.Nw.ODI3: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "[ed: some text is concealed in margin] ? of persons in ye divine essences A/ infinitenes if numbers is no ? but besides ye number 3 is not arbitrary, but built upon divine ?....") |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[ed: some text is concealed in margin] | [ed: some text is concealed in margin] | ||
? of persons in ye divine essences A/ infinitenes if | [?] of persons in ye divine essences A/ infinitenes if number is no | ||
? but besides ye number 3 is not arbitrary, but built upon divine | [?] but besides ye number 3 is not arbitrary, but built upon divine | ||
? | [?]n one only on yt of St Jn these 3 are 1. but on ye form of baptism. | ||
? benediction 2 | [?] benediction 2 Cor: 12.14 where yt persons are reckoned without | ||
[di]stinction but yt of order & relation, & his engst ye design of ye Xtian | [di]stinction but yt of order & relation, & his engst ye design of ye Xtian | ||
? in to join any creature wth God on solemn an act of religion | [?] in to join any creature wth God on solemn an act of religion | ||
? upon wch grounds ye Xtian church has alw[ay]s believed | [?] upon wch grounds ye Xtian church has alw[ay]s believed | ||
?inity of Persons in ye | [?]inity of Persons in ye Unity of Divine Nature | ||
Socinian argumt about ye eternal [ | Socinian argumt about ye eternal gnraon [generation] of ye Son | ||
?hese either 'tis a proper | ?hese either 'tis a proper gnraon or no, of it be not then you | ||
? infer from theres yt ye son is [eor8orce??] if it by ther tis a | ? infer from theres yt ye son is [eor8orce??] if it by ther tis a | ||
?ing from one being to being & to an | ?ing from one being to being & to an eternal gnraon is a contradiction | ||
?an Axiom yt all attributes must be understood according to | ?an Axiom yt all attributes must be understood according to | ||
? of ye subjts so if ye subjt here be not capable of proceeding | ? of ye subjts so if ye subjt here be not capable of proceeding | ||
? being to | ? being to being, wtever is affirm'd of it, must bu understood so | ||
?to destroy its | ?to destroy its nature. It appears in Sev. yt ye Son was in the | ||
?ing & was God Jn 1.1. & after he is called ye only begotten Son | ?ing & was God Jn 1.1. & after he is called ye only begotten Son | ||
? N 14. hence wee have reason to infer his eternal | ? N 14. hence wee have reason to infer his eternal gnraon | ||
? no more meant yn such an emanation of ye Son from the | ? no more meant yn such an emanation of ye Son from the | ||
? supposes to yms to have yt same nature & coexistances well repor- | ? supposes to yms [themselves] to have yt same nature & coexistances well repor- | ||
? by ye Sun & its | ? by ye Sun & its beins if they were permant & not successive | ||
Heresies of Nestorius & Eulycles howe're diff'rent in thems. | Heresies of Nestorius & Eulycles howe're diff'rent in thems. | ||
will upon ye same ground viz: that there cd be no true nature | will upon ye same ground viz: that there cd be no true nature | ||
Latest revision as of 00:07, 21 July 2017
[ed: some text is concealed in margin] [?] of persons in ye divine essences A/ infinitenes if number is no [?] but besides ye number 3 is not arbitrary, but built upon divine [?]n one only on yt of St Jn these 3 are 1. but on ye form of baptism. [?] benediction 2 Cor: 12.14 where yt persons are reckoned without [di]stinction but yt of order & relation, & his engst ye design of ye Xtian [?] in to join any creature wth God on solemn an act of religion [?] upon wch grounds ye Xtian church has alw[ay]s believed [?]inity of Persons in ye Unity of Divine Nature Socinian argumt about ye eternal gnraon [generation] of ye Son ?hese either 'tis a proper gnraon or no, of it be not then you ? infer from theres yt ye son is [eor8orce??] if it by ther tis a ?ing from one being to being & to an eternal gnraon is a contradiction ?an Axiom yt all attributes must be understood according to ? of ye subjts so if ye subjt here be not capable of proceeding ? being to being, wtever is affirm'd of it, must bu understood so ?to destroy its nature. It appears in Sev. yt ye Son was in the ?ing & was God Jn 1.1. & after he is called ye only begotten Son ? N 14. hence wee have reason to infer his eternal gnraon ? no more meant yn such an emanation of ye Son from the ? supposes to yms [themselves] to have yt same nature & coexistances well repor- ? by ye Sun & its beins if they were permant & not successive Heresies of Nestorius & Eulycles howe're diff'rent in thems. will upon ye same ground viz: that there cd be no true nature ? must be a person & yt 2 natures cd & make one person whence ? assented there were 2 persons in X & Eulycles denyed yt there ? natures & these were not disputed de voce only but yt con- ? was really about yt truth of Xt, incarnation wch in conse- ? was rejected by both of them.
Docr of Trinity & Transubs: compar'd pt 2d. I suppose written by Dr Tillotson.