Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	meaning_n	scripture_n	true_a	5,512	5	5.1038	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44140	Impar conatui, or, Mr. J.B. the author of an answer to the animadversions on the Dean of St. Paul's vindication of the Trinity rebuk'd and prov'd to be wholly unfit for the great work he hath undertaken : with some account of the late scandalous animadversions on Mr. Hill's book intituled A vindication of the primitive fathers ... : in a letter to the Reverend Mr. R.E. / by Thomas Holdsworth.	Holdsworth, Thomas.	1695 (1695)	Wing H2407; ESTC R27413	59,646	88

As for our Blessed Saviour he faith indeed St. John 17.3 This is Life eternal that they might know thee the only True God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent But doth it follow from hence that our Saviour appropriates this Title of only True God to the Person of the Father Never any Body that I can find made such an Inference but the worst of Hereticks and with them indeed nothing is more frequent He cannot I dare say name me one Heretick Author who denies the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity but what urges these Words of our Saviour to prove the very thing he contends for Parologismus Secundus isque Frequentissimus says Zanchy de Tribus Elohim par 2. c. 2. p. 382 383. est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quum scilicet argumentantur ex Scripturarum locis qui multiplicem possunt habere sensum Ipsi vero Haeretici illum arripiunt qui neque cum aliis Scripturis neque cum analogia Fidei est consentaneus Vt verbi gratiâ quum probant Solum Patrem ideo esse Illum Unum Deum c. quia dixit Christus haec est vita aeterna ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum quem misisti Jesum Christum Jo. 17.3 Now that what the Hereticks and Mr. J. B. contend for doth not follow from hence he thus goes on clearly to evince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est in his verbis Potest enim illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I shall translate his following Words exactly into English * Potest enim illud 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 referri ad Subjectum id est ad l'atrem ut sit sensus solum Patrem esse verum Deum vel ad Praedicatum ut sit sensus Patrem esse illum Deum verum qui iolus unus est Hic alter sensus meliùs convenit cum structura verborum consentancus est cum aliis Sacris Literis Neque enim propterea negatur Filius esse verus ille Deus qui solus unus est quia hoc ibi affirmatur de Patre Id quod etiam Thomas Aquinas observavit contra Gentil Lib. 4. c. 8. Deinde etiamsi admittatur Prima Lectio potest tamen bifariàm intelligi nempe aut Solum Patrem ita esse verum Deum ut excludatur Filius Spiritus sanctus Sed hic sensus cum aliis Scripturis non congruit Aut ut alia tantum omnia quae non sunt ejusdem cum Patre essentiae negentur esse Deus Atque hic sensus cum aliis Scripturis pulchrè convenit That Word only may be referred to the Subject that is to the Father so as that the Sense may be the Father only is the True God Or to the Predicate so as that the Sense may be the Father is that True God who is Alone and One. This latter Sense doth both better agree with the Contexture of the Words and is more agreeable with other places of Scripture And therefore it is not here denied that the Son is that True God who is alone and One because this is affirm'd here of the Father The very same hath Thomas Aquinas observ'd contra Gentil Lib. 4. c. 8. Again admitting the first Reading of the Words and then the meaning must be That the Father only is the True God either so as to exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost which is a Sense inconsistent with other places of Scripture or so as to deny all other things to be God which are not of the same Essence with the Father And this Sense doth exactly well agree with the other parts of Scripture Thus Zanchy loc supr Citat In this last Sense of Zanchy doth Vrsin determine That these Words of our Saviour are to be taken Amongst the various Sophisms which are brought by Hereticks against the True Divinity of the Son of God this he reckons for one of the chiefest And amongst the general Rules which he gives for answering Hereticks he gives us One particularly for the easie answering their Argument from those Words of our Saviour to prove that he is not the only True God which he says his Father is vid. Explicat Catechet par 2. sub Quaest 33. By his calling the Father the only True God non excluditur à vera Deitate Filius c. The Son is not excluded from being the True God but Idols and False Deities to which the Father the True God is oppos'd And a little after under the same Question having put the Heretical Objection from those Words of our Saviour for appropriating the Title of the Only True God to the Father which is the profess'd great Article of Mr. J. B's Creed he thus answers 1st 1. Ibi fit oppositio non Patris Filii Spiritus sancti fed Dei Idolorum atque Creaturarum Particula igitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 solum non excludit à Deitate Filium Spiritum sanctum Sed tantum ea quibus Pater verus Deus opponitur 2. Est fallacia Divisionis Sequitur enim quem misisti Jesum Christum Ergo in hoc etiam consistit vita aeterna ut Jesus Christus à Patre missus similiter cognoscatur esse verus Deus sicut dicitur 1 Joh. 5.20 Hic est verus Deus vita aeterna 3. Est criam fallacia Compositionis Nam Exclusiva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non pertinet ad Subjectum Te fed ad Praedicatum verum Deum quod Articulus ostendit in Graeco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sensus enim est ut cognoscant Te Patrem esse Deum illum qui solus est verus Deus Vrsm Explicat Catechet Par. 2. Q. 33. p. 2●0 There is no Opposition of Father Son and Holy Ghost as if the Father were the only True God and not the Son and the Holy Ghost but the Opposition is of the only True God to False Gods And therefore the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only doth not exclude the Son and the Holy Ghost but only those things to which the Father the True God is oppos'd 2dly It is Fallacia Divisionis For it follows and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Therefore in this also consists Life Eternal That Jesus Christ sent by the Father may in like manner also with the Father be acknowledg'd The only True God as St. John says 1 Ep. 5.20 speaking of Christ This is the True God and Eternal Life 3dly It is a Fallacy of Composition For the exclusive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only doth not belong to the Subject Thee the Father but to the Predicate True God And this the Greek Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shews That they might know Thee the only True God For the Sense is That they might know Thee the Father to be that God who alone is the True God Thus Vrsin thus the most Learned Dr. Hammond who perhaps was as Knowing and as Orthodox a Man as himself will tell him in Paraph. in Loc. That

Faith is not by his own Confession worse than Socinian worse than Nine Parts in Ten of the Objections of the Socinians which saith he Book p. 173. are not levell'd against the Fundamental Truth of this Article the true Divinity of each single Person of the Blessed Trinity If as he says he plainly sees that Nine Parts in Ten of the Objections of the Socinians are not levell'd against this Fundamental Truth he might one would think if he had not wink'd hard have seen as plainly that this Profession of his Faith is directly levell'd against it For is it not most ridiculously absurd a monstrous Contradiction to assert the true Divinity of each single Person of the Blessed Trinity and yet to deny that the Son or the Holy Ghost may be call'd True God But if it be proper and peculiar to the Father alone to be the One God the only True God it is demonstrable that neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost can be so Unless the Father Alone can be the One God and not the One God the only True God and not the only True God And therefore I 'll be bold to challenge this mighty Challenger to clear if he can this Profession of his Faith from being a monstrous Contradiction or a monstrous Heresie It will nothing avail him to say That 't is the Title of One God only True God which he asserts to be the proper personal Prerogative of the Father Alone For if the Father alone be not Revera the One God the only True God it cannot be the proper personal Prerogative of the Father alone to be so call'd unless we will lye for the Father and say that he alone is what alone he is not What is proper and personal in Divinity and common Sense is incommunicable and therefore if to be One God only True God be the proper and personal Title of the Father alone the Father alone must enjoy it Neither Son nor Holy Ghost can have it nor can it be predicated of the whole Trinity unless the Father alone is the whole Trinity It is plain therefore if any thing by Words can be so That this Man according to this his publick Profession of Faith doth deny the Catholick Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity which he falsly and insidiously or ignorantly by the gaudy pompous Title of his Book pretends to defend For he denies the Father Son and Holy Ghost to be One God the only True God For if they the Three Divine Persons be truly and properly One God the only True God no Man living I suppose will deny but that they may truly and properly be so call'd And he denies the true Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost For if the Father alone be One God only True God how can the Son be God and the Holy Ghost be God but improperly and metaphorically True God according to this Man's Principles neither of them can be for the only True God is the Father alone This is this Mans Faith according to the defying publick Profession which he here makes of it And to make himself the more blasphemous more abominable and inexcusable he quotes and brings in with unparallell'd Ignorance and Confidence 1st The Nicene Council 2dly All the Oriental Fathers 3dly Our Blessed Saviour 4thly St. Hilary and 5thly St. Paul to abett and patronize him in it Book p. 85. 1. First As for the Nicene Council which he says appropriates this Title to the Father What can be more false and imposing Credimus in Vnum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem Vnigenitum Filium ejus Jesum Christum Spiritum sanctum Non Tres Deos fed Patrem Filium Spiritum sanctum Unum Deum colimus confitemur Non sic Unum Deum quasi Solitarium c. Lamb. Danaei Expos Symb. Apost ex Patrib Orthodox Art 1. p. 6 7. where he may find Authorities enough out of the Fathers against him Credo in Deum Nomen Dei hic sumitur essentialiter pro Deo Patre Filio Spiritu sancto Quia verbum Credo cum Particula in refertur eodem modo ad omnes Tres Personas Deitatis Vrsin in Explicat Catechet Par. 2. Quaest 26. He will not deny I believe that the Term God in the Apostles Creed is taken in the same Sense with that in the Nicene for that Bishop Pearson upon the Creed has observ'd Art 1. p. 23. That this Creed in the Churches of the East before the Council of Nice had that Addition in it I believe in One God that is says Dr. Comber I confess with my Mouth That I believe in my Heart in One God a pure and infinite Spirit distinguished into Three Persons the First of which is God the Father c. Compan to the Temple Part 3 d. S. 5. And therefore says Zanchy most fully and expressly against what this Man asserts to prove from the Creed that 't is the Father alone who is the One God is a mere Fallacia Compositionis which the Hereticks make use of to prove their and this Man's Faith from the Creed Quam scilicet conjungunt in oratione quae sunt distinguenda ut verbi gratia quum probant ideo Solum Patrem esse Deum verum quia in Symbolo legimus Credo in Unum Deum Patrem Hic enim conjungunt Nomen Patris cum Nomine Dei nullamque interponunt distinctionem inter Dei Patris Nomen cùm tamen distinctè ita legendum esse videatur ut primo dicatur in genere Credo in Deum postea vero per Personas quasi per partes explicetur quis sit iste Deus nempe Pater Filius Spiritus sanctus Hi enim Tres Elohim sunt ceu partes non totales fed essentiales 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovae Hieron Zanch. de Tribus Elohim Par. 2. c. 2. p. 383. I am almost confident that this intolerably bold Man cannot produce so much as one Author who so interprets the Beginning of the Nicene Creed that the Title of One God is appropriated to the Father in Opposition to the Son and the Holy Ghost And as the One God is not appropriated in that Creed to the Father but referrs to all the Three Persons so neither is the Title of only True God But this very Creed which this frontless Man quotes for him is expressly full and decretory against him and not only calls the Second Person the Son God of God but very God of very God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deum verum de Deo vero True God of True God And is it not very likely now that all the Oriental Fathers and our Blessed Saviour should determine for him against the express Words of the Nicene Creed Secondly As for All the Oriental Fathers every one of them no doubt he hath read and understands throughly well we must take his Word that what they say in the Nicene Creed they do not say nor believe These are some of the Fruits of Hasty Births Thirdly