Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	divine_a	faith_n	revelation_n	3,413	5	9.3938	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B21416	A sermon preach'd at Colchester, June 2. 1697. Before the Right Honourable and Reverend Father in God Henry Lord Bishop of London, at a conference with his clergy upon His Majesty's late injunctions. / By H. De Luzancy ... ; Printed by his Lordship's special command. ; To which are prefixed some remarks on the Socinians late answer to the four letters written against them by the same author.	De Luzancy, H. C. (Hippolyte du Chastelet), d. 1713.	1697 (1697)	Wing D2423A; Interim Tract Supplement Guide 226.f.17[10]; ESTC R26743	22,530	34

L. I hope it will not be taken amiss if I make some Remarks upon it 1. It is very diverting to see a Writing call'd an Answer to the four Letters and not so much as a Page or Line or Tittle of the four Letters touch'd I confess that this is an easie way of answering and that at this rate any Book upon Earth may be answer'd Any Body may have the Pleasure to be an Author But I am not altogether satisfied that this is consistent with that reputation of Learning and Eloquence which these Gentlemen men have so justly acquir'd One or two more such Answers will I am afraid sink or at least endanger a part of it 2. They give a rare reason for not meddling with the four Letters I know not says the Author p. 47. whether we are concern'd in them till I know more certainly in what Sence he holds a Trinity of Divine Persons and the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour I beg leave of these Gentlemen to assert that they know as well as I do my self what is my sence in those Matters Obscurity is none of the many defects which the four Letters may be charg'd with But they were not willing to intangle themselves in the discussion of so many Citations or to make good the weak side of their Writings which they were sensible could not be maintain'd They have found of late a shorter Cut and that is the famous distinction of Real and Nominal Trinitarians They steal away with this on all occasions and still maintain a running Fight It is their last refuge and had it not been for the rare contrivance there had been before this an end of the Socinian Controversie To answer a solid Argument is a hard and generally an unfortunate Task But if they can but bring you right or wrong within the Verge of the fatal Distinction then they have always a large Field for Discourse They act in this like ingenious but whether altogether like conscientious Men I am not willing to determine 3. They are so full of that beloved distinction and so fond of meeting with any thing that looks like it that in what they call an Answer to the Four Letters they have done to themselves and to me a real Injury To themselves by a flat contradiction in the space of four Pages and to me by charging me with that which I never said or thought They make me say that the Divine Persons are Three Infinite Spirits Pag. 43. He says Three Infinite Spirits each of them a God are all of them but One God I averr that there is nothing in the Four Letters which directly or indirectly looks like that It is not the Language of Scripture nor that of the Catholick Church It never was and I hope shall never be mine But this they have contradicted Pag. 47. by desiring to know in what Sence I hold a Trinity of Divine Persons One would be apt to say that this betrays a great deal of Incogitancy 4. The Four Letters then are still sound and safe but the Preface is engag'd and I must endeavour to bring it off Two things in it are excepted against The one that I said That the Consent of the whole Christian World must be a strong Inducement to a modest Socinian to mistrust all his Arguments and that to oppose all that is great and good in the Church of God in a Point of Faith which Word the Author of the Answer has overlook'd is too much for the most presuming Disputant He says to this p. 40. that the case is this one side has Argument the other has Authority and Number And that in a Clash between Argument and Number that whole World and all that is great in it when weigh'd against but one Argument is as if you had put nothing at all into the Scale I say that he absolutely mistakes the Case We maintain that the Church has Reason as well as Authority and Number and that on this very Account a modest Socinian must lose much of his Confidence By all that is great and good I mean the Sacred Councils the Holy and Learned Fathers and the different Societies of Christians all the World over who have been baptiz'd in the Name of that Blessed Trinity and look upon Iesus Christ as the Author and Finisher of their Faith In a Point of Faith and much less in the Foundation God will not suffer the Catholick Church to err Had I said that it had been a Reason to a modest Socinian to mistrust all his Arguments I had said nothing but what is exactly true I confess I was too modest my self in calling it only an Inducement 5. The other Exception is against an Assertion which I thought no Divine in the World would have disputed That Faith and Reason are two different things and consequently that that which is the Object of Faith cannot be the Object of Reason He calls this p. 41. a very rash Proposition He says some lines before That the Apostle teaches Heb. 11.1 not only that the Object of Faith and Reason is the same but that there cannot be Faith without Reason and that Faith is the Product of Reason This Author should have consider'd before he call'd the Proposition rash that it is the Sence of all the Ancient and Modern Divines and that thô sometimes Faith and Reason are conversant about the same Object as for instance in the Existence and Vnity of God which Reason considers as well as Faith yet for all that their Object is different and even in this very case Reason assents to it as it is naturally known and Faith as it is supernaturally reveal'd The place of the Apostle should not have been mention'd at all For what is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Evidence of things not seen but a Revelation of those things which Reason cannot reach or penetrate and on this very account are said to be unseen and is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Demonstration which rising from an higher Principle is different from and has a greater Certainty than Reason But what this Author says That there can be no Faith without Reason and that Faith is the Product of Reason shews plainly the misfortune of writing Answers in haste If by the first of these Propositions he means that Faith is always rational and that Reason never wants strong Inducements to believe which the Schools in their rugged Language call Motives of Credibility I say so too But if he means that we cannot believe except we have a clear Notion of what is propos'd to our Belief I say that it is against the Nature of Faith which offers things above Reason and expects the submission of our Judgments to the Authority of the Revelation The second Proposition that Faith is the Product of Reason is capable of a tolerable Sence if by it is meant no more than that Reason is an introduct●on to Faith But if by it is meant that it is

Fidei nostrae Sacramentum That which the Fathers understood by the answer of a good Conscience towards God that is a solemn Profession Declaration of what Religion obliges us to believe and from which we ought not to depart This is the first Shield of Faith which the Church oppos'd to the early Attempts of those Hereticks who thought to have stifl'd her in her Infancy This Confession of God the Father of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord and of the Holy Spirit which is the Substance of that Creed made unsuccessful the Endeavours of Simon Cerinthus Basilides Menander Carpocrates and the swarm of impure Gnosticks By this every Christian was initiated to Religion gave a reason of the Hope that was in him and became a Member of that Society here on Earth which after perseverance in well doing is to be rewarded in Heaven I know that a Critick of this Age a Person of the first rank in the Common-wealth of Learning has disputed both the Antiquity and Universality of this Creed A Notion too unadvisedly taken up by several Authors who thought that the Socinians took too great an Advantage from the Simplicity of its Articles He made it to be only a Creed of the Latin or Western Church which the Catechumens were taught before their Admission to Baptism He produces two of St. Irenoeus three of Tertullian one of St. Cyril of Jerusalem three of Ruffinus and insists on some difference even between the Fathers who have been the Expositors of this Creed St. Austin Chrysologus Maximus and others But notwithstanding all this whosoever will look into the Creeds of St. Irenoeus and Tertullian for that of St. Cyril was after the Nicene Council and those which Ruffinus has compar'd that is the Roman the Aquileian and the Oriental Creeds will find so mighty an agreement and the variations so minute and inconsiderable as to make impossible any substantial difference And it is certainly a strange Fancy that the Socinians should take an advantage from the Simplicity of these Articles which being but a Compendium of the New Testament are at last resolv'd into it For the Sence of that Creed must be that of the Scriptures of which it is an Epitome And how can they argue against the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit from their not being call'd God in the Creed when the Scriptures are so full in asserting the Unity of God and the Trinity of Persons in that one Adorable and Divine Nature Are we not baptiz'd in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit Are there not Three that bear Record in Heaven the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit and are not these three one Is not Christ declar'd to be God blessed over all for ever and God manifested in the Flesh Are we not told that the Spirit searches all things even the deep things of God and that to lye to the Holy Spirit is to lye to God This Objection is of that Clearness and Evidence is so far from giving them any Advantage and they have found themselves so press'd by it that they have been forc'd to split on another Rock and say that the Form of Baptism is no part of Scripture and is only an addition to St Matthew That the Place of St. John is another and that the Word God is not to be found in the cited Scriptures Shifts unbecoming learned Men Which even Praxeas and Sabellius would have blush'd at The former oppos'd by Tertullian who tells him that this Rule of Faith is come down to us from the beginning of the Gospel The latter by Dionysius of Alexandria who tells him apud Euseb l. 7. c. 6. That the Persons of the Father Son and Holy spirit are indivisibly united in the same Divine Nature 2 dly The Forms agreed upon in the Primitive Councils at Nice Antioch Sardis Ephesus Constantinople Chalcedon c. are no Additions to but only Explications of the first Form They are still the Form of sound Words It is not in the Power of the Church to make new Forms new Articles of Faith And in this the Church of Rome is inexcusable and guilty of a Schism which she has charg'd others with But to declare and explain the Faith is an essential part of its Power The growing Heresies were the occasion of the Apostolical Creed the first Remedy apply'd to that raging Disease The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the vain and noisie Oppositions of a pretended Knowledge oblig'd them to deliver the sacred System of Divine Verities But when the old Hereticks were worn out leaving to the World a sad remembrance of their gross Follies and Immoralities and a new sort sprung up who did attempt to overthrow the Faith once deliver'd to the Saints by Blasphemous Heterodoxies It was high time for the Church to make the Creed more comprehensive than it was at first give a greater extent to its Articles and leave safe to future Ages the Depositum which they had receiv'd And indeed it would have been very happy for the Church if Men keeping to the Plainness and Simplicity of the Revelation had not presum'd to go farther Oh that an humble Faith had stifl'd Curiosity in its first Attempts to inquire into Divine Mysteries with weak Ratiocinations and Philosophy never assum'd to bring Divinity to be try'd at the Bar of humane Reason Then Mercy and Truth would have kiss'd each other and God even our God would have given us his Blessing But Man forgot that scrutator Majestatis opprimetur à Gloria That the bold and daring Searcher into the Majesty of God will be oppress'd and sink under the weight of his Glory He launch'd into a Sea in which the Rocks and Sands on all sides threatn'd a sad and inevitable Ruine God has reveal'd to us his Existence and the Unity of his Nature He has told us that in that one indivisible and inseparable Nature are Father Son and Holy Spirit He has asserted the Father to be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God He has taught us that the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father nor the Holy Ghost Father or Son He has inform'd us that in the Fulness of times he sent his only Son to take our Nature That the Word was made Flesh and offer'd himself a Sacrifice for us In such plain Propositions as these has he commanded us to acquiesce Faith is the Duty of this Intuition and Knowledge the Privilege of another Life The Perceptions of our present State have no proportion with so incomprehensible an Object Had we stay'd there the Church would have been a City at Vnity within it self But Man not contented with this strives to understand that which God has not been pleas'd to reveal that is the Nexus or manner of in being of the Three Persons The How these three can be one The Way of the Union of the two Natures in one adorable Person Christ Jesus and having no other

the Cause of Faith I must beg this Author's leave to say that it is plain Pelagianism 6. This Gentleman asks me several Questions wherein I must take the liberty to tell him that I am not at all concern'd and consequently not oblig'd to answer He argues very smartly against Three Infinite Minds Spirits or Substances thô at the same time I doubt he makes his Adversaries to say more than really they do I leave him and them to dispute it yet one of them I think is a Question by no means to be offer'd and takes off much of the respect due to the Sacred Writings p. 42. This therefore says he is the first Question that I desire Mr. L. to resolve Will he believe a Doctrine that seems to imply manifest and incontestable Contradictions if such Doctrine or Proposition were indeed found in Scripture To this I answer that the Question is unreasonable because the Supposition on which it is grounded is impossible God cannot contradict himself A manifest and uncontestable Contradiction in Scripture is a thing not so much as to be thought of from him who is Light and in whom there is no Darkness at all But I well go farther with this Gentleman and thô I love and honour Reason as much as any Man in the World yet I will affirm that if it were possible that in any undoubted Scripture there should be in clear and express Terms a Proposition or Doctrine which seems to imply a manifest and incontestable Contradiction I ought not to reject it or make my Reason the Judge of God's Veracity But my Duty is humbly to resign my self to him and adore what I cannot understand 7. I know that this Gentleman will take this very ill and will say again as he has already p. 41. that I calumniate Reason the Light set up in us by God himself But that Light is not given us to impeach and reproach our Maker and reject what he commands us to believe or call it a manifest and incontestable Contradiction because it is above its weak Perceptions That Light ought to act in its due measure and proportion if it goes farther it is a Rebellion and an Attempt against the Majesty and Power of God He calumniates Reason who does detract from its Dignity and Energy in those things wherein it ought to be Judge It is an Affront to Reason to be brought below it self But he also calumniates Reason who exalts it more than it deserves as he no less maliciously injures a Man who commends in him Qualities which he has not than he who obscures and denies those which he has There are some General Principles wherein Reason cannot err and which Man ought to be guided by None is more plain and evident than this that he owes his submission and assent to what God proposes Whether it be comprehensible or not comprehensible is no part of the Inquiry Whether God has propos'd it is the true state of the Question Reason has a Right to examine Whether God has propos'd it or no The danger of taking things upon Trust is too great to deny Reason the power of examining But that Point once clear'd to say that we ought not to submit because it is incomprehensible or appears to us manifestly contradictory is an ill and an endless way of arguing 8. This Author cannot digest the Epithets of Narrow and Corrupt which I gave to Reason He complains of it in several places of his small Writing But indeed is not our Reason such Can he who denies this pretend that he ever endeavour'd to know himself I have often wonder'd at the pains which some Men have taken to convince the Opposers of the Doctrine of Original Sin The shortest and easiest Method was to send them to themselves to find there the fatal consequences of the first Transgression I appeal to my ingenious Adversary who thô certainly a great Master of Reason yet upon second Thoughts will agree with me that the Reason of the best Men is very Narrow and Corrupt Whence do proceed so many Mistakes and Errors Misapprehensions and Inadvertencies but from that very Principle Is not this the Spring of so many hot and tedious Disputes And what Reason but this can be given of so many Books and Opinions which have divided Mankind In this the Excellency of Faith appears and for this we ought to praise its Author the Holy Iesus that it has rectify'd and improv'd Reason not only by making it more knowing but also more humble more sincere and more obedient to God I am sure that this is the Method of arguing of the Primitive Fathers in that mighty struggle with the Heathen Philosophers some of whom did so exalt Reason as to pretend to decide of every thing whilst others did so revile it as to be positive that nothing could certainly be known and consecrated that wild and extravagant Saying of Socrates Hoc unum scio nihil scio This I know that I know nothing Both disputed admirably one against another But when the Apologists for Christianity were oblig'd to take in hand the Cause of Religion althô they had the true Notion of Reason Res Dei Ratio says elegantly Tertullian and knew it to be the Light of God in us yet they own'd it to be narrow and corrupted and consequently not Reason but Faith and Revelation to be attended to Thus Justin Martyr Arnobius Tertullian Lactantius St. Austin and others Tertullian de Anima c. 1. Cui enim veritas comperta sine Deo Cui Deus cognitus sine Christo Cui Christus exploratus sine Spiritu Sancto Cui Spiritus Sanctus accommodatus sine Fidei Sacramento And St. Austin de morib Eccl. Cath. c. 2. A Book never enough to be read who speaks of Reason in Terms which must certainly please those Gentlemen calling it Perspicuitas sanctitas Rationis the Clearness and Sanctity of Reason yet says that it is so much obscur'd by Sin Passion and Prejudice that Saluberrime comparatum est ut in lucem Veritatis aciem titubantem velut ramis humanitatis opacatam inducat authoritas 9. This shews how much this Gentleman is in the wrong when he says p. 42. that I must be content to argue these Questions about the Trinity and Incarnation not from Scripture only but from Reason also nay from Reason chiefly and ultimately As far as Reason is subservient to find the Truth and Certainty of the Revelation I confess that I must argue from Reason and the Chiefly and ultimately is capable of a good Sence because the belief of our Mysteries is at last resolv'd into this most rational Proposition That I must believe what God has reveal'd and that to find that it is so in the sacred and undoubted Scriptures is certainly the Work of Reason But if he means that the Authority of God's Word laid aside we must bring those Mysteries to the Scrutiny of Reason and instead of Divine use only Humane and Philosophical