Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	father_n	heaven_n	holy_a	10,196	5	5.1385	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52613	A letter of resolution concerning the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.	1691 (1691)	Wing N1507B; ESTC R217844	25,852	20

three making but one Menarchy are therefore said to be but one GOD. Again some say the three Persons are one GOD by their Emperichoresis or In-being in one another But others by Emperichoresis or being in one another understand only this that the Relation of Father supposeth and includeth that of Son and vice versa and not that by an impossible real In-being the three Divine Persons are as it were mingled and so confounded We have been told by others that the three Persons are three distinct Minds and Spirits and that the only possible Union of Spirits is mutual Consciousness So that in short the three Divine Persons are one GOD as or because they are intimately conscious to one anothers Thoughts and Actions Finally Some say the three Persons are one GOD by their all having the same numerical Essence or Substance There are Sir you see no fewer than fifteen Divisions among our Opposers each Division consisting of two Parties at the least some of them of four or five So there are in all about forty Parties of them of which incomparably the greater Number are Hereticks and damned to all the other Parties among them Give me leave to make two Observations hereupon 1. The great and common Boast of Trinitarians even their Number on the Account of which they presume to call themselves the Catholick or Vniversal Church is merely a Boast It may be not untruly said They are the least of Parties that ever professed a Religion To comprehend this Sir you need only suppose a Person resolving to join himself to their universal Church and in order thereto determining upon all the forementioned Heads of Controversy among them For by that time he has so done that is has chosen his side in all the aforesaid Questions It will be no less than a Miracle if he finds himself Orthodox and Catholick in the Opinion of ten Persons besides himself it may be the universal Church will dwindle into his single Person For these forty Parties of Trinitarians are not all of them so many visible and associated Sects or Churches but divers of them are Divisions and Heresies in one and the same associated Church the Members of the same Church are in these Points divided and heretick to one another And the Number Forty affords so many Changes that as I said perhaps it will be impossible to find ten Trinitarians who are intirely of a Mind in all the abovesaid Points and Questions This evidently reduces the pretended Catholick Church or Vniversal Church to a much more contemptible Paucity than are the Worshippers of one only GOD or as our Opposers by way of Jest sometimes call us the little Flock to which however their Father hath promised to give them a Kingdom 2. Whereas Trinitarians generally pretend and that as an Argument which ought to end all further Dispute about these Matters that the Trinity and Incarnation are Traditions derived down to our times thrô all the intermediate Ages and by all the Churches professing Christianity these Divisions among them plainly demonstrate the contrary For if the Trinity and Incarnation are Traditions how comes it to pass that Trinitarians are in such contrary Tales about them how is it that not ten of them perhaps not two of them are in the same Story concerning them They agree in nothing but the Words Trinity and Incarnation and are forced to acknowledg that those very Words are not only unscriptural but not very ancient Tertullian among the Latins and Clemens Alexandr among the Greeks were the first of Christians who used the word Trinity and for Incarnation I do not remember it to be so ancient But I have often wondred at this Pretence of most Trinitarians that these Doctrines are Traditions from the first Ages of Christianity On another Account it is this All the Criticks without excepting one who have made a Judgment of the Writings of the Fathers of the first 300 Years and particularly which of those Writings are genuine and uncorrupted which wholly feigned or otherways corrupted I say all the Criticks constantly make this a Note of Forgery or Corruption if those Writings speak any what expresly or evidently of these Doctrines namely the Trinity and Incarnation and the Questions on them depending If these Doctrines were Traditions from the first Ages the higher we ascend in Time the more express and clear would the Tradition about them be And in confessing that 't is quite contrary the Criticks that is the more Learned of the Trinitarians have given up the Pretence of Tradition and Antiquity and make it probable I may say unavoidable that these Doctrines are not Traditions from the Ancients but Novelties and Corruptions and Depravations of genuine Christianity Whereas some have indeavour'd to evade this by saying Those Fathers have made no distinct Mention of or Determination in these Points because they were not controverted in their times but afterwards began to be disputed and denied by Men affecting Novelty and Singularity I answer Nothing can be more frivolous or false than this Pretext For 1. 't is notoriously false that these Doctrines were not denied in the times of those Fathers The Nazarens and Theodotians are more ancient than any of the Fathers and yet 't is well known nay confess'd by all that those Sects held the very Doctrines that are now called Socinianism 2. Admitting there was as yet none or very little Controversy about these Points yet because they are pretended to be the Essentials and Fundamentals of Christianity so that he that denies them is an Heretick and he that knows them not is no Christian what can we rationally infer but this that the Fathers who have not delivered these Doctrines in any of their Writings neither believed nor knew them and that they are a part of the gradual Corruptions which have so unhappily deformed the Church 3. Admitting once more that there was as yet no Controversy about these Questions which is the thing for which these learned Men contend and their only Excuse on the behalf of those first Fathers yet this makes wholly for the Unitarians For besides this Defect the Fathers and first Ages have spoken in their Creed altogether as the Socinian Unitarians now do The Creed called the Apostles because it contains the true Apostolick Doctrine and Tradition was the only Creed of those Fathers and Ages it was as one of them speaks of it their Regula Fidei immobilis irreformabilis i. e. the unchangable unaltetable Rule of their Faith But this Creed expresses the very Doctrine of the present Socinians and not of the Church as our Opposers themselves are constrained to own It attributeth the Appellation GOD and the Creation of Heaven and Earth to only the Almighty Father It describeth the Son as only a Man declaring his Conception by the Holy Ghost in the Womb of the Virgin Mary his Birth Death Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven without the least Intimation of an eternal Generation from the Essence

of the Father or that he or the Holy Ghost are GOD. It saith no higher thing of them than it saith of the Holy Catholick Church I believe in the Holy Ghost I believe in the Holy Catholick Church for so all know this Creed is read in the Original Greek and by all the Fathers Is it now Sir conceivable that these Doctrines should be as Trinitarians pretend a Tradition constantly preserved when their own Criticks reject the Works of those first Fathers as certainly spurious or forged that speak any what directly or explicitly of the Trinity and other depending Points and Questions and when besides their common and only Creed is undeniably Socinian I deny not Sir that the Fathers of the first 300 Years whose Writings have been suffered to come down to Posterity began to corrupt the true Doctrine concerning the Person of our Saviour making him to be much greater than he was From about the Year 150 some of them were got into the Opinions that were afterwards called Arianism or the Arian Trinity But this I affirm and all the Criticks among the Trinitarians do own it that those Fathers spoke not of the Trinity and of the Points and Questions thereon depending as the Church now doth they so held a kind of Trinity as not to destroy the Unity of GOD or that only the Father is truly and properly GOD. But this was a Digression I proceed to our fifth Reason against these Doctrines They have been partly the direct and necessary Causes partly the unhappy Occasions of divers scandalous and hurtful Errors and Heresies particularly of those which compose the gross Body of Popery 'T is well observed by some that one Absurdity or Error being introduced 't is always the Ground and Occasion of many more This Aphorism was never more sadly verified than in the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation For no sooner were these Doctrines by the Countenance of sanguinary and arbitrary Edicts of the Bizantine Emperours become the more general and current Belief of the Churches but there immediarely broke in after them that Swarm of absurd and heretical Doctrines which have no less than subverted the true and primitive Christianity 1. The first-born of the Trinity was the Supremacy of the Pope A few Bishops not a fifth Part of the Bishops of the Catholick Church having presumed in the Council of Nice Anno 325 to determine for the whole Catholick Church so great a Point as this that there is more than one Divine and Eternal Person they sent the new Creed and Acts of that Council to the Churches and Bishops who had not been present at it to be by them subscribed Hereupon the Bishops of Asia assembling themselves in about 30 provincial Councils rejected the Word Consubstantial or of the same Substance with the Father in which the whole Mystery of Trinitarianism and the Stress of the Nicene Creed does lie they would by no means admit of this Word So faith Marcus Ephesin the most Learned of the Greeks Concil Florent Sess 5. The Bishops of Germany and of Belgium now the Low-Countries and of Gaul now France and of the three Provinces of Great Britain would not receive the Creed of Nice giving this Reason that the Word Consubstantial is unscriptural So saith St. Hilary that great Adversary of the Arians and other Unitarians towards the beginning of his Book de Synod The Bishops of Africa seem not so much as to have taken into their Archives or Registries the Acts Canons or Creed of Nice For in the Year 418 in a Contest between them and the Bishop of Rome they sent to Constantinople and Alexandria for Copies of the Acts of the Nicene Council Concil Carthag 6. Anno 418. The Nicene Council being thus refused and despised by all the considerable Nations professing Christianity the Nicene Faction of Bishops began to consult of a way how to settle their beloved Doctrine by political Arts and at length they resolved upon this Expedient Anno 347 having got on their side the Emperor Constans and finding that the Bishops and Church of Rome were thorowly in their Interests they assembled in Council at Sardica and there made those famous Canons on which all learned Men know the Authority and Supremacy of the Bishops of Rome is wholly grounded and which those Bishops have ever since exercised They designed by these Canons to secure the Bishops and other Ecclesiasticks of the Nicene Party now called Trinitarians in their Bishopricks and other Church-Dignities and to eject from time to time all Vnitarians But these Politicians were quite out in hoping for such an Effect they were so far from governing the Catholick Church by those Canons that they served to no other purpose but the inslaving the Makers of them and their Successors to the Popes of Rome But for a fuller Account Sir of this Sardican Council or rather Conventicle I refer you to the Acts of Athanasius lately published in which the History of these Betrayers of the Catholick Church is fully related 2. In the Year 431 it was concluded and determined by the Trinitarian Faction assembled in Council at Ephesus that GOD the Son was truly and properly incarnate in the Womb of the Virgin Mary and was born of her so that Mary was not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of Christ but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of God This blasphemons and contradictory Conclusion being once made immediately they fell to worshipping and praying to her If GOD the Son is to be worshipp'd and invovated shall we turn our Backs on the Mother of God Shall not she be able to help us at least by way of Intercession to whom the Angel said Thou art highly honoured of GOD and who was as it were Wife to GOD the Father and in very Deed Mother to GOD the Son Father Simon in the 3d Chapter of the Critical History of the Religions of the East saith It is chiefly since the Birth of Nestorianism that is since the Council of Ephesus that so much respect hath been shown to the Virgin Mary He means she was not so much worshipp'd and invocated till that Council had determined against Nestorius that she is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of GOD. But Father Simon will never be able to show that Holy Mary was at all worshipp'd or prayed unto till the Ephesin Council had decreed that she is to be deem'd the Mother of GOD. I do challenge him or any for him to produce any Testimony of the Ancients for the Worship and Invocation of Mary that is so ancient as the Ephesin Council This Father should therefore have dealt as ingenuously and freely in this Case as is his manner in most others or should have said nothing at all of this matter but have chose some other Instance to confirm what he had to say He should have owned what he knows to be the Truth that as the Doctrine of the Incarnation produced this impious and sensless Conclusion that