Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	blood_n	offer_v	sacrifice_n	4,224	5	7.7177	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64356	The difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian methods in answer to a book written by a Romanist, and intituled, The Protestant's plea for a Socinian.	Tenison, Thomas, 1636-1715.	1687 (1687)	Wing T694; ESTC R10714	38,420	66

was conceiv'd in the Body of the Virgin That the Question Whether Christ was before the World or after it is of no moment That his Blood is not a proper Sacrifice That the Holy Spirit is not any Person at all either Divine or Created That those who are not Ordained by others may step forth and preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments That although Officers are generally employ'd in those Functions yet other Christians are not under Obligation to forbear the performance of them That Baptism is none of Christ's perpetual Precepts in his Church That it may be used in admitting those of riper years into a Church but not as a necessary Christian Rite That to hold it to be such is to add to the Scriptures That it is an indifferent Ceremony and if to be us'd it is to be us'd in the admission of those who come from some other Religion to Christianity That in the words of Christ This Cup is the New Covenant in my Blood which is shed for you there is a Solaecism or false Grammar and that there are many such Incongruities in the New Testament That it is an abuse of the Lords Supper to believe that it confers any benefit upon us conveighs any Grace from God or give us any further assurance of his favour That it is Idolatry to kneel at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and that it may be Celebrated with the Head cover'd If these Doctrines be the results of due Industry in searching the Scriptures Prejud●…ce and Negligence may likewise put in their Plea as Preparatives to true Interpretation But farther in the very manner of Socinian Exposition there is apparent failure For though the Holy Writers express the same thing very differently and without respect to nicety of Words as is evident from the several forms of Words us'd in representing Christs Institution of the Lords Supper yet the Socinians make Interpretations of places which relate to the great Articles of Christian Faith to turn upon subtleties of Grammatical construction For Example sake they perplex the most comfortable Doctrine of Christs satisfaction with curious observations about the Particle For Whereas our Churchmen make the Old Testament the Key of the New and finding plainly that the Sacrifices of Attonement under the Law were the Types of the Offering the Blood of Jesus upon the Cross they conclude that God with respect to Christs Death in the quality of the great Expiation did admit the guilty World into a reconcileable Estate I might add that by coming to particulars the Socinian Prejudice and insincere Artifice in expounding such places of Holy Writ as concern their Scheme will appear to all unbyassed Readers I will instance in the Interpretation of that place in S. Iohn No Man hath Ascended up to Heaven but he that came down from Heaven even the Son of Man which is in Heaven Socinus for the avoiding a twofold nature in Christ by which he might be both in Heaven and in Earth and exist before he was born of a Virgin sets down a twofold Evasion in the place of an Explication First he interprets Ascending into Heaven by seeking after Heavenly things and Descending from Heaven by having Learned such Celestial things And to make all sure he takes the hardiness to say in the Second Place that as S. Paul was snatch'd up into the third Heavens and let down again so the Man Christ Jesus was taken up into Heaven somewhile before his Death and made some stay there And by his coming down again he explaineth his going forth from the Father his Ascending into Heaven his being in Heaven If this be Interpreting what is Perverting Sixthly Whereas in the end of this first-Conference the Author himself speaks as a third Person and a Romanist and raises a doubt about the certainty any Man can arrive at in having rightly used his Industry I would only ask him Whether a Man cannot be as sure of his industry in consulting his Reason and the Scriptures as in attending on Councils Fathers Decrees of Popes and the Method of the Major part of Church-Governors in the Universal Church of all Ages For the Argument of the Second Conference this is the Substance of it THE Socinians Plead that they ought not to receive the Article of the Divinity of Christ from the Major part of Church-Governors That it was not originally in the Creed That no Article ought to be receiv'd from Church-Authority till Men are convinc'd that it is grounded on the Scripture which Conviction they want Now unless the Church were Infallible in all she determin'd or at least in distinguishing those necessaries in which she cannot err from Points which are not of such necessity she cannot justifie her self in putting her Definitions into a Creed Protestants not withstanding they own the Article of Christs Divinity and urge the whole Creed into which it is put do yet argue after the manner of the Socinians against Church-Authority and plead the Scripture as their Ground and a necessity of Conviction therefore whilst they continue this kind of Plea they cannot by Church-Authority either justifie themselves or confute their Adversaries All this reasoning may be confuted by these distinct Answers 1. We have no need of confuting Arians and Socinians by Church-Authority seeing we can do it more effectually out of the Scriptures and if they say that the Scriptures are on their side their saying so does not alter the Nature of Truth And the Romanists allow that they say not true and they may be confuted when they are not silenc'd Protestants decline not a disputation with Socinians by the Rule of Primitive Church-Authority But if they undervalue this rule it is discretion in Protestants to debate the matter with them in a way which they themselves best like of seeing that is also a more certain as well as a more speedy way to Victory 2. Protestants do not well understand what Romanists mean by Church-Authority for some of their Doctors can by a new figure of their own make a part and the whole of the Church to be the same They do not think that the present Major part of Church-Governors throughout the Church can be their Rule because the People cannot always know which is that Part or that it ought to be their Rule because in some Ages the Minor part is the wiser and better Let not the Roman Church be griev'd at this as said from me Vincentius Lirinensis said it long ago that in the Arian times there was a general darkness even over the face of the Latin Church In the mean time they are made to suppose by this Author what they do not suppose that the judgment of the Catholick Church is not Infallible in judging what points are necessary what are not For though this or that Church or party of Christians may fail yet all cannot at once for then the Church