Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	father_n	son_n	subsist_v	3,592	5	11.9300	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

Thebais and Libya to receive Arius and Euzoius with willing Minds as being restored they say by so great a Synod and they write another to the Emperour to give him an account of what was done and to desire him to see them actually restored Arius then comes to Alexandria but Athanasius who understood all the Fraudulence of the proceeding looking on him still as excommunicate avoided him as an execrable Person and would not restore him Then Arius strives by infusing his Heresie into the People of the City to raise a Tumult thereby to attain his end that way but this not succeeding Eusebius procures a Letter from the Emperour to command him to it This Athanasius civilly answers and informs him That Arius being anathematized by a general Council he cannot be restored by him again This very much inflames the Emperour not well understanding the merits of the Cause and occasions an angry Letter from him in which he threatens his deposing him from his Bishoprick upon refusal This Opportunity Eusebius gladly improves and suborns one Ischyras a rascally Fellow that had usurped the Priesthood without Ordination in the Diocess of Athanasius but being detected by him flies to Eusebius in Nicomedia who receives him as a Priest and promises him a Bishoprick if he would accuse Athanasius which having done he did afterwards procure him Then were trumpt up the Forgeries of the broken Chalice and the cutting off Arsenius's Hand and using it for Magick c. which were the subject of the Debates of the Arian Council at Tyre and have of late made such a noise in our Socinian Pamphlets Now in all this here is no real Disobedience at all of the Bishop to the Emperour as the Authour would pretend for the Emperour will not have him restored unless he be of the opinion of the Nicene Council and besides he does not think it a Point in which he ought to meddle but leaves it to the Council which he thought Orthodox when it was mostly Arian But Athanasius finds that Arius's Creed was drawn up so ambiguously that any one might see he designed nothing but shuffling the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the Test of Arianism was left out and Arius still as fond of his Doctrines as ever and moreover that the Council which pretended to restore him was but Provincial at best and most of the Orthodox in it retired and the Eusebian Party taking off his Excommunication by a trick and therefore thinks he may very well upon these considerations refuse to restore him notwithstanding the Imperial Letters And truly he or any other Bishop that would take into his Flock such a Wolf as this upon these terms would little deserve the name of a good Pastour and he that should refuse to do so might justify himself from disobedience to any Earthly Authority whatsoever He that will see more of Athanasius's Vindication may see it in his own Apologies I have been more full in the Vindication of this good Man because the scurrillous Pens of late have made it their business after so many hundred years to calumniate him again The next thing that the Authour offers is against the word Consubstantial and this from a saying of Socrates Lib. 1. Cap. 18. not Book the 2. as he quotes it in which the Authour would have him to condemn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a word which did trouble Mens Minds and which the Bishops themselves did not understand Now Socrates is Friend enough to the Orthodox Cause every one knows which makes the Authour brand him with the name of partial and in many places shews he had no dislike to the word Consubstantial but he has one fault which is common to many Historians that he makes too many remarks upon his Relations and oftentimes in matters the true reason of which we was far from understanding But 't is no great matter what the Historians remarks are 't is their Relations and not their reflections which we are to value and yet after all Socrates does not in the least reflect upon the Orthodox Doctrine or the test of it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shews his dislike indeed to those that made too nice explications of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that crumbled this question into many little Cavils and raised upon it some nice disputes and therefore they that did so were to blame but they might believe what was signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any of these Cavils and they might without any of these Niceties stand up for the word as being thought by the wisdom of the Council to be the best Test to discover the Arian Heresy Then the Authour applauds himself mightily in fansying that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not the same now as it was in Athanasius's time because he in his Dialogues explains this Mystery by the similitude of three Men who are one in their common nature and three in their individual Capacity this the Authour would have to infer a Tritheism and as well to justify the Heathen Polytheism as the Trinity Now these Dialogues though bound up with Athanasius's Works are not his but according to the Opinion of most learned Men are Maximus's but however there is nothing in them which would infer any thing like that which the Authour pretends to He and several other of the Fathers give many Illustrations to explain as far as possible to humane understandings this Mystery but yet they as all other similitudes must not be strained farther than the Authours designed them 't is enough if they bear that Analogy or likeness which are there singled out not that these should have in their whole nature an uniform similitude Now Peter James and John three Individual Men and yet agreeing in one common nature Man are a very good illustration of the Blessed Trinity for as Peter is Man James is Man and John is Man and yet there is but one Man that is one common nature of humanity so the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet there is but one God that is one common Divine Nature but yet this illustration does not bear an universal Analogy with the Trinity for Peter James and John agree only in the same common collective nature and are only collectively one but Father Son and Holy Ghost are essentially one So that I say this illustration of the Trinity may be very good though it does not hold universally 't is enough if the three Persons in each agree in a general Unity though they differ in the specification of this Unity 't is enough if both are three and yet one though one be by a collective and the other an essential Oneness So Bishop Priest and Deacon agree in one common Office of Ministry in general and this is brought by the same Father as a farther illustration of this Mystery and so may any other three Species of a Genus or any

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

to Charity if we allow them no title to God's Favour or the Churches Communion What Alexander's thoughts were of the Arians as to God's favour I believe our Authour can't tell nor any one else at this distance and therefore he can be no rule to us as to this matter That he did Excommunicate some of these Hereticks Arius himself and some others mentioned by the Historians are sufficient Instances that he did not more was owing to their numbers and not to his Opinion of their not deserving it But as to his saying we allow them no title to God's Favour I suppose few will prescribe rules to that any further than they find them prescribed by God himself God Almighty may save for ought as we know thousands of Hereticks and Schismaticks but he has not in any ways let us know so much in his holy word we find but one Faith there that we can be saved by but one Church to communicate in and to both which the promises of the Gospel are made whatsoever God may do more is unknown to us 't is possible that he may do it but he has no where declared he will If he does afford Salvation to such Persons 't is not by the ordinary Methods of the Gospel and what his extraordinary Methods are God himself only knows The ordinary way he has marked out to us there is the rule for us to judge by and those that do not walk by this we may with Charity say they are out of the common way of Salvation The next excuse the Authour makes for them is because they may not see the ill consequences of their Doctrines for he says if this make them Hereticks it is only in Logick As for the Arian Doctrine that was not Heresy by consequence but a downright denial of our Lord's Divinity and that was plain enough by Arius's disputes at first though his Followers afterwards began to mince the matter and to spin their Heresy a little siner when it became too odious to the vulgar after the Nicene Determinations But however Heresy by deduction is still Heresy as the Conclusion is vertually contained in the Premises and the Corollaries in a Proposition The Heretical Consequence is not less Heresy because it is a little further removed than ordinary for whatsoever is true after a thousand deductions is true still and 't is the same in all manner of falsities Nay there is a guilt contracted from this reductive Heresy as well as from the other though such Heretical Person may not observe himself these Heretical or other wicked consequences For as in matter of practice if a Man does a thing unlawful though he may not apprehend all the ill consequences that may attend such an Action he is answerable for these consequences when they come to pass because he has entred upon an ill Action at first and therefore must bear himself off afterwards as well as he can thus it is in Heresy though the Heretick denies a Truth in God's Word the denial of which at first sight does not seem to have so much of Impiety yet for this first fault he is chargeable with the other impious Consequences which are drawn from it Thus when the Arians said there was a time when Christ was not though they did not expresly deny his Divinity yet they are guilty of this too though they pretend to abhor Idolatry yet they are guilty of this if they believe Christ to be a Created Being and yet do worship him A third excuse for the Arians is upon account of their expounding Scripture because he says they reconcile places seemingly contrary by the fairest Methods and so because 't is not the Custom of Writers ever to diminish but generally to advance the Character of the Person they write of therefore 't is reasonable that those places which make Christ equal to the Father should stoop to those that make him inferiour This would be very true if the Persons here spoke of had but one nature If a Poet or Oratour should call Achilles or Alexander a God and in other places a Man 't would be but reasonable for the Reader to take the latter compellation to be the truest and the other title of God to be only an Hyperbolical expression because these persons according to their Characters could not be Gods and Men too because they had only one humane nature but were only stiled Gods from some great and godlike qualities which were inherent in them But our Saviour having two Natures the Divine and the Humane united into one Person both compellations in a Grammatical sense might agree to him without any Figure or Hyperbole But besides our Saviour does not claim the name of the Son of God as a great magnificent Title to aggrandize his Office as Princes use to emblazon their dignity by great swelling Characters he came with another design into the World than to make a fine glaring shew here he came to preach up Meekness and Humility and was the most perfect Instance of them that ever was in the World Therefore if Christ was not God really and essentially and should withal take upon him this Title of God which is the greatest of all Titles on purpose only to raise him an esteem in the World as all Hyperbolical Titles are assumed for he would be then far from maintaining his Character of being a Person of the greatest Humility as he most certainly is if being by Nature really God he has condescended to take upon him our Flesh So that here is no need of running to a Figure to interpret these places we may understand them easily enough in their bare Grammatical sense for there is a thousand times more to be said for this than for any of the Socinians Figurative Constructions And so I think I have spoke to every thing material in this Chapter CHAP. X. Of the Word or Matter which is the Object of Faith THE Authour begins this Chapter with a Discourse about Fundamentals of Belief and by the way casts an odd sort of censure upon the Excellent Treatise of Dr. Hammond on that subject which he says is like an Advertisement in a Gazette which however cannot secure one from mistake if he meets the Man described I am sure that is an Excellent Treatise whatever the Authour thinks of it and I am sure too that admirable Man has handled this subject a thousand times more learnedly and honestly than the Authour has done it in this Chapter 'T is certain that the Authour's Heresy will not stand with the Doctor 's Enumeration of Fundamentals and that 's the reason in all probability that he speaks so slightingly of it and moreover to say the Doctor 's Enumeration every one will not receive for adequate for I believe he is one of that number but certainly it is no defect in that Discourse that it cannot secure every one from mistake that will blind his own Eyes for the Fundamental Doctrines of Religion are