Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A42243
|
The grounds and occasions of the controversy concerning the unity of God &c. the methods by which it has been managed, and the means to compose it / by a Divine of the Church of England.
|
Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.
|
1698
(1698)
|
Wing G2135; ESTC R12220
|
49,121
|
55
|
Vindic. of the Trin. p. 14 15 16. The Bishop will not say that there are three Individual Intelligent Essences in the Godhead The Racovians never did say that the Godhead might not be consider'd as subsisting under divers Modes Now as for the Unitarians in this Particular their Case is this While they follow'd the Definiture of the Racovians which was accommodated to the common Acception of the word Person their Doctrine was But One Person in the One God But when the Nominals unanimously declar'd that they meant by Person not a compleat Intelligent Being but only Relations Properties or Modes of Subsistence then the Unitarians made no scruple to own three Persons in one Godhead As to the Particular before us then all that I would beg of my Lord of Worcester in behalf of the Unitarians is that they may have leave to be as much Socinian as his Lordship more they will not desire and if his Lordship hath any Arguments to refute the Trinity of the Realists consisting of three distinct Minds Intelligent Beings Essences which the Socinians have not us'd before him let him be pleas'd to communicate them and the Unitarians will promise for the future to oppose the Tritheism of the Realists only by his Lordship's Arguments and not by any borrow'd from the Socinians farther the Unitarians will be content that his Lordship shall only declare himself against the Doctrine of the Realists who are by reason of their equal Learning Eminence and not contemptible Numbers too considerable to be otherwise griev'd but far from every Orthodox Father be that Injustice common among Boys who when the Person that gives the Offence is out of their reach strike him that stands next It is not much out of place here to commend the good temper of the Unitarians who for conserving brotherly Love and Peace among Christians will not litigate about Terms and Words on which the Authority that imposes them puts an honest Sense and Meaning there are it must not be denied no small Inconveniences in altering the common signification of words but that 's so well remedied by a new Definition of the words that are alter'd that I would sooner envy our Church the Power of declaring Articles of Faith than this Liberty of making words signify in spite of common Sense what they please The greatest Mischief is when words that must be us'd in Theological Controversies must not signify as they have commonly done nor yet be determin'd anew to any other express Particular but this is the Fault of some Realists One of the Unitarians in his Book call'd The Agreement c. p. 36. has examin'd the Sense of the Bishop of Sarum concerning the Incarnation and Divinity of our Lord Christ and grants that the Sense of his Lordship may pass for Orthodox but undeniably evinces that the Sentiments of the Unitarians are a degree or two more Orthodox I shall not repeat but refer the Reader to the place chusing rather in pursuit of my chief purpose to insist wholly on this that there is not so wide a Difference between his Lordship's Explanations and the Racovian Catechism as might be imagin'd and that his Lordship is at least as much Racovian as the Unitarians I do not aim to vindicate all that 's in the Racovian Catechism but only so much of it as the Unitarians are concern'd with The Racovian Catechism teaches that Jesus Christ was a true Man by Nature but had not truly a Divine Nature that Jesus Christ was not so constituted of a Divine and Human Nature as a Man is of a Body and Soul The Bishop of Sarum teaches in the 2d of his four Treatises p. 96. That the Godhead by the Eternal Word the 2d in the blessed Three dwelt in and was so inwardly united to the human Nature of Jesus Christ that by virtue of it God and Man were truly one Person as our Soul and Body make one Man It must be confess'd that here is Contradiction in Terms direct and plain as can be but let the Exposition of the Terms which is given on either side be duly weigh'd and it will evidently appear that the Racovians and the Bishop agree very well as to the Substance of the Article except in one small respect wherein his Lordship is at some small variance with himself When the Racovians teach that our Lord Christ who was a true Man had not a true Divine Nature they do not mean that he was not constantly illuminated conducted and actuated by the Godhead but only that the Godhead did not become commensurate to a finite Man so as to produce a real Communication of Idioms and thereby make the great things which are spoken of Christ in respect of the Illuminating Conducting Indwelling Godhead to be equally applicable to his Humanity this is plain from the Reasons they give why they deny Christ to have a Divine Nature The first is this two Substances endued with opposite Properties cannot combine into one Person i. e. according to their Sense of the word Person into one individual Intelligent Essence Nothing occurs throughout the Bishop's whole Discourse contrary to this Negative but to establish it more sure several Expressions of the Bishop's as Mr. Hill of Kilmington has observ'd upon him intimate that the Manhood of Christ is a Person distinct from the Eternal Word that dwelt in him 2. The Racovians deny the Divine Nature of Christ because say they two Natures each whereof is apt to constitute a several Person i. e. a several individual Intelligent Essence cannot be huddled into one Person or one individual Intelligent Essence One would think that this Reason should not down with the Bishop and indeed the Language does not for p. 102. he says that from the Divine and Human Nature united there did result the Person of the Messias but then what does he mean by the Divine and Human Nature united Why no more than The Human Nature always actuated illuminated and conducted by the Divine This is very agreeable to Scripture yes and the Racovian Catechism also But to make this look more like an unintelligible Union that the Realists might not charge him with betraying the Cause to the Unitarians he calls it in lofty Phrase an assuming the Man into an inward and immediate Oeconomy p. 108. In short the Bishop makes no more of the Divine Nature than this Christ was God by virtue of the indwelling of the Eternal Word in him p. 127. The Racovians scruple the Phrase Divine Nature but admit all that the Bishop makes of it The Bishop places the Divine Nature in that thing which the Racovians do not deny and the Racovians deny the Divine Nature for Reasons which the Bishop allows to be Truths so then the difference between them is purely Nominal a meer Logomachy But to do his Lordship justice he is in the right for using the Terms Divine Nature and God-man because they are Terms authoriz'd by the Church on which both his
Lordship and the Church puts an honest Sense and the Racovians were too stiff in refusing them especially considering that in their very Catechism they speak in other Phrase as honourably of Christ as his Lordship for they say that Christ is by no means to be reputed a meer Man they give their Reasons for it and therefore call him a Man truly Divine and for my part I think a Man truly Divine must have a Nature truly Divine and therefore the Racovians whose Doctrine is taught by the Bishop would have done better had they taught it in the Terms of Art which the Bishop uses tho perhaps he is not fond of the Terms which one may partly guess by his declining to consider all or any Speculations concerning the Eternal Generation Whereas the Unitarians fully to demonstrate their Orthodoxy allow the Eternal Generation of the Logos Son or Wisdom Let me not forget that I observ'd the Bishop did not so well agree in one small respect with the Unitarians which respect was such that therein he was at some small variance with himself the thing is this He has affirm'd that God and Man make one Person as the Soul and Body make one Man it was proper for him to take up with this Expression in conformity to the Athanasian Creed but his Philosophical Reasonings look quite another way for p. 102. he has these Words It has been thought that the Human Nature in Christ had no special Subsistence tho it was not easy to explain this Notion since if Subsistence belong'd to the Human Nature it might seem that it the Human Nature was not perfect if it had not a proper Subsistence An Hypostatical Union was proposed as a Term fit to explain this by i. e. the Human Nature in Christ was believ'd to subsist by the Subsistence of the Word but it was not easy to make this the more intelligible by offering a Notion full as unintelligible as it self to explain it by Now tho the Bishop is a cautious Man and will have a care of offending a Brother as appears by those soft ways of expressing his dislike of an Opinion It has been thought It is not easy It might seem Yet here he sufficiently discovers to any considering Reader that he believes the Human Nature of Christ had a proper Subsistence and if it had a proper Subsistence then say I by it self it constituted Christ a Person and then God and Man did not make one Person as the Soul and Body make a Man For the Bishop explains Subsistence thus We may conceive the Subsistence of an intelligent Being P. 107. to be its acting intirely in it self or upon Matter united to it without any other Spirit 's being constantly present to it actuating it or having it under any immediate vital and inseparable Influence It may seem strange tho that the Bishop should intimate that the Human Nature of Christ had a proper Subsistence a Subsistence of its own and afterwards define the Subsistence of an Intelligent Being to be its acting intirely in it self without any other Spirit 's being constantly present to it c. It is a Mercy that Self-contradiction is not Heresy I hope the Bishop is not of Rhetorius's Mind who thought that the Teachers of contrary Doctrines were all in the right St. Austin could not perswade himself that any one could be so whimsical but upon the Supposition he puts down the Name of Rhetorius in his black Catalogue of Hereticks I design'd to have spoke at large with the Bp of Sarum concerning the Satisfaction of Christ on which Article he can have no difference with the Unitarians and has as little as may be with the Racovians but the Author of The Agreement c. having been before me I shall be the shorter There is not a more artful controversial piece of Writing than some few Pages of the second of the four Treatises His Lordship's Learning and piercing Judgment are such that he clearly sees through the whole Article and no Man were better able to state it plainly to disintangle it from the Philosophy of the Schools to decide it accurately and firmly establish the certain Truth but then his Wisdom is such that while he gives forth his Lectures which may be very profitable to them that know how to use them he retreats from the envy of the Calvinists in a set of Ecclesiastical Phrases whose strict Grammatical Sense has been long laid aside he distinguishes himself from the Racovians by labour'd Metaphorical Flourishes frowns upon the Unitarians to hide his Agreement with them and amuses the Writers of positive Divinity which Character he can tell any Party was not meant of them to dissemble his aversion from their unreasonable and odious Scheme I will convince the Reader of the Justness of my Observation The Racovians dispute against their Doctrine who determine that there is such a Mercy in God as must forgive and such a Justice as must punish and cannot be satisfied without it that because God would have both his Mercy and his Justice take place therefore he found out that way to forgive Sins by sending his Son to suffer Death in that Nature which had offended These Racovians acknowledg God to be wonderfully merciful and just but they contend that he freely forgiveth that he punisheth Sins when he pleaseth when his Wisdom thinks fit Now let 's hear the Bishop he sets his Face against the Writers of Positive Divinity and censures these their Doctrines That God cannot freely forgive Sins that punishing as well as remunerative Justice P. 135. are essential to him that God being infinite every Offence against him has an infinite Guilt and must be expiated either by Acts of infinite Value or of infinite Duration and that a Person of an infinite Nature was only capable of Acts of an infinite Value that such a one was necessary for the expiating Sin And are not these the very Errors oppos'd by the Racovians more fully and elegantly stated by his Lordship that 's true for nothing loses under his hand nor do the Racovians overthrow these Errors with that irresistible force of Argument as his Lordship For says he In all this Gradation there is one main Defect the Scripture sets none of these Speculations before us nor is it easy to apprehend that a Right of punishing which is in the Legislator and a Right to reward which passes from him to the Person that acquires it should be equally essential to God in the one his Fidelity and Justice are bound because of the Right that accrues to another but the other of punishing seems to be a Right that is vested in himself which he may either use or not as he pleases Agreeing thus in the main one would wonder what Nicety should divide the Racovians and his Lordship there must be but a Nicety between them but 't is not the first time a Nicety has made a great Breach between Friends The Bishop speaking of his