Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	believe_v	church_n	interpretation_n	3,657	5	10.5181	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52605	An answer to Dr. Wallis's three letters concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.; Wallis, John, 1616-1703. Doctrine of the blessed Trinity briefly explained.; Wallis, John, 1616-1703. Second letter concerning the Holy Trinity.; Wallis, John, 1616-1703. Explication and vindication of the Athanasian creed.	1691 (1691)	Wing N1504; ESTC R7845	14,909	22

plainly insinuated by the Text and the rest of the Chapter I shall trace no further into these Scripture-Proofs because I have no further occasion from the Doctor and as for any body else I dare presume to say whatever the Doctor has done in taking it for granted that the Trinity is sufficiently proved by Scripture that there are Unitarian Books even lately extant that have sufficiently evidenced the falsity of his pretences and that not by means of wresting and forcing of Scripture-words and phrases but in construing them with all the integrity and fairness imaginable And the reason I have not troubled my self to repeat those things over again is that I am asham'd to see they have so little effect upon our Adversaries for to what end is it to run out into nice Controversies when men have the face to deny the most manifest first Principles However I hope that this Reign and Tyranny of blindness will not last always I hope in time we shall meet with some men of that Courage and Sincerity as may countenance our Cause and rescue distressed Truth from her Suppressors I shall now draw towards a Conclusion and as I have hitherto taken care to avoid the Errors of my Adversary in refuting them so I now shall do him that Justice as to acknowledge he writes with a Charity like a Divine and though he is in an Error yet 't is with so much Softness Generosity and Charity that his very Enemies cannot rebuke him for want of it I cannot say whether the first Composers of the Athanasian Creed were of his mind or not and whether they intended the Damnatory Sentences with his Limitations but whether they did or no which I must confess I am very apt to question they ought to have done so and wherein they did otherwise they were to blame Indeed 't is an Enthusiastick Doctrine to damn unbaptized Infants the invincibly ignorant all before Christ Fools Madmen as our rigid Trinitarians have too often done I think Dr. Wallis has done what ought ever to be reverenced In short the Doctor in this has shewn himself so good a Man that methinks I cannot but envy his Party that he is against us But it may be questioned possibly why have I wrote against him then if I had such a Respect for him I say not in resentment to him so much for he has the Charity of an Angel but least that others relying on his strength of Reasoning should embrace his Argument without his Charity or else I could be content that the Doctor or any man should enjoy Opinions so Innocent to themselves For my part I am glad to hear such healing words as that men have abused the Damnatory Sentences as that there is no Anathema to the Greek Church or the sincere of any Perswasion let it be as he says in an extraordinary way or as he pleases in short the Principle on whatever it is grounded is Heavenly and breaths the true Method to Peace Unity and Concord whereas the contrary censures as he himself excellently observes were enough to make the Creed too formidable to be approv'd of p. 21. third Letter Therefore without examining further into this matter for I shall never discourage Charity and therefore I say let the Damnatory Sentences be annexed to the generals of the Creed or otherwise for it shall never concern me I say there is but one thing herein wherein I have reason to be concerned in at what he says and that is that he should tack his Damnatory Sentence to an explanation of the Church and not rather to the Scriptures themselves Nor do I write this that even in this case too he has not left room for the invincibly Ignorant but only that I am sorry to see him so much to countenance a meer humane Imposition in forreign and unscriptural Words as Trinity in Unity whatever they signifie plainly are And therefore hence it is that I desire to be excus'd to put a difference between he that believeth not shall be damn'd in the Scripture and he that believeth not a Trinity in Unity shall be damn'd by the Athanasian Creed for surely any Man may be justly excus'd that puts a difference between the direct Word of God and the Traditions and Interpretations of Men and if so there may be just cause to disallow the parallel and as long as we stick cordially and sincerely to the Scripture not to confine our selves to any particular Man's I may say Church's Interpretation whatever Indeed this slip or oversight in the Doctor almost makes me admire at it for when a Man has reason'd so candidly and fairly as he has done rejected the little prejudices of Quotations acknowledg'd our uncertainty in understanding the Idea's of Scripture words nay granted us that disputableness that there has been Whether the Creed itself were Athanasius ' s or not I say when a Man can be so candid generous and charitable in his Reasoning as to grant us That the word Person the hinge of the Controversie is at least to us uncertain and at best but metaphorical and that it is no guilty ignorance not to define it and that 't is the harshness of the Idea of it that confounds us p. 62. Third Letter I say when a Man has gone so much further as even to blame the Fathers for not admitting these words without adequate Idea's and defining them as he has done p. 4 First Letter I say when he has done thus methinks I wonder how he can justifie their enforcement and plead for what he himself at the same time by an oversight condemns These in short are my Sentiments of the Doctor 's Book and if the World think them fair and honest let them cherish them accordingly and in the mean time let us all be ready and willing not to let these Controversies be lost upon us but endeavour by them to recover or vindicate the Truth as she shall appear to us I must confess some Men make light and sport of this Dispute as if it were but of a Trifle or a Ceremony but when they come into another World they may know that this is a Controversie of weight that God is jealous of his Honour and that he does not love his Creatures to be set up to Rival him and tho' in his Mercy he may bear with us in such things the better to draw us if possible to him any other way yet then we shall know 't is not trifling to vilifie the God of Heaven to rob him of his Honour and to give it to his Dependants thô never so excellent The God of all Grace grant therefore that these things may so sink into Mens Minds that they may no longer persist in such Evils and that they may let us all with one accord address our selves to his Almighty Throne I say let us never cease to sollicite him with our Prayers and Tears thro' his dearest Son Christ Jesus Amen Glory be to the Father thro' the Son and by the Holy Ghost FINIS Nota These Quotations and the Texts as they relate to the Socinians I do not meddle with out leave them to his learned Adversary before the Socinian to handle them

weak as to have quarrelled at him for distorting the signification of the word but we should have turn'd to Arguments to prove the thing we should only have desired him to have thrust in Iupiter Bacchus Venus c. into the Office with them and we should have been content and let him take the Idea as he pleases Nor does this very Notion fail of opening my Eyes more neither for now methinks I understand why it is we say that we have but one God in Natural Religion that is we have but one Council of Gods personal who having all power among them and always agreeing never contradict one another and consequently manage all things with the same Rule of Providence and there is no power besides sufficient to oppose them But if this be our Adversaries Idea as it must be if they make the Word God to signifie an Office and not a Person as is necessarily inferr'd from saying there are many Persons in the Godhead I say if this be our Adversaries Idea they would do well to speak it out more plainly that the World may no longer remain in darkness and that we may have the fairer occasion given us to set them in a better way if this be wrong Nor shall my Adversaries confused Notion of the word Person obstruct my reasoning in this case by his Artful falling from the proper signification of the word to call it a somewhat for if there be any regard to be had to Scripture I shall shew by and by that the Trinity are Persons as really as properly and as fully personally distinct as three Angels and if so I hope the Doctor will not therefore leave his Rule of Faith because it turns Unitarian against him But before I proceed further there seems to be two Objections that present themselves from the Doctor and 't is fit we should make our way plain says he p. 9. first Letter 't is hard to conclude an impossibility in the Nature of God right so it is but the Doctor is mistaken that is not what we pretend to we endeavour to make his first Commandment and his Unity sense and methinks a sincere Man till he is able to do that will have but little reason to value the rest and less material subsequent Revelation And methinks here our Adversaries should be ashamed to charge us as they do that we stick to Chymera Idea's of Impossibility and disregard Scripture for pray what Scripture shall we regard in competition with this Commandment written by the Finger of God and one of the only Precepts he himself immediately delivered Did our Adversaries deal ingenuously with us they would shew us where this Commandment is solemnly abrogated or explained and not by blind Implications thus tear up the very Roots of Revelation methinks I cannot but blush for them when I read their charging us thus unjustly but I hope 't is in their Ignorance and God forgive them for it The second Objection is That our Absurdity in denying the Trinity is like theirs who deny the Resurrection Page 6. Letter 1. Alas what will not mistaken Zeal alledge we neither deny the Scriptures nor the Power of God which they that deny the Resurrection must indeed we can rather believe that God can make us almost infinitely more glorious And what we deny is neither the Power of God nor the Scriptures our Case is we are afraid of Idolatry we only beg the priviledge of understanding how to keep the Commandments and surely if we are jealous that we are in any Errour about them we may have leave innocently to examine it till we either have or give satisfaction In short Dr. Wallis might as well have compar'd us to Man-eaters for if there is any thing common in our offences 't is perversness and a blindness against Conscience and in that the Man-eaters are as much guilty as the Unitarians and therefore I think he had done as well if he had compared us to them only indeed in this the Man-eaters would not serve his turn they would not cast so black a Reflection as the other does by their false and unjust Inferences Nor is this the first time that even the best of our Adversaries have shewn their uncharitableness to us nor is this the least footsteep of it that I find even in Dr. Wallis thus he seems to insinuate a general aspersion upon us That we believe not Angels 1 Letter page 16. so that the Socinians reject the Scriptures tho' not barefac'd yet on the slight inference of their impossibilities Page 5 8. Letter 1. Indeed he would seem to insinuate he has a little more Charity for some Unitarians but I would fain know whether that general Imputation be not a ground for a particular Offence for is it not to begin with Calumnies I shall not say the Doctor has no better Arguments then such Topicks of Prejudice but methinks if he has he might let those alone which are more likely to harden then convince us I cannot presume he has so mean a design as to set up our Opinions like a Scarecrow and then make sport by pelting of them and yet whether he designs so or no that must be the effect of the Basis of an Opinion so expos'd I am not concern'd that he cannot think us Orthodox Christians Page 1. Letter 1. or that he can say Socinus or any other Author has dropt imprudent words tho' I must confess some of those he has quoted against him no Protestant I should think should be angry with him for Page 45. Letter 3. but I am concern'd at his general uncharitable Charges Page 48. Letter 3. that he should say That we will not believe even what God says Letter 1. Page 19. I am sure a Refiection he would very unwillingly bear if flung upon the Trinitarians in destroying the first Commandment And just such another Answer I think I may justly pass on those Passages of his where he as good as declares us Reprobates as where he tell us If any man list to be contentious c. but the humble God will teach Page 20. Letter 1. so bearing ye shall not hear c. Page 55. Letter 3. so Page 58. Letter 3. That our bottom reason against the Trinity is because it is Nonsense I should be unwilling I say to retort all this upon Dr. Wallis and yet if I should have I not as just a cause for it as ever he had yes surely I have but my Charity forces to hope the best to think the best that Truth has not yet approach'd him in full light that otherwise certainly he would have embrac'd it and that if he is in any Errour whether he or his Fellow Trinitarians I say 't is through Ignorance or Mistake Not that I write this that God doth not harden some neither but who shall judge who they are who shall say just such a Sect When we condemn just such a Principle we know not what we do and we

shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you All things that the Father hath are mine therefore said I that he shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you a little while c. Now would I fain appeal to any Man whatever with what words can a compleat distinction of Personation I mean of such a Personation as is in Men and Angels more plainly be set forth and that both in the Son and Holy Ghost For first Doth not this Text demonstrate each Person to be compleat and entire in himself And secondly Does it not shew them so distinct and separate also that they plainly rely upon one another for information I say after this what colour can there be for any Man as my Adversary has done to destroy as good as the very Personality of the Trinity under pretence of not defining I say does not this look shrewdly suspicious that he twisted this Idea to support the unaccountable Illustrations of his Simile Besides this I might add many other Texts but as this is sufficient and as Scripture-proof is not the main Argument so I shall pass them by at present only this I must tell the Doctor that whenever he shall please to command them they shall be ready and at his Service Having therefore clear'd this general difficulty of his I shall now proceed to his particular Texts but yet not without this previous Observation 'T is strange that so known a Truth as the Mystery of the Trinity is presumed to be should be necessitated at every turn to be thus supported by a new quirk as it is Dr. S finds a loop-hole in Self-consciousness and Dr. Wallis having destroy'd the Distinction of Personation thunders in upon us by the three sides of a Cube but to leave their dreadful Machines and to return to the particular Texts One Text the Doctor alledges against us is That we are baptized in the Name of Christ pag. 60. Third Letter But as to that methinks he has been so often answered that it has been only as our Spiritual Governours and that even by the very Scripture interpretation of it 1 Cor. 12. that I admire how he can insist on it A second Text is Iohn 10. 30. to which may be added also 1 Iohn 5. 7. But whatever the Doctor pretends these Texts so wholly tend to a Unity in Harmony and not in Essence which is so contrary to the same phrase in like case in Scripture Iohn 17. that that Doctor must excuse me if I tell him he can require no better Answer and he must farther give me leave to tell him that what he writes in Apology for the genuineness of the latter Text is by no means sufficient for however he may asperse the Arrians with that Forgery that has been the sole Prerogative of their Enemies yet there is no ground for it that Text ha ving been all along so supicious that many Copies have had it only in the Margent and not in the Text which is no sign the Transcribers should ever have omitted it in forgetfulness or negligence Another Text he cites is Rom. 9. 5. God over all blessed for ever Right and did the Doctor ever know a Unitarian especially an Arrian deny him that Character Indeed we are apt to clog the Title with that limitation the Scriptures themselves have given it to wit But unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever a Scepter of righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdom thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity and therefore God even thy God has anointed thee with the oyl of gladness above thy fellows viz. Angels in the Context Heb. 1. But under that restriction we can be as liberal of the Title of God to Christ as any Trinitarian whatever Nor will all the Art the Doctor has be able to bring him over this rub for surely Scripture must interpret Scripture and if it must this great Chapter which is purposely writ to declare the superiour Nature of Christ must needs confound him and set up Arrianism in his stead nor in this case will it excuse him to pretend the Humanity of Christ here is spoke of for what is the Humanity of Christ called God Is the Humanity preferred before Angels or did the Humanity frame the Worlds Surely the Orthodox cannot dote so if they can't let them ingenuously acknowledge that this is an over-ruling Text for the whole Divinity of Christ till they shall instance a plainer to illustrate it Another Text is Matth. 4. 10. to shew we ought to worship Christ and that from the words of Christ to Satan when he tempted him Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve whereas that Text alas was design'd quite for another purpose that is it was an answer whereby Christ signified to Satan that he did know his Duty to be to worship the Lord his God only and not Satan To be short there is no other Text he has alledg'd but what deserves no Answer unless it be his excellent Art of turning Iohn 17. 3. and 1 Cor. 8. 4 5 6. p. 51. 53. third Letter viz. This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent Wherein the Doctor by his Criticism as well as in the other Text would fain perswade us that the sole Deity of the Father is not contain'd in it but alas his Allegations are such that he might as well say neither Father nor Son are the true God and pretend that to know Thee viz. the Father is one Person the only true God a second and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent a third In short this is so plain an Artifice that methinks when the Doctor considers it he will not for shame for the future think that we abuse Scripture more than himself But before I quite leave this Subject there is another Text that my Adversary insists upon to wit the first of St. Iohn In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God Now I say though the Doctor in this case may think hard of the Socinians yet as he writes against the Arrians too he ought to leave a little room for their sense which is may I say doubly more rational and agreeable to Scripture too than the Doctor 's I would fain ask the Doctor Does this Text insinuate that these two Gods to wit the Father and the Word are one or does it not rather acquaint us they are two and separate If so does not the Text I have already repeated in the first of the Hebrews plainly declare the difference between these two Gods to wit that the first is the Original Fountain of Power and all things that the other is but by him exalted but yet as preferr'd before the very Angels that God and Son by whom the God of all not only fram'd all things as by an Instrument but redeem'd them also as 't is