I can not for my life Reconcile these things but by this Ancient Explication of the Trinity which your self ingenuously acknowledges to be a Possible Scheme and Hereby I thank GOD I can do it to my great Satisfaction That God Almighty would give us a Right Understanding in all the Points of our Christian Faith and particularly in the Great and Weighty One wherein you Differ from the Generality of Christians in all Ages and that we may be sincere and unbyassed and also Humble in our Searches after Truth not leaning over confidently to our own Understandings since those that most improve them are most sensible of their being infinitely too shallow to comprehend Truths of this Nature especially is the Humble and most Hearty Prayer of SIR Notwithstanding our being as I suppose perfect Strangers and our wide Difference in Opinion Your Sincere Friend to Serve You in all Christian Offices c. Some Books Printed for B. Aylmer FOrty Two Sermons and Discourses upon several Occasions most at Court in Four Volumes 8 vo The Rule of Faith Or An Answer to the Treatise of Mr. I. Sergeant c. 8 vo Six Sermons concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour Of the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ and of the Unity of the Divine Nature and the B. Trinity c. against the Socinians 8 vo Six Sermons newly Printed one concerning Resolution and Stedfastness in Religion One of Family Religion Three of Education of Children and One of the Advantages of an Early Piety 8 vo A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 8 vo alone stitch't price 3 d. or in 12 o bound price 6 d. A Discourse against Transubstantiation 8 vo alone price 3 d. stitch't All Published by his Grace Iohn Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury The Exact Effigies of His Grace Iohn Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury on a Large Sheet of Paper Curiously Engraven by R. White price 12 d. The Great Wickedness and Mischievous Effects of Slandering A Sermon Preach'd at St. Giles Cripplegate on Psalm 101.5 A Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor of London and Court of Aldermen in Easter-Week 1688. on Luk. 16.9 A Sermon Preached at the Meeting of the Sons of the Clergy in St. Mary-le-Bow Church the 6th of Dec. 1692. on Iohn 13.34 These Three by Edward Lord Bishop of Gloucester Dr. Cudworth and Dr. Bull. Octob. 19th 1694.