Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	flesh_n	person_n	union_n	3,543	5	9.2603	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25775	A short history of Valentinus Gentilis, the tritheist tryed, condemned, and put to death by the Protestant reformed city and church of Bern in Switzerland, for asserting the three divine persons of the Trinity, to be [three distinct, eternal spirits, &c.] / wrote in Latin, by Benedictus Aretius, a divine of that church, and now translated into English for the use of Dr. Sherlock ...; Valentini Gentilis justo capitis supplicio affecti brevis historia. English	Aretius, Benedictus, d. 1574.; South, Robert, 1634-1716.	1696 (1696)	Wing A3629; ESTC R6675	62,571	156

Immortal and survives after Death Yet because the Union of Soul and Body is that which makes the Man one hence it is that we affirm that of the whole Man which only agrees to one part of him So we say of Christ that he Suffer'd and is Dead which properly do not at all belong to the Divinity but agree to Christ as he is Man who is withal the same God and one and the same Christ. Here Gentilis cries out That we divide Christ and make a separation in him and yet allows that there are some properties which agree to the Word only before he took our Nature upon him Such is that Iohn 3. No one hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven the Son of man which is in heaven c. And Iohn 8. Before Abraham was I am And Heb. 1. By whom also he made the Worlds Now if as Gentilis grants these expressions can only agree to the Word before he was made Flesh I think it is plain that they are improperly attributed to the Human Nature and by consequence we rightly explain them by a Communication of Properties or Idioms And that we do not divide Christ nor make or maintain here any Separation is clear from the Doctrine of our Church wherein we do plainly acknowledge two Natures in Christ and yet without any confusion of the Natures the Personal Union making one and the same Christ the Son of God and the Blessed Virgin We likewise distinguish the Natures by their Properties but do not divide or separate them and by this means preserve whole and entire all the Offices of the Person of Christ. We say it is proper to the Human Nature to Weep to be Hungry to Sleep to Suffer to Dye to be circumscribed in a Place c. On the other hand it is proper to the Divine Nature to be impassible to make the Worlds to be with the Father from all Eternity before Abraham was c. We say that the Offices of Christ are to redeem Mankind to intercede for them to govern his Church and whatever else may be said to belong to Christ either as Prophet Priest or King Now Gentilis being able to deny nothing of all this 't is clear that he quarrels with the plainest expressions meerly out of heat and desire of Contention and doth therefore unjustly Style this Orthodox Doctrine such impertinent Trifles as deserve to be hiss'd out of the Church which he hath not only done in his Epistle Dedicatory to the King of Poland but hath also without any just or sufficient reason maliciously calumniated the same in the 12th Book of his Antidotes But there is yet at the bottom of all this something still more monstrously Heretical for he often affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had truly and properly Flesh and Blood that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was truly and properly Nail'd to the Cross and that the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did properly Suffer Now had this been said of Christ it had been without Controversie true but since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie only the Divine Nature in Christ which is united to the Human Nature in the Person of Christ he must necessarily think that either a Spirit hath Flesh and Bones which our Saviour himself hath positively deny'd or else that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was incorporated or rather turn'd into flesh or as the Monophysites did affirm both the Natures were made into one unless he will confess with us that 't is an improper way of speaking to say that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did Suffer or Dye whereby that is attributed to the Divine Nature which is proper only to the Human by reason of the Hypostatick union of both Natures in Christ which is what we call Communicatio Idiomatum CHAP. XVIII Containing some of Gentilis's Notorious Blasphemies ANother remarkable Instance of this Man's Impiety may be taken from that scurrilous impudent blasphemous Language he hath so freely bestow'd upon this most Sacred Mystery a Mystery that we ought rather in humility to adore than nicely to pry into It must be consess'd that even good Men do sometimes disagree in their Explication of Things and are not always of the same mind in their Interpretations of Scripture but yet they do it without railing without opprobrious Language and much more do they abstain from the blacker Crimes of Irreligion and Blasphemy 'T is no good sign of a Religious disposition to scandalize and bespatter the Subject in dispute and yet however Gentilis has been so liberal of his Railery that had he rak'd even Hell it self he could not have met with more dirty noisome Expressions nor more offensive to any Judicious Person He sticks not to call the Trinity an Idol the Tow'r of Babel a New Idol which we have erected above the Father a Tripersonate Mock-God a Diabolical Fictitious Person a Fictitious Propriety and Sophistical Person in a New God And pag. 8. An Imaginary Phantastick Person Pag. 28. he calls the Trinity Trium horrenda confusio Execrabilis Mixtura And pag. 33. says That we have invented this New God the Trinity out of our own Heads Pag. 39. he styles it a Fourth Idol which deserves to be thrust down into Hell And pag. 44. calls the first Person in the undivided Godhead a Magical Phantom an empty Spectrum that has begotten another Imaginary Person or meer Relation Antid 3. He calls the Deus Trinitas Nomen Monstrosum And pag. 56. he will have it be nothing but Magical Persons and Proprieties Again a Magical Propriety in a New Idol Pag. 34. The three Persons he calls Three Magical Impostures and the One God he styles a Fourth unknown Idol In his Printed Book Fol. 6. he calls the Trinity a meer human Invention diametrically opposite to the Truth of the Gospel The belief of a Trinity is perfect Sophistry And again the Trinity is Deus Trinomius a God only under three Names which last he seems to have borrow'd from Sabellius Again Fol. 8. The Trinity is call'd a New God indefinite Tripersonate a God which none of the Prophets or Patriarchs ever knew of which Christ never revealed nor the Apostles ever preach'd He styles our Blessed Saviour Christus tergeminus p. 14. of his Printed Book and in his Epistle to the Sons of the Church tells them Christ was transform'd into One which was not the Son of God Pag. 15. he calls him the Son of the Father that is says he of a meer empty Relation Then calls him a Tripartite Metamorphos'd Christ. God the Father he calls a fruitless idle unknown God But perhaps it will be said that these Railleries were design'd only against us not against the Mystery it self It is true indeed that Gentilis does generally endeavour to throw his Scandals upon us and bespatter our Doctrine with these abusive terms yet it can't be deny'd but that he is so

But afterwards he adds by way of Explication therefore there are not three Fathers nor three Sons nor three Holy Ghosts but one Father and one Son and one Holy Ghost and proves this Trinity from the Institution of Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost not into any one that had three Names nor yet into three that were made Men but into three of the same Majesty for there is one only who was made Man neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost but only the Son who was not so by estimation or in appearance only but in truth and reality for the Word was made Flesh and dwelt therein So that here St. Ignatius does plainly oppose the Patripassians and such like Hereticks but does not in the least favour or patronize Gentilis his Notion In the very same Epistle disputing against the Patripassians he writes thus And again How doth it appear unto you that Christ was not Born of the Virgin Mary but that it was he the Father who is God above all and Almighty Who then was it that sent him Tell me who was he that rul'd over him Whom did he obey or whose Law did he fulfill You who would have him yield to no one's Command or Power do separate Christ from him that begat him you make the Unbegotten to have been Begotten and him that was without Beginning to have been nailed to the Cross. Which is all said by him in direct opposition to the Patripassians or Sabellians In the same Epistle he brings in Christ disputing against the Devil I know says he and have known One only God whom I do not refuse to Obey but thou hast prov'd an Apostate and Rebel to him for I am not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. contrary to God but I acknowledge his Soveraignty and do not refuse to Worship him whom I know to have been the Author and Lord of my Nativity and only Preserver for I live in and through the Father c. But these are the Words of Christ Incarnate who owns himself in respect of his Humanity to be inferior to the Father For if these Words were to be understood with respect to the Divine Nature how could Christ be said to live propter Patrem or rather Per. seeing he as God is Self-existent or hath life in himself and power to lay it down In his Epistle to the Philadelphians he Exhorts them to Union and draws his Arguments from the Unity of the Flesh and Blood of Christ from the Mystical Union of the Bread and Wine and likewise from the Unity of the Father and the Son His words are these Because there is one Father Unbegotten and one only Begotten Son God the Word and Man and one Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth also one Gospel one Faith one Baptism and one Church By which words he only urges them to Unity and Concord in the Church Hence he makes this conclusion Therefore it behoov'd them as a chosen People a Royal Priesthood and an Holy Nation to be perfected in Love and Concord To the same purpose is what he says in this Epistle against Ebion who made Christ a meer Man and therefore he shews That Christ was God begotten of the Father which contains no absurdity in it unless violently wrested by a faithless Exposition In his Epistle to Polycarp Here says he is the Race here the Crown wait for Christ the Son of God who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Time and yet Born in Time Thus Damascene and others call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius adds That as God he was Impassible not capable of Suffering but that as Man he was Passible and did suffer for our sakes And what can Gentilis say against this Will he say that Christ as God did suffer And that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as such had properly Flesh and Blood St. Ignatius is of another mind and doth plainly and Orthodoxely distinguish the two Natures under or in the one Person of Christ. The one of which namely the Divine is properly and per se Impassible but the other viz. the Human is properly Passible Gentilis confounds these Proprieties of the two Natures and affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had himself all these Affections Christ indeed has properly Flesh and Bones and Blood being truly and properly Incarnate But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Nature in Christ has no such properly in it self In his Epistle to the Antiochians he says That we ought not to deny Christ under pretence of asserting One God and brings several Testimonies out of Scripture as Deut. 6. Isai. 44. Gen. 1. 17. which do all speak of One God and at the same time express different Persons as when Moses saith The Lord rain'd fire and brimstone from the Lord and yet in other places saith There is but One God which Unity doth not exclude the Son and Holy Ghost whom he on the contrary includes with the Father in the Unity of the Godhead So that a Trinity of Persons doth not at all interfere with the Unity of Essence And at the end of that Epistle he truly distinguishes the Properties of the Persons May he protect and defend you says he who is the Only unbegotten God speaking of the Father through him who was begotten before all Ages i. e. Through the Son whose property it is to be begotten But here Gentilis objects the last clause of this Epistle viz. Valete Deo Christo as if these were different and the Father alone was call'd God but Christ Dominus or Lord so as to be excluded from the communion or fellowship of the only God In his Epistle to the Ephesians he commends them for being one Body and adds this Argument for their Union for says he there is one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of us all But it is not Ignatius's Opinion that the Father was the Only one God no more doth it appear from the following sentence of his Medicus noster est Solus verus Deus Deus ingenitus For if these Epithets were to be understood of the Father only the Son would not then be our Physician But St. Ignatius distinguishes the Persons here only by their Proprieties for a little after he calls Christ our Physician impassible in a passible Body CHAP. XV. Concerning the Iudgment of Tertullian TErtullian without doubt is to be read with a great deal of caution as Gentilis himself confesses and therefore it is the easier for him either to pass by and reject his Authority as he pleases or else to extol and commend it as occasion serves But Tertullian as in many other places so particularly in his Book against Praxeas is very Orthodox where he expresly says of the Persons in the Trinity that numerum sine divisione patiuntur They allow of number without division And afterwards Ubique teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohoerentibus I do always acknowledge one

Substance in the Three thus united Gentilis says that in these and the like places Tertullian spoke waveringly and will have them refer to Montanus his Paraclete which notwithstanding all this are very Orthodox But on the contrary we say that Tertullian against Hermogenes did not only speak doubtfully but did actually make use of the Phrases and Expressions of Arius when he says There was a time when the Son of God was not which saying must of necessity be extreamly well lik'd by Gentilis as that which doth make the Son posterior to the Father in the order of the Godhead But it is plainly an Arian expression the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we have already mention'd out of Nicephorus lib. 8. cap. 8. But Tertullian doth often recollect himself and not only makes use of proper expressions but seems likewise to be Orthodox enough in his Notions as in the same Treatise against Hermogenes he says Divinitas gradum non habet utpote unica The Divinity or Godhead can admit of no degrees as being but one These and the like passages do sufficiently demonstrate that Tertullian acknowledg'd no separation no division in the Godhead but yet in respect of the different Persons he did allow of a Numerical distinction And thus much we thought fit to take out of Iustin Martyr Ignatius and Tertullian these being the Fathers to whom Gentilis lays so great a claim as if they were wholly Patrons of his Opinion I shall not concern my self much with any of the others since the Opinions of Hilary and Irenaeus are too well known to give any one just occasion to suspect that they were favourers of this Pestilential Error and those passages Gentilis quotes out of them are answer'd by the Authors themselves Nor shall I at present bring any Quotations out of the many other both Greek and Latin Writers since Gentilis rejects all their Authorities CHAP. XVI Concerning the other Fathers especially St. Austin GEntilis then without any distinction rejects all other both Greek and Latin Writers and who cannot but wonder at the daring confidence of such a Fellow Here we have a censorious Upstart who like another Aristarchus boldly arraigns and condemns all Antiquity unless they will acknowledge Three Eternal distinct Spirits in the Divine OEconomy and all the three hundred and eighteen Fathers assembled in the Nicene Council must be herded amongst the Hereticks because they confess'd but One God Eternal He prefers Arius before them all would he but have admitted the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as newly explain'd by himself But I will not oppose him with fallible Human Authority seeing we may easily consute this Blasphemous Error out of the Scripture it self And Arius whose wicked Spirit seems now to revive in or to rest upon this Monster of Iniquity was condemn'd of Old and confuted not by Human Authority but from the Holy Scriptures and Consent of the Church My design being Historically to make it appear that this wicked Man has set up a new Interpretation of Holy Scripture and to gain his Point the easier has without any modesty or civility taken liberty to rail at and calumniate not only the Fathers but likewise all the Orthodox Councils However he ought either to have submitted to such approv'd Authors and to the Consent of the Church or else to have confuted them out of the Word of God This he does not but cites some few places of Scripture upon which he puts a new Interpretation and when we deny this to be the true meaning of them and assert That the Church of God did never understand those places in such a manner and for proof of it appeal to all the Authentick Writers both amongst the Greeks and Latins he cries out That we are a parcel of Dogmatical Pedants and Hereticks and presently flies over to Arius and the Bishops which follow'd him as if there were a better Interpretation of Scripture amongst them than there is in Athanasius and those who approv'd of his Confession of Faith He treats St. Austin in a very scurrilous manner no ways deserv'd by so excellent a Writer He charges him as well as us with holding a Quaternity a Notion he never was so Phantastick as to dream of He styles that Reverend Father an Enthusiastick Writer a Magician and a Sophister such calumnies as he never receiv'd at the hands of his most Mortal Enemies The Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity he calls an Imaginary Being an Ens rationis and St. Austin's Goddess which is downright abominable Blasphemy And notwithstanding all this our crafty Scribler to reconcile himself to St. Austin and wipe off the Odium such rude expressions must necessarily bring upon him at last gravely pronounces this Oracular saying That he believes were St. Austin now alive and could enjoy but this clear light of the Gospel he would with his own hands throw his Books of the Trinity into the Flames A thing very likely indeed that St. Austin shou'd take Example from this vile Man and Perjure himself as he hath done But of this enough CHAP. XVII Concerning the Communication of Attributes or Proprieties THE Scripture speaking of the Son of God doth attribute that to one of his Natures which doth properly belong to the other as Ioh. 3. No one hath ascended up into heaven but the Son of man who is in heaven Christ indeed as he was the Son of Man could not then be in Heaven when he spoke these words nor did he take his Flesh from Heaven But all this is proper to the Divine Nature only and may be truly affirm'd of whole Christ by reason of the Personal Union of the Word with Man By a like form of Speech we say that God suffer'd and died for us which are very improper expressions if strictly taken since God cannot properly be said to suffer or to dye and therefore we use to add by way of Explication that it was in Carne assumptâ in the Flesh that he assum'd This way of speaking the Ancients call'd Communicatio Idiomatum or the Communication of Properties others call'd it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Damascene styles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if we should say by way of Exchange or Mutual distribution whereby we attribute that to the Human Nature which is proper to the Divine as to be in Heaven before the Incarnation or when contrariwise that is attributed to the Divine Nature which is proper only to the Human as to Dye and to Suffer or else we affirm that of the whole Person which is truly and properly said because Christ in his Human Nature did dye thô not in his Divine Nor is this way of speaking in any wise improper or absurd For don't we in respect of us Mortals upon the very same account say That such a Man is dead thô this cannot be properly said of the whole Man for Man is Mortal only in respect of his Body his Soul is