Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	flesh_n	nature_n	union_n	2,793	5	9.6156	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70688	The exceptions of Mr. Edwards in his Causes of atheism against the Reasonableness of Christianity, as deliver'd in the Scriptures, examin'd and found unreasonable, unscriptural, and injurious also it's clearly proved by many testimonies of Holy Scripture, that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the only God and Father of Christians.	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.	1695 (1695)	Wing N1506B; ESTC R41202	41,602	48

sense of the Word was made Flesh will be this God was Incarnate that is not by being made Flesh or Man but by taking Man into God that is God is now perfect God and Man Well but since God is a Person and Man another Person perfect God and perfect Man must unavoidably be two Persons but this is the Heresy of Nestorius Arch-Bishop of Constantinople An. Dom. 428. but how shall we help it For to believe God and Man not to be two Persons we directly contradict our Belief of God's being perfect God and perfect Man If we say with Apollinarius An. Dom. 370. That God and Man are not two Persons but one because the Man had no Human Soul or Understanding then we contradict God's being a perfect Man and are condemn'd to eternal Damnation as Apollinarian Hereticks And if for solving these Difficulties we should think good to hold that indeed there were two Natures in Christ when God was made Flesh but upon the Union the Human was swallowed up of the Divine and so there was one Nature made of two then we incur the Anathema of the Eutichian Hereticks And it follows saith Mr. Edw. in the same verse of this first Chapter of St. John that this Word is the only begotten of the Father whence we are bound to believe the Eternal tho ineffable Generation of the Son of God Answ Could Mr. Edw. be so weak as to think any Body but one deeply prejudiced would approve of either of his Inferences from that Clause either the Eternal Generation or that we are bound to believe it as an Article necessary to Salvation Does he not know that Jesus is the only Son of God by reason of that Generation which befel him in Time Does he read of any other Son that God generated of a Virgin but Jesus See Luke 1. 35. Did God ever sanctify and send into the World in such a Measure and Manner any that were called Gods or Sons of God as he did Jesus our Lord See John 10. 35 36 37 38. and Chap. 3. 34. Did he ever give such Testimony to any other Did God ever beget any other Son by raising him from the Dead to an immortal Life Acts 13. 33. by anointing him with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows Heb. 1. 9. By setting him on his Right-hand making him to inherit a more excellent Name than Angels even that of SON in a more excellent Sense Heb. 1. 3 4 5. By glorifying Christ making him an High-Priest saying unto him Thou art my Son this Day have I begotten thee Is not Isaac call'd the only begotten Son of Abraham though Abraham had other Sons But for Mr. Edw's Eternal Generation there is not one Tittle either in this Text or in all the Bible and yet he has the Confidence to bind the Belief of it upon Mankind upon pain of Damnation I wish he would not be so rash but more reverent in so tremendous a Point Next he finds our Author faulty in not taking notice that we are commanded to believe the Father and the Son John 14. 10 11. and that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son which expresses their Vnity Wonderful Did our Author indeed take no notice that we are commanded to believe the Father and the Son when he all along in his Treatise makes the Messiah Christ Son of God terms synonimous and that signify the same thing and cites abundance of Texts to that purpose so that the belief of the Father the Son is required by him in the whole three quarters of his Book which Mr. Edw. takes notice he spent in proving his Proposition Did Mr. Edw. write these Remarks Or did some body else add them to his Book of the Causes of Atheism As for the Vnity of the Father and Son exprest he says by these words The Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son Does he think his Reader never read that Text in John 17. 21. That they Believers all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee that they also may be one in us with ver 23. Or that other Text 1 John 4. 16. He that dwelleth in Love dwelleth in God and God in him But for the word Vnity which he uses if he means by it any more than a close Union it implies a contradiction that two should be one that a Duality should be an Unity This saith he is made an Article of Faith by our Saviour's particular and express Command He must mean that Mr. Edwards's own sense of that Text is commanded as necessary to Salvation else he says no more of that than the Author allows concerning both that and other Scriptures If he means his own sense then I think he 's an inconsiderate and rash Man for I have shew'd that his sense is contradictious Here Mr. Edw. calls in question the sincerity of our Author and pag. 109. says It is most evident to any thinking and considerate Person that he purposely omits the Epistolary Writings of the Apostles because they are fraught with other Fundamental Doctrines besides that one which he mentions I will not question Mr. Edwards's sincerity in what he writes but I question much his due considering what he writes against Does not our Author make in effect the same Objection against himself pag. 291. and answer it in fourteen pages even to the end of his Book but Mr. Edw. takes notice of very little of it And the most of that he does take notice of he answers with a little Raillery upon the Bulk of Mankind the unlearned Multitude the Mob and our Author His note upon these Phrases is Surely this Gentleman is afraid of Captain Tom and is going to make a Religion for his Myrmidons We are come to a fine pass indeed the venerable Mob must be ask'd what we must believe Thus he ridicules the Doctrine of Faith on which the Salvation or Damnation of the Multitude depends and the Grounds of our Author's Design who finding in Holy Scripture that God would have all Men to be saved and come to the KNOWLEDG of the Truth the Gospel was preach'd to the Poor and the common People heard Christ gladly that God hath chosen the Poor in this World rich in Faith he concluded when he had overcome the prejudices of Education and the contempt of the Learned and those that think themselves so that the Gospel must be a very intelligible and plain Doctrine suted to Vulgar Capacities and the State of Mankind in this World destin'd to Labour and Travel not such as the Writers and Wranglers in Religion have made it To this Mr. Edw. answers besides what I have noted above and is forced to agree That all Men ought to understand their Religion but then asks as of a positive thing not to be doubted if Men may not understand those Articles of Faith which he had mention'd a little before pretended to be found in the Epistolary Writings

its difficulty and variety of Senses may not be disbeliev'd in Mr. Edwards's Sense then I will be bold to say There 's no such Text in the whole Bible To it I say 1. He dares not trust his Reader with the clear Text but thrusts in his own Sense In the beginning was the Word Jesus Christ and then 2. Makes his Fundamental Article not from the Text but from what he has inserted into the Text thus Christ the Word is God But will Mr. Edw. stick to that Is he of Socinus's Mind that by the Word is meant the Man Jesus Christ born of the Blessed Virgin and anointed with the Holy Ghost I think he is not Or does he mean that Christ was the First-born of every Creature as he is called Col. 1. 14. The beginning of the Creation of God Rev. 3. 14. By whom God made the Worlds and is therefore a God I think Mr. Edw. might be call'd an Arian if that were his Sense What then does he mean He does not mean that either the Body or Soul or both united to constitute a Man or the Anointing of the Holy Ghost added to that Man was the Word though by reason of those he had the Name of Jesus and by reason of this he had the Name of Christ He means by the Word a second Person or Mode of God Now how fairly he calls this second Person a Mode of God Jesus Christ when it was neither Jesus nor Christ nor any part of him let his Reader judg In the beginning was the Word that is according to him before the Beginning and therefore from Eternity God in a second Mode or Person did exist and the Word was with God i. e. God in the second Mode was present with God even himself in the first Mode or Person and the Word was God i. e. God in his second Mode was himself or otherwise was the Father himself and the Holy Ghost for he tells us before that the three Persons or Modes are really the one God but if the Word is really the one God as Mr. Edw. understands the Term God in this Text then the Word is the three Persons or else he is not really the one God which the three Persons only are Now if this be a clear Text to build an Article necessary to Salvation and the Worship of another Almighty and only wise Person upon besides the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ let all that have any reverence for God or his Gospel judg Besides can he alledg one Text out of all the Old Testament or out of the three former Gospels where ever by the WORD or Logos as they love to speak is meant any such preexistent eternal Person If there be none such it seems to be no little Defect in the Holy Scriptures that the World should be 4000 Years old before any part of it heard any thing of a second personal God equal to the First and who had therefore as much Right to be known and worshipped as the First Nay and that that Person the Word should have no mention made of him in the Gospels or Sermons of Christ or the Apostles till above threescore Years after the Ascension for it for it was so long as Ecclesiastical Historians tell us before the Gospel of the Apostle John was written all the Churches and Believers we read of in Scripture having been gather'd and converted before Next Mr. Edw. tells us p. 107. there is added in verse 14. another indispensable point of Faith viz. That the Word was made Flesh i. e. That God was incarnate the same with 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Flesh One would have expected that Mr. Edw. undertaking in short to confute a Proposition that the Author had spent three quarters of his Book which consists of 300 Pages in proving and for which he had alledg'd perhaps an hundred clear Texts of Holy Scripture should have produc'd some clear Texts against him and not such as need Explanations and when he has explain'd them leaves them far more difficult than before We have spoken already of the Word that was said to be God in the first verse of that Chapter and now in the 14th the Word must signify God but 1. Are not the same Words and Terms taken in different senses in the same Context and that too when they come nearer together than at thirteen verses distance Thus the word Light in ver 5. signifies an impersonal Thing but in the 7 8 and 9th verses it denotes a Person which John was not but Jesus was to wit the Revealer of the Word or Gospel 2. The Father was God too and if God was Incarnate how will it be avoided that the Father was Incarnate And if it cannot then Mr. Edw. will be a Patripassian Heretick 3. It must be acknowledged that Mr. Edw. has given a wonderful learned Explanation of the Phrase was made Flesh far more Learned than that of the old Justice Invasion is Invasion The Vulgar and Unlearned may understand something when it is said that one Thing is made another Thing as when Water was made Wine but I doubt they will stare and know nothing when one tells 'em that a Person was Incarnate much more when they read Mr. Edw. saying That God was Incarnate will they not gladly return from the Explanation to the Text and then it will run thus God was made Flesh But was God indeed turn'd into Flesh and ceased to be God as the Water turn'd into Wine ceased to be Water I 'm sure Mr. Edw. never intends to make that an indispensable Point of Faith as he calls this That God was Incarnate But this is a very hard case that the generality of the World which God so loved that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting Life their Salvation or Damnation should still depend on the belief of not only obscure Texts but of much more obscure Interpretations of those Texts Whether shall we go for the Sense of God was Incarnate He sends us to 1 Tim. 3. 16. God manifest in the Flesh But he might know that that reading of the Word GOD in that Text is a Corruption and that instead of God was read which in the Council of Nice as the accurate Examination against Mr. Milbourn has fully prov'd however allowing that reading has given a rational Sense of it Thus we are sent for the Sense of an obscurer Interpretation of an obscure Text to a corrupt One Whither shall we go next It 's very like that Mr. Edw. may next time send us to the Athanasian Creed when the Scriptures fail him That Creed saith It is necessary to everlasting Salvation that one believe rightly the INCARNATION of our Lord Jesus Christ That he is God and Man perfect God and perfect Man One Christ not by Conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God So then the