Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
word_n humane_a nature_n union_n 3,114 5 9.7672 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45584 The condemnation of Monsieur Du Pin his history of ecclesiastical authors by the Archbishop of Paris ; together with his own retractation ; translated out of French.; Ordonnance de Monseigneur l'archevesque de Paris portant condamnation d'un livre intitulé Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques. English Catholic Church. Archdiocese of Paris (France). Archbishop (1671-1695 : Harlay de Champvallon); Harlay de Champvallon, François de, 1625-1695. 1696 (1696) Wing H776; ESTC R11961 23,873 36

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

the event of what passed at Ephesus was if I may so say under the Power of the Emperor and that the success of the Council depended upon the Resolutions the Court should take I did not thereby intend that the Definition of the Council of Ephesus and the Condemnation of Nestorius depended on the Will of the Emperor as to the Right and Obligation of submitting thereto but only as to the External Execution and Publication For it must have happened if the Emperor had continued to be deceived that he would have Persecuted the Catholicks opposed the Truth and protected Violence and Error for sometime but this is nothing to the Validity of the Council or the Solidity of its Decision which no ways depended on the Judgment of the Emperor nor on the Resolutions of the Court. Having said P. 201. That the Emperor consented to the deprivation of Nestorius and to that of St. Cyril and Memnon because of their Caballing I designed not to approve this Conduct of the Emperor nor to accuse St. Cyril of Caballing but only to mark that the Emperor was prepossessed falsly by Acacius of Berea that St. Cyril and Memnon had Caballed together Tho it seems to me that I have given very solid Answers to the Objections which I have brought against the Council of Ephesus nevertheless because some have been offended at the Objections I agree with them that I had done better not to have related them in a Frenck Book We may also add to the Answers that there was nothing done in the Council with Precipitation That all the Matter was prepared and discussed beforehand That St. Cyril held it not only at the time when it ought to have been held but that it was morally impossible to delay it That the Zeal which actuated this Father was commendable and according to knowledge That there came Bishops from the farthest parts who arrived much before John of Antioch That 't is certain that John of Antioch designed not to come to the Council and that he was very glad to have it begun that he might have a pretext for keeping away from it That Nestorius was sufficiently convinced out of his own Writings of not admitting a real and Hypostatical Union in Jesus Christ That there is no regard to be had to the Judgment of Isidorus Dam. who only spoke by confused Reports That the Error of Nestorius was so evident and so horrible that it was just to Condem it in such Terms as might denote the horror which we ought to have for his Heresie such as these Nestorius another Judas Tom. 3. Part 2. p. 2 14. That they did examin carefully and related faithfully the Extracts of Nestorius's Books in this Synod and lastly that all was transacted there Legally and Canonically As to the Sentiment of Nestorius it is true that he never durst openly say that there were two Christs and two Persons but he said what was equivalent denying the Hypostatical Union of the two Natures admitting only a Moral Union betwixt them as appears by a great many passages in his Writings He held not the Error of Paulus Samosatenus and of Arius concerning the Divinity of the Word who did not admit of any Union of the Divine Nature with the Human as Father Garner hath observed before me but he erred expresly and in formal Terms concerning this Union admitting only betwixt the two Natures an Union Moral and Apparent and not Real and Substantial of which Error it was easie to convince him by his Writings tho he disguised it in some places So when I say Tom. 3. Part 2. p. 42. That if we appeal to his Writings it doth appear that he hath maintained that the Word was united with the Humane Nature by a very intimate and strict union However this is not to to be understood of his true Sentiment nor of all that he hath said but only of some places in which he hath affected as Hereticks do the use of Catholick Terms For in many other place he discovers visibly his Error as I have marked Page 43. p. 215. and if their be any Expressions in my Work which may give another Idea of him I declare that 't is against my intention and I do beseech the Reader to take them in this Sense And when Isaid p. 42. That he always said that he could not own that God was born that God suffered that God died and that his Error consisted only in this I in no wise pretend to make it consist only in the refusal which he made of these Expressions acknowledging that he did really admit a Moral Union betwixt the two Natures and that he would have two Persons in Jesus Christ which was the reason why he would not admit the Consequences of the Unity of one Person alone These words in the beginning of the History of the Council of Chalcedon Tom. 3. Part 2. p. 230. That this Assembly had turned into a confused Rout if the Commissaries of the Emperor had not put a stop to the tumultuary Exclamations which were made there by advertising the Bishops that it was unworthy of them to behave themselves after such a manner I say these words not appearing respectful enough to that Council which I honour I wish I had not used them tho' I did it innocently and without any bad intention When I said Tom. 4. pag. 146. That it had been better not to have moved the affair of the three Chapters I designed that this Censure should only fall upon what preceded the time of the Council and on the Person of Theodorus who stirred up Justinian to push on this Affair As to the Council I acknowledge that as Affairs stood then and seeing how far the Assembly was carried on that it was absolutely necessary for the good of the Church to pass the Condemnation of the three Chapters and that all the Catholicks ought to have submitted to it that they had reason to condemn Theodorus after his Death and that that Conduct of Anathematizing the Dead may be followed as the Church hath often done since that they had reason also to condemn the Letter of Ibas and the Writings of Theodoret thus I disown what I have said to the contrary p. 146. and what follows As to the matter of Images the Worship of which is determined in the second Council of Nice I acknowledge that this Council is a General and Lawful one and that therefore there is a perfect submission due to it acknowledging for an Article of Faith all which it hath decreed and that all its Proofs are not drawn from supposed Monuments and Apocryphal Passages of the Scripture and Fathers which prove nothing that there are there very solid Proofs and unanswerable drawn either from Scripture or the Writings of the Fathers or other Pieces of Antiquity I did not intend to make any comparison betwixt this Council and the false Council of Constantinople against Images nor to speak of them as two opposite Parties I