Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	word_n	world_n	worship_v	212	4	7.6812	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40721	The Socinian controversie touching the Son of God reduced, in a brief essay, to prove the Son one in essence with the Father, upon Socinian principles, concessions and reason : concluded with an humble and serious caution to the friends of the Church of England, against the approaches of Socinianism / by F.F. ...	Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.	1693 (1693)	Wing F2516; ESTC R17950	19,397	38

be esteemed unus idemque cum Deo one and the same with God II. Christ is True God GOD the Father is the only True God Jesus Christ is true God therefore Jesus Christ and God the Father are one and the same God otherwise there would be two true Gods which would be repugnant to the only true God That God the Father is the only true God is expresly the Doctrine of our Saviour Joh. 17. 3. That Jesus Christ is true God is so plain in the Holy Scripture that Socinus and his Followers frequently they say an hundred times assert and maintain it The Argument therefore is as strong as our Saviour and Socinus can make it 1 Note To obviate some trisling Evasions when we say Jesus Christ is true God we consider him not strictly under those Denominations for his Name Jesus was given him as the Son of Mary and he is Christ as anointed to his Office by the Holy Ghost We do not say that in either of these sences Jesus Christ is true God but he is so as he is the Son by eternal Generation as he existed before his Incarnation as he was with God and was God in the beginning of Time and consequently from Eternity the Alpha and Omega the first and the last Rev. 1. 2 Note 2dly Jesus Christ as Man and Mediator may be distinguished though never divided from the Eternal Son of God So the Scripture speaks of him here as Jesus Christ sent by God and as he in 1 Cor. 8 was that one great Lord of Christians distinguish'd from One God the Father which sufficiently solves the Difficulties which Socinians raise from these two Texts especially considering that so many other Scriptures unanswerably prove the Deity of our Saviour 3. It must be noted 3dly and consess'd that the Socinians distinguish betwixt the true God by Nature and a true God by Office and that God the Father is the true God by Nature and our Saviour a true God by Office But the Text destroys the distinction for if God the Father be the only true God though so by Nature there is no room left for another true God by Office or any other way Who sees not the Term is exclusive sees nothing 2dly The Scripture is express that 't is Idolatry to worship those that by Nature are no Gods but 't is no Idolatry to worship our Saviour as Socinus himself desends therefore our Saviour is true God by Nature 3dly I must challenge Proof either from Reason or Scripture that a God by Office only is or ever was said to be true God as our Saviour is consessed ot be And seeing the Text before us speaks not of the Supreme God but of the only true God and makes them all one I must further challenge the great Distinction and only Refuge of the Socinians in this Controversie namely of the Supreme God and a true God and if neither Scripture asserts it nor Reason owns it as certainly they do not the Foundation of Socinianism is evidently subverted III. Cheist made the World The words were made by the Supreme God only This the Socinians generally assert and strenuously prove but the Son of God made the Worlds and this the Arrians unanimously maintain as and unndoubted Truth accordin to the Scriptures From these two Propositions so acknowledg'd and proved by our Adversaries what Conclusion can be more natural than this That the Son of God is one God with the Father i. e. the Supreme God 'T is confess'd that the Arrians say that God first made his Son and then by him made the Worlds Sol. But who told them so So fundamental a Point should have some ground either in Scripture or Reason the Scripture is silent in it and plain Reason abhors it Why should the great and wise God make one Creature to make the rest Was not his own Fiat sufficient to make an hundred Worlds Doth any Cause else appear at the Creation Let the Arrians prove as they do unanswerably that the Son of God did exist at the Creation of the World and the Socinians will acknowledge his Eternal Generation By their Reasons put together the Orthodox Truth is establish'd Indeed if all things were made by the Son of God himself is excluded he is not Deus factus but Deus natus and if he did exist in the Beginning as before he must exist from Eternity Nothing was behind the beginning of Time but Eternity IV. Christ Equal to his Father He that is not only like but equal to God in Power Knowledge and Wisdom must have the same Essence or Nature with God But the Socinians generally assert That Jesus Christ is not only like but equal to God in Power Wisdom and Knowledge therefore by this Reason Jesus Christ must have the same Essence or Nature with God I know they will not grant the first Proposition but these men of Reason methinks should nor deny it They say indeed that this equal Power Knowledge and Wisdom is communicated by God to his Son But must there not be a Capacity and Faculty equal to God's to admit such equal Power c. and to exercise the same And consequently the Essence of God must be communicated which only hath Capacity and Faculty to hold and exercise Power Knowledge and Wisdom truly divine or equal to God's Is it not more agreeable to the Apprehension of a Man to conceive that the Root of all Power c. viz. the Divine Nature is communicated to the Son of God and with that all Power c. is communicated Can equal Power be in any Subject but God himself Will there not then be two Omnipotents and two Supremes Who can understand the Mystery or dare defend it from senceless Contradiction Minor But perhaps it may be doubted whether the Socinians do allow or affirm that Jesus Christ hath Equal Power Knowledge and Wisdom with God himself which is the second Proposition in this Argument I shall therefore prove it by some pertinent Instances Christ was made in Empire and Supreme Power in all things like to God immo aequalem yea rather equal to him saith one And they generally acknowledge that the Father hath communicated to Christ his own Divine Power and Divine Wisdom See Crell in Ro. 1. 15. Rac. Cat. c. 1. sect 4. p. 47. Stegman in Joh. 10. 32. Wolzogenius in Mat. 4. Schect in 1 Cor. 4 5. Volkelius tells us the Apostle Phil. 3. 21. attributes to Christ that most efficacious Power whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself Ver. Relig. 63. c. 34 and that He that can subdue all things to himself omnia potest i. e. est Deus omnipotens or Almighty as he is expresly called Rev. 1. and therefore true and supreme God or one with his Father in Power and consequently in Nature as our Saviour himself concludes I and my Father are One Not in Will and Consent only as they would gloss it directly contrary to the Context

THE SOCINIAN Controversie TOUCHING The Son of God REDUCED In a brief Essay To prove the SON one in Essence with the FATHER upon Socinian Principles Concessions and Reason CONCLUDED With an Humble and Serious Caution to the Friends of the CHURCH of ENGLAND against the Approaches of Socinianism By F. F. D. D. Quomodo Pater genuit Filium nolo discutias expete primo si potes quomodo mens quae intra se est generet verbum quomodo coelestis ignis generet ex seipso splendorem Lucis St. Hieron Sempiternus Deus sapiens Sempiternam secum habet sapientiam St. Aug. IMPRIMATUR Geo. Royse R. R. in Christo Patri ac Dom. Dom. Johanni Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacris Domest December the 9th 1692. LONDON Printed for A. and J. Churchil at the Black Swan in Pater-Noster-Row near Amen-Corner 1693. TO THE Right Reverend Father in GOD GILBERT Lord Bishop of SARVM May it please your Lordship YOU cannot but remember in how difficult a Post I stood when you came to Exon with the Prince of O. our now most Gracious King I being with some of my Brethren the first Clergy-men that were summoned to appear before him And I cannot forget but shall ever with all due Gratitude acknowledge your Lordships then great Tenderness and Care of us when in those new and strange Circumstances we did not readily observe the Orders sent us But seeing I soon afterwards perhaps the First that in Print endeavour'd to perswade my Brethren to recognize this Happy Government may I not with the more Freedom observe the Prejudices it yet labours with and that the least of them are not the Fears of too many among us that the Church of England may suffer under it I have read over your Lordships late Excellent Treatise called The Pastoral Care with no small Satisfaction and presume to take this Occasion to give you my particular humble Thanks for the same verily believing that if the Rules therein given us were in any good measure observ'd and put in practice it would Cure most of those Fears Since your Lordships greater Wisdom saw no necessity in a Treatise of that nature of taking much notice of the Socinian Leven 't is not fit for me to wish you had done so yet if I may have leave to judge by my own Experience I fear not the least of our Danger is threatned from that Quarter However I doubt not but in the Exercise of The Pastoral Care your Lordship with the rest of our Venerable Fathers will by the Blessing of God timely prevent it after the Example of the Ancients I know your Lordship will pardon this Boldness of My LORD Your Lordships much obliged and humbly-devoted Servant Fr. Fullwood Litton near Dorcester Octob. 14. 1692. THE PREFACE TO THE READER THE Crude Notions of Cerinthus Ebion the Currier Artemon and Samosatenus about our Saviour which were more Jewish and Blasphemous were at last digested and refined by Photinus with the help of his Master Marcellus into that which is now pure Socinianism viz That our Saviour had no Being before or but ex Maria from the Virgin Mary For which very Doctrine as appears by the Sentences of the Councils so strange and horrid it then was to all Christian Ears the said Photinus tho' Bishop of Sirmium was condemned in a Synod in his own City both by the Arrians Semi-Arrians and the Catholiques Photinus and this his Heresie were condemned in six several Councils probably first as Bishop Pearson observes with his Master Marcellus by a Synod at Constantinople 2. By the second Synod at Antioch 3. By a Council at Sardes 4. By a Council at Milan 5. In a Synod at Sirmium he was deposed by the Western Bishops 6. He was again condemned and deposed by the Eastern Bishops in the same City He was so generally condemned too afterwards that his Opinion was soon worn out of the World So suddenly saith Epiphanius was this Opinion rejected by all Christians applauded by none but Julian the Apostate who railed at St. John for making Christ to be GOD and commending Photinus for denying it Vid. Pearson on the Creed new Ed. p. 119 120. Now we heard no more of this Doctrine except one P. Elebardus stumbled upon it in the 12th Century until the Reformation when the blasphemous Servetus and some others not unlike him began to revive it and at last by Faustus Socinus it was formed and perfected into the Body of Socinianism as now it is The said Socinus died about 88 years agone such is the Pedigree and Antiquity of Socinianism THE Socinian Controversie TOUCHING The SON of GOD Reduc'd c. WHEN we have to deal with men that allow no other Principles but those of their own Sect we may endeavour to fetch our Weapons out of the Adversaries Store Whence I propose these Arguments following ARG. I. JESVS CHRIST is to be Adored THE Only GOD which brought Israel out of Egypt that is the only God of Israel or the only true and chief God is to be Religiously adored and worshipped Thou shalt have no other Gods but me But Jesus Christ is to be religiously adored and worshipped therefore Jesus Christ is the only God which brought Israel out of Egypt that is the only God of Israel or true and chief God This is David a very strict Socinian's Argument against Socinus himself Not that he approved but hereby intended to destroy the minor by shewing its absurdity in the Consequence of it That if Jesus Christ was so to be adored he was the true and chief God which they both denied 'T is besides my design to enter upon the Proof of either of these Propositions but I observe and pronounce that Socinus and his Followers have so plainly proved the second That Jesus Christ ought to be Religiously Adored out of the Holy Scriptures that his two great Opponents in that Point namely Frankin and that David nor any of their Followers have or can or ever will be able to answer them On the other side these Adversaries of Socinus have as irrefragably and invincibly maintain'd That the Only God which brought Israel out of Egypt c. ought to be Religiously Adored And 't is David's own otherwise Socinian Reason against Socinus That we cannot adore the Son unless we suppose Christ to be in the Father and the Father in Christ Vnitate Essentiae by unity of Essence The Arguments of both sides you have at large in the Vol. of the Fratres Pol. where you may see how these Learned Socinians fight and conquer each other and make way for this Orthodox Truth that Jesus Christ is that only God that brought Israel out of Egypt c. And methinks Schlectingius comes very near it in those remarkable words in Rom. 1. 15. If GOD saith he give Man Divinity so as that He may be religiously worship'd that man ratione divini religiosi cultus is not diverse and another from God himself but ought to