Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Chapter VII. He returns to the former subject, in order to show against the Nestorians that those things are said of the man, which belong to the Divine nature as it were of a Person of Divine nature, and conversely that those things are said of God, which belong to the human nature as it were of a Person of human nature, because there is in Christ but one and a single Personal self.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter VII.
He returns to the former subject, in order to show
against the Nestorians that those things are said of the man, which
belong to the Divine nature as it were of a Person of Divine nature,
and conversely that those things are said of God, which belong to the
human nature as it were of a Person of human nature, because there is
in Christ but one and a single Personal self.
And so following the
guidance of the sacred word we may now say fearlessly and
unhesitatingly that the Son of man came down from heaven, and that the
Lord of Glory was crucified: because in virtue of the mystery of the
Incarnation, the Son of God became Son of man, and the Lord of Glory
was crucified in (the nature of) the Son of man.2467
| 2467 See Hooker as
above (V. liii. 4) “When the Apostle saith of the Jews that they
crucified the Lord of Glory, and when the Son of man being on earth
affirmeth that the Son of man was in heaven at the same instant, there
is in these two speeches that mutual circulation before mentioned. In
the one, there is attributed to God or the Lord of Glory death, whereof
Divine nature is not capable; in the other ubiquity unto man which
human nature admitteth not. Therefore by the Lord of Glory we must
needs understand the whole person of Christ, who being Lord of Glory,
was indeed crucified, but not in that nature for which he is termed the
Lord of Glory. In like manner by the Son of man the whole person of
Christ must necessarily be meant, who being man upon earth, filled
heaven with his glorious presence, but not according to that nature for
which the title of man is given Him.” | What more is there need of? It would
take too long to go into details: for time would fail me, were I to try
to examine and explain everything which could be brought to bear on
this subject. For one who wished to do this would have to study and
read the whole Bible. For what is there which does not bear on this,
when all Scripture was written with reference to this? We must then
say—as far as can be said—some things briefly and
cursorily, and enumerate rather than explain them, and sacrifice some
to save the rest, as for this reason it would certainly be well
hurriedly to run through some points, lest one should be
obliged2468
| 2468 Ne necesse
sit (Petschenig). | to pass over
almost everything in silence. The Saviour then in the gospel says that
“the Son of man is come to save what was lost.”2469
And the Apostle says: “This is a
faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation; that Christ Jesus came
into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”2470
But the Evangelist John also says:
“He came unto his own, and His own received Him
not.”2471
You see then
that Scripture says in one place that the Son of man, in another Jesus
Christ, in another the Word of God came into the world. And so we must
hold that the difference is one of title not of fact, and that under
the appearance of different names there is but one Power [or Person].
For though at one time we are told that the Son of man, and at another
that the Son of God came into the world, but one Person is meant under
both names.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
