Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n father_n holy_a son_n 6,458 5 6.0598 4 true
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
A64025 Two letters touching the Trinity and Incarnation the first urging the belief of the Athanasian Creed, the second, an answer thereto. 1690 (1690) Wing T3483; ESTC R1592 21,226 16

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

to demonstrate to you that it hath no ground in the Scripture For forasmuch as Christ as you say is God only upon the Account of his being begotten of God or being the Son of God we have nothing to do but to consult the same Scripture to see upon what grounds the Title of Son of God bestowed upon Christ is founded therein And if among those Reasons alledged by it that of an eternal Generation is not to be found it will necessarily follow that such a Generation is the Invention of your Teachers Let us pass by if you will that famous Place wherein the Angel grounds the Title of Son of God upon the miraculous Conception of our Saviour in the Womb of a Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost The Holy Ghost says he to the Virgin shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee therefore that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God Again let us omit that remarkable Passage wherein Christ derives his Title of Son of God from his Unction and Heavenly Commission Say ye that I blaspheme whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the World because I said I am the Son of God It seems to me impossible to find two Causes or two Reasons of Christ's being the Son of God more clear and express than these two because he was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the Womb of a Virgin and because the Father hath sanctified him and sent him into the World However I will not insist upon them to stay the longer upon those in which the Word to beget is expresly set down I know but three Texts belonging to this Subject The first is in Acts 13.33 where it is said that God hath begotten his Son by raising him from the dead God says the Apostle hath fulfilled the Promise unto us in that he hath raised up Jesus again as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this Day have I begotten thee The second Heb. 5.5 where it is expresly set down that God hath begotten his Son by making him his High-Priest Christ says the Apostle glorified not himself to be made an High-Priest but he that said unto him Thou art my Son to Day have I begotten thee The third is in the same Epistle chap. 1.5 where the same Apostle tells us that God hath begotten his Son by exalting him above the Angels For unto which of the Angels said he at any time Thou art my Son this Day have I begotten thee In all these Texts there is no other Generation mentioned but what is grounded upon the high Glory which God hath conferred upon his Messias by raising him from the dead and making him Lord and Christ And this Generation is so far from being eternal that it is expresly said it was performed to day viz. the Day of his Resurrection and Ascension Your Teachers have been often challenged to produce one single Text of Scripture wherein the eternal Generation is expresly contained and is the true Ground of Christ's being called the Son of God If there is any you will do me a Kindness to let me know it Till this be done I ought to acknowledg no other Generation but what the Scripture teaches in those clear and express Texts which I have cited Hereupon I will acquaint you with an Observation for which I am beholden to a learned Man viz. That there is a vast Difference between the manner of the Father's speaking of Christ's Divinity and that of the Apostles The first setch'd his Original from I know not what Generation which was made in the Beginning of the World it is almost the only Generation spoken of by them and their Platonick Stile always runs that way On the contrary the last shew the Source of it in his miraculous Birth especially in his Resurrection and Exaltation Hence it is that though Christ never called himself God whilst he had but a Glimpse of his future Glory yet the Apostles made no Scruple to honour him with that glorious Title when they saw him crowned with his highest Glory Honour Now that Difference in treating of the same Doctrine which is to be seen between the sacred Writers and your Teachers is a material one and ought to convince you that they had not both the same Principles as your Church pretends This general Observation concerning the Fathers is sufficient to make me refuse their Testimony and look upon them as no good Interpreters of the Scripture and unfaithful Guardians of Tradition I come now to the Incarnation or the Union of two Natures You must confess dear Cousin that if we can from any Place learn the Distinction of two Natures in Christ it is undoubtedly from Rom. 1.3 where he is called the Son of David according to the Flesh and the Son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness by the Resurrection from the Dead Here is the Son of David and the Son of God the Flesh and the Spirit or the Word Yet this Text is so far from proving two Natures in Christ such as you understand that it is the strongest Argument that can be brought against you to confute that foolish and absurd Distinction and the clearest Commentary we have to explain the other Passages which speak of Christ as a Man and a God To be convinced of the Truth of this Assertion you need only compare together the 23d 28th and 29th Verses of the 4th to the Galatians The Apostle says that Ismael was born according to the Flesh or that he was the Son of Abraham according to the Flesh that is according to the ordinary Course of Nature but that Isaac was born according to the Spirit or by a miraculous Birth that is he was not so much the Son of Abraham as the Son and Heir of the Divine Promise This is granted by all Now according to St. Paul's Stile it is plain that Christ is the Son of David according to the Flesh that is according to his natural Birth because he was born of a Woman and Son of God according to the Spirit viz. according to his supernatural Birth because he was born of a Virgin by the Operation of the Holy Spirit and because he was raised from the dead according to the Spirit of Holiness as the Apostle speaks In which Sense he is not so much the Son and Heir of David as the Son and Heir of God or the Son of that great Promise which God had made to the Patriarchs According to the Spirit can therefore signify only by the Divine Power by his miraculous Birth and Resurrection Which plainly shews that the Distinction of two Natures in the Sense you take them is a mere Fancy because the eternal Generation is not at all mentioned by the Apostle in his Opposition between the Son of David and the Son of God the Flesh and the Spirit the Humanity and the Divinity of Christ and