Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	assume_v	divine_a	union_n	2,494	5	9.4017	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A08326	An antidote or treatise of thirty controuersies vvith a large discourse of the Church. In which the soueraigne truth of Catholike doctrine, is faythfully deliuered: against the pestiferous writinges of all English sectaryes. And in particuler, against D. Whitaker, D. Fulke, D. Reynolds, D. Bilson, D. Robert Abbot, D. Sparkes, and D. Field, the chiefe vpholders, some of Protestancy, some of puritanisme, some of both. Deuided into three partes. By S.N. Doctour of Diuinity. The first part.; Antidote or soveraigne remedie against the pestiferous writings of all English sectaries	S. N. (Sylvester Norris), 1572-1630.	1622 (1622)	STC 18658; ESTC S113275	554,179	704

he was heard and reuerenced of his Father 9. Heere some learned Protestant may obiect That the person of the Sonne of God was the party offended therfore it could not satisfy but must be satisfyed by the submission of another I answere with Suarez the person of the Sonne of God may be considered two wayes either as it is all one by Identity with the nature of God or as it supporteth the nature of man In the former sense he is the party offended and must be pacifyed in the latter he is our Priest Mediatour and he that pacifyeth because the operations he worketh by his humanity are only capable of merit and apt to satisfy and not these he produceth by his Diuinity Which maketh M. Fields M. Fulkes and their followers assertion the more detestable who faygne Christ to mediate by both his natures As though he could either merit or satisfy in respect of his Deity or without merit satisfaction discharge his office of Mediation the mistery of our redemption Many other such inuincible reasons may be brought against them 10. For he that mediateth to another vseth some submission and intreaty vnto him to obtaine that he cannot himselfe performe which argueth want and impotency in the mediatour and power or authority in him to whome mediation is made So that if Christ as God sueth and supplicateth to his Father he is as the Arians sayd more impotent then his Father according to his God-head he is a Creature and not God Againe he that maketh mediation must be distinguished from him to whom mediation is made but the diuine nature of Christ is the party offended he that ought to be pacifyed he to whome mediation is made Therefore it cannot be he that maketh mediation For this cause Cardinal Bellarmin inferreth that Christ could not be our Mediatour neither Bellar. l. 5. cap. 5. de Chri. Mediatore according to both his natures seuerally nor ioyntly Not seuerally for the reasons alleadged not ioyntly because though in that sort he differ from the Father the Holy Ghost neither of which is both God and man and from the Sonnes of men who are meerly men yet he differeth not from the Sonne of God who was to be pacifyed neither in nature nor in person 11. D. Field taxeth this as a silly kind of reasoning And he like a silly nouice impertinently or impiously replyeth Field in his 5. booke c. 16 fol. 53. That the Sonne of God incarnate differeth not only from the Father and the holy Ghost but from himselfe as God in that he is man and from men and himselfe as man in that he is God And therefore may mediate not only between the Father and vs men but also betweene himselfe as God and vs miserable and sinnefull men How idle how impertinent is this Do not we graunt Doth not Bellarmine in the same place confesse this difference Bellar. l. 5. c. 3. Do not we acknowledg that Christ doth mediate betweene his Father and vs yea betweene himselfe as God and vs wretched sinners But the question is according to what nature he performes it And you who affirme him to execute it according to both natures should shew how the Diuine nature of Christ which maketh mediation differeth from it selfe to whome mediation is made Assigne no difference and you confound the party satisfying with the party offended you make no satisfaction no mediation at all Assigne a difference you diuide the vnity of God-head you impiously deny the Blessed Trinity The Sonne say you assumed the nature of man which the Father did not True But what Did the Incarnation or assumption of man make any distinction any mutation in the essence of God Is not the diuine nature of the Sonne notwithstanding his Hypostaticall vnion the same with the Fathers the same with the Holy Ghosts Is it not as far distant from vs in the Son Aug. li. 2. de pec orig c. 28. Fulke vbi supra Aug. in Psal 109. Theod. in eumdem Psal Iero. in Psal 109. as it is in the Father As farre distant since as before the incarnation Therefore I conclude with S. Augustine Quomodo erit medietas vbi eadem distantia est How can there be a meane where the same distance still remayneth 12. The like forces we bring against M. Fulke who maketh Christ a Priest in respect of his Godhead For besides the Fathers who directly affirme the contrary besides S. Augustine who sayth As he was man he was Priest as God he was not Priest Theodoret As man he did offer Sacrifice but as God he did receaue Sacrifice S. Hierome Our Lord swore c. Thou art a Priest for euer He swore not to him who before Lucifer was begotten but to him who after Lucifer was borne of the Virgin Besides these authorityes if Christ be a Priest and offer Sacrifice as M. Fulke holdeth according to his Diuinity he is both distinct from his Father and inferiour to him according to his diuinity He doth homage to him as his Lord and supreme soueraigne and sitteth not as the Scripture teacheth on his right hand equall with him in dignity equall in glory power maiesty as the * Atha ser 1. con Arian B●sil l. de Spir. sanct cap. 6. Ambr. l. 1. defide c. 4. c. Doctours commonly interprete that place Nay he is as the † August ●om 6. propos 33. Fulk in c. 5. ad Haeb. sect 4. Field 5. ca. 16. Arians affirmed the Priest and Minister of his Father and not his true and consubstantiall Sonne M. Fulke and M. Field with him seeke to auoyd these blasphemyes by distinguishing the workes of mediation and Priesthood into two sortes into workes of ministery workes of authority Of ministery as to pray to pay the price of our Redemption and by dying to satisfy for sinne Of authority as to enter into the helyest place to reconcile vs vnto God which two D. Fulke expresseth Or to quicken giue life impart the spirit of sanctification to passe all good vnto vs from the Father in the holy Ghost which M. Field specifyeth And then they will haue the workes of ministery to be performed by Christ in his manhood the works of authority in his God-head Such maskes they prepare to hide the face of their monstruos assertion notwithstanding the vgly shape appeareth 13. For heere they first intermingle the ministeriall function of man with the powerfull actions of God To enter into the holyest place to penetrate the heauens which M. Fulke vbi supra Fulke recounteth as a work of authority was if we speak of the action not of the power by which it was done a locall motion and worke of ministery proceeding from man and not from God who is vnchangeable immoueable not entring any place but filling all places with his infinite immensity In like manner the reconciliation which Christ as Mediatour made was the action of his humanity in which sense S.

so much as the Councell of Florence had not only defyned that the Father and the Sonne are one origen or beginning of the Holy Ghost but also as Al●isiodorensis Gregory of Arimini Valentia affirme that they are not aliter atque aliter principium After a distinct and seuerall sort a beginning not breathing the holy Ghost in a different manner one from the other But Scotus excellently proueth out of S. Augustine that as the Father the Son are one beginning in respect of the Holy Ghost so all Aug. l. 5. de Trin. c. 14. three are one in respect of creatures The reason is because the * Molina in 1. par q. 45 art 6. Bannes ibidem Molina in 1. part q. 36. art 2. Disput 3. Deuines tell you that the Relations of themselues are of no actiuity their only function is in wardly to distinguish the persons among themselues and not outwardly to worke but only as they are identifyed with the Almighty working nature of God 19. Moreouer it is an approued principle amongst the learned that in the Trinity all thinges are one Vbi non obuiat relationum oppositio Where no opposition of relations is interposed But in manner of producing outward actions there is no opposition of relations no diuersity of notions therefore all vnity conformity and no difference at al. Which the Prophet Moyses denoted in the beginning Gen. ● of Genesis by these two Hebrew words Elohim bara Creauit Dij wher to shew the vnity of the diuine essence and Identity of action togeather with the Plurality of the Persōs he coupleth the singular number Bara Creauit with the plurall Elohim And yet if they had created in a distinct manner it had beene as needfull to haue vsed the plurall number Creauerunt to expresse their variety of working as the plurall number Elohim to betoken the diuersity of persons neuertheles if contrary to the Holy Prophet I should yield vnto M. Field what he requireth it serueth not his turne For suppose the persons did worke in a different manner yet the Sonne hath no different manner of working from himselfe and therefore it still implyeth that he as God should mediate and be also he to whome mediation is made which are the only thinges controuerted betweene vs and the only points which alwayes remayne vnanswered 20. These are I grant profound deep mysteryes these of the Trinity too deep M. Field for you to treate of they are able to dazell the wits of Angells it is not strange that they haue wholy darkened and eclipsed yours Yet strang it is you neuer heard what the Fathers write against you Strange me thinkes you neuer read these wordes of S. Gregory Nissen Not deuidedly for the number Nis●●● ad Ablabium Aug. l. 1. de Trin. c. 4. 5. Later Con. c. Firmiter Tol● 6. c. 1. vndecimum in conf fid 10. 5. v. ●9 Damascen l. 3. de fide ortho c. 14. 15. Maldonat in c. 5. Io. Nazian orat 2. de Filio Tho. 3. p q. ●9 art 2. Dam●s l. 3. cap. 14. of persons doth the holy Trinity worke euery action Nor those of S. Augustine The three diuine persons inseparably worke Not the like in the Lateran the like in the 6. and 11. Tole●an Councell But most strange of all so great a Preacher and expounder of the word could neuer cal to mind that saying of S. Iohn What thinges soeuer the Father doth those the Sonne also doth in like manner and not in a different manner as S. Iohn Damascen vpon this sentence excellently discourseth and confirmeth with the testimony of S. Gregory Nissen And Maldonate solidly obserueth out of Leontius that the Euangelist addeth Similiter In like manner to signify that the Sonne doth worke all thinges in the same sort with the Father with the same power with the same auctority sayth the same Leontius and S. Gregory Nazianzen The reason is as S. Thomas and S. Damascen declare because Operatio sequitur naturam The operation followeth the nature And where that is one and the same without any distinction no distinction can there be in manner of action 21. Neuertheles M. Field goeth forward In this sort to quicken giue life c. to whom he pleaseth especially with a kind of concurring of the humane nature meriting desiring and instrumentally assisting is proper to the Sonne of God manifested Field in his ● book c. 16. fol. 52. in our flesh c. Therefore notwithstanding the obiection taken from the vnity of the workes of the Diuine persons may be a worke of mediation See what errours spring out of heretical pride first he would haue the diuers manner of working in the Sonne from the Father wholy to arise out of their seuerall manner of subsisting now that not sufficient he seemeth partly to draw it from the instrumentall concurrence of Christs humane nature As though either the vnion of his manhood with the person of the Sonne or the workes it produceth should cause some alteration or diuersity in the workes of his Godhead And he who is in himselfe vnchangeable should be altered and changed by the cooperation of his humanity But what change can that cause in the actions of God the Sonne as they proceed from his diuine Nature which it causeth not in the actions of the Father in the actions of the Holy Ghost Chiefly seeing S. Leo speaking in the person of S. Leo homilia de Transfiguratione God the Father to our Sauiour Christ sayth This is my beloued Sonne c. who all thinges that I do doth in like manner and whatsoeuer I worke he without any separation or difference worketh with me If all thinges If whatsoeuer Then those thinges which he worketh with the concurrence of his manhood those he accomplisheth without separation without difference from the workes of his Father and so cannot possibly by them mediate vnto him 22. To explicate my selfe more clearely Touching the action of quickening or giuing life which M. Field tearmeth a worke of mediation we speake not heer precisely of it as it meritoriously issueth from the humanity of Christ but as it is efficiently produced by the Godhead of the Sonne with a kind of concurring for so he speaketh of the humane nature In which respect either M. Field distinguisheth two agentes God on whome the action of quickening principally dependeth and Man who instrumentally concurreth thereunto or he distinguisheth them not Say he distinguish them then that worke of authority as it proceedeth from God equally floweth from all the persons of Holy Trinity in regard whereof they are all mediatours as well as the Sonne because the nature which principally causeth it is common to all Say he distinguish them not but make one sole agent of both on which the worke of mediation indifferently and inseparably dependeth then he confoundeth with Eutyches the two natures of Christ and with Macharius Tho. 3. p q. 18. art 1.

founded erected by hope and perfected or finished by Charity The Centurists among the stubble rubbish or errours of S. Ephrem reiect this ●aying of his What doth it auaile if we haue all things and only want Charity that saueth vs Among the drosse of Sedulius they report this All iustice consisteth of Fayth and Charity 9. Innumerable others do they reprehend for houlding with vs in this point of iustification who partly in the former partly in the ensuing Chapter are recounted Yet I thinke it not amisse to knit vp this discourse with two or three Theological reasons borrowed from S. Thomas and his followers by which they demonstrate the excellency of Charity euen in this life beyond Fayth or Hope The first is that Charity in more noble and perfect S. Thom. 2. 2 q. 23● art 6. 1. part q. 82. art 3 q. 108. art ● 1. 2. q. 65. art 6. Lorin Bannes ●●iet ●s haec loca manner aymeth and inclineth to the incomparable boūty and goodnes of God then either of those vertues for Fayth hath reference vnto him according to some speciall and restrayned manner as he is reuealed vnto vs. Hope as he shal be the goale or center of our Beatitude But Charity imbraceth him as he is in himselfe infinite illimited the soueraigne good and mayne Ocean of all perfection for although the supernatural knowledge of fayth be required as a condition to propose the amiablenes of the beloued obiect vnto vs yet loue is not bounded within the limits of our knowledge but extendeth it selfe to all the perfections of the thing proposed without any exception restriction or limitation which apparantly conuinceth the precedency of Charity because that vertue is more noble and worthy which after a more noble and worthy manner expresseth tendeth and draweth neere to the dignity of her obiect as all both Deuines Philosophers agree Secondly in this life the loue of thinges superiour which exceed the compasse of nature is more perfect then the knowledge or vnderstanding of them because we know them only answerable to the proportion of restrained formes which represent them vnto vs. We loue them according to the full sea of goodnes which Porphir is included in them In so much as Porphiry the Philosopher writeth That to speculate diuine things doth purify the soule Aug. ser 28. de tēp Est 27. in append tract 2. in 1. ep Ioan. Dionys de diuin nomin c. 4. Plato to loue them doth deify or turne the same as it were into God S. Augustine agreably If thou louest God I dare say thou art God Thirdly loue weddeth conioyneth vs with the thing we loue it transformeth to vse S. Dionysius his word the louer into the bowels of his beloued Maketh sayth that Diuine Philosoper Plato the soule more where it loueth then where it liueth Howbeit Fayth and Hope suppose a disiunction and separation from their reuealed or desired obiects for Hope expecteth not the thing possessed and Fayth giueth not assent to the mystery clearely or manifestly proposed Hence S. Thomas inferreth the preheminence S. Thom. 1. 2. q. 66. art 6. of Charity aboue Hope or Fayth because the property and nature thereof consisteth in a more perfect vnion coniunction or marriage with God by reason of which it must needes more effectually concurre to our iustification then either of them 10. Therfore M. Abbot after much adoe to the contrary yieldeth to Charity so great a prerogatiue as he contenteth himselfe if Fayth may haue some part with Hier. in c. 22. Matth. it in the worke of iustification For in answere to that saying of Hierome The wedding garments are the Commandements of our Lord and the workes which are made vp of the Abbot c. fol. 610. 611. Law and the Ghospell and do make the garment of the new man M. Abbot replyeth Why doth he M. Doctour Bishop alleadge these words to exclude Fayth from being a part of the wedding garment Then The workes that are made vp of the Law Abbot ibidem the Ghospell consist not only in Charity but in Fayth also c. Lastly Though any do by occasion name Charity for the wedding garment as men by diuers occasions speake diuersly therof yet no man Ibidem was euer so absurde as expresly to exclude Fayth from being one part thereof I thinke so that neuer true Catholike was so absurde but so absurd are you as to accept that for a part which you and your companions haue hitherto challenged to be the only cause of Iustice For I cannot iudge that you should account this wedding garment which only admitteth vs to the banquet of heauen which only is acceptable to the Maister of that heauenly feast any other then the robe of true Iustice so pleasing vnto him wherein if Fayth haue only a part if it consist in Charity not excluding true Fayth why put you this question in suite in behalfe of Fayth alone Or if the wedding garment be not the true liuery of Iustice gratefull vnto God how is any part thereof wouen by Fayth which only concurreth according to you to iustify before God THE XXI CONTROVERSY IN WHICH It is discussed how good workes do iustify against Doctour Abbot Doctour Whitaker and D. Fulke CHAP. I. AFTER the first Iustification which i● accomplished by Charity there followeth the second that is the increase and augmentation of the same by good works in which holy men dayly walke and go forward vntill they arriue to the supreme degree of that finite perfection which God foreseeth they will climbe vnto by the concurrence of his grace as the wiseman teacheth ● Prouer. v. 2● in the fourth Chapter of the Prouerbs The path of the iust as a shining light proceedeth euen to perfect day That is as the dawning appeareth more bright and bright vntill it approach to noone tyde or to the fullnes of the day so the iust man aduaunceth himselfe forwards in the way of perfection vntill he come to his determined pitch or state of vertue in which course euery step that he treadeth truly augmenteth his former iustice For as S. Iohn sayth He that doth instice is iust And he that is iust let him be iustifyed yet Doctour Whitaker D. Fulke and Doctour Abbot 1. Ioan. 3. v. 7. Apoc. 22. v. 11. VVhitak l. 8. aduer Duraeum Fulk in c. 22. Apo● sect 3. Abbot c. 4 sect 35. 36. Ibidem with one accord reply that S. Iohn speaketh not there of true iustice before God or of that iustice which purchaseth heauen but of inward sanctification or outward iustice before men only But if you distinguish sanctification from iustice as deceitfully you do the proper notion and signification of the word maketh against you which sayth not a man is sanctifyed only but iustifyed more iust by doing iustice Then S. Iohn expoundeth himselfe adding He that doth iustice is iust euen as he is iust But he to