Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	nature_n	person_n	trinity_n	3,502	5	10.3197	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39279	A defence of the Thirty nine articles of the Church of England written in Latin by J. Ellis ... now done into English ; to which are added the Lambeth Articles ; together with the judgment of Bishop Andrews, Dr. Overall, and other eminent and learned men upon them.; Articulorum XXXIX Ecclesiae Anglicanae defensio. English	Ellis, John, 1599?-1665.; Andrewes, Lancelot, 1555-1626.; Overall, John, 1560-1619.; Church of England. Thirty-nine Articles.	1700 (1700)	Wing E587; ESTC R1641	74,086	146

is an Union between Two absolute Things there ind●ed there is a Composition But in God his Essence is absolute and the Person relative And Persons do not differ from one another really and essentially but really and personally i. e. by relative Personalities Obj. 8. Where there are One and Three Beings there there are Four Buut in God there are One and Three Beings the Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three and yet Essence it self is none of these Answ. * We are not to imagine here that the Author meant to favour the Sabellian Heresie For though to say that Three Persons are Three Modes of Subsistence be Sabelliani● yet as an Answer to the foregoing Objection the fa●rest Interpretation is That though there be Three distinct Persons in the Godhead or Divine Nature the Divine Nature is not to be reckoned as a thing distinct and separate from them And this will give likewise an Orthodox Sense to the Comparison of Light There is one only Essence in God and Three Persons are only the Three Modes of his Subsistence Now Modes do not number a thing but they are numbered and included in it so that it cannot be said to be different from them So for Example if there be Three Degrees of Light the Morning Noon and Evening Light Light it self will not be any fourth thing in respect of these Degrees which are to be reckoned up and included under Light singly and simply considered Obj. 9. If there be Three Persons in the Divine Essence then there will be first and second before and after and so it will not be perfectly simple Answ. Before and after do not relate to the Essence but to the Modes of subsisting And though they generally suppose a priority of Time and Essence yet there is a priority of Order that does not exclude a Co-aeternity And Eternity has relation to the Essence of God Obj. 10. The Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to Reason because it asserts the same numerical Essence to be wholly in One and wholy in Three which seems impossible Answ. The Divine Essence is One and Infinite and so is wholly in One Person and wholly in Three This cannot be said to be impossible since the Essence of a reasonable Soul is totally in the whole and wholly in every Part. Now the true Image of this thing is this That many Men are One Man only by a Participation of the Species or Humane Nature Obj. 11. This Doctrine introduces Three Infinites when it is impossible thsre should be any more than One. Answ. There is One Infinite viz. the Divine Essence however that Infinity is not a personal Property but an essential one There are not indeed Three infinite Gods but Three Persons make up One infinite Nature Obj. 12. The Father is said to be the only true God Joh. 17. 3. Answ. Hereby are excluded all fictitious Deities or Creatures but not the Son or the Holy Ghost Even the Father alone is God who has an Omnipotent Son Obj. 13. The Scripture does not make use of these Words and Phrases Trinity Person and to proceed Answ. Although these Terms are not to be met with in the Scriptures yet the Sense and Meaning of them are plainly to be fetched from thence ART II. Of the Word or Son of God which was made very Man THE Son which is the Word of the Father begotten from everlasting of the Father the very and eternal God of one Substance with the Father took Man's Nature in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin of her Substance So that Two whole and perfect Natures that is to say the Godhead and Manhood were joyned together in One Person never to be divided whereof is One Christ very God and very Man who truly suff●red was cru●fied dead and buried to reconc●le his Father to us and to be a Sa●fice not only for O●nal Guilt but also for the Actual Sins of Men. Obj. 1. That it does by no means agree to a Spiritual N●e to ●eget therefore Christ is not 〈◊〉 of God Answ. This is true Physically speaking in the manner that corporeal Substances be et their Likeness and Substance but it very well agrees in a Me a physical Sense as an Angelical or Human Mind begets Reason which is the proper Fruit of the Mind and in the most Spiritual Sense of all we may suppose one Person to beget another from and in himself as the Father begat the Son Obj. 2. That Christ has not all the Divine Perfections because he wants Paternity which is a Perfection of the Father therefore he is not God Answ. Christ has all the absolute Perfections that are common to the Three Persons which is sufficient although he has not the Chracteristical Ones which are proper only to One. Obj. 3. That if the Father and the Son are of the same Essence then if the Son be incarnate and made Flesh the Father is so too Answ. The whole Divine Essence is incarnate not absolutely but relatively inasmuch as it is wholly in the Son the whole Divinity originally undertook the Work of Incarnation This may be illustrated by a Similitude Three Sisters weave one Garment and the second wears it Obj. 4. If the eternal Son of God be incarnated it follows that he had a Being and was a Person before he was incarnate If this be so What is that which was conceived in the Virgin 's Womb and bo●n Not a Person for then there would be Two Persons and Two Sons of God If the Person is not born of the Virgin how does that deserve to be called a Man which is born of her since no body can be called a Man that is not a Humane Person For a Man is distinguished to be such by his Person and nothing else Answ. There is one sort of Individual which subsists of it self and is rightly called Person and another which does not subsist of it self but in another as the Hand in the Body But because it does not subsist of it self is therefore not to be called a Person So the Humane Nature of Christ never did subsist by it self but always in the Divine Logos and for that Reason was never of it self a Person Obj. 5. God sent his Son not in true Flesh but as the Apostle says Rom. 8. 3. in the Similitude of sinful Flesh And so Christ was not a true Man Answ. The true Flesh of Christ is called the Similitude of Flesh not simply so but as obnoxious to the Sin of the Flesh not that Christ did assume the Likeness of Flesh and as it were the Image of a Body and not a real one but only the Similitude of sinning Flesh This could not be for Christ was not a Sinner though he was like to Sinners Obj. 6. Christ and Melchisedeck are compared together because both of them were without Father and without Mother Heb. 7. 3. And therefore Christ was not born of a Virgin Answ. Christ is said to be without Father

not because many Books are lost as the Writings of Nathan and Gad with others 1 Chron. 29. 29. as also the Epistle of St. Paul to the Laodiceans Col. 4. 16. Answ. The single Books have an essential Perfection because they have the Matter and Form of the Word of God the whole Canon has a proportionate one The one has the perfection of the part the other of the whole But we have all the Books that are Canonical those Books that are lost were Historical Narrations and some others too that were not Canonical Obj. 6. All that Christ said and did are not comprehended in the Scriptures Answ. All that Christ did and said necessary for our Salvation are in the Scriptures Obj. 7. St. Paul bids us 2 Thess. 2 15. to hold or keep the Traditions Answ. Either the Apostle there speaks of those free and indifferent Constitutions that concern the Government of the Church or concerning the Doctrine which he himself in Person had preached to them and then even that was contained in his Writings and other Canonical Books for Tradition is wont to be taken in that Sense Now he had delivered nothing contrary to the Scriptures as some others had done Obj. 8. But besides Those Books which we call Apocrypha should seem to be truly Canonical because not only many Councils but many Fathers have called and accounted them Canonical Answ. We are to give credit to Councils as far as they follow the guidance of Scripture and no further and if at any time General Councils call these Books Canonical this is only in a comprehensive Sense and has no other meaning but that they were wont to be read in the Church for the ed●fication of the People not that they had the same assurance of them as of those that are truly Canonical because these were never received into the Hebrew Canon and from hence they were called Deutero-Canonici or Canonical in a second Form And then as to some of the Fathers that they called them Canonical that will not prove them such Neither is it very likely that the more Ingenuous of them would call them so unless in the foregoing Sense Obj. 9. The Church is wont to cite many things from thence Answ. The Apostles cited some things from the Writings of the Heathens but we must not gather from thence that their Writings are Canonical Obj. 10. There are many things in the Books of the Apocrypha which mig●ly encourage Faith and Piety There you have ●ittle Morals Oec●mics and P●liticks in short a Compendium of Scripture Answ. All the Books that contain good Precepts are not Canonical ART VII Of the Old Testament THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by Christ who is the only Mediator between God and Man being both God and Man Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the Old Fathers did look only for transitory Promises Altho' the Law given from God by Moses as touching Ceremonies and Rites do not bind Christian Men nor the Civil Precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any Commonwealth yet notwithstanding no Christian Man whatsoever is free from the Obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral Against the aforesaid Article it is Objected Obj. 1. That in the Old Testament things were obscure but in the New they are clear In the Old Christ was shadowed out under Ceremonies in the New himself is present from whence may be inferred an Opposition between the Two Testaments Answ. There may be inferred some difference between the Old and the New Testament in respect to the manner of Administration to the clearness and circumstances of Things but no contrariety in respect to the Substance Obj. 2. Christ as a Man had not yet suffered and for that reason Grace thro' him was not yet offered Answ. Grace was effectually offered thro' Christ that was to come Obj 3. The Mystery of the Incarnation was unknown to the Sons of Men Eph. 3. 5. Answ. It was unknown to the Gentiles before their Conversion Or This Mystery was unknown to the Fathers i. e. It was not so plainly and distinctly known as now it is as you have it in that Text. Obj. 4. The ancient Church was in its Infancy and its Knowledge was accordingly Gal. 4. 3 So in bodily things it could not discern Spiritual ones Answ. The ancient Church is called childish not because it knew nothing of Christ but because its Knowledge was very weak in respect of the Church of the New Testament which saw those things brought to pass which were before prophesied of Obj. 5. Christ was the Mediator of a better Covenant because it was established by better Promises Heb. 8. 6. Answ. Christ is the Mediator of a better Covenant than that of Moses for that promised only Blessing upon condition they kept the Law But the ancient Covenant that was freely made with the Patriarchs has the same Promises with the New Testament in which Life is promised by Faith Obj. 6. Circumcision is called an everlasting Covenant Gen. 17. 13. The Passover is called an everlasting Worship and the whole Levitical Service is called an eternal Precept a perpetual Ordinance and therefore it does bind all Christians Exod. 12. 14. Answ. The Levitical Ordinances are called everlasting i. e. so long as the Old Law should last so that such a duration is spoken of as the nature of the thing will bear And the Word Olam in the Original signifies an Age or long time but does not always denote an absolute Eternity Obj. 7. The Law of not cating Blood does bind Christians Acts 15. 29. Answ. The eating of Blood was forbidden to the Gentiles not for ever but for a time to avoid giving Offence to the weak Jews who were not yet fully confirmed in the Faith of Christ and did still believe that this Ordinance was not quite abolished But then you 'll say that abstaining from Blood and Fornication are both joyned together in the Apostle's Edict Acts 15. 29. therefore by the same necessity that Christians are obliged to abstain from Fornication by the same likewise are they bound as to the eating of Blood I answer that the eating of Blood and Fornication were joyned together by the Apostles not that they really were but only were accounted equal For by most Heathens Fornication was accounted no Sin and Christians began to be wondred at by the Gentiles that they were so much in love with Chastity Neither is it any new thing in the Law of Moses to have moral judicial and ceremonial Precepts mix'd together Obj. 8. None can make wiser Laws than God Now the civil Precepts of the Law Of not defrauding the Hirelings of care for the Poor and several others do highly oblige every Christian. Answ. 'T is true no body makes Laws wiser than God but among the Laws which He has made some are only proper for the

Will chi●fly and first of all nay in no sort is it placed in the Will that any Man when●oever he pleases m●y attain Salvation But th●t there is someti●s a sort of Power in the Will subordin●te and agreeable to Grace no body will d●ny 〈◊〉 has any regard to St. Austin Whilst we hav● 〈◊〉 says he whilst it is in our Power to do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A●d in another place sp●king of the 〈◊〉 sh● of Hell There is a gr●ter 〈◊〉 says 〈◊〉 wh●h yo● o●ght ●o f●ar and which y●u have in your own pow●r to prev●nt coming upon you The Judgment of the most R●verend and Learned Father in God Lancelot Bishop of Winchester who himself had a great part in the Affair concerning the Articles that were offered to the Assembly at Lambeth by Dr. Whitaker THE Four first Articles are about Predestination and Reprobation The one is called by the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Depth of the Riches of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God! Rom. 11. 33. the other by the Prophet A great Deep Psal. 36. 6. I in truth ingenuously confess that I have followed St. Austin's Advice Such Mysteries as I cannot unfold to admire them as they are concealed And therefore for these Sixteen Years ever since I was made Priest I have neither publickly nor privately dispu●ed about them or medled with them in my Sermons And even now I had much rather hear than speak of them my self And indeed since the Place it self is doubtful and has on both sides dangerous Precipices Since some of the Texts of St. Paul from whence commonly these Opinions are drawn are to be reckoned as St. P●ter ●serves amongst the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood And since there 〈◊〉 many amongst the Clergy who are ab● 〈◊〉 such Matters with that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they ought and few a●g 〈◊〉 ●ople 〈◊〉 ●re 〈◊〉 proper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●hings I should advis● if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing might be said on either side 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might not every wh● be so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●lly managed as it is w●t to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 better Purpo●e to teach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●nly the way to Salvation in things manifestly relating to a Holy and a well-govern'd Life than to trouble their Heads with the Secrets of Providence and the hidden things of God whereas an over-curious Inquiry into these things does but turn Peoples Heads and make them break out into Enthusiastick Frensies and scarce ever tend to the Edification of strait and narrow Dispositions However being asked to give my Opinion concerning these Articles and that by your Lordship too whom it is my Duty to obey I answer thus in short To the First wherein Pred●stination is ass●ted That God in his Eternal whether you will call it ●ore-knowledge or Knowledge whereby he sees things which are not as though they were has predestinated some and reprobated others is I think without all manner of doubt The Words of Scripture are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the Foundation of the World i e. God has chosen us from all l●ternity and when he had chosen did predestinate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 4 5. Now it was out of the World that ●e hath chosen us John 15. 19. And therefore he has not chosen All Men in the World but only Some otherwise it could not ●e called Election But then those whom he hath not chosen supposing him to approve of his Choice as the Nature of Election bears he hath reprobated And for this the Scripture use the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to c●t away Rom. 11. 2. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reject or reprobate Heb. 12. 15. There ●ms to be almost the same Reason for Reprobation as for Election for one as for the other And if this do not appear plain enough I would add That some are predestinated one way namely by Christ and others ●e reprobated another namely for their Sins To the Second Article wherein the Cause of Predestination is explained The Word of God by the Prophet is most true That in me only is thy Help i. e. Help is to be had from none but me and from me you can have nothing else but Help As also that of the Apostle Who is it that maketh thee to differ from another i. e. from God alone we have whatsoever makes us to differ from others But yet concerning that Expression the sole good will and Pleasure of God it may be asked 1. Whether it includes or excludes Christ i. e. whether the Act of Predestinating be an absolute or a relative Act. As to my self I think it to be relative and that there is no good Pleasure of God towards Men but by his Son in whom he is well pleased nor that any one is predestinated either before or without the Direction and Approbation of Christ. But as the Scripture has it Christ was first fore-known 1 Pet. 1. 2. and then we in him Rom. 8. 29 Christ was first predestinated Rom. 1. 4. and then we by him Eph. 1. 5. Now we are not as some imagine in the first place elected and Christ afterwards and for our Sakes For it were impossible for us to be predestinated into the Adoption of Sons but by a natural Son neither could we be 〈◊〉 to be ●formable to the Image of his Son as the Scripture speaks unless the Son were first appointed to whose Image we are to be conformed Wherefore to this Article likewise I would choose to add The good Pleasure of God in Christ And then in the second Place it may be asked likewise whether this sole Will and good Pleasure includes or excludes the Fore-knowledge of God I can by no means think that these Two things viz. to sore-know and to pred●stinate are to be separated but we should rather as the Aposties do joyn them together But in this neither dare I give my Opinion rashly or condemn the Fathers who almost All do assert that we are both elected and predestinated according to a Faith foreseen which also Beza himself confesses saying That the Fathers are by no Upon 〈◊〉 of Rom. ver 2 Edit 2. m●ns in this Matter to ●e regarded who refer it all to a 〈◊〉 In which notwithstanding I should think that they spoke rather concerning the Series and Order that God made use of in the Act of Predestination than of the real Cause of it Which Order some dispose one way and some another according to their different Apprehensions But the Fathers seem to me to have thought thus That there was no Election but what was disposed in this following manner 1. That God loveth Christ and then loves us in Christ as also the Apostle says Eph. 1. 6 That God hath accepted us in the Beloved 2. Those that are thus accepted he does endue with Grace and Faith 3. Those that are so endued and thereby distinguished from the rest he does elect And 4. The Elect he does predestinate Most certainly the