Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	father_n	son_n	subsist_v	3,592	5	11.9300	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62586	A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? : collected from the works of the most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.; Assheton, William, 1641-1711.	1697 (1697)	Wing T1221; ESTC R10019	21,341	116

suppose it as being granted by the Socinians themselves The only thing therefore for us to prove and which they deny is this viz. That the Doctrine of the Trinity is Revealed by Almighty God For if we can make it appear that an infinitely Wise and Faithful God hath Revealed it we shall then easily convince them That there is the highest Reason to believe it Q. How then do you prove that God hath Revealed it Where hath God told us That there are Three distinct Persons in the same undivided Divine Essence and Nature A. Were I to Discourse an Atheist or a Deist then since all Conviction must be ex concessis I ought to prove these Two Things 1. The Possibility and Necessity of Divine Revelation 2. That the Books of the Old and New Testament which by way of Eminency we call the Scriptures do contain this Divine Revelation And that in these Books God hath Revealed so much of his own Nature as is necessary for us to know in order to our Salvation But since these Unitarians do profess themselves Christians and consequently to believe the Holy Scriptures I shall have so much Charity for them at present as to suppose it And shall treat them as such And then the only thing I am to prove is this viz. That the Doctrine of the Trinity is Revealed in the Scriptures Q. But neither the word Trinity nor the word Person are to be found in Scripture How then can you pretend to prove a Trinity of Persons from the Scriptures A. Though neither the word Trinity nor perhaps Person in the Sense in which it is used by Divines when they treat of this Mystery be any where to be met with in Scripture yet it cannot be denied but that Three are there spoken of by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost in whose Name every Christian is Baptized and to each of whom the highest Titles and Properties of God are in Scripture attributed And these Three are spoken of with as much distinction from one another as we use to speak of Three several Persons So that though the word Trinity be not found in Scripture yet these Three are there expresly and frequently mentioned And Trinity is nothing but Three of any Thing And so likewise though the word Person be not there expresly applied to Father Son and Holy Ghost yet it will be very hard to find a more convenient word whereby to express the distinction of these Three For which reason I could never yet see any just Cause to quarrel at this Term. For since the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture hath thought fit in speaking of these Three to distinguish them from one another as we use in common Speech to distinguish Three several Persons I cannot see any reason why in the Explication of this Mystery which purely depends upon Divine Revelation we should not speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth And though the word Person is now become a Term of Art I see no cause why we should decline it so long as we mean by it neither more nor less than what the Scripture says in other words V. Archbishop Tillotson's Sermon on 1 Tim. 2. 5. p. 19. Here then I fix my foot That there are Three Differences in the Deity which the Scripture speaks of by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost and every where speaks of them as we use to do of Three distinct Persons And therefore I see no reason why in this Argument we should nicely abstain from using the word Person Id. Sermon II. on John 1. 14. p. 120. Q. You confess then that the word Trinity is not to be found in Scripture However may these Unitarians reply Have you not found it in the Athanasian Creed And because the Church of England hath owned this Creed by taking it into her Liturgy that you may approve your Selves true Sons of the Church therefore say they you are resolved to Defend it V. Pref. to Mr. Milb p. 7. A. We assert Three Persons in the Godhead Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed but because the Scripture hath Revealed that there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost to whom the Divine Nature and Attributes are given This we verily Believe that the Scripture hath Revealed and that there are a great many Places of which we think no tolerable Sense can be given without it and therefore we assert this Doctrine on the same Grounds on which we believe the Scriptures And if there are Three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them what must we do in this Case Must we cast off the Unity of the Divine Essence No that is too frequently and plainly asserted for us to call it into Question Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost as well as to the Father That we cannot do unless we cast off those Books of Scripture wherein those things are contained V. Bishop Stillingfleet's Vind. of the Trinity p. 112. Q. But is it not trifling to prove a Doctrine by Scripture which as the Socinians pretend is contrary to Reason It being a known Rule which I shall express in the words of Bishop Stillingfleet That Whatever speaks a direct Repugnancy to any of the Fundamental Dictates of Nature cannot be of Divine Revelation V. Orig. Sacr. p. 172. For the Law of Nature and of Right Reason imprinted in our hearts is as truly the Law and Word of God as is that which is printed in our Bibles V. Bishop Sanderson's Ser. 4. ad Cl. p. 78. And therefore since Truth is never contrary to it self is it not impertinent to prove this Doctrine of the Trinity by the Scriptures which is not only above Reason but plainly contrary to it A. As to its being above Reason which they are loth to admit any thing to be this I think will bear no great Dispute Because if they would be pleased to speak out they can mean no more by this but that our Reason is not able fully to comprehend it But what then Are there no Mysteries in Religion That I am sure they will not say because God whose Infinite Nature and Perfections are the very foundation of all Religion is certainly the greatest Mystery of all other and the most incomprehensible But we must not nay they will not for this reason deny that there is such a Being as God And therefore if there be Mysteries in Religion it is no reasonable Objection against them that we cannot fully comprehend them Because all Mysteries in what kind soever whether in Religion or in Nature so long and so far as they are Mysteries are for that very reason incomprehensible Vid. Archbishop Tillotson Serm. II. on Joh. 1. 14. p. 117. I desire it may be considered That it is not repugnant to Reason to believe some things which are incomprehensible by our Reason provided that we have sufficient ground and reason for the belief of

they think so I wonder they do not think of another thing which is the begging all Trinitarians for Fools because they cannot count One Two and Three and an Unitarian Jury would certainly cast them One would think such Writers had never gone beyond Shop-books for they take it for granted that all depends upon Counting But these terrible Charges were some of the most common and trite Objections of Infidels St. Augustin mentions it as such when he saith The Infidels sometimes ask us What do you call the Father we answer God What the Son we answer God What the Holy Ghost we answer God So that here the Infidels make the same Objection and draw the very same Inference Then say they the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods But what saith St. Augustin to this Had he no more skill in Arithmetick than to say there are Three and yet but One He saith plainly that there are not three Gods The Infidels are troubled because they are not Inlightned their heart is shut up because they are without Faith By which it is plain he look'd on these as the proper Objections of Infidels and not of Christians But St. Augustin doth not give it over so When you begin to count saith he you go on One Two and Three But when you have reckon'd them what is it you have been counting The Father is the Father the Son the Son and the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost What are these Three Are they not Three Gods No. Are they not Three Almighties No. They are capable of Number as to their Relation to each other but not as to their Essence which is but one V. Bishop Stillingfleet's Vindic. of the Trin. p. 58. Will men never learn to distinguish between Numbers and the Nature of Things For Three to be One is a Contradiction in Numbers but whether an Infinite Nature can communicate it self to Three different Subsistences without such a Division as is among Created Beings must not be determined by bare Numbers but by the Absolute Perfections of the Divine Nature which must be owned to be above our Comprehension Id. Serm. on 1 Tim. 1. 15. p. 16. This is plain and convincing to all Modest Unprejudiced Persons But it seems our Unitarians are not thus to be convinced Who do further Object That it is as ridiculous to affirm That the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost being Three Persons are One God as it is to say that Peter James and John being Three Persons are One Man Q. If I rightly apprehend them their Argument is this Three Human Persons are Three Men Therefore Three Divine Persons are Three Gods And this they repeat with great Triumph in several of their Pamphlets What Answer therefore can you return to this A. How can any Man of Sense be satisfied with such kind of Arguments as these One would think they wrote only for such as would take their words they join so much Confidence with so very little appearance of Reason For is not this great skill in these Matters to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the Godhead and Peter James and John Do they think there is no Difference between an infinitely perfect Being and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are Do they suppose the Divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals as Human Nature is Q. No they may say but ye who hold three Persons must think so A. For what reason We do assert Three Persons but it is on the account of Divine Revelation and in such a manner as the Divine Nature is capable of it For it is a good Rule of Boethius Talia sunt praedicata qualia subjecta permiserint We must not say that there are Persons in the Trinity but in such a manner as is agreeable to the Divine Nature and if that be not capable of Division and Separation then the Persons must be in the same undivided Essence Id. Vind. p. 102. So that herein lies the true Solution of the Difficulty by considering the difference between the Humane and Divine Nature The Humane Nature being finite is capable of Division Multiplication and Separation But the Divine Nature being Infinite is not capable of any Division Multiplication and Separation Now the Divine Essence is that alone which makes God that can be but One and therefore there can be no more Gods than One. But because the same Scripture which assures us of the Unity of the Divine Essence doth likewise join the Son and Holy Ghost in the same Attributes Operations and Worship therefore as to the mutual Relations we may reckon Three but as to the Divine Essence that can be no more than One. Here then is the true Reason why we affirm That Three Human Persons Peter James and John are Three Men and yet Three Divine Persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are but One God Because The Divine Essence is not capable of such Division and Separation as the Human Nature is Id. p. 64 76. Q. This is full and to the purpose and hath given great Satisfaction to my Self as well as others But is there nothing further Objected against the Doctrine of the B. Trinity wherein I may be instructed by you A. There is an Objection lately started and I wonder you have not charged me with it Q. Pray let me hear it A. 'T is this Three Divine Substances are Three Gods But Three Divine Persons are Three Divine Substances Therefore Three Divine Persons are Three Gods This hath most insultingly been repeated by our Unitarians and hath made no little noise in their late Papers and Pamphlets Q. Who revived this old Objection and how came it now to be brought again upon the Stage A. To understand this matter rightly we must consider that when the Socinian Pamphlets first came abroad some years since a Learned and Worthy Person of our Church who had appeared with great Vigour and Reason against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome in the late Reign which ought not to be forgotten undertook to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against the History of the Unitarians and the Notes of the Athanasian Creed But in the warmth of Disputing and out of a desire to make this matter more intelligible he suffer'd himself to be carried beyond the ancient Methods which the Church hath used to express her Sense by still retaining the same Fundamental Article of three Persons in one undivided Essence but explaining it in such a manner as to make each Person to have a peculiar and proper Substance of his own V. Bishop of Worcester's Pref. to Vind. of Trin. p. 20. Q. Let me hear the Opinion of that Learned Person more distinctly A. In short it is this That the same Author asserts 1. That it is gross Sabellianism to say That there are not three Personal Minds or Spirits or Substances 2. That a distinct substantial Person must have a distinct Substance

of his own proper and peculiar to his own Person But he owns that although there are three distinct Persons or Minds each of whom is distinctly and by himself God yet there are not three Gods but One God or one Divinity Which he saith is intirely and indivisibly and inseparably in three distinct Persons or Minds That the same one Divine Nature is wholly and intirely communicated by the Eternal Father to the Eternal Son and by the Father and Son to the Eternal Spirit without any Division or Separation and so it remains one still V. Modest Exam. p. 15 17 29 30. This is the substance of this new Explication which hath raised such Flames that Injunctions from Authority were thought necessary to suppress them V. Pref. p. 25. Q. Pray tell me your Thoughts with freedom Is this Explication of the Trinity by Three distinct Infinite Minds and Substances Orthodox or not A. Now to deal as impartially in this matter as may be I do not think our Understandings one jot helped in the Notion of the Trinity by this Hypothesis but that it is liable to as great Difficulties as any other Q. You begin then to suspect his Explication A. None ought to be fond of it Or to set it against the general Sense of others and the currant Expressions of Divines about these Mysteries Nor to call the different Opinions of others Heresy or Nonsense which are provoking Words and tend very much to inflame Mens Passions because their Faith and Understanding are both call'd in question which are very tender Things V. Pref. p. 41. Q. Is it then your Opinion that this Hypothesis of Three distinct Substances in the Trinity can scarce be Defended A. I fear it will be impossible to clear this Hypothesis as to the reconciling Three Individual Essences with One individual Divine Essence which looks too like asserting That there are Three Gods and yet but One. Id. p. 31. Q. Will you please to explain this more fully that I may better understand it A. Can One whole entire indivisible Substance be actually divided into Three Substances For if every Person must have a peculiar Substance of his own and there be Three Persons there must be Three peculiar Substances And how can there be Three peculiar Substances and yet but One entire and indivisible Substance I do not say there must be Three divided Substances in Place or separate Substances but they must be divided as three Individuals of the same kind which must introduce a Specifick Divine Nature which I think very inconsistent with the Divine Perfections Ib. p. 29. Q. But every Person must have his own proper Substance and so the Substance must be divided if there be Three Persons A. That every Person must have a Substance to support his Subsistence is not denied But the Question is Whether that Substance must be divided or not We say where the Substance will bear it as in Created Beings a Person hath a separate Substance that is the same Nature diversified by Accidents Qualities and a separate Existence But where these things cannot be there the same Essence must remain undivided but with such Relative Properties as cannot be confounded V. Vind. p. 105. When we speak of Finite Substances and Persons we are certain that distinct Persons do imply distinct Substances because they have a distinct and separate Existence But this will not hold in an Infinite Substance where necessary Existence doth belong to the Idea of it Id. p. 261. Q. But say our Unitarians A Person is an Intelligent Being and therefore 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 V. Defence of Hist. of Unit. p. 5. A. The full and adequate Definition of a Person from which the Learned Doctor doth draw his Argument and the Unitarians their Objection is not this as they suppose viz. A Person is an Intelligent Substance For this is but part of the Definition But the full and adequate Definition of a Person is this A Person is a compleat Intelligent Substance with a peculiar manner of Subsistence So that An Individual Intelligent Substance is rather supposed to the making of a Person than the proper Definition of it For a Person relates to something which doth distinguish it from another Intelligent Substance in the same Nature and therefore the Foundation of it lies in the peculiar manner of Subsistence which agrees to One and to none else of the kind and this is it which is called Personality Which doth not consist I say in a meer Intelligent Being but in that peculiar manner of Subsistence in that Being which can be in no other So that the proper Reason of Personality whereby one Person is constituted and distinguished from another it is the peculiar manner of Subsistence whereby one Person hath such Properties as are incommunicable to any other V. Vind. p. 260 72. From these Premises we are instructed Why in the Blessed Trinity the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are Three Persons and yet but One God The Reason is this God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are but One God because the Divine Essence Nature and Substance which alone makes God is intirely One and is not capable of any Separation Multiplication or Division Therefore there can be no more Gods than One. But since these Three Father Son and Holy Ghost have each of them a peculiar manner of Subsistence That is each of these Three hath a peculiar Property incommunicable to any other Therefore as to their mutual Relations and Personalities they are Three but as to the Divine Essence and Godhead they are but One. And this is so far from being contrary to Reason as the Socinians pretend that it is highly Rational to Believe a Trinity in Unity That is Three distinct Persons and yet but One God As I hope hath been fully proved and that to your Satisfaction Q. Before you talk too much of Satisfaction you must Answer me a Question A. What is it Q. Do you believe Transubstantiation A. No I do not But what 's this to the purpose Will you not allow me to believe the Trinity unless I will believe Transubstantiation And must I renounce the Trinity because I reject Transubstantiation Q. The Unitarians pretend that the Case is parallel A. Pray give me their Objection in their own words and then I shall instruct you what Answer to return to these Men of Sense and Reason Q. I find that the Belief of a Trinity does Contradict Reason as much as Transubstantiation Now who should not scruple an Opinion perfectly parallel with Transubstantiation and equally fruitful in Incongruities and Contradictions Well then if the Trinity implies

of God and the Communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all Amen 2 Cor. 12. 14. From whence the Christian Church hath always believed a Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Divine Nature V. Two Dial. Part II. p. 31. THE CLOSE THE Unitarians themselves cannot deny that many Things certainly are the particular manner of whose Existence we can neither Comprehend nor Explain Therefore though the particular Manner of the Existence of these Three Differences or Persons in the Divine Nature expressed in Scripture by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost is incomprehensible by our finite Understandings and inexplicable by us that is though the manner of the Union and Distinction between them is above our Reach and Comprehension yet considering the infinite Perfections of the Divine Nature which are so far above our reach God may justly oblige us to believe those Things concerning Himself which we are not able to Comprehend And of this I hope I have given a sufficient Account in the foregoing Discourse FINIS THE CONTENTS THE Doctrine of the Trinity is a very Rational Doctrine P. 1 What is meant by this Word Trinity and what Doctrines concerning it are proposed to our Belief 2 What is Faith or Belief in General 5 Why we believe the Doctrine of the Trinity 10 How it can be proved that God hath Revealed it 12 Object Neither the word Trinity nor the word Person are to be found in Scripture Answer'd 14 Object 'T is the Doctrine of the Athanasian Creed Therefore the Clergy of the Church of England are resolved to Defend it Answer'd 19 Object 'T is above Reason Answ. 22 'T is not repugnant to Reason to believe some Things which are incomprehensible by our Reason 24 Object 'T is contrary to Reason Answ. 44 Object Three Divine Persons are Three Divine Substances Therefore Three Gods Answ. 59 The Parallel between the Trinity and Transubstantiation largely considered 75 The Close 104 Catalogue of some Books Printed for B. Aylmer A Conference with an Anabaptist Being a Defence of Infant-Baptism In 8vo Price 12 d. A Theological Discourse of Last Wills and Testaments In 8vo Price 12 d. A Discourse concerning a Death-Bed Repentance Price 6 d. A Seasonable Vindication of the B. Trinity Being an Answer to this Question Why do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity Collected from the Works of the Most Reverend Dr. John Tillotson Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury And the Right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingsteet now Lord Bishop of Worcester Price 12 d A Short Exposition of the Preliminary Questions and Answers of the Church Catechism Being an Introduction to a Defence of Infant-Baptism Price 2 d. Directions in order to the Suppressing of Debauchery and Prophaneneness 2 d. A Discourse against Blasphemy Being a Conference with M. S. Concerning 1. The Rudeness of Atheistical Discourse 2. The Certainty and Eternity of Hell-Torments 3. The Truth and Authority of the Holy Scripture 2 d. A Discourse against 1. Drunkenness 2. Swearing and Cursing 2 d. The Plain Man's Devotion Part 1. Being a Method of Daily Devotion fitted to the meanest Capacities 2 d. The Plain Man's Devotion Part 2. Being a Method of Devotion for the Lord's-Day 2 d. These are the price of each of these small Books single but for the encouragement of those that are so charitably inclined to give away some quantities of them they may have them at Ten shillings a hundred At Brab Aylmer ' s in Cornhill These above all Writ by the Reverend William Assheton D. D. Six Sermons concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of Our Blessed Saviour His Sacrifice and Satisfaction And of the Unity of the Divine Nature in the B. Trinity By his Grace John late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury In 8vo Certain Propositions by which the Doctrine of the H. Trinity is so explained according to the Ancient Fathers as to speak it not contradictory to Reason A Second Defence of the Propositions Both by Edward Lord Bishop of Glocester A Brief Exposition on the Creed the Lord's Prayer and Ten Commandments To which is added the Doctrine of the Sacraments By Isaac Barrow D. D. And late Master of Trinity College Cambridge This on the Creed never before Published Being very different from the Volume of Sermons on it In 8vo Now in the Press A Defence of the Blessed Trinity By Isaac Barrow D. D. Never before Printed Price 1 s. Interrogant enim nos aliquando Infideles dicunt Patrem quem dicitis Deum dicitis Respondemus Deum Filium quem dicitis Deum dicitis Respondemus Deum Spiritum Sanctum quem dicitis Deum dicitis Respondemus Deum Ergo inquiunt Pater Filius Spiritus Sanctus tres sunt Dii Respondemus Non. Turbantur quia non illuminantur cor clausum habent quia clavem fidel non habent Aug. in Job Tr. 39. Ubi cogitare coeperis incipis numerare Ubi numeraveris quid numeraveris non potes respondere Pater Pater est Filius Filius Spiritus Sanctus Spiritus Sanctus est Quid sunt isti Tres non tres Dii Non. Non tres Omnipotentes Non sed Unus Omnipotens Hoc solo numerum insinuant quod ad invicem sunt non quod ad se sunt Id. Ib.

them Especially if they be concerning God who is in his Nature Incomprehensible and we be well assured that he hath revealed them And therefore it ought not to offend us that these Differences in the Deity are incomprehensible by our finite Understandings because the Divine Nature it self is so and yet the belief of that is the Foundation of all Religion There are a great many things in Nature which we cannot comprehend how they either are or can be Id. Ser. on 1 Tim. 2. 5. pag. 22. For my own part I confess it to be my Opinion that we converse every day with very many things none of which we comprehend Who is he that comprehends either the Structure or the Reason of the Powers of Seminal Forms or Seeds Or how the Parts of Matter hold together Or how being in their own nature Lifeless and Sensless they do for all that in some Positures and Textures acquire Life Sensation and even Volition Memory and Reason Or how the Sun and other vast Heavenly Fires subsist for so many Ages without any Nourishment or Fuel which Fire of all other Bodies most requires Or how when the Sun arrives at the Tropicks he never goes further either Northward or Southward but returns towards the Equator and thereby preserves the World by his Vital Warmth V. Consider on the Trinity to H. H. p. 4. There are many things likewise in our Selves which no man is able in any measure to comprehend as to the manner how they are done and performed As the Vital Union of Soul and Body Who can imagine by what device or means a Spirit comes to be so closely united and so firmly link'd to a Material Body that they are not to be parted without great force and violence offer'd to Nature The like may be said of the Operations of our several Faculties of Sense and Imagination of Memory and Reason and especially of the Liberty of our Wills And yet we certainly find all these Faculties in our selves though we cannot either comprehend or explain the particular manner in which the several Operations of them are performed And if we cannot comprehend the manner of those Operations which we plainly perceive and feel to be in our Selves much less can we expect to comprehend things without us and least of all can we pretend to comprehend the infinite Nature and Perfections of God and every thing belonging to him Thus you see by these Instances that it is not repugnant to Reason to believe a great many things to be of the manner of whose Existence we are not able to give a particular and distinct account And much less is it repugnant to Reason to believe those things concerning God which we are very well assured he hath declared concerning himself though these things by our Reason should be incomprehensible And this is truly the Case as to the matter now under debate We are sufficiently assured that the Scriptures are a Divine Revelation and that this Mystery of the Trinity is therein declared to us Now that we cannot comprehend it is no sufficient Reason not to believe it For if it were a good Reason for not believing it then no Man ought to believe that there is a God because his Nature is most certainly incomprehensible But we are assured by many Arguments that there is a God and the same natural Reason which assures us that He is doth likwise assure us that He is incomprehensible and therefore our believing him to be so doth by no means overthrow our Belief of his Being In like manner we are assured by Divine Revelation of the truth of this Doctrine of the Trinity and being once assured of that our not being able fully to comprehend it is not reason enough to stagger our belief of it A Man cannot deny what he sees though the necessary consequence of admitting it may be something which he cannot comprehend One cannot deny the frame of this World which he sees with his eyes though from thence it will necessarily follow that either that or something else must be of it self Which yet is a thing which no man can comprehend how it can be And by the same Reason a man must not deny what God says to be true though he cannot comprehend many things which God says As particularly concerning this Mystery of the Trinity It ought then to satisfy us that there is sufficient Evidence that this Doctrine is delivered in Scripture and that what is there declared concerning it doth not imply a Contradiction For why should our finite Understandings pretend to comprehend that which is infinite or to Know all the real Differences that are consistent with the Unity of an Infinite Being or to be able fully to explain this Mystery by any similitude or resemblance taken from finite Beings V. Archbishop Tillotson's Serm. on 1 Tim. 2. 5. p. 23. Great Difficulty I acknowledge there is in the explication of it in which the further we go beyond what God hath thought fit to reveal to us in Scripture concerning it the more we are entangled and that which men are pleased to call an explaining of it does in my apprehension often make it more obscure that is less plain than it was before Which does not so very well agree with a pretence of Explication Id. Ser. on Joh. 1. 14. p. 119. And therefore though some Learned and Judicious Men may have very commendably attempted a more particular Explication of this great Mystery by the strength of Reason yet I dare not pretend to that knowing both the difficulty and danger of such an Attempt and mine own insufficiency for it All that I ever designed upon this Argument was to make out the Credibility of the Thing from the Authority of the Holy Scriptures without descending to a more particular explication of it than the Scripture hath given us Lest by endeavouring to lay the Difficulties which are already started about it new ones should be raised and such as may perhaps be much harder to be removed than those we have now to grapple withal Nor indeed do I see that it is any ways necessary to do more it being sufficient that God hath declared what he thought fit in this matter and that we do firmly believe what he says concerning it to be true though we do not perfectly comprehend the meaning of all that he hath said about it Id. Ser. on 1 Tim. 2. 5. p. 17. Q. But these Unitarians do urge the matter much further and pretend That this Mystery of the Trinity now under debate is not only above Reason but plainly contrary to Reason For thus they expostulate with the Bishop of Worcester He utterly mistakes to give you their own words in Thinking that we deny the Articles of the New Christianity or Athanasian Religion because they are Mysteries or because we do not comprehend them we deny them because we do comprehend them we have a clear and distinct perception that they are not