Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
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
|
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
because speaking of those two Natures taken in a right Sense he says that Christ did partake of this last when he was constituted the Son of God not by an eternal Generation but a Divine Sanctification and the Virtue of his Resurrection From what hath been said it doth plainly appear dear Cousin that those are truly Hereticks who forsake the Simplicity and Purity of the Scripture to coin Mysteries unknown to that Divine Revelation Unknown I say as it is evident from the new Words that have been coined to express them Which so plainly argues their Novelty that any one that is but sincere must needs be no less prejudiced against the strange Words of Consubstantiality and Incarnation than against the monstrous Term of Transubstantiation They have both the same Original Growth and Scope and consequently with respect to us they must have the same Destiny and be look'd upon by all good Christians as the Effects of humane Passions and the dismal Causes of our Divisions In this you do condemn your selves For if you pretend to teach the same Doctrines which are taught in the Scripture why do not you use the same Words Your new Terms do betray your Cause and plainly shew that according to the Character of an Heretick set down by St. Paul you do act not only against your own Conscience but against the Design of the Holy Ghost Seeing you can never speak differently from him but you must perceive at the same time that you think differently and by changing his Words alter his Notions too It is an easy thing to change a Doctrine by the Help of a new Word especially when to this new Word another is added and the Explication thereof extended as far as possible as Councils commonly do who under Pretence of clearing Truth to its highest degree of Evidence do so far depart from its Simplicity that they quite lose the sight of it so that it may be said that after so many new Pieces have been borrowed and sewed to that first Garment it hath lost its Form and Colour and is no more the same Cloth But lest you should say that it is still the same Doctrine expressed several ways I shall prove the contrary in few Words Observe therefore dear Cousin that when the Scripture or the Creed of the Apostles which is for the most part made up of scriptural Terms sets down any Capital Doctrine it makes use of so plain and intelligible Terms either proper or metaphorical that they may be understood by all Men. None can be deceived by them if he is sincere For Example when the Apostles Creed says that there is an Almighty God Maker of Heaven and Earth that that most high God hath a Son who was conceived by the Holy Ghost was born died was raised from the Dead c. any one presently apprehends with the whole Catholick Church what is an Almighty God Creator of all things and what is a Son of God who is his only Son because none but he hath a Virgin for his Mother and God for his Father what it is to be born to die and to be raised from the dead and such other Terms whereby the Doctrines of our Religion are expressed There is no Dispute about them because all Christians have the same Notions of them so that the Hereticks who rejected the Doctrines contained in them were forced to reject those Scriptures wherein they were mentioned But pray how dare you pretend that the Terms which you have contrived were contrived to signify the same things seeing they are not commonly used by Men being all taken out of Philosophy Besides their Signification is liable to so many Changes and Alterations that sometimes they signify one thing and sometimes another This is so true that the very Men of that Age in which they were coined could not agree about their natural Meaning one Doctor taking the Word Hypostasis for that we call a Person and another for that which we call a Substance one Council rejecting the Word Consubstantial as favouring Heresy and the other looking upon it as a Word fit to confute it What may be the Reason that when the Holy Ghost speaks his Words are so popular and so clear that reasonable Men cannot mistake the meaning of them How comes it to pass that there is no Dispute among Men concerning these Words Son of God who was conceived of the Holy Ghost was born died c But when Men speak and introduce a Son consubstantial with the Father begotten not made c. some do not understand them at all let them be never so reasonable some though very teachable cannot endure such a Language and some disagree about their meaning though every one of them considers it with a good Intention and in the Fear of God You need but consult your Divines hereupon some by three Persons understand three Relations some three Capacities some three Minds some three Somewhats and some three individual Natures as Peter James and John The Reason of that Difference is obvious and plain The Holy Ghost sets before us the Divine Revelation full of Wisdom and accommodated to our Knowledg and he fixes popular Notions to his Terms But Men join to their Words remote abstruse and metaphysical Ideas and they put such an unnatural Sense upon the Word of God that even when they use it it is only to defend their foolish and extravagant Fancies Do not tell me that it was wisely done by the Church to coin those new Words that the Sense of the Scripture might be fixed thereby and the Liberty of Hereticks stop'd So pitiful an Excuse doth not justify your Rashness it only justifies the Innocence of the pretended Hereticks For what could hinder those Hereticks whom you accuse of wresting the Scripture to use the same Subtilty in order to the eluding of those new Terms which you will have them to subscribe to They could easily do it by putting upon them such a Sense as would not be prejudicial to their Opinions However this very thing viz. their refusing to submit to those new Impositions is an undeniable Argument of their Sincerity and if they cannot be brought though in order to the saving of their Lives and Estates to put an unnatural Sense upon Mens Words which they despise much less will they wrest the Sense of God's Word to which they pay the greatest Reverence From whence it follows dear Cousin that you your self are a Heretick I am sorry to tell you so but you force me to it I have yet something more to say to you give me leave to speak it out for I do impart my Thoughts to you not in Anger but with a Desire of making you more attentive to those things in which your Salvation is so much concerned I mean that you run the Danger of being one of those Antichrists spoken of by St. John when he says that whosoever doth not confess that Christ who came in the Flesh for thus it