Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	eat_v	father_n	flesh_n	6,918	5	7.9270	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26746	An answer to the Brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians by William Basset ...	Basset, William, 1644-1695.	1693 (1693)	Wing B1048; ESTC R1596	64,853	180

or is not God This will easily appear from our Examination of his Arguments themselves which are these Argum. 1. P. 5. If Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than him But himself saith Joh. 14. 28. my Father is greater than I. Answ I deny the Consequence Because though the Son is less than the Father in some respects yet he is equal to the Father in others None of the former do destroy his Divinity but the letter do prove it For 1. The Son is less than the Father in regard of his Humane Nature and Offices But these we shall prove are not inconsistent with his Divinity And 2. In regard of his Sonship For the Father is of himself but the Son is of the Father Whence Episcopius infers a Subordination of Persons but yet establishes the Doctrine of a Trinity So the Nicene Fathers taught That the Son is God of God that is God of and from the Father but yet withall asserted That he is of the same Substance with the Father and consequently is God as the Father is And indeed this Subordination cannot destroy his Divinity because it doth not destroy his Nature For the Inequality arises not from the Essence but from the order and manner of subsistence But 3. In other respects the Son is equal to the Father this the Apostle asserts Phil. 2. 6. Who being in the form of God thought it not Robbery to be equal with God viz. the Father Now if he thought it no robbery it could be no robbery and if no robbery he must be equal and if equal he must be God by Nature as the Father is This leads to the true sence of those words Being in the Form of God for though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it self strictly signifies not Substance so much as Accidents not so much the Nature as the Appearance of things whence Erasmus and the Socinians would have these words to signifie not that he is God but that he was like to God yet however the Apostle must here intend it Substantially that is his being in the Form of God must signifie that he is God as his being in the Form of a Servant signifies that he was a Servant And the Reason is because his equality with God is here inferred from his being in the Form of God but there cannot be an equality between a thing and the mere likeness of it between a real Nature and a bare similitude Whence Erasmus understood the force of the Word but not the reach of the Apostle's Argument Though Erasmus doth not deny the Divinity of the Son yet because he thinks this Text doth not respect his Nature I shall therefore oppose to his sence the Judgment of the Ancients as Arnob. Serap conflic l. 2. Novat de Trin. c. 17. Hilar. Pict Epist de Trin. l. 8. 10. Greg. Nys tom 2 cont Eunom Ora. 7. c. Which Judgment of theirs I shall confirm by these Arguments viz. 1. By the matter of the Apostle's Argument he was in the Form of God and in the Form of a Servant If this Text speaks him not God but like to God it must also speak him not a Servant but like to a Servant But that he was a Servant he saith himself Mat. 20. 28. I came to minister and therefore he must be God because the same Phrase and Sense applyed to each Nature must import the reality of the one as well as of the other 2. The order of the parts speaks our sense For being in the form of God i. e. While he was in the form of God he took upon him the form of a Servant therefore that form was before this But there was no such difference in the parts of his Life or Condition upon Earth that one should merit to be called the form of God the other the form of a Servant Therefore his being in the form of God must be antecedent to his humane Life 3. This was his choice and voluntary Act for he took upon him the form of a Servant But he had no liberty of choice in this world because his condition here was determined and foretold whence himself saith Luke 24. 44. That all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms concerning me therefore this choice was before this life and consequently must be the Act of the Divine not of the Humane Nature So evidently doth this Text respect the Nature of Christ and therefore declare him to be equal to God the Father as being God by Nature as the Father is This Equality our Saviour himself doth prove Joh 5. 17. My Father works hitherto and I work whence the Jews concluded v. 18. that he made himself equal to God Upon which he doth not explain himself as if they mis-understood him which he did in the case of eating his flesh and drinking his blood But v. 19. he proves this equality what things soever the Father doth these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very same the Son doth likewise Whence he must be equal to the Father in Operation and consequently in Power So Ambrose de fid l. 1. c. 13. and Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. Hence he requires v. 23. That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father which imports an equality of Honour flowing from an equality of Operation for the reason of the duty instructs us in the nature of the duty it self This Honour is owing from their works but they both do the same works therefore they must both have the same Honour Hence Joh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one that is not in concord only as the Socinian pretends but in power Because the context speaks not of Wills and Affections but of keeping his sheep none shall pluck them out of my hands because none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hands for which he gives this reason I and my Father are one which must be one in power And if they be one in power they must be one in Nature unless you make an Almighty Creature which is not only an absolute contradiction but also confounds the essential properties of God and the Creature which is a much viler Absurdity than they can with any shadows of Reason pretend against our Doctrine That gloss then of Athanasius cont Ari. Orat. 4. must be admitted viz. This shows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sameness of the God-head and the Unity of Power For indeed the abscribing to the Son the same Infinite Perfections and the same Honour but not the same Nature with the Father as the Socinian doth proclaims not only the perverseness of the Disputant but the Idolatry of the Professors too In that case of his being the Messias he sends Men to his works whose Nature and agreeableness to ancient Prophecies do sufficiently declare the point So here he first asserts his equality with the