Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n
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
|
it is not so replies the Author Grotius affirms that Hincmarus a Prelate so famous in his time is positive that the word God was thrust into the Text by the Nestorians and in particular by Macedonius who corrupted the sincere reading of that very place I never saw either Mr. Milbourn or his Book but he might have told his Answerer that Grotius is strangely mistaken and so must the Learned Prelate be whom he has cited All the World cannot make me apprehend how the Nestorians should thrust the word God into a Text by which they ruin'd themselves and their Doctrines to all intents and purposes Nestorius says this very Author in his Answer to the late Archbishop pag. 61. said That God was not Hypostatically united or after the manner of a Person to the Man Christ Jesus But only dwelt in him by a more plentiful effusion or exertion of the Divine Presence and Attributes than in former Prophets This led him to say that our Saviour ought to be call'd Christ and not God He deny'd that he could call him God c. I ask then How it can be conceiv'd that it should come into the head of the Nestorians to change the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the only thing that could favour their Doctrine into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God the only word that could ruine it Is it rational to think that a Sect of men who are professedly bent against the Incarnation of Christ shall alter a plain Text to put in a word which will make it undisputable Will it be believ'd in the next Age if Socinianism is so long liv'd that the Socinians would alter a Text which does not prove the Divinity of Christ and add words to it by which it may clearly be prov'd It is a great mistake to say that Macedonius was turn'd out of the Sea of Constantinople for falsifying this Text. It is true that Anastasius turn'd him out but it does not appear that it was upon any such account That that makes this to be undeniable is that this Text is read by the Fathers with the word God before Macedonius was born and even long before the Heresy of Nestorius St. Chrysostom Patriarch himself of Constantinople long before Nestorius reads in this place God was manifested c. So does Theodoret so does St. Cyril even against this very Nestorius so do several other Fathers too tedious to insert I will add that whoever reads attentively the place of Hincmarus which these Gentlemen have not cited but is Opusc 55. cap. 18. Liberatus cap. 19. and he will find even in their own account the addition of the word God to have been impossible Another Objection is that of the Council of Nice of next Authority with us says the Author and with a great deal of truth to the sacred Scriptures One having repeated this Text with the word God taken probably out of some Marginal note where he found the word God put as an Explanation of the word which in the Text was answer'd by Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem that he mistook the reading the words being which was manifested in the flesh This makes nothing against us It proves that this reading was ancienter than the Council of Nice It proves if the Author 's wild conjecture may be admitted that if there was even any Copy where the word God was not that the which by the force of the following parts of the Verse and the sence of that age having put to it that marginal note was to be understood of God It proves that the Arrians had begun early to corrupt those Texts which were plainest for the Divinity of Christ Had this Author shew'd that upon this allegation of Macarius the sacred Council had rejected this Text it would have been of some weight but the mistake of that Bishop appears by the unanimous consent of the Greek Fathers using this Text with the word God in the time of and after the Council But even in the Latin Church where the Interpreter reads which The Fathers understood that Mystery which the Apostle calls confessedly so great of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ Nor is the assumptum est in gloria of the vulgar Latin taken up into Glory capable of any other sence These Gentlemen have a great disadvantage that when they have never so finely shap't an interpretation and put it in never so pretty a dress not only the new but also the old Christian World rises against it It was the wish no doubt of a good Man that his Soul might rest with the Philosophers Let mine rest with the Primitive Fathers and Councils of the Church In all Arts and Sciences the further we go the greater are our improvements But in the case of Religion the nearer we return to the Spring the more purity and truth we meet with Rom. 9.5 is another staring Text. Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen That the title of blessed over all for ever is only due and was only given to the Almighty is evident from the Old and New Testament and the constant practices of Jews and Christians If the word God was not in this Text it would lose nothing of its force The blessed over all implying with all the Jewish Doctors that Essential Happiness that Absolute Dominion that Incomprehensible Greatness which belong to none but him who is God by nature But since all this is said of Christ in plain and express words the consequence is easy he must be that God Should all Mankind conspire to find words clear and positive to represent the two natures and God made Man they must come short of this Apostle who shews the one in this part of the Text of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came and the other in that who is over all God blessed for ever Proclus in his Book de fid looks on this Text alone as a confutation of all the Heresies concerning Christ Athanasius and the Catholick Fathers urg'd it with vehemence against the Arrians Theophilact the great Admirer and even the Transcriber of St. Chrysostom says in this place that St. Paul by Proclaiming Christ God over all has publisht the shame of Arrius who deny'd it to all the World The Author of the Brief Hist pag. 35. says to this 1st That it is very probable by the Syriack and some passages in Ignatius and other Fathers that the word God was not originally in this Text. For they read it without 2ly Admitting the reading in the vulgar Editions of the Greek Erasmus and Curcellaeus observe that it should have been thus translated Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came God who is over all be blessed for ever 3ly That these words according to the Flesh or concerning the Flesh never signify according to his human nature as if he had also a Divine Nature Rom. 9.3 My Kinsman according to the Flesh Rom. 4.1 Abraham
quicker way to strike dumb a Man of the Bishop's parts and judgment His Lordship says that Christ cannot be a Creature because the Apostle speaking of him says Gal. 1.5 to whom be glory for ever and ever an Eulogy given to none in Scripture but the Almighty The Prelate follow'd in this the constant notion of the Jews so visible in both the Testaments that no truth is clearer conceiving by the word Glory either the essential happiness of God his incomprehensible greatness or his glorious appearance to men and the earnest wishes of pious Souls that this should be for ever acknowledg'd by all his creatures Matt. 6.13 for thine is the kingdom the power and the glory for ever 1 Sam. 4.21 Exod. 24.16 Esay 6.1 Joh. 12.41 Act. 7.55 Mark 8.38 2 Pet. 1.3 and very many other places The way to answer this is either to deny the notion and shew that it is either false or mistaken or else to prove that this way of expression is not us'd only to God But this cannot be done and therefore this Author replies That glory and honour are Equivalent Terms in the Greek that for ever and ever is no more than for ever that Daniel who say'd to a heathen Prince O king live for ever would not have scrupl'd to say O king I wish thee glory for ever that he should not be reckon'd an Idolater for wishing His Lordship perpetual honour One must have a great deal of charity to believe these Gentlemen to be in earnest and not endeavour to banter Religion out of doors when such crude and indigested answers drop from their Pen. Glory with them is no more than Honour and Lord is no more than Master and Sir and Worship is the same as how do you do To worship another says this Author pag. 27. often fignifies no more than to salute them by bowing and the like which superiors do to inferiors This is true But when God brings the first begotten into the World the Emanuel the God with us the Redeemer of Mankind his only Son when he subjects the whole Creation to him and commands the very Angels to adore him Heb. 1.7 and let all the Angels of God worship him does all this amount to no more than asking how he does do I will give one instance more how these Gentlemen take the wrong side of a thing when they please His Lordship has insisted that it is a vast absurditiy that the same acts in which we adore God should be at the same time offer'd to a Creature than which nothing is truer But his Lordship says this Author pag. 26. is guilty of a much vaster inadvertency as he himself will be oblig'd to confess when he casts his Eye upon the following Text 1 Chr. 29.20 All the congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers and bowing their heads worshipped the Lord and the King In which words worship is given to the King as to the Lord and yet is no Idolatry But this Author is himself guilty of a vast mistake For worship as it is an act of Religion is pay'd neither to the Lord nor to the King in this last part of the Text. That that is adress'd to God is in the first All the congregation blessed the Lord God of their Fathers The rest is no more than a civility pay'd at their parting to the King who was then present and to the place where they worship'd as at this time we bow either in the Church or towards the Altar and yet on this sort of trifling answers these Gentlemen gravely insist to oppose the plainest and clearest truths Another Text he has cited to this purpose 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect Angels where says this Author an Apostle joins Creatures with God in the Highest act of Religion i.e. an adjuration I can see nothing in this like Religious worship The Apostle prays neither to God nor to Christ nor to the Angels He might as well have added before the Holy City and before all the World St. Paul had given those directions to Timothy which have been the ground of all the Canons made since in the Church He insists that he should be faithful to them and as a motive to his obedience he intreats him by all that is holy by God by J. C. by the Elect Angels This I find to be the sence of most Interpreters nor do I know any amongst the ancients or the Protestant Commentators who so much as dream't that this did import adoration to any creature 7ly To adore to trust in to believe are Acts which can have none but God for their object But all this is so often attributed to Christ that it cannot be deny'd with any sort of modesty Heb. 1.7 let all the Angels of God woship him Matt. 12.21 in his name shall the Gentiles trust render'd by the Apostle in him shall the Gentiles trust Eph. 1.12 13. that we should be to the praise of his glory who first trusted in Christ in whom also you trusted after that you heard the word of truth the Gospel of your salvation in whom also after that you believ'd you were seal'd with that holy spirit of promise Act. 20.21 repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord J.C. 2 Tim. 3.15 which are able to make thee wise to salvation through faith which is in C.J. Gal. 2.16 knowing that a man is not justify'd .... but by the Faith of J.C. even we have believ'd in J.C. that we might be justify'd by the faith of Christ The Scripture is so full to this that it is not so much to cite as to transcribe But is this Author serious when pag. 26. of his answer to the Bishop to elude the strength of this and of five hundred places more he brings in dogmatically 1 Sam. 12.18 The people greatly fear'd the Lord and Samuel and Exod. 14.31 The people believ'd the Lord and his servant Moses I wonder he has omitted fear God and honour the King for it is as much to the purpose Will men ever be guilty of that crying injustice to pretend to overthrow the Faith once deliver'd to the Saints and ruine at once the Authority of vast many Texts by one or two single and solitary places of Scripture which when all is done signify nothing to the question in hand Christ is propos'd to Mankind as the Son of God as the Saviour and Redeemer of their Souls as the only name under Heaven by which we can be sav'd The end of the Scripture is that we should believe in him he that believes shall be sav'd he that does not believe is condemn'd already and we are put off with Moses and Samuel whom the people did believe because they confirm'd by a Miracle the truth which they deliver'd 8ly He that is pray'd to is God for none but God can be the object of our Prayers To hear to know to relieve our wants naturally supposes