Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	father_n	person_n	trinity_n	2,522	5	9.8786	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38042	Socinianism unmask'd a discourse shewing the unreasonableness of a late writer's opinion concerning the necessity of only one article of Christian faith, and of his other assertions in his late book, entituled, The reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures, and in his vindication of it : with a brief reply to another (professed) Socinian writer / by John Edwards ...	Edwards, John, 1637-1716.	1696 (1696)	Wing E214; ESTC R3296	60,720	171

Noted by us as that which gives great light in the present case The discovery of the Doctrines of the Gospel was Gradual It was by certain steps that Christianity climb'd to its heighth We are not to think then that all the Necessary doctrines of the Christian Religion were clearly publish'd to the world in our Saviour's time Not but that all that were necessary for that time were published but some which were necessary for the succeeding one were not then discover'd or at least not fully They had ordinarily no belief before Christ's Death and Resurrection of those Substantial Articles i. e. that he should die and rise again but we read in the Acts and in the Epistles that these were Formal Articles of Faith afterwards and are ever since necessary to compleat the Christian Belief so as to other Great Verities the Gospel increased by degrees and was not Perfect at once Which furnishes us with a reason why most of the Choicest and Sublimest Truths of Christianity are to be met with in the Epistles of the Apostles they being such doctrines as were not clearly discover'd and open'd in the Gospels and the Acts. Thus I have I conceive amply satisfied the foregoing Objection and I hope the Reader is convinc'd of the True Grounds why we must not expect all Necessary Points of Christianity in the Writings of the four Evangelists If our present Writer had thought of this and had distinguish'd of Times he had not formed such an Ill Notion of Christianity as we find he hath done But it is not only upon Mistake that this Author proceeds his fault is much worse It is too apparent that by this Abbreviating of Christianity and by his voluntary neglecting what the Epistolary Writings deliver he designs to exclude those Fundamental Doctrines which have been owned as such in the Church of Christ. So much for the First General Head which I propounded to insist upon CHAP. VI. The next General Charge against him is that the Texts of Scripture which respect the HOLY TRINITY are disregarded by him or interpreted after the Anti-Trinitarian Mode This is proved from plain Instances The latter more especially is evidenced from his interpreting the Messias and the Son of God to be the very same as to signification and that no more is denoted by one term than by the other The Weakness of the Socinian Arguing on this occasion fully laid open and the Texts where these terms are mentioned plainly cleared A Text produced and urged that confutes the vain surmises of the Racovians about those expressions and that reduces them to an unavoidable Absurdity The Messias is a Title of Christ's Office The Son of God is the Title of his Divinity The former is founded on his Mission from the Father The latter on his Peculiar Property as he is the Second Person in the Sacred Trinity and consequently they are not synonymous terms The Gentleman would wind in two Learned Prelates but his attempt proves ineffectual He is given to Shuffling He abuses Scripture by quoting it MY next Charge against this Gentleman was this that those Texts of Scripture which respect the Holy Trinity were either disregarded by him or were interpreted by him after the Antitrinitarian Mode And this he is so far from denying that he openly avows it Vindic. p. 22 23. By which he hath made it clear that he espouses that doctrine of the Socinians When I had offer'd those two plain Texts Mat. 28. 19. Iohn 1. 1. to prove the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity he takes no care to give any Resolution about them though he was absolutely oblig'd to do it because those Texts are not in the Epistles but in the Gospels out of which latter he saith he made his Collection of Articles but he should rather have said and that with Truth out of which he drew One Article Nay which is more strange though he particularly mentions p. 9. my taking notice of his omitting these Texts in his Treatise nay though he sets them down at large in his Vindication yet he hath the confidence to run presently to another thing and he shifts it off by one impertinent matter or other and faith not one syllable with reference to those Famous Texts which are such remarkable testimonies to the doctrine of the Trinity Who could do this but a Socinianiz'd Writer And who could do this but a man that was wholly careless of his Credit and did not care how he acted And this very thing doth moreover shew that this Author let him pretend what he will is as great a despiser of the Gospels when any thing in them doth not serve his turn as he is of the Epistles This will perpetually stick upon him and he will never be able to wipe it off If ever he accounts for this he must at the same time make an acknowledgment of his crazy memory and of something worse Again as it is evident that he rejects the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity so more especially and particularly he waves that of the Deity of our Saviour Which appears from this that he justifies the Charge against him viz. that he made these terms the Messias and the Son of God the very same as to Signification p. 23. Vindic. Which is the very thing that Slichtingius and other Racovians insist upon and make a great stir about And herein they write after their Master who largely pursues this Argument for so he reckons it to be viz. that there is no difference between the Name Christ or Messias and that other the Son of God He alledges the very same Text that our Vindicator doth and some others He argues from Matt. 16. 16. compared with Luk. 9. 20. Thou art Christ the Son of the living God saith the former place Thou art the Christ of God faith the latter therefore Christ and the Son of God are not only the same person but these two expressions signifie the very same thing and no more What a weak and pitiful Consequence is this For it is grounded on this absurd bottom namely that when any of the Evangelists speak about the same matter if one of them adds some words yea some material Passages which are not in the other these must be reckoned to be the very same with what the other said though they were utterly omitted by him Then we may argue thus St. Matthew saith Christ began to preach and to say Repent Mat. 4. 17. St. Mark saith He preach'd the Gospel saying Repent ye and believe the Gospel Mark 1. 14 15. therefore Repenting and Believing are the same and there is no difference between them Would not a Man be hooted at for such Arguing as this Yet this is the very Reasoning of our Racovian and of this late Proselyte of theirs In one Evangelist he saith our Saviour is called Christ in another the Son of God therefore the denominations of the Son of God and Christ are identified Again they endeavour to prove

They acknowledg that Some few Verses in several Chapters of the Four Evangelists and the Acts are matter of Faith or Religion but they do not cry the Bible the Bible the Bible they do not think that All and Every one of the Fundamental Truths in the Whole Scripture are the necessary matter of our Belief Thus I think this Reverend Scribe might have spared the quoting of Mr. Chillingworth unless he delights in confuting himself and his New Convert Afterwards he nibbles at some other passages in my Discourse but flies off into Impertinencies Only one thing I meet with that is very Remarkable and I request the Reader to attend to it There are saith he some that-of Deists have been reconciled to the Christian faith by the Vnitarian books and have profess'd much satisfaction therein p. 42. You may perceive that they are making of Proselytes as fast as they can and among the rest some Deists come in to them and so as the Apostle speaks of Seducers and those that are Seduced 2 Pet. 2. 20. the latter end is worse with them than the beginning for whereas before they owned a Natural Religion now they become guilty of perverting and prophaning a Revealed one They are so far from being reconciled to the Christian Faith that they oppose and contradict it and even defie the Main Articles of this Religion which is owing to Divine Revelation Such Converts as these have no reason to profess much satisfaction in the Vnitarian books unless Corrupting the Christian saith be to be chosen before plain Theism To speak the plain truth and it is the design of these Papers to do so and that which every Thinking and Considering Man cannot but discern the Socinians are but the Journey men of the Deists and they are set on work by them for these latter hope to compass their Design which is to impair the Credit of the Christian Religion and of those Inspired Writings which give us an account of it they hope I say effectually to compass this design by the help of such Good Instruments as they find the Socianiz'd Men to be You see then what ground this Gentleman hath to think that the Deists are Proselytes to the Vnitarians Then he proceeds to make a long harangue about the Obscurity of Systematical Fundamentals p. 44. c. but never was poor Creature so bewildred as he is Only he happily lights upon the Quakers p. 44 45. where it is worth observing that the man doth not know his Friends from his Foes nor these from them He rails against this sort of men who he saith would be counted the only People of God and yet it is certain that they are his brethren Socinians They utterly disown the Scripture as the Rule of Faith he saith and doth not our late Socinian Writer symbolize with them when he declares that the Divine Truths contained in the Epistles of the Holy Apostles which are a considerable part of Scripture are not the Necessary matter of Faith He complains that the Quakers turn the Gospel into an Allegory but the foremention'd Author doth much worse for he represents the greatest Part of the Gospel-discoveries as Superfluous and Needless In giving us the farther Character of the Quakers he in lively colours represents the Socinians for these are his words concerning them Retaining still the words wherein the Christian Faith is expressed though in an Equivocal Sense they have made a shift to be reputed generally Christians Certainly there could not be a better Pourtraiture of the Racovian Writers for it is known that they are crafty and sophistical and quote Scripture only to pervert it They acknowledg Christ to be God and an Expiatory Sacrifice but they mean it Equivocally they quit the true sense of Scripture though they retain the words and by reason of this latter have made a shift as this Author speaks to pass for Christians These men whatever some few English Writers of the Racovian way hold of late exactly side with the Quakers in crying down of Water-Baptism for so they both call it in derision In the Grand Point of the Trinity they both concur i. e. to reject it witness W. Pen's Sandy Foundation by which he means the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity In a quibbling manner wherein he shews both his Ignorance and Blasphemy he thus speaks If God as the Scriptures testifie hath never been declared or believed but as the HOLY ONE then it will follow that God is not an HOLY THREE Neither can this receive the least prejudice from that frequent but impertinent distinction that he is One in Substance but Three in Persons or Subsistencies To which all Socinus's followers say Amen The same Gentleman derides the doctrine of Satisfaction and scoffingly calls the Asserters of it Satisfactionists and who knows not that Transylvania agrees here with Pensylvania The Man that suffer'd at Ierusalem is the Socinian as well as the Quakers Stile And generally as to the main things that relate to our Saviour they perfectly accord viz. in making nothing of them If Quakerism then be no Christianity as this our Writer reports it in the same place then we may with much more reason conclude that Socinianism is none By this it appears that Socinus and Fox are well met and that they are very Loving Friends But they must seem to disagree as here in this Gentleman's Papers Lastly let us see the wonderful hand of God in suffering this Unthoughtful Writer to produce a Paper written by a Iesuite in the late Reign entituled an Address c. And in this Address he saith he goes about to shew that the Scriptures commonly alledg'd for the Trinity admit of another sense He goes the same way in the Article of the Incarnation What! had he not enough of the Quaker but he must bring in the Iesuite And must he tell the world that the Iesuitical Writers take the part of the Socinians must he publickly give notice that they both carry on the same work and joyntly conspire to pervert the Scriptures in order to it For the credit of the Cause it had been better to have placed this under a former head and to have told the Reader that some Iesuites as well as some Deists are Converts to Socinianism But he hath blurted it out that Ignatius Loyola and Faustus Socinus were of kin Surely this Author must not be employ'd any more to write in defence of the Cause He must be no longer a Double-Column'd Writer they must look out for a man that is not so Open-hearted one that can handle his Weapon with more Cunning for this man hath stabb'd his own Cause But because this Writer in the beginning and towards the end of his Papers is pleas'd to use some words of Deference and Respect I will not be backward to return his Civility in the same kind by letting him know that I suppose him to be a Person of Ingenuity and Learning only I wirh he had