Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
father_n believe_v faith_n holy_a 10,213 4 5.4982 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A59787 An answer to a late Dialogue between a new Catholick convert and a Protestant to prove the mystery of the Trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation : by way of short notes on the said dialogue. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1687 (1687) Wing S3261; ESTC R10173 11,401 17

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

better Foundation in Scripture and Tradition then Transubstantiation For otherwise he was not partial in believing one and rejecting the other and if he did he never understood his Religion and then no wonder that he takes Sanctuary in a Church which requires no use of his understanding B. But to return to the main Point I must tell you I do not think them equally grounded on Scripture Reason or Tradition and indeed you may remember that was the old Point in dispute with us A. b Well Sir to shew you your Error I shall begin with the several Particulars in their Order and so first as to the Tradition of Transubstantiation Now 't is evident That has been deliver'd with less interruption than that of the Holy Trinity That Mystery was question'd in the very Infancy of the Church nay not only so but the Arians prevail'd much against it about the beginning of the Fourth Age. On the other side Transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet a long time and when it came to debate there was no such opposition as that of Arius to call in question the Authority of its Tradition the Church receiv'd it unanimously and in that sense continu'd till rash Reason attempted to fathom the unlimited Miracles and Mysteries of God. h Here is a great mixture of confidence and fallacy Confidence is asserting what is false that Transubstantiation has been delivered with less interruption than that of the Holy Trinity for none of the Ancient Fathers make the least mention of it neither the name nor the thing was known for many hunder'd years after Christ. He himself modestly grants that the Fathers are not half so express in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as they are in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity And when he grants half you may safely conclude they say nothing of it but the fallacy consists in attributing this silence of the Fathers about Transubstantiation to the unquestionableness of the Tradition when it was wholly owing to the Ignorance of the Doctrine It was not opposed in those days because they never heard of Transubstantiation not because it was universally believed which is a reason indeed why it should not be opposed but not why it should never be mentioned Whereas from that opposition Arius and his followers made to the Doctrine of the Trinity in the beginning of the Fourth Century and that great alarum it gave immediately to the Christian Church it is evident that it was the received Faith at and before that time for otherwise Arius would not have opposed it nor Catholick Bishops so Zealously have defended it B. But the Fathers are not half so express in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation as they are in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity A. That 's true and there 's very good Reason for it Transubstantiation has not been a Doctrine so long in dispute and 't is not customary for Men to argue unquestionable Truths And whereas you may think that Transubstantiation has of late receiv'd such shrewd Repulses by your Books I 'le assure you you forget how much the true Catholick Zeal destroys the Seeds of Heresies Do you think that so many Bishops not only of the Eastern but of the Western Church also could be Arians and yet suppose that that Opinion wanted i as Plausible a pretence of Tradition Certainly if you consider that you cannot think to establish the Doctrine of the Trinity by Tradition more than Transubstantiation especially considering the strong Footsteps of that Sect even in the Fathers now extant I would cite you some of them but that they are not so much to my main Design and indeed my aim is Brevity i Arius did not set up upon Tradition but upon a pretence of Scripture and Reason and if Arianism had had so good a pretence to Tradition it is strange it should have been thought so new and surpizing a Doctrine at that time It was never heard of before Arius and that is proof enough that it was no Tradition of the Church though afterwards they endeavoured to force some expressions in the Writings of the Antient Fathers as well as of the Scriptures to countenance that Heresie B. Well Sir 't is true we cannot so well plead Tradition to what you have urg'd and especially when I call to mind k that Arianism was confirm'd by a General Council But we alledge an higher ground we stand upon the Authority of the Scriptures and indeed that is the true Thuchtone of all Doctrine k I hope he does not mean the Council of Nice which was the first General Council and assembled on purpose to Establish the Catholick Faith in this point and to condemn Arius A●d does the Church of Rome own any for a General Council which confirmed Arianism The Council of Syrmium indeed where Liberius Bishop of Rome Subcribe● the Arian Confession may bid fair for it if a Council of Eastern and Western Bishops confirmed by the Pope may pass for a General Council but what then becomes of the Infallibility of Popes and Councils and Tradition This is a desperate Man who will not spare the Church of Rome her self nor General Councils if they stand in his way rather than allow any Tradition for the Doctrine of the Trinity A. 'T is true if you will follow the Catholick Church l and take the Scriptures literally you may discover the Mystery of the Holy Trinity in them but if you once yield to Figurative Allusions and Interpretations the Arians will be as much too hard for you as you imagin your selves to be for the Catholick Church m In short both Doctrines will be at a loss and both equally require the Authority of the Church to support them l If the Trinity can be prov'd by Scripture that is all we desire for I am sure Transubstantiation cannot and as for literal or figurative Expositions of Scripture neither of them must be always used but as the Subject Matter and Circumstances of the place require m I thought the Christian Church had been built upon the Faith of the Holy Trinity not that supported by the Authority of the Church unless the Church can support her own Foundation if there can be no Christian Church without Baptism in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost that is without professing the Faith and Worship of the ever blessed Trinity this Doctrine must be believ'd before there can be any Church on whose Authority we must believe it and therefore he has chose the unfittest Doctrine to build on Church Authority that he could have thought on B. O no surely the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is more express in Scriptures than so A. To satisfie you that what I say is Truth because I may represent the Parallel the clearer n I will personate an Arian that Sect so often condemn'd by the Ancient Church and you shall see his Plea against the Trinity is as fair as yours against Transubstantiation And because this is the main
Parallel I shall be somewhat the longer that I may give you the greater satisfaction n An excellent part for a Roman Catholick to act We read that the Devil sometimes transforms himself into an Angel of Light but never that an Angel of Light transformed himself into a Devil To Dispute seriously and in good earnest against the Scripture Proofs of the Trinity as he here does though with no great understanding I should think little better then Blasphemy it is what would have never been endured in the Primitive Church and which I think no Christians of any Communion ought to endure for this is not the concernment of any particular Church but of common Christianity But though he can Personate an Arian so well he should consider how he can dispute against him He yields him all the Scripture Proofs for the Trinity as not sufficient without the Authority of the Church the Arian thanks him for giving the Scripture on his side and is contented he should make the best he can of his Church Authority and so continues an Arian still B. I shall be very glad to hear what you can speak to the matter A. o First then I say 'T is highly unreasonable to interpret that Text 1 John 5. 7. That there be Three in Heaven that bear record and those Three are One as likewise John 10. 30. I and my Father are One literally for if we do we not only oppose Sense and Reason but we make Construction directly against the very Scripture John 10. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38. and John 17. 21 22 23. 1 Cor. 3. 8. And what can be urg'd more against us in respect of Transubstantiation B. Very right Sir that Interpretation carries a forcible Reasonableness but the Doctrine of the Trinity do's not wholly depend upon those Two Proofs A. Right it do's not but I can give you further Demonstration in this Parellel A principal Ground of the Trinity is because the Son is so often call'd God in Scripture as John 1. 1 2. Rom. 9. 5. c. Now if we did not comply with the Catholick Church and make a Literal Construction in this Case likewise how strangely should we be confounded by those Texts 1 where this Godhead in Christ is declar'd to be no more than Lordship and subordinate to the Father as Heb. 1. 8. 9. 1 Cor. 8. 4 5. 1 Cor. 15. 27 28. Rev. 3. 12. and John 10. 35 36. B. But Sir our Saviour forgave Sins too A. That 's true but 2 only by a deputed Authority You see when the Sons of Zebbedee petition'd him he could not grant the final Accomplishment of our Spiritual Warfare that was the Father's Prerogative Matth. 2c 23. And tho' he is to be our Judge yet he knows not the time Mark. 13. 31. 1 Tim. 6. 15. B. I must confess these things a little surprize me but however I cannot think these neither the only Grounds that support that Mystery of the Trinity A. No you are in the right there is one strong Proof more the making of all things visible and invisible is attributed to the Son and that expresly John. 1. 3 Heb. 1. 10 and particularly Col. 1. 16 17 18 19. But yet for all that if we do not adhere with the Catholick Church to the Literal Interpretation we are at a loss there too For first 't is plain by the rest of Scripture 3 that the Son is not our only Maker as appears by our Creation attributed to the Father and then if we compare those Texts to Heb. 1. 2 9 10. 1 Cor. 8. 6. Eph. 3. 9. Eph. 4. 5 6. 1 Cor. 15. 27 28. we cannot reasonably attribute more to the Son than his being God's Instrument in the Creation B. But are these the true and only Grounds of the Doctrine of that Holy Mystery A. Yes verily for 4 that we are Baptiz'd in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is no Argument That were as reasonable if understood of Christ and the Holy Ghost as our Spiritual Governours as under the supposal of their being Co-equal with the Father 1 Cor. 10. 2. 1 Cor. 12. 12 13. o I do not think this a proper place nor a just occasion to enter into the dispute of the Trinity What he here alledges has been answered a hundred times over both by the ancient Fathers and Modern Writers both Romanist and Protestants and if he dare say when he has taken off his Arian Vizard that they are not well and sufficiently answered I will be bound to defend Catholick Christianity against this new kind of Liberian Roman Catholick But it would move the Indignation of any good Christian though a Roman-Catholick to see so Sacred a Mystery made the Subject of Wit and Criticism and little better then Drollery 1 that Christ cannot be God because he is Lord as if he could not be God and Lord too that he is not the Second Person in the Trinity because he is not the first and therefore as a Son especially as a Mediator subordinate to his Father 2 That he forgives Sins only as Priests do by a deputed Authority 3 That he did not make the World because the Father made it and therefore he is but Gods Instrument in the Creation as if in Creation which is the immediate effect of Divine and Almighty Power there could be any created Instrument 4 That we may be Baptized into the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost as Spiritual Governours when the Ancient Church thought this Form of Baptism to be the Foundation of the Creed and there is no other difference expressed in the Form between Baptising in the Name of the Father and of the Son and Holy Ghost but the order of Persons B. But surely Sir the Arians should have other Grounds to establish their Opinions besides those or else your Parellel with Transubstantiation will not be so demonstrable as you conceive Pray inform me a little further I have a mighty desire to understand a little better their Fundamental Principles A. To satisfie you I shall p First They alledge Christ represented under the Law altogether as an Angel for Eminency call'd the Angel of the Presence Isa. 63.9 Eccl. 5.6 Gen. 48.16 Num. 20.16 Exod. 23.20 21 22. refer'd to 1 Cor. 10. 4 5 9. Further they collect him to be a created Being from Col. 1.15 Rev. 3.14 Psal. 118.23 Isa. 45.8 Ecclus. 1.4 9. Ecclus. 24.9 Sa● 6.22 23. q And they interpret that Scripture Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee by Acts 13.33 and 2 Pet. 1.17 As to r the H●ly Ghost they prove a vast distance between him a●d the Son by John 16.12 13 14 15. and John 15.26 Besides they say he is no where call'd God and urge for the probability of their Opinion Rev. 12.9 Rev. 20.8 2 Cor. 4.4 For as there is an universal tempting Evil Power so we may reasonably conclude there may be a Good Assisting Power without any necessity of his