Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	good_a	holy_a	scripture_n	3,042	5	5.5201	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52613	A letter of resolution concerning the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.	1691 (1691)	Wing N1507B; ESTC R217844	25,852	20

A Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation YOU are pleased Sir to demand of me the general Reasons why the Vnitarians or as others now call us the Socinians have departed from the Catholick Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation in which all other Sects and Denominations of Christians do agree and contend also for them as Fundamental Doctrines 'T is true Sir that we are alone in our Belief or Opinion of but one GOD or what is the same but one who is GOD even the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ And as we are alone so we are a little Flock If our Reasons were no more considerable than our Number we should be very contemptible to our Opposers The Case was once otherwise there is no Ecclesiastical Historian but has noted the time when All the World was against Athanasius and Athanasius against all the World But it avails very little that we can say Fuimus Trees suit Ilium And that which you have demanded of me is What are our Reasons not how it has come to pass or by what Persecutions we have been reduced to so small a Number I answer therefore Our first Reason is The Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation have no solid or good Foundation in Revelation or Holy Scripture A Stranger in this Controversy who hears the Sermons or reads the Books of some of our Opposers would think that the Question between us and the Trinitarians is on their side as clear in Revelation as 't is confess'd to be on ours in Point of Reason for this is the Fault with which they continually charge us that we exalt Reason above Revelation and that we pretend that a Force how great soever is to be put upon the Words of Revelation rather than we will admit of any Doctrine which is contrary to Reason Now First 'T is not true that we prefer our Reason before Revelation On the contrary Revelation being what GOD himself hath said either immediately or by inspired Persons 't is to be preferred before the clearest Demonstration of our Reason But because we cannot suppose without Disrespect and Injury to GOD to his Goodness and Veracity that he has so made us that our Faculties should be deceived in what they clearly and distinctly perceive and because GOD hath in Revelation frequently appealed to our Faculties to our Understanding and Reason therefore we conclude that what is clearly and distinctly discerned by Reason as true or false is so And from thence we infer that what is false in Reason can never be true in Revelation or by Revelation So that whatsoever in Revelation doth seem to contradict Reason can be nothing but our Blunder our unskilful injudicious and too close Adherence to the mere Letter and Words of Revelation 'T is so true that we ought to interpret the most clear Revelation so as not to contradict evident Reason that if we neglect this Rule we shall oft times make Revelation contrary to and inconsistent with it self as well as to or with Reason We shall be forced for Instance to say the Lord Christ is a Rock a Way a true Vine a Door and twenty more such different and contrary things because Revelation has clearly and expresly called him all these I desire therefore to know Why our Opposers take care not to make themselves contemptible by maintaining 'tis a Scripture-Doctrine that the Lord Christ is a Rock a Way a true Vine a Door on the Account that such a Doctrine though founded on the express Words of Holy Scripture is contrary to Reason and yet have no regard to avoid the Imputation of Folly Incogitance and Inadvertence by contending this is a Scripture-Doctrine which is no less contrary to Reason and natural Light even this that there are three Almighty and Infinite Persons and yet but one GOD. No Man ever had by Nature or Reason nor can have any other Notion of Three Gods but only this Three Infinite and Almighty Persons Is it supposable that GOD should give forth contrary Manifestations of himself that he should teach us by Nature and Reason to apprehend one GOD as but one Almighty and Infinite Person and yet command us by Revelation to believe one GOD is Three such Persons Or can we our selves obey contrary Commands or believe contrary Manifestations concerning the same thing at the same time This Foundation being laid we say Three Divine Persons an Almighty Father an Almighty Son and an Almighty Spirit distinct from both being in Reason and common Sense but the Periphrasis and Circumlocution for Three Gods so that we can have no other Conception of Three Gods but only Three such Persons that Revelation which by Confession of all Parties obliges me to believe but one GOD can never be supposed to require me to believe Three Almighty Persons So also Reason assuring me that the Disproportion between Infinite and Finite is such that they can never be commensurate or made one and the same That Revelation or Holy Scripture which tells me GOD is infinite that the Heaven of Heavens contains him not cannot be interpreted or understood as bidding me believe that a Person who is GOD or an Infinite Person and such they say every Person of the Trinity is can be Whole and All Incarnate that is united and commensurate to a finite Man We abide Sir by this Argument here we fix our Foot never to be removed that the Inconsistence of the Trinity and the Incarnation with Reason and natural Knowledg being undeniably evident therefore those Doctrines can have no real Foundation in Divine Revelation that is to say in Holy Scripture But Secondly As we consider that though Revelation is to be preferred before Reason and always interpreted by Reason for the Causes already given so we cannot but profess our selves surprized that any should have the Confidence to pretend that there is clear and express Revelation on behalf of the Trinity and Incarnation In the Name of Wonder what do these Gentlemen mean by express and clear Revelation do they mean that they have found out some Texts which directly and expresly say There is a Trinity of Divine Persons who are but one GOD or which say The Son or second Person of the Trinity was incarnate If they have any such Texts to produce we shall grant them they have an express Revelation for those Doctrines But in very Deed they mean no such thing but by clear and express Revelation they mean what was never meant by any but themselves nor by themselves in any other Case or Question but this of the Trinity They mean the Trinity and Incarnation are provable by certain most remote and strained Consequences from some such Texts of Revelation or Scripture as either are of suspected Authority and Credit in the Original among the Learned of their own Party or are denied by the Learnedest of their own side to be truly translated or finally are interpreted by their own