Selected quad for the lemma: glory_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
|
and every little Creature and is not there a difference between a Mediator appointed by God and one set up meerly by the whimsie of Man If these are not good Reasons for our giving to Christ Honour as a Mediatour I know not what are I am sure they are better than to make God stoop to such a petty Honour as to be absurdly Mediator to himself But you have a further Argument pag. 205 from 2 Phil. 9. 10 11. That at the Name of Jesus every knee shall bow and that every tongue shall confess But what that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father And who shall deny you this Honour Not I no I will grant it you in confusion to your own Hypothesis for 't is such a Lord and not a God that I would have you think him to be Now that we might the better understand what Honour is due to the Son the Scripture hath expresly called it and appointed it to be Mediation but yet not so as that we should pray to him for our Mediation no more than we are to pray to him for any thing else Nor ought any other Worship to be paid him unless personally present and then as the only Son of God and Lord of the World he requires it and such Worship is what is given him Heb. 1. 6. where the following verses 7 8 9. plainly shew it not to be intended of the Supream Worship but as is mentioned Rev. 5. 9 10 11 12 13. because God for his excellency and worthiness has appointed him that Honour Lastly To account 2 Cor. 13. 14. for a a Supream Adoration were to make Gen. 48. 16. so too and as for the Worship of the Holy Ghost as you your self can as good as confess pag. 194 there is no mention made of it in the whole Scriptures so that you may see on what a rotten Foundation your Faith stands and indeed were not the Truth I write for now near as clear as the Sun at Noon I should not be so zealous for it Mediatory Kingdom I proceed now to write of Christ's Mediatory Kingdom and here I cannot but observe how the Trinitarian Hypothesis distorts the whole frame of Truth makes God a Mediator to himself and a Coequal take as an Honour an underling Office whereas Christ in the Arrian Idea as the great Son of God is fit to be our Mediator between God and his Handiwork and may be deservedly honour'd with the Title that he alone can prevail with God for mercy for us And here I cannot but let you see Sir with what false colours you would magnifie this Office to make it rational for a Coequal to accept of it thus pag. 159 you make it nothing That God exalted him to it And so pag. 163 That he was forc'd first to suffer for it and then receive it as a Gift whereas indeed if he were a Coequal it were both servile and degrading to him even to accept it tho' on any Terms and tho' with a Reward So pag. 173. I cannot but admire to see how you glorious out this Kingdom how you would fain seem to make it command the Father when alas Sir you know your self all the Power of this Kingdom is but an humble Intercession p. 179. Indeed your Argument p. 176 and 243. That no One but a God can administer it is somewhat forcible against the Socinians but can be of no force for you against the Arrians But why do I use more words That all Power in Heaven and Earth were given him after his death Mat. 28. 18. If a God coequal before were Nonsence and as a Creature-God your self says he cannot exercise it so that Prophecies should cease as they did while he was Incarnate John 7. 39 16. 7. 13 14 15. were absurd otherwise indeed you might as justly frame a Mediatory Kingdom to interpret that great Text of the Holy Ghost John 16. 13 14 15 as build such a groundless one as this for Christ Of the Three Persons together Having premised thus much in general of the Son and indeed on whom almost depends the whole hinge of the Controversie I shall now proceed to shew you how the whole Three Persons are treated when they are named together in Scripture that you may see even there our Hypothesis prevails also Know then that in such places the Father is represented as our God distinct and solely the Son our Lord distinct and wholly and the Holy Ghost only as our aiding Spirit or Comforter Eph. 4. 4 5 6. 1 Cor. 8. 5 6. So in the Revelations likewise St. John makes the Son and Holy Ghost but as Attendants on the Throne of the Father Rev. 5. 7. 8 9 c. whilst he only sits on the Throne and the greatest Honour even of the Son is that he has redeem'd us and so is become worthy to open the Book But yet as I have formerly shewn you as the Father impowers the Holy Ghost through the Son in all Acts of Grace so are their Records One 1 John 5. 7. And yet not but that this Record receives a stile agreeable to the Excellency of the Person giving it where 't is distinguish'd thus in the Father 't is call'd Operation the Son Administration and in the Holy Ghost Gifts 1 Cor. 12. 4 5 6. And the manner of Gift in the Father is called Love in the Son Grace and the Holy Ghost Fellowship 2 Cor. 13. 14. Rom. 15. 16. So likewise as all Three being engaged in our Salvation they are put in as Articles to our Apostles Creed but yet with subordinate Titles as God Lord and Holy to shew their distinction and inferiority so that your Argument you see Sir that their being there makes them Coequal and God is very weak pag. 197. for by the same Reason you might make every body or the Catholick Church God likewise Hence likewise the ancient Doxology before it was alter'd was Glory be to the Father through the Son and by the Holy Ghost see Sparks on the Liturgy which shew'd plainly their Subordination Indeed since upon the prevailing of the Doctrine of the Trinity it has been alter'd But with what Scripture-Authority Now I hope you see plainly But I shall not dissent from you that the Socinians absurdly baptize in the Name of the Holy Ghost if there were none and they do worse than those Disciples who never heard of him for they acknowledg'd him when they did which these even now do not But what are not they our Brethren And are we not bound to have a Charity for their Errour And who shall condemn them in it that they are wilfully blind However to return This makes not but that we are baptiz'd in their Names as our Spiritual Governours Mat. 28. 19. for so even the Scripture plainly express themselves 1 Cor. 12. 13 27 10. 2. where we are told That we are baptiz'd by one Spirit into one body which is Christ that is into the Church by
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