Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	distinct_a	person_n	unity_n	2,409	5	9.8000	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A23823	A Defence of the Brief history of the Unitarians, against Dr. Sherlock's answer in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity	Allix, Pierre, 1641-1717.	1691 (1691)	Wing A1219; ESTC R211860	74,853	56

of natural Reason does it contradict Reason tells us that Three Gods cannot be One God but does Reason tell us that Three Divine Persons cannot be One God If my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it does neither affirm nor deny it Is not this an admirable Argument which consists only in an Interrogation and in a meer denial of the difficulty proposed in the Objection What Principle of natural Reason does it contradict Does Reason tell us that Three Divine Persons cannot be one God Here is the Interrogation or Query To which I answer Yes it does contradict a plain Principle of natural Reason even this that Three cannot be One If my Reason be like other Mens I am sure my Reason says nothing at all about it doth neither affirm nor deny it Here is a meer denial of the difficulty I judge the Author's Reason must needs be very weak and corrupted seeing it likes well this falshood that Three are One and finds no fault with it Those unquestionably have a better sight and a more sound Reason who discern it implies a Contradiction that Three be but One because they perceive and acknowledg that Three is three times One and therefore cannot be only once One. Well saith the Doctor pleading for his Adversaries if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons each of which is God we must believe Three distinct Gods I hope not when we profess to believe but One God Yes whatever we profess to believe Three such distinct Persons must be Three Gods Now this we deny and challenge them to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that it must be so Natural Reason teaches Nothing about the Personality of the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not and therefore He may be either without contradicting the natural Notions we have of One God and then there is free scope for Revelation and if Revelation teaches there is but One God and that there are Three Divine Persons each of which hath in Scripture not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to him then we must of necessity believe a Trinity in Unity Three Persons and one God For what the Scripture affirms and Reason does not deny is a proper Object of our Faith and then this Objection against this Faith that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three distinct Gods if each of them be God is sensless and ridiculous I have transcribed this whole Paragraph because it deserves some particular Reflection 1. I observe that it contains no positive Proofs but a meer denial The Author is extreamly confident and bold and yet all his reasonings may be resolved into I hope not and this we deny Indeed this is a very short way of answering Objections and as easy as to burn Books that are unanswerable There lies an Objection cross in his way that if we believe Three distinct Divine Persons we must believe Three distinct Gods To this he answers I hope not when we profess to believe but one God Is this a direct Confutation must we be satisfied with such an Answer because Trinitarians profess that Three Divine Persons are but one God does it follow that it is true and cannot be doubted of He hopes not and he denies it therein lies the strength of his Argument and Answer 2. I should have added he challenges for this is his third way of confuting Objections He challenges us to produce any plain Principle of Reason to prove that Three distinct Divine Persons must be Three Gods But we have a plain Principle of Reason at hand to answer his Challenge to wit that it implies a Contradiction that Three be but One. 3. Here is a most absurd and ridiculous Paradox as I ever heard of Natural Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of God or the Godhead it teaches One God but whether this One God be One or Three Persons it says not What If Reason tells us that there is One God He must be One Intelligent Being Now according to Reason we have no other Idea of Unity but such as we have of a Man a Beast and a Tree Therefore as Reason teaches that a Man is one Person because he is one Intelligent Being so it follows that according to Human Reason God is but one Person being but one Intelligent Being Reason does not tell us that the Unity of God is different from the Unity of a Man it produces in our Minds the same Idea of both which being applied to God as well as to Man must needs denote One Person or Intelligent Being in opposition to Two or Three Nay if Reason teaches nothing about the Personality of the Godhead which the Author does not think fit to prove what Idea can we have of the Vnity of God by Reason As long as we are ignorant whether God be one or three Persons our Idea of him must needs be more imperfect than of any other Being in that very Notion which is so familiar to us and which God himself has so much urged viz. his Unity This is so false a Principle and so contrary to the Dictates of Reason that there never was any Man taught by Reason that there is but one God but did believe at the same time that He is but one Person The Author should not have ventur'd abroad such a Philosophy contrary to the Reason of all Mankind but ought to have kept it for himself Now I find that the Scripture doth perfectly agree with Reason This tells me that there is but one God who is but one Person That teaches me the same and also that the Father of our Lord Christ is that one God both of them contrary to the Doctrine of the Trinity 4. He saith that there are Three Divine Persons each of which have in Scripture not only the Title but the Nature and Attributes of God ascribed to them But where is the Holy Ghost called God in Scripture He is indeed called the Spirit of God but never God himself and being the Power of God 't is no wonder that such things are ascribed to him as are ascribed to God himself Thus it is ordinary to ascribe to a Man's Courage what he has done himself and yet his Courage is no Person nor distinct from him This I say only by the way to shew the strangeness of his Consequences But I shall say nothing here of the Son and indeed seeing he brings no particular Instances of what he advances there is no need to insist any longer upon it CHAP. III. I come now to examine his Answers to the Objections against the Trinity in the brief History of the Unitarians THE First Objection p. 154. If our Lord Christ were himself God there could be no Person greater than He none that might be called his Head or God none that could in any respect command him Let us hear How the

if he be but sincere that those Fathers follow the Ideas of Plato concerning the three Principles and therefore speak rather like Arians than Orthodox They tell us that the Son and Holy Ghost have each of them his own Nature and Essence whereby they are distinguish'd from each other and that the Son is subordinate and inferior to the Father both in Nature and Power as likewise the Holy Ghost is subordinate to the Son If any one desires to see some undeniable Proofs of what I assert I refer him to the Quaternio of Curcellaeus whereby he will be fully satisfied The succeeding Fathers finding fault with this Notion brought into the World a new Interpretation of the three Principles They won't have them to be subordinate but equal both in Nature and Power However they acknowledg them to be three Essences or Collateral Beings If you ask them how they can avoid admitting a Plurality of Gods They will answer That those three Beings are but one God as Peter James and John are but one Man If you deny that Peter James and John are but one Man they will tell you that you are mistaken because in Propriety of Speech this term Man ought not to signify an Individual as Peter or James or John but a specifical Nature common to them all so that thô they be three Individuals or three Persons yet they are but one Man being Partakers of the same specifical common Nature This they apply to their three Principles They are indeed say they three Hypostases or Persons yet they are but one God This term God denoting not an Individual Hypostasis but a Nature common to the three Persons of the Trinity whereby thô they are three yet they are said to be but one God Thus they made shift as well as they could It was indeed a very unsufficient way of explaining the Unity of God and did by no means resolve the difficulty They made an abstract specifical God as the Heathens might equally have done but there were still three Individual or Numerical Gods as Peter James and John may be said to be by Abstraction one specifical Man because they have the same specifical Nature but however they are still three Individual Numerical Men. Therefore the Schoolmen disliking this Notion as favouring Polytheism found out a new one more agreeable as they thought to the Unity of God They won't have the three Persons of the Trinity to have each of them his own Essence and Nature No this too plainly destroys the Unity of God There is say they but one Divine Essence Right but then they must not part with three Persons of the Trinity Therefore what are those three Persons They are Three Subsistences Three Modes Three Relations Three I know not what 's This is meer Nonsense for a Person is an Intelligent Being and Three Persons must needs be Three Intelligent Beings So true it is that whosoever acknowledges Three Persons in the Godhead if he takes the Word in its proper sense must admit Three Gods Which the Learned Doctor cannot avoid who says they are Three distinct Minds Three substantial Beings Three intelligent Beings therefore unavoidably Three Gods Now is it fair to boast so much of the Tradition concerning the Trinity as if it had been constant and unalterable in all the Ages of the Church when the contrary appears to any sincere Reader The Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice speak like Platonic Philosophers and Arians the Nicene Fathers like Tritheists and the School-men like Mad-men Where now is that unchangeable Tradition so much cried up Considering the ridiculousness of those Men who in their respective Ages set up new Notions of the Trinity I am apt to say contrary to Averroes his Wish Let not my Soul be with the Philosophers To conclude this Chapter those great Boasters of the pretended Tradition should do well to apply themselves to the confuting the Quaternio of Curcellaeus before mentioned which when they have fully and truly performed we may perhaps begin to think of parting with Tradition which indeed is not the Foundation whereon we build our Faith Knowing only the Scriptures which are able to make wise unto Salvation CHAP. II. Containing an Examination of the Doctor 's Answers to the Arguments against the Trinity in the History of the Unitarians HAving premised this general Observation I come to examine what Answer the Doctor returns to the Arguments alledged against the Trinity by the Author of the Brief History of the Vnitarians But I must first consider his Reflections concerning the use of Reason in expounding Scripture This is saith he an Impudent Argument which brings Revelation down in such sublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings to say such a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction whereas a modest Man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not and if it he plainly contained there he would conclude how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught in Scripture p. 141. But is this Impudence to say Transubstantiation cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction I hope not Well then if the Trinity implies no less Contradiction than Transubstantiation why can't we say that it cannot be contained in Scripture We say Transubstantiation cannot be found in Scripture because it is a plain Contradiction to our Reason but if the Trinity be also a plain Contradiction to our Reason why shan't we be allowed to say that it cannot be contained in Scripture I think both Consequences are right But saith the Author A modest Man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not But we have already made such an Inquiry and cannot find the Trinity in Scripture We never could read there that there are Three Persons in one Numerical God Indeed how could we We might as well find there that the Bread of the Sacrament is Transubstantiated into Christ's Body But he goes on And if it be plainly contained there he should conclude how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught in Scripture I beg the Author's pardon there is a vast difference between Vnintelligible and Contradictions He should not have said How Unintelligible soever but how Contradictions soever And thus his Words ought to run He should conclude how Contradictions soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture I perceive the Author found it too harsh to say that how Contradictions soever a thing appears to be that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture and therefore he puts the word Vnintelligible instead of the word Contradictions In effect we do not say that every Unintelligible Thing contained in Scripture is a Contradiction We acknowledg the Resurrection plainly set down in Scripture does imply no Contradiction