Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	father_n	holy_a	son_n	5,346	5	6.2821	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40718	A parallel wherein it appears that the Socinian agrees with the papist, if not exceeds him in idolatry, antiscripturism and fanaticism / by Francis Fullwood ...	Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.	1693 (1693)	Wing F2513; ESTC R38752	24,721	38

and that is a very plain one and one would imagine beyond exception 'T is St. Stephen praying in these words Lord Jesus receive my Spirit Act. 7. 59. but behold the fineness of Fr. Davids Invention saith he 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be either the Genetive or the Vocative Case according to the usual art of Socinian reasoning it must be taken in that sence that will best serve a Turn tho' never so alien or contrary to the true interpretation and the Reason of the Context he must have it Lord of Jesus or else it will prove either that 't is Lawful to Worship our Saviour and to pray unto him or this first Martyr died with Idolatry in his mouth But this Criticism is not so fine as 't is forced and absurd The Learned observe that if Jesus had been the Genitive Case the Article would have been added 't would have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We find the same words Rev. 22. 20. and there they cannot bear the sence of the Genitive and must be understood in the Vocative Case But besides the ilness of the Grammer the harshness of the Sence and the Novelty of this rare discovery two or three things might abate the Authors confident boasting of this Invention The Syriac is beyond the reach of it Domine Noster Jesu Some Copies have it plainer yet and Read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O Lord Christ And their admired Grotius's gloss is utterly inconsistent with it Invocantem nempe Jesum Christum But why should I trouble my Reader any farther about this Ridiculous shift of David which you may find was long since exposed and baffled by Socinus himself in a very strenuous confutation of it which its Author David had never courage or skill enough to encounter again that I can find Now my Brethren consider 't is eternal Reason that Reliously to Worship any Creature is Idolatry but we have found it the common practice of the best men in Scripture thus Religiously to Worship our Saviour Christ it seems to follow clearly that either these Holy Men so doing were Idolaters or our Saviour Christ is more then a meer Creature that is he is the True God I know you will deny the First I heartily wish you would confess the Second it would be so far well betwixt us However you do not undertake to defend the part of Socinus from Idolatry more haynous then that of the Papists which I hope I have demonstrated sufficiently before CHAP. II. The Socinians Antiscripturist as truly as if not more then the Papists HAving ended our First Parrable betwixt the Socinian and Papist with respect to the Term of Worship we come next to compare them with respect to their Rule of Faith the Canonical Books of the Holy Scriptures Herein also they both concur viz. In their endeavours to undermine their Authority And when they think they have occasion so to do they lay this Rule aside and set up another of their own in the stead of it That the Papists do so the Socinians readily grant and that the Socians do like the Papists and exceed them therein is as easily demonstrated SECT I. The Papists vilifies the Holy Scripture 1. FOR the Papists the World is sensible enough how vilely they deal with this Rule of the Holy Scriptures and make them indeed as they sometimes call them A Nose of Wax and a Leaden Rule They take upon them to sence them as they please and use them only as Tools to serve a turn and little otherwise Sometimes they will admit nothing but the bare Words without any reasonable Construction of them when they would advance their Transubstantiation At other times when the proper and Litteral Sence is against them O then the Scripture is a Killing a Dead Letter and must receive its Life and Sense from their Churches Interpretation how wild and absurd soever it be to serve their Hypothesis Thus when they have disparaged sleighted and set aside the True Rule 't is no wonder they introduce and obtrude another Rule of their own devising which they do not only make equal with it but prefer before it I mean their Oral Tradition and the Authority of the Roman Church Yea when they seem to allow the Holy Scriptures any Authority they at the same time rob them of it by transfering that Authority to themselves their own Sence and Sentiments tho' diverse from and even contrary to the Letter or plain and obvious meaning of the Written Word SECT II. The Socinians vilifie the Scripture more then Papists WHile I have been speaking of the Papist I have given you but an imperfect draught and Character of a Socinian in this point Verily the Papist seems to be the honester of the two His is an open and down-right attacking and villifying those Holy Books while the Socinian doth it in disguise and wounds it deeper lies in its Bosom and stabbs it to the Heart and with splended Colours of Honouring and Arguments proving its Divine Original and Authority makes it utter Non-sense bad sense or any sence that their cause requires Now seeing these men in other things are Masters of a great deal of Reason it may be worth a Question whether their Writing so much for the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures be from a real Opinion of the Truth of it or only in pretence to serve their own purpose and varnish their designs For how is it possible if their Opinion of it were Real they should use it so slightly and after so trifling a manner as 't is pitty to see they do With how much gravity and solemn circumstances do they make the Word of God Felo de se not so much by opposing as by Apposing one part to another and by the idlest Phansies or an odd kind of skill peculiar to themselves make a weaker text take off the life and sense of a Stronger and by a likeness or sameness or neerness of expression when there is no other reason in the World for it to enervate the strength of the best Arguments it affords for the God-head of Christ and the Sacred Trinity To make this out beyond exception give me leave only to mention some Instances of it The mention only is shame and reproach enough one would think as well as confutation in the sense of an Indifferent or modest Man 1. When we prove Three Persons and each of them God from the great Commission for Propagating the Christian Church by Baptising in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost They gravely answer and would have us take it for a full Answer That 't is said the Israelites were Baptized into Moses and in the Cloud and that they believed in God and his Servant Moses 2. When we urge John 1. 1. In the beginning was the Word they reply that it must signifie the Beginning of the Gospel or New Creation And their

proof is because we read from the Beginning in that latter sence Luk. 1. 2. and 1 John 1. 1. 3. When to prove our Saviour's Incarnation we use the Apostles words Joh. 1. The Word was made Flesh they say we must not understand by Flesh there the Humane Nature but a State of Infirmity because in that sence the word Flesh is somewhere else to be understood 4. Where our Saviour tells us John 18. 28. That he and his Father are one They say that is they are one only in Will and Consent forsooth because our Saviour Prays Joh. 17. that his Disciples may be one as he and his Father are one i. e. Not in Nature but in mind and heart and this must be all the meaning of our Saviour in the place we have mentioned notwithstanding the obvious evidence of the Text to the contrary viz. That he and his Father are one in Power and consequently in Nature This is not only the general Sence of the Fathers that weighs little with Socinians but also of their admired Grotius and Erasmus whom they claim for their own Si pereant meâ infirmitate Patris potestas mea potestas my Fathers Power is my Power Grot. in Loc. Potentior est ad servandum Eras in Loc. 5. So our Lord Christ must be a God by Office only and not by Nature Why Because they find Kings and Magistrates are called Gods 6. When we read Col. 1. 16. That by Christ were Created all things that are in Heaven and that are in Earth whether visible and invisible whether they be Thornes c. all things were created by him and for him They restrain all this to the Second Creation or Reformation of Mankind and those great words signifies onely Men and Orders of Men on Earth Confounding Heaven and Earth visible and invisible denying any thing that looks against them and not sticking to say any thing that their Hypothesis seems to need 7. The Name Emmanuel with so much solemnity given by an Angel from Heaven to Christ doth not signifie the Union of the Divine and Humane Nature in him because others might have been called so before as since some have as Eniedine gravely instanceth in Emmanuel Tremelius These things are childish and Rediculous and deserve a severe Reflection not any serious confutation SECT III. Socinian Chriticisms in Articles THus the Socinians bandy the Scriptures one against another and 't is hard to think that they believe themselves to be in earnest while they are found Ludere cara sacris and impose such childrens play tho' never so solemnly upon the World especially if we consider their School-boys Criticisms and that with a little Point or a small Article they would weaken and destroy the Arguments of the greatest and strongest Texts in the Word of God against them wherein indeed the Arians lead them the way They are both of them confident that when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Father 1 Articles or the Supream God in Scripture it hath its Article always before it but when the Son is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 't is without an Article prefix'd to it A mighty fine observation this sufficient doubtless to evacuate one of the clearest and strongest Arguments for our Lords Divinity to distinguish the Natures of the Father and Son and to put a final end to this great Controversie tho' it hath no foundation in Reason or Grammer much less in the Holy Scripture as confident as they are Indeed they truly observe that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Joh. 1. 15. signified God the Father and the Article is prefixed But doth it follow that 't is always so within the compass of two or three verses afterwards they may see their Observation utterly undone viz. in ver 6. for there the Father is call'd God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an Article So likewise in Rom. 7. 1. the Son is Rom. 9. call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an Article And if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without an Article is found to signifie God the Father Why may it not signifie the God-head of the Son likewise tho' it have not an Article before it Erasmus on Rom. 9. 5. would help them to avoid the force of that great Text for the proof of our Lords Divinity with a Point which looks like Push-pin Divinity indeed Punctum post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vel post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 choose you whether But Erasmus himself confesseth that without these Nicities in Pointing all the Greek Copies have it as we read it and refers the Relative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Christ which is plainly more agreeable as the Learn'd observe both to the Scope of the Apostle and the Series of the words Besides 'T is worthy our observation that tho' Erasmus is not forward to own that Christ is here meant but thinks God here signifies and is to be taken vel pro totâ Triade vel persona Patris yet by the same Words he confesseth the Trinity and consequently the Deity of the Son as he doth afterwards more expresly on those two famous Texts Phil. 2. 6. and Heb. 1. 6. where these are his words upon the first of them q. d. Qui cum esset sit non usurpativus sed verus Deus non estimavit aequalitatem Dei sibi esse rapinam and on the Second Et etate praecedit quia aeternus dignitate quia Naturalis The Eternal and Natural Son of God which is enough to vindicate Erasmus from being either Arian or Socinian How ever some boast to the contrary we hereby see what credit is to be given them 'T is confessed Erasmus notes that St. Cyprian and Hillary omit the word Deus in Rom. 9. 6. Yet 't is concluded by the Learned that it was omitted not industriously by those eminent Fathers but in curia Librariorum res ipsa ostendit 't is evident it must be so Seeing both these Fathers cite this very Place as a plain proof that Christ is truly and properly God Vid. Pol. Synop. in Loc. SECT IV. The Socinians Enervate the Authority of Gods Word THey farther try their skill to loosen and weaken the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures by Enervating the Credit of the Gospel it self and making the Apostles if not the Lord Jesus too impertinent Sophisters while they Interpret the proofs the inspired Writing bring out of the Old Testament to confirm the New into meer Allusions and accomodations of Old Phraises or Expressions without any further force and use of them But this lays the Ax at the Root and is of such import and consequence that it deserves a larger consideration and reproof then my present design will conveniently permit SECT V. Socinians have another Rule of their own which they prefer above the Scripture WE have seen how perversly and vilely the Socinians treat the only Rule of the Christian Faith which yet will appear more egregiously by our Second Observation