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
A63906	A discourse concerning the Messias, in three chapters the first concerning the preparatories to his appearance in the types and prophesies of the Old Testament : the second demonstrating that it was typically and prophetically necessary that he should be born of a virgin : the third, that he is God as well as man : to which is prefixed a large preface ... : and an appendix is subjoyned concerning the divine extension ... / by John Turner ...	Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50.	1685 (1685)	Wing T3306; ESTC R34684	134,054	328

by which the Son and Holy Ghost are distinguished from the Father and from each other is on both hands a Creature though it be an eternal one depending upon and eternally flowing from an eternal cause for that which constitutes the Person of the Son is the human nature united to the Divine and that which fills up the nature and notion of the Holy Ghost is a certain subtle subeternal matter united and incorporated with the Divine and Human Nature and animated by the common life of both and yet though these two things by which the Persons are distinguished from each other and from God the Father who is the Source and Fountain of the Godhead are without all question Creatures of his making yet the whole Person which results on either hand from the Vnion of the Created and Vncreated Nature together is truly and properly God for by God nothing else is or can be understood but a Person acted and animated by a life that is truly and properly Divine and such without question both of these Persons are otherwise there can be no vital Vnion between the created and uncreated Nature in them which is that upon which their Divine personality depends and as they may all three as well the one as the other be truly and properly said to be God so also notwithstanding what hath been said yet is the Father uncreate the Son uncreate and the Holy Ghost uncreate that is the Godhead which is in the whole Person the eternal simple abstracted Life in the one the cause of life and personality and the principal ingredient of life and personality in the two other which are Persons of a Dissimilar Heterogeneous and Compounded Nature and the whole Person is rightly denominated from its principal and chiefest Life is in all three not only Vncreate but Numerically the same so that there are not three Vncreates but one Vncreate nor three Incomprehensibles but one Incomprehensible nor three Gods but one God as it is expresly asserted in that Creed which goes how truly I do not now dispute under the Name of Athanasius and was allowed for Orthodox before the Lateran Council But yet as the rest of the Trinitarian Fathers when they were pressed by the Arians or other Heretics or disputed and argued the case too nicely with themselves were used to recur to the Specific Vnity and the Emperichoresis and the Vnity of Integration and such like very improper and inadequate expedients to help themselves so Marcellus being equally at a loss how to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity being a firm and resolute Assertor of the Vty of the Godhead and disdaining to make use of such Vnphilosophical ways of solving the difficulty which was in effect but to make a new riddle instead of explaining the old though he could not for his life being as he was a very honest and impartial Person bring himself to doubt but that the Language of the Scripture in its most plain and obvious Interpretation did assert the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost yet at some times being startled with the difficulty of the thing he would say with something of doubt and hesitation betwixt the difficulty of the thing and the plainness of the Scripture in asserting and maintaining it that the Scripture did seem to say thus much for so in the Confession sent to Julius he says of those that denied the Divinity of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems to be repugnant to the Orthodox Faith grounded upon the Scriptures for that is his meaning as it follows in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so the Evangelist St. John tells us that the word was God but yet it must be confessed that this Interpretation which I have put upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the only possible Interpretation neither as I do verily believe so agreeable to the Sentiments of Marcellus as another which I will now mention and that is that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood not as if he had spoken doubtfully that the Scripture seems to look that way as if Christ were a Divine Person as well as God the Father but that he really is so and that this appears plainly to be the sence of the Scriptures for so the word seems to have been used in that place of the Author to the Hebrews where God is said to have made the things that are seen out of things which did not appear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is out of things which really were not and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place are things not which barely appear or are supposed to be but which have a real undoubted and positive existence and in this sense the Adjectives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used not for things which are only in fancy or opinion but which have a real and a manifest Existence and are discovered by their own light and it is plain that this sense is most agreeable to what follows in Marcellus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I saith he have learnt or know for certain that the Son is the indivisible or inseparable Power of the Father for our Saviour himself even our Lord Jesus Christ saith I am in the Father and the Father in me and I and the Father are one and he that hath seen me hath seen the Father also which citations of his as they cannot so clearly and so naturally be applied to any thing as to the Numerical Essence so when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know or I have learnt for certain that the Son c. The Rules of Connection do require that this be spoken in opposition to the two Opinions just mentioned before one of which asserted a Plurality of Gods and the other denyed the Divinity of Christ and being exprest in such peremptory dogmatical and categorical Terms this is a plain and undenyable Testimony of Marcellus to himself that he was for the singular existent Essence which he did not only maintain in this Epistle to Pope Julius but he tells him it had always been his constant Doctrine for so he goes on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Faith I having received from the Scriptures and Tradition I preach in the Church as well as I have owned and asserted it in this Epistle to you Nevertheless for that he would not presume as others did when they were prest upon it by their Adversaries or intangl'd in their own private Meditations to explain the Modus of the Trinity for this reason he was charged by his Enemies with denying the thing it self as if in effect he had asserted but one divine Person because he stuck to one Numerical Substance without so much as pretending to explain how it was possible for a Trinity of Persons at this rate to exist this was the reason why Athanasius himself would sometimes speak with doubt and hesitancy concerning him or at

the Specifical but Numerical Nature and to say that Epiphanius or those from whom he borrowed it for there is no question but it was the received Argument of the Orthodox in those times neither he or they though they urged a good Argument yet understood wherein the strength of it lay but that on the contrary they did not argue ad idem and that according to them it was no Argument at all is at once precarious and rude into the bargain and is almost like the monstrous absurdity of the Epicurean Doctrine that affirms all things to have come by chance notwithstanding all the out-strokes appearances and signatures of the most exquisite Wisdom and the most perfect Skill The third and last place of Epiphanius which I shall mention is where speaking of the Antient formulary of Faith which he saith was delivered by Tradition from the Apostles and agreed upon in a Council of 310 Bishops in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy City that is Jerusalem he explains that Article which is at present extant in the Nicene confession and was taken from thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Begotten of his Father before all Worlds by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Substance of the Father now there is no other way to elude the force of that argument which may be drawn from hence in favour of the singular Essence but either to question the Authority of Epiphanius without reason and to say there was never any such Council at Jerusalem nor by consequence any such formulary of Faith agreed upon therein or else to affirm with the impious confidence of a down right Atheist that the Apostles did not understand themselves and that notwithstanding all their pretences to a Divine Spirit they were yet so foolish and ignorant to believe that one Divine Substance could beget another But yet I am far from pretending that all the Fathers of which the Nicene Assembly was composed were all of them at all times constant and firm to the defence and maintenance of the singular Essence no their fluctuation and uncertainty hath been already sufficiently discovered and Epiphanius himself giving his judgment of the meaning of the word Homoousios notwithstanding his Argument which hath been lately produced to prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signifie Numerically one but by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 two perfect natures are to be understood not differing Specifically from each other nor averse from being United into one Neither indeed does there seem to have been any after the Arian Heresie sprung up from that time till a good while after the Nicene Council who did stoutly and resolutely adhere to the singular Essence without any wavering or hesitation notwithstanding the difficulties with which it was attended unless it were this Marcellus and his followers who from their Masters name are by Epiphanius called Marcelliani so that it proves true of him what Horace said of another of the name after all the reproaches and calumnies with which his Adversaies have in vain endeavoured to blast his reputation Crescit occulto velut arbor aevo Fama Marcelli And if we consider that it was to Julius Bishop of Rome who had exactly as to this matter the same Apprehensions with Marcellus himself to whom that Epistle was written in which this Orthodox Confession is contained we may also then go on as Flaccus does micat inter omnes Julium sidus velut inter ignes Luna minores Or in the Language of another Poet we may say of Marcellus with respect to the Trinitarian Bishops who were used to take shelter in the Specific Identity or other inadaequate expedients that have been mentioned Aspice ut insignis spoliis Marcellus opimis Ingreditur victorque viros supreeminet omnes And if there be any that stand up firm and faithful to the singular Essence without betraying and exposing it as the Learned Doctour hath endeavoured to do we may say of him as Anchises did when he had finished the Prophetic Character of his Roman Heroe Tu Marcellus eris And as Marcellus by his courage and resolution answers the great Character of his glorious Namesake in Virgil so we may every whit as justly compare the Hesitating Fathers who sometimes seemed to patronise the Numerical Essence and sometimes to seek Patronage and shelter from it in very improper and inadaequate expedients such as rather served to delay the time and afford new matter of rangling and dispute then either to consute the Arians or to assure the Victory of the Orthodox Party to Fabius the Cunctator who is immediately before prophetically described by Anchises and who by frequent halts and countermarches and by false alarms without daring to come to the decision of a Battel prepared Hannibal for the Conquest first of Marcellus and then of the great Scipio from his African Trophies sirnamed Africanus who removed the Seat of War into the Enemies Country and perfected that Victory which Fabius had scarce the hardiness to begin But still it is true that though the Fathers were generally inconstant and uncertain in their resolutions concerning the Blessed Trinity yet when ever they swerved from the Numerical Essence it was only because of the puzling absurdities with which it was encompassed as to the manner of it otherwise there is no question not only that St. Athanasius and St. Basil and others of the Fathers who seemed to have wavered in their determinations but even St. Cyril Damascen and Gregory Nyssen themselves would have declared unanimously for the Numerical Essence by which alone the Vnity of the Trinity is possible to be maintained and which alone could free them from the imputation and absurdity of Polytheism with which the Specific Vnity was encumbred such an expedient as this if it could have been found out in those early ages of the Church would have nipped the Arian Heresie in the bud it would have silenced the Enthusiasm of Sabellius for it was nothing better and the intollerable impudence of Photinus and it would have prevented that uncertainty and those endless jangles which happened among the Orthodox themselves who being destitute of a solid resolution exposed themselves and one another to contempt by inadaequate fancies the Creatures not of reason but ignorance and imagination All the several Hereticks would have been ashamed of themselves and would not have dared to elude the force of so many peremptory Texts in favour of the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost by far fetcht interpretations and distorted expositions when not only the Scriptures were plain in their behalf but also the nature and reason of the thing this would have rendred the Roman Emperors more favourable then they were to the Orthodox party whereas for want of this to put an end to all controversies and animosities that might arise by the disagreeing opinions concerning the modus of the Trinity disagreeing from