Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	distinct_a	person_n	property_n	2,539	5	9.4838	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66150	A defence of the exposition of the doctrine of the Church of England against the exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux, late Bishop of Condom, and his vindicator : the contents are in the next leaf.	Wake, William, 1657-1737.	1686 (1686)	Wing W236; ESTC R524	126,770	228

Orat 46. p. 722. c. but to have been always with him consubstantial with the Divinity which Divinity therefore by consequence suffer'd and was mortal which Epiphanius Theodoret but especially Gregor Nazianzen has at large related Only since some for the more distinct conception of the Apollinarian Heresie have thus distinguish'd it from that of Eutyches afterwards that the Eutychian affirm'd That our blessed Saviour took nothing from the blessed Virgin Theodoret. Haeretic Fab. l. 4. c. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eutyches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that the very Logos the Word it self being as Theodoret expresses it immutably converted and made Flesh only passed through the Virgin whereas Apollinarius supposed the Flesh of Christ which he took of the Virgin to be converted into the Divine Nature It appears by Gregory Nazianzen that this was no certain distinction forasmuch as the Apollinarian too affirmed oftentimes the same thing that as the Father expresses it in the place I before cited Naz. orat 46. supr dict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apollinarius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 722. our Saviour was even before he descended the Son of Man and descending brought his Flesh along with him which he had whilst he was in Heaven before all Ages and consubstantial with his Essence Which is what Theodoret long since observed when in his 3. Dialogue speaking with relation to them both he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They who have patcht together this various and many-form'd Heresie sometimes say that the Word is become Flesh sometimes that the Flesh is changed into the Word Wherefore laying aside these subtleties this we may undoubtedly conclude That whatever their other differences were whether as to his Body which we see is uncertain or to his Soul in which the variety was more constant and more discernable the Eutychian affirming the Vnion of the two intire Natures the Humane and Divine whereas the Apollinarian deny'd that our Saviour ever assumed the reasonable Soul at all certain it is for what concerns our present purpose See Petav Dogm Theolog. Tom. 4. l. 1. c. 15. pag. 71. §. 3. that they both agreed in this That after the Vnion of the Word and Flesh there was but one only Nature common to both the Substance of the two that were before being now confused and permixt from whence they were both of them afterwards called by Apollinarius by St. Chrysostom Eutyches by others St. Chrysostom and others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from their confusion of the two Natures into one and making not only one Person as the Catholick Church did but one Nature too alone in Christ REFLECTION II. St. Chrysostme's Argument from the Eucharist against the Apollinarians consider'd and explain'd SUch is the Account which the antient Fathers have left us of the Apollinarian Heresie and the same we find to have been the Notion which St. J. Chrysostom in this Epistle had of it He proves the divine and humane Natures to be distinct in Christ that the Properties of the one ought no otherwise to be confounded with the other than as they are united in the same Person He charges the Apollinarians with saying that our Saviour's Body is converted into the Divinity and upon that account attributing Passion to the Deity and finally he concludes all with this Exhortation to Caesarius whom he designed by this Epistle to recover from their Errours Wherefore dearly beloved says he laying aside the novel Phrases and vain Speeches of these men let us return to what we have before said that it is pious most pious indeed that we should confess our Saviour Christ who died for us to be perfect in the Godhead perfect in the Manhood one only begotten Son not divided into two but bearing in himself together the unmixt proprieties of two distinct Natures Not two different Persons God forbid But one and the same Lord Jesus God Word cloathed with our Flesh and that not inanimate without the rational Soul as the wicked Apollinarius pretends Let us then assent to these things let us fly those who would divide him for though the Natures be distinct yet is there but one undivided and indivisible Union to be acknowledged in the same one Person and Substance of the Son II. And now if this be the Catholick Doctrine which this Holy Father here designs to bring Caesarius to such the Errours which by the subtlety of the Apollinarians he was involved in It will be very easie to conceive the Allusion he here makes between the two Natures united in Christ and the two Parts which the Catholick Church has ever acknowledged in the Holy Eucharist to the destruction of the Romanists Pretences of Transubstantiation and to the solid Establishment of the real Presence of Christ in this sacred Mystery such as the Church of England believes and has been established by me in the foregoing Discourse III. The Words of St. See below ☜ Chrysostome in this Epistle are these Christ is both GOD and MAN GOD in that he is impassible MAN for that he suffer'd yet but one SON one LORD He the same without doubt having one Dominion one Power of two united Natures Not that these Natures are consubstantial forasmuch as either of them does without confusion retain its own Properties and being two are yet inconfused in him For as in the Eucharist before the BREAD is Consecrated we call it BREAD but when the Grace of God by the Priest has consecrated it it is no longer called BREAD but is esseemed worthy to be called the LORD's BODY although the Nature of BREAD still remains in it and we do not say there be TWO BODIES but ONE BODY of the Son So here the DIVINE NATURE being joyned with the Humane BODY they both together make up but one Son one Person But yet they must be confess'd to remain without confusion after an indivisible manner not in ONE NATURE but in TWO PERFECT NATURES IV. In which Passage whether we consider the Expressions themselves or the Application of them they are utterly destructive of Transubstantiation First as to the Expressions themselves They tell us plainly That the Nature of BREAD remains in the Eucharist after the Consecration That our not calling it BREAD but CHRIST's BODY does not therefore intend to signifie that the Nature of BREAD is at all changed for that the BREAD by Consecration becomes indeed worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY but yet still retains its own Nature of BREAD V. These are such plain expressions of the Bread's continuing in its own Nature after Consecration that the Papists themselves have not been able to deny it So that their only Refuge is that by the BREAD'S retaining still its own Nature we are they say to understand only this that its Accidents remain but for its Substance that is changed into the BODY OF CHRIST See most of these cited by Albertinus de Eucharist l. 2. pag. 533. in Chrysostome c. 1. Thus Gardiner Turrian Bellarmine Gregory

de Valentia Vasquez Suares Perron Gamachaeus and last of all Father Nouet de la presence de Jesus Christ dans les tres saint Sacrement liv 4. c. 5. art 3 p. 285. Nouet in his Controversie against Monsieur Claude VI. This is indeed to cut the Knot when it was not to be untied and makes St. Chrysostome in effect to say thus much That the Nature of BREAD after the Consecration still remains though indeed the Nature be changed and only the Accidents continue And would it not have been an admirable Similitude to shew that the Humane Nature of Christ was not changed into the Divine as the Appollinarian pretended to alledge the Example of the Eucharist in which the Nature of the BREAD was changed into the very Nature of Christ's Body as the Papists believe VII But S. Chrysostome was not so absurd as these men would represent him and his other Expressions utterly overthrow this Evasion 1. He tells us plainly that all the Change that was made in the BREAD by Consecration was in the Name See this Argument managed by Monsieur Claude Rep. à Pere Nouet Partie 5. c. 6. p. 488. not the Substance That whereas before it was called BREAD by being consecrated it became worthy to be CALLED THE LORD's BODY 2. Had St. Chrysostome believed the BREAD to have been truly changed and become the very Body of Christ would he have said that it became WORTHY to be CALLED the Body of Christ and not rather plainly have told us that it became the VERY BODY of Christ Do men use to say that the Heaven is worthy to be called the Heaven The Sun worthy to be called the Sun And why shall we think St. Chrysostome the only ridiculous man to use such a Phrase as no man in the World ever did or would have done besides But 3. And to put this point beyond all doubt When St. Chrysostome here speaks of the Nature of BREAD in allusion to the Nature of CHRIST if we will have him consistent with himself we must suppose him to have used that Expression with reference to both in the same sense As therefore in his Discourse immediately before and after by Nature with reference to CHRIST he does not mean the Properties only but the very Substance of his Humanity and Divinity so here in his allusion to the Eucharistical BREAD he must still mean the same the Substance of the BREAD and not barely the Properties or Accidents of it and of this I am perswaded no indifferent Person will make any doubt Secondly As to the design of this Allusion VIII The Apollinarians as we have seen affirm'd the Change of one Nature in Christ into the other That however before the Vnion they were two distinct things yet by being united the humane Nature became converted or if you will transubstantiated into the Divine IX Now the Falseness of this S. Chrysostom shews by the Example of the Eucharist That as there the BREAD by being consecrated becomes indeed worthy to be called CHRIST's BODY yet do's not lose its own Nature but continues the same BREAD as to its Substance that it was before So here the Humane Nature of Christ being by the Incarnation hypostatically united to the Divine did not cease to be a Humane Nature but still continued what it was before however united with the other in one Person X. So that as certainly then as the Humane Nature of Christ does now continue to be a Humane Nature notwithstanding that Incarnation so certainly does the BREAD in the Eucharist continue BREAD after this Consecration As certainly as Apollinarius was deceived in supposing the Manhood of Christ to be swallowed up and changed into the Godhead so certainly is the Papist deceived in imagining the Substance of the BREAD to be swallow'd up and converted into the Substance of CHRIST'S BODY in this Holy Sacrament XI Christ's Humane Nature being united to the Divine became worthy thereby to be called together with it by the same common Name of Christ Lord Jesus the Word the Son of God the BREAD being by Consecration mystically united to Christ's BODY becomes worthy to be called together with it THE LORD's BODY but that is all the Humane Nature still continues what it was before in the one the Nature of the BREAD still continues what it was before in the other and there is no Transubstantiation made in either XII In a word in the Hypostatick Vnion though there be two distinct Natures God and Man yet there is but one Person one Son made up of both So in the Holy Eucharist though there be two different things united the BREAD and CHRIST's BODY yet we do not say there be two Bodies but one mystical Body of Christ made up of both as the King and his Image to use the Similitude of the Antient Fathers are not two but one King Or in the Example of St. Chrysostome himself Christ and the Church are not two but one Body REFLECTION III. Of the Epistle it self and the Attempts that have been made against it I. ANd now when such is the force of this Epistle that it utterly destroys one of the principal Errors of Popery It is not at all to be wondred at if those men who were resolved not to be convinced by it themselves have used all imaginable means to provide that others should not II. Ann. 1548. It is now above 100 years since this passage was first produced by Peter Martyr in his Dispute with Gardiner Bishop of Winchester concerning the Eucharist He then profess'd that he had copied it out of the Florentine MS. and that the whole Epistle was put by him into Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Library Lovanii Confutatio Cavillationum c ad Obj. 201. This Gardiner could not deny who therefore in his Answer to him 1552. endeavour'd first to ascribe it to another John of Constantinople who lived about the beginning of the 6th Century Secondly to elude the force of this Passage by that strange interpretation of the Word Nature I have before mentioned and in which all the others have since follow'd him III. Libr. 1. de Euchar. cap. 18. Turrian who by his writing seems to shew that he had somewhere or other seen this Epistle contends in like manner and if we may believe Vasquez Vasquez dis 180. c. 9. n. 102. Valentia de Transub cap. 7. §. Similiter and de Valentia proves it too that this Epistle was not Chrysostom's but the other John's to whom the Bishop of Winchester had before ascribed it But yet still the Argument recurr'd upon them forasmuch as this other John was in the beginning of the 6th Age and Transubstantiation by consequence was not the Doctrine of the Church then IV. And indeed Gamachaeus is not very unwilling to acknowledge this for having with the rest assigned this Epistle to the other John he tells us Excusari posse quod nec Transubstantiatio ejus temporibus ita perspicuè tradita explicata fuerat sicut