Selected quad for the lemma: honour_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
honour_n	build_v	house_n	moses_n	1,832	5	9.9525	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36731	Remarks on several late writings publish'd in English by the Socinians wherein is show'd the insufficiency and weakness of their answers to the texts brought against them by the orthodox : in four letters, written at the request of a Socinian gentleman / by H. de Luzancy ...	De Luzancy, H. C. (Hippolyte du Chastelet), d. 1713.	1696 (1696)	Wing D2420; ESTC R14044	134,077	200

Text has the advantage that it is uncontested and come down to us without the least alteration All is plain and clear in it The resurection of Christ was deny'd by Thomas His incredulity says elegantly St. Austin was more useful to the Church than the Faith of the other Apostles He protested that except he saw in his hands the prints of the nails c. he would not believe The merciful Saviour condescends to let him make the Experiment which draws presently that noble confession of his Faith My Lord and My God Which is the same as if he had say'd I believe that thou art my Lord and my God This interpretation is evident 1st By the words of Christ in the next Verse where the Saviour takes no kind of notice of any Admiration or Exclamation as these Gentlemen would have it but only replies to that profession of his Faith Because thou hast seen Me thou hast believ'd and lays down this Maxim the comfort of Christians in all succeeding Ages Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believ'd 2ly The last Verse of this Chapter intimates that this History is written that by that Zealous confession of his Faith we might also be induc'd to believe v. 31. But these things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God 3ly The resurrection of Christ was to be a proof of his Divinity Rom 1.4 declar'd to be the Son of God with power .... by the resurrection from the dead It was not by being risen from the dead that Jesus was the Son of God But his resurrection was a Declaration to all Mankind that he was so and therefore Thomas being satisfy'd of his Resurrection owns him for His Lord and his God The Fancy then of a deputed God has nothing to do here nor indeed any where else The Notion it self is contradictory and impossible I easily apprehend how a Man may be sent from God and intrusted with his commands to the rest of his Fellow Creatures But the very name of God excludes office and deputation A made God is that which cannot be made A deputed God is that which cannot be deputed The office of God is God himself When the Lord says to Moses Exod. 7.1 See I have made thee a God to Pharaoh he explains what that is in the next Verse Thou shalt speak all that I command thee This is no deputed Divinity There is not a God in Heaven and a deputed God upon Earth If the expression signifies no more than to speak or act from God not only Moses and the Prophets but every Father of a Family is a deputed God If it imports no more the notion is silly and if it does it is rash and unintelligible Socinus seeing Christ call'd God and the Son of God so very often in Scripture thought it a very easy way to rid himself of so many pregnant places gave him by this imaginary or deputed God which he thought to have found in this mistaken place of Exod. and in Ps 45. As if these two solitary Expressions could ballance or equal those repeated ones which assure us that Christ is truly God In one single place of Scripture Moses is say'd to be a God to Pharaoh In innumerable places of Scripture Christ is call'd God the Son of God has the Names the Attributes the Nature of God given him Therefore Moses is God as Christ and Christ God as Moses both deputed Gods A wild and irregular way of reasoning Nor do I wonder that Socinus should be guilty of this Though a Man of learning and parts and the unhappy restorer of an Heresy long since bury'd in a deep Oblivion and the first of a Sect to which he has left his name It happen'd to him as to many who have not time to refine their Arguments and do not so well understand their own system as they that come after But I admire that Gentlemen who have receded from so many inadvertencies of Socinus and of his outlandish followers and have really given a turn and a force to great many of their Arguments which they themselves did not nor could ever have done have not yet parted from this poor mean empty and if I am not too rude ridiculous notion of a deputed God But admitting that Moses is such and that his personal qualifications the diginity of his Office his commerce with God and his distinction from a people which it self was distinguish'd from all the Nations in the Earth give him a title to it St. Paul has clearly stated the difference and shews that if Moses in these Gentlemen's Principles is a God by Office Christ must be a God by Nature Heb. 3.2 3 4. The Author of the Epistle compares Christ with Moses He says that Christ our High-Priest was faithful to him that appointed him as also Moses was faithful in all his house then v. 3. he shews how much Christ excells Moses even as much as an Architect excell his own work in as much as he that built the house has more honour than the house In as much as the maker of Moses is more excellent than Moses himself He concludes v. 4. every house is built by some man but he that builds all these things not all things as our translation reads is God Every building has some Man for its Architect but these things which are built by Christ do far excel because the builder is God If Moses then in these Gentlemen's supposition is a God by Office what sort of God is Christ who is the Maker of the God by Office And how much of their assurance must these Gentlemen abate who when any pressing place is cited of Christ being call'd God send us dogmatically to Moses The Author of the Brief History pag. 41. has cited indeed both this Chapter and these Verses but has been very careful to avoid the objection by overlooking the 4. v. and indeed I commend him for it The difficulty is real and solid He plays at cross purposes and after his Laconick way of speaking he tells us that the House here is not mens bodies but the Church of Christ which he under God is said to build and so he dismisses us whereas the Text does not say he builds under God but that he is God who builds all these things Many other places might be alledg'd to that purpose but these are so clear and the pretended Answers to them so insufficient that the assertion of the Author of the Consider on the Sermon of the Bishop of Worcester pag. 11. will appear strangely confident That it cannot be satisfactorily prov'd that any Authentick Copies of the Bible do give Christ the title of God as he says the Author of the Brief Hist has abundantly shewn The Author of the History has not and none of these Gentlemen will ever be able to do it But it is the character of this Author in this Book in the Answer to Mr. Milbourn