Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	commit_v	father_n	honour_v	1,702	5	9.8558	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40088	A second defence of the propositions by which the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is so explained according to the ancient fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to natural reason : in answer to a Socinian manuscript, in a letter to a friend : together, with a third defence of those propositions, in answer to the newly published reflexions, contained in a pamphlet, entituled, A letter to the reverend clergy of both universities / both by the author of those propositions.	Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714.	1695 (1695)	Wing F1715; ESTC R6837	47,125	74

give an account of this Union as of that which Trinitarians do believe to be between God the Father the Son and the H. Ghost But he saith The Nature of God the Father includes Perfections which are not in the Nature of Jesus Christ and from thence Concludes that such a Union as the forementioned cannot be between them To which I am loth to repeat what I have so often said That the Fathers Self-Existence with what is there in implyed is a Perfection immediately relating to His manner of Existence But however are there not many Perfections or Excellent Powers and Properties in Souls which are not in Bodys And yet the Union between them as was said is too Close for us to give an Account thereof Prop. 16. Such an Union as this between them being acknowleg'd by us together with the forementioned intire Dependance of the Son and H. Spirit upon the Faher the Unity of the Deity is as fully to all intents and purposes asserted by us as it is necessary or desirable it should be But to this Sir as he saith very little so not a line that I can reply a new word to nor a Syllable is here of Confutation Prop. 17. And no part of this Explication do we think Repugnant to any Text of Scripture but it seems to be the best and Easiest way of Reconciling those Texts which according to the other Hypotheses are not Reconcileable but by offering Extreme Violence to them Now to this he saith That he is infinitely certain that this Explication is in a great part Repugnant to many Texts of Scripture and to many Self-Evident Principles of Reason But not one of those many Texts of Scripture does he instance in and we have seen what work he makes with Self-Evident Principles Nor is here any Offer at a Confutation Except his calling me an Ishmalite Trinitarian be so whose hand is against all the Heads of the Trinitarian-Expositors and all their hands against me and a scareing Threat how Merciless would Expose me and that he would do it at another kind of rate than he hath done But I say should he Expose me at the Same rate he would be merciless to himself onely But since he saith that my hand is against all the Heads of Trinitarian Expositors 't is Enough to tell him that 't is false Prop. 18. The Socinians must Confess that the Honour of the Father is as much as they can desire taken Care of by this Explication nor can the Honour of the Son and H. Ghost be more Consulted in any Explication of the H. Trinity than it is in this It ascribing to them all Perfections but what they cannot have without the most Manifest Contradiction Now the first thing he here saith that I ought to take notice of is That he who gives more to an Excellent Person than of Right belongs to him may perhaps be in a great part Excused for the sake of his good intention but must nevertheless always be chid for the injury he offers to him because by giving too much to him he brings the just measures of his real Excellency into Question Now instead of an Answer I would ask him one Question more who has askt me so many viz. which is the Safer of the Two Extremes To think of the Son and H. Ghost more or less honourably than we ought Provided that God the Fathers Honour be not in the least intrenched upon Sure 't is impossible for any sincere Christian not to Chuse to Err on the Right-Hand if he must Err on One. On that Hand we chuse to Err in our Opinion of whomsoever we have a Respect and value for Now if the Honour of the Father be as much as can be taken care of in this our Explication and we believe it is since he is made the Original of all the Excellencies and Perfections that are in the other Persons and of their Existence And since there are so great a Number of Texts which have more than seemed to the Generality of Christians and to all but a small handful since Arianism went off the Stages to give the Perfections of the Divine Nature to these Persons surely the Love and Esteem which all good Soul must necessarily have for them must needs byass them towards the Understanding of Scripture in that sence which makes most for their Honour provided it be not Forced and too Artificial and Provided I say again the Father loseth no Honour thereby Again he saith That to his knowledge the Socinians are not willing to Confess that the Honour of the Father is as much taken care of in this Explicaiion as they do wish it were But he offers not at any reason why they are not willing to Confess this But sure they will not say that their own Hypothesis doth give more Honour to the Father than that which speaks him the Author of all that the other Persons either have or are Lastly he saith That the Scripture no where tells us that Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost desired to be accounted God That Jesus Christ did not command nor desire Divine Honours to be paid Him is plain in that when he taught His Disciples to Pray He did not propound Himself as the Object of Prayer but directed them to Address themselves to the Father To this I Reply First That suppose neither of these Persons is said in Scripture to desire to be accounted God are there there fore no Texts which speak of either of them as God I have I think sufficiently minded him of the Contrary Secondly How can he say that Jesus Christ desired not Divine Honours to be paid to Him Except he means that he desired none to be paid him while He was on Earth when He hath told us John 5. 23. that The Father hath Committed all Judgment to the Son That all Men should Honour the Son even as they Honour the Father And are not all the Glorious Angels Commanded by the Father to Worship His Son Heb. 1. 6. And is not Eternal Glory given to Him Apocal. 1. 5 6. Now to Him that loved us and washed us from our Sins in His own Blood and hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and His Father To Him be Glory and Dominion for ever and ever And will not all such Texts speak Him an Object of Divine Worship because that in the Days of His Humiliation He expressed no desire of being so but still gave all the Honour of whatsoever He did to His Father Thirdly I doubt from this Passage that your Friend is gone beyond his Master Socinus and denyeth the Adorability of the Son of God for which he was a Zealous Champion I am heartily Sorry for him if it be so this being to speak modestly to make a very large Step towards being no Christian. Prop. 19. And one would think it impossible that any Christian should not be easily perswaded to think as Honourably of his Redeemer and Sanctifier as ever