Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	authority_n	church_n	scripture_n	4,231	5	6.1426	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61538	A discourse concerning the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction; or The true reasons of His sufferings with an answer to the Socinian objections. To which is added a sermon concerning the mysteries of the Christian faith; preached April 7. 1691. With a preface concerning the true state of the controversie about Christ's satisfaction. By the right reverend Father in God, Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1697 (1697)	Wing S5575; ESTC R221684	192,218	448

Examination of them I. Which is most agreeable to the Revealed Will of God II. Which doth offer fairest for the Benefit and Advantage of Mankind I. Which is most agreeable to the revealed Will of God For that we are sure is the most faithfull saying since Men of Wit and Reason may deceive us but God cannot When the Apostles first preached this Doctrine to the World they were not bound to believe what they affirmed to be a faithfull saying till they gave sufficient Evidence of their Authority from God by the wonderfull Assistance of the Holy Ghost But now this faithfull saying is contained in the Books of the New Testament by which we are to judge of the Truth of all Christian Doctrines And when two different Senses of Places of Scripture are offer'd we are to consider which is most Reasonable to be preferr'd And herein we are allow'd to Exercise our Reason as much as we please and the more we do so the sooner we shall come to Satisfaction in this matter Now according to Reason we may judge that Sense to be preferr'd 1. Which is most plain and easie and agreeable to the most receiv'd Sense of Words not that which is forced and intricate or which puts improper and metaphorical Senses upon Words which are commonly taken in other Senses especially when it is no Sacramental thing which in its own Nature is Figurative 2. That which suits most with the Scope and Design not only of the particular Places but of the whole New Testament which is to magnifie God and to depress Man to set forth the Infinite Love and Condescension of God in giving his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins to set up the Worship of one true God in Opposition to Creatures to Represent and Declare the mighty Advantages Mankind receive by the Sufferings of Christ Iesus 3. That which hath been generally receiv'd in the Christian Church to be the Sense of those places For we are certain this was always look'd on as a matter of great Concernment to all Christians and they had as great Capacity of understanding the Sense of the Apostles and the Primitive Church had greater Helps for knowing it than others at so much greater Distance And therefore the Sense is not to be taken from modern Inventions or Criticisms or pretences to Revelation but that which was at first deliver'd to the Christian Church and hath been since received and embraced by it in the several Ages and hath been most strenuously asserted when it hath met with Opposition as founded on Scripture and the general Consent of the Christian Church 4. That which best agrees with the Characters of those Persons from whom we recive the Christian Faith and those are Christ Iesus and his holy Apostles For if their Authority be lost our Religion is gone and their Authority depends upon their Sincerity and Faithfulness and Care to inform the World aright in matters of so great Importance 1. I begin with the Character which the Apostles give of Christ Iesus himself which is that he was a Person of the greatest Humility and Condescension that he did not assume to himself that which he might justly have done For let the Words of S. Paul be understood either as to the Nature or Dignity of Christ it is certain that they must imply thus much that when Christ Iesus was here on Earth he was not of a vain assuming humour that he did not boast of himself nor magnifie his own Greatness but was contented to be look'd on as other Men although he had at that time far greater and Diviner Excellency in him than the World would believe Less than this cannot be made of those Words of the Apostle Who being in the form of God he thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made himself of no Reputation and took upon him the form of a Servant Now this being the Character given of him let us consider what he doth affirm concerning himself For although he was far from drawing the People after him by setting forth his own Perfections yet upon just Occasions when the Iews contested with him he did Assert such things which must savour of Vanity and Ostentation or else must imply that he was the Eternal Son of God For all Mankind are agreed that the highest degree of Ambition lies in Affecting Divine Honour or for a meer Man to be thought a God How severely did God punish Herod for being pleased with the Peoples folly in crying out the Voice of God and not of Man And therefore he could never have born with such positive Assertions and such repeated Defences of his being the Son of God in such a manner as implied his being so from Eternity This in his Disputes with the Iews he affirms several times that he came down from Heaven not in a Metaphorical but in a proper Sense as appears by those words What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before In another Conference he asserted that he was before Abraham Which the Iews so literally understood that without a Metaphor they went about to stone him little imagining that by Abraham the calling of the Gentiles was to be understood But above all is that Expression which he used to the Iews at another Conference I and my Father are one which they understood in such a manner that immediately they took up stones to have stoned him What means all this Rage of the Iews against him What for saying that he had Vnity of Consent with his Father No certainly But the Iews misunderstood him Let us suppose it would not our Saviour have immediately explained himself to prevent so dangerous a Misconstruction But he asked them what it was they stoned him for They answer him directly and plainly because that thou being a man makest thy self God This was home to the purpose And here was the time for him to have denied it if it had not been so But doth he deny it Doth he say it would be Blasphemy in him to own it No but he goes about to defend it and proves it to be no Blasphemy for him to say that he was the Son of God i. e. so as to be God as the Iews understood it Can we imagine that a meer Man knowing himself to be such should Assume this to himself and yet God to bear witness to him not only by Miracles but by a Voice from Heaven wherein he was called his beloved Son in whom he was well pleased Could God be pleased with a mortal finite despicable Creature as the Iews thought him that assumed to himself to be God and maintained and defended it among his own People in a solemn Conference at a very Publick Place in one of the Portico's of the Temple And this he persisted in to the last For when the High Priest adjured him by the living God to tell whether he

upon those terms For by reason of the paucity and therefore the ambiguity of the Original words of the Hebrew language the strange Idioms of it the different senses of the same word in several Conjugations the want of several modes of expression which are used in other Languages and above all the lofty and Metaphorical way of speaking used in all Eastern Countries and the imitation of the Hebrew Idioms in the Greek Translation of the Old Testament and Original of the New you can hardly affix a sense upon any words used therein but a man who will be at the pains to search all possible significations and uses of those words will put you hard to it to make good that which you took to be the proper meaning of them Wherefore although I will not deny to our adversaries the praise of subtilty and diligence I cannot give them that which is much more praise-worthy of discretion and sound judgment For while they use their utmost industry to search all the most remote and Metaphorical senses of words with a design to take off the genuine and proper meaning of them they do not attend to the ill consequence that may be made of this to the overthrowing those things the belief of which themselves make necessary to salvation For by this way the whole Gospel may be made an Allegory and the Resurrection of Christ be thought as metaphorical as the Redemption by his Death and the force of all the Precepts of the Gospel avoided by some unusual signification of the words wherein they are delivered So that nothing can be more unreasonable than such a method of proceeding unless it be first sufficiently proved that the matter is not capable of the proper sense and therefore of necessity the improper only is to be allowed And this is that which Socinus seems after all his pains to pervert the meaning of the places in controversie to rely on most viz. That the Doctrine of satisfaction doth imply an impossibility in the thing it self and therefore must needs be false nay he saith the infallibility of the Revealer had not been enough in this Case supposing that Christ had said it and risen from the dead to declare his own Veracity unless he had delivered it by its proper causes and effects and so shewed the possibility of the thing it self And the reason he saith why they believe their Doctrine true is not barely because God hath said it but they believe certainly that God hath said it because they know it to be true by knowing the contrary Doctrine to be impossible The controversie then concerning the meaning of the places in dispute is to be resolved from the nature and reasonableness of the matter contained in them for if Socinus his reason be answerable to his confidence if the account we give of the sufferings of Christ be repugnant not only to the Justice Goodness and Grace of God but to the nature of the thing if it appear impossible that mankind should be redeemed in a proper sense or that God should be propitiated by the Death of his Son as a Sacrifice for sin if it enervate all the Precepts of Obedience and tend rather to justifie sins than those who do repent of them I shall then agree that no industry can be too great in searching Authors comparing places examining Versions to find out such a sense as may be agreeable to the nature of things the Attributes of God and the design of Christian Religion But if on the contrary the Scripture doth plainly assert those things from whence our Doctrine follows and without which no reasonable account can be given either of the expressions used therein or of the sufferings of Christ if Christ's death did immediately respect God as a sacrifice and was paid as a price for our redemption if such a design of his death be so far from being repugnant to the nature of God that it highly manifests his Wisdom Justice and Mercy if it assert nothing but what is so far from being impossible that it is very reconcileable to the common principles of Reason as well as the Free-Grace of God in the pardon of sin if being truly understood it is so far from enervating that it advances highly all the purposes of Christian Religion then it can be no less than a betraying one of the grand Truths of the Christian Doctrine not to believe ours to be the true sense of the places in controversie And this is that which I now take upon me to maintain II. For our clearer proceeding herein nothing will be more necessary than to understand the true state of the Controversie which hath been rendred more obscure by the mistakes of some who have managed it with greater zeal than judgment who have asserted more than they needed to have done and made our Adversaries assert much less than they do And by this means have shot over their Adversaries heads and laid their own more open to assaults It is easie to observe that most of Socinus his Arguments are levelled against an opinion which few who have considered these things do maintain and none need to think themselves obliged to do it which is That Christ paid a proper and rigid satisfaction for the sins of men considered under the notion of debts and that he paid the very same which we ought to have done which in the sense of the Law is never called Satisfaction but strict Payment Against this Socinus disputes from the impossibility of Christ's paying the very same that we were to have paid because our penalty was eternal Death and that as the consequent of inherent guilt which Christ neither did nor could undergo Neither is it enough to say That Christ had undergone eternul Death unless he had been able to free himself from it for the admission of one to pay for another who could discharge the debt in much less time than the offenders could was not the same which the Law required For that takes no notice of any other than the persons who had sinned and if a Mediator could have paid the same the Original Law must have been disjunctive viz. That either the Offender must suffer or another for him but then the Gospel had not been the bringing in of a better Covenant but a performance of the old But if there be a relaxation or dispensation of the first Law then it necessarily follows that what Christ paid was not the very same which the first Law required for what need of that when the very same was paid that was in the obligation But if it be said That the dignity of the person makes up what wanted in the kind or degree of punishment this is a plain confession that it is not the same but something equivalent which answers the ends of the Sanction as much as the same would have done which is the thing we contend for Besides if the very same had been paid in the strict sense