Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
christian_n father_n ghost_n son_n 4,290 5 5.9916 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A67385 The doctrine of the blessed Trinity, briefly explained in a letter to a friend Wallis, John, 1616-1703. 1690 (1690) Wing W575; ESTC R1265 7,384 20

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

THE DOCTRINE OF THE Blessed Trinity Briefly Explained In a Letter to a Friend SIR THE Doctrine of the Arrians Socinians or Anti-Trinitarians call them as you please provided you call them not Orthodox Christians in opposition to those who believe according to the Word of God That the Sacred Trinity of Father Son and holy-Holy-Ghost are so distinguished each from other as that the Father is not the Son or holy-Holy-Ghost the Son not the Father or Holy-Ghost the Holy-Ghost not the Father or Son yet so United as that they are all One God which in the Athanasian Creed is called Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity or in common speaking Three Persons and One God is what you were lately discoursing with me and of which I shall give you some of my present Thoughts The Scripture tells us plainly There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy-Ghost and these Three are One 1 Joh. 5. 7. And the Form of Baptism Matt. 28. 19. is In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy-Ghost And the Christian Church from the time of Christ and his Apostles downwards hitherto as well before as since the Council of Nice have ever held the Divinity of those Three Persons as they are commonly called and that these Three are but One God And that they have so held hath been by divers sufficiently proved from the most ancient christian Writers which are now extant Which therefore I take for granted as sufficiently proved by others without spending time at present to prove it a-new That these are Three distinguished each from other is manifest And that this Distinction amongst themselves is wont to be called Personality By which word we mean that Distinction what ever it be whereby they are distinguished each from other and thence called Three Persons If the word Person do not please we need not be fond of Words so the Thing be agreed Yet is it a good Word and warranted by Scripture Heb. 1. 3. where the Son is called the express image of his Father's Person For so we render the Word Hypostasis which is there used and mean by it what I think to be there meant And we have no reason to wave the Word since we know no better to put in the Place of it If it be asked what these Personalities or Characteristicks are whereby each Person is distinguished from other I think we have little more thereof in Scripture than that the Father is said to Beget the Son to be Begotten and the Holy-Ghost to Proceed If it be further asked what is the full import of these Words which are but Metaphorical and what is the adequate Meaning of them I think we need not trouble our selves about it For since it is a matter purely of Revelation not of natural Knowledge and we know no more of it than what is revealed in Scripture where the Scripture is silent we may be content to be ignorant And we who know so little of the Essence of any thing especially of Spiritual Beings though finite need not think it strange that we are not able to comprehend all the Particularities of what concerns that of God and the Blessed Trinity I know that the Fathers and School-men and some after them have imployed their Wits to find out some faint Resemblances from natural things whereby to express their imperfect Conceptions of the Sacred Trinity But they do not pretend to give an adequate Account of it but only some conjectural Hypotheses rather of what May be than of what certainly Is. Nor need we be concerned to be curiously inquisitive into it beyond what God hath been pleased to reveal concerning it That the Three Persons are distinguished is evident though we do not perfectly understand what those Distinctions are That to each of these the Scripture ascribes Divinity is abundantly shewed by those who have written on this Subject That there is but One God is agreed on all hands That the Father is said to Beget the Son to be Begotten and the Holy-Ghost to Proceed is agreed also though we do not perfectly understand the full Import of these Words And here we might quietly acquiesce without troubling our selves further did not the clamorous Socinians importunely suggest the Impossibility and Inconsistence of these things insomuch as to tell us That how clear soever the Expressions of Scripture be or can be to this purpose they will not believe it as being inconsistent with natural Reason And therefore though they do not yet think fit to give us a bare-fac'd Rejection of Scripture yet they do and must they tell us put such a forced Sence on the words of it be they never so plain as to make them signify somewhat else There is therefore in this Doctrine of the Trinity as in that of the Resurrection from the Dead a double Inquiry First whether it be Possible and then whether it be True And these to be argued in both Cases from a very different Topick The one from Natural Reason the other from Revelation Yet so that this latter doth certainly conclude the former if rightly understood And though we should not be able to solve all Difficulties yet must we believe the thing if revealed unless we will deny the Authority of such Revelation Thus our Saviour against the Sadducees who denied the Resurrection Matth. 22. 29. Ye erre saith he not knowing the Scriptures nor the Power of God The Power of God if rightly understood was enough from the Light of Reason to prove it not impossible But whether or no it will be so which natural Reason could not determine was to be argued from Scripture-Revelation In like manner St. Paul before Agrippa Act. 26. first argues the Possibility of it Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the Dead ver 8. For if Agrippa did believe the Creation of the World as many even of the Heathen did from the light of Nature he could not think it Impossible for that God who had at first made all things of nothing to recollect out of its Dust or Ashes a Body which once had been But whether or no he would do so depended upon another Question to be after asked ver 27. King Agrippa believest thou the Prophets For this was purely matter of Revelation and could not otherwise be known For as to the Immortality of the Sou● and a future state hereafter many of the Heathens went very far by the Light of Nature but as to the Resurrection of the Body I do not find they had any Sentiments about it or but very faint if any And if they had it may well be supposed to be the remainder of some ancient Tradition from the Jews or their Predecessors Nor do I see any foundation in Nature which should make them think of it before it was revealed any more than of the Redemption of Mankind by Christ which we should never have