Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A40444
|
A vindication of the Unitarians, against a late reverend author on the Trinity
|
Freke, William, 1662-1744.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing F2166; ESTC R15264
|
34,768
|
28
|
whole course of Scripture against you that have not so much as one Arrian Author to assist me I have already inform'd you what turn'd me to be an Arrian and now I shall add that when I had once resolv'd nothing should be dearer to me than Truth and bethought me the Corruption even of Primitive Tradition and saw a necessity of sticking wholly to the Scripture the Sun was not clearer to me than the Doctrine which you call Heretical and Arrianism And give me leave to tell you tho' you have Popularity and the Temporal Sword on your side yet blaspheme it more if you dare if there be such a thing as blasphemy against the Holy Ghost as we have Christ's word there is to your peril be it Sir I tell you 't is to blaspheme the known Evidences of his Truth and if these be such I dare venture my Truths with the Sword of the Spirit against all your carnal Weapons Remember Sir there is a Sin unto Death we may not so much as pray for 1 John 5. 16. and all our pretences and good Works will be of none effect while we blaspheme the most great and sincere Truths of God beware Sir of this great and fiery Tryal I mean perversly to blaspheme God's Truths especially when so considerable as this this is that that will make the Tree good and the Fruit good and the Tree evil or its Fruit evil indeed can you expect to be call'd or receiv'd as a Son when you openly and malitiously proclaim'd your self a Rebel to the only and great means of Government of the Holy Ghost TRADITION HAving now done with the two first Heads of my Discourse the proof of the Trinity by Reason and Scripture I proceed to the last viz. Tradition wherein would Men but be content to believe as they pray I should be satisfied for that they do almost wholly to the Father and therein may I say they give all their pretences to Tradition the greatest Lye even the Cause is capable of bearing but alas the World is made too giddy by this Mystery to bear such or any other Reasoning I know Sir you are very confident that she is of your side as you say page 31. but your Proofs and Suggestions for it are as few and inconsiderable as even I can wish for pag. 40. Thus you would fain wheedle us that Men were Arrians and not Arrians And what Sir was it out of Charity that they forbore to call the Trinitarians Hereticks If it was 't was a sign they were the better Christians for it not that their Cause was the worse So you asperse the Great Council of Arminium of 550 Bishops of so seeming or wou'd-be an Imputation pag. 43 that I am asham'd to see 't What Sir do you think they would have called the greatest Council that ever was if they had design'd a tricking Or are you resolv'd to trust more to the Council of Nice because not so many Methinks Sir you should think it enough at least that your Tradition was disputable then that you had such Numbers against you and not repose in forging Rome for blemishing Councils You tell us Mr. Bull has answer'd this matter throughly page 24. But I tell you Sir I have perus'd him and he has not and were it worth my while I would shew it you too besides Sir would you expect a fair and strict Combat after so many Years while Rome has held the stakes What wont you make us no allowances in your Thoughts Not that we beg it neither But is it generous first to fetter a Man and then challenge him What shall I say Is this the way to defend your Catholick Faith That Faith which you say requires both Forehead and Forgery to deny it page 44 when you should say to maintain it REFLECTION Give me leave to advise you a little Sir if you are resolv'd to follow Tradition Be not partial in it Why should you act by halves you would be a good Papist were you sincere and follow'd it throughout Or if as a Protestant you hate this course why do you not pursue it more home and to the root Tradition was only of use till the Scriptures were deliver'd and indeed 't is well if 't was contain'd pure till then as we may most justly censure by St. John's Advice to the Churches in the Revelations But to continue Tradition further what is it but like the Jews to make the Law of God of none effect by our Traditions You must excuse me therefore if I think Tradition to be too much a Nose of Wax to be alledg'd against Scripture especially such express apparent and self-evident Texts as Heb. 1. and John 16 I shall therefore leave you to jangle out your quoted Inconsistencies page 107 108 113 114 119 120 121. And tell you withal such Variances are no Miracle in a Traditionary Mystery In short Sir if ever you design for Truth you must learn a new bravery to be able to dare to be singular think you that Men that geld suppress and sorge Books are in the right or they that persecute all that oppose them Surely I hope you think better that these are the Engines of weaker Error and yet this is even the present Case and who dares even at this day and in sull Protestancy to write or speak freely He is sure of being suppressed at best Damnatory Sentence But before I leave this Subject there is another part of your Discourse that deserves to be consider'd and that is your Damnatory Sentence wherein I wish I could spare you but your love for your Mystery has so inspir'd you with such a furious and unchristian Zeal that 't would be an Offence to the World should I leave it unanswer'd under so great a Name Thus P. 22 you say this Faith is necessary to Salvation and p. 23. That no Jew Turk or Pagan can be sav'd without it And that whether he has us'd reasonable diligence or not Or whether it has been perplext with never so great Controversies The same you add page 271 only you add this merciful Apology That Men may understand it if they will. And further that I may give your Argument the greatest force you add page 25. That to say Men can be sav'd by good Works alone without Faith is Popery And page 26. That if Salvation were so common Christianity were but a better Sect of Philosophy and there would be too great a scope for Infidelity page 23. ANSWER Alas Sir I pity you had you regarded Natural Religion more and your Mystery less you would not have abounded with such an Envy and Monopoly of Salvation What must we have no Faith but be sav'd by Works because we have not just this Mystery And what is it nothing to Christianity that we have several degrees of Glory as an Encouragement set in our prospect and search above the Heathen Or what Sir is your Eye evil because God is good Would you have God
he not then been wholly dependant on the Father and directed by the Holy Ghost and as so dependant on God's Grace he had been no apt Pattern for us as he is now when subject to like Infirmities and yet not but that I grant that after he was once rais'd again from the Dead by God after his Ascention he receiv'd his Power again Mat. 28. 18. Phil. 2. 6. Another Text you urge against us is That 't is said of Christ Phil. 2. 6. That he thought it not robbery to be equal to God v. pag. 240 244. But whatever you surmize this Text will do you but little benefit for what is this but to require what I have granted that Jesus Christ is absolute Lord to all the Glory of the Father and indeed Sir if you would have but look'd a little further to v. 9. and 10 you would have seen the Apostle himself apply this my Interpretation according to 1 Cor. 15. 27 28. So pag. 239 you tell us He took upon him the form of a Servant And pag. 242. you say That that proves his Pre-existence And I grant it you And what Sir is not this agreeable to my Hypothesis But you add pag. 242 That it was matter of free choice And have I not said the same Indeed you have added pag. 244 That there is not greater Nonsence than a Creature-God But Sir then you should have prov'd it John 2. 19. 21. Page 233 you tell us The Temple was a Type of Christ as you urge it more strongly pag. 234 235. And indeed Sir you are in the right but I hope you weild this Sword against the Socinians and not the Arrians So pag. 237 you tell us of the Types of Sacrifice but in all these things we agree with you Sir and our Cause ought to lose no Reputation by your Imputations and therefore excuse me if I put in thus a Caveat here and there least another Reader if not your self may be misled by them John 10. 30. But now I am come to your great Charge Sir I and my Father are One And here you prepar'd your self before with your Self-consciousness p. 57. but as to that I think I have answer'd you sufficiently already so that I hope even your self will judge that the Text John 17. 20 21. alledg'd by you p. 62 will be a sufficient Answer to you for all your sine-spun Evasions p. 61 62 63. 1 John 5. 7. The same Answer I shall return you to the Text There are Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and those Three are One and indeed Sir without questioning the Authority of this place what can we rationally mean by this Text unless One in bearing Record according as 1 Cor. 3. 8. and the Context directs So pag. 51. you alledge that because Christ said The Father is in me and I in him that therefore they are essentially One as likewise because Christ is said to be in the Bosome of the Father But alas Sir your Inference is so weak and these Expressions so much better suit my Hypothesis than yours that they deserve not an Answer For pray Sir let me ask you Who is to be cherish'd in the Bosom What a Coequal And is not the other Expression adequate to both Hypothesis alike So pag. 50 you say The Son perfectly knows the Father And pag. 59 you alledge a Scripture to prove it which denies it indeed which shews you he knows but what the Father sees good to tell him Besides Sir in this matter you have us'd such a shuffling Method of answering as I shew'd you before in treating about the Hour of Judgment that Christ knows not something as Man and yet all things on occasion as God in the same Person that really till your Hypothesis let you write better you deserve no Answer John 2. 25. But as a strengthning to this may be alledg'd what you have wrote pag. 245. that Christ tells us He knew what was in man And no doubt of it Sir he needed not that any Man should testifie of Man but does this therefore argue he had not this knowledge from the Father by the Holy Ghost Besides Sir if you mean that in his pre-existent state he sees our Thoughts as you seem to alledge pag. 248 and 252 I answer you I never denied it but if you think he knew what was in Man whilst Incarnate otherwise than by Revelation I must confess you make me dissent from you for if he had he could never have ask'd Men occasionally so many Questions as he did as when he ask'd his Disciples What John thought of him And what Men said of him Mat. 28. 18. Page 247 you tell us That Christ had all power both in heaven and earth given him But I wonder you will cite a Text so much against you for if it was given him was there not a time then that he had it not that is during his Incarnation according to John 17. And if so what good will all your little Arguings p. 248 250 and 251. do you You know Sir whatever the Socinians do our Hypothesis supposes him eminently the Son of God and the Universal Lord nor do we deny him properly to be called a God provided it be expressed as in the Scripture in subordination to the Father Heb. 1. 8 9. for there in his highest Glory and Exaltation he is always put under the Father Mat. 9. 6. But you say pag. 249. That the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins But what then That it was not his own Power appears by his Answer to the Sons of Zebbedee Mat. 20. 23. which he would not have given had he been a Supream and Coequal God nay more to confirm this he declares he knows not the Hour of Judgment Mark 13. 32. 1 Tim. 6. 15. Indeed after his Resurrection he tells us The Father hath put all Times and Seasons in his own Power Acts 1. 7. And tells us That God gave him even the Revelations to shew unto his Servants Rev. 1. 1. John 5. 23. The last Text I shall write of in general of the Son is That all Men should honour the Son as they honour the Father and this p. 173 you say Ought to be equal to the honour we pay the Father and I prettily observe that you put off that God appointed that Honour on pretence that 't is natural for the Son to receive Honour by the Father So pag. 253 254 255 you are upon a continuation of the same Argument But alas how woodenly No Reader can peruse you and not see Page 62 you can grant your self that as signifies a likeness and not always sameness in degree And if so why cannot our Brother Socinian's Answer serve you But however that we may put this matter out of all doubt Pray Sir consider a little is there no difference between the great Son of God our Mediator