Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	nature_n	person_n	subsist_v	2,966	5	12.3029	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60205	A confession of faith of James Salgado, a Spaniard, and sometimes a priest in the Church of Rome dedicated to the University of Oxford : with an account of his life and sufferings by the Romish party, since he forsook the Romish religion.	Salgado, James, fl. 1680.	1681 (1681)	Wing S375; ESTC R13433	10,044	21

in the Pope only by himself or as he is joyned with a Council or whether it Consists in a Council alone without him they have a long time doubted and the Reason of that is this because no Scripture is of any private Interpretation but holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost 2 Pet. 1.21 Now he best understands both the Law and the Promises who wrote them both and if he so understands then he best knows the sence and meaning of them and if so then without doubt he is the Supreme Decider of all Controversies and he has left unto us his Law to be the Rule both of our Lives of our Manners and of our Actions The Romanists prate against us here and Object these two things First That every one is a Pretender to the Holy Spirit and Secondly That the Scriptures do Contradict one another But for all that they are forced to confess these two things First That pretence is no Prescription to the Truth and Secondly That the Contradictions which they Object are not Really so much as Apparent Which also is evidently seen in the many Harmonies and Concordances that are made of the Bible Howbeit there is no doubt but that the Church hath her share also in this Affair but yet so as that we still hold that she only by her Testimony stands us in stead as the Witness of Truth not by her Authority as by a Law to bind our Consciences primarily and by her own self The Power she has is Subordinate not absolute she is Gods Servant only and upon that Account not to regulate Gods Word but to be regulated by it So that the Pope of Rome proclaims himself Antichrist by this very thing that he exalts himself above all that which proceeds from GOD as if he were not as by Right he ought to be a Minister of the Divine Command but a Lawgiver himself II. As to God and his Attributes or properties and also as to the Persons of the Deity there is but little difference between us and the Romanists and that also Consists rather in the modes of distinction than in the formality of the things themselves although even under this Head that which they build well about Fundamentals they destroy again by their Contra-fundamentals not only by ascribing Dulia to Saints and Angels and Hyperdulia to the blessed Virgin Mary though that be a frivolous distinction but also by their own Confession they ascribe Latria which belongs to God only even to the Wood of the Cross Now that man the Deity of GOD himself who is jealous over his own Honour that ascribes his Glory to any Creature for God solemnly protesteth that he is such a one as holdeth fast his Magnificence For he hath said My Name is J●h●vah and mine Honour I will not give unto another Of this Glory neither Paul or Barnabas intimate Witnesses of our Saviour would ever partake nor yet the Angel in the Revelation the one professing himself a fellow Servant of S. John and of the Prophets the two others protecting themselves with this Buckler viz. That they were men subject to like Passions with others and saying Honour God Wherefore seeing this Honour which the Romanists bestow upon Saints and Angels could not be a Medium of Abnegation for it could neither be Civil nor Religious nor yet a Medium of Participation which admits of both extreams for then it would have constituted a partial Idolatry therefore I concluded with my self that the Saints are to be Imitated as St. Austin speaks but not adored by Us as being utterly Ignorant of our Necessities Abraham knows us not and as for Israel he is ignorant of Us as t is Esay Where 't is to be noted that this Expression knows us not is not to be taken in the same sence as it is in S. Matthew chap. 7. verse the 23. And then I will say unto them I know you not as a late Jesuit foolishly interprets it For in S. Matthew 't is spoken concerning the knowledge of Approbation as appears by opposition of the contrary Psal 2. v. ult GOD knoweth the way of the Righteous saith David there that is he approves and allows of it as he disapproves the way of the Wicked That shall Perish as it follows there But in Isaiah 't is spoken concerning knowledge of simple Intelligence or of taking notice barely consider'd in it self as appears plainly by the Text. Now there are not any things in the World hid from the sight of God before whose eyes even the darkness it self turns to Light Those things therefore which GOD is said not to know we must understand in this sence that he doth not approve of them but those things which men are said not to know they are principally to be ascribed unto the defect of the knowledge concerning their Object III. Thirdly As to the Nature and Office of the Mediator I believe thus viz. That he hath two Natures the Divine and the Humane which is taken into the Personality of the Word it being such as cannot subsist of it self for want of a suppositality which appertains to the Person upon the Account of its assumption to the Quiddity of some other There are not therefore in CHRIST two Persons or but one Nature but in one Person two Natures yet without either Composition or Confusion The Church of Rome errs exceedingly in this point when she affirms that CHRISTS Body can be in many places at one time for that Man confounds the Divine Attributes with the Humane who ascribe multi-presence to a Body made in all things like unto our Body and upon that account Finite also as ours are for a Body whether it be glorified or whether it be as yet Subject to infirmity is lyable to Circumscription which also Aquinas himself acknowledges that it savours of a Contradiction in Adjunct that the same Numerical Body may be in many places at one and the same time The Consideration of this prevailed with me so far that I could not give up my assent to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation For not to speak any thing concerning this that the very word is not fitly squared and accomodated to the thing thereby signified because then it should be called an Annihilation of the Substance rather than a Transubstantiation of it according to the Nature of their Hypothesis I say to pass by that this also is to be consider'd That it is wholly founded upon the Idol of Multipresence which being demolisht Transubstantiation it self presently falls to the ground according to that of the Poet. If you take the Prop away The Structure falleth to decay Moreover the perverse Interpretation of Christs words as to the Institution of this blessed Sacrament and also the Mutilation of the Institution it self seemed to me to be a great piece of Sacriledge as well as it did to their own Pope Gelasius For they do not only interpret those thing in a Carnal sence which Christ