Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
doctrine_n bishop_n church_n rome_n 10,243 5 7.0950 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
A59787 An answer to a late Dialogue between a new Catholick convert and a Protestant to prove the mystery of the Trinity to be as absurd a doctrine as transubstantiation : by way of short notes on the said dialogue. Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1687 (1687) Wing S3261; ESTC R10173 11,401 17

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

better Foundation in Scripture and Tradition then Transubstantiation For otherwise he was not partial in believing one and rejecting the other and if he did he never understood his Religion and then no wonder that he takes Sanctuary in a Church which requires no use of his understanding B. But to return to the main Point I must tell you I do not think them equally grounded on Scripture Reason or Tradition and indeed you may remember that was the old Point in dispute with us A. b Well Sir to shew you your Error I shall begin with the several Particulars in their Order and so first as to the Tradition of Transubstantiation Now 't is evident That has been deliver'd with less interruption than that of the Holy Trinity That Mystery was question'd in the very Infancy of the Church nay not only so but the Arians prevail'd much against it about the beginning of the Fourth Age. On the other side Transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet a long time and when it came to debate there was no such opposition as that of Arius to call in question the Authority of its Tradition the Church receiv'd it unanimously and in that sense continu'd till rash Reason attempted to fathom the unlimited Miracles and Mysteries of God. h Here is a great mixture of confidence and fallacy Confidence is asserting what is false that Transubstantiation has been delivered with less interruption than that of the Holy Trinity for none of the Ancient Fathers make the least mention of it neither the name nor the thing was known for many hunder'd years after Christ. He himself modestly grants that the Fathers are not half so express in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as they are in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity And when he grants half you may safely conclude they say nothing of it but the fallacy consists in attributing this silence of the Fathers about Transubstantiation to the unquestionableness of the Tradition when it was wholly owing to the Ignorance of the Doctrine It was not opposed in those days because they never heard of Transubstantiation not because it was universally believed which is a reason indeed why it should not be opposed but not why it should never be mentioned Whereas from that opposition Arius and his followers made to the Doctrine of the Trinity in the beginning of the Fourth Century and that great alarum it gave immediately to the Christian Church it is evident that it was the received Faith at and before that time for otherwise Arius would not have opposed it nor Catholick Bishops so Zealously have defended it B. But the Fathers are not half so express in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation as they are in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity A. That 's true and there 's very good Reason for it Transubstantiation has not been a Doctrine so long in dispute and 't is not customary for Men to argue unquestionable Truths And whereas you may think that Transubstantiation has of late receiv'd such shrewd Repulses by your Books I 'le assure you you forget how much the true Catholick Zeal destroys the Seeds of Heresies Do you think that so many Bishops not only of the Eastern but of the Western Church also could be Arians and yet suppose that that Opinion wanted i as Plausible a pretence of Tradition Certainly if you consider that you cannot think to establish the Doctrine of the Trinity by Tradition more than Transubstantiation especially considering the strong Footsteps of that Sect even in the Fathers now extant I would cite you some of them but that they are not so much to my main Design and indeed my aim is Brevity i Arius did not set up upon Tradition but upon a pretence of Scripture and Reason and if Arianism had had so good a pretence to Tradition it is strange it should have been thought so new and surpizing a Doctrine at that time It was never heard of before Arius and that is proof enough that it was no Tradition of the Church though afterwards they endeavoured to force some expressions in the Writings of the Antient Fathers as well as of the Scriptures to countenance that Heresie B. Well Sir 't is true we cannot so well plead Tradition to what you have urg'd and especially when I call to mind k that Arianism was confirm'd by a General Council But we alledge an higher ground we stand upon the Authority of the Scriptures and indeed that is the true Thuchtone of all Doctrine k I hope he does not mean the Council of Nice which was the first General Council and assembled on purpose to Establish the Catholick Faith in this point and to condemn Arius A●d does the Church of Rome own any for a General Council which confirmed Arianism The Council of Syrmium indeed where Liberius Bishop of Rome Subcribe● the Arian Confession may bid fair for it if a Council of Eastern and Western Bishops confirmed by the Pope may pass for a General Council but what then becomes of the Infallibility of Popes and Councils and Tradition This is a desperate Man who will not spare the Church of Rome her self nor General Councils if they stand in his way rather than allow any Tradition for the Doctrine of the Trinity A. 'T is true if you will follow the Catholick Church l and take the Scriptures literally you may discover the Mystery of the Holy Trinity in them but if you once yield to Figurative Allusions and Interpretations the Arians will be as much too hard for you as you imagin your selves to be for the Catholick Church m In short both Doctrines will be at a loss and both equally require the Authority of the Church to support them l If the Trinity can be prov'd by Scripture that is all we desire for I am sure Transubstantiation cannot and as for literal or figurative Expositions of Scripture neither of them must be always used but as the Subject Matter and Circumstances of the place require m I thought the Christian Church had been built upon the Faith of the Holy Trinity not that supported by the Authority of the Church unless the Church can support her own Foundation if there can be no Christian Church without Baptism in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost that is without professing the Faith and Worship of the ever blessed Trinity this Doctrine must be believ'd before there can be any Church on whose Authority we must believe it and therefore he has chose the unfittest Doctrine to build on Church Authority that he could have thought on B. O no surely the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is more express in Scriptures than so A. To satisfie you that what I say is Truth because I may represent the Parallel the clearer n I will personate an Arian that Sect so often condemn'd by the Ancient Church and you shall see his Plea against the Trinity is as fair as yours against Transubstantiation And because this is the main
being God. And further where-ever in the Scriptures there is made any mention of the Three Persons there is always declar'd an express Gradation as 1 Cor. 12.3 4 5. 2 Cor. 13. 14. Gift and Communion from the Fellowship of the Holy Ghost Grace and Administration from the Lordship and Kingship of Christ and Love and Operation from the Father the Supreme God the Original Fountain according to Ephes. 4.4 5 6. p That Christ is called in the Old Testament the Angel of the presence I grant but affirm also that the Angel of the presence was no created Angel but the Lord Jehovah who spake to Moses in the Bush as the Ancient Fathers grant q To be the first born of every Creature does not prove that he is a Creature but that he was begotten of God before any Creatures were made that is before the Creation of the World and that signifies an Eternal Generation for nothing was before the Creation of the World but that which is Eternal and uncreated as is sufficiently intimated in this very Text 1 Col. 16.17 18. and then it is no injury to the Eternal Generation of Christ though we grant that he was begotten again at his Resurrection from the Dead r As for the Holy Spirit he is indeed called the Spirit of Christ and is said to be sent by Christ as he is by his Father but this proves only that he is the Third Person in the Trinity and in the Aeconomy of Mans Salvation acts as a Vicarious power to Christ the Redeemer But his very Office to Inspire and Sanctifie and dwell in the whole Christian Church and every Christian proves him to be God not only because the Christian Church and Christians are his Temple but because no Created Spirit can dwell in all Christians For what this Convert alledges of an universal tempting evil power is no better than Manichism or to assert an evil God. For an universal power is God and did one Devil tempt and poss●ss all bad Men as one and the same Holy Spirit dwells in all good Men he would b● an omnipresent and infinite Devil which is what the Manichees call an evil God and sure this is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which is a sign that our Author is but a new Convert B. I must confess Sir these Opinions seem to make it necessary for us in that Doctrine too to trust to the Authority of the Catholick Church and I shall take time to consider a little upon them But pray Sir what say you to the Reasons of the two Doctrines A. Really s Sir I must tell you I think that Parellel much the easiest 'T is strange new Arithmetick to a man to tell him Three distinct Persons are one and the same Individual Nature and then to call such a one the most Pure and Simple Being and that especially when they are declar'd to have various Intellectual Powers as appears by John 16.12 13 14 15. and Mark 13.31 1 Tim. 6.15 Acts 1.7 For my part I cannot tell well how the Prejudice of Education could possibly digest a thing so unreasonable were it not a Divine Mystery I am sure t to my carnal Reason there may be as well Three Hundred Persons in the Godhead as Three and I know not what can be said of Transubstantiation that is seemingly more absurd than That B. I must confess Sir I have had strange confus'd and surprizing Thoughts of it my self but I always apprehended the Christian Church a sufficient Guide A. If you did Sir pray consider who that Catholick Mother is you so obey'd and as you have receiv'd the Trinity so receive a Doctrine equally as reasonable and deliver'd by Her Transubstantiation I know the Ingenuousness of your Temper and you promis'd me at first not to be a wilful Schismatick and therefore I have hopes my Reasons and your Consideration will be sufficient to reduce you to Catholick Communion B. Sir I shall consider of it but as yet you only talk'd to me at large I shall desire one Favour of you before we part Pray state the Parallel a little shorter I shall the better remember it A. Well Sir I shall First the Tradition of one Doctrine cannot be stronger than another where both have been at least equally question'd Secondly 'T is as reasonable to take This is my Body literally as it is to take these Texts I and my Father are one God over all blessed for ever and By him all things were made without reference to other Scriptures and a Figurative Interpretation And lastly I think to human Reason 't is as equally unreasonable and as seemingly repugnant to say One is Three as it is to say a Body is not what it appears B. Very well I shall desire no more of you now I 'le only takea little time to consider and then you shall know my mind more freely A. Farewel and God give you his Holy Spirit to instruct you s And now we are come to the main Point Whether the Doctrine of the Trinity be as absurd and contradictious as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which God forbid it should be I am sure the Arithmetick is very good for Three Persons and one Nature is no bad Arithmetick To say that there are Three Persons and but One Person and but One Nature and yet Three Natures had been no good Arithmetick but a plain Contradiction that Three are One and One Three in the same respect which God himself cannot make true but Three Persons and One Nature is no Contradiction how incomprehensible soever it may be He has made it a Contradiction indeed by saying That Three distinct Persons are one and the same Individual Nature but whoever before said that the Person is the Nature or that the Divine Nature is an individual Nature or a Nature appropriated to one Person which is the signification of an individual Nature I suppose he had heard somewhere of individua Trinitas and this he mistook for an individual Nature These are indeed Contradictions and new invented Heresies but this is not the Catholick Doctrine of the Trinity t We cannot indeed comprehend how Three distinct Persons should subsist in one Nature for we see no example of it in Nature for in finite Creatures one finite Nature is confined to one Person but a finite Nature I hope is no rule for an infinite Nature and therefore an infinite Nature may be common to more Persons than one though a finite Nature cannot and it may be it is as intelligible how Three distinct Persons may subsist in one infinite Nature as how three distinct Faculties can be in the same finite Soul by which Comparison the Ancients explain'd the Doctrine of the Trinity The Omnipresence Omniscience Omnipotence Eternity of God are as much above our Comprehension as a Plurality of Persons in the Deity and if men will but allow that God is incomprehensible this can be no Objection against the Doctrine of the Trinity