Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
nature_n divine_a person_n personal_a 4,224 5 9.5510 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A77449 Brief observations upon the vindication of the trinity and incarnation, by the learned Dr. W. Sherlock Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. A vindication of the doctrine of the holy and ever blessed Trinity. 1690 (1690) Wing B4616B; ESTC R229472 21,969 16

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

God and them The Mutual-consciousness of the three Divine Persons is the Perichóresis and Circumincession mentioned by the Fathers and the Schools For Perichóresis or that the Father is in the Son and Spirit and the Son in the Father and Spirit and the Spirit in the Father and Son is nothing else but their universal Mutual-consciousness We ought not to entertain a gross material Idea of the Perichóresis as if the three distinct Divine Persons were in one another by a mutual Contract of Parts for they have no Parts the only Vnion and Perichóresis of Minds and Spirits is that they are conscious each to others Thoughts and Wills as perfectly and inwardly as to their own And thus also it is that the three Divine Persons are one God they are one God and in one another by perfect Mutual-consciousness The Vindicator often says that this Explication of the Trinity maketh a Trinity in Unity as easy and intelligible as the Notion of One God or but one who is God But being aware that 't is not enough that an Explication be intelligible if it be not also the true Explication therefore he pretends to prove this Mutual-consciousness of the Father Son and Spirit from Joh. 1.18 10.15 30 38. 16.14 15. 1 Cor. 2.10 11. Then for the Fathers tho they do not once name Mutual-consciousness yet he thinketh they meant it He alledges a few Passages out of Gregory Nyssen and St. Austin who are all the Fathers he quotes and his Citations are not only not to his purpose but some of them clearly overthrow it I shall shew him the respect to consider what he hath said 1. Whereas he saith that Mutual-consciousness maketh the three Divine Spirits to be as truly and properly numerically one and as much one as each Spirit and every Man is one with himself If this were indeed true it would as much over-do what the Vindicator expects from it as he thinketh all former Explications are short of their Design For the Unitarians desire no more than that it be owned God is as truly and properly numerically one as every Spirit and Man is one with himself for every Spirit and Man is so one with himself as to be but one Person Had the Vindicator no way to defend the Athanasian Creed but by running into Heresy could he make out the Unity of the Trinity no other way but as the Creed speaks by confounding the Persons or by making them but one Person I challenge him or any other for him to avoid this Consequence of his Doctrine He saith in above twenty places this Mutual-consciousness maketh the three Divine Spirits and Persons as much one with one another as any Spirit or Man is one with himself then say I they are but one Person for that is the Oneness or Unity the only Unity of every Spirit or Man with himself No Spirit or Man has any other but a Personal Unity with himself 2. Mutual-consciousness cannot be a good Explication of the pretended Trinity because it will equally salve the most absurd Doctrine of the Transubstantiation For as according to the Vindicator's Doctrine the Godhead or the One true God is numerically One tho there are three Infinite Persons each of which is God and a God because these three Persons are mutually conscious to or have an inward Sensation of one another So will a Papist say there is but one Body-head or but one Numerical Body of Christ but in the Unity of this Body-head or Body there is first the Original Body of Christ and then abundance of Sacred Hosts in divers places each of which is a true Body of Christ and is by Mutual Sensation and Consciousness for there is no Sensation without Consciousness numerically one Body with the Original Body in Heaven 'T is true the Body in Heaven is the Source and Fountain of the rest as the Father is of the other Divine Persons but they are all substantially and numerically one Body by Mutual-consciousness or Sensation And this mutual inward Sensation or Consciousness they must needs have because they are all of them Personally w●ited to one Infinite Spirit or Person who as all Trinitarians say is Whole and All every-where present Totus in toto totus in qualibet parte By this Explication or Hypothesis all Mr. Johnson's Demonstrations against the Transubstantiation are made to vanish into Smoke All his Objections from the nature of Time and Extension are nothing they are all salved by Mutual-consciousness of the Hosts with the Body in Heaven for Dr. Sherlock has assured us that Mutual-consciousness or Sensation doth make an Essential Substantial and Numerical Vnity or Oneness between any number of Persons or Things The Reason holds for Things as well as Persons and for a thousand as well as for three 3. If as the Vindicator often says Mutual-consciousness is the only Vnion of Spirits or Minds such a Mutual-consciousness by which they are universally or wholly or pefectly conscious to each other this would as much prejudice the Incarnation or Hypostatical Union as the Vindicator hopes it will help the Doctrine of the Trinity The Vindicator confesses at p. 269 and 270 that the Human Nature or Reasonable Soul of Christ is not universally or wholly conscious to the Divine Person of the Son yet he says in perhaps forty places that a Mutual-consciousness to all one anothers Thoughts and Wills and Actions is necessary to make an Union of Minds or Spirits I say it follows from these Premises that the Reasonable Soul or Spirit of the Lord Christ is not united to the Divine Person of the Son If universal Consciousness is the only possible Vnion of Spirits 't is impossible there should be an Incarnation or an Hypostatical or Personal Union of the Divine and Human Spirits in Christ The Vindicator seems to have been in some measure aware of this Objection For in the Conclusion of his Book when he comes to the Doctrine of the Incarnation or Hypostatical Union he says Where different Natures are united into one Person this universal Consciousness is seated only in the Superior Nature and in the Inferior only so far as the Nature is capable and as the Personal Union requires But I will forgive the Vindicator if he can so escape from me First If as he says a partial Consciousness in the Inferior Nature be sufficient to effect an Hypostatical or Personal Union it will follow that all pious Men are hypostatically or personally united to the Holy Ghost For the Holy Spirit is universally conscious to all their Thoughts and Actions and they are partially conscious to his Suggestions and Motions and that by such an Internal Sensation as they are to their own Thoughts and Inclinations They cannot discern one from the other Secondly If a Partial Consciousness between two or more Spirits where but one of them is universally conscious to the rest will make them numerically one Person or what is the same thing will effect
BRIEF OBSERVATIONS UPON THE VINDICATION OF THE Trinity and Incarnation By the Learned Dr. W. Sherlock THE Notes upon the Creed of Athanasius have been already printed by themselves and were received and approved by several Learned Men both of London and in the Country Dr. Sherlock has thought fit to oppose to them a large Book in which at Pag. 142. he saith My Vndertaking is to vindicate the Athanasian Creed and the Doctrine of a Trinity in Vnity Yet in this Vindication he hath given up to his Adversary all the ancient Defences of this Creed and of the Trinity on which his Predecessors in this Controversy were wont to insist and has advanced in their room an Hypothesis or Explication never so much as named or heard of before He pretends to salve by these two words Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness all the Difficulties of this Great Mystery so sufficiently and evidently that the Notion of a Trinity in Unity is now He saith as clear and easy as that of but One God But this is too much for any Man to take on his bare word or without carefully examining what He has said 1. Concerning the Divine Substance Nature or Essence for in this Question these are Equivalent Terms both with the Vindicator and with the Author of the Notes 2. How doth he describe the Three Persons and how is each Person one with it self and how are they distinguished each from other 3. How are they united with one another and how do they All make one God First Concerning the Divine Substance or Essence or Nature In his Discourses concerning the Divine Substance or Essence the Vindicator seems sometimes to be a perfect Hobbist to deny all Spiritual and Immaterial Substance or that there is any other Substance but Matter or Body He saith for example at Pag. 69. We can frame no Idea of Substance but what we have from Matter When we conceive of God as a Substance he saith there We find it impossible to conceive how there should be Three Divine Persons without Three distinct Infinite Substances A Person and an Intelligent Substance are Reciprocal Terms and therefore Three distinct Persons are Three distinct Numerical Substances and one Numerical Substance is but one Numerical Person He says that these are all Carnal Reasonings which arise from our conceiving of God as a Substance of which we can have no Idea but what is Material He concludes in the same place and often elsewhere We must not seek for any other Substance in God but Infinite Power Wisdom and Goodness But as if he had been a little too liberal in that he says at P. 72. Wisdom and Truth are the true Nature and Essence or Substance of God He often exhorts his Reader particularly at P. 70. To set aside all these Material Images of Essence and Substance and to contemplate God as Eternal Truth and Wisdom and then the Notion of God is very plain and easy He adds at P. 138. That which has confounded this Mystery of the Trinity has been the vain Endeavour of reducing it to Terms of Art such as Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Person Hypostasis and the like He presumes to say at P. 139. The Fathers nicely distinguished between Hypostasis or Person and Nature or Essence or Substance saying that there are Three Persons and but one Nature or Essence or Substance But then when Men curiously examined the Signification of these words they found that upon some account or other they were unapplicable to this Mystery For what is the Substance and Nature of God How can Three distinct Persons have but one Numerical Substance What is the distinction between Essence and Personality Now I ask Is this to vindicate the Athanasian Creed as the Doctor undertook to do or to slight and overthrow it The chief business of the Athanasian Creed is to distinguish between the Substance and Persons in God to show that the Persons are Three and the Substance but One. The Vindicator could not have more effectually given up the Catholick Doctrine to the Note-maker than by thus frequently denying there is any real Divine Substance at all which is more than his Adversary required and than he will accept and by saying Men have unduly used these Terms by their applying them to God The pretence of the Brief Notes is no other but what the Vindicator we have seen often grants that there is no difference between Substance and Person in God and that therefore Three Divine Persons and One Divine Substance is a sensless Contradiction But then 't is as sensless to deny the Divine Substance and to reduce the whole Notion of God to Wisdom and Truth for these are Properties that cannot subsist but in some Substance Nor do I think that the Trinitarians will forgo their old Explications by Persons and Substance for the Doctor 's new Wind-mills of Self-consciousness and Mutual-consciousness They will certainly abide by the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds which suppose a Real Divine Substance in which do subsist Three Divine Persons It will be always Heresy with them to deny Homo-ousios or that Christ is of Like and Equal Substance with the Father I must not dismiss the Consideration of the Vindicator's Doctrine about the Divine Substance without noting that his Contradictions to himself are as frequent as his Heterodoxies For tho he has spoken so often so expresly and so much against Substance and Persons in God yet when the Metaphysical Humour is upon him he talks of these as of most Certain and Real Things He says at P. 47. The Three Persons are Three Real Substantial Beings And again The Three Persons are substantially distinct Now this is to say the Three Persons are Three distinct Substances for that is the only possible meaning of Three Real Substantial Beings substantially distinct Thus God at last is not only a Substance but he is Three Real distinct Substances This was the Heresy of Valentinus Gentilis that the Three Persons are Tres Spiritus substantiali numero differentes I wish the Vindicator better Success with his Doctrine than Valentinus met at Geneva and Berne But the most pleasant of all is that after the Vindicator had there said The Three Divine Persons are substantially distinct he immediately subjoyns tho in one Vndivided Substance Is it possible a Man should give so little heed to what he says in so Great and Nice a Question He has not a sensible Friend in the World that will not tell him that 't is as much as to say The Persons are Three distinct Substances and yet are but one Vndivided Substance The first alone is Heresy the other superadded to it makes a gross Contradiction But there are greater Matters about which I must speak with the Vindicator Secondly Of the Persons their Vnity and their Distinction As to the Divine Persons and the Unity or Oneness of each Person with it self and its Distinction from the other two Persons he says as follows Pag. 67.