Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	body_n	soul_n	whole_a	13,673	5	5.8632	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52603	An accurate examination of the principal texts usually alledged for the divinity of our Saviour and for the satisfaction by him made to the justice of God, for the sins of men : occasioned by a book of Mr. L. Milbourn, called Mysteries (in religion) vindicated.	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.	1692 (1692)	Wing N1502A; ESTC R225859	84,564	68

it in such sense as the Jews and other Eastern Nations used it for a Person of Eminent Dignity or worth The Woman said of Samuel then rising out of the Earth I see Elohim God Thomas says of our Saviour newly also risen Eloi Eloi my God my God they both use the same word and one no more than the other intended to call the Person of whom he spake the true God but only a venerable or dignified Person To be short the Hebrew words El and Elohim the Syriac and Chaldaic Elohi Eloi and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all which we render by the English God are words of just such a Latitude in Holy Scripture and among the Jews and other Oriental Nations as the word LORD is with us for we use that word indifferently sometimes of God sometimes of Persons in Dignity and leave our meaning to be judged by the true and known Quality of the Person to whom we speak We do not think or fear we shall be understood as making a Man to be God because we call him by a Name by which also we call God This is the very case before us Thomas says to our Saviour Eloi a Name used of God and of Persons in Dignity and he expected not to be mistaken because the Person to whom he spoke was known to be a Man and not God 'T is likely the before-mentioned is the true Interpretation of the objected Texts and 't is certainly so if Thomas meant those words to our Saviour But divers Learned Persons even among our Opposers have been of Opinion that My Lord and my God or O my Lord O my God! are only words of Admiration and Thanks directed not to our Saviour but to God they are an Exclamation expressing the Apostle's Wonder and Amazement to find that his Master was indeed risen Of this Opinion was Nestorius Archbishop of Constantinople and that most Learned Person Theodorus of Mopsuest 'T is true the Evangelist saith Thomas answered and said unto him unto Christ My Lord and my God! or O my Lord O my God! but this hinders not but that the Exclamation was addressed to God as its Object tho it was also an Answer to our Saviour and to what he had said at ver 27. See the Brief History of the Vnitarians on John 20.28 CHAP. VII On the Texts out of the Epistles HE thinks much weight may be laid on Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Like to which Text is Rom. 1.3 Jesus Christ our Lord who was made of the Seed of David according to the Flesh He saith hereupon that these words According to the Flesh and as concerning the Flesh intimate plainly that according to something else the Lord Christ had another Original and was not wholly of the Jews This something else is the supposed Divine Nature of our Saviour according to which say they he is derived from God as according to the Flesh he is from the Jews Our present Author notes farther that the Lord Christ in the former of the before-quoted Texts is not only expresly called God but God over all blessed for evermore so all the Original Greek Copies read And as for Translations if there are any which favour the Socinians they are not however much to be regarded I answer 1. As to the words As concerning the Flesh and According to the Flesh they never signify as Trinitarians would here interpret according to the Human Nature as if Christ had also a Divine Nature We shall easily find the meaning of those Phrases by some other Texts of Scripture in which there is no Ambiguity Rom. 9.3 My Kinsmen according to the Flesh Rom. 4.1 Abraham our Father as pertaining to the Flesh Col. 3.22 Servants obey in all things your Masters according to the Flesh Will our Opposers say here that Abraham or Paul's Kinsmen or Masters must be supposed to have a Divine Nature because of these words According to the Flesh and As concerning the Flesh 'T is easy to see that these Expressions are only as much as to say According to the Body and that they signify to us that Abraham is the Father of the Jews according to their Bodies as God is the Father of their Souls and Spirits and the Jews were Paul's Kinsmen according to the Body but not of Kin to him in respect of Likeness in Faith or Manners also that Masters are Masters over our Bodies not of our Spirits and Minds Therefore in the other Texts also where Christ is said to be the Seed of Abraham of Israel and of David according to the Flesh the real and whole meaning is this That according to his Body or outward Man he descended of the House of David and of the Stock of Israel and Abraham as had been promised concerning him in the Prophets but his Spirit or Soul was from God Here again we interpret Scripture by it self let our Opposers shew a Reason why they decline an Interpretation which the Scripture it self affords to us and how it comes to be Heresy to understand the meaning of one Text by the help of such other Texts as are confest to be clear and evident 2. He saith the former of these Texts expresly calls the Lord Christ God and God over all blessed for ever and that all Greek Copies agree in this reading But he might have taken notice out of Grotius that the Greek Copies used by the Author of the Syriac had not the word God they only say of our Saviour here the Blessed over all The same illustrious Interpreter observes that Erasmus had noted that the Copies of St. Cyprian St. Hilary and St. Chrysostom had only the Blessed over all or above all without the word God These are Observations which destroy our Author's Argument from this Text but because he knew not what to say to them he took no notice of them But it is an impious thing for a Writer to endeavour to cheat his Reader in such Questions as these When it appears by so great Authorities that the Antient Reading was other ways than we read in our present Copies or that the reading was then various and uncertain how can such Texts or such Expressions be admitted as Proofs in so great a Question as this before us Is it advisable or safe to argue against the Unity of God or to build Articles of Faith on suspected Texts the Reading ought to be indubitable else the Inference drawn from it will also be uncertain An Article of Faith must have a sure Foundation else 't is not Faith but a precarious Conjecture 3. But allowing now that the Word God is rightly read in this Text two of the most eminent Critics and principal Masters in the Greek Tongue have observed that St. Paul's words should have been pointed and read after this manner Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ is come The God over all be blessed for ever Amen So Curcellaeus

was not He himself but He by the Gift of God that shed forth the Spirit on them Let us hear the whole Verse Acts 2.23 Therefore He Christ being by the right Hand of God exalted and having received or obtained of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost He hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear Here indeed the Spirit is said to be shed forth by the Lord Christ on the Apostles but not by Him himself but He shed it forth having saith the Text received it of the Father As who should say having received this Power from the Father which afterwards the Apostles also received of the Father even the Power of conferring the Spirit He now shed it forth on them not He himself by his own Authority or Power but by the Warrant Order Grant or Commission of the Father If our Saviour had conferred the Spirit on his Disciples by his own Power or Authority it would not have been said that having received of the Father his Promise of the Holy Ghost he shed it abroad on his Followers Let our Opposers show that the Lord Christ was more than the Instrument Minister and Mediator by Whom and at whose Instance God shed forth the Spirit neither this nor any other Context ascribes more to him and as much as is elsewhere ascribed to the Apostles Acts 10.44 Acts 19.6 They are words which our Saviour speaks to his Disciples As my Father hath sent me even so send I you But it follows not from hence that the Authority and Power of Christ was equal to the Power and Authority of the Father nay the contrary rather follows for the Messenger is but the Minister and Servant of the Sender After Jesus was ascended into Heaven his Disciples did their Miracles in his Name and by Faith in him Acts 3.6 In the Name of Jesus of Nazareth rise up and walk Ver. 16. His Name through Faith in his Name hath made this Man strong We confess hereupon that Miracles were done by the Name or in the Name of the Lord Jesus and through Faith in his Name But how does this prove that he was God Such Miracles prove indeed that the Person in whose Name they are done is a most Powerful and Effectual Mediator with God but not that He himself is God they prove that he is acceptable to God and that what he desireth that also God willeth but not that he is the true proper Author of those Miracles 'T is a particular Honour that God is pleased to do to the Lord Christ that in his Name Wonders should be done and that some who believed in his Name should on that account be enabled to do Miracles But when our Opposers infer from hence therefore Christ is God this is no Necessary or Natural Consequence because nothing hinders but that God may confer the same Honour on any other Person or Thing Nor secondly is it a true Consequence because we are assured by innumerable express and clear Testimonies that the Lord Christ is not God As 1 Tim. 2.5 There is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Jesus Christ Finally Our Lord promis'd that he would deliver his Apostle from the People and from the Gentiles and declares that we are sanctified by Faith in his Name or by believing in him Acts 26.17 18 c. He delivered indeed that Apostle from very many Machinations of the Jews and Conspiracies of the Gentiles but all this as Mediator not as God by his Intercession which as this Apostle saith he ever liveth to make on behalf of all the Faithful and more especially of such as are extraordinarily commissioned to the Work of propagating the Gospel in Heathen Nations as St. Paul was As to our being sanctified i. e. made Holy by Faith in Christ or by believing in him it was never questioned I think by any but the meaning of the Expression is only this that such as sincerely believe the Lord Christ and the Gospel or Doctrine by him delivered do sanctify themselves they refrain from every Evil Work and Word their Faith does dispose and incline them of its own Nature and Tendency to Sanctification and Holiness this is the only meaning of our being sanctified by Faith in Christ CHAP. IX On what is alledged from the Fathers OUR Author passes from sacred Authorities to Ecclesiastical and Profane for proving the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Divinity and Incarnation of our Saviour He quotes the Account which Pliny gives to the Emperor Trajan concerning the Christians that they were wont to meet before Day Et Carmen Christo canere ut Deo To sing Psalms to Christ as if he were a God He cites also a Dialogue supposed to be Lucian's in which that Author jeers the God who is Three and One These two Authors were very Ancient within about 100 Years after Christ and their words before quoted show How early the belief of the Trinity and of the Divinity of our Saviour was found among Christians For Ecclesiastical Writers he brings some Fragments out of Justin Ignatius Irenaeus Clemens Alexandrinus Origen Tertullian Arnobius Cyprian Lactantius Gregory Thaumaturgus Faelix also out of the Councils of Nice Antioch and Constantinople He saith the Socinians are apt to appeal in these Questions to the Ante-Nicen Fathers before-named and that several great Men such as Erasmus Grotius Petavius and others yield this Point to Us. I will make no Advantage of our Author's Ignorance in this Matter I will freely own to you Sir that the Socinians never Appeal in these Questions to the Fathers whether Ante-Nicen or others who are now extant We grant they were in Sentiments very different from ours all the Ante-Nicen Fathers I mean whose works have been suffer'd to come down to our Times were in the Opinion concerning God and the Lord Christ afterwards called Arrianism except perhaps Clemens Alexandrinus who seems to have held the same with Savellius Nor do Erasmus Petavius Grotius and other Criticks grant to us as he supposes that the Ante-Nicen Fathers were of our Opinion they have granted those Fathers not to us but to the Arrians They grant those Fathers did not hold the Doctrine of the Trinity or of the Divinity of our Saviour in such manner as 't is now held by the Church for the Church holds a Trinity of Three Coequal and Coeternal Persons all of them jointly and equally Creators none of them Creatures but those Fathers held a Trinity in which only the First Person is truly God or the most high God the Second and Third are Creatures though also they were the Creators according to these Fathets of the other Creatures They say inded sometimes that the Son is Coeternal and a Creator but by Coeternal they mean only that he was not made in Time but in that Eternity which did precede Time and the Creation of the World They call that Duration Time which began with the World and which is both

but he cannot inflict their Punishment on the Innocent and Righteous for 't is of the very Essence of Justice nay is the first thing belonging to Justice not to misplace Punishment Not to misplace Punishment and not to exceed the desert of the Offence are the two things that constitute the Nature of Punitive Justice The last Objection of which our Author thinks fit to take notice is this That the Three-days Death and other Sufferings of the Lord Christ could not be equivalent to the Eternal Damnation of so much as one Man much less of all Mankind He answers three ways 1. Our Saviour's Agony in the Garden was without doubt such a weight of Sorrow and Pain as was equivalent even to the eternal Damnation of all Men else we must say He was far less valiant in suffering than many Martyrs have been nay was a very Dastard and Coward Our Author pursues this Calumny upon his Saviour in several Pages see Reader from p. 739 to p. 749. He makes Calanus the Indian not a Christian neither but an Heathen a very Herot in comparison of that poor dispirited pretender Jesus of Nazareth He hath this Passage at p. 739. Nothing seems more mean among the various Accounts of Sufferers for Truth than the Carriage of our Saviour He saith farther That our Saviour prayed most earnestly to be delivered from Death and that he sweat Drops like Drops of Blood but the Martyrs even offer'd themselves to the most cruel Deaths and sang in the midst of Torments It is true that the great Passion of our Saviour in the Garden has made many to think not without cause that it proceeded from some higher Reason than the apprehension of the Death of the Cross which He was shortly to undergo It may be very probably supposed that He conflicted then with great Temprations that the Devil was very busy to fill his Mind with horrid Idea's and Representations and that this was the Cause of his Agony and that an Angel was sent to strengthen him The Martyrs on the contrary had influences and Assistances from the Divine Spirit and the Tempter was with-held from venting his Malice on them But to suppose with our present Author that our Saviour underwent in the Garden the very Torments of Hell nay such Torments as are infinitely greater than Hell-Torments because they were equivalent to the eternal Torments of all the Damned this is said without any ground nay contrary to all good Reason We must suppose on our Author's Hypothesis First That Christ underwent in the space of an hour such an acute Pain as answers fully to the whole Pain of a Damned Person in all Eternity Secondly That this Pain was so multiplied as to be equal to all the Tortures of all the Damned in whole Eternity And yet Thirdly he was only exceeding sorrowful and had a very great Sweat Surely such a Pain would have made him to cry out much more earnestly than on the Cross and how could an Angel strengthen him under such a Pain of which no Angel in Heaven could himself have bore the thousandth part But I would know too why an Angel from Heaven should be sent to strengthen him as is expresly said at Luke 22.43 Why not rather the Divine Person which our Opposers say was in him and with which he was personally united and personally one It had been far more natural that his own Divinity should have strengthned his Humanity than that the Angel shall be sent to support that Man who was they say God-Man I know not what Relishes other Mens Understandings may have but it will never go down with me that God-Man could want to be strengthned by an Angel and I look upon this to be an unanswerable Argument that our Lord Christ was only a Prophet and not God or any such super-eminent Spirit as the Arians believe him to be But that our Saviour's Sufferings may not want Weight to be laid in the Ballance against all the Sufferings of all the Damned our Author saith 2. As the Guilt and Demerit of Sin is made Infinite by being committed against the Infinite Majesty of God so the Merit of Christ's Sufferings on our behalf becomes Infinite too by being offered to an Infinite God I confess when I read this and his Story of the old King and his Son I gave our Author over for there never was any Man so silly but this Author as to conceit that a thing is made better or greater by the Greatness or Excellence of the Person to whom 't is oftered tho it be true that an Offence may be the greater for some Qualifications of the Person against whom it is done If what he says were true that the Infiniteness of God makes that Suffering which is presented to him to be also Infinite what needed our Saviour to have undergone so much as our Author conceits the Pain of the Cross nay the least Pain in his Finger had been sufficient without the horrible Agony in the Garden which he supposes to have been equal to all the Pains of all the Damned and that for ever And if it be true that Christ's Sufferings are made Infinite by his Infinity to whom they are offered then so also would the Sufferings of any other Man This strange reasoning of our Author makes the Punishment of Christ to be wholly needless the Sinners themselves might have sully satisfied God's Justice and that too by the slightest Sufferings if suffering receives its nature and degree from the Infinity of that Majesty to whom 't is tendred He saith thirdly He that suffered for us was God and Man in one Person and tho 't is true the true God could not die or suffer yet He who was true God did both suffer and die The Sufferings of such a Person must needs be esteemed of Infinite Value tho they were not Infinite in their Intension or in their Duration In think this to be almost as weak as the former Answer For seeing they dare not pretend that God could suffer any thing but only the Humanity which They say was united to him such Sufferings were but Human Sufferings the Sufferings of a Man not of God and therefore in no sense Infinite Their Conceit that the Humanity of Christs is united to the Divine Person of the Son helps them not in this case for God dwells in all the Faithful nay is united to them and one with them they are so joined that I may use the Apostle's words to the Lord as to be one Spirit with him 1 Cor. 6.17 John 17.21 but neither their Righteousness nor their Sufferings have any more value on that account but are rated only according to their intrinsick proper and real Worth CHAP. XII On the Texts alledged for the Satisfaction with a Conclusion of the whole THE last thing we are to consider is the Collection of Texts that our Author has here made he urges First That He Christ was wounded for our Transgressions was bruised