Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	divine_a	person_n	unity_n	11,351	5	10.1140	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A68610	A booke of Christian questions and answers Wherein are set foorth the cheef points of the Christian religion ... A worke right necessary and profitable for all such as shal haue to deale vvith the capious quarelinges of the vvrangling aduersaries of Gods truthe. Written in Latin by the lerned clerke Theodore Beza Vezelius, and newly translated into English by Arthur Golding.; Quaestionum et responsionum Christianarum libellus. English	Bèze, Théodore de, 1519-1605.; Golding, Arthur, 1536-1606.	1574 (1574)	STC 2038; ESTC S112801	79,360	184

vs chiefly on hande to knowe howe he is mynded towardes vs. Quest That thou maiest knowe this what considerest thou chiefely in God. Ans Perfect iustice and perfect mercye Quest VVhat callest thou iustice and what callest thou mercy Ans These thinges are not in God as qualities But by gods iustice I meane that Gods nature is so pure and sounde of it selfe that he vtterly hateth and most seuerely punisheth all vnrighteousnes And by the name of perfecte mercye I meane that whatsoeuer he bestoweth vpon vs and specially the benefit of euerlasting life procedeth wholy of his mere free gift and grace Quest But these thinges agree not together For how is he a most sore punisher for those thinges which hee giueth of his mere grace Ans That these thynges doo very well agree the father hath well shewed in his sonne who hath made full satisfaction for our sinnes and is giuen vnto vs fréely by the father Quest Did not the father then or the holy ghost aby the death for vs Ans No truely none of them both but alonely the sonne whom the father sent and whom the holy Ghost teacheth and sealeth fast in vs. Quest Is not the Sonne verye God by nature and consequently the immortalitie it selfe as well as the father and the holy Ghost Ans Yes Neither were he our sauior if he were not God. Quest How then could he die Ans Where as by his godhead he was the eternall life it selfe he became man that he might die in the flesh Quest But the sonne is god vnchangeable how then is he become man Ans Not by minglyng the natures or properties together nor by any chaungynge of God into man or of man into God of whiche thynges none of bothe is possible but by so straite and familiar knittyng of the Sonnes Godhead to the nature of man taken vnto it that the Sonne of God béeyng very God and very man is henceforth one person Iesus Christ Quest And what maner of vnion is this Ans In gréeke it is called hipostaticall and in English Personall and so it is in déede Quest. I pray thee describe it that it may be vnderstoode at leaste wise after a sorte Ans The thinges are sayd to bée vnited in nature whiche come together into one nature whether the same be done without any growyng together mixyng together or turnynge one into another like as the three persons of the Godhead are one moste single substance or whether it be don by only knitting together like as the soule and body méete together as essentiall partes in making that which is man or whether it be by meanes of som mixture or turnynge of the one into the other like as befalleth in the interchange of the elements in thinges that be mixed And thinges are saide to be vnited personally which are ioyned in suche wyse as there ryseth therof but one selfsame person like as the body soule are so vnited to make the one nature of man that they close together into one person or particular Of this sort is also the vnion of the two natures in christ which ioyne together not to make some one third thing as Eutiches misweened but to make both one person without any confusion either of the natures themselues or of the essentiall properties And I sayd an vnion of natures but not of persons least it might be surmised that two persons were growen into one whereas in Christ there is one nature whych a man may see is peculiar to the woord it selfe and in that nature resteth also the other nature that was taken to it that is to with the nature of man For the person of god tooke not to it the person of man but the diuine nature and that in the onely person of the sonne that is to saye in respecte that the same godhed was the sonne and not in respecte that it was eyther the father or the holy ghost toke vn●o it mannes nature destitute of it owne ●ersonship as I myght terme it Therefore to bee short lyke as in the Godhead ●here bee three persones coming together ●n one selfesame nature euen so in christ ●here be two natures ioyned together in the one persone of the Sonne so as the ●hree persons are not three gods but one God by reason of the most single vniting of the three persons into one selfsame nature neyther are there two Christes but ●ne Christ by reason not of two perfect persons but of two perfect natures ioyned together not to make some one third nature but vnited into the person of the ●onne in which person both the natures ●re vphilde Quest Neyther comprehend I this secrete Ans Then yet agayne reuerence thou the thing that thou comprehendest not For all the whole Scripture cryeth out that it is moste true And if it were not so he shoulde not bee a Iesus that is to saye a sauiour to vs nor yet Christ that ●s to saye annoynted as our Soueraigne ●nd euerlasting Kinge Prophete and Préeste Quest. But coulde not God haue saued man by som other meane lesse remoued from our capacities Ans Certesse he could But this was the moste conuenient meane for him to shew as well his singular iustice as his singular mercy Quect How so Ans Because that if he had either saued vs without full satisfaction or exacted the same satisfaction of any other than of the nature that was indetted he might haue séemed to haue béene vnmindefull of his iustice and therfore it was requisite that our sauiour should bée a man But had he ben but only man hée shoulde neuer haue discharged gods wrathe and so consequently he should not haue ben able to winde himselfe out of it and muche lesse to deliuer vs And therfore it behooued that the flesh whiche was taken shoulde be sustayned and borne vp by the nature of the godhead most perfectly vnited vnto it Furthermore as concernyng mercy could there be geuen any surer euidenter yea or more diuine assurance of most perfect mercifulnesse thā that the father hath euen his owne only sonne for his enemies and the sonne likewise geuen his ●wne life willyngly for vs that are most ●nworthy Quest It is euen so But was not Christ ●imselfe giltlesse An ▪ Yes forsoothe And therfore he was ●onceiued by the holy Ghost in the virgin ●ary not onely without any spot of vn●eannesse but also endewed with moste ●ingular sowndnesse and purenesse in his ●eash For otherwise he himselfe shoulde ●aue had néede of an other to bee his saui●ur neither could his oblation haue plea●●d God neither truely coulde God haue ●ounde in his hart to haue vnited himself ●o so vncleane a nature Quest Coulde it then stand with the na●ure of the soueraigne Iustice to exacte ●unishmēt for other folks sinnes at the ●ands of a man that was moste giltlesse ●ea and also most holy An. In déede the father might haue sée●ed

full power sauinge him that hath made all thinges subiect vnto it Quest what meanest thou by essentiall properties An. That which beinge taken away the thing must of necessity no more be that which it was afore As for example if a body bée bereft of quantitie it must of necessitie cease to be a body Quest But God is almightie An. Who denies that Qu. Ergo he can bring to passe that one selfsame body may either bee in many places at once or somwhere as in a place and other somwher not as in a place but after some other incomprehensible maner An. That god can cause a thing y is not to be any more aswell as he hath caused the thinge to be which was not no man doubteth except he be stark mad and therfore a much les likelihod is it that he sholde not be able to alter the shapes qualities of thinges at his pleasure But to bringe to passe y a thinge should at once both be and not bee or at once be of suche sort and not of such sort god cannot do because he cannot lye And not to be able to lye is not a signe of weakenes but of vnuariable mightines Quest Then do you conclude that Christ is now absent from vs as concerning his madhod Ans Yea and so far of from vs as the earth where we be is distant from that place which is aboue al the heauens whither that fleshe of his is caried vp Q. Yet hath he himself said that he was then in heauen when he talked with Ni codemus vpon earth An. This and such other thinges are ment by cōmunicating of proprieties Quest What callest thou proprietie A That which logicians call propre after the fourth maner As for example to be infinite is a proprietie in the nature of the godhead and quantity is a proprietie in all thinges created and specially in bodily thinges Quest Then is this communicating false for asmuch as such maner of proprietie ceaseth to be propre or peculiar assone as it becommeth common An. This later part I simplye graunt vnto but not vnto the other Quest But these two thinges seeme to sticke inseperably together An. Then take thou the case to stand thus Either of christs natures y is to say his godhead his manhod keepe still theire essential properties to themselues with out communicating them the one to the other accordinge as I haue saide already which thing vnlesse we graunt infinite and vtterly wicked absurdities will insew For if his godhead shuld receiue into it selfe y properties of his manhod it shuld be trāsformed into māhod cōtrariwise if his manhod shuld admit into it selfe y properties of his godhead it shuld become a certaine counterfet godhead so as christ might be said to be neither verie god nor very man so consequently he shuld not be our sauior And therefore there is not any intercommuning either of natures or of essentiall properties For loke how false and wicked are these propositions flesh is the godhead and the godhead is flesh euen so false and wicked are these also Christs flesh is euery where or Christ is euery where as touching his flesh christs godhead is not euery wher● or christ is not eueri wher as touching his godhead most false of al thē are these The godhead was crucifyed or died christs flesh is infinite Now although these two natures together with theire essentiall properties cannot communicate eche wyth other as I sayde afore yet are they vnited in such sort as they make but one selfesame partie or one person onely Therefore loke how false are these saide speches the godhead is flesh and flesh is the godhead ▪ so true catholyke are these god that is to wit the word is a man a man is god And that is by reason of the vnitie of y persons which springeth not of the comunicating of natures for as I told you there is no suche thinge vnlesse ye take cōmunicating for vnion whyche were to vnproper but of the vniting of natures For god is not a man in that he is god which thing must notwithstanding nedes folowe if the natures of the very essences that is to say of the godhed and of the manhod communicated eche with other that is to wit were the one as wel as y other but in another respect that is to wit in y he hath vnited a man vnto him Neither is a man god in y he is a man but in another respect namely in that he is vnited vnto god And looke what I haue said cōcerning the natures the same must also be vnderstoode cōcerning the essentiall properties which are vncōmunicable as well as y other Most trewe therfore are these speeches they must be laid forth in former wise god y is to wit y word was conceiued borne suffered was crucified died was buried rose againe namely in that he vnited a mā vnto him not in that he is god So also are these spéeches A man is y eternal infinite and inuisible son of god filling al things c. not as in himselfe y is to say not in y he is a man nor by any cōmunicating of properties but in y he ys takē into one person by the son of god Quest But these maner of speeches seme hard and very strange Ans Nay truly If thou woldest caste away thy misconceiued and preiudiciall opinion thou sholdest find thē to be excedinge fit to let forth the vnion of y natures which is so great y looke what thing cannot be sayde of the seuerall y is to wit of the godhead by it self or of the manhod by it self The same may very well be attributed to eyther of both ioyntly ▪ y is to wit eyther to god or to the man and that is because y of the two natures their is not made one nature but one person And therfore we auouche that in the natures there is an vnion not an vnitie and the the vnite is of the person onely Whervpon it cummeth to passe that the whole person not only is signified by the name of the whole person y is to say by Iesus which comprehendeth both y natures vnited together but also is ment by the name of either of both the natures that is to say by the sonne of god the sonne of man howbeit as considered ioyntlye not seuerally So also wheras the name Christe that is to say anointed agreeth properly but to the manhod onlye for the godhead was not anoynted but did anoynt yet doth it betokē y who le person And it is a cōmon ordinary matter in al things to speake of persons after the like maner to shew y vniting of the partes of which the vnity of y persō cōsisteth So this maner of spéeche Peter is an apostle is as proper as may be agreing to Peters whole persō to the seueral parts therof y

of the diuine nature that toke it 〈…〉 to it Therfore in this work of media●… that is to say of reconciliatiō or atto●…ment some doings are attributed to 〈…〉 who le person of Christ that is to saye both his natures working together s●… to his godhead seuerally by it self so● to his manhod seuerally by it selfe but conclude none of bothe his natures h●… the mediatorship by it selfe alone Quest But what shall we beleue conc●●ning the office of intercession for su●…ly he that maketh intercession for an●ther is inferior vnto him to whom t●… intercession is made An. Nay that is vntrue for what sho●… let but that one equall maye intreat a●●ther his equall or the superior maye 〈…〉 treat his inferior for another man A● therefore it should not follow y the son● were lesser then the father although 〈…〉 had taken this charge vppon him or 〈…〉 own will euen without taking any fl●… vnto him But I haue shewed alread● how the thinges that are writen of chr●… intercession must not bee restrained ●e reason that agréeth with the souerein●s degrées of this worlde Moreouer ●…w the worde is a meane betwéene the ●ther and vs in respecte of the vnion of ●…e twoo natures and howe he is the ●ediator betwéene the father and vs in ●…spect of his office I haue shewed euen ●…ow Quest They say also it shuld seme that ●…e Godhead maketh intercession to it ●…lfe if Christ should be called an inter●…ssor in respect also that he is God Ans They say so in déede but very vn●ilfully For although the Godhead be●…ge a thinge vndiuidable be whole and ●erfect as well in the sonne as in the fa●●er and in the holy ghost Yet notwith●tanding when we consider the godhead ●● the persons we consider it not with●ut relation of one person to another ●nd therefore put the case which thinge 〈…〉 most trew that Christ maketh inter●ession for vs to the father euen in his Godhead vnited to the manhod whiche ●…e tooke vnto it yet shall it not followe ●hat he maketh intercession to himselfe ●einge that the father is one and that sonne ●s another in seuerall person throughlye distincte albeit that the father and th● Sonne be both one thing and one god● if the Essence of them bee consydere● with out their persons For like as i● Christ incarnate there be seueral thing● and not seueral persons so in the god● heade there be seuerall persons but n●● seuerall thinges Quest What opinon hast thou o● praying vnto Angels and Sainctes deceased An. That it is wicked Idolatrie Quest Yet it may bee that they whic● praye vnto Angels and Sainctes deceased cannot awaye with the makinge o● any Images Ageyne yee shoulde haue made a distinction betwene suche a● pray to the trew and blessed Angelles or to the soules of them that were godlye and holy men in deede and suche a● worshippe counterfet Aungelles that is to saye feendes or whiche worshypp● suche maner of Goddes as although● they were Goddes yet shoulde they euen by their owne confession be bu● wicked Goddes Aunswere I graunt not onely that somme sin●es are more heynous than others ●ut also that suche as are giltye of one ●elfe same sinne are not alwayes a like ●iltye Neuerthelesse he that synneth ●he greeuouslyer dischargeth not hym that synned lesse heynouslye out of the ●umber of offenders And therefore ●et vs suffer all this geere to slip wher●f there is no question betwixte vs. ●dolles are conceyued by fonde fancye and broughte foorthe by the hand Therfore are they Idolaters also whose Idoll ●urketh like a shapelesse conception in ●he wombe of theyr imagination ney●her is there anye kynde of idoll more ●wglye than this which is set vp in the ●ery bowels of the mind Quest But why callest thou that thing Ido●atrie which leaneth vpon good rea●on Answere Fie on that reason whiche not onely ●eaneth not to Goddes woorde but also ●eyghteth fully against it And yet I see ●ot what good reason may bee alleged to defend so grosse a wickednes Quest I praye thee shew me why thou sayest so Ans To call vpon one that is absent whom thou canst not make priuye to the méening of thy mynd it is a poinct of extreame blockishnes And to suppose that the soules of suche as be deceased eyther be present euery where or if they be absent and heare mens woordes do neuerthelesse perceiue the thoughtes of their mindes I say that both of them are manifest and horrible sinnes of Idolatry atleast wise if it be Idolatrye to father that thinge vpon the creature whiche is proper or peculiar to god alone And wheras they make exception that God discloseth our peticions vnto the sainctes or else that the sainctes beholde all thinges in I wote not what a wonderfull glasse of the trinitie looke howe easie a matter it is for them to saye it so easie is it for vs to shake it of as a foolishe and grosse forgerie Moreouer as concerninge the angelles we héere in déede that the Lord● vseth their seruice in defendinge his children and no doubt but they execute their charge as it is inioyned them and are carefull after their maner for the welfare of the godly But what makes thys that wée shoulde pray to them for howe ●●aye that be doone in faith séeynge wée ●nowe not neither when they come nor ●hen they goe nor when they bée pre●ent nor when they be absent nor finde ●ny woorde or example of it in the holy Bible but rather that the Angelles haue ●ot admitted so muche as any outwarde ●eligious reuerencinge finally seeinge ●ere is none in the whole worlde to bee ●ompared eyther in power or loue to●ardes vs vnto Christ God and man ●hiche sitteth at the right hand of the fa●●er makinge intercession for vs as the ●●ely mediator betwéene God and men ●herevpon sprange the rable of pety in●rcessours but of manifest distrust in ●●m And as for the vnfailinge loue ●● the Sainctes which manie men harp ●●on althoughe it be trewe yet not●ithstanding it is so awklye applide for●●e proofe of prayinge to Sainctes as it ●edeth no disproofe at all Quest Yet notwithstanding wee pray ●e for another desire one of vs the ●●ayers of another and in so doinge the ●ostle hath gone before vs by his own example Ergo. to require the intercession of some others besides Christ it n● why timpeacheth the offyce of the onely mediatour vnto whom wee say not pray for vs but haue mercy vpon vs. Answere Fyrst wee are sure that the maynteyners of this praying to Angelles an● deadfolkes holde not them selues within those boundes but doo craue thei● healpe in their daungers and distresses no lesse than the openest Idolaters tha● euer were did in olde tyme craue help● at the handes of their petygoddes tha● were vnder the throne of their Iupite● Againe for the members of one body too requeste one of vs too praye for an● ther so longe as wée maye bée able