"To generate and superinduce a new nature or new natures, upon a given body, is the labor and aim of human power."

"Super datum corpus novam naturam sive novas naturas generare et superinducere, opus et intentio est humanae potentiae."

     Francis Bacon, Novum organum II.1, trans. William Wood.  I was put onto this by Michael Hanby, "A more perfect absolutism," First things no. 166 (October 2016):  28 (25-31):

If nature is essentially a machine or, in contemporary nomenclature, a system, then the knowledge of nature is essentially engineering.  The task of science, as Bacon put it, is 'to generate or superinduce on a given body a new nature or natures.'  And if knowledge of nature is really engineering, then the truth of this knowledge is essentially whatever is technically possible.  But since the ultimate limits of possibility can only be discovered by perpetually transgressing the present limits of possibility, a technological view of nature and truth commences an interminable revolution against every antecedent order or given limit.  A thoroughgoing technological society will therefore establish revolution as a permanent principle, paradoxically giving it the stability of an institutional form.

Hanby quotes Bacon more accurately in "The gospel of creation and the technocratic paradigm:  reflections on a central teaching of Laudato Si," Communio:  international Catholic review 42 (Winter 2015):  724-747:

If nature is really an artifact or a machine, then knowledge of nature is essentially engineering, and the truth of this knowledge is simply whatever is technically possible.  And if 'natural' really means just 'possible,' then it is the exceptions, which reveal what is possible, that define the norm.  But since we can discover the ultimate limits of technological possibility only by transgressing the present limits of possibility, the technological paradign commits us to a perpetual war against the given limitations of nature [(733; Bacon is quoted in footnote no. 29, the one following the word 'norm')].

     Latin from Bacon's Novum organum, ed. Thomas Fowler, 2nd ed., corr. & rev. (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1889), 343.
     By "natures" (naturae), Bacon seems to have meant something like the simple and (in combination) complex properties that bodies (corpora) can—in keeping with "laws of matter" (legibus materiae, II.4) that, if exceptionless, constitute what Bacon calls "form" (forma (II.2, 4))—be induced to exhibit or bear.  These (e.g. "whiteness", "heat" (II.3), "color", "weight", "transparency", "tenacity", "vegetation" (II.4), "malleability", "ductility", non-volatility, flammability, meltability, separability, solubility, "stability", "deliquescence" (II.5), etc.) we might call qualities, characteristics, or even accidents, rather than natures in some more deeply metaphysical sense.  They can be "superinduced . . . upon a given body" in combination in such a way as to transform, say, silver into gold, but each is conceptually simple.
     But all of that within the context of the claim that whatever can be accomplished in practice "is most correct in theory" (quod in operando utilissimum, id in sciendo verissimum (II.4)).
     It is the latter point that has to be the main one here.  What we suffer from, according to Hanby, are the implications of this Baconian "pragmatism" as they have worked themselves out downstream:  this identification of the true with what can be physically "superinduced", this reduction of "metaphysics" to "physics" (II.9).
     For this reason, the fact that Bacon wasn't actually talking about "nature" in some more deeply metaphysical sense (e.g. what it means to be human, or a human male on the one hand and a human female on the other) is of less importance than this mentalité that he insinuated in germ, this idea that the truth about me can be discovered or confirmed by physical manipulation experimentally.  And that it can therefore be anything allowed for by the laws of "physics" (as, for example, a "reality" "superinduced" or confirmed by surgery).

"I don't know if it's any better with the Anglican Church in England, but the Episcopalian Church in America seems to have gone stark raving mad."

The Poetry Foundation

     W. H. Auden, "Liturgy, Reform of," in A certain world:  a commonplace book (New York:  The Viking Press, 1970), 225 (225-226), as quoted by Alan Jacobs in "The poet in old age," Books and culture 22, no. 5 (September/October 2016):  33 (32-33).
     What Auden has in mind are "some features of a proposed reformed Holy Communion service", namely the omission of the Prayer of Humble Access, the General Confession, and the Filioque; the "futile attempt" "to pray for all sorts and conditions of men" during the Prayer for the Church Militant (italics mine); and the use of "some appalling 'modern' translation."

The poor Roman Catholics have had to start from scratch, and, as any of them with a feeling for language will admit, they have made a cacophonous horror of the Mass.  We had the extraordinary good fortune in that our Book of Common Prayer was composed at exactly the right historical moment. . . . Why should we spit on our luck?

George Fox "advocated a Protestant war of liberation in Europe"

"Friend, thou shouldest have invited all the Christians upon earth in all Nations that are against popery to thee, to come in and joyn with thee against popery, for thou hast had authority, stand to it, loose it not, nor abuse it, nor let any other take thy Crown, and do not stand cumbering thy self about dirty Priests that flatter thee for means, for thou hast had fair warnings, and thou hast had power over Nations, for Nations begins to be upon heaps, and Nations and tongues, and multitudes are waters, and the beast hath power over them who hath long reigned, and they begin to swell, and the whore sits upon them; neverthelesse, do not thou heed nor fear them, nor be of a doubtful mind, neither fear their amazements, but let thy heart be single to God, and wait, that the seed of God in thee may come until the top stone be layed, and invite all them that professe against the Pope in all Nations to joyn with thee against him, and do not loose thy Dominion nor authority, nor the wisdom of God, but with that thou may order all, that will keep thee single in heart and mind to the Lord, and let thy souldiers go forth with a free willing heart, that thou may rock Nations as a cradle, and keep thou in the fear of the Lord, and all thy souldiers, and them that be under thee, this is a charge to thee in the presence of the Lord God, that thou nor them may lose the dread of the Lord, for that is it that strikes terror in the hearts of all people. . . ."

     George Fox to Oliver Cromwell, in a letter "Written the tenth of the 6th month, 1657".  Edward Burrough and George Fox, Good counsel and advice rejected by disobedient men and the dayes of Oliver Cromwells visitation passed over, and also of Richard Cromwel his son . . . (London:  Thomas Simmons, 1659), 36-37, all underscoring mine.  The title of this post is taken from Alan Cole, "The Quakers and the English Revolution," in Crisis in Europe, 1560-1660, ed. Trevor Aston (New York:  Basic Books, 1965), 349, who claims that it was not until the famous Declaration of January of 1661 (Declaration from the harmless & innocent people of God, called Quakers, against all sedition, plotters & fighters in the world . . . presented unto the king, upon the 21th day of the 11th moneth, 1660) that the movement became, in response to the new political situation, recognizably pacifist.  The letter on pp. 26-27 is cited as well, but it doesn't seem to me to be as unambiguous.  See, more importantly, the scan of the original in Google Books.  I have no idea where the scholarship is on this topic (or its mid-17th-century context) at present.

A run-of-the-mill Lutheran definition of faith

"Faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see."

     The English derives from a translation of Heidegger ("Glaube ist das Sichgefangengeben in den Sachen, die wir nicht sehen" ("Phänomenologie und Theologie" (1928), in Wegmarken, in GA I.9, p. 59)), and Heidegger cites the Erlangen edition, vol. 46, p. 287, which equals WA 47, p. 27, which equals LW 22, p. 298 (Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, chap. 3, sermon no. 23, 6 April 1538), as trans. Martin H. Bertram:

This is what makes the pope, the Turk, and all the sects pupils of the devil: in the affairs of God they insist on understanding everything and refuse to take anything on faith. They refuse to submit to the things that must be believed without being seen, although they have to do this in physical things, which they can both grasp and feel. 

Erlangen:  Derhalben so ist der Papst, Turke und alle Rotten des leidigen Teufels Schuler, die in Gottes Sachen Alles wissen wollen und Nichts glauben, wollen sich nicht gefangen geben in den Sachen, die do mussen gegläubet und nicht gesehen werden, und sie mussen es doch in andern leiblichen Dingen thun, do sie doch sonst greifen und fuhlen. 

Weimar:  Derhalben so ist der Bapst, Turcke und alle Rotten des leidigen Teuffels Schuler, die in gottes sachen alles wissen wollen und nichts glauben, wollen sich nicht gefangen geben in den sachen, die do mussen gegleubet und nicht gesehen werden, und sie mussen es doch in andern leiblichen diengen thun, do sie doch sonst greiffen und fhulen. 

Penington on the liturgical year

"it is not the different practices from one another that breaks the peace and unity, but the judging of one another because of different practices.  He that keeps not a day, may unite in the same Spirit, in the same life, in the same love with him that keeps a day; and he who keeps a day, may unite in heart and soul with the same Spirit and life in him who keeps not a day; but he that judgeth the other because of either of these, errs from the Spirit, from the love, from the life, and so breaks the bond of unity.  And he that draws another to any practice, before the life in his own particular lead him; doth, as much as in him lies, destroy the soul of that person. . . .  And oh! how sweet and pleasant is it to the truly spiritual eye, to see several sorts of believers, several forms of Christians in the school of Christ, every one learning their own lesson, performing their own peculiar service, and knowing, owning, and loving one another in their several places, and different performances to their Master, to whom they are to give an account, and not to quarrel with one another about their different practices!"

     Isaac Penington the Younger, "About the authority and government Christ excluded out of his church; which occasioneth somewhat concerning the true church government," in An examination of the grounds or causes which are said to induce the court of Boston, in New-England, to make that order or law of banishment, upon pain of death, against the Quakers (1660), in The works of the long-mournful and sorely-distressed Isaac Penington, vol. 1, 3^rd edition (London:  James Phillips, 1784 [1681]), 443-444.

"expertise is only expertise about power."

     John Milbank, Theology and social theory:  beyond secular reason, 2nd ed. (Malden, MA:  Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 442.  "the basis of this consensus is not agreement about either 'the goal' or 'the way' [(439.2 ff.)], but merely a deferral to 'expert' opinion.  And expertise is only expertise about power."

The sweetness of the Gospel lies mostly in pronouns

Digital Puritan

1545:
"The nature of this dowtye diuynite is to stande moche in the declynynge of pronownes".

     John Bayle, A mysterye of inyquyte contayned within the heretycall genealogye of Ponce Pantolabus, is here both dysclosed & confuted by Iohan Bale . . . (Geneua [i.e. Antwerp]:  Mycheal Woode [i.e. A. Goinus], 1545), 49.  See EEBO.  The pronoun is in this case "hoc", and the context, more controversial than pastoral.

1610:
"There is great diuinitie, saith Luther, in Pronouns: a great Emphasis in nobis and noster, as Bullinger & Caluin note."

     John Boys, An exposition of the dominical epistles and gospels used in our English liturgie throughout the whole yeare together with a reason why the church did chuse the same . . . ; the winter part from the first Aduentuall Sunday to Lent (1610), 20.  See EEBO.

"because there is (as Luther saith) great Diuinitie in pronounes, I will first examine the pronoune My: my soule, my spirit, my Sauiour."

     John Boys, An exposition of the principal Scriptures vsed in our English liturgie together with a reason why the church did chuse the same (London:  Felix Kyngston, 1610), 51.  See EEBO.

1658:

"and herein lies the sweetness of faith:  in that we believe not Christ only to be a Saviour, and righteousness, but my Saviour and my righteousness; and therefore Luther affirmed, that the sweetness of Christianity lay in pronouns; when a man can say, My Lord, and my god, and my Jesus.  I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me, Gal. ii. 20."

"his relations are made ours, and our relations are made his interchangeably.  No wonder if Luther tell us, That the best divinity lay in pronouns, for as there is no comfort in heaven without God, and no comfort in God without a Father, so neither is there comfort in Father, heaven, or God, without ours, to give us a property in them all[.]  O the blessed news that Christ tells Mary, and that Mary tells us!  I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God, Oh!  what dull hearts have we that are not affected with this blessed news?"

     Isaac Ambrose, Looking unto Jesus:  a view of the everlasting gospel; or, the soul's eyeing of Jesus II.ii.5 ("Of believing in Jesus in that respect") and IV/4.i.5 ("Of Christ's apparition to Mary Magdalene") (Belfast:  James McGee, 1763 [1658]):  52 and 354.  My thanks to Dr. Tom Schwanda, of Wheaton College, for pointing out that this reference to the Gospel pronouns (in general) appears in Ambrose before Flavel, below.

1681:  "Propriety is the sweetest part of any excellency, therefore Luther was wont to say, That the sweetness of the Gospel lay mostly in Pronouns, as me, my, thy, &c. who loved [me] and gave himself for me, Gal. 2.20.  Christ Jesus [my] Lord, Phil. 3.18.  So Matt. 9.2.  Son be of good cheer [thy] sins are forgiven:  take away Propriety, and you deflower the very Gospel of its beauty and deliciousness. . . ."

     John Flavel(l), Sermon no. 1 on 1 Cor 1:30, The method of grace, in bringing home the eternal redemption, . . . 2nd ed., very much corrected (London:  Tho. Parkhurst, 1699 [1681]), 10.

     Many thanks to my colleague Greg Morrison, of Wheaton College, for inquiring into the source of the sentence "The sweetness of the Gospel lies mostly in pronouns."  Though I had not encountered it before, I find it quite lovely.

     As for Luther himself, here's what I've found (without benefit of the digital edition of the Weimarer Ausgabe) so far:

1535 (1531):  Commentary on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians at Gal 1:4, trans. of 1575 (New York:  Robert Carter, 1848), 48-49 =WA 40.1, p. 85, ll. 27 ff.:  “weigh diligently every word of Paul, and especially mark well this pronoun [(pronomen)], our; for the effect altogether consisteth in the well applying of pronouns [(pronomina)], which we find very often in the Scriptures, wherein also there is ever some vehemency and power.  Thou wilt easily say and believe that Christ the Son of God was given for the sins of Peter, of Paul, and of other saints, whom we account to have been worthy of this grace; but it is a very hard thing that thou which judgest thyself uworthy of this grace, shouldest from thy heart say and believe, that Christ was given for thine invincible, infinite, and horrible sins.  Therefore, generally, and without the pronoun [(pronomine)], it is an easy matter to magnify and amplify the benefit of Christ, namely, that Christ was given for sins, but for other men’s sins, which are worthy.  But when it cometh to the putting to of this pronoun [(pronomen)] our, there our weak nature and reason starteth back, and dare not come nigh unto God, nor promise to herself that so great a treasure shall be freely given unto her, and therefore she will not have to do with God, except first she be pure and without si; wherefore, although she read or hear this sentence, ‘Which gave himself for our sins,’ or such-like, yet doth she not apply this pronoun [(pronomen)] (our) unto herself, but unto others, which are worthy and holy; and as for herself, she will tarry till she be made worthy by her own works" (note that the WA gives two versions, and that the 1531 version running along the top uses forms of the Latin word "pronomen" as well).

1542:  Copy of Luther's interpretation of Rom 8:31b inscribed (probably by Georg Rörer) onto a scrap of paper glued onto a page of a manuscript of the Widerrufs vom Fegefeuer in Luther's own hand, Lutherhalle, Wittenberg (WA 48, no. 273, on pp. 203-204):

Si deus pro nobis, Quis contra nos?

     Wenn wir das Pronomen, Nos, und Nobis wol kundtenn decliniren und verstehen, So wurden wir das Nomen deus, auch wol coniugirn, und aus dem, Nomen, ein verbum Machen, das hies, deus dixit, Et dictus est          da wurde die Prepositio, Contra, zu allen schanden werden, und endlich Ein infra nos draus werden, wie es doch geschehen wird und mus.  Amen.

M L d
1542

Si deus pro nobis, Quis contra nos?

     If we the pronoun nos/nobis could well decline and comprehend, so would we the noun deus also well conjugate, and out of th[is], [the] noun, make a verbum [(verb, i.e. Verb)], that is, deus dixit, Et dictus est [(God has spoken, And has been spoken)].  [And] thus would the Prepositio [(preposition)] Contra for all become infamous, and finally An infra nos [(A beneath us)] come out of that, as, of course, will and must take place.  So be it.

D[r.] M[artin] L[uther]
1542

I.e. the pronoun nos/nobis is to be "declined" (i.e. comprehended) in such a way as to "conjugate" and transform the noun Deus into the perfect passive verb/Word (Verbum) Deus dictus est, God has been spoken.  In this way we parse out, by reference to the Incarnation of the Word, the implications of the "God is for us", and allow the Lord to put all things under our feet, as, indeed, the immediately following verses of Rom 8 imply.  Cf. WA46, p. 549, ll. 35-37:  "'Die zwo Person sind also unterschieden:  der Vater ist, der da spricht, und die ander Person der Son, so gesprochen wird [(The two Person[s] are therefore distinguished:  the Father is [he] who there speaks, and the other Person, the Son, [he who] thus is spoken)].'"

     Pronomen (the Latin neuter) would (for future reference, should I come within reach of the Weimarer Ausgabe in digital form) be declined, I'm assuming, as follows:  pronomen (also the vocative singular), pronominis, pronomini, pronomen, pronomine; pronomina (also the vocative plural), pronominum, pronominibus, pronomina, pronominibus.