Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	person_n	personal_a	union_n	7,677	5	9.6215	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03334	The first motiue of T.H. Maister of Arts, and lately minister, to suspect the integrity of his religion which was detection of falsehood in D. Humfrey, D. Field, & other learned protestants, touching the question of purgatory, and prayer for the dead. VVith his particular considerations perswading him to embrace the Catholick doctrine in theis, and other points. An appendix intituled, try before you trust. Wherein some notable vntruths of D. Field, and D. Morton are discouered.	Higgons, Theophilus, 1578?-1659.	1609 (1609)	STC 13454; ESTC S104083	165,029	276

not be but finite and seeing it hath no personall subsistence of it owne but that of the Sonne of God communicated vnto it which is infinite and without limitation it can not be denied to haue an infinite subsistence and to subsist in an incomprehensible and illimited sort and consequently euery where Thus then the body of Christ secundum esse naturale is contayned in one place but secundum esse personale may rightly be sayd to be euery where So he and then he glorieth of the facility to reconcile all the assertions of your Diuines touching this part of Christian faith to stopp the mouths of your pratling aduersaries c. Truly the Geneuians themselues who excell in the art of * See D. Bancrofts Suruay pag. 195. reconciliation may yeald the buckler vnto him 5. But yet he hath fayled exceedingly in two poynts FIRST in saying that there is no place where the body of Christ is not vnited personally vnto that God who is euery where and that it doth subsist euery where c. For though the diuine Person wherein the humane nature subsisteth be euery where yet the humane nature subsisteth therein finitely and in one determinate place the vnion it self being a created thing You may take a familiar example to illustrate this poynt for your more exact comprehension thereof tota in tato tota in qualibes parte So the whole diuinity of Christ assumed the humanity The soule of man is euery where in the body and is not diuided in quantity but hath different operations according to the disposition of the organicall parts wherein and whereby she exerciseth hir functions Now though it be indiuisibly in all the parts of man the head and feete being vnited vnto the same soule yet the head is not vnited vnto the soule in the feete nor the feere vnto the soule in the head howbeit she is the same equally impartibly in both Likewise the similitude holdeth in this case For the diuine Person is essentially present in all places alike as much without heauen as within but yet to say that the body of Christ hath vnion with his person in all places because it is vnited vnto that which filleth all places it is an heresy which the Doctours falsehood hath cast him into as you may sensibly perceiue 6. The SECOND errour is notorious viz. the humane nature of Christ may rightly be SAYD to be euery where in asmuch as it is vnited personally vnto that which is euery where For it is a knowen infallible maxime in your schooles that by virtue of the personall vnion in Christ the proprieties of the diuine nature are attributed vnto the Person in concrete viz GOD and MAN not vnto the humane * quando ●a quae sunt propria diuina natura non possūt participari ab humanā c. See S. Thomas p. 3. q. 16. art 5. ad tertium nature in abstracte viz. vnto the manhood For as we may say truly that GOD suffered but not the Luther sayth that diuinitas passa est GODHEAD and MAN raised vp Lazarus but not the MANHOOD so in regard of the personall vnion we may truly say that the Man Christ is euery where but not the manhood And therefore in this poynt also your learned Doctour hath abused you with a pseudotheologicall conclusion 7. This shall suffice briefly concerning the matter of Vbiquity and no doubt when he hath scanned the doctrine of the SACRAMENT but his reconciliation therein will be proportionable vnto his deuice in this And that you may be furnished to expect his skill therein I will prepare some obseruations for your better direction in this important matter 8. To this end you must conceiue how your Euangelicks differ from the Catholicks and from themselues also in this issue The CATHOLICKS teach with one consent that after the words of consecration This is my body 1. Transubst This is my bloud there is the true reall body and bloud of Christ contayned vnder the similitude of bread and wyne For benedictious etiam natura mutatur by the benediction the nature it self is chandged As the word of Christ can make something of nothing De mysterijs init cap. 9. 2. Consubst so it is able to turne one thing into an other as S. Ambrose doth perspicuously and irrefragably deliuer vnto vs touching this sacred transelementation 9. The LVTHERANS teach that in the Sacrament there is the true reall body and bloud of Christ together with or vnder the bread Sir Th. More and wine A good child was Luther that would not eate his flesh without bread for feare of breeding wormes in his belly 10. The SACRAMENTARIES so stiled by Luther and you may not forget it because the Doctour sayth that some mēs malice called them so haue many idle and base interpretations of this mystery The Sacramentary sect hath now six heades as I take it sayth M. Luther borne in one yeare See Fabric in loc com Luth. part 5. pag. 48. it is a wonderfull spiritt that so dissenteth from himself But the fayrest and best exposition which any Sacramentary hath made is this viz. the body of Christ is truly and really exhibited vnto vs in the Sacrament to be participated onely by a true and a liuely faith This is the proper doctrine of Iohn Caluin whereby he would seeme to speake more magnifically then Zwinglius and the rest Howbeit they and he concurre absolutely in two poynts wherein they all differ from the Catholicks and from M. Luther himself FIRST that Christ is not otherwise in the Eucharist then by a sacramentall vnion of the thing signified in and with the signe SECONDLY that he can not be participated there otherwise then by the act of faith and consequently the faithfull onely do eate his body and drink his bloud in the holy communion This also is the doctrine generally of your English Church See M. Rogers in his Cathol doctr pag. 178. 11. Now whether your learned Doctour can possibly excogitate or scanne out any reconciliation betwixt the Lutherans and Sacramentaries in this matter you may informe your self by him and vse him as the liuing commentary of his dead letter Meane while three reasons do very strongly perswade yea assure me that their difference herein is not capable of any reconciliation My FIRST reason is deriued from M. LVTHER writing thus vnto his friend See Fabricius in loc com Luth. part 5. pag. 49. Fabric ibid The opinion of Zwinglius and Oecolampadius spreadeth it self farr and hath diuers sects within it self But thou if thou regardest my counsayle shalt fly it as the pestilence for it is blasphemous against the word of Christ and against our faith 12. To the same effect he enditeth a letter vnto an other friend and sayeth Vnlesse I knew the wrath of God and saw the experience of it I could neuer haue bene perswaded that so many and so great men could be seduced by such

persons is in its nature spirituall diuine heauenly and as it were gold the state of single persons is secular earthly and as it were dirt he vouchsafeth to yeald this worthy answere in defence of our Great Reformer Lutheri verba mihi nunc legere non licuit I could not read the words of Luther now howbeit Bellarmine doth particularly designe the * Luth. in Epithalamio place 17. But M. DEANE aduanced vnto this honour for his rare dexterity against the Papists hath vnfortunately preuented this excuse For remembring the wise counsayle of an heathen * Horat. de arte Poëtica● Poet who prescribeth that in a thing of lesser importance then the controuersies of Religion are a writer should bring forth nothing into publick view which hath not bene discussed euen * Nonumque prematur in annum a In his ep vnto the Archbish of Cant. nine yeres space with great exactnesse he tooke very speciall deliberation to compose and divuldge this renowned Treatise I bestowed sayth a he * Quidque domū fert is DECIMO nisi dedecus ANNO● Ouid. TEN YEARES paynes vpon this work with most ardent desire to find out the truth least some man perhapps might object vnto me either prejudice or temerity therein Moreouer the booke which I vsed was of a second impression and beautified with this aduertisement Editio castigatior a more exquisite edition then the former Wherefore now that little sparke of poore hope which remayned in me to find some shew or shaddow of probable satisfaction touching the heresy of Aërius so seuerely censured in him by the Fathers and so earnestly obiected vnto vs by the Papists became vtterly extinct §. 3. How vainely D. Field excuseth the folly of Protestants which sheweth it self in the diuersity of their censures touching the aforesaid heresy of Aërius The true reason of their difference herein is assigned Their peruerse dealing with Antiquity 1. VNto this wound very deepe and lardge b Pag. 139. D. Field hath thought it expedient for our security to apply a rare and soueraigne playster viz. If it be sayd that sondry of our Diuines seeme to acquitt Aërius herein they are to be conceiued as vnderstanding his reprehension to haue touched the errours and superstitions which euen then perhapps beganne in some places and amongst some men For otherwise his reprehension if it be vnderstood to extend to the generall practise and judgement of the Church it is not nor may not be justified 2. As Sir c In respons ad Epist Pomerani pag. 8. If Luther do cōplayn of Luther do say c. D. Field pag. 192. Th. More answered vnto Pomeranus extenuating the haynous crimes of our brethren euen in the hatching-time of our ghospell though you mince the matter with si qui and si quid and si alibi and si non Christianum c. yet it is well knowen that you do generally perpetrate diabolicall and barbarous attemps so though D. Field doth here limitt restrayn and obscure a most eminent truth with if perhapps some men some places seemed c. yet I saw most clearely let the precedents testify in my behalf that we do notoriously conspire with Aërius in this issue what he denied the very same thing do we deny what he affirmed the very same thing do we affirme Es nimium similis patri c. ô Luther thou art too like vnto Aërius thy whole lineaments descry him to be thy Father in this particular conceipt As his reprehension extended vnto the generall practise and judgement of the Church so doth thine likewise and we employ our best skill to justify and maintayn the very same reprehension against the faithfull relation of hir chiefest Doctours and the perpetuall succession of all ages 3. But forasmuch as I perceiued that the Doctour doth wisely conceale and prouidently dissemble the quality and reason of that difference which our Diuines are chardged with in this matter I entered into a serious consideration thereof and obserued that it doth arise and flow NOTA. not out of their diuers apprehension of the thing it self but out of a different opinion which they intertayn concerning the authority of the Church Hence it is that Luther Zwinglius and such passionate gentlemen neglecting the triall of their faith by the testimony of Fathers and plausibly reducing all things vnto the Scripture either simply by admitting no other proof at all or respectiuely by admitting the Fathers as farr as they agree with the Scripture and so farr they may admitt a triall by the Diuell himself and yeald as much respect vnto him as vnto them confesse plainely and syncerely that Aërius did not err in his reprehension but that the Church erred in hir practise On the contrary other men pretending to deale more fairely with the Church their mother and to defend themselues vnder hir protection will not forsooth seeke hir ruine by whom they would seeme to stand and therefore they are compelled to frame most improper vayn and friuolous interpretations of this and other things to maintayn the goodnesse of their cause according to the nature of their defence 4. Briefly therefore I noted a triple variety in our courses which consist generally either in the Rejection or Misallegation or Misconstruction of the ancient and venerable Fathers For in the beginning and entrance of our Ghospell nothing was more triuiall then to speake contemptuously of the Fathers and to disclayme their witnesse in the controuersies of this time Shall I name the persons Nulli nota magis domus est sua no man kenneth his owne house more familiarly then that Luther Zwinglius Musculus and our primitiue Fathers are principalls in this rank Or if you will ascend a little higher and come neerer vnto the dayes of VVickliff himself you shall find this article ascribed vnto Reginald Peacock whom for this and others of this kind d De Antichristo pag. ●7 M. Powell hath registred in the Catalogue of our Euangelicall Forefathers and M. Fox hath fauourably grāted him a place in the * Febr. 11. Calendar of his Saints viz. Veterum doctorum authoritati parum aut nihil tribuendum little or nothing is to be yealded vnto the authority of the Fathers 6. In the progresse of our ghospell others pretending a more wise moderation in this case but performing as little honesty here as some shewed humility before would not so intemperately reject the Fathers and therefore they excell in misalleadging their testimonies as e Analys Fidei pag. 18. Ego habeo testimoniae sanctorum Patrū ego defendo Patrum dogmata sayd Dioscorus the heretick See Cōc●l Chalcedon Act. 1. Gregor de Valentia doth complayn of many Protestants and more specially of Kemnitius that Examiner saith he of the Tridentine Councell If this collusion fayle then succedeth the third which is misconstruction of things by deriuing the testimonies of the Fathers to an other purpose then euer they did or could intend A for example

The particular euidences are his seuerall opinions in the matters of faith which are controuersed betwixt the Catholicks and Protestants at this day As for example GERSON belieued the doctrine of (i) See before pag. ●5 Transubstantiation which D. Field abhorreth * pag. 171. saying that it doth imply sondry consequences of horrible impieties GERSON was a patrone of the (k) Part. 4. serm 2. de defunct c Masse which Luther hated as impious and wicked and was so * See Serarius de Lutheri Magistro instructed by the arguments of the Diuell with both whom D. Field (l) pag. 192. doth absolutely conspire in this issue GERSON was resolute in the doctrine of (m) See before pag. 108. Purgatory which D. Field hath pronounced to be an * pag. 79. heresy of the Papists 3. If I would proceed vnto other particularities as namely Inuocation of Saints Indulgences Communion vnder one kind c I might fill many pages in laying forth the irreconciliable differences betwixt D. Field and this worthy guide of Gods Church But I will pretermitt the rest and come to the supreame difference vnto which all other points are subordinate and inferiour as I conceiue that is to say the soueraigne primacy of the Romane Bishopp in whom 4. principalities concurre For he is a Diocesan in one precinct an Archbishopp in one Prouince a Patriarch in one part of the world finally the chief Pastour of all in which administration he succeedeth vnto S. Peter as holy (n) de considerat l. 2. Bernard doth excellently speake Thou Eugenius art he to whom the keyes are deliuered and to whom the sheepe are commended There are other Ianitours of heauen and other Pastours of the flock but thou much more gloriously then they by how much thou doest obtayn each name more eminently then the rest They haue their flocks assigned vnto them euery bishopp his peculiar chardge but all are credited vnto thee and all are one flock vnto thee who art one pastour of all for thou art the pastour not onely of the sheepe but of the pastours themselues Doest thou aske me how I prooue it By the word of our Lord. For to whom I say not of 〈◊〉 the Bishoppes but of the Apostles are all the sheepe so absolutely and so indifferently committed If thou loue me PETER feede my sheepe What sheepe The people of this or that city of this region or of that kingdome No but my sheepe sayth he and who doth not * Cunctis Euangelium scientibus liquet quòd voce Dominicâ sancto onmium Apostolorum principi Petro totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est sayth S. Gregor Registr epist. l. 4. c. 76. plainely see that our Lord did not here designe some but assigne all vnto his care There is no exception where there is no distinction c. So he 4. Behold now also two very effectuall testimonies of Gerson to the same purpose FIRST (o) Part. 1. de Auferib● Papae cōsiderat 8. The formes of ciuill gouernment are subiect vnto mutability and alteration but it is otherwise in the Church For hir gouernment is MONARCHICALL and is so appoynted by the institution of our Lord. If any man will violate this sacred ordinance and persist obstinately in his contempt he is to be iudged an heretick as Martinus of Padua and some others consorting with his fancy Likewise prescribing many directions to compose the differences betwixt the Greek and Latin Church he premiseth this consideration as a fundamentall poynt viz. (p) Part. 4. de Vnit. Graecorū Considerat 3. There must be one head in earth vnto which all men must be vnited For though God himself who in the second Person assumed our nature be the principall and essentiall head yet he hath constituted a vicarian head to be his deputy amongst vs for the administration of his Church for the preseruation of vnity for the communication of the faith vnto all the members thereof c. Which head we call the POPE and OVR HOLY FATHER c. If any man either in malice or folly disturbe this vnion he is a schismatick As we must employ our diligence to procure vnity so we must endeauour to bring all men vnto the obedience of one head 5. Here Gerson declareth himself truly to be a worthy Guide of Gods Church and a singular enimy of the Protestanticall Reformation which hath conuelled and dissipated this ground and principle of vnity by impugning the supremacy of the Pope Wherefore as the (p) In his Suruay pag. 140 Lord Archb. of Cant. had good reason in his experience to say those Churches that haue followed the humour of BIZA in the abolishing of their Bishoppes and Archbishopps may they not iustly wish that he had neuer bene borne So there is greater reason vpon more lamentable experience to say those Churches that haue followed the intemperate humour of LVTHER in abolishing the soueraigne Bishopp may they not iustly wish that he had neuer bene borne For the sects factions and diuisions which haue ensued vpon this breach are in number many in quality odious and there is no certayn end vnto which they finally incline Which euills are well expressed by the Authour of them all (q) Luth. in Galat. c. 5. 15. The concord of the Church being once violated there is neither measure nor end of dissensions VVhen Aphrick was subuerted by the Manichees then succeeded the Donatists who contending also amongst themselues were parted into three sects Likewise in our time first the SACRAMENTARIES fell away from vs then the ANABAPTISTS and neither of theis agree together Thus one sect breedeth more and each condemneth the other 6. But if we would reflect vpon the true cause hereof thou ô Luther thou art the cause of theis perturbations for thou hast taken away the meanes of vnity by displacing the head of the Church in whom it should be eminently preserued as Gerson that worthy guide doth grauely and wisely teach Wherefore let any man of conscience and discretion examine the truth and substance of D. Fields assertion saying (r) Pag. 179. it is the pride of Antichrist the Pope that hath made all the breaches in the Christian world and would haue layd all waste if God had not preserued a remnant Of whom Lutherans Sacramentaries and the like 7. I come vnto a SECOND proposition deliuered by the sayd worthy guide of Gods Church (ſ) Gers Part. 4. Contra bullam mendicant If you demand whether a man may be saued though he reiect the true * Martin 5. Pope I answere he may if ignorance excuse him and if he haue a good will or a mind prepared to yeald obedience when the truth shall be explaned vnto him for then he departeth not from Christ the essentiall head and from his ordinance viz. THERE MVST BE ONE POPE IN THE VNIVERSALL CHVRCH To which effect as I conceiue certayn penitent Nouatians did confesse and (t) Lib. 3. ep 11.