Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	person_n	union_n	unity_n	3,713	5	10.0161	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41331	The real Christian, or, A treatise of effectual calling wherein the work of God is drawing the soul to Christ ... : to which is added, in the epistle to the reader, a few words concerning Socinianisme ... / by Giles Firmin ...	Firmin, Giles, 1614-1697.	1670 (1670)	Wing F963; ESTC R34439	271,866	392

praedicatur sic Essentia Divina de pluribus distinctis suppositis aut personis contra ingenium aliorum singularium tamen manet singularis quia est de natura universalis ut in iis de quibus praedicatur natura ejus multiplicetur ut natura humana multiplicatur in Petro Paulo c. That the holy Scriptures are clear in asserting the Divinity as well as the Humanity of Christ the Disciples of Mahomet * Vide Hornbeck Sum. contro p. 131. will acknowledge if we own Paul's Epistles to be Canonical therefore in their Disputations with us Christians upon that Point about the Divinity of Christ they decline the Authority of Paul's Epistles and say they were adulterated by the Christians this is very strange that Mahumetans can see this and the Socinians that own these Epistles and dare not say they are adulterated yet cannot read this It is something that we have these Mahumetans determining for us that those who own those Epistles to be authentick must own Christ to be God Secondly There is no Article of our Christian Faith which the Socinians oppose that is seemingly so contrary to reason as is the measuring of an Infinite Essence by Finite Maximes 1. We deny that any Article of Faith which we maintain is contrary to sound Reason though it be above Reason therefore I put in the word seemingly contrary Let that which measures be able to contain the thing measured And is not this the Logick of the Socinians How do they judge of the Articles of our Faith how do they measure them the unity of the Essence in the Trinity of the Persons the union of the Divine and Humane Nature in one Person but by these Maximes by which they measure a finite Essence In a finite Essence it is impossible that one singular Essence should subsist in three distinct Persons therefore it is impossible it should be so in the Infinite Essence To have two distinct Natures unite in one Person this cannot be Therefore it cannot be in the second Person of the Trinity Yet the Misleto and the Apple-tree are united together and are distinct The sum of their Logick is this what cannot be found in a Finite Being must be denied in the Infinite Essence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we account a great piece of Sophistry in disputing Certainly a most gross absurdity to take Maxims fitted for finite Creatures and limit the Infinite Being unto them when as Infinite and Finite differ toto Coelo What use these Maxims may be of laying down first the Scripture for my Major to which I assent upon the Authority of God revealing I have touched in my former Head but cannot now insist upon it Thirdly To give Divine or Religious worship to a Creature is not only above Reason but is contrary to and repugnant against sound Reason But this is the Socinians practise Christ is but a Creature a meer man yet to Christ do they give Religious worship in so much that Socinus will not own him to be a Christian who will not worship Christ with Divine or Religious worship Let the Socinians name one Article of our Faith that is so contrary to reason as this I argue upon the Socinian Principle which is that all Articles of Faith all the Propositions in the Scripture must be brought to the Bar of our Reason yea Socinians Reason and there they must receive their sentence whether they be true or false whether they are to be rejected or received Hence the Doctrine of the Trinity the Eternal generation of the Son the Personality of the Holy Ghost the personal union of the two Natures in Christ the satisfaction of Christ Imputed Righteousness the corruption of our Reason and Will after the Fall the Resurrection of our Bodies the same bodies which we lay down these among others receive their sentence of condemnation at this Bar yea though the Judge Reason be dim sighted corrupted yet so it must be Why Because all these do not agree with Reason therefore they are all condemned If Reason then must judge all let us try this at the Bar of Reason I will only use one Argument that Christianus Francken used against Socinus being one of the same Opinion with Socinus as to the Divinity of Christ and therefore looking upon him as Man only would not have Religious worship given to him which Socinus did Several Arguments he hath to which Socinus gives miserable answers and truly we may sit still till we see how Socinus and his party can clear themselves from being Idolaters which Christianus Francken Francis David with their party who deny Christs Divinity also do prove Socinus and his followers to be for worshipping Christ with Religious worship whom they deny to be God and but a meer Creature His Argument is this How great is the distance between a Creator and Creature so great ought to be the difference between the honour which is given to the Creator and the Creature But between the Creator and the Creature is the greatest infinite distance whether you respect the Nature and Essence or the Dignity and Excellency Therefore there ought to be the greatest difference between the honour of God and the Creature But the honour which is chiefly due to God is Religious Adoration Therefore this is not to be given to a Creature Therefore not to Christ whom you confess to be a pure Creature This was his Argument and now let Reason judge I urged this Argument of giving Religious worship to a Creature against a Socinian The answer he gave me was this If it were the Pleasure of God to have it so as it was then it ought to be so and it was righteous and good it should be so To which Answer of his I reply This Pleasure of God leads us to another Question An beneplacitum Dei sit prima regula Justiciae which some affirm others deny The Socinian by this Answer did affirm it implicitely making this to be a duty and righteous act to give Divine worship to a Creature because it was the good pleasure of God to have it so invincible Arguments to prove that Thesss would have been acceptable Secondly What shall become of the Socinian Principle Now you Judge Reason may sit alone upon the Bench we shall carry away all the Court to another Tribunal the good Pleasure of God and to this we are willing to go Thirdly This good pleasure of his must be known by the holy Scriptures in which he hath revealed his pleasure as to our duty But then I will say with your Master Socinus If the Scripture doth say so it must not be believed because it is contrary to reason therefore there is some other hidden sense in that Scripture which must be searched out this is fair dealing I do but measure to Socinus in his own bushel for I am sure here is a Principle contrary to Reason and sound Reason Fourthly I utterly deny it that ever it

was the pleasure of God that religious worship should be given to any meer Creature Take Christs word for that Matth. 4.10 It is written there is an old Law for this God hath manifested his pleasure as to this point Deut. 6.13 and 10.20 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Crellius makes great use of this exclusive Particle only in John 17.3 which he puts in the front of all his Texts against the Divinity of Christ because he said in his Prayer This is life eternal to know thee the only true God Crellius putting the stress upon the word only proves that Christ excludes himself from being the true God By the same word and as good reason say I doth Christ exclude himself from being the Object of religious worship Let the Socinians say what they can I know what distinctions Socinus useth to help himself here but whence had he them Out of the Turkish Alcoran not out of the holy Scriptures I am sure they are wholly silent as to any such Notions so that thence he must have them or they are the putrid Figments of his corrupt brain But let Francken alone with him I will not multiply more Texts being now I am in an Epistle to the Reader Only one Text more which Francken urgeth against Socinus Isai 42.8 My glory I will not give to another So Isai 48.11 here God declares it plainly that it is not his pleasure to give away the glory due to him unto any other he is peremptory against it Francken urgeth the Text tus Religious worship is the glory of God and God saith he will not give his glory to another Therefore he hath not given it to Christ if he be not God Socinus may scratch his head but shall never be able to answer it But one word more concerning this Text I think it will afford some thing against Socinus and Francken too denying the Divinity of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the words are I am Jehovah that is my Name and my glory will I not give to another What glory is here especially meant That which he had mentioned just before Gloria Jehovitatis meae as Calonius phraseth it the glory of my Deity that name Jehovah which is proper to me this glory I will not give to another So Chap. 83.18 That men may know that thou whose Name alone is Jehovah art the most high c. Jehovah then is Gods Name and his alone and he that bears this Name is the Most high over all the Earth This glory he will not give to another But this Name Jehovah is given to Christ in the holy Scriptures as Calonius in his learned Tract Theolog. Nat. Rovel p. 218 c. De Nomine Dei Tetragrammato hath shewn and defended them against all the windings of that subtle Serpent in Crellius and his Companions but were not Christ of the same Essence he should not bear the glory of that Name Jehovah Fifthly and lastly I answer It is very true the holy Scriptures do clearly manifest that Divine worship is due unto Christ and it must be given to him both natural and instituted worship we shall find given to him But first That this depends upon the meer pleasure of God I deny as if God might have otherwayes disposed it that no religious worship should be due to him unless that Thesis I mentioned before be true That the good pleasure of God is the first Rule of all Righteousness which some do maintain and from hence argue that if the Lord had so pleased there should have been no worship due to himself from his Creature the Creature should not have needed to love God above all to fear him trust in him or serve him any way pray unto him c. only it was his good pleasure to have it so but this makes all the worship due to the Father depend upon his meer pleasure and doth not hurt our Canse at all whether that Thesis be true or no doth not now concern me Secondly I answer Religious worship is not given to him as a Creature but as he is a Creator God over all blessed for ever for which there are Texts plain enough would but the Socinians hold to the Rules which they seem to approve of viz. Non esse recurrendum ad Figuras donec absurditas Sermonis proprie ita ut sonat intellecti monstretur If Schmalzius would but hold to what he sayes Ludum jocum e Scripturis facere pronunciat qui absque necessitate a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discedunt Would but the Socinians hold to these Rules we shall find Christ to be a Creator not of the new Creature only but of the Creature the Scripture cannot speak plainer than it doth as to this Point Colos 1.16 confutes that Socinian corrupt gloss which they put upon those Texts which declare that all things were created or made by Christ for the Angels I hope had no need of any new Creation Now if the holy Scriptures must be believed when they tell us Religious worship must be given to Christ who is but a Creature as say the Socinians though this be contrary to sound Reason yea and as contrary to the holy Scriptures which will call this Idolatry Then I hope the same Scriptures may as well be believed when they tell us of one singular Divine Essence subsisting in three Persons and of the Humane and Divine Nature united in one Person which things are above but not contrary to Reason Our Reason at the best before our fall being but finite but since our fall corrupt and dim For my part I cannot see how this practise of the socinians can stand but were I of their opinion I must go over to Franciscus David and Christianus Francken and so I believe will our English Socinians ere long upon several grounds which move me to think so but this among the rest perswades me because they are fallen off from some part of his worship already as I learn by the Socinians with whom I had discourse For the Saoraments it is true the Socinians differ from others as to the use and end of them And they do differ among themselves about Baptism Socinus did not judge it to be a perpetual Ordinance yet others of the Socinians do use it And in Transylvania as Calo. Socinis profliga p. 851. nius tells us the Socinians do baptize with water and that in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that so it was decreed in a Socinian Synod hold Anno 1636. But as to the Lords Supper I cannot see but they all agree in that and Socinus acknowledges it to be Sacramentum perpetuum Universale Now being this was the judgment of all of them for ought I see as to the use of it however they are erroneous as to the end of it I asked him what was the reason they did not administer that Ordinance He answered Though

if they did unawares happen to pronounce it then they would punish themselves with a blow on their faces and use another word like it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by an Apocope they framed out of two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deleatur nomen ejus Let his name be blotted out to see the hatred of this poor people against the Lord Jesus the Lord hasten the removal of the vail But in the time of his being in the flesh amongst them that which they opposed was that he should be the Christ the Messiah this was such a crime that whoever did say he was the Christ it was matter of excommunication they put him out of the Synagogue John 9.22 Others of the false Apostles would not stand much at that but might yield it he was Christ but not Lord they would not set up him only Lord of their faith and lives but they set up the Servant Moses with him he must be joyned to him Non praedicabant Christum Dominum sed Mosis conservum Davenant ibid. this the Son nor his holy Apostles would endure hence we have it so often that these three are put together Acts 2.36 God hath made that Jesus whom ye crucified both Lord and Christ saith Peter the last words were the Controversie We preach not our selves but Christ Jesus the Lord saith Paul so 1 Cor. 8.6 thus Paul in his Benedictions useth the words The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ eight times The essence of Faith lies in receiving this Person in his Offices Jesus Christ the Lord John 1.11 we have the word receiving the same Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Text but in the twelfth verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the simple Verb Whence Grotius Hinc idem est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To this receiving four things are required it s made up of Acts 4. First Knowledge of the Person and his Offices his whole work what I am to receive I will know the Soul and Christ by receiving him enter into a married union it is mystical but real Will a Woman receive that Man to be her Husband whom she knows not John 17.3 This is life eternal to know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Men cannot believe in him of whom not heard Rom. 10.14 Every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him John 6.40 There is a seeing the Son understanding knowing him well before there will be any believing on him to salvation First see then believe Thus he began in the term from which he called you thus he doth also in the term to which he calls you the work is rational no more only touch it This knowledge is of his Person Offices and work of Redemption for he must be received with all the Soul shall not be mistaken let it know what it must receive The Person such as is the Person such is the valor of his Offices and of all the work he hath done He who hath his state of sin and misery layed open to him to purpose Conscience awakened guilt lying heavy upon his Soul and feels the rebellion of his heart a hell of corruption within him will never venture his Soul with one who is but a meer Creature no power meerly created can do that for him which he feels must be done or he must perish God in our flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 it must be that must make a Redeemer for him or else he must lye in his bonds for ever Here the Socinians Jesus and our Jesus differ infinitely what the Apostle saith concerning his Resurrection 1 Cor. 15.14 If Christ be not risen our preaching is vain and your faith is also vain the same I say concerning his Person if he be but man a meer Creature let him die and rise and ascend both preaching and faith are but vain a meer man is not a Rock a precious Corner-stone for Faith to build upon Flesh is too soft too sandy to lay such a weight the weight of a guilty captivated Soul under laid lusts creatures and devils upon The Egyptians use men and not God and their horses flesh and not spirit Isai 31.3 What then They will fail when you come to trial Wo to them that go down to Egypt v. 1. They were reproved much and accounted fools who went down to Egypt to put their trust in men in flesh for outward temporal safety and shall we trust upon one who is man and no God flesh and not an eternal spirit for the eternal safety of precious Souls It were improper for me considering the scope of my Book to enter upon this discourse though this is the main pillar of our Christian Religion if this go all goes it is a mercy to weak Christians that God keeps off Satan from troubling of them here thousands go out of this world to Heaven and never meet with one troubled thought about it yet I fear this Doctrine spreads much but it must be amongst those who never had the load of guilt and sin lye upon them it will not easily down with those persons who have felt them I shall say no more about it only suggest to the Reader a notion or two which I have had when I read that Text John 3.16 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son c. when God will set forth any of his Excellencies his Attributes they appear so glorious that they swallow up they confound the understanding of the Creature it cannot reach them they set him into amazement and there leave him If God will shew forth his Power his Wisdom his Goodness that God is so powerful so wise so good he makes a world and how are our understandings confounded amazed when we comtemplate these Attributes appearing in the Creature they are indeed God-like Would any man demand a demonstration of the patience and long-suffering of God Let him but consider the horrid wickedness Atheisme blasphemy uncleanness with all the abominations in England and then tell me if his patience and long-suffering be not God-like So if God will set forth the Attribute of his Love in a gift and put his so to it that he so loved that gift must be such a thing that his Love therein demonstrated may be like his other Attributes God-like such as confound amaze swallow up the understanding as do the other Attributes for if the understanding can grasp it it is but a mean pitiful business not at all becoming a God especially when he puts his so to it so loved Then let us view his gift and see whether this gift demonstrates Love to be God like comparable to his other Attributes The gift is an Only bigotten Son But what is that Son God or man or God-man in one Person Why He is but a man flesh as we are only his miraculous Conception of a Virgin had not our sinful nature he lived a holy life and died to confirm his Doctrine and to