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
A52291	An answer to an heretical book called The naked Gospel which was condemned and ordered to be publickly burnt by the convocation of the University of Oxford, Aug. 19, 1690 : with some reflections on Dr. Bury's new edition of that book : to which is added a short history of Socinianism / by William Nicholls.	Nicholls, William, 1664-1712.; Bury, Arthur, 1624-1713. Naked Gospel.	1691 (1691)	Wing N1091; ESTC R28145	124,983	144

Nebuchadnezzar or Daniel who relates this matter understood by the Son of God was an Angel who from their nigh Conversation with God from the great Portion of Happiness and Glory he communicates to them and their so resembling him by their Purity and the Spiritualness of their Nature and from their living in Heaven with him like Children under the wing of their Parent from these and the like circumstances they were and not improperly called the Sons of God as we find in many places of Scripture as Psal 82. I said ye were Angels or the Children of the Most High So Job 1. 6. There was a day when the Sons of God or Angels presented themselves before the Lord. And the LXX translate this very place in Daniel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of the Fourth was like the Angel of God So that we must grant That the Son of God here mentioned was an Angel of God But our Blessed Saviour was the Son of God in another manner than his for his Sonship is not founded upon any such Analogy as theirs is but upon the eternal generation of the Father for he being made so much better than the Angels as he hath by Inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they Heb. 1. 4. In short 't is impossible that our Saviour's Sonship should be such a Sonship as that of the Angels because the Apostle spends this whole Chapter to prove him a Person distinct from and above the nature of Angels and does besides set the Son of God in direct opposition to the Angels of God And of the Angels he saith c. v. 7. But unto the Son he saith c. v 8. When he bringeth in his first begotten into the world he saith Let all the Angels of God worship him v. 6. So that Christ's Sonship must be of another kind than that of the Angels or else there would be no ground for their contradistinction unless he was in a peculiar manner the Son of God in a supereminent extraordinary way not at all common to them The Authour having made these Remarks upon this Title of our Saviour The Son of God he proceeds to reckon up some others as the Messias or Christ Onely begotten Son of God which Characters he allows to speak a Person of unmeasurable Greatness a Person like his Emblem the Light so glorious that by our most intent view we cannot discover any thing of it but this That we cannot discover Now for all our Authour's haste one would imagine that something was discoverable in our Saviour by these Eulogies that God did design to manifest or discover something to us of him by these Revelations and not to make Revelations of things that were not revealable 'T is not to be expected indeed that by the help of Revelation we should dive into the Nature of our Saviour's eternal Essence for we are so far from a possibility of doing that that we are ignorant of the Essential Constitutions of the most inconsiderable Being we are conversant with But though we are ignorant of this yet we can tell when 't is revealed to us by God what kind of Nature our Saviour's is whether finite or infinite whether divine or humane The Gloriousness of his Nature does not so dazzle our Eyes as to make us confound distinct and express Idea's I have a certain though not an adequate Idea or Notion of God as a Being infinite incorporeal c. And when I am informed by Revelation t●at such a Person is that infinite incorporeal Being or that he has in such Revelation those Characters ascribed to him as are inseparable from the Divine Nature I must conclude That such a one is a Person of the Divine Nature such an infinite incorporeal c. Being which is my Notion of God Indeed the gloriousness of this Being keeps Men from discovering its Essence and from prying into its Nature but yet we may observe such Marks and Properties in it so as to have a distinct Conception of it from all other Beings in the World The Sun is a glorious Body and the more we strive to pry into its Constitution by gazing on it the more we are blinded and what then don 't we know the Sun when we see it for all this because our Eyes are so weak that we cannot stare into the Furnace of the Sun must we therefore take it for a Candle The Person of our Saviour is glorious and if it were a thousand times less glorious than it is I might not understand its Nature but when I am told that this Person is God that he is one of the Persons of the Divine Nature my Understanding tells me very clearly That all the marks and properties I have in my Mind of the Divine Nature must be attributed to this Person and though I understand nothing of his Essence or the precise modus of his Hypostasis yet I am sure he is that Being which I have a certain Idea of and which I call God So that 't is a great Fallacy in the Authour to say we don't know what our Saviour is because we cannot dive into his Essence for our discriminative Knowledge of one thing from another is not by discovering the Essences or internal Constitutions of them but by regarding their outward marks and properties and these every one has a Knowledge of for a Child knows a Rose from a Stone as well as a Philosopher though it knows not the Qualities and internal Constitutions of either Therefore when I am infallibly informed that such a Person is God I am infallibly assured he is that kind of Being I have the fore-mentioned Idea of though I am infinitely short of understanding its Nature II. Our Authour now comes to shew what is meant by believing in his Person which he branches into Two Parts First Believing in him with respect to his word Second In respect to his Person The First of which onely he speaks to in this Chapter and says that Christ is to his Followers as the Sun to Travellers 'T is no matter what they think of its magnitude or whether they think it be no bigger than a Bushel it guides them all alike and thus it is he says with the Sun of Righteousness 't is no matter what we believe him to be if we have but a Practical Faith which is all our Saviour he says requires And this he attempts to prove out of Joh. 10. a place than which one would have thought he should rather have chosen any Text in the New Testament besides How long dost thou make us to doubt if thou be the Christ tell us plainly Jesus said I told you by calling God my Father and ye believe me not Joh. 10. 24 25. And presently after he tell them I and my Father are one v. 30. at which they took up stones to stone him saying thou being a man makest thy self God Now what can the Authour draw from this Why he says our

is and bring as a proof of this that Text of Isai 53. Who shall declare his generation But then upon second thoughts least the People should laugh at their Inconstancy they themselves revoke this second Creed and strive to get in all the Copies of it and procure an Edict from the Emperour which threatens all those that shall detain them Now indeed we may see here a very foolish inconstancy in these Hereticks and that they had a very ill hand at making Creeds to oblige all the World under the pain of an Anathema to believe such a thing at one time and the next day to disbelieve it themselves but this is nothing to the Orthodox Faith which stood always firm and unchangeable After the Authour has been spitting his Venom against the union of the three Persons he now begins to do the same against the union of Christ's Divinity with his humanity For he would have that upon supposition there are three persons in the same Individual nature that either the Nestorian or the Eutychian Doctrine was the true For says he there are but two ways imaginable in reason either Christ must be two Persons because he has two such different natures or he must have but one nature because he is but one Person But for all our Authours hast why can't we imagine a third way that he should be two Natures and but one Person This is as easy to imagine and I am sure as reasonable too For first It does not follow that because he has two Natures he must be two Persons for Nature and Personality are not reciprocal terms for there may be two or three or more Natures where there is but one Person The Athanasian Creed most excellently expresses this As the reasonable Soul and flesh is one Man so God and Man is one Christ There is the sensitive nature in Man as well as the rational there is the rational Soul one distinct substance united to the Body another distinct substance and yet these two so distinct Natures are but one Person Now what more contradiction does it imply that there should be a Personal Union between Divinity and Humanity than there does between Rationality and Sensibility If there be any more difficulty in one than the other it is this That in the former the union of the Divinity with the Humanity there is an union of two reasonable Natures which are distinct Persons of themselves as all rational Individuals are and therefore they must be as distinct Persons after the union as before But why so If they are united they are not distinct for all union is a negation of distinction or division Two single pieces or pounds of Gold are two distinct Substances or Bodies but if these be united by melting down into one they are still two pounds but yet they are but one Individual Body And so it is in the Union of all other Bodies Well but what is this to the Union of Spirits or rational Beings Yet it is something for if Spirits be united they must follow the Laws of Union as well as other Beings If they be united they must be one in something for to be one in nothing is no Union at all Now in the Union of the Divinity with the humanity wherein possibly can their Oneness consist but only in their personality Their Natures are most certainly distinct for Gods is one Nature and Mans is another and therefore if they be one in any thing it must be in their Personality Upon this Union they acquire an Oneness which they had not before and as the two distinct pounds of Gold upon their melting become one Individual piece which is the Oneness they gain so the Divinity and Humanity upon their Union gain one Individual Personality which is the Oneness they acquire Well but here are two rational Natures united which must have two Reasons and two Wills and therefore must be two Persons It does not therefore follow that because there are two Reasons and two Wills there must therefore be two Persons any more than it follows that a Man is three living Creatures from the Union of the Vegetative the Sensitive and the Rational Soul in his nature For as the Subordination of these Souls one to another make him but one Vivens so the Subordination of these rational Natures one to the other make them but one Person or rational Suppositum The Divine Nature is indeed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or governing Principle in the Union of the Godhead with the Humanity as the rational Soul is in the Union with the two other Souls and therefore though there are two Reasons and two Wills yet those of the Inferiour Nature are subordinate to the Superiour and therefore are determined by the operations of that Nor Secondly is it necessary that if he be one Person he should be but one Nature because Nature and Person are not reciprocal terms and because as we have already shewn that more Natures may be united into one Person for 't was the Person of the Godhead that took upon him the Humanity so that he has no other Personality than what he had from all eternity but yet he has another Nature than what he had from all eternity because he likewise took upon him our Nature which he had not from eternity but took it upon him at that time when he was conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin Though he still continued one Person yet he had two Natures the Nature of God which he had from all eternity and the Nature of Man which he assumed at that particular time and this without any change but only in the manner of his subsisting which was before in the pure Glory of the Son of God and afterwards in the habit of our Flesh All the Properties of each Nature are as distinguishable now as before the Properties of the Humanity are incommunicable to the Divinity and those of the Divinity to the Humanity 'T is proper only to the Divinity to be the cause of all things to be immense eternal omnipresent c. and 't is proper only to the Humanity to have a beginning to be circumscribed in place to be passible c. If therefore they have these distinct and incommunicable Propertie they must have distinct Natures from which these Properties flow though they be united into one Person And thus I think I have answered every thing that is material in this Chapter and I could very willingly have done with it but only because it may be expected I should say something to those invidious Remarks he makes upon some of the first holy Councils for the Determinations they made in matters of Faith and the condemnation of Hereticks As to what he says about the Heresie of Nestorius 't is not worth considering but he has a little too grosly represented the matter of Eutyches which I must not pass over without a little Reflection He would insinuate that Eutyches was first

condemned by a Provincial Council and restored by a General one which is false The Council indeed at Constantinople which condemned Eutyches was but Provincial convened by Flavianus Bishop of that place but it did consist of Orthodox Members and their Determinations were very free wherein Eutyches had a fair hearing to answer every thing he would that was objected against him by Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum his Accuser who before the meeting of this Council did kindly endeavour to reclaim him but when nothing would do he impeaches him in a Letter to Flavianus who cites him to the Council but he resolutely at first there avows his Heresie That Christ had but one Nature after the Union and at last when he began something to abate of his Stiffness he would by no means recant his Opinion therefore the Council who after several Sessions could get nothing from him but shuffling Nemine contradicente condemn him to which Condemnation not only the present Bishops subscribe but 23 of the Archimandrian Clergy that were there But this so General a Council as the Authour calls it which restored Eutyches was that which for its goodnes has been all along entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Thievish Council or the Synod of Robbers that packt Conventicle at Ephesus which was obtained by this means Eutyches vext at his Condemnation by the Council flies to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria and of Eutyches's Opinion and persuades him to espouse his Quarrel He readily complies and forthwith procures him an Interest in the Eunuch Chrysaphius President of the Palace that was a late Proselyte to the Eutychian Heresie and was very angry with Flavianus for his procedure in the late Council at Constantinople so he by his own and the Interest of the Empress Eudocia obtains of the Emperour Theodosius that there might be a Council held at Ephesus upon pretence to give Eutyches a fairer Tryal but in reality to be revenged on Flavianus and to establish Eutychianism Dioscorus gets to be President of this Council and brings with him a great number of Egyptian Bishops of his Opinion and obtains an order from the Emperour That none that were Judges of Eutyches before should be so now in this Council that though they were present yet they should not vote as Judges but only expect the Suffrages of the other Fathers because this was to be a Judgment passed upon what they had judged before What followed after this practising may easily be imagined the Faith of Eutyches is approved and Eusebius and Flavianus are condemned But yet it was not easy neither to get the Subscriptions of the Bishops to this till they were frightened to it by the Arms and Threats of the Souldiers and after all they set their names only to blank Paper to which the Abdication of those Bishops was afterwards affixed For thus some of the Bishops complain afterwards in the Council of Chalcedon We subscribed only to the pure paper with compulsion and violence having suffered many ill treatments we did unwillingly and forced by power set our hands They kept us even till night shut up in the Church and being sick they would not suffer us to rest nor would grant us any refreshments but the Souldiers with Swords and Staves stood over us and made us subscribe The Authour indeed grants that Dioscorus was accused in the Council of Chalcedon of some Uncanonical Proceedings and in truth they were Uncanonical with a Vengeance For besides all this underhand dealing and tumultuous proceeding in the Synod he was accused of no less than the Murder of Flavianus to whom he gave a kick in the Synod upon which he died three days after that he had contrived the Death of Theodorus and used several other illegal proceedings against him only because he was the Friend of Cyril his Predecessour of no less than notorious Incontinency of keeping Company with one Pansophia an infamous Woman and according to the information of Sophronius of downright Adultery of Blasphemy against the Trinity of being an Origenist of usurping the Imperial Authority and if all these Crimes can be wiped off with so soft a word as Uncanonical Proceedings I know not what things in the World those are which Men call Lewdness and Villaniny unless Hereticks by a special Title can claim an immunity from these names where they are guilty of the Crimes This Council in which these things were made out against Dioscorus the Authour says was procured by Leo because his Letters were slighted in the last though Zonoras tells us that Leo and Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople intreated this Council of the Emperour least the blasphemous Opinions of Eutyches should be left uncondemned This Council the Authour does endeavour to render vain and tumultuous by crying out This is the Faith of the Fathers Apostles c. Leo believes so Cyril believes so Now I think it a very laudable occasion for Christian Mens exultation when their Faith is defended against the poison of Hereticks for to be still and unconcerned upon such an occasion would shew they had little love or regard for the Faith they profess But the reason why they used Leo and Cyril's name so expresly was because of their excellent Explications of Faith which were publickly read in the Council and universally approved and such Defenders of Orthodoxy do in all Ages deserve as great commendation But the Authour would pretend the Council did not understand their own meaning when they propounded the Question whether they would agree with Dioscours who said Christ consisted of two or with Leo who said there were two Natures in Christ which Question the Authour says is a Mystery and was designed only to advance the dignity of the Roman See But yet this is no very great Mystery to any one that considers Dioscorus or Eutyches's Doctrine who held indeed but one nature in Christ but yet in compliance with the Orthodox would say Christ consisted of two natures They would allow Christ at first to be compounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of two natures but then upon the Union or Composition they ceased to be two but the Orthodox held There were two distinct natures after Union which did both retain their distinct properties without confusion So that there is a great deal of difference between saying Christ does consist of two natures and There are two natures in Christ for the first does suppose them two only before Union the latter two before and after But the reason why Leo is put in opposition to Dioscorus is to confront that Heretick with a sound Orthodox Believer and to do an Honour to Leo for taking such pains to defend the true Faith which Dioscorus had used so much Artifice to destroy Well but the Emperour Basiliscus did not own this Council but sent Circulatory Letters to burn its Decrees This is very true and several other Eutychians as well as Basiliscus had as little kindness for it But