Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	letter_n	write_v	1,915	5	5.6480	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B21416	A sermon preach'd at Colchester, June 2. 1697. Before the Right Honourable and Reverend Father in God Henry Lord Bishop of London, at a conference with his clergy upon His Majesty's late injunctions. / By H. De Luzancy ... ; Printed by his Lordship's special command. ; To which are prefixed some remarks on the Socinians late answer to the four letters written against them by the same author.	De Luzancy, H. C. (Hippolyte du Chastelet), d. 1713.	1697 (1697)	Wing D2423A; Interim Tract Supplement Guide 226.f.17[10]; ESTC R26743	22,530	34

L. I hope it will not be taken amiss if I make some Remarks upon it 1. It is very diverting to see a Writing call'd an Answer to the four Letters and not so much as a Page or Line or Tittle of the four Letters touch'd I confess that this is an easie way of answering and that at this rate any Book upon Earth may be answer'd Any Body may have the Pleasure to be an Author But I am not altogether satisfied that this is consistent with that reputation of Learning and Eloquence which these Gentlemen men have so justly acquir'd One or two more such Answers will I am afraid sink or at least endanger a part of it 2. They give a rare reason for not meddling with the four Letters I know not says the Author p. 47. whether we are concern'd in them till I know more certainly in what Sence he holds a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour I beg leave of these Gentlemen to assert that they know as well as I do my self what is my sence in those Matters Obscurity is none of the many defects which the four Letters may be charg'd with But they were not willing to intangle themselves in the discussion of so many Citations or to make good the weak side of their Writings which they were sensible could not be maintain'd They have found of late a shorter Cut and that is the famous distinction of Real and Nominal Trinitarians They steal away with this on all occasions and still maintain a running Fight It is their last refuge and had it not been for the rare contrivance there had been before this an end of the Socinian Controversie To answer a solid Argument is a hard and generally an unfortunate Task But if they can but bring you right or wrong within the Verge of the fatal Distinction then they have always a large Field for Discourse They act in this like ingenious but whether altogether like conscientious Men I am not willing to determine 3. They are so full of that beloved distinction and so fond of meeting with any thing that looks like it that in what they call an Answer to the Four Letters they have done to themselves and to me a real Injury To themselves by a flat contradiction in the space of four Pages and to me by charging me with that which I never said or thought They make me say that the Divine Persons are Three Infinite Spirits Pag. 43. He says Three Infinite Spirits each of them a God are all of them but One God I averr that there is nothing in the Four Letters which directly or indirectly looks like that It is not the Language of Scripture nor that of the Catholick Church It never was and I hope shall never be mine But this they have contradicted Pag. 47. by desiring to know in what Sence I hold a Trinity of Divine Persons One would be apt to say that this betrays a great deal of Incogitancy 4. The Four Letters then are still sound and safe but the Preface is engag'd and I must endeavour to bring it off Two things in it are excepted against The one that I said That the Consent of the whole Christian World must be a strong Inducement to a modest Socinian to mistrust all his Arguments and that to oppose all that is great and good in the Church of God in a Point of Faith which Word the Author of the Answer has overlook'd is too much for the most presuming Disputant He says to this p. 40. that the case is this one side has Argument the other has Authority and Number And that in a Clash between Argument and Number that whole World and all that is great in it when weigh'd against but one Argument is as if you had put nothing at all into the Scale I say that he absolutely mistakes the Case We maintain that the Church has Reason as well as Authority and Number and that on this very Account a modest Socinian must lose much of his Confidence By all that is great and good I mean the Sacred Councils the Holy and Learned Fathers and the different Societies of Christians all the World over who have been baptiz'd in the Name of that Blessed Trinity and look upon Iesus Christ as the Author and Finisher of their Faith In a Point of Faith and much less in the Foundation God will not suffer the Catholick Church to err Had I said that it had been a Reason to a modest Socinian to mistrust all his Arguments I had said nothing but what is exactly true I confess I was too modest my self in calling it only an Inducement 5. The other Exception is against an Assertion which I thought no Divine in the World would have disputed That Faith and Reason are two different things and consequently that that which is the Object of Faith cannot be the Object of Reason He calls this p. 41. a very rash Proposition He says some lines before That the Apostle teaches Heb. 11.1 not only that the Object of Faith and Reason is the same but that there cannot be Faith without Reason and that Faith is the Product of Reason This Author should have consider'd before he call'd the Proposition rash that it is the Sence of all the Ancient and Modern Divines and that thô sometimes Faith and Reason are conversant about the same Object as for instance in the Existence and Vnity of God which Reason considers as well as Faith yet for all that their Object is different and even in this very case Reason assents to it as it is naturally known and Faith as it is supernaturally reveal'd The place of the Apostle should not have been mention'd at all For what is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Evidence of things not seen but a Revelation of those things which Reason cannot reach or penetrate and on this very account are said to be unseen and is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Demonstration which rising from an higher Principle is different from and has a greater Certainty than Reason But what this Author says That there can be no Faith without Reason and that Faith is the Product of Reason shews plainly the misfortune of writing Answers in haste If by the first of these Propositions he means that Faith is always rational and that Reason never wants strong Inducements to believe which the Schools in their rugged Language call Motives of Credibility I say so too But if he means that we cannot believe except we have a clear Notion of what is propos'd to our Belief I say that it is against the Nature of Faith which offers things above Reason and expects the submission of our Judgments to the Authority of the Revelation The second Proposition that Faith is the Product of Reason is capable of a tolerable Sence if by it is meant no more than that Reason is an introduct●on to Faith But if by it is meant that it is