Selected quad for the lemma: glory_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
glory_n	cloud_n	lord_n	tabernacle_n	2,365	5	10.9748	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A37649	A vindication, or, Further confirmation of some other Scriptures, produced to prove the divinity of Jesus Christ, distorted and miserably wrested and abused by Mr. John Knowles together with a probation or demonstration of the destructiveness and damnableness of the contrary doctrine maintained by the aforesaid Mr. Knowles : also the doctrine of Christs satisfaction and of reconciliation on Gods part to the creature, cleared up form Scripture, which of late hath been much impugned : and a discourse concerning the springing and spreading of error, and of the means of cure, and of the preservatives and against it / by Samuel Eaton, teacher of the church of Jesus Christ, commonly stiled the church at Duckenfield.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.	1651 (1651)	Wing E126; ESTC R30965	214,536	435

perfect Tabernacle by which being sacrificed and offered up to God he entred heaven and opened it for beleevers It is called a greater Tabernacle because it was not of this building not framed of the seed of male and female as other bodies are but of another building as the Apostle observes Heb. 9. 11. conceived in the wombe of a Virgin by the over shadowing of the Holy Ghost and it was greater also because not the glory of the Lord filled it only as it did the Tabernacle made in the wildernesse but because the fulnes of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily and by this greater Tabernacle he obtained eternal redemption for us and entred into heaven to take possession of glory for us Why did not God delight in burnt-offering but Christ must come the reason is rendred it was to do the Will of God The Will of God was to have his truth satisfied his law satisfied his righteousnesse satisfied that upon just and holy and honourable termes he might be reconciled this was the Will of God This Will burnt-offerings and sin-offerings could not accomplish Christ must therefore come to satisfie it and to fulfil it Therefore it is said Not by the blood of Goats and Calves but by his own blood he entred once into the holy place Heb. 9. 12. and in ver 13 14. it is said If the blood of Buls and Goats do cleanse the flesh being types of the blood of Christ how much rather shal the blood of Christ clense the conscience If all had depended upon institution and that there had been no respect had by God of a full satisfaction the blood of buls and goats might have been as effectual to have clensed not the outside but the conscience equally as the blood of Christ if the vertue of clensing had not depended upon the excellency of the person whose blood it was that did clense there would have been no difference betwixt the bloods that did clense therefore the value of the blood in reference to the person whose it was fals under the consideration of God in the busines of remission But he saith The foundation that I build upon is not a little questionable and that not a few errors do lie under my non scriptural language You tell us saith he of an infinite sacrifice but what you mean by it and where Scripture tels us so much I am yet for to learne The Scripture tels us that Christ was made sin or a sin offering for us by taking our sins and bearing the curse but how this sacrifice was infinite remains to me unconceivable If the suffering of Christ had been infinite there had been no end of it if the curse had been infinite man could not have born it being uncapable of any thing infinite in the infinity of it It is enough for me to beleeve that my Lord Jesus suffered for me what I deserved to suffer and that was the curse of the Law be that what it will Rep. The foundation which I build upon wil admit of his utmost questioning without being shaken therby As for the errors that may lie under my words he might have done well to have presented them unto view yea I beleeve he hath done it so far as his fancy hath suggested any to him which whether they will prove to be errors when I shall have represented what I am able to say will be judged of by the Reader and whether my language be unscriptural in the sense of it or his answer be not impertinent and no answer to any thing wherin the strength of my Argument lies or whether it be not rather a shuffling and a shifting then an answering let any intelligent impartial person judge He hath been wont to draw up my Arguments into form when he hath apprehended an advantage by it but at other times pretermits it I shall therfore do it for him at this time he cals it a Querie and it runs in that form but the strength of this Argument is in it If Christ be a meer creature then a sacrifice finite in value wil be able to satisfie an infinite justice offended but a sacrifice finite in value cannot satisfie an infinite justice offended ergo Christ is not a meer creature He answers not to either of these propositions nor indeed can do without running into absurdities for first the consequence is firme and good which will be manifest if these five things be made out 1. That the sacrifice of a meer creature neither is nor can be any other then finite in value which none wil doubt of if they consider that a meer creature is only finite and can be nothing more and if so then the actings of it are according to the nature of it finite also both in their nature and in their value worth for nothing can act beyond it self and this I beleeve he will not deny 2. That the justice of god is infinite which because it is an attribute of God and is God for what ever is in God is God must needs be granted because God himself is infinite and indeed God cannot be compounded of things that are finite for an infinite being is never made up of finite things so that all in God is infinite And that which is finite is limited and that which is limited is limited by another which is greater then it and can limit it but both these are incompetent to God who is greater then all limits all but is limited of none 3. That this infinite justice was offended which is manifest because 1. a just and holy law was broken 2. a righteous and just penalty proposed to warn man lest he should transgress was sleighted and despised 3. man was immediately upon the transgression judged and sentenced with death and expulsed Paradise 4 because this law was Gods which was transgressed and the penalty that was threatned and was despised was Gods also therefore the offence in transgressing and despising was infinite though not in the nature of it yet in relation to such a God who is infinite which will farther appear if this be granted which in reason cannot be denied that faults cōmitted receive their aggravation as from the matter and manner of committing and from the end and design so from the object or person against whom committed the greater more excellent the person is against whom the transgression is the greater is the transgression therfore if against a Prince it is an high aggravation and it counted treason and a more grievous death is inflicted and if it be an high crime against him it is endeavoured that his death may be perpetuated therefore his torments are prolonged and this is judged righteousnesse in the persons that inflict such punishment in reference to such transgression and yet the highest of men are persons that must die and their breath is in their nostrils and they are not only finite but their life is like bubbles upon the water and in comparison

such without repentance can have no mercy As for that general knowledge which he comforts himself in it is a seeing a far off and is next to blindness it is like the light of him that saw men like trees walking there 's more darkness in it than light The mysterie of Christ is not seen in it it warms not heats not quickens not the heart in love nor by it are persons able to know what it is they stumble at It is the knowledge of those that care not what they know who behold that which appears above ground but wil not dig for knowledge as for silver Such who rest themselves contented with such a knowledge are never like to know that love of Christ that passeth knowledge Eph. 3. 10. This is but sutable to some other expressions of his concerning the person of Christ to know Christ to be a person sent of God hath been declared to be sufficient knowledge to save men and that text also in Rom. 10. 9. is made use of and this conclusion exserted from it that to know Christ to be the Lord whether created or uncreated whether the same with the Father or made by the Father is not material a person may be saved without it But such assertions are detrimental to godliness serve to nourish up ignorance of God and Christ and the mysterie of the Gospel in carnal persons who have been wont to say what need is there of so much knowledge to know my self a sinner and that Christ dyed for me is enough and Christ rebukes it and makes the Scribes and Pharisces ashamed of it when he asks them whose son Christ was and when they said David's he demands how it could be when David in spirit called him Lord but they were confounded and were not able to answer him Their general knowledge that Christ was David's son without a right perception of his Divinity in which respect he was David's Lord was no better then shameful ignorance seeing God had revealed both the one and the other both in them and us In the close of his answer he deals with a Scripture which I produced to prove that the satisfaction and merit that was in Christs bloud was from the subject person whose bloud it was it is called the bloud of God Acts 20. 28. And indeed he deals injuriously with it and evilly intreats it His words are these I shall offer these few things to consideration There may be some mistake in it God may be put for Christ or Lord and then the words must be thus read to feed the Church of Christ which he hath purchased with his own bloud And why may there be a mistake Because saith he the Churches of the Saints are called the Churches of Christ Rom. 16. 16. and there is possibility probability and facility to countenance it Repl. 1. Logicians have been wont to say a posse ad esse non valet consequentia that the deduction inference or consequence that is drawn from a may be to a being so is weak and very invalid There may be a mistake saith he and must there therefore be a mistake say I What good consequence can be in this 2. This Doctrine of mistakes in Scripture especially in points of such grand concernment is dangerous to be broached it tends greatly to engender Atheisme in the hearts of men and serves to no better a purpose then to unsettle men in the Faith for what will be the consequent of it if there be mistakes in some things contained in Scripture why not in other things and then what will remain firm that may be surely built upon And may not any Heretick when he is driven out and forced to forsake all other holds fly hither and shelter himself here there may be a mistake in the Text or Texts that are cited 3. If there were no other place of Scripture wherein Christ were called God and if there were no place that holds analogy with this of the Acts where the bloud of Christ is called the bloud of God there might then be better plea for a mistake which yet would be of evil consequence if it were granted but there is a cloud of witnesses that come in to evidence Christs God-head and there are parallel places to this Text that speaks of the bloud of God 1 Cor. 2. 8. Had they known him they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory Christ was crucified as he was man and shed his bloud as he was man and he was not crucified as he was the Lord of Glory nor did he shed his bloud as he was God and yet it is said the Lord of Glory was crucified and the bloud of God was shed The meaning is the Person who was Lord of Glory and who was God was crucified and shed his bloud but not as he was Lord of Glory nor as he was God but flesh was assumed the humanity was taken and in that nature he was crucified and shed his bloud But let it be weighed what he saith of the possibility The Scribe saith he through carelesness or somthing worse might here put God for Christ There are two places one in the old Testament another in the new which Willet conceiveth to have been mistaken by the Scribes negligence or somthing worse Repl. What Scribe doth he here speak of who might be thus negligent or somthing worse Doth he mean such Scribes as the holy men of God who were inspired by the holy Ghost made use of to write what was suggested and dictated to them by the Spirit Then those holy Men Prophets or Apostles whether ever they were who no question had the supervising and perusing of it after written would have discovered it and corrected it Doth he speak of any other Scribes who might afterwards write out Copies of such things The Original writing would have been extant to have detected and confuted such mistakes and fraud and falshood and there would have been godly ones enough in those Ages to have rectified out of the Original such error or deceit Can any Printer now by any craft or cunning bring corruption into any Text of Scripture but it would soon be discerned Nor could any Scribe then But he gives instances in Psal 22. 16. CAARI signifying as a Lyon is put for CARU they pierced and in Rom. 12. 11. we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time for Lord. Repl. He that can search out these things and make use of them to serve his own turn whose saith soever he stumble thereby might also have presented such answers as are given by the Learned unto them for no question he hath read them and if he would have dealt candidly he would as well have produced the one as the other I shall only recite somthing of that which I have read in Rivet concerning the one Text who writes upon it and shall refer the Learned to satisfie themselves in reading him at large This Lection saith he

extract them and present them as if there they might be found or something like them which will bear them nor doth he bring any other text to make it appear that such words are agreeable to the Analogie of faith But by this addition he makes Christ a meere creature a creature before he tooke flesh before the World was while he was with God And he makes the glory which he had to be a derived glory and given to Christ of meere grace and good pleasure Now this is most notoriously false as I have largely and amply proved in my former Treatise But this is the doctrine that fils his head and fils his heart and there is so much of this within him that he thinks every Scripture that he lookes upon contains it and therefore it is that he brings this Scripture speaking that which it speakes not But setting aside these additions for which he must give an account Be it that Christs prayer had this meaning I shall shew you what an inconsistency there is in these words to his opinion in two or three particulars 1. Supposing Christ before he tooke the Seed of Ahraham upon him to be a created soul made by and abiding with God be fore the rest of the creatures were made for this is his opinion how can Christ speake to God these words Who have emptied my selfe taking to me a naturall and mortall body If Christ were but a created soul could it be an act of his will and of his power to take to him a body did ever God leave any creature at liberty to do what he will to chuse or refuse at his pleasure that he should leave Christ this created soul as he makes him at liberty to take a body or not to take it and if not but that God commanded him to take it why doth he plead it with God for reward as if it had been done of courtesie Have any of the Angels when they have waited upon men a worke below them had liberty to plead with God after this manner And how could it be an act of his power to take to him a body he being but a created soul can a created soul build a body of nothing if by creation it be or build it out of a woman without the help of man if by generation it be as indeed it was and if not how comes Christ to plead it as some meritorious act I have emptied my selfe in taking to me a naturall mortall body If God prepared him a body why doth he say I emptied my selfe and tooke it So that here is absurdity enough in this if there were no more in reference to his opinion in these very words 2. If Christ were a created soul where was the Emptying to take a naturall and mortall body is there not an habitude and naturall propensenesse in the soul to be in the body is it not the soules perfection is not the soul imperfect without it is it any more then a part of the whole and with the body makes a perfect man and is this the condescention to be presented as an high piece of selfe denyall to be in a perfect state And doth the soul take the body any more then the body take the soul or doth not God take both and unite them here is neither Divinity nor Philosophy in this But it may be this emptying was in this that Christ a glorious soul tooke a naturall mortall body not a body glorified but vile by reason of a naturall corruptibility But 1. God prepared this body for him where was then this excellent piece of selfe denyall to take and accept of what God prepares though it were an abasing to him Saints tread in such steps of selfe denyall every day and it is but their duty 2. Men are and ought to be thankful to God for such naturall and mortall bodies and for every member thereof and Christ if but a created soul might well submit yea be thankfull that his soul was not as his body for it was of free-grace as he saith and I joyn with him in it if he were a created soul that he was so glorious a soul 3. Lazarus was called so far as concerned a naturall mortall body and further also to the like piece of self-denyall for his soul was in heaven and with God and made perfect with God and glorified with him and it must leave God and leave heaven and leave glory and come into a naturall mortall body again that must dye a second time yea into a sinfull tabernacle again and this must be done at the Command of Christ according to the will of God What self-denyall was this then if Christ's was so great when yet Christ was but only a glorified soul And Lazarus which was such yet might not Lazarus plead it This is another absurdity which follows from his own words upon his opinion Christ being but a created soul at the first with God 2. He makes Christ to ask of God the glory only which he had in heaven before the world was and indeed Christ asked no other but it Now this is not consistent with Christs being a created soul and a creature for it is manifest from the Scripture yea it is confest by himselfe in many places of his printed paper That Christ as a creature had greater glory by donation after his sufferings after his deep humiliation then ever he had as a creature before for that Heirship of all things and dominion and principality and height above all principality and that name above every name was the reward which God bestowed upon him in reference to the crosse which he bore and it was his highest glory as a creature therefore it is expressed in these words is made both Lord and Christ not restored to what he had but made and what a rewarding is that only to restore him to what he had at first Therefore seeing that Christ prayes here in John for the glory that he had with God before the world was and asked no more and seeing it is as evident that as a creature his greatest glory was not before his sufferings but after and was the reward of his sufferings it will necessarily follow that he prayes for divine glory to be restored and that as a creature he was not with God before the world was nor had glory as a creature 3. He saith and the Text saith that the glory that Christ asked of his Father was the glory before the world was but the glory which Christ had as a creature could not be the glory before the world was for he himselfe confesseth that that glory which he had as a creature consisted in heirship and dominion over the world but this heirship and dominion over the world was not nor could be before the world was it will therefore follow that either Christ was created without glory and had no glory till the world was created which is directly contradictory to the Text or if

he had a glory it was not any created glory for that consisted in dominion which was not til the world was and then what glory could it be but that which we contend for divine uncreated glory which holds forth him to be an uncreated and eternal being and by consequence to be the most high God But he brings reasons for his own tenent that whole Christ is a creature from this Text of John and attempts the overthrow of my assertion of Christs Deity which I contend for from this Text. 1. Saith he If Christ were equall with the Father why doth Christ direct his prayer to his Father There had been no need nor can cause be shewed why he should supplicate to his Father and not act relyance on the Godhead Repl. I have rendred reasons for it in my former Treatise in my reply to his fift argument which was this He that acteth with dependance on another is a creature but whole Christ acteth with dependance To which I referre the reader because it is largely discussed there and it is a tedious unpleasing thing to multiply repetitions though he delights himselfe too much therein yet lest that Treatise should not be at hand I shall satisfie the Reader thus far It behooved the Godhead in the person of the Son to be veyled for this was the Sons emptying of himselfe but not so the Godhead in the person of the Father therefore the Son acts not dependance upon the Godhead that dwelt in himself in the person of the Son or as it was in himself but as it was in the Father 2. He saith We do not use to pray but praise for things we have if we know that we have them Now Christ could not want the highest glory in any sense if he were a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father especially not be without it with the Father nor in heaven in any sense whatsoever as by the clouding darkning or obscuring of it therefore the glory which he had with the Father was not the highest glory but a glory proceeding from the highest and by consequence Christ was but a creature Repl. It is true that the highest glory he being a person in the Trinity coequall with the Father could not be separated from him for it follows the divine essence and cannot be divided from it but it might be and indeedwas obscured and clouded not to the Father nor to the Son himselfe for the Father saw it and gave witnesse to it and so did the Son and comprehended it fully but to the creature it was darkned and obscured and but some small beams and rayes of it appeared the Son was incarnate or in flesh but the glory of the Son appeared not in flesh in fulnesse of lustre like the glory of the Son but the form of God in the Son was veyled and hidden in the form of a servant Now Christ prayes that that essentiall divine glory might be manifested in flesh that he the Son in flesh might appear in glory when he should come to heaven as he did before he took flesh that as the Godhead was hidden in the manhood so the manhood might be glorified with the Godhead that the flesh might be taken up into the fellowship of the glory of the Divinity by the shining forth and breaking out of the glory of the Divinity in the flesh 3. It appears saith he that the glory which he had with the Father was not divine or the highest glory because it was to be communicated Glorifie me O Father with that glory c. Now the highest glory being infinite could not be given or communicated to the humane nature which was finite and so uncapable of it c. Repl. Though the divine glory cannot be communicated to humane nature so as that it should be inherent in the humane nature yet it may gloriously shine forth upon it and appear in it which it did not before yea by reason of the hypostaticall union betwixt the divine nature and the humane nature the glory of the divine nature becomes the glory of the whole person so as that when the glory of the Son shines forth in its greatest strength in the flesh it may be predicated and asserted of the man Christ that he is glorified with the glory which the Son had with the Father before the world was Because the man Christ is the same person with the eternall Son of God Thus all the Scriptures which I drew witness to that Jesus Christ is the true God and the most high God notwithstanding all his endeavours to suffocate their testimony and his attempts by violence to silence them that they should not speak what they would speak yet they have with open mouth with one consent given glory unto Christ by witnessing to his Godhead and to his coessentialness and to his coequality with the Father I shall conclude my Vindication of them with these words Let God be true in what he hath testifyed of his Son in Scripture and every man that opposeth let him be a lyer My next undertaking must be the defence of the Arguments which I produced and drew up from Scripture by which I attempted to prove the destructivenesse of the Doctrine which he holds making whole Christ a creature to the true Gospel and oppositeness of it to the Scripture in many main points and truths of it My Assertion was That the doctrine which makes Christ a meer creature brings in as it were another Gospel and destroyes the true Gospel in many parts thereof and brings in another Scripture in many main points He cals this a reason against his doctrine of Christ a meere creature and so it is not onely to shew the falsenesse of such doctrine but also to discover the horridnesse and hideousness of the doctrine that all might be warned of it and with fear and trembling may decline it But he wisheth him to be Anathema that holds any such doctrine that destroyes the Gospel or the Scripture and falls upon the examination of the instances or Arguments which I produced to confirme that generall reason Therefore because he is so confident that his doctrine will not prove such and because he hath possessed the people that though there should be a mistake in it on his part yet it is not so dangerous as I would make it and that the salvation of mens soules is not so nearly concerned in it as I would have men to conceive and that Christ is never a whit less a sufficient Saviour though but a creature and that it is enough to beleeve unto Salvation that Christ is Lord viz. made Lord and that God raised him from the dead by which means persons have become lesse solicitous what doctrine they entertain they see it hath a specious shew and conceive it will not prove destructive though it should prove false therefore I think it expedient to fortifie my position which respects the oppositenesse of this doctrine of his both