Selected quad for the lemma: body_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A60327
|
Christus Deus The divinity of our Saviour : asserted and vindicated from the exceptions of the Socinians and others : in a sermon preached at St. Peter's Hungate, in Norwich, upon the festival of St. Philip and St. James, in the year 1673 / by Bernard Skelton, sometime vicar of Hinton.
|
Skelton, Bernard.
|
1692
(1692)
|
Wing S3933; ESTC R37553
|
16,850
|
32
|
opposite Properties should combine into one Person Or that two Natures each whereof is apt to constitute a several Person should be united into one Person I answer First that is neither strange impossible nor as our Adversaries say repugnant to sound Reason that two Substances endued with opposite Properties should combine into one Person for the Soul is immortal and the Body mortal yet these do so combine that they constitute one Person Again the Soul is not only apt to constitute but is really a Person according to the Platonist if a Person be a singular Substance endued with Reason before its Entrance into the Body for if each Soul did subsist by it self many thousand Years before its Body it could not be said to be part of a Man before it was united to the Body And therefore a Nature which is not only apt but really constitutes a Person may be united to another Nature as that both shall constitute one Person There is no Necessity therefore in the Hypostatical Union that there should be two Persons and so consequently two Christs for as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one Man so God and Man is one Christ And it is false what our Adversaries say that the Similitude holds not because according to us Christ is both God and Man but Soul and Body are so conjoined that a Man is neither Soul nor Body for he is both Thus the Scripture speaking of Men and Women says So many Souls were added to the Faith And the common Speech is thus is there any Body or there is no Body meaning none of Mankind in such or such a Place But if they will not the Platonists Pre-existence of Souls which I as Answerer am not obliged to prove but they to disprove yet according to the common Opinion that two Persons cannot combine there is no Fear there should be two Persons in Christ for nothing can be said to be a Person as your own Definition of a Person intimates by the word Individual unless it actually exist But the humane Nature of Christ never existed but in the second Person of the Trinity It is true if the humane Nature had been individuated and subsisted of it self before it was united to the second Person of the Trinity there might have been some Shew of an Objection but this they know is not admitted How then can Christ be said to be more than one Person since the Son of Man subsists only in the Person of the Son of God What hinders then that a Person may be so united to another Person which if it should subsist of it self would be a Person that they both be one only Person since the one subsists in the other and hath no proper Subsistence of its own But it will be sufficient in short to say Rem scimus Modum nescimus the thing we know the manner we know not And it is no good Consequence as I said before to argue you know not the manner you know not how the thing is therefore it is not Let us therefore admire and adore that infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God which hath revealed so much of that great Mystery to Mankind which the Prophets foretold and the Angels themselves desired to peep into viz. God manifested in the Flesh whereby he that sees Christ seeth the Father sees the invisible God and approacheth to that Light which is inaccessible Would you then see the Father Is your Soul athirst for the living God Do you breath and pant after eternal Life Why then do you any longer gaze and gape after Vanity Look upon Jefus there is no seeing the Father but by the Son View him in his Word view him in his Works in him dwelleth the Fulness of the Godhead bodily He only can shew you the Father He is the Way the Truth and the Life he only can give you the Ante-pasts of Eternity and whilst you are here upon Earth make you touth Heaven with a Finger And though now as the Apostle saith you can see him but as through a Glass darkly yet the time will come when you shall see him as he is Face to Face encircled with all his Rays of Glory Again would you see the Father Doth the Horror of your Sins afright you and the infinite Justice of an angry God terrify you Have you been bitten by the fiery Serpent and would you see the Bowels of Mercy and the tender Compassions of a Father Look upon Jesus view him on the Cross see how he stretcheth forth his Arms to receive thee How can'st thou now chuse but cry out with the Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O the Depth and Length and Breadth of the Love of God in Christ Jesus Behold him bleeding there 's Balsam in his Blood The Serpent upon the Pole of the Cross can cure all the venemous Stings of Satan that red Dragon that fiery Serpent Let not the infinite Justice of God any longer terrify you He that seeth Jesus seeth also the Father of Mercies the God of Comfort and all Consolations As there was infinite Punishment due so there is an infinite Satisfaction made for he that sacrificed himself for us was both God and Man By the Blood of God saith the Apostle we are redeemed and Jesus is this God for he is as the Apostle speaks Rom. 9.5 over all God blessed for evermore Amen To him therefore with the Father and the Holy Ghost be ascribed as most due is all Honour Glory Praise Might Majesty and Dominion both now and evermore Amen Glory be to thee O Lord. FINIS
for the God of Gods or the most High God If indeed they had said that in every Place of Scripture where the word God is applied to Christ it is taken only for him who is inferiour to the Supream God they had spoke to the purpose And if this be their Meaning which I think it is yet what they offer for Proof is altogether illogical and non-cogent For who that ever pretended to Reason ever went about to prove an universal Affirmative by one Particular and yet they do no otherwise here for thus they argue Christ calls himself the Son of God and so consequently a God in one Place of Scripture viz. John 10.36 wherein the word God is used in the latter Signification for him that hath some derivative Power from the most High God and for no greater reason than because he is fanctified and sent into the World therefore in every Place of Scripture where the word God is ascribed to Christ it must be so taken and for the same reason Now help me Logick if this be found Reasoning and good Argumentation The King of England is called and acknowledged King of France by us here in England therefore he is so in France Spain Italy and all the World over Who is so dim-sighted as not to perceive this egregious non-sequitur But suppose what cannot be granted that he called himself God for that reason yet it is not expressed that he calls himself so for no greater he might declare this and conceal others at this time when the Jews were about to stone him for ought our Adversaries can say to the contrary Nay what if he doth not at all alledg this Reason for his calling of himself God which indeed he doth not as will appear from the consideration of the Context The Jews ver 34. accuse him of Blasphemy and because thou being a Man makest thy self a God Our Saviour answers to this Accusation The Scripture calls them Gods to whom the Word of God came therefore if I am sanctified or set apart by the Father and sent into the World to preach this Word I am no Blasphemer though I call my self God It is one thing to say I call my self God because the Father hath sanctified me and sent me into the World and another to say If I call my self God for that Reason I am no Blasphemer for Christ doth not here go about to shew how he is said to be God but to answer their Accusation and prove that he was no Blasphemer because he said he was the Son of God So that the Sense of the Words is clearly this I am no Blasphemer by calling my self God since being sanctified by the Father I spake nothing contrary to Scripture which calls them Gods to whom the Word of God came And now I hope I have brought to the ground this high and mighty Objection having shewn first that the word God which is supposed not granted be attributed to Christ in the latter Signification for him that hath some derivative Power from the most High God yet in certain other Places of Scripture when attributed to him it is taken for the God of Gods or the most High God 2dly If they mean what is false that in every Place of Scripture where the word God is given to our Saviour it is taken only for him who hath some derivative Power from the most High God yet their Argument is not good because it concludes from one sole Particular an universal Affirmative 3dly Because if he does give his Sanctification and Mission as a Reason of his Deity yet it cannot be said he called himself God for no greater Reason since it is not so expressed in the Text and he might declare this and conceal others at this time when the Jews were about to stone him His Hour as he saith else-where being not then come 4thly and lastly He doth not say he calls himself God for that Reason but saith only that if he call himself God for that Reason he is no Blasphemer his Design being not to shew how he was God but to prove he was no Blasphemer So that I think now we may safely enough conclude that he that sees the Son seeth the Father that Jesus is one in Essence with the Father that he is the most High God the God of Israel There are yet two Difficulties the Independency of Christ and the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature both which I will briefly speak to and so conclude First then say the Socinians Christ is said in Scripture to be the Son of God and therefore since the Divine Essence which is infinite and most perfect cannot be multiplied without a Contradiction Christ depends on the Father as to his Essence which is an Imperfection not suitable to the most High God In short say they Christ is dependent therefore not the most High God To this I answer 1. That nothing can be said to depend upon another as to his Essence but what is in time after that which causeth it 2. That hath an Essence individually distinct from it 3. Which is contingent as to its Essence or is in the Power of another to be or not be But nothing of this can be said of Christ for the Father and the Son are co-eternal nei-before or after other the Son hath not an Essence distinct from the Father neither is the Son of God contingent as to his Essence It is not in the Power of the Father that he be or not be since the Father naturally and necessarily begetteth the Son In a word they have both the same Essence and how the same can be said to depend upon it self is a manner of speaking I am not acquainted with and know not how to apprehend Christ saith Rev. 1. I am the first and the last which Elogy the God of Israel the most High God appropriates to himself Isa 48.12 Now I would fain know how the first Being can be said to depend upon another for its Being If our Adversaries say as they do that these Words are not to be understood absolutely but in reference to the Gospel or Way of Salvation then they contradict their own Principles and take away the Difference between the first and second Cause They make the Son the first Cause and yet they say the Father is the first or prime Author of Salvation and so in reference to Salvation there is a first before a first which implies a Contradiction I conclude therefore that these words are to be understood of Christ absolutely viz. that he is the first being the Cause of all things that he is Alpha and Omega the Beginning and End the first and the last which denotes not only his Eternity but likewise his Independency For how can that which is before all things be said to depend on any thing As to the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature into one Person our Adversaries thus argue It 's impossible that two endued with