Selected quad for the lemma: tradition_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
tradition_n	faith_n	receive_v	scripture_n	3,204	5	6.0081	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61548	A discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity with an answer to the late Socinian objections against it from Scripture, antiquity and reason, and a preface concerning the different explications of the Trinity, and the tendency of the present Socinian controversie / by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1697 (1697)	Wing S5585; ESTC R14244	164,643	376

World So that there is no way of dealing with them but by shewing the falsness weakness of the grounds they go upon and that they have no advantage of us as to Scripture Antiquity or Reason which is the Design of this Vndertaking Worcester Sept. 30. 1696. E. W. THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. THE Occasion and Design of the Discourse Pag. 1. CHAP. II. The Doctrine of the Trinity not receiv'd in the Christian Church by Force or Interest p. 10. CHAP. III. The Socinian Plea for the Antiquity of their Doctrine Examined p. 15. CHAP. IV. Of the Considerable Men they pretend to have been of their Opinion in the Primitive Church p. 29. CHAP. V. Of their Charge of Contradiction in the Doctrine of the Trinity p. 54. CHAP. VI. No Contradiction for Three Persons to be in One common Nature p. 68. CHAP. VII The Athanasian Creed clear'd from Contradictions p. 101. CHAP. VIII The Socinian Sense of Scripture Examined p. 121. CHAP. IX The General Sense of the Christian Church proved from the Form of Baptism as it was understood in the first Ages p. 177. CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in point of Reason Answer'd p. 230. ERRATA PAg. 113. l. 12. for our r. one p. 122. l. 12. r. Heb. 1.5 for unto which p. 124. l. 7. add N. 11. p. 126. l. 29. for Damascenus r. Damascius p. 129. l. 21. for appointed r. appropriated p. 181. l. 22. after them put in not p. 192. l. 19 for we r. were p. 211. l. 1. dele that p. 217. l. 6. for Hypostasis r. Hypothesis p. 234. l. 6. for Intermission r. Intromission p. 283. l. 21. r. as well as A DISCOURSE In VINDICATION of the Doctrine of the Trinity WITH An ANSWER TO THE Late SOCINIAN Objections CHAP. I. The Occasion and Design of this Discourse IT is now above twenty years since I first published a Discourse about the reasons of the Sufferings of Christ lately reprinted in answer to some Socinian Objections at that time But I know not how it came to pass that the Socinian controversy seemed to be laid asleep among us for many years after and so it had continued to this day if some mens busie and indiscreet zeal for their own particular Opinions or rather Heresies had not been more prevalent over them than their care and concernment for the common interest of Christianity among us For it is that which really suffers by these unhappy and very unseasonable Disputes about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith which could never have been started and carried on with more fatal consequence to all revealed Religion than in an age too much inclined to Scepticism and Infidelity For all who are but well-wishers to that do greedily catch at any thing which tends to unsettle mens minds as to matters of Faith and to expose them to the scorn and contempt of Infidels And this is all the advantage which they have above others in their writings For upon my carefull Perusal of them which was occasion'd by re●rinting that Discourse I found nothing extraordinary as to depth of Judgment or closeness of Reasoning or strength of Argument or skill in Scripture or Antiquity but the old stuff set out with a new dress and too much suited to the Genius of the age we live in viz. brisk and airy but withal too light and superficial But although such a sort of Raillery be very much unbecoming the weight and dignity of the subject yet that is not the worst part of the character of them for they seem to be written not with a design to convince others or to justifie themselves but to ridicule the great Mysteries of our Faith calling them Iargon Cant Nonsense Impossibilities Contradictions Samaritanism and what not any thing but Mahometism and Deism And at the same time they know that we have not framed these Doctrines our selves but have received them by as universal a Tradition and Consent of the Christian Church as that whereby we receive the Books of the new Testament and as founded upon their authority So that as far as I can see the truth of these Doctrines and authority of those Books must stand and fall together For from the time of the writing and publishing of them all persons who were admitted into the Christian Church by the Form of Baptism prescribed by our Saviour were understood to ●e received Members upon profession of ●●e Faith of the Holy Trinity the Hymns and Doxologies of the Primitive Church were to Father Son and Holy Ghost and those who openly opposed that Doctrine were cast out of the Communion of it which to me seem plain and demonstrative arg●ments that this was the Doctrine of the Christian Church from the beginning as will appear in the progress of this Discourse The chief design whereof is to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity as it hath been generally received in the Christian Church and is expressed in the Athanasian Creed from those horrible Imputations of Nonsense Contradiction and Impossibility with which it is charged by our Vnitarians as they call themselves and that in the answer to the Sermon lately reprinted about the Mysteries of the Christian Faith which I first preached and published some years since upon the breaking out of this controversie among us by the Notes on Athanasius his Creed and other mischievous Pamphlets one upon another I was in hopes to have given some check to their insolent way of writing about matters so much above our reach by shewing how reasonable it was for us to submit to divine Revelation in such things since we must acknowledge our selves so much to seek as to the nature of Substances which are continually before our Eyes and therefore if there were such difficulties about a Mystery which depended upon Revelation we had no cause to wonder at it but our business was chiefly to be satisfied whether this Doctrine were any part of that Revelation As to which I proposed several things which I thought very reasonable to the finding out the true sense of the Scripture about these matters After a considerable time they thought fit to publish something which was to pass for an answer to it but in it they wholly pass over that part which relates to the sense of Scripture and run into their common place about Mysteries of Faith in which they were sure to have as many Friends as our Faith had Enemies and yet they managed it in so trifling a manner that I did not then think it deserved an Answer But a worthy and judicious Friend was willing to take that task upon himself which he hath very well discharged so that I am not concerned to meddle with all those particulars which are fully answer'd already but the general charge as to the Christian Church about the Doctrine of the Trinity I think my self oblig'd to give an answer to upon this occasion But before I come to that since they so confidently charge the Christian Church for

of Gods Word But were not the Iews to understand it in the Sense it was known among them And if the Chaldee Paraphrast had used it in that Sense he would never have applied it to a Divine Subsistance as upon Examination it will appear that he doth Of which Rittangel gives a very good Account who had been a Iew and was very well skilled in their ancient Learning He tells us That he had a Discourse with a learned Vnitarian upon this Subject who was particularly acquainted with the Eastern Languages and he endeavoured to prove That there was nothing in the Chaldee Paraphrasts use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because it was promiscuously used by him for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it was applied to God This Rittangel denied and offer'd to prove that the Chaldee Paraphrast did never use that Word in a common manner but as it was appropriated to a Divine Subsistance He produces several places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is put and nothing answering to Word in the Hebrew as Gen. 20.21 The Chaldee hath it The Word of Iehovah shall be my God Exod. 2.25 And Iehovah said He would redeem them by his Word Exod. 6.8 Your murmurings are not against us but against the Word of Iehovah Exod. 19.17 And Moses brought the People out to meet the Word of Iehovah Levit. 26.46 These are the Statutes and Iudgments and Laws which Iehovah gave between his Word and the Children of Israel by the hand of Moses Numb 11.20 Ye have despised the Word of Iehovah whose Divinity dwelt among you Numb 23.21 The Word of Iehovah is with him and the Divinity of their King is among them Deut 1.30 The Word of Iehovah shall fight for you Deut. 2.7 These forty years the Word of Iehovah hath been with thee Deut. 1.32 Ye did not believe in the Word of Iehovah your God Deut 4.24 Iehovah thy God his Word is a consuming fire Deut. 5.5 I stood between the Word of Iehovah and you to shew you the Word of the Lord Deut. 32.6.8 Iehovah thy God his Word shall go with thee with many other places which he brings out of Moses his Writings and there are multitudes to the same purpose in the other Books of Scripture which shews saith he that this Term the Word of God was so appointed for many Ages as appears by all the Chaldee Paraphrasts and the ancient Doctors of the Iews And he shews by several places that the Chaldee Paraphrast did not once render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when there was occasion for it no not when the Word of God is spoken of with respect to a Prophet as he proves by many Testimonies which are particularly enumerated by him The result of the Conference was that the Vnitarian had so much Ingenuity to confess That unless those Words had another Sense their Cause was lost and our Faith had a sure Foundation But it may be objected that Morinus hath since taken a great deal of pains to prove the Chaldee Paraphrasts not to have been of that Antiquity which they have been supposed by the Iews to be of In answer to this we may say in general that Morinus his great Proofs are against another Chaldee Paraphrast of very small Reputation viz. of Ionathan upon the Law and not that of Onkelos which Rittangel relied upon in this Matter And none can deny this to have been very ancient but the Iews have so little knowledge of their own History but what is in Scripture that very little certainty can be had from them But we must compare the Circumstances of things if we would come to any resolution in this Matter Now it is certain that Philo the Alexandrian Iew who lived so very near our Saviours time had the same Notion of the Word of God which is in the Chaldee Paraphrast whose Testimonies have been produced by so many already that I need not to repeat them And Eusebius saith The Jews and Christians had the same Opinion as to Christ till the former fell off from it in opposition to the Christians and he particula●ly instances in his Divinity But if Morinus his Opinion be embraced as to the lateness of these Chaldee Paraphrases this inconvenience will necessarily follow viz. That the Iews when they had changed so much their Opinions should insert those Passages themselves which assert the Divinity of the Word And it can hardly enter into any mans head that considers the Humour of the Jewish Nation to think that after they knew what S. Iohn had written concerning the Word and what use the Christians made of it to prove the Divinity of Christ they should purposely insert such passages in that Paraphrase of the Law which was in such esteem among them that Elias Levita saith They were under Obligation to read two Parascha●s out of it every Week together with the Hebrew Text. Now who can imagine that the Iews would do this upon any other account than that it was deliver'd down to them by so ancient a Tradition that they durst not discontinue it And it is observed in the place of Scripture which our Saviour read in the Synagogue that he follow'd neither the Hebrew nor the Greek but in probability the Chaldee Paraphrase and the Words he used upon the Cross were in the Chaldee Dialect The later Iews have argued against the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ like any Vnitarians as appears by the Collection out of Ioseph Albo David Kimchi c. published by Genebrard with his Answers to them And is it any ways likely that those who were so much set against these Doctrines should themselves put in such Expressions which justifie what the Evangelist saith about the VVord being in the Beginning being with God and being God The Substance of what I have said as to S. Iohn's Notion of the Word is this That there is no colour for the Sense which Socinus hath put upon it either from the use of it among other Authors or any Interpretation among the Jews But that there was in his time a current sense of it which from the Jews of Alexandria was dispersed by Cerinthus in those parts where he lived That for such a Notion there was a very ancient Tradition among the Jews which appears in the most ancient Paraphrase of the Law which is read in their Synagogues And therefore according to all reasonable ways of interpreting Scripture the Word cannot be understood in S. Iohn for one whose Office it was to preach the Word but for that Word which was with God before any thing was made and by whom all things were made 3. Is this to interpret Scripture like wise Men to give a new Sense of several Places of Scripture from a matter of Fact of which there is no proof the better to avoid the proof of the Divinity of the Son of God This relates to the same beginning of S. Iohn's Gospel the Word was with God and several other places