Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	holy_a	scripture_n	tradition_n	3,735	5	9.1394	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47422	Mr. Blount's oracles of reason examined and answered in nine sections in which his many heterodox opinions are refuted, the Holy Scriptures and revealed religion are asserted against deism & atheism / by Josiah King ...	King, Josiah.	1698 (1698)	Wing K512A; ESTC R32870	107,981	256

Leviathan are Demonstrations Pag. 98. Constantine at first espoused the Arrian Interest to mount the Throne as the present Lewis the XIV did the Interest of the Hugonots ANSWER What ground or Authority our Immortal Deist might have for this His Assertion I do not know I believe it is a Dream of His own I am confident no Chronologer of any repute could affirm so great a Falsity nothing is more notorious both in Ancient and Modern History than that Constantine mounted the Throne before Arius himself much less the Arians made any considerable figure in the World Perhaps the odium He thought might reflect on Constantine by the Comparison of Lewis the XIV prompted Him to commit so palpable an Error Had there been any truth in this Imputation it cannot be imagined that the Arian Historian Philosorgius would have past it in silence who only says That when Constantius was dead and buried that Constantine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Connstantine was His Successor in the Empire Pag. 98. If you will believe the Learned Petavius and other Arians they did offer to be try'd by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council ANSWER Petavius is a late Author and unless he brings Proof for what he says he is not to be relied on in historical Matters of so remote Antiquity Sandius in his Nucleus Hist Eccles p. 256. cites our Bishop Taylor to the same purpose viz. That the Arians appealed to the Fathers for Trial and that the Offer was declined To which our learned Dr. Gardiner in the Appendix ad Nucleum makes this Answer Ego vero a reverendi Tayleri manibus venia petita fateor me Socratis Zozomeni verbis potius assenteri c. I for my part am forced to beg Bishop Taylor 's Pardon and do confess that I assent rather to Socrates and Sozomen who report the contrary Which Answer is good and valid The Bishops that lived in those Days were far enough from declining Trial by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council that they desired nothing more The Arians were the Men as Socrates says lib. 5. c. 10. that trusted to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They were the Men that refused the Judgments of the Ancients and defended themselves by Niceties and Disputations And to the same purpose Sozomen lib. 7. c. 12. I will cite two or three Authorities more which will make this thing so very plain that nothing but reading Fathers at second hand and too great Credulity can apologize for Mr. Blount Athanasius is known to be a Bishop who made as great a Figure in the Church as any one in his time a Man of great Learning and exemplary Piety and one that was as well acquainted with the Methods that the Orthodox and Arians made use of as any Man could possibly be This great Athanasius in his Book of the Decrees of the Nicene Synod says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold we have demonstrated this our Opinion from Fathers to Fathers as they delivered the same to us But for your parts O new Jews and Disciples of Caiaphas What Fathers can you produce that are Fautors of your Heresies Truly ye cannot bring so much as one of the number of those who were accounted Prudent and Wise all such detest you Ye can alledge none but your Father the Devil who was the sole Author of this Heresie and Defection from the Truth Alexander Bishop of Alexandria a Person in nothing inferior to Athanasius one that had all the Qualifications desireable in a good Prelate In an Epistle of his to Alexander Bishop of Constantinople as we find it in Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History Book the first Chapter fourth says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You Arians have so good Opinion of your selves as that you think none of the Ancients are worthy to be compared to you Neither will ye endure that those who in my younger Days were esteemed as our Guides and Masters should upon any Terms be equalled to you Neither will ye grant that any of our present Colleagues have any competent Knowledge of these Controversies Ye think your selves to be the only wise Men and that although ye have nothing yet ye enjoy all things You boast that you alone are the finders out and possessors of Truth and that to you such Mysteries are revealed and kept from other Men. By which Words Alexander of Alexandria signifies that the Arian Sentiments were repugnant to the Doctrine of the most ancient Fathers to the Doctrine of his immediate Predecessors and of all those Bishops who had the Government of the Church when this unhappy Arian Heresy began He signifies also that the first Defenders of Arianism were Enthusiasts and pretenders to extraordinary Revelation To these two I will only add St. Austin who treating of the blessed Trinity at large in fifteen Books in his first Book Chapter the 3d. he delivers his Mind as fully and as much to the purpose as either of the two before quoted Thus he says Omnes quos legere potui qui ante me scripserunt de Trinitate divinorum librorum vetorum novorum Catholici tractatores hoc intenderunt secundum Scripturas docere quod pater filius spiritus sanctus unius ejusdemque substantiae inseparabili aequalitate divinam insinuent unitatem All the Authors that I have met with who have written before me of the holy Trinity all the Orthodox Writers and Commentators of the Divine Books of the Old and New Testament proposed this to themselves to prove that according to the Holy Scriptures the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost have one and the same Substance which includes a Divine Unity with an inseparable Equality This last Testimony of St. Austin is very remarkable and as comprehensive as the most zealous Trinitarian could desire And from hence we cannot but observe how blameworthy some very learned Men of the Roman Communion have been who though they sincerely believe the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity yet by affirming either by mistake or design that this heavenly Doctrine cannot be proved by Scripture nor by the Fathers that preceded the Nicene Council but only by unwritten Tradition they have given great advantage to the Antitrinitarian to triumph and have confirmed them in their Heterodox Opinion nempe hoc vult Ithacus magno mercantur Achivi Pag. 98. For at that Council the Arians were rather condemn'd by a Party than by the General Consent of the Christian Church because Constantine out of above two Thousand Bishops then Assembled excluded all but Three hundred and Eighteen nor were those perhaps for Accounts vary all Bishops that made up this great Council ANSWER This is a heavy Charge against the Nicene Council it had been but reasonable that the Immortal Deist should have showed the Grounds which he had for this Accusation No Truth nor Innocence can be sufficient if an Accusation goes for Proof He that should read the ancient View of Bishopricks in Aubertus Miraeus or the Sacred

this Reply Quis nescit Vocabulum omnis passim in Sacris Literis ambiguae esse significationis rarissime absolute accipi plurimis vero locis restringi ad subjectum de quo agitur Vt apud Mosem Gen. 41. Cum famem super Vniversam Orbem invaluisse scrib●t non nisi de aliqua orbis portione intelligendum esse fatentur Theologi quid abstat igitur quo minus cum Deus d●citu● Inundasse Vniversam Terram totam Terr●m habitatam Omma haebitatae telluris animalia intelligamus Who is so Ignorant as not to know that the Word all is every where in the Holy Scriptures of an ambiguous signification and very seldom put absolutely in most places 't is restained to the Subject Matter As in Gen. 41. When the Famine is said to prevail over the whole Earth Divines understand it of some part of the Earth What should hinder but that the same may be understood in this case of the Flood and the destruction of all Creatures This is most certain from the Holy Scriptures That all Mankind those in the Ark excepted were destroyed by the Flood For the occasion thereof is thus expressed in Genesis And God saw the wickedness of Man was great upon the Earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually and the Lord said I will destroy Man whom I have created from the face of the Earth And again all Flesh died thot moved upon the Face of the Earth and every Man and every living Substance was destroyed that was upon the Face of the Ground both Man and Cattle and the Creeping things and the Fowl of Heaven and they were destroyed from the Earth and Noah only remained alive and they that were with Him in the Ark. So that Mr. Blount is very vain in Mustering up the Arguments he pretends to be brought to prove that the Flood was only in the Land of the Jews And Vossius seems to be in a great Error in limiting the same to Syria and Mesopotamia For as it seems strange that in so short an Interval as that was from Adam to the Flood according to the ordinary Computation 1656 Years and not much above Two thousand according to the largest the World should then be fully Peopled So it also seems no less strange that in such a space of time Syria and Mesopotamia should only be Peopled Besides it cannot be well imagined that so many Nations should have knowledg thereof if it were not of a much greater extent For Vossius confesseth that almost all Nations had knowledg thereof the Egyptians only excepted Josephus a Costa Witnesseth for the Americans and so doth Laet. Martinus for the Chineses for the knowledge of others Bochart in his Geogr. Sacra and Grotius in his Annotata on the First Book of the Truth of the Christan Religion And now we draw towards a Conclusion I shall not use any other Words then those which are used by the most Learned Dr. Stillingfleet now Lord Bishop of Worcester in his Origines Sacrae p. 539 and 540. I cannot see any urgent necessity from the Scripture to assert that the Flood did spread it self over all the surface of the Earth It is evident that the Flood was Vniversal as to Mankind but from thence follows no necessity at all of asserting the Vniversallity of it as to the Globe of the Earth unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole Earth was Peopled before the Flood which I dispair of ever seeing proved I grant as far as the Flood extended all Creatures were destroyed but I see no reason to extend the destruction of these beyond that compass and space of Earth where Men Inhabited All these are the Assertions of that great Man So that I suppose the vanity of Mr. Blount's Suggestion is apparant by this right the Notion of the Flood Pag. 12. I must ingeniously confess Original Sin was ever a difficult Pill with me to swallow my Reason stopping it in my throat and not having Faith enough to wash it down And p. 15. never did any Church enjoyn Penance or Repentance for Original Sin wherefore it seems preposterous and unreasonable that any Man should be Damned for that which no Man is bound to Repent ANSWER That Mr. Blount hath not Faith to wash down Original Sin which sticks in his Throat is a thing to be lamented this truth being so plainly laid down in Holy Writ that no Man who hath any regard for the Scriptures but will be offended with him for Writing so contemptably of this Doctrine The chief Argument which he brings for his opinion taken from Penance and Repentance is of no force But because I think t is new I will consider it In the Primitive Church Penance was only imposed for Three Crimes viz. Idolatry Homicide and Adultry which is proved at large by Morinus in his fifth Book de Penitentia cap. 3. out of Fathers and Councils and he concludes the Chapter thu To●●ig●●ur tantis Testimonis freti recte nobis videmur Colegere quadringentis prope annis a Christo nato Patres haec sola tria crimina Penitenta Cassigasse Trusting to so many Testimonies we think we may truly conclude that for almost Four Hundred Years after our Saviour no Penance was Imposed but only for these Three Crimes Now if Mr. Blount's Negative Argument with relation to the Practice of the Church be valid how many Men have lived in the World without Actual Sin So that his Argument proves too much a most certain sign of its Weakness As for the Second part of his Argument That no Church ever required Repentance for Original Sin is a mistake and proceeds from not knowing the Churches Practice In the Primitive Church Repentance was required of all adult Persons who desired Baptism which must relate to Original as well as Actual Sin Tertullian in his Book de Baptismo says Ingressuras Baptismum orationibus crebris jejuniis geniculationibus crebris pervigiliis orare aportet confessione omnium retro delectorum Such as intend to be Baptized must prepare themselves by frequent Prayers Fastings frequent Humiliations Watchings with Confession of all their Sins Agreeable to this ancient Practice our Church begins its Office of Baptism with the Confession of Original Sin in these Words Dearly beloved for as much as all Men are conceived and born in Sin and our Church prays for the Pardon of the same in these Words We call upon thee for these Infants that they coming to this Holy Baptism may receive Remission of their Sins by spiritual Regeneration And to the same purpose before Tertullian we have Justin Martyr in his second Apology where he says That those who were to be Baptised jejunare docentur nobis una cum illis orantibus jejunantibus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are required to Fast the Congregation also praying and fasting together with them Now the Church requiring all Catechumens to