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	subsist_v	2,423	5	11.9651	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64989	The foundation of God standeth sure, or, A defence of those fundamental and so generally believed doctrines of the Trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence, of the satisfaction of Christ, the second person of the real and glorious Trinity, of the justification of the ungodly by the imputed righteousness of Christ, against the cavils of W.P.J. a Quaker in his pamphlet entituled The sandy foundation shaken &c. : wherein his and the Quakers hideous blasphemies, Socinian and damnably-heretical opinions are discovered and refuted ... / by Thomas Vincent.	Vincent, Thomas, 1634-1678.	1668 (1668)	Wing V438; ESTC R25705	51,791	83

Father the only true God In this place Christ excludeth not himself from being God but only excludeth all false Gods and if you mark it the word only as also the word one doth belong to the predicate God and not to the subject Father it being not onely thee to be the true God but thee to be the only true God and so it may be applyed to the Son and Iesus Christ whom thou bast sent to be the only true God which is signifyed in that place and expressed 1 Iob. 5. 10. we are in him that is true even in his Son Iesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life The other Scriptures prove that there is one God essentially in opposition unto all that upon any other account are called Gods not being Gods by essence all which do but assert that which is acknowledged and hath been already proved in the former Chapter that there is but one God In the argument which W. P. draws from the fore-mentioned Scriptures he doth again show his ignorance if he know not that in several of these places the word one is not in the Hebrew or his deceitfulness if he know and dissemble it and thinks by laying stress on the word one to impose upon the understandings of the vulgar as if there were some great force in his argument from those places when indeed they prove not in the least what he alledgeth them for But allowing W. P. to draw his argument from those places which do prove the unity of God though God be declared and believed to be but one it will not follow that the Divine nature doth not subsist in three persons the Scripture indeed doth hold him forth as one God but there it speaketh of his essence and yet withal doth elsewhere sufficiently declare that in this one essence there are three distinct persons therefore we professe our beleif of the Holy three persons as well as the Holy one God and both according to the plain Scripture before urged for proof hereof 1 Ioh. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one But this distinction of one God and three persons so plainly signifyed in that Scripture W. P. most impudently and blasphemously calleth impertinent and the reason he giveth is because God was not declared and believed incompleatly or without his subsistance nor did require homage from his creatures as an incompleat and abstracted being c. which is a most egregions non sequitur besides that he fastneth that on us which neither we nor any Orthodox Christian ever yet affirmed viz that God was ever declared or believed incompleatly without his subsistance or as an incompleat and abstracted Being we know no such thing as the essence of God without a subsistance we know the Divine nature only in the three persons not abstracted from them or being any way out of them and so God is not manifested or worshipped without that which is absolutely necessary to himself namely without his subsistance but the Divine essence is worshipped as subsisting in the three persons and so the blessed Trinity is not our nor any mans fiction as he impiously speaks but this folish and absurd notion is his own fiction or the fiction of some of his Socinian brethren After W. P's vain attempts to refute the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Scripture he fronts his other arguments with the swelling but false title Refuted from right reason false I say for besides that what ever attempt reason doth make for the refuting of any Scripture truth which is the object of faith as this is concerning the Trinity of persons in the unity of the Divine essence it doth hereby discover it self to be crooked and depraved reason and the arguings from it are called the perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth 1 Tim. 6. 5. compared with the fourth verse W. P. who before had charged me for using Heathenish Metaphysicks in disputing for the Truths of God though my terms were either Scripture-words or carried Scripture-sense doth here most Heathenishly make use of Metaphysical terms in arguing against the truth but that so weakly that his Argumentation is so far from deserving the name of right reason that more properly it may be called no reason as shall be made evident in the Answer unto his Arguments which if they seem crabbed it is not because of the strength but because of the obscurlty of them for some of the phrases are so uncouch and his reasoning are so odly jointed together to avoid that part of a Scholar in putting them into a Sylogistical form that it is more difficult to find out what his cloudy brains conception and meaning is than to give answer unto any of his cavilling Arguments And here having promised to reply to his reason p. 10. why he flatly denied my minor proposition in the Sylogism before mentioned wherein he argueth onely against the conclusion endeavouring to prove that there are not three subsistences and the argument he useth being the same in sense and scope with his first argument under that which he calleth a Refutation from right reason I shall answer both together and omit nothing in his argument that hath any show of cogency in it His argument is thus No one substance can have three distinct subsistances and perserve its own unity and not to repeat all his words in the obscure way that he propoundeth his arguments but to help him in the methodizing of them his consequence is that every distinct Subsistance will have its own substance and consequently that three distinct subsistances will require three distinct substances consequently if the Doctrine of the Trinity of subsistences were true there would be three Gods And in his first argument he argueth that every person is inseparable from it's own substance and therefore Father Son and Spirit either are three distinct nothings or if persons then three distinct substances and consequently three distinct Gods Answer If Substance be taken here for Essence as it must be otherwise it will conclude nothing against us then the proposition is most false that no one substance can have three distinct subsistances and preserve it 's own unity for though a created Essence being finite limited and divisible cannot be communicated unto any more than one subsistance yet it followeth not that the divine Essence which is infinite and indivisible cannot be communicated to several subsistances neither doth W. P's reason prove the contrary viz that every subsistance will have it 's own substance unlesse he can prove that each distinct subsistence must necessarily have it 's own substance in God as well as Creatures distinct from what the other subsistences have For one and the same singular nature or substance may be and is the substance or nature subsisting in each person of the Trinity and so every subsistence hath it's own substance and yet not distinct but one and the same and therefore as three Essences so three Gods cannot be concluded from hence and though every person in

Trinity of Persons that three should be one and one should be three that three should be distinguished but not divided that one should not be another the first should not be the second nor the second third nor the second or third the first and yet the first second and third the same that the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both first and second in the third and that without composition without confusion all related to one another and al distinguished one from another by incommunicable personal properties and yet all one and the same in regard of one individual Essence this is such a mystery as doth exceed the weak and narrow understanding of the most enlightned and clear sighted Christians fully to comprehend some by gazing too long upon the Sun become blind and some by prying too much into this mystery and attempting to bring it to the standard and module of their reason have lost the sight thereof and sunk into grosse apprehensions and denied either the unity of the Godhead affirming the three persons to be three distinct Gods or denied the Trinity affirming the Godhead to be without three distinct persons thus while they have professed and conceited themselves to be wise they have proved themselves to be fools void of true understanding by changing the glory of God into that which is unworthy of him But we having a sure word of Prophecy in the Scriptures which is like a light shining in a dark place ought to give heed thereunto and conform all our conceptions of God according to the discoveries which he hath made of himself in his word God knoweth himself better than any creature can know and what he hath spoken of himself must needs be so because he cannot represent himself otherwise than he is and if there be a mystery in him which we cannot reach we adde folly to our weakness if we do in the least question it reason it may be will leave us in our search after the Deity in the Trinity and the Trinity in the Deity but where reason faileth Faith must supply it's room the proper object of Divine Faith is such things as we purely do assent unto upon Divine authority such are not onely Histories and Prophesies but also Mysteries which reason cannot demonstrate unto us in this mystery of the Trinity we must exercise our Faith though we cannot clear it to our selves by demonstration not as if we were to lay reason quite aside in this thing or trample it under foot not as if we should put out the eye of reason that we might see more clearly with the eye of Faith for though this mystery be above reason yet it is not against reason yea there is the greatest reason in the world that we should assent unto that for truth which God hath revealed of himself in his word because he is a God of truth and nothing is more true than that which God hath spoken Wherefore if the Scriptures have revealed that there are three distinct persons in one Divine Essence it is a certain truth and it is reason and duty that every one should assent unto it though the mystery of it there being no such thing to be found in nature cannot be fully comprehended Here then I shall propound my assertion and prove it out of Scripture My assertion according to the generally believed Doctrine of the Church of God is this That there are three distinct subsistents or persons in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead The argument bottom'd upon the Scripture to prove my assertion is this If the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one and the Father is God and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost be three distinct subsistents or persons then there are three distinct subsistents or persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead But the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one and the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons Therefore there are three distinct subsistents or persons Father Son and Holy Ghost in the same single Divine Essence or Godhead The consequent of the major proposition is plain and firm that no man of reason can in the least question or deny The minor proposition is that which must be proved and there are five things in the proposition to be proved 1. That the Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one 2. That the Father is God 3. That the Son is God 4. That the Holy Ghost is God 5. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons 1. The Divine Essence or Godhead is and can be but one Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord Isa. 44. 6. Thus saith the Lord I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God Isa. 45. 21 22. There is no God else besides me a just God and Saviour there is none besides me look unto me and be ye saved all the ends of the Earth for I am God and there is none else And it cannot be otherwise for if there were more than one God then the Godhead might be divided it might be limited and by consequence would be finite and so not God because God is infinite I need not insist upon this because the unity of the Godhead is not denied by the adversaries I have to deal withal 2. The Father is God 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him I need not multiply places of Scripture nor adde arguments to prove that the Father is God since it is generally acknowledged by all that acknowledge a Deity and the Scriptures 3. The Son is God this William Penn plainly denieth he denieth that the Lord Jesus Christ is God wretched blasphemy that would thrust the Lord Jesus Christ off from the Throne of his Godhead His denial of the Divinity of Christ as well as the Divinity of the Holy Ghost is plain enough I shall repeat his words as they lye in his first argument against the three distinct persons in the Godhead page 13. And since the Father is God the Son is God and the Spirit is God which their opinion necessitates them to confesse then unlesse the Father Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings they must be three distinct substances and consequently three distinct Gods I shall answer the argument in its proper place only observe here that he denieth the Son and Spirit to be God by a plain consequence for first he telleth us that our opinion necessitates us to acknowledge that the Father is God and the Son God and the Spirit God which showeth that his opinion is otherwise that the Son and Spirit are not

property of the Holy Ghost is to proceed from the Father and the Son Ioh. 15. 26. And when the comforter is come whom I will send from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father he shall testify of me I shall conclude the proof of the distinction of the persons of the Father the Son and Holy Ghost in the unity of the Divine Essence with the two arguments made mention of before in the disputation which because no answer was given unto they remain in force The first argument is this against W. P's plain assertion that there were not three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties If the Father be another from the Son and the Son another from the Father and the Holy Ghost another from each and all three be God and the incommunicable property of the Father is to beget the Son the incommunicable property of the Son to be begotten of the Father and the incommunicable property of the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son then there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties But the Father is another c. Therefore there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties The consequence of the Major none can with any reason deny because another and another and another do signify plainly a distinction of those persons and begetting being begotten and proceeding are real not imaginary properties The Minor also is firm in all the parts of it 1. The Father is another from the Son Ioh. 5. 32. There is another that beareth witness of me Ioh. 8. 18. I am one that bear witnesse of my self and the Father that sent me beareth witnesse of me 2. The Son is another from the Father because the Father is another from the Son 3. The Holy Ghost is another from each Ioh. 14. 16 17. I will pray the Father and he shall give you another comforter even the spirit of truth 4. That Father Son and Holy Ghost are God hath been proved 5. The incommunicable properties of each person also hath been proved Therefore it undeniably followeth that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties The second argument out of 1 Ioh. 5. 7. to prove that Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons was this The Father Son and Holy Ghost are either three substances or three manifestations or three operations or three persons or something else But 1. They are not three substances because in the same verse the three are called one that is in regard of substance or Essence 2. They are not three manifestations for all the attributes of God are manifestations and so there would be more than three hence also it would follow that one manifestation should beget and send another which is absurd 3. They are not three operations for the same reason namely that there are more than three operations and it would be very improper to asribe personal properties either to manifestations or operations 4. They are not any thing else Therefore the proposition remaineth firm and sound That Father Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct subsistents or persons in one Divine Essence or Godhead The Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet they are nor three Gods but one God the persons of the Father Son and Holy Ghost are distinct but the Godhead is the same not specifically the same as the same humane nature is in all individual men but numerically the same so as no similitude or comparison is to be found in the creatures to set it forth The fooles gathering his skirt into three folds and pulling them abroad into one the affections of One Good True in Being The understanding will and executive power in the Soul and the like similitudes may a little help the understanding in the conception of this mystery but all comparisons fall short and cannot square in every respect hereunto Yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it is so hath been proved from Scripture and it is one great fundamental point of our Christian Faith which all Christians are bound to believe because of the authority of God CHAP. VI. Ananswer to part of the 10 the 12 13 14 and 15 pages of W. P's Pamphlet which he intituleth the Trinity of distinct separate persons in the Vnity of essence refuted from Scripture right reason with information and caution in the close THe word separate person I disown any further than we may conceive it to signify no more than distinct and so W. P. was told again and again in the meeting I need speak no more of that since his endeavours are to refute the distinction not the separation of persons in the glorious and ever blessed Trinity And his first attempt is to refute this Doctrine by Scripture The Scriptures which he alledgeth to overthrow the Doctrine of the Trinity of persons are such as prove the unity of the essence that there is but one God which we do not in the least deny but have and do assert with as firme belief as he or any in the world can do but though the Godhead or Divine essence be but one this is not inconsistent with the plurality and distinction of the three persons in the same Godhead And here it is very remarkable how W. P. doth discover weakness and want of learning in the proof of the unity of the Godhead by Scripture for however he doth attempt to show something of a Scholar in quoting one Hebrew text in the margin as if he were well acquainted with the original Hebrew tongue so as to be able to read and understand it without punets yet most ignorantly and rediculously he cites three texts namely Isa. 40. 25. chap. 48. 17. Psal. 71. 22. to prove Gods unity in all which the Hebrew maketh no mention of it the translation indeed is Holy one and Holy one of Israel and he very sillily writes ONE in great letters as if one did bear the emphasis of the place when there is no such word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one in the Hebrew only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Holy and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thou Holy of Israel in the new Testament he alleageth some Scriptures which the Socinians do make use of to prove that Christ is not God one is Math. 19. 17. Iesus said unto him why callest thou me good there is none good but one that is God Whence no Socinian can rationaly infer that Christ is not God any more than that he is not good for his question doth not infer a denial of his Divinity or goodnesse but is propounded according to the young man's apprehension of him and by way of probation For in other places as hath been shown Christ's Divinity is clearly enough declared Another Text is Ioh. 17. 3. This is life eternal that they might know thee