Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
nature_n father_n person_n unity_n 5,011 5 9.6196 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A25701 An apology for the Parliament, humbly representing to Mr. John Gailhard some reasons why they did not at his request enact sanguinary laws against Protestants in their last session in two letters by different hands. 1697 (1697) Wing A3552; ESTC R170358 34,745 43

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

as they can for their own Use without sending them to your Field of Honour Upon what pretence do you claim the Christian Privilege of marking Men out to destruction I suppose you will justify your self by saying that the Doctrine which you would have Penally established is contained in the Articles of the Church of England but to make good this Point 't will be necessary for you to show that the Convocation which drew up the 39 Articles were priviledged from Error and had a just Authority over the Faith of all Englishmen in their succeeding Generations But on the contrary 't is evident even to you as appeareth by your Complaint of the Increase of Arminianism that the present Clergy do very much vary from some Doctrines contain'd in the 39 Articles And have not the present Clergy in Convocation as much right to repeal as the former to declare Articles and may not a future Clergy declare contrary to the present so that were we as well built as the Antediluvian Patriarchs we were not like to reach their Years but must be forc'd to breath our last in your Field of Honour should the Parliament of every Age penally establish the Clergy-Opinions unless we could conform to their successive contrary Sentiments The Protestants agree with the Papists that the Word of God is the Rule of Faith the Difference is about the Interpreter of this Rule The Papists depend upon the Interpretation of Authority whilst the Protestants rely upon their own Reason with all the helps it can get for the Interpretation of Holy Scripture but do not submit to any Antient Writers besides the Inspired as Masters of their Faith And why should we do otherwise The Fathers had no more Right to interpret Scripture for themselves or future Generations than we have to interpret it for our selves or Successors or future Ages for themselves and those who shall come after them Upon these Principles I cannot see what Obligation lieth upon the present Parliament in 1697 from the Authority of the Convocation held Anno 1562 to establish the Articles so long since agreed upon under the penalty of Sanguinary Laws But suppose the Article of the Trinity the first of the 39 were established upon pain of Death I do not see any certain danger that will from thence arise to the Unitarians The Article is this There is but one Living and True God Everlasting without Body Parts or Passions of infinite Power Wisdom and Goodness the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible and in Vnity of this Godhead there be three Persons of one Substance Power and Eternity the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Now the Unity and Nature of God with all his Attributes declared in the former part of this Article they are known to believe the Belief of the three Persons is the only thing they can be questioned upon And if their Trial should proceed upon the words contain'd in the latter part of the Article they are safe for by some of their late Prints I perceive that they for peace sake submit to the Phrase of the Church and expresly own three Persons c. tho they think the word Person not so proper as another word might be But if their Trial must proceed upon the Sense of this latter part of the Article the Event will be doubtful because 't will depend on the Judg his desining the word Person If the three Persons should be defined by three distinct Minds Spirits or Substances the Unitarian will be cast but if Person be defined by Mode Manifestation or outward Relation he will be acquitted and where is the Blasphemy in disowning three infinite distinct Minds and Spirits I pray consider who are those you call blasphemous Socinians whom you would put to death they believe all the Articles of the Apostles Creed which was heretofore thought a full and sufficient Summary of Faith they believe the Law of Christ contained in the 4 Gospels to be the only and everlasting Rule by which they ought to live here and by which they shall be judged hereafter 'T is the Principle of these Men to fear the Lord of Heaven and Earth and to walk humbly before him as likewise thankfully to lay hold on the Message of Redemption by Christ Jesus and they strive to express their Thankfulness by the Sincerity of their Obedience to the Law of Christ upon which account they are heartily sorry when they come short of their Duty and walk more watchfully in the denial of themselves holding no Correspondency with any Lust or known Sin 'T is their Principle to be just in their Actions charitable to all Men and sincere in their Devotions and to have their Hope and Conversation in Heaven Now suppose these Men after serious Consideration should not be convinced of a Trinity of Infinite Minds and Spirits each of which is a God and suppose they could believe nothing whereof they have no Idea 't is hard to revive the Writ de Haeretico comburendo for their sakes when they believe all things contained in the first Article of the Church of England and all the Articles contain'd in the Apostles Creed and sincerely endeavour to lead quiet and peaceable Lives in all godly Conversation and Honesty It may be after all you will say that the Socinians do not believe what is declared in the Gospel concerning the Trinity and Incarnation but rather oppose it and therefore their Doctrine is blasphemous and they deserve Death I confess this is the Pretence under which every Party of Christians when in Power destroys one another by turns Bonner said the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was plainly revealed in Scripture this Opinion of Bonner Latimer oppos'd and was therefore sent to the Field of Honour for what for denying Scripture says Bonner which expresly declares This is my Body Now in this particular Case every Protestant sees that Bonner's Accusation of Latimer for denying Scripture was but a meer Pretence to uphold his Power and cover his Malice Latimer own'd the Scripture as much as Bonner and believed the Divine Authority of that particular Expression This is my Body as much as he the Matter in difference was not the Text but the Interpretation which the one held to be literal the other figurative so that Latimer was not burnt for disbelieving the Scripture but for disbelieving and in words opposing that Interpretation of it which Bonner and the Roman Clergy gave out So Mr. Gailhard under the Banner of the Church of England may cite Texts of Scripture to prove his own Notion of the Trinity Incarnation c. and upon this he will charge the Unitarians with Blasphemy and an heretical Opposition to Holy Scriptures whereas the Unitarians are convinced of the Truth and Authority of the Scriptures as much as he is The Matter in difference is only this the Unitarians do not interpret the Scripture as he doth nor do they therefore infer from the Text so