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	soul_n	union_n	4,231	5	9.6219	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

of euils were rather increased then taken away DVR Yea but he hath shened his contrary iudgment vvriting his Cledonius WHIT. Nothing lesse but only hee affirmeth that he vvould subscribe to the Apollinarian heretikes if they could proue that they vvere receiued of the vvest Councell vvhich hee knevv they could not Nazianzene Nazianz. Epist. 4● ad Procop. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should so vniustly iudge and so iniuriously write of them For he saith that he had deliberated with himselfe and fully resolued to auoid Episcopall Conuocations because he had neuer seene a good issue of any Synode Which howsoeuer it hath bin true of many which by reason of the ambition and busie medling of some haue not taken away auncient controuersies but rather haue sowed the seed of new contentions yet many Councels haue been approued and commended by their most wished euent Whereas therefore you appeale to Councels we will follow you in many in their most weighty censures and decrees for in all neither do you your selues iudge it necessary But let vs now heare you discoursing concerning Councels A waighty question say you concerning lawfull cere●●●ies was cleared in a Councell of the Apostles and Fld●rs assembled together The children beleeued their Parents and the Sheepe their Sheph●ard commaunding in this forme of speech It bath pleased the holy Ghost and vs. Where you make mention of a Councell most excellent and aboue all exceptions in which nothing was done rashly peruersely and factiously as sometimes in other Councels it hath been accustomed but al things diuinely and by the authority of the holy Ghost himself and therfore if we did not beleeue this Councell we were vnworthy of the name either of children or of sheep This Councel resolued that important question concerning ceremonies and freed the neckes of Christians from that most grieuous yoke of Mosaicall rites whereby the greater cause of griefe is offered vs by you who haue imposed vpon the Church contrarie to the expresse commandement of this Councell another yoke much more intolerable then that of Moses For this is cleare and manifest that the ceremonies brought into the Church by you and imposed vpon the consciences of men are twice as many as those which in time past Moses by Gods expresse commaundement inioyned vnto the people of Israell August ad Ianuar. And this is that of which c DVR Angustine vvhen he vvrit this did not after your manner carpe at Ecclesiasticall ceremonies but shevveth that be vvould not haue them instituted at euery mans pleasure For in his first Epistle to Ianuariu● he thus vvriteth If the vvhole Church vse any of these it i● insolent madnes to dispute vvhether such a thing is to be done or no WHIT. pag. 296. Augustine condemneth the multitude of ceremonies in his time and vvould haue vs rest contented vvith those few ceremonies vvhich are commended vnto vs in the Scriptures Ad Ianuar. Epist 118. cap. 1. Epist. 119.19 His vvords vvhich you alleage I vvillinglie embrace for vve vse and esteeme those ceremonies vvhich all Churches haue receiued as necessary for order and comelinesse But of this kind yours are not neither can you vvrest those speeches concerning the ceremonies of the Church to approue your Traditions seeing the Church of Rome long since ceased to be the Church of Christ Augustine long agone complained namely that by the multitudes of ceremonies the state of Christians was become worse then the state of the Iewes themselues which if Augustine spake of the ceremonies of his time how much more would he haue thus complained had he seene the great multitudes which were afterwards added to them But if the Apostles and Elders according to the meaning iudgment of the holy Ghost did determine that those ceremonies which the Lord himselfe had ordeined were to be abolished how intolerable is your boldnes who contrary to the decree of this spirit and Councell haue obtruded vpon Christians your innumerable traditions and needles ceremonies Did the Lord therfore abolish his owne ceremonies that he might establish yours did he abroga●● a few that he might bring in a multitude did he ease vs of lighter that he might impose heauier Whereby it appeareth that the diuine institution of this Councel which as it was before all other in time so aboue all other in excellency is most wickedly by you violated And is it to be thought possible that you who haue demeaned your selues so impiously towards these Parents and Pastors will be more respectiue towards others Nay there is not any Councell which you haue not long ago trodden vnder feete so that euery one of you are infoulded in a thousand excōmunications And dare you Campian notwithstanding make mention of Councels which if they were in any force surely you should no more be tolerated in the Church then Publicans and Pagans There followeth this say you for the rooting out of heresie the foure general Councels of the auncient Fathers which were of such strength and authority that a thousand yeares since they were had in singular account euen as Gods word it selfe And we likewise doe freely confesse that the authority of those foure Councels was good and profitable Luthe de Concil Reade what learned Luther hath writ of those foure generall Councels and so also you may know our iudgement of them Notwithstanding there is no reason why we should assent vnto Gregorie Gregor lib. 1. Epist 24. who professeth that he doth imbrace and reuerence these foure Councels as the foure bookes of the holy Gospell For this were rather to violate the Gospell then to reuerence the Councels Although as I take it Gregories meaning was that what was decreed and concluded in these foure Councels out of Gods word against Arriu● Eu●●onius Macedonius Nostorius Eutyches and Diosc●ru● that he firmely embraced and would not suffer these decreet which are approued by the Euangelicall writings and in which this impious heresie is condemned to be reuoked and repealed no more then the Gospell it selfe neither can I imagine that it was Gregories purpose to affirme this of all these Councels that the Councell of Nice Constantin●ple Ephesus and Chalced●n were fully equall vnto the holy Gospell in authority and dignity And so we our selues do not doubt that those things which these Fathers haue determined against those heretikes before named concerning the consubstantiall subsistence of the Father and the Sonne of the diuinity of the holy Ghost of the one person of Christ in two natures are as true as the Gospel it selfe not because these Councels so iudged and concluded but because in the Gospell the selfe same doctrine of faith is deliuered Further you say That also i●●●r owne country by our Parliaments the same Councels retaine their auncient right It is true indeed that in these and all other things which they propound if they be consonant to the holy Scriptures they doe still retaine their auncient right and dignity But lest you should

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