Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	humane_a	person_n	union_n	11,677	5	9.6253	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15057	An ansvvere to the Ten reasons of Edmund Campian the Iesuit in confidence wherof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controuersie of faith. Whereunto is added in briefe marginall notes, the summe of the defence of those reasons by Iohn Duræus the Scot, being a priest and a Iesuit, with a reply vnto it. Written first in the Latine tongue by the reuerend and faithfull seruant of Christ and his Church, William Whitakers, Doctor in Diuinitie, and the Kings Professor and publike reader of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Cambridge. And now faithfully translated for the benefit of the vnlearned (at the appointment and desire of some in authoritie) into the English tongue; by Richard Stocke, preacher in London. ...; Ad Rationes decem Edmundi Campiani Jesuitæ responsio. English	Whitaker, William, 1548-1595.; Campion, Edmund, Saint, 1540-1581. Rationes decem. English.; Stock, Richard, 1569?-1626.; Whitaker, William, 1548-1595. Responsionis ad Decem illas rationes.; Durie, John, d. 1587. Confutatio responsionis Gulielmi Whitakeri ad Rationes decem. Selections.	1606 (1606)	STC 25360; ESTC S119870	383,859	364

of the Father To be God he hath that of f DVR If the Sonne of God haue not his essence from the Father surely be is not the Sonne of the Father WHIT. pag. 542. And vvhy so did Caluin euer deny that the Son hath his essence from the Father he and vve all teach that the Sonne vvas begotten of the Fathers essence and that the Sonne hath the vvhole essence of the Father and that not by decision or propagation as the wicked Prithe●●s dreame but by cōmunication And yet h●●e you multiply Scriptures and Fathers needlesly This vve say Christ is God of himselfe but in this sense that that essence vvhich is in the Sonne is not from any other essence but of and from himselfe seeing that the essence of the Father and the Sonne is one and the same For essence as Basil truly vvriteth against Eunomius cannot be generated and pag. 543. vvherefore Christ so farre forth as he is God is of himselfe and so farre forth as he is the Sonne is of the Father for he cannot be God vvhose essence is not of and from it selfe so Basil and Augustine himselfe because he is God by himselfe What say you now Campian God of God is with Caluin God of himselfe and say you so indeed hath not Caluin admonished you of this that the name of God is to be taken for the Father when as Christ is termed the Sonne of God That therefore which the Nicene Fathers deliuer that Christ is God of God that is so to be vnderstood that we should confesse the Sonne to be begotten of the Father and not that we should attribute the name of God only to the Father for we must looke to it that wee doe not so determine the Sonne to bee of the Father as that wee should deny him to be God of himselfe And these things Caluin hath interpreted most diligently and most holily nor hath he set forth any one word at all different from the faith of the Scriptures and of the Catholike Church Remember that sentence of Augustine Christ in respect of himself is termed God Hom. de Temp. 38. but in respect of the Father he is termed the Sonne wherein you may acknowledge the opinion of the auncient Church Now you set vpon Beza for like to the fashion of mad dogges you stand not in one place but flie hither and thither and vpon whomsoeuer you light you bite him shrewdly with your venomous teeth Beza saith as you say he is not begotten of the essence of the Father Why are you angrie with Beza if he say the same things which are wont to be said maintained by your owne selues For you cannot be ignorant what your Lombard teacheth touching the oslence of God which both he and the schoole men that haue followed him do affirme neither to get nor to be begotten For that essence is not begotten by essence but person by person If Beza would imitate these in saying that Christ was begotten not of the essence but of the person of the Father why doe you reproue him and yet we may not imagine that the essence is separated from the person as if the essence of the Sonne were another from the essence of the Father for there is but one simple essence of the Deity but for asmuch as person is distinguished frō essence albeit not in the thing yet by rolation and sith tho Ancient were wont to speake after this manner that they said Christ was begotten of the person of the Father rather then of his essence it is no maruel that the same forme of speech did like Beza best whose iudgement it was euer that we ought to set downe determinations touching the highest mysteries very warily and with great consideration Now that the essence is not begotten the whole auncient Church held as Basil writeth expresly C●ntr Eu●●m lib. 1. God is not begotten either of himselfe 〈◊〉 of any other Albeit I do not very wel know whether these be Beza● words which you recite surely I remember not that I haue euer read them in Beza nor can I find them in this place which you quote But those that follow are very malitious Beza said once that there be two personall vnions in Christ as you say the one of the soule with the body the other of the Godhead with the manhood Which speech of his Iames Andreas reproued and indeed not without cause albeit this doth not follow out of that speech that there are two persons in Christ though there bee two personall vnions but that because it was written ambiguously Beza professeth that he would willingly mend it And what can you desire more if he haue erred yet he persisted not in his error but hath amended his fault with what face therefore can you vpbraide him with that which fell from him but once ere he was aware seeing he corrected it after And touching the person of Christ Beza euery where teacheth those things than which nothing can be more true and sincere nor is there any of vs that is wont to affirme or defend that which you obiect concerning those two personall vnions For we confesse but one person constituted of the two natures as also we acknowledge but one personall vnion for although Christ did assume both body and an humane soule yet these parts are not so personally ioyned together in Christ as that they do make any person separate from his Godhead lest we should imagine that Christ consisteth of two persons Now againe you make recourse to Caluin whom I thought you had quite giuen ouer before Caluin denieth that the place of Iohn I and my Father are one doth shew that Christ is God of the same substance with the Father What then Campian was it so hainous an offence to dissent from the auncient Fathers in the exposition of one place Did he euer deny that Christ is of the same substance with the Father you cannot maintaine it For hee alwaies taught it most constantly and confuted the Arrians by other innumerable texts of holy Scripture For what doe you thinke that he cannot be of the same substance with the Father vnlesse this place teach it he that heedfully readeth ouer that dispute of Christ with the Iewes which Iohn in that chapter setteth downe Ioh. 10. shal easily perceiue that rather g DVR What is this that you say Iohn signified the vnion of power will and not of essence are you so rude as that you are ignorant that in God povver and essence are the same WHIT. pag. 546. I am not so rude but that I well vnderstand that the power of God is the essence of God but doth it follow if Christ being endowed and enuironed with the power of God could not be ouercome but that God also should be ouercome that the essentiall power of God and Christ is the same an vnity of will and power then of essence is signified Christ affirmeth that no man

made man absolute perfect wisdome and other gifts of the spirit were heaped vpon him certainly he had it not alone nor am I moued with the authority of the schoolmen who lest they might seeme to thinke lesse honorablie of Christ doe attribute to him presently all perfections And Damascens argument taken from the personall vnion doth not conclude it Damasc lib. 3. de Orthodox side vnlesse we will thinke that the Deity did infuse all the quality of it selfe into the humanity of Christ That which the Euangelist writeth of this progresse of wisdome pertaineth only to the human nature of Christ And seeing that Christ would assume the whole nature of man Heb. 4.15 sauing in sinne and lay off that person of God and emptie himselfe and take the forme of a seruant Phil. 2. will it be vnbeseeming the person of Christ that wee say hee was made both wiser and fuller of grace by little and little He was indeed most full of grace ●nd whatsoeuer grace any bodie hath al that he drew out of this euer remaining foūtaine of most abundant grace Ioh. 1.16 but yet this hindreth not but that Christ as the Euangelist writeth might grow in grace which thing also Ambrose confesseth For so he saith Ambros in Luc. lib. 2. cap. 2. k DVR But he saith lib. 5. de fide cap. 8. I say that the Sonne was ignorant of nothing but he tooke vpon him our affection that hee might say hee was ignorant by our ignorance WHIT pag. 553. If Christ as a child was ignorant of nothing because of the personall vnion with the Deity yet it is a very childish argument to reason from the person to the humane nature that because the man Christ is ignorant of nothing therefore the humani●y of Christ is not ignorant of any thing If Ambrose sometime vpon occasion diffe● from himselfe let him looke to it According to the flesh certainly hee was filled with wisdome and grace Nor doe some of your men Campian differ from this iudgement lest you should perhaps imagine it to be so horrible as that it cannot fall vpon a Catholike for I ansenii●● Bishop of Gandaua Comment in concord cap. 12. Erasm annot in Luc. cap. 2. who was present at the Cōuenticle of Trent professeth that he doth willingly incline to this iudgement and Erasmus albeit I name him not among writers on your side doth giue his note that it is the truer opinion But say you they affirme also that Christ was ignorant of some things And why may they not affirme it This say you is as much as if they affirmed that he was defiled with originall sinne Now at length you begin to argue very wittely that our Vniuersitie men may vnderstand your wonderfull subtiltie in disputing Would you deale on this manner with vs Campian if that dispute which you so often wish might bee permitted you For what could be spoken more absurdly Christ was ignorant of something therfore Christ was defiled with originall sinne As if he that is ignorant of something which may be knowne or he which is not endued with the perfect knowledge of all things it must needs be that he is defiled with sinne Thus then I will returne you a like argument l DVR Though they were ignorant of many things yet they had not that ignorance which commeth fr● originall corruption vvhich if you say Christ had you must affirme that he was defiled vvith originall sinne WHIT. pag. 555. All ignorance commeth not from originall sinne as appeareth by the ignorance of Adam and the Angels therefore Christ might be ignorant without sinne And though we affirme all ignorance is now the punishment of sinne yet will it not follow that no ignorance was in Christ nay rather that there was for hee was to take vpon him the punishment of all our sinnes Therefore hee vnderwent not only this punishment but also death being the punishment of sinne Rom. 6 2● yet for all this was he not defiled with originall sinne DVR The Fathers say he knevv not the day of iudgement because hee hath not reuealed it and would that others should be ignorant of it WHIT. pag. 556. This interpretation is easilie refelled For from this will follow that the Father also was ignorant of it seeing the Father did no more tell it and manifest it to others then the Sonne did The Angels are now ignorant of many things for they know not that day and houre and Adam Mar. 14.36 before he sinned was ignorant of many things for he did not vnderstand that Satan lay in waite for him therefore both the Angels are now defiled with sin and Adam in his greatest innocencie was a sinner You shall neuer pricke vs with these goades so as that wee may feare any deadly wound If you know not that there is an ignorance void of all fault learne it of Thomas who wil teach you that negatiue ignorance which he termes nescience 12. q. 76. art 2. is not sinne but the priuatiue If you can conclude that consequent out of our iudgement that Christ was ignorant of somewhat which hee then ought to haue knowne when he was ignorant of it then you put vs downe from this our standing For it is not a fault not to know those things which yet may bee knowne vnlesse it concerne vs to haue them knowne For who will blame a Porter for that he is ignorant of the Mathematikes But concerning Christ I answere now that vnto you which toucheth this cause neerer Although he were most pure from all spot of sinne so as nothing could be more vncorrupt yet hee tooke vpon himselfe the punishment due to sinne that he might deliuer vs from it Therefore also hee would die albeit death issued from sinne He then that suffered death for vs which sinne brought in can any thing which is ours be vnbeseeming him so as it be not infected with sin And you can neuer proue that ignorance in Christ was any whit more faultie than death Christ as he was a true man albeit a pure man so hee did neuer thinke imagine or vnderstand all things at once and he did sleepe sometimes Do you thinke that Christ while hee was sleeping did comprehend all things in his memorie which though you should affirme yet I see no reason to beleeue you That which Christ spake of that day and houre no man knoweth it Marc. 13.32 nor the Sonne himselfe Cyrill writeth that Christ spake it of himself and that he knew not the day of iudgement Cyril Thesaur lib. 9. cap. 4. as he was man because it is proper to the humane nature to bee ignorant of things to come But now say you wee shall take knowledge of worse things and here you recite many things concerning Christs swea●e horror and sudden outcrie I acknowledge that which you alleage but I see no paradoxe therein I am not ignorant what is wont to be giuen out by you

profitable and fruitfull Finally what is a Christian life but that which is spent in the duties of charity for all Christians are bound vnto these duties Then notwithstanding all these Gregorie is still with vs. Nazianzen de haer Philosoph Nazianzene speaketh no lesse honourablie of this ciuill and sociable life than of the solitarie life of Monkes which your cloister men cannot indure Ambros in Rom. cap. 1. r DVR Ambrose codemneth suffragators not intercessors that is such as might informe God what we are not such as might commēd our vvants to him WHIT. pag. 446. As if God did not know as well our wants without an intercessor as what we are without a suffragator If he do why should the one be allowed more then the other This new distinction of yours I thinke our Vniuersity men neither know not wil acknowledge or what is intercessiō but a suffragation or what do you els desire of the Saints but that they would speake fauourablie for you to God Ambrose enueigheth bitterly against them who thinke it necessary for them when they would goe to God to vse some mediatours as men doe in courts of Princes before they can bee brought to the King himselfe they must seeke the fauour of some of his neere attendants Doth not this thing touch you doth not this speech draw blood of you who neuer aske any thing of God in your prayers but first you seeke some of the Saints to bee a mediatour for you to whom you commend the care of your businesse and requests Hieron Ep. ſ DVR Hierome neuer vvriteth thus but affirmeth that there is the like difference betwixt a Bishop a Priest and a Deacon as was betwixt Aaron and his sonnes and the Leuites Epist ad Euagr. And if there be equality it is in iurisdiction not in povver of order WHIT. pag. 447. It is strange that you deny that which Hierome directly affirmeth in the beginning of the same Epistle namely that the Apostle doth plainly teach that a Bishop and a Priest are all one and this he proueth by many testimonies of the Scripture And vpon the 1. chap. to Titus hee affirmeth plainly that a Bishop is aboue a Priest by custome not by Gods ordinance And so must that be vnderstood you bring out of the forenamed Epistle And where you acknowledge the same iurisdiction of both by the law of God which happely slipped from you vnawares their vnequall power must needs be only by the law of man Hierome did too much contemne your Pope and other your glorious Bishops when hee writeth that a Priest and a Bishop by the law of God are all one doe you iudge him worthy to bee a Father of the Romish Church the Bishop whereof you make not onely to be farre aboue all Priests but also all Bishops t DVR Leo the Pope did decree this first of all and Gelatius the fourth after him confirmed it least any of the Manichies vvho superstitiously and vvickedly abstained from blood might looke among the Catholikes WHIT pag. 451. I will accept your answere though your Gratian bee against it But who seeth not what a goodly patron you are of the popish cause who make the Manichies the first author of the dismembring of the Supper But whosoeuer did it Gelatius censureth it thus The diuision of one and the same mystery cannot bee without great sacriledge And so by a Pope is the whole Popish Church condemned of sacriledge Gelasius who himselfe was a Bishop of Rome condemneth your drie and maimed supper as Sacrilegious and strictly commandeth De consecrat dist 2. Comperimus Vigil lib. 1. cont Eutych that either the whole be receiued or it be wholly omitted Will the authoritie of the Pope moue you no whit at all Vigilius writeth that Christ is departed from vs in his humane nature u DVR Vigilius meaneth that Christ withdrevv from the vvorld the visible presence of his humanity and not the humane nature himselfe WHIT. pag. 453. But the words that follow after shew the cleane contrary He therfore is vvith vs and not vvith vs because whom he left and from whom he departed in his humanity he hath not left nor forsaken in his Diuinity And againe in lib. 4. contr Eutych vvhen he vvas in the earth hee vvas not in heauen and novv that he is in heauen hee is not in the earth And againe hee vvas circumscribed in a place according to his humane nature and not conteined in a place according to his Diuinity this is the Catholike confession and faith vvhich the Apostles haue deliuered the Martyrs haue confirmed and the faithfull haue kept to this day If this be the Catholike faith then are not you Catholikes vvho iudge farre othe●vvise of the humanity of Christ The Sonne of God in his humane nature is gone from vs but in his diuine nature hee is alwayes with vs whereas you say Christ is present in both natures * DVR Chrysostome because hee savv many so addicted and giuen to theaters stage plaies and impious Interludes did thus admonish them lest they should distast the reading of the Scriptures WHIT pag. 458. Be it so haue you also no impious places and spectacles and prophane exercises And yet vvith you any thing is lawfull saue reading of the Scriptures But vvho so readeth Chrysostome in Ioan. hom 13. in Epist. ad Coloss hom 9. de Lazaro hom 3. shall find that he required this simplie necessarily and generally of all men Chrysostome exhorteth lay men and all the people that they would get them Bibles Chrysost ad Coloss hom 9. in Ioan. hom 8. reade the Scriptures and that at home in their houses the husband with the wife the father with his children would conferre among themselues of the Scriptures But this neither can nor lawfully may be done in your Church yea it is a certaine proofe of an heretique for any to haue the Bible in his house What shall I say of Augustine who in the greatest and most principall controuersies as of grace predestination free will iustification the Scripture the Law the Gospel sinne good workes Sacraments and Church is wholly and fully ours I should neuer make an end if I should pursue particulars and collect but a little of euery thing Gregor lib. 4. Epist. 30. 34. Gregory the great though he was a Bishop of Rome yet will he take our part against you For tell mee doth hee not touch your Pope to the quicke when peremptorily he affirmed that whosoeuer should call himselfe the x DVR Gregory condemned Iohn because he sought for such an authority ouer all Bishops as the Emperour had ouer the Kings vvho are subiect vnto them WHIT. pag. 460. Whether Iohn of Constantinople sought such a povver or no it is not certaine but no man can be ignorant how the Pope affecteth it And long ago hath not only got authority ouer the Bishops but hath subdued the Emperour

little for I doe not heare that this is the continuall dint of your minde and I doe not doubt but you may bee pacified with words You say that Christ hath contumelious iniurie offered him by vs. Wherefore because he is by this meanes too much abased and much is detracted from his Maiestie Concerning that Nazianzen answers you Is Christ therefore spoiled of his honour Nazianz. because hee is become humble for thy sake Now how great bitternes of griefe Christ felt learne of Rabanus Rabanus in Catena Thoma if happely you regard him Thus doth he expound those words of Christ Why hast thou forsaken mee Our Sauiour saith he spake this carrying about him our affections who being in danger thinke our selues to be forsaken For his humane nature was forsaken because of sinne but because the Sonne of God was made our Aduocate he bewailes their miserie whose fault he tooke vpon him And Hierome though he did differ from this opinion because of the Arrians Hieronym yet the very power of truth did wring frō him some confession Concerning Christs prayer wherein he entreated that that cup might be taken away thus he writeth Neuerthelesse returning to himselfe that which he had refused somewhat fearefully in his nature as man he ratifieth in his nature as he was God and the Sonne Yet not as I will but as thou wilt saith he let not this be done which I speake in my humane affection but that for which I came downe to the earth by thy will Ambrosius And Ambrose vseth these words to Gratian As he tooke my will so he tooke my sorrow Finally Melch. Canus lib. 12. cap. 13. I will annexe the iudgement of Melchior Canus to whom you owe much on good cause that you may know the opinion of a flat Catholike touching this matter Surely saith he it was conuenient that the Sonne of God being to exhibite himselfe a sacrifice for sinne should take vpon him not onely the sorrowes of the bodie and of the sensitiue facultie of the soule but also the o DVR But it followeth not that so he did dispaire or feele the paines of hell WHIT. pag. 564. There was no dāger lest Christ might perchance despaire nor is it necessary that whosoeuer sustaineth the paines of hell for a while the same should bee ouerwhelmed with perpetuall despaire many of the godly are sometime afflicted with a very deepe sense of Gods anger which they yet ouercome through Gods spirit much more then could Christ ouercome all the paines of hell torments of the spirit and the griefe of the will to the end that that most acceptable sacrifice to God for all our sinnes might be by all meanes broken and bruised And a little after Hee being forsaken of God and destitute vtterly of all comfort did not reioyce You say that Bucer in comparison of this madnes was modest although hee were very impudent who takes Hell in the Creed for the graue I let passe your reproch which you lacke not in any place nor am I disposed to extend any longer answere about this Hell The matter is in some difference among learned men who albeit they agree not so well among themselues about the thing yet they agree herein excellent well in that they affirme that the Papists doe very wickedly vnderstand it of Christs descent into Hell For as for Hell whether it signifie the buriall of Christ as Bucer thought or that sorrowe of minde wherewith Christ was affected a little before his death as Caluin would haue it yet we retaine the Article and we teach that Christ did descend into Hell If that cannot bee otherwise vnderstood than thus that Christ did descend into I know not what Limbus Patrum wherein you suppose the Fathers to haue been and that hee did out of that place bring with him an infinite multitude of holy men I will confesse that Bucer did erre and that Caluin made a foule slip But those your dreames concerning Hell are worthie to be buried in Hell it selfe Now as for that you say that it was in deliberation in a certaine conuenticle at London how that article might bee taken out of the Creed this certainly is the first time that euer I heard of it neither doe I giue any credit either to your selfe or to your wretched Cheiny who told you this tale Although if the ancient Creeds of the Romane and East Church did lacke that Article as hee affirmeth whosoeuer hee is that in Cyprians workes expounded the Creed with his Commentaries perhaps their fault was p DVR Js it a small fault to crosse out of the Apostles Creed Christ his descension into hell It is solid in the Creed of Athanasius where there is mention of buriall and in the Nicene Creed when his buriall is mentioned this descension is not expressed And who seeth not that it was necessary that his soule must descend into the common place of other soules WHIT. pag. 568. If it be a haynous fact to put out this article then the Church of Rome which you say cannot erre is guiltie of this as Ruffinus writeth in exposit Symb. And it is no strange thing when in very few auncient Creeds it is to be found I could produce fiftie Creeds which haue it not in certaine it is found but then saith Ruffinus it must be vnderstood by the precedent article for it is the same with that which saith he was buried And this was Bucers opinion which the two Creeds of Athanasius and Nice do confirme for if they be so diuersly set downe that in some of them is mention of his buriall only in others only of his descension it is manifest that there is one and the same sense in them and that to be buried is as much as to descend into hel and this as much as that Finallie it is true his soule went into the common receptacle of soules but how proue you that that place is in hell for if his soule went into Paradise it could not go into hell vnlesse Paradise be there lesse which would imitate the Church of Rome which you hold cannot erre Of Man Now you make your question concerning man and you bring vs in speaking on this fashion The image of God is vtterly blotted out in man no sparke of good being left For so say you haue Illyricus and Caluin taught I know well the iudgement of Illyricus which I doe not thinke ought to bee laide to our charge For you are not ignorant Campian that his opinion touching the image of God and of the nature of originall sinne hath been reprooued and confuted by our men he went somewhat farther than he should I beleeue he did it that he might remooue himselfe farthest off from you whom hee throughly hated But I would he had amended some things then certainely had he been a very excellent man As for Caluin you doe him open wrong whom you ioyne with Illyricus in the fellowship of this