Selected quad for the lemma: word_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A10149
|
The fal of the late Arrian
|
Proctor, John, 1521?-1584.
|
1549
(1549)
|
STC 20406; ESTC S104432
|
83,352
|
290
|
that ye purposed rather to persecute Chryst then to prosecute the truth As they do myghtelye proue his humanitie so do these necessaryly and strongly declare his deuinitie And wyll ye be perswaded in th one and not in the thother If one force efficacye and vertue be of bothe why wyll ye not admyt both If one Scrypture beare wytnes of both why wyl ye not teache both If one Christ be authour of both why wyll ye not beleue bothe Admytte teache beleue both or one Chryst wyll condemne you in both for beleuinge th one in not beleuing and for not beleuing thother in beleuiÌ„g Arri. THE nature deuine is single comunicable to no creature coÌ„prehensible of no creat vnderstaÌ„ding explicable with no speche But as Paul saith in the fyrst to the Romans by the visible structure of the worlde we deprehende the invisible power sapience and goodnes of God c. Proct ALl this is true and Godlye but applyed to an vntrue and vngodly ende Therefore I canne finde nothynge amysse here in but youre intent whiche is wycked Ye wold hereby emproue Chryst his deuinitye but it wyll not frame with you To contende that Chryst hath not the deuine nature in hiÌ„ because the same nature is single communicable to no creature and so forthe Non sani esse hominis non sanus iuret orestes .i. A mad man might swere that it were no wise mans part The reason is bycause he was God and maÌ„ and had in hym both that single nature which is coÌ„munycable to no creature which is incomprehensible explycable with no speche c. And also the nature of man vnlike to the other in all the propryeties ye haue rehersed hauing therfore both natures in him yf by the one your senses might comprehende hym to be a coÌ„prehensible creature as man it foloweth not by that that he had not the other in him by which he is God incomprehensible for the scriptures ar manifest that he had both in him As we haue tofore sufficiently declared And where you saye that the deuine nature is communicable to no creature it can not be denyed Neither can ye fasten the contrary vpon vs because we beleue Christ to be bothe God man and to haue in him the natures of both For albeit he true God toke on him true maÌ„ to th end he one myght be both And beynge bothe is but one person and in the same but one Christ yet are not the two natures made one or in anye poynt confouÌ„ded or mixt altered or chanÌ„ged from thier first condicion state them not coÌ„municatynge or participatynge with thother in anye consideracioÌ„ The word was made flesh sayth s Ihon He meaned not that the word was turned into flesh or that the worde and the flesh were made one in substance but that the word was made flesh that is to say the worde tooke vnto it the very nature of man wholly perfectly that where before he was but the worde and the sonne of God only nowe he myght be man and the sonne of man also That phrase of S. Iohn may be vnderstanded y the lyke vsed of S. Paule where he sayth Christus pro nobis factê° est maledictus Christ was notte in deede the same thynge Miledictum but because he tooke vpon him MaledictuÌ„ for our sakes therfore it is sayde Factus est maledictum Euen so in the lyke forme it is saide in Iohn Verbum caro factum est because Christ beyng that worde vouchsafed for our sakes to put on him our nature so became man he receaued the shape of seruaunt vpon him which he had not but he left not the shape of God therfore which he had he was the word the worde was made man Thus the worde and man concurryng and meetyng togither one ê‘son is made and in the same one Christ hauyng in him .ii. distinct dyuers natures yet but one person whiche natures tho they be vnited togyther in him and meete in person of his Godhed yet are they not so vnited thei do not so meete that they be mingled confounded togyther as water wyne leuen dough th one beyng altered and confouÌ„ded into with thothers substaunce But these Natures in Christe remayne togyther inconfusibiliter sayth S. Austen That is inconfusely and vnmixt nor altered chaunged or immuted in anye one iote of their first proper state force or vertue How may this be ye wyll say that the deuine nature the nature of man coulde be vnited togyther in one Christ to one person th one not coÌ„municate or perticipate with thothers substance I can not teache you tunderstande howe but ye may learne by your selfe howe to beleue it And therfore S. AusTen byddeth you to aske your selfe how your selfe but one man can haue in your selfe .ii. dyuers and sundry natures inconfusely existynge as the soule the bodye Therfore the nature of God the nature of man at vnited conglutinate togyther in one Christ and to one persone of the same Christê Godhead after a mistical ineffable inexplicable wise eche nature notwithstandynge that vnion that conglutinacioÌ„ stil remainyng in the integritie and perfectioÌ„ as before that vnion or conglutinacion it was Of which vnion altho Origen coÌ„fesseth that no similitude proper fear inough caÌ„ be brought yet he compareth the same too yron which is fyred and inflamed saieng As the fyre doth penetrate the yron and of euery syde is mixed vnto it so the worde sayth he receauynge humane nature shyneth in the same throughout and in euery parte And the humane nature enkendled as ye may say with the lyght of the same is vnited vnto the word And as the yron is not altered into the nature of the fyre or the fyre into the nature of yron so neither is the deuine nature turned into the humane nature nor the humane nature conuerted into the deuine nature Thus the deuine nature notwithstandyng this personall vnion remaineth styl incoÌ„municable single incomprehensible and inexplicable touchynge the incomprehensibilitie wherof and inexplicabilitie I haue sayde ynough to fore The same deuine nature is called simplex in our tonge single because in it is no diuersite variacioÌ„ or multitude either of partes or Accidentes or of anye kynde of formes or fascions but the same is pure sincere vniforme euer lyke the same of one sort vnmixt not diuers not mutable in any condicion This is the vnderstanding of the worde simplex which ye vse Now after ye come in with a new fyue egges to aggruate the mater how that it followeth not that he is God because he is called by the name of God somtyme in the scripture but neither barell better hrryng Arri. WHERE IT IS BY the scriptures euident that there is one god as in the .vi. of Deut. Your God is one God yet the vocable is transferred to other and therfore it is written in the .lxxxi. Psalme God stode in the sinagoge of gods which
reason and blinde senses for the determinacion of such supernaturall matiers I can no more preuayle in teaching you then dothe the corke in vpholdig the net that it may swyme aboue water when so much led is annexed that it vyolently pull the same to the bottom Where ye saye therefore Howe may it be thought true religioÌ„ that vniteth in one subiecte contraries c. To make you an aunswere that ye may vnderstande I replye vnto you with the lyke phrase How may it be thought a true relygyon which techeth that a virgin brought forthe a chylde without the seede of man If ye can make good this ye canne not but admytte thother alsoâ— both beynge true for one consyderacion The worde of God telleth you that Marye conceaued and delyuered a chylde withoute the carnall knowleage of man and ye do belyue it why Because your reason can comprehende howe it may come to passe No why then bycause the worde ye wyll say doth wytnes that it was so lykewyse the same worde is a playne testymonye that in Iesus Christ were vnited .ii. contrarye natures th one inuisible and immortall thother visible and mortal why do ye not beleue it Why dought ye more of the religion that teacheth vs the vnion of suche contraries in Chryst then of that relygion which reacheth vs that a virgin brought forth a chylde seyng both haue one and the selfe same grounde Here your howe gyueth me occasyon to speake of the wonderfull myracles which Chryst wrought emongest vs. aboue al humayne reason to th ende this myght not seeme vnpossyble to your fayth tho your wytte can not compasse it that Iesus Chryst was bothe God and man To whom beinge omnipotent all thinge is easye and possible be it neuer so difficult and impossible to mans vnderstanding and iudgement But to avoide tediousnes I wyll not vse the occasion As it is true and Godlye relygion which teacheth vs that Chryst did such miracles so is it a true and Godly religyoÌ„ to beleue that Christ is true God and perfecte man for both were lyke possible to him And of both we haue lyke proufe By his worde we are assured he dyd them and by his word also we are put out of dought he dyd this Thus haue I taughte you howe it maye be thought true relygion whiche vniteth contraries in one subiecte And touchinge your principle of natural Philosophie coÌ„traries can not concurre in one subiect I meruel much that ye wold vse it to try and decide the hie misteries of god therwith al. Howe be it I shulde not much meruell therat For as the serpent called Amphisbena hath a head at both endes and vseth bothe partes in steade of a tayle as it ly kethe him In like maner such inconstant and wauerynge persons as ye are nowe by this nowe that wayes doo defende your selues applying euery thinge to your in tent framyng the same to proue improue as your fansy like And as Hyena is sometyme a male somtyme a female so ye one whyle ye be deuynes an otherwyle Natural phylosophers as ye perceue how your purpose may best succeade and go forwarde But truly as the people in Asya named Androgini do so imitate bothe kyndes that they be nor men nor women euen so ye counterfeicte to pley bothe deuynes and Natural Phylosophers after suche sorte that ye proue your selfes to be none of both Where ye talke of relygioÌ„ of fayth gods misteries ye counterfect a deuyne But where ye cum in with your contraryes in one subiect ye speake foly shely Phylosophycally I wolde haue sayde Agayne in that ye councell Natural Phylosophie for the declaracyon of deuinitie ye bewraye your selfe to be no deuine And in that ye include the hygh suê‘naturall misteries of God within the circuite compasse of Naturall Philosophie ye declare your selfe to be no Philosopher not knowynge that the dicyon and Limities therof extend no further then naturall matters Thus whyles ye wolde be seene bothe a deuyne and a Phylosopher ye shewe your selfe to be none of bothe And as ye are neyther good deuyne nor cunnynge Phylosopher accordynge to youre skyll in the one and cunnynge in the other ye haue so vndescreately coupled deuinitie and Philosophie together in this your sentence that the fruite spronge of that compulacion is nor deuinitie ne Philosophie but as the Mule engendred betwyx an Asse and a mare is nether Asse nor mare so by this youre vnnaturall coniunction of supernaturality and Naturallytye togyther yee haue brought forthe but to youre selfe alone I hope a fowle prodigious monster all vnlike to deuynytye all vnknowe to Philosophy As That Christ is not GOD and man accordynge to true Religion because naturall Philosophyes Rule is that Contraryes can not be in one subiect PerchauÌ„ce ye are mery of this talke well I wyll make an ende strayght waye As ye can not reason Natural Philosophie by deuinitie so can ye not teache diuinitie by Naturall Philosophy In th one faith admitteth no impossibilitie to be In the other reason contendeth nothynge possible to bee if by reason it be not comprehensible In th one faythe maketh all thing reasonable that is aboue reason In thother reason maketh all thyng incredible which is not within reason Therfore as in can not stande by naturall Philosophy one thyng to be both visible inuisible mortall and immortall in one respecte because contraryes can not be founde at once in one subiects by reason So is it perfecte true Religion by deuinitie to beleue that one thyng is visible and inuisible mortall immortall bycause contraryes are vnited in one subiecte contrary to reason Arri. IT IS laufull by many wayes to see the infirmitie of Iesus Christ whome Paule in the last Chapiter to the Corinthians of the seconde epist denyeth not to be crucifyed through infirmitie And the whole course and consent of the euangelicall historye doth make him subiecte to the passioÌ„s of man as hungre thyrst werynesse and feare to the same end lykewise at swere anxietie continuall prayer the consolacion of the angell agayn spittyng whypping rebukes or checkes his corpes wrapte in the lynnen clothe vnburyed And to beleue for sothe that this nature subiect to these infirmities and passioÌ„s is God or any parte of the deuine essens What is it wother but to make God mighty and of power of th one parte weake and impotent of thother parte whiche thynge to thynke it were madnesse folly to perswade other impieties Proct ANACHARSIS saiyng was that the Athenians occupyed their money to no other ende but to number by the numbrynge vp gatheryng togither these places of the scripture so nycely against Christê deuinitie may we not iustly thynke good syr that ye haue reade the holy scriptures to pyke out matter stuffe therhence rather to mainteyne disputacion talke then for any other godly ende and purpose If ye can denye this how happened then that ye haue heaped these sentences to gither only