Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	divine_a	trinity_n	unity_n	2,602	5	9.3119	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59791	An apology for writing against Socinians, in defence of the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and incarnation in answer to a late earnest and compassionate suit for forbearance to the learned writers of some controversies at present / by William Sherlock ...	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1693 (1693)	Wing S3265; ESTC R21192	19,159	38

And thus for fear we should have believed too much upon the Authority of Councils which is the only bottom he will allow our Faith he gives them a secret stab himself and makes their Authority ridiculous That the several Bishops declared what Faith had been taught and received in their Churches is true That this Authority chiefly carried the Point is false Athanasius grew famous in the Council for his learned and subtile Disputations which confounded the Arians and what Arguments he chiefly relied on we may see in his Works And whoever does but look into the Fathers who wrote against the Arians in those days will find that their Faith was resolved into Scripture and Reason and not meerly or chiefly into Authority And thus he comes to be Plain and Succinct and tells us That of all Controversies we can touch upon at present this of the Trinity is the most unreasonable the most dangerous and so the most unseasonable It is the most Unreasonable 1. Because it is on all hands confess'd the Deity is Infinite Unsearchable Incomprehensible and yet every one who pretends to Write plainer than another on this controversy professes to make all Comprehensible and easy I perceive he is well versed in Mr. Hobbs's Divinity though I can discover no marks of his skill in Fathers and Councils For this was Mr. Hobb's reason why we should not pretend to know any thing of God nor inquire after his Attributes because he has but one Attribute which is that he is Incomprehensible and as this Author argues It is a small favour to request of Persons of Learning that they should be consistent with and not contradict themselves that is That they would not pretend to know any thing of God whom they acknowledge to be Incomprehensible which is to pretend to know what they confess cannot be known Now I desire to know Whether we may Dispute about the Being and Nature of God and his essential Attributes and Perfections and vindicate the Notion of a Deity from those Impossibilities Inconsistencies Absurdities which some Atheistical Philosophers charge on it notwithstanding that we confess God to be Incomprehensible And if the Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature does not signifie that we can know nothing of God and must inquire nothing about him the Trinity of Divine Persons is as proper an object of our Faith and modest Inquiries as the Unity of the Divine Essence for they are both Incomprehensible And to say That every one who pretends to write plainer than another on this Controversy professes to make all comprehensible and easy may with equal Truth and Authority be charg'd on all those who undertake to vindicate the Notion and Idea of a God or to explain any of the Divine Attributes and Perfections A finite mind cannot comprehend what is infinite but yet one man may have a truer and more perfect Notion of the Nature and Attributes of God than another God is Incomprehensible in Heaven as well as on Earth and yet Angels and Glorified Spirits know God after another manner than we do There must be infinite degrees of knowledge when the object is infinite and every new degree is more perfect than that below it and yet no Creature can attain the highest degree of all which is a perfect comprehension So that the knowledge of God may increase every day and men may Write plainer about these matters every day without pretending to make all that is in God even a Trinity in Unity comprehensible and easy This is a spiteful and scandalous imputation and is intended to represent all those who undertake to write about the Trinity and to vindicate the Primitive Faith of the Church from the scorn and contempt of Hereticks as a company of vain-conceited presuming but ignorant Scriblers who pretend to make the Incomprehensible Nature of God comprehensible and easy But the comfort is we have so good Company that we are able to bear this Charge without blushing even General Councils and those great Lights of the Church Athanasius St. Hillary St. Basil the Gregories St. Chrysostom St. Austin and many others besides all those who in all succeeding Ages to this day have with equal Zeal and Learning defended the same Cause and yet never profess'd to make all comprehensible and easy All that any man pretends to in vindicating the Doctrine of the Trinity is to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture and that it contains no such Absurdities and Contradictions as should force a Wise man to reject it and either to reject the Scriptures for its sake or to put some strained and unnatural senses on Scripture to reconcile it to the Principles of Reason and this I hope may be done by those who yet acknowledge the Divine Nature and the Trinity in Unity to be Incomprehensible But here he had a very fair opportunity had he thought fit to take it to correct the Insolence and Presumption of his Learned Writers of Controversy who will not allow the Divine Nature to be Incomprehensible and will not believe God himself concerning his own Nature beyond what their Reason can conceive and comprehend Who deny Prescience for the same Reason that they deny the Trinity because they can't conceive it nor reconcile it with the liberty of Human Actions and for the same reason may deny all the Attributes of God which have something in them beyond what we can conceive especially an Eternity without begining and without Succession which is chargeable with more Absurdities and Contradictions than the Trinity it self For a duration which can't be measured and an eternal duration which can be measured and a Succession without a Beginning a Second or Third without a First are unconceivable to us and look like very plain and irreconci●●ble Contradictions This is the true use of the Incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature not to stop all Enquiries after God nor to discourage our Studies of the Divine Nature and Perfections for we may know a great deal and may every day increase our knowledge of what is Incomprehensible thô we cannot know it all but to check the presumption of some vain Pretenders to Reason who will not own a God nor believe any thing of God which their Reason cannot comprehend which must not only make them Hereticks but if pursued to its just Consequences must make them Atheists or make such a God as no body will own or worship but themselves a God adequate and commensurate to their Understandings which must be a little finite comprehensible God In the next place to prove how unreasonable it is to Dispute in Vindication of the Trinity he observes again That this Matter has been sufficiently determined by due Authority but having answered this once I see no need to answer it again To back this he adds That the present issue shews that in this World it never will be better understood for it seems as he says The Master of the Sentences and some Modern Writers

man should believe as he pleases and no man concern himself to confute Heresies or to divide the Church with Disputes which is the true Latitude our Author seems to aim at and then he may believe as he pleases too But pray why should we not write against the Socinians Especially when they are the Aggressors and without any provocation publish and disperse the most impudent and scandalous Libels against the Christian Faith He will give us some very wise Reasons for this by and by when he comes to be plain and succinct in the mean time we must take such as we can meet with He is afraid pe●●le should lose all Reverence for the Litany should we go on to vindicate the Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity I should not easily have apprehended this and possibly some of the common people might have been as dull as my self had he not taken care before he parted for fear no body else should observe it to teach people to ridicule the Trinity in their Prayers Dr. Wallis would not undertake to say what a Divine Person signifies as distinguished from Nature and Essence only says a Person is somewhat but the True Notion of a Person he does not know This Author commends this as ever held to by all Learned Trinitarians for indeed all the Doctor meant by his somewhat is That Three Persons signify Three Real Subsistences and are Real Things not a Sabellian Trinity of mere Names And yet in the very next Page he teaches his Readers to ridicule the Litany with the Doctors somewhats O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity Three Somewhats and One God have Mercy on us c. Was there ever any thing more Senseless or more Prophane That because the Doctor would not undertake to define a Person but only asserted in general That a Divine Person was somewhat or some Real Being in opposition to a mere Nominal Difference and Distinction therefore in our Prayers we may as well call the Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost Three somewhats Nobis non licet esse tam disertis I am sure he has reason heartily to pray That these Three somewhats as he prophanely calls them would have Mercy on him In the next place he says He is well assured that the late Socinian Pam●●lets would have died away or have been now in few mens hands had not divers persons taken on them the labour to confute them But did his Socinian Friends who were such busie Factors for the Cause tell him so Did they print them that no body might read them Were they not dispersed in every Corner and boasted of in every Coffee-house before any Answer appeared However were it so is there no regard to be had to Hereticks themselves And is it not better that such Pamphlets should be in an hundred hands with an Answer than in five hands without one I should think it at any time a good reward for all the labour of confuting to rescue or preserve a very few from such fatal Errors which I doubt not but is a very acceptable service to that Merciful Shepherd who was so careful to seek one lost and straggling Sheep Heresies and Vices dye by being neglected just as Weeds do for we know the Parable That the Devil sows his tares while men sleep But this is no new Charge the good Bishop of Alexandria met with the same Censures for his Zeal against Arius for it seems that Heresie would have died too if it had not been opposed I doubt this Author judges of other mens Zeal for Heresy by his own Zeal for the Truth which wants a little rubbing and chafing to bring it to life but Heresy is all flame and spirit will blow and kindle it self if it be not quenched But yet if what he says be true That by our unskilful way of confuting Heresie we run into those very Absurdities which our Adversaries would reduce us to This I confess is a very great fault and when he shews me any of those Absurdities I will thankfully correct them for all the Obloquies in the world will never make me blush to recant an Error But before he pretends to that I must desire him that he would first read my Book which I know some men censure without reading it Such general Accusations are very spiteful and commonly have a mixture of spite both against the Cause and against the Person His next Argument is very observable We must not dispute now against Socinians because these Controversies about the Trinity have been above Thirteen hundred years ago determined by two general Councils the Nicene and first Constantinopolitan which are owned by our Church and their Creeds received into our Liturgy Ergo we must not defend this Faith against Hereticks because it is the Faith of two General Councils which are owned by our Church Did Athanasius think this a good Argument against Writing and Disputing against the Arians after the Council of Nice had condemned Arius and his Doctrines Did St. Basil Gregory Nazianzen Nyssen St. Chrysostom St. Jerom St. Austin think this a good Argument who wrote so largely against these Heresies which former Councils had condemned But this Author thinks the best way is to let the Matter stand upon this bottom of Authority that is let Hereticks ridicule our Faith as much as they please we must make them no other answer but that this is the Faith of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Councils and the Faith of the Church of England And can he intend this for any more than a Jest when he knows how Socinians despise the determinations of Councils and particularly with what scorn they treat the Nicene Fathers Is this an Age to resolve our Faith into Church Authority Or would he himself believe such absurd Doctrines as they represent the Trinity in Unity to be merely upon Church Authority For my part I declare I would not I greatly value the Authority of those Ancient Councils as credible Witnesses of the Traditionary Sense of the Church before those Controversies were started but were not these Doctrines taught in Scripture were they manifestly repugnant to the plain and evident Principles of Reason all the Councils in the World should never reconcile me to them no more than they should to the Doctrine of Transubstantion And therefore methinks he might have at least allowed us to have challenged the Scriptures as well as General Councils on our side and to have vindicated our Faith from all pretended absurdities and contradictions to Reason But would any man of common sense who had not intended to expose the Faith of the Holy Trinity have told the world at this time of day That we have no other safe and sure bottom for our Faith but only the Authority of General Councils Nay That the Council of Nice it self on whose Authority we must rest had little else themselves for their Determinations but only Authority That it was Authority chiefly carried the Point