Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	devil_n	father_n	lie_n	3,415	5	9.0726	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A26746	An answer to the Brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians by William Basset ...	Basset, William, 1644-1695.	1693 (1693)	Wing B1048; ESTC R1596	64,853	180

hath revealed so much as is fit for us to know and ignorance is neither a Sin nor a Reproach where he hath not instructed us But we must declare it not absurd only but blasphemous too to deny what God hath told us only because he hath not told us more or not baffled our Cavils by a demonstration as if they dare not believe him any farther than they can see A right Nicodemus temper which stumbles at Divine Truths only with an How can these things be Sect. 6. From their Reasonable Faith he proceeds to complement its professors for Learned and Reasonable Men Which he saith is their Character among their worst Adversaries Ans We do not envy what Learning and Reason they are thought to have But we charge them with the abuse of both Their Guilt this way will easily appear to any that can but understand an Author their Arguments being fallacious and their Quotations false But as for this Epistler poor Man though we cannot admire his Talents yet we must declare he misimploys that little he hath This will abundantly appear as from what he hath done so likewise from his History of the Sorinians which we now proceed to For p. 26 thus those whom we call Socinians were by the Fathers and first Ages of Christianity called Nazarens by which name St. Paul is accused before Felix Acts 29. 5. Ans A Christian signifies a Disciple of Christ and Nazaren in this place a Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth And did then denote nor a Party but the whole Body of Christians So Epiphanius adv Haer. l. 1. to 2. Haer. 29 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all Christians were then called Nazarens and that by way of contempt from the Jews as they afterwards were Galilaeans by the Apostate They are indeed branded for a Sect in the place quoted but not as a party broke off from the body of Christians but as the Church of Christ now separated from the Jews I beseech you then what peculiar honour and advantage can the Socinians claim to themselves from hence was the thing they plead true when as Christians they have this honour but in common with others and as Sorinians can pretend to but one of the smallest shares of it The same Father c. 7. tells us of a Sect of Nazarens even before the Incarnation tho indeed Petavius rejects the Account nor can I see any sufficient grounds for it but however I mention it to pleasure our Socinians who are seeking a Pedigree Therefore take it thus some of these he saith professed Christ but denied his Divinity in other things they were Jews still for they observed Circumcision the Sabbath and other Ceremonies and therefore stood distinct both from Jews and Christians Whence Jerom Epist ad Aug. gives this Character of 'em viz. they are called Minaeans or Nazarens sed dum Volunt Judaei esse Christiani nec Judaei sunt nec Christiani While they would pass both for Jews and Christians they are neither And if these Men will claim from hence you have in them this Character of a Socinian That he is one who is neither Jew nor Christian Hence I suppose this Epistler is none of the Reasonable or Learned among them since he hath mentioned this either to no purpose or to his own disadvantage He there saith they were also called Ebionites Ans These were of two sorts Euseb Hist l. 3. c. 27. the one held that Christ was born of Joseth and Mary the other of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin But both observed Jewish Rites and rejected St. Paul's Epistles calling him an Apostate They received no Gospel but Sr. Matthew and that mutilated too Epiphan adv Haer. l. 1. to 2. Haer. 30. which Petavius observes was depraved by them and was the same with the Gospel to the Hebrews which was used by none but Hereticks Orig. cont Cels l. 5. saith they teach the Law and reject the Epistles of St. Paul And Optat Mileu l. 4. they held it was not the Son but the Father that suffered They were these Men who troubled the Apostles and drew their Disciples back to Mosaic Rites under Menander Cerinthus and others whose Heresy was substantially the same for divers Ages Whence St. Paul brands them for False Brethren Gal. 2. 4. elsewhere for corrupters of the Word and such as he in wait to deceive This was the Reason they rejected his Epistles because he so constantly censures them And Ebion himself was branded by all Antiquity for one of the Gnostic Hereticks Tertul de Praes Haer. c. 33. Yet our Socinian Author makes himself and Party the same with these No matter what poyson men suck in so they deny the Divinity of Christ This one Bleasphemy sanctifies all By this Rule they are the same with Simon Magus the Father of Hereticks and with the Devil the Father of Lies for they both denied the Divinity of the Son the one in making himself a Saviour the other in tempting him excepting this that the Devil afterwards confessed this Truth which the Socinian still denies An hopeful Brood indeed that Glories in such Fathers He proceeds the Socinians were also called Artemonites Theodotians Symmachians Paulinists Samosatenians Photinians and Monarchians Ans Grant this and it must be granted too that as these Men were always condemned for Hereticks so the Socinians were always condemned in them And strange it is they should always be in the right and yet be always condemned for it They were called Artemonites Photinians c. to signifie they were the Followers not of Christ but of Artemon Photinus c. And did the Socinians seriously reflect upon their Blasphemies and their palpable Corruptions both of the Letter and Sense of the Sacred Scriptures as well as of all Antiquity it nearly concerns them to consider how far this is applicable to themselves that is in plain English whether the Name Socinian doth not better suit them than that of Christian The Monarchians boasted that they held the World was governed by a Monarchy that is by One God in opposition to the Orthodox who they say introduced Three Gods by the Doctrine of a Trinity Whence I grant that these and our Socinians are Men of the same Pride and Falshood In answer to whom the Orthodox always declared as we do that they held no other than a Monarchy and that the Doctrine of a Trinity is no way contradictory to this For when some in Tertullian adv Prax. c. 3. cried Monarchian tenemus We profess but One God he proves that the Orthodox or If he will the Trinitarians did hold but One God too for Proof of which he argues c. 4. that he deduces the Son from the Substance of the Father and the Holy Ghost from both which doth no way destroy but as he there pleads confirms a Monarchy for being all Three but of One Substance or Nature they can be all Three but One God Upon the same bottom the most strenuous asserters of a Trinity