Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	law_n	light_n	moral_a	3,394	5	9.2992	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86378	A dissertation with Dr. Heylyn: touching the pretended sacrifice in the Eucharist, by George Hakewill, Doctor in Divinity, and Archdeacon of Surrey. Published by Authority.	Hakewill, George, 1578-1649.	1641 (1641)	Wing H208; Thomason E157_5; ESTC R19900	30,122	57

framing their lives and actions according to the law of nature Which Words saith the Doctor relate not onely to their morall conversation as good men but to their carriage in respect of Gods publike worship as religious men But by this glosse I doubt he corrupts the text of the Author sure I am the words he alleageth out of him do not reach home to his interpretation neither do I think it can be maintained or that it was the minde of Eusebius that the Patriarchs before Moses worshipped God according to a voluntary kinde of piety Which is by the Apostle in expresse terms condemned Col. 2. 23. and if their worship had relation to the Messias that was to come wherein all Divines I presume agree I do not see how he can affirm that they framed their religion according to the light of nature which without the help of a supernaturall illumination could not direct them to the Messias It is indeed said of Abraham that he saw the day of Christ and rejoyced no doubt but the same might as truly be verefied of all the other beleeving Patriarcks as well before as after him But that either he or they saw Christs day by the light of nature that shall I never beleeve and I think the Doctor cannot produce me so much as one good Author who ever affirmed it but on the other side with one consent they teach that as in morall actions they lived according to the light of nature so in religious they were in a speciall manner inspired and directed by God himself If that of the Apostle be true That whatsoever is not of faith is sin and again that without faith it is impossible to please God Faith being grounded upon the Commandements and promises of God it cannot be that their worship should be acceptable unto him without speciall command from him From the worship of God in generall the Doctor descends to the particular by way of Sacrifice affirming that it is likewise grounded upon the light of nature which if it be so undoubtedly it binds all men the law of nature being common to all and consequently to us Christians as well as to the Patriarcks before Moses Now that some kinde of Sacrifice is f●om all men due unto Almighty God I do not deny but that outward Sacrifice properly so called which is the point in controversie should be from all men due unto him by the light of nature that I very much doubt It is the conclusion of Aqu●nas Omnes tenentur aliquod interius Sacrificium Deo offerre devotam videlicet mentem exterius Sacrificium eorum ad quae ex praecepto tenentur sive sint v●rtutum actus sive certae d●term●natae oblationes and farther for mine own part I dare not go The Doctor instanceth in the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel which he seemeth to say were offred by the light of nature whereas of Abel we read that by faith he offered unto God a more excellent Sacrifice then Cain Now faith there cannot be without obedience nor true obedience without a precept and if perchance it be said that the excellency of the Sacrifice was from faith not the Sacrifice it self for then Cain should not have offered at all I thereunto answer that although Cain did not offer by faith or inspiration from God yet it may well be that he did it by instruction from his Father who was inspired from God And besides his Sacrifices being of the fruits of the earth might rather be called an offring as in the Text it is then a Sacrifice properly so termed according to Bellarmines definition And for Abel it is the resolution of the same Bellarmine which for mine own part I take to be sound Deus qui primus sine dubio inspiravit Abeli aliis sanctis viris usum Sacrificiorum voluit per ea Sacrificia Sacrificin̄ omniū ficiorum praestantissimum adumbrari The Doctors next instance is Noahs Sacrifice touching which the same may be said as formerly of Abels neither indeed can we with reason imagine that God should in other matters by divine inspiration so particularly instruct him and leave him onely to the light of Nature in the worship of himself or that Adam in the state of incorrupt nature was instructed by God in the duties of his service and his posterity therein left to the light of corrupt nature Besides this somethings there are by the Doctor affirmed of this Sacrifice not so justifiable I doubt as were to be wished as first that it was an Eucharisticall Sacrifice not typicall whereas all Divines that I have seen make all the Sacrifices commanded by God as well before the law as under the law to have been typicall That is some way significant of Christ to come they being all as so many visible Sermons of that all s●fficient Sacrifice through which God is onely well pleased with those which worship him And again the text making it by the Doctors own confession an Holocaust or burnt offring which Noah offred I see not how he can onely make it Eucharisticall in as much as Philo the Jew who should know what belonged to the distinction of Sacrifices in his Book purposely written of that Subject thus writes of them Sacrificia omnia ad tria redegit legislator Holocaustum pacifica sive salutare Sacrificium pro peccatis Noahs Sacrifice then being a burnt offring it could not be meerely Eucharisticall but I rather beleeve it might participate somewhat of all three kindes and as little doubt but that it was in all three respects significative of Christ to come The Doctors third instance is in Melchisedech who indeed is said to have been a Priest of the most high God and that being a Priest he offred Sacrifice I make no doubt but very much doubt whether he offred Sacrifice or were a Priest by the light of nature especially considering that Christ himself was a Priest after the order of Melchisedech Now whereas the Doctor confidently makes Sem to have been the eldest sonne of Noah he hath therein against him not onely the learned Iunius but Lyranus Tostatus Genebrard and the Hebrew Doctors And again whereas he seemes to follow the common opinion heretofore received that Melchisedech was Sem I think he cannot be ignorant that both Paraeus and Pererius have proved the contrary by so invincible arguments as there needs no further doubt to be made thereof The Doctors conclusion of this argument drawn from the light of Nature is this That there was never any nation but had some religion nor any religion if men civilized but had Altars Priests and Sacrifices as a part thereof or dependents thereupon The former part of which position I will not examine though our planters in Virginia and New-England can not as they report finde any acts of religion exercised by the natives of those Countries but for the latter part thereof I know not why he should exclude the

otherwise the Sacrifice it self cannot be proper which assertion will of necessity inferre either the transubstantiation of the Pontisicians or the c consubstantiation of the Ubiquitaries And again If the Body and Bloud of Christ be the subject matter of the Sacrifice it must be visibly and sensibly there according to Bellarmines own definition before laid down Neither will it suffice to say as he doth that it is visible under the species of Bread and Wine for so it may be visible to the faith of those that beleeve it but to the sense which is the thing he requires as a necessary condition in a Sacrifice properly so called it is not visible Neither can that be said properly visible which is not so in it self but in another thing for then the soul might be said to be visible though it be onely seen in the body and not in it self nay the soul might better be said to be seen in the body then the body of Christ in the bread in as much as the soul is the essentiall form of the body but I trust they will not say that the Body of Christ is so in regard of the accidents of bread Lastly how the Body and Bloud of Christ may be truely and properly said so to be consumed ut planè destruatur ut desinat esse id quod ante erat ut substantia consumatur which the Cardinall likewise requires in his Sacrifice properly so called d for my part I must professe I cannot possibly understand for to say as he doth that the Body of Christ is consumed in the Sacrifice not secundum esse naturale but Sacramentale cannot reach to his phrase of planè destruitur substantia consumitur as any weak Scholler may easily discern and in truth he doth in the explication of this point touching the essence of this Sacrifice wherein it consists and the manner of consuming the Body of Christ therein so double and stagger as a man may well see he was much perplexed therein wandring up and down in a labarynth not knowing which way to get out and so e I leave him The other defect which I finde in the Doctors discourse touching this point is that he doth not shew us how a commemorative or representative Sacrifice as he every where termes it is a Sacrifice properly so called This proposition that the Eucharist is a commemorative Sacrifice properly so called I shall easily grant if the Word properly be referred to the adjunct not to the Subject Commemorative it is properly called but improperly a Sacrifice And herein I think do all writers agree as well Romish as Reformed I mean that it is a Sacrifice Commemorative and therefore Bellarmine disputes the point in no lesse then 27. Chapters of his first Book de Missa against the Reformed Divines to prove that it is a Sacrifice properly so called and yet acknowledgeth that his adversaries confesse it to be a Sacrifice Commemorative but himself and his adherents though together with the Protestants they acknowledge it to be a Sacrifice Commemorative yet they rest not in that because they knew full well it was not sufficient to denominate it a proper Sacrifice And in very truth it stands with great reason that the Commemoration or representation of a thing should be both in nature and propriety of speech distinct from the thing it commemorates or represents As for the purpose he who represents a King upon the stagef is commonly called a King yet in propriety of speech he cannot be so tearmed unlesse he likewise be a King in his own person And therefore it is that we confesse the Jewish Sacrifices to be properly so termed because they were not onely prefigurative of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse but were really and absolutely so in themselves and if this could once be soundly demonstrated of the Eucharist the controversie would soon be at an end but till then in saying we have a representative Sacrifice can no more prove it to be a Sacrifice properly so called then the prefiguration of the Jewish Sacrifices without any further addition could prove them so to be which I presume no Divine will take upon him to maintain Now that which confirmes me herein is that both the master of the Sentences and Aquinas the two great leaders of the Schoolemen terming the Eucharist a commemorative withall they held it to be an improper Sacrifice and to this purpose they both alleage the authorities of the Fathers which makes me beleeve that they conceived the Fathers who in their writings frequently call it a Sacrifice to be understood and interpreted in that sense The former of them in his 4. Book and 12. destinction makes the question Quaeritur si quod gerit sacerdos propriè dicatur Sacrificium vel immolatio si Christus quotidiè immoletur vel semel tantum immolatus sit to which he briefly answers Illud quod offertur consecratur à sacerdote vocari Sacrificium oblationem quia memoria repraesentatio veri Sacrificii sanctae immolationis factae in ara crucis which is as much in effect as if he had said it is a commemoration of the true and proper Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse but in it self improperly so called and that this is indeed his meaning it sufficiently appears throughout that distinction With Lombard doth Aquinas herein likewise accord Parte 3. quaest. 73. art 4. in conclusione Eucharistiae Sacramentum ut est dominicae passionis commemorativum Sacrificium nominatur Where it is observable that he saith not Sacrificium est but onely nominatur and what his meaning therein was appears of that Article which is this Hostia videtur idem esse quod Sacrificium sicut ergo non proprie dicitur Sacrificium ita nec proprie dicitur hostia Which though it be an objection yet he takes it as granted that it is Sacrificium improprie dictum at leastwise as it is commemorativum or representativum and therefore to that objection doth he shape this answer Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc Sacramentum dicitur Sacrificium in quantum repraesentat ipsam passionem Christi c. dicitur autem hostia in quantum continet ipsum Christum qui est hostia salutaris CHAP. II. Of the Sacrifice pretended to be due by the light of nature FRom the defects in the Doctors discourse we now come to his arguments drawn from the light of nature from the institution of the Eucharist from the authority of the Fathers from the doctrine and practise of the Church of England and lastly from the testimony of the Writers thereof I will follow him step by step and begin first with the light of nature with which he begins his fifth Chapter It is saith he the observation of Eusebius that the Fathers which preceded Moses and were quite ignorant of his law disposed their wayes according to a voluntary kinde of piety {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}