Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	believe_v	jesus_n	lord_n	8,211	5	3.8236	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A82528	A friendly debate on a weighty subject: or, a conference by writing betwixt Mr Samuel Eaton and Mr John Knowles concerning the divinity of Iesus Christ: for the beating out, and further clearing up of truth.	Eaton, Samuel, 1596?-1665.; Knowles, John, fl. 1646-1668.	1650 (1650)	Wing E121; Thomason E609_16; ESTC R205964	49,997	66

Sabellianism Your Third Scripture is Tit. 3.13 Tit. 3.13 which I shall pass over till I come to your second paper where it is brought forth in a more formal way and with an appearance of greater strength THat which follows is 1 Iohn 5.20 1 Iohn 5.20 This is the true God and eternall life Answ Christ is the most high God in that he is as you suppose here called the true God The words I confess at the first blush seems to stand on your side but if well considered they speak not a word for your cause for they relate not to the Son but to the Father onely First if we consider these words this is the true God and eternal life as an intire body of themselves not having dependance on the words immediately preceding as probably they have not being by a full point separated from them then they are the Epitome Abridgement or summe of the whole Epistle And so the Apostles mind seems to be this This Father which I have in this my Epistle treated of is the true God and this Iesus Christ of whom I have spoken and in whom ye have believed is eternal life that is the way to it Secondly but were it granted that these words This is the true God do depend on the foregoing words yet will it not of necessity follow that the Son not the Father is the Antecedent to the Relative this and so that the sentence must be thus understood This Son is the true God In the precedent words there is mention made of the Father And we know saith the Apostle that the Son of God is come i. e. We Believers assuredly know that the Son of God is already come in the flesh notwithstanding many at this time gain-say and deny it And hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true and this Jesus Christ being in the bosome of the Father and having received from him the promise of the spirit hath anointed the eyes of our mindes that we might savingly know him that is true that is the true God as some Greek Copies have it And we are in him that is true c. If with Erasmus and Tindal we read the words thus and we are in him that is true through his Son Jesus Christ the meaning is this We have not only an apprehension of but also union and communion with him who is the true God by the means of his Son Jesus Christ But if we follow Piscator the words hold out that oneness and fellowship which the Saints have with the Father and his Son Jesus For thus he would have them read And we are in him that is true to with the Father and in his Son Iesus Christ But last of all if we consent with Hierome who by making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a redundant hath them thus and we are in this true Son Iesus Christ they speak only of that oneness we have with Christ Now the words that follow relate to the Father This is the true God The Apostle intends the Father But because his assertion is contrary to many mens interpretation take for the backing of it these few Reasons 1. Because the Text will Grammatically bear it for the words may be thus rendred That is the true God and so the Antecedent to the Relative is not the Person immediatly foregoing which is Jesus Christ but another spoken of at a farther distance to wit the Father 2. Because Jesus Christ no where in the Scripture is called the true God and therefore is it the more questionable whether he be so called here the place being somewhat doubtful and ambiguous 3. Because the Father is called the true God distinct from the Son 1 Thess 1.9 10. For they themselves shew of us what manner of entring in we had unto you and how ye turned to God from Idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Iesus which delivered us from the wrath to come It is evident from this Text that the Father distinct from the Son is called the living and true God and therefore is it probable that in the Text under Examination the Father onely is intended in this expression this is the true God 4. Because the Father is called the onely true God John 17.3 And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ Here the Father is called the onely true God and so the Son is excluded from being the true God and therefore of necessity in 1 Iohn 5.20 The Father onely is intended THe Text which comes next to be scanned Ier. 23 6. is Ier. 23.6 And this is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord our Righteousness Hence is gathered that Iesus Christ is the most High God because the incommunicable name Jehovah is attributed to him Answ First that it is a probable conjecture that our English Translators saw not this Mystery wrapt up in the name Jehovah In that they do not here follow their usuall custome in giving the Hebrew name for they read not Jehovah but the Lord our righteousness Yea that the Apostles themselves were ignorant of the use where unto the name Jehovah is put by you and others For though we have in the New Testament Hebrew names yet Jehovah appears not there but in stead thereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lord which is a common name Against this you once objected That the name Iehovah cannot be exprest in the Greek language But to me this seems not true for there is no letter in Iehovah which the Greeks want but may be found in other names which in the New Testament are rendred in imitation of the Hebrew as Iacob Abraham David And it cannot but seem strange that that name which cannot as you say be expressed in the Greek language by which the Old and New Testament was published to the greatest part of the world should be a foundation for that which you call a truth fundamental Secondly that it is not an undeniable consequent that Jesus Christ is the Most High God because called Iehovah for although the name may most properly belong to the most High God yet 't is communicated in the Scripture unto creatures To Angels frequently Gen. 19.24 Then Iehovah rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from Iehovah out of Heaven That is the Angel which did sustain the name of Iehovah he rained c. If credit may be given to some the title Iehovah is in this of Ieremiah appropriated to the people of Israel and Iudah They read the words thus and this is the name which they shall call it to wit the people Iehovah our righteousness that is God hath done well for us In Ier. 33.16 the people of Ierusalem and Iudah in the letter but according to a Mysticall sense the Church of Christ is called Iehovah our righteousness

I shall put this Instance in form of an Argument that the fallacy and insufficiency thereof may the better appear That it is contrary to the Scripture to give Divine worship honour and service to a meer Creature But Divine worship honour and service is by the warrant of the Scripture given to Christ Iesus Rev. 5.12 13 14. Therefoae Christ Iesus is not a meer creature To the Major I shall thus reply 1. I conceive that your expressions having in them some ambiguity need explanation If by Divine worship honour and service you mean that worship honor and service which is in any sense Divine I utterly deny your Proposition as erroneous and unsound For there is no worship honour and service which of right belongs to the creature but is in a sense Divine God being the principall Author and ultimate Center thereof Rom. 13. Eph. 5.7 But if you mean in the strictest sense that worship honour and service which is peculiar unto the most High God then shall I say with you that it is Idolatry and contrary to the Scripture to give it to any creature whatsoever That worship honour and service which is peculiar unto God differs from that which may be yeelded to the Creature partly in the matter but wholly in the manner of it We must pray to God for all things we want and may pray to men for what they can give we must obey God and we must obey men who are set over us by God but we may not worship honour or serve men in the like manner as we doe the most High God who is the Principall and Ultimate Object of all worship honour and service his right thereto being only of himself and he himself being the sole end thereof According to this sense is that command which our Saviour mentions Mat. 4. ●0 to be understood Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve 2. I wonder at this adjection MEER which you have added to creature as if a creature in essence could be more then a meer creature or as if some creature might have as its right and due that honor worship and service which the Scripture doth appropriate to the most High God Sure I am that creatures as creatures are excluded from sharing with GOD in that worship and service which is peculiar to him Now for your Minor That Divine worship honor and service is by Scripture-warrant given to Christ Iesus Answ Sir it is granted that Jesus Christ is the intermediate object of Divine worship honour and service being Gods Viceroy and acting amongst men in his Fathers name which the Scripture you bring helps to confirm But where the Scripture allows worship honour and service to be given to him as the Principall and Vltimate Object thereof is not yet made to appear and therefore the Conclusion may not have liberty to pass as an unquestiouable truth Instance 2 If Christ be a meer creature then it is lawfull and warrantable to beleeve in a meer Creature which is against the tenure of the whole Scripture But it is commanded in reference unto Christ Joh. 14.1 and salvation is annexed to it Jo. 3.36 Instance 3 If Christ be a meer creature then faith in a meer creature can save man which is absurd and grosse and contrary to the Scriptures for Abraham beleeved God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness Rom. 4.3 and so was saving Answ SIR these two instances the one being in respect of the other flesh of its flesh and bone of its bone I have joyn'd together and shall oppose unto these two Propositions which the Scripture will warrant and may suffice for an Answer 1. That that Faith which is needfull and necessary to salvation hath a double object God and the man Christ Jesus Joh. 14.1 the Scripture which you quote bears witness to this as a truth We are to beleeve on him that sent Jesus Christ Joh. 5.24 Verily verily I say unto you saith Christ he that heareth my Word and beleeveth on him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death to life And also on Jesus Christ that was sent John 6.29 As the Serpent was lifted up in the wilderness so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth in him should not perish but have everlasting life John 3.14 15. That faith which hath but a single object is not a saving faith It is impossible that men should by a Gospel-light beleeve in God and not in Christ or in Christ and not in God Jesus cryed and said He that beleeveth on me beleeveth not on me but on him that sent me John 12.44 For by the Gospel God appears merciful in the face of Christ Christ appears instrumentall in the hand of God Rom. 4.24 Rom. 10.9 Though in some places but one is expressed yet there the other is clearly imply'd 2. That that Faith which is needfull and necessary to salvation acts in a diverse manner on God and the Lord Christ Jesus It acts towards God as the Principall and Vltimate and towards Iesus Christ as the Secondary and mediate Object of Faith Peter shews that the Saints to whom he wrote did beleeve in God through Iesus Christ and so that God was the Ultimate and Christ the Mediate object of their faith 1 Pet. 1.21 'T is from Gods Commandment that faith in Christ is needfull 1 Iohn 3.23 And 't is from Gods appointment that faith in Christ is saving Joh. 6.4 This is the will of him that sent me saith Christ that every one which seeth the Son and beleeveth on him may have everlasting life Instance 4 If Christ be but a meer creature then a meer creature is the Saviour of men saving them with a mighty and eternal salvation as the Scripture speaks but this is against the whole current of the Gospel which speaks of God our Saviour Tit. 2.10 13. and in many other places Answ Against this your instance I shall levell this Assertion which will be sufficient to discover its weakness and confute it That to affirm Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of men without God or equal with God is contrary to the current of the whole Scripture which doth distinguish God from Christ in the work of Salvation calling him a Saviour as distinct from Christ as in the 1 Tim. 1.1 where God is said to be our Saviour and the Lord Jesus Christ to be our hope and in the Text you alleadge and frequently elsewhere And in that the Scripture doth prefer God in the work of Salvation before our Lord Jesus Christ making God to be the principal Agent therein when it declares that the work of Christ in saving men was from the purpose of God who appointed him for it and from the Precept of God who injoyned him to it and from the Presence of God who assisted him in it all which from the Scriptures might be abundantly set forth

suppose will be silence Master Eaton's Scriptures and Instances THe Doctrine against Christ being God is not onely contradictory to the Scripture which doth most clearly hold him out to be so as when he is called God in Psal 45.6 Thy throne O God is for ever and ever The mighty God Isa 9.6 The great God and our Saviour in Tit. 2.13 The true God Joh. 5.20 and when the incommunicable name Jehovah is attributed to him in Jer. 23.6 which signifies one that hath being of himself and gives being to his promises and so becomes proper to the most high God alone and when he is called The everlasting Father Isa 9.6 and in that saying of Christ to the Jews Before Abraham was I am Joh. 8.58 and in that Rev. 1.8 I am Alpha and Omega the Beginning and the End saith the Lord which was is and which is to come the Almighty and when he is said to be in the beginning and to be with God and to be God Joh. 1.1 and when it is said that by him all things were made and without him nothing is made that was made and when Christ saith that he is always and so with all the faithful to the end of the world Matth. 28.20 and when he asserts that he knew all the works of the Churches which at that distance as meer man he could not do Rev. 2.2 and when he is said to be the first-born of every creature where his eternal generation is held out Col. 1.15 and that by him all things were created vers 16. Now because Creation is a making of all things out of nothing and required an infinite power God could make use of no instrument inasmuch as God cannot give an infinite power to any creature because no creature is capable of such a divine attribute for it would make him God to be almighty or to be infinite in power And when he is resembled in reference to his eternity to Melchizedek Without beginning of days or end of life Heb. 7.3 and that in Prov. 8.22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way saith Christ Before his works of old I was set up from everlasting vers 30. Then was I by him as one brought up with him c. And that in Zech. 13.7 Awake O sword against my Shepherd against the man that is my fellow And that in Joh. 3.13 No man hath ascended up into heaven but he that came down from heaven even the Son of man that is in heaven And that in Joh. 17.5 Glorifie me O Father with that glory I had with thee before the world was There be many other pregnant Scriptures which would be too long to mention for the proving of Christ to be God in that sence which we usually speak of God and therefore that opinion that denies it contradicts these Scriptures But further it may be truely said that this Doctrine that makes Christ a meer creature brings in as it were another Gospel destroys the true Gospel in many of the parts of it and brings in another Scripture in many points 1. As first if Christ be but a meer creature and not God then the giving of Divine worship and honour and service to a meer creature is lawful and warrantable and yet everywhere forbidden in reference to any creature but is practised to Christ in Rev. 5.12 13 14. and would be Idolatry if Christ were not God 2. If Christ be a meer creature then it is lawful and warrantable to believe in a meer creature which is against the tenour of the whole Scripture but is commanded in reference unto Christ Joh. 14.1 and salvation is annexed to it Joh. 3.36 3. If Christ be but a meer creature then faith in a meer creature can save man which is absurd and gross and contrary to the Scriptures for Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness Rom. 4.3 and so was saving 4. If Christ be but a meer creature then a meer creature is the Saviour of men saving them with a mighty and eternal salvation as the Scripture speaks but this is against the whole current of the Gospel which speaks of God our Saviour Tit. 2.10 13 and in many other places 5. If Christ be but a meer creature then a meer creature is Mediator betwixt God and Man which cannot be because a meer creature is no way meet to be a days-man for God and because a Mediator must either partake of both God and Man or of neither else he will rather be a party then a Mediator if he partake of Mans nature and not of Gods if he be Man and not God Therefore this Mediator betwixt God and Man is called Emmanuel that is God with us or God in our nature God manifested in the flesh 1 Tim. 3.16 or God made flesh as in Joh. 1.14 6. If Christ be but a meer creature then the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to believers is not the righteousness of God but the righteousness of a meer creature But this is against the tenour of the Scripture Phil. 3.9 7. If Christ be but a meer creature then to pardon sin belongs not to him because Scripture testifies that none can forgive sin but God because all sin is against God therefore none can forgive it but God But it is evident Christ took the authority of forgiving sin Son saith Christ thy sins are forgiven thee and Luke 7.48 8. If Christ be but a meer creature then the value of that offering which Christ offered when he offered himself to God is taken away and the satisfaction which Christ gave to Divine justice is destroyed for if the person that died were a meer man and the blood that was shed the blood of a meer man and not of God as it is called Acts 20.28 then how could it satisfie for the sins of many transgressors for there is no proportion betwixt one meer man dying for sins and many men sinning and deserving death each of them for the sins they have committed And how an infinite Justice offended should be satisfied with a sacrifice finite in value is unconceiveable and against the tenour of the Scripture 9. If Christ be a meer creature then the intercession of Christ is utterly overthrown for Christ if meer man being in heaven cannot know the state of his Church in all places upon earth therefore cannot intercede for it 10. If Christ be a meer creature then how can he protect and defend and save and direct and rule and govern his Church in all the world in every condition and against all enemies he being at such a distance and remoteness from the Church and yet it is said of him that he is able to save to the utmost those that come to God by him Heb. 7.25 and that he is with them to the end of the world and Christ stood by Paul and strengthned him in suffering Acts 23.11 and Rev. 3.10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience I

Saul none of Davide enemies he was the chiefest and therefore segregated from the rest Thus having taken off the Charet wheels of your Argument the Conclusion cannot advance up by its assistance I Come now to Heb. 7.3 Heb. 7.3 Answ I perceive you are willing to gather from this Text the Eternity of Iesus Christ but on this tree grows no such fruit You say that Christ is here resembled in reference to his Eternity to Melchisedek without beginning of days or end of life Pray Sir was Melchisedek Eternal If so then he was God But he was neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Ghost whatever some have conceived I hope you will not allow a quaternity of Persons in Unity of Essence And therefore will allow that the words be taken in a figurative sense Quod non narratur ponitur quasi non sit Melchisedek was without beginning of days or end of life in that there is no mention made either of his birth or death in the History of Moses or especially in reference to his Priesthood the time of its beginning and ending being not certainly known So our High Priest Jesus Christ is without beginning of days or end of life YOur next Scripture is Prov. 8.22 Prov. 8.22 Answ The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way before his works of old I was set up from Everlasting from the Beginning or ever the Earth was The meaning is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sept. The Lord who is Possessour of Heaven and Earth obtained or created me when he began to work before all his ancient works And I was set up or anointed to have the dominion of all things and that from Everlasting that is from the Beginning before the Earth was The Septuagint have the words thus The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works Dominus acquisivit me principium viaesuae ante opera ex tunc A saeculo principatum babui à capite ab initiis terrae Mont. He founded me in the Beginning before the Earth was made Montanus thus The Lord obtained me the beginning of his way before his works from thence I had dominion from Everlasting from the Beginning from the beginning of the Earth The thirtieth verse speaks of Christ as having a being before Gods works of old yet so as that it was created one THE Scripture which follows next in your Paper Zach. 13.7 is Zach. 13.7 Awake O Sword against my Shepheard against the man that is my fellow saith the Lord of Hosts Answ I suppose that you would infer hence the coequality of Jesus Christ with the Lord of Hosts whose words those are But doubtless when you drew up this Conclusion you hearkned to the sound not the sense of our English word Fellow which doth not always note equality as from Psalm 45.7 and Heb. 1.9 you may be informed where the Saints are called the Fellows of Christ from which none acquainted with Reason or Scripture will conclude their coequality with him Had you consulted with the Hebrew word used in the Text you would have been a stranger to so strange an inference For the words translated My Fellow might be rendred My Citizen my Neighbour my Second Hebraea vox proximum aut amicum sonat qui stat è regione alterius Et praesto est à emnia amici officia comparatus quamobrem idem in sinu patris esse ad dexteram illius sedere dicitur intercedens pro nobis Trem. in Locum my Lievtenant my Vicar my Friend So the Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man my Citizen or Neighbour Tremelius thus Virum proximum meum The man my Second my Lievetenant my Neighbour my Vicar or the like Tremellius and Iunius in their Marginal Notes speak thus The Hebrew word say they signifies one that is very near or a friend who stands over against another and is ready at hand for all friendly offices wherefore the same to wit Jesus Christ is said to be in the bosome of the Father and to sit at his right hand interceding for us And so the words acquaint us with these two things especially 1. That Christ is the Principall object of Gods dearest affection The man my fellow quem maxime amo saith Groti us whom I most of all love 2. That Christ is Gods Principal Servant in his highest tranfactions One that is Gods Representative as the word in the Text holds forth and the Scripture everywhere speaks I might now collect from the words something to oppose the Doctrine you assert they being spoken of a man and in reference to the Lord of Hosts who cannot possibly have an equall unless it were possible to have two Gods BUT I shall pass by that and hasten to the Scripture next appearing which is Iohn 3.13 John 3.13 And no man hath ascended up to Heaven but he that came down from Heaven the Son of Man which is in Heaven Answ Sir what your intent was in alledging this Text I no whit doubt but the reason of your inference thence is yet to me unknown Thus the words may be understood No man hath ascended up into Heaven that is no man hath known those Divine things the knowledge whereof is reserved for another life or those Divine things which are known in this life as they are in themselves nakedly appearing without their earthly habits and as expressed in a remote and Angelicall Language But he that came down from Heaven the Son of Man being in Heaven that is The Son being excepted who was in Heaven and descended thence for some work which he had to do on Earth or thus he being excepted who came down from Heaven to wit the Son of Man who is in Heaven that is in the bosome of the Father knowing his Secrets and Divine things as they are in themselves notwithstanding he speaks only of those things and in that way which men are now capable of I shall countenance this Exposition with a few Reasons 1. Because this sense and meaning wherewithall I have cloathed those words is no way opposite to the analogy of faith There is nothing as I suppose to be picked out of my words which the Doctrine of the Gospel will pick a quarrell with But this Exposition lessens the number of those Texts that plead for Christ as most high God But let not Scripture be forced let every Text speak what it knows To misapply is to pervert Scriptures 2. Because the sense which I would that this text should own and allow is elswhere challenged by the like phrases to themselves as their due Ascendere in coelum to ascend into heaven is to penetrate the secrets of heaven as Grotius speaks on this place In the like manner doth Musculus and Bucer understand the words In the same sense is the like phrase to be taken Prov. 30.4 and so Piscator expounds it And thus to be in heaven is to