Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	humane_a	person_n	property_n	3,952	5	9.4155	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38076	Remarks upon a book lately published by Dr. Will. Sherlock ... entituled, A modest examination of the Oxford decree, &c.	Edwards, Jonathan, 1629-1712.	1695 (1695)	Wing E221; ESTC R17931	28,355	66

same reason there being but one God there can be but one divine essence and if more essences more Gods 3dly That when we speak of God the words Essence Nature Substance Divinity are Synonymous terms and signify one and the same thing Thus in the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are promiscuously used to denote the divine nature or Godhead The Divine Nature Essence Substance being nothing else but the Deity or Divinity and the Divinity vice versa is nothing but the Divine Nature Substance Essence 4thly Therefore if in the Trinity there are three distinct Substances there must be three distinct Essences and Divinities and consequently there must be three Gods For that there is one God or more Gods than one must depend upon the Unity or Multiplication of the divine nature and essence If there be but one divine Nature Substance Divinity there is and for that reason it is impossible there should be any more than one God and if more distinct Substances and Divinities there must be more Gods As the former are numbred and multiplied so are the latter in the same proportion both as to number and kind If there be but three distinct Substances and Divinities there are but three Gods and if those Substances be only numerically distinguished then they constitute only three numerical Gods but if specifically distinguished then there must be three Gods of a different kind that is specifically distinguished from each other 5thly That the Unity of the Godhead is the most perfect and complete sort of Unity that can be imagined No Nature Essence Substance can in any sense be more one than the Divine Nature or Essence is which hath such so perfect and so peculiar a Simplicity and Identity as to exclude all manner of division and all sorts of Multiplication It is true indeed there is one peculiar prerogative of the Divine Nature and Substance founded in its infinite and therefore transcendent perfection whereby it is capable of residing in more persons than one and is accordingly communicated from the Father to the Son and holy Ghost But this is done without any division or multiplication so that the same divine nature is a singular but not a solitary nature being whole and entire in the three blessed persons in each of which it doth completely subsist tho with a different manner of subsistence yet so as to retain its most complete Identity excluding all plurality of essences whether equal or unequal like or unlike the Divine nature being but one and the same as was said before in the three divine persons without diversity and without distinction The Persons indeed are distinguished from each other by a true real proper distinction But this is not founded in the diversity or distinction of their natures but is taken from the different ways of subsistence which one and the same nature hath in the three persons whereby they have different properties characters and relations which are absolutely incommunicable to each other and whereby some things may be affirmed of one which cannot possibly be affirmed of either of the others Such as are the generation of the Son the procession and mission of the holy Ghost And in this different manner of subsistence is founded as the distinction so likewise the subordination between the divine Persons the Father being the first and therefore styled by the Fathers the Origine and Fountain of the Divinity with respect to the Son and holy Ghost Not by the production of a new divine nature but by a communication of his own which as the Fathers always speak is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one and the very same in all three without separation difference or distinction This is indeed a great mystery but we speak of the blessed Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity which hath bin always looked upon by the greatest and wisest men in the Church to be above all expressions and description If any man therefore will not be satisfied with this general account but will be putting new and nice questions and desire to be informed with Nicodemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how can these things be Then I must acquaint him once for all that neither man nor Angel can give a satisfactory answer to such enquiries which are not only impertinent but dangerous proceeding from a wanton and impious curiosity which ought severely to be condemned As for us of this place I hope we shall always endeavor to regulate our apprehensions in the affairs of Religion by the discoveries which God hath made in the holy writings accounting that the truest wisdom when men are wise according to what is written And therefore in spight of all the objections and flouts of Arians Socinians Tritheists Atheists we will resolve to believe what is revealed and to adore what we cannot comprehend Lastly Since the Unity of the divine nature is such and so perfect as is before described therefore we may conclude that all those who attempt to explain it by a specifical sameness and identity are so far from confirming that they plainly undermine this great and fundamental truth For 1st hereby they destroy a true real Unity and in the room of it introduce only a notional Unity which may be consistent with nay indeed as the Dean hath bin told implys a multiplication of the divine nature So that when we say the three persons are one God they are no otherwise one according to this explication than as ten thousand individual men are one man or a myriad of Angels are one Angel Neither is it enough to say that the three divine natures and substances are United in the Trinity but are separated or divided in the persons of Angels and men For this will not alter the case for the three substances so united retain their true and real distinction from each other notwithstanding that Union and are still as much three as if they were not united And therefore this Union of natures will no more constitute one nature than the Union of the three persons in the Trinity who are most intimately and inseparably united to each other will make one person or than the Union of both natures Divine and Humane in our blessed Savior will constitute and make one nature Eutyches of old maintained such a senseless opinion but the Fathers told him that those natures were united it is true but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without confusion alteration or conversion of either into the other So that each nature retained its own powers faculties and properties entire and distinct from those of the other without any mixture or change The like is to be said of the union of several essences and natures in the Trinity For should such an union be allowed yet still the natures must remain entire and distinct and so must their attributes likewise They must have distinct understandings and wills and distinct operations as flowing from powers and faculties essentially distinguished and

consequently they must be three Gods to all intents and purposes when united as much as if they were separated But 2dly A specifical sameness of the Godhead is by no means to be allowed because it destroys the true and fundamental reason of that unity viz. the infinite perfection of the divine nature which renders it absolutely incapable of any multiplication and places it upon another weak and unstable foundation viz. the operation of the mind and understanding So that the unity of the Godhead according to ths hypothesis doth not result from the nature of God but is owing to and dependent upon the operation of some intellect drawing one common notion from the agreement which it observes in several individuals Which to affirm would certainly be both a monstrous and a Blasphemous assertion ss the Animadverter hath very judiciously observed p. 183. From all these observations I think it is as evident as any truth in nature that to assert three substances in the blessed Trinity is plainly to imply and in other words to affirm that there are three Gods which assertion therefore in the judgment not only of all true Christians but even of Jews and Mahometans and some sober Pagans would be accounted and adjudged false and impious as it is declared to be by the Oxford Censure But against this the Dean will urge in behalf of his three distinct substances the plurality and distinction of persons in the Trinity Are there not three Persons in the Godhead Yes Are not these three Persons three substantial Persons Yes we acknowledge they are Tho by the by this epithet of substantial when added to Person is superfluous and is no better than a plain tautology because the very notion of Person imports the perfection and complement of substance so that it receives no addition to its signification by the word substantial But to pass this by and proceed to his questions Are not three substantial persons three distinct substances I answer no. For these three persons have but one and the same substance or nature that is common to them all which nature hath three different ways of subsisting in the three persons From which different ways of subsisting as I said before do result distinct properties and relations belonging to each of those divine persons and which are incommunicable to the others All these questions so often and so impertinently proposed by the Dean are easily resolved by proposing the like questions in other words but such as are perfectly equipollent Are not the Persons in the Trinity three distinct Divine Persons Yes Is not every divine Person truly and properly God Yes Is it not then as plain that if there be three distinct divine Persons there must consequenty be three Gods I answer no. Because tho each of them distinctly is a divine Person and therefore God yet they have but one and the same Divinity or Godhead in common to them all so that they are distinguished only by their personalities but are united in one divine nature or Godhead And therefore as the Athanasian Creed tells us tho we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord yet we are forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say there are three Gods or three Lords Now of all this I would defire no greater or plainer acknowledgment than what I find in the writings of this examiner and particularly in the papers before us p. 18. he hath these words That there are three Persons and one God is the Catholick Language and therefore three belongs to the Persons and one to the Godhead This is right but in the words immediately succeeding he quite overturns the Catholick Faith and Language by saying That therefore whatever is essential to the notion of each Person may be numbred and distinguished with the Persons From hence he would have it follow as indeed it will if this be allowed that spirit and substance being included in the notion of a Person it must be multiplied with it so that as there are three Persons so there must be three spirits three substances in the Trinity Now this is extremely false for by the same way and for the same reason that there are three substances or three spirits there must be three Godheads He saith no adding that this will not affect the unity of the Godhead for three he saith belongs to the persons which are three not to the Godhead which is but one very right And must it not be said for the same reason that when we affirm that there are three substantial Persons three is to be applied to Persons and not to substance because substance when we speak of God being equipollent to Godhead as was said before is but one and therefore cannot be multiplied But cannot what is essential to the notion of a person be numbred and distinguished with the person No by no means for tho it may and must be so in finite persons it is not so when we speak of the divine infinite persons in the Trinity Because there is something in each of those persons which in common belongs to them all such is the divine nature substance Godhead which is so in each as to be whole and entire in all three and therefore tho residing in and applied to each person yet it may not it cannot be numbred or distinguished with the persons who are distinguished by their properties and relations which arise from three different ways manners of their subsistence but not by their substance and Godhead which is but one and the same in all three without division distinction or multiplication The same orthodox acknowledgment we have p. 21. tho tacked by him according to his usual method to an egregious contradiction There he saith that the divine nature is whole and entire in each divine Person and that infinite and infinite and infinite when applied to the Persons are but one and the same infinite nature Very right but then with the same breath in a manner he puffs all this away by telling us that each of the divine Persons is a distinct infinite mind and yet that these three infinite distinct minds can have but one and the same divine nature Which is a plain contradiction making one to be three and three one in one and the same respect And is no better than if he should say in three Gods there is but one and the same Godhead for infinite mind and spirit is but the same thing in other words with God as he himself elsewhere acknowledges Lastly to mention no more p. 29 30. He repeats the same orthodox expressions The Scripture-notion of the Unity of God is not such an Unity as is only in one Person for then it could not enjoyn the Faith and worship of Father Son and holy Ghost But such an Unity as can be between three when the one same divine nature is wholly and entirely communicated by the eternal Father to the