Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	church_n	confess_v	scripture_n	1,423	5	5.9158	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52606	A brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians in four letters, written to a friend.	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.; Biddle, John, 1615-1662.; Firmin, Thomas, 1632-1697.	1687 (1687)	Wing N1505; ESTC R37735	58,564	186

adv Prax. c. 3. 2. They say farther that none of the objected and above-cited Texts are by Trinitarians themselves thought to be true and demonstrative Proofs either of the Trinity or of the Divinity of the Son or Spirit Every one of these Texts but John 1. 1 c. is given up to the Socinians as an incompetent and unconcluding Proof by some or other of the most learned and allowed Criticks and Interpreters of the Protestant Party As to the Catholick Doctors so called Chr. Sandius hath made a great Collection of Testimonies out of them to this Effect that neither the Trinity nor the Divinity of the Lord Christ or of the Holy Spirit can be proved by the Scripture but by Tradition only Some of them confess that the Scriptures rather favour the Socinian Doctrine and that the Trinity is not only above but contrary to Reason finally that if the Authority of the Church did not oblige them to be Catholicks they should choose to be Socinians See for these things Sandius Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. de Ario and Cingallus in Script Trin. Revel An English Author of the Romish Persuasion has these Words in Fiat Lux. p. 379 380. I may truly say Christ is the Pope's God. For if the Pope had not been or had not been so vigilant and resolute a Pastor as he is he means such a Persecutor Christ whom the Pope both worships himself and propounds to the World to worship as the very true God that made all things Christ I say had not been taken for any such Person as this day we believe him to be Whereas besides the above-cited Texts the Orthodox object that if Christ were not God as well as Man he could not satisfy the Justice of God for our Sins or be a full and sufficient Atonement for them The Socinians answer 1. That the Lord Christ is a Propitiation and Atonement for Sin is a Demonstration that he is not God for God doth not give or make but receive the Satisfaction for our Sins 2. They wonder that the Son of God though he is a Man only should not be judged a sufficient Satisfaction and Propitiation for Sin through the gracious Acceptance of God when 't is so known and evident that the Oblation and Sacrifice of Beasts under the Mosaic Law and from Adam till those times was accepted as a full Atonement and Satisfaction in order to Forgiveness Lev. 6. 6. He shall bring his Trespass-Offering a Ram without Blemish and the Priest shall make Atonement for him before the Lord for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing See the whole Context Finally whereas the Orthodox do decline many of the Socinian Arguments by the Distinction of two Natures a Divine and humane Nature in Christ For Example when the Socinians object John 14. 28. My Father is greater than I or John 5. 30. I can do nothing of my self We answer that these things are spoken of Christ only according to his humane Nature but that he hath also a Divine Nature by which he is equal to the Father and can do all things of himself To this they reply 1. That the Distinction of two Natures a Divine and Humane in Christ is clearly overthrown by the 8th 9th 10th and 11th Arguments mentioned in the the first Letter 2. If a thing otherways true of Christ may be denied of him because 't is only in one of these pretended Natures and not in the other if our Saviour saith he can do nothing of himself only because he can do nothing of himself according to his humane Nature and can do all things of himself according to his pretended Divine Nature then 't is lawful and allowable to say Christ is no Man was never born of the Virgin was not crucified dead or buried did not rise again from the dead ascended not into Heaven under pretence that according to his Divine Nature he never was born of the Virgin never was crucified dead or buried c. Now who does not see that to speak thus were to deny the whole New Testament and renounce Christianity Have not we say the Socinians reason to reject and abhor a Distinction that if it incommodes our Doctrine and the Allegations for it does as effectually fight against the most evident and acknowledg'd Points of the Christian Faith Nay the Distinction and Evasions founded on it do at least as much hurt to the Trinitarians as to the Socinians For if the Distinction of two Natures be true and the Answers founded on it allowable then no Fault can be found with a Socinian when he shall say Christ is not true God was not generated of the Essence of the Father was not from Eternity for all this may be said of him according to use their own Words his humane Nature for according to that he is not true God was not generated of the Fathers Essence was not from Eternity Do not Trinitarians absolutely disallow as false and Heretical these Forms of Speech though defended by the Distinction of the two Natures why then do they expect that their Adversaries in this Controversy should admit their Answers which are founded on the same and no other Defence This Sir is the Sum of what these Gentlemen say on this great Question a Brief of their Arguments and Answers by which they would support their Doctrine that God is but one Person and that as some of them add our Lord Christ nor the Holy Spirit neither are nor ever are called Gods or God in Holy Scripture as also that neither Creation whether New or Old nor any of the Attributes of God are ascribed to our Blessed Saviour For a Conclusion give me leave to advise you in the Words of St. Paul 1 Thess 5. 21. Prove all things hold fast that which is good SIR I am Your most Obliged The Publisher to whom the foregoing Letters were written having left them some time with a Gentleman a Person of excellent Learning and Worth they were returned to him with this following Letter SIR HAving had the Favour of perusing these Letters I cannot but greatly esteem the Learning and Judgment of the Author who has brought so large a Controversy and that has been debated with the utmost Industry Learning and Subtilty for many hundred Years even from soon after the time of the Apostles into so small a Compass that one may soon see the Allegations from Scripture on both sides with the most material Distinctions and Answers Wherein it seems obvious to me what is said in one of the Paragraphs of the first Letter that the Vnitarian Doctrine is an accountable and reasonable Faith grounded on clear and evident Scripture-Arguments so far as a negative Proposition can reasonably be expected to be Whereas the Trinitarian Doctrine is founded upon obscure or mistaken Texts and defended by such unreasonable Distinctions as cannot be admitted by any Man of a free Judgment being either contradictory in themselves or utterly unintelligible