Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	article_n	church_n	tradition_n	2,712	5	8.9857	5	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61548	A discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity with an answer to the late Socinian objections against it from Scripture, antiquity and reason, and a preface concerning the different explications of the Trinity, and the tendency of the present Socinian controversie / by the Right Reverend Father in God Edward, Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1697 (1697)	Wing S5585; ESTC R14244	164,643	376

I know none that lay the force of the Argument upon any thing parallel to those Places But it depends upon laying the Circumstances together Here was a new Religion to be taught mankind and they were to be entred into it not by a bare verbal Profession but by a solemn Rite of Baptism and this Baptism is declar'd to be in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which cannot be understood of their Ministery and therefore must relate to that Faith which they were baptized into which was concerning the Father Son and Holy Ghost And so the Christian Church understood it from the beginning as I have proved in the foregoing Discourse And from hence came the Instruction of Catechumens who were to be baptized about the Trinity and the first Creeds which related only to them as I have already observed And so much our Vnitarians grant in one of their latest Pamphlets that a Creed was an Institution or Instruction what we are to believe in the main and fundamental Articles especially concerning the Persons of Father Son and Holy Ghost But they contend That the Creed which bears the Name of the Apostles was the Original Creed framed by the Apostles themselves because they suppose this Creed doth not assert the Son and Holy Ghost to be Eternal and Divine Persons and therefore they conclude that the Makers of this Creed either did not know that any other Person but the Father is God or Almighty or Maker of Heaven and Earth or they have negligently or wickedly concealed it This is a matter so necessary to be clear'd that I shall examine these two things before I put an end to this Discourse 1. What Proofs they bring that this Creed was framed by the Apostles 2. What Evidence they produce that this Creed excludes the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost 1. As to the Proofs they bring that this Creed was framed by the Apostles We believe the Creed to be Apostolical in the true Sense of it but that it was so in that Frame of Words and Enumeration of Articles as it is now receiv'd hath been called in question by some Criticks of great Judgment and Learning whom I have already mentioned Erasmus saith He doth not question the Articles being Apostolical but whether the Apostles put it thus into Writing And his chief Argument is from the Variety of the Ancient Creeds of which no Account can be given so probable as that they were added Occasionally in opposition to a growing Heresie As for Instance the Word Impassible was inserted with Respect to the Father in the ancient Eastern Creed against the Doctrine of Sabellius but it was not in the old Western Creed And he argues That the Apostolical Creed ended with the Holy Ghost because the Nicene Creed did so And Vossius thinks the other Articles which are in Cyril were added after the Nicene Council which would not have omitted them if they had been in the former Creed And when there were so many Creeds made afterwards it is observable that they do all end with the Article of the Holy Ghost which they would never have done in so jealous a time about Creeds if they had left out any Articles of what was then receiv'd for the Apostolical Creed The first Creed after the Nicene which made great noise in the World was that framed at Antioch and that Creed not only ends with the Article of the Holy Ghost but mentions the Form of Baptism and our Saviours commanding his Apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as the Foundation of the Creed For it hereby appears that the Father is true Father and the Son true Son and the Holy Ghost true Holy Ghost not bare Names but such as import three distinct Subsistences For Hilary observes That this Council chiefly intended to overthrow Sabellianism and therefore asserted tres Subsistentium Personas as Hilary interprets their meaning and so doth Epiphanius which was to remove the Suspition that they asserted only triplicis vocabuli Vnionem as Hilary speaks The next Creed is of the Eastern Bishops at Sardica and that ends wiâ—h the Holy Ghost and so do both the Creeds at Sirmium and the latter calls the Article of the Trinity the close of our Faith which is always to be kept according to our Saviour's command Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost So that in all these Creeds about which there was so much heat in the Christian Church there was not the least Objection that any Articles of the Apostolical Creed were omitted It is no Argument That there was then no contest about these Articles for they were bound to give in an entire Creed and so the Council of Antioch declares that they would publish the Confession of the Faith of the Church and how could this be if they left out such Articles which had been always receivâ—d from the Apostles times But certainly our Vnitarians would not attack such Men as Erasmus and Vossius in a matter relating to Antiquity if they had not some good Arguments on their side Their first business is to shew that some of Vossius his Arguments are not conclusive such as they are I leave them to any one that will compare them with the Answers But there are two things they lay weight upon 1. That the whole Christian Church East and West could not have agreed in the same Creed as to Number and Order of Articles and manner of Expression if this Creed had not come from the same Persons from whom they receiv'd the Gospel and the Scriptures Namely from the Apostles and Preachers of Christianity 2. That it was receiv'd by a constant Tradition to have been the Apostles not a bare Oral Tradition but the Tradition of the ancient Commentators upon it Now these I confess to be as good Arguments as the Matters will bear and I will no longer contest this Point with them provided that we be allowed to make use of the same Arguments as to the second Point wherein they undertake to prove That the Apostles Creed doth exclude the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost What is now become of the general Consent of the Christian Church East and West and of the Commentators upon this Creed If the Argument hold good in one Case I hope it will be allowed to do so in the other also And what greater Testimony can be given of such a Consent of the Christian Church than that those who opposed it have been condemned by it and that the Church hath expressed her Sense of it in Publick and Private Acts of Devotion and Divine Worship and have defended it as a necessary part of the Christian Faith against the Assaults of Infidels and Hereticks So that although the Apostles Creed do not in express words declare The Divinity of the three Persons in the Vnity of the Divine

Essence yet taking the Sense of those Articles as the Christian Church understood them from the Apostles times then we have as full and clear Evidence of this Doctrine as we have that we receiv'd the Scriptures from them CHAP. X. The Objections against the Trinity in Point of Reason answer'd HAving in the foregoing Chapters endeavour'd to clear the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Charge of Contradictions and to prove it agreeable to the Sense of Scripture and the Primitive Church I now come in the last place to Examine the remaining Objections in Point of Reason and those are 1. That this Doctrine is said to be a Mystery and therefore above Reason and we cannot in reason be obliged to believe any such thing 2. That if we allow any such Mysteries of Faith as are above Reason there can be no stop put to any absurd Doctrines but they may be receiv'd on the same Grounds 1. As to this Doctrine being said to be above Reason and therefore not to be believ'd we must consider two things 1. What we understand by Reason 2. What ground in Reason there is to reject any Doctrine above it when it is proposed as a Matter of Faith 1. What we understand by Reason I do not find that our Vnitarians have explained the Nature and Bounds of Reason in such manner as those ought to have done who make it the Rule and Standard of what they are to believe But sometimes they speak of clear and distinct Perceptions sometimes of natural Ideas sometimes of congenit Notions c. But a late Author hath endeavour'd to make amends for this and takes upon him to make this matter clear and to be sure to do so he begins with telling us That Reason is not the Soul abstractedly consider'd no doubt of it but the Soul acting in a peculiar manner is Reason And this is a verâ— peculiar way of explaining it But farther we are told It is not the Order or Report respect I suppose which is naturally between all things But that implies a Reason in things But the thoughts which the Soul forms of things according to it may properly claim that Title i. e. such thoughts which are agreeable to the Reason of things are reasonable thoughts This is clear and distinct And I perfectly agree with him That our own Inclinations or the bare Authority of others is not Reason But what is it Every one experiences in himself a Power or Faculty of formâ—ng various Ideas or Perceptions of things of affirming or denying according as he sees them to agree or disagree and this is Reason in General It is not the bare receiving Ideas into the Mind that is strictly Reason who ever thought it was but the Perception of the Agreement or Disagreement of our Ideas in a greater of lesser Number wherein soever this Agreement or Disagreement may consist If the Perception be immediate without the Assistance of any other Idea this is not call'd Reason but Self-Evidence but when the mind makes use of intermediate Ideas to discover that Agreement or Disagreement this method of Knowledge is properly call'd Reason or Demonstration And so Reason is defined to be that Faculty of the Soul which discovers the certainty of any thing dubious or obscure by comparing it with something evidently known This is offer'd to the World as an Account of Reason but to shew how very loose and unsatisfactory it is I desire it may be consider'd that this Doctrine supposes that we must have clear and distinct Ideas of whatever we pretend to any certainty of in our Minds and that the only Way to attain this certainty is by comparing these Ideas together Which excludes all certainty of Faith or Reason where we cannot have such clear and distinct Ideas But if there are many things of which we may be certain and yet can have no clear and distinct Ideas of them if those Ideas we have are too imperfect and obscure to form our Judgments by if we cannot find out sufficient intermediate Ideas then this cannot be the Means of Certainty or the Foundation of Reason But I shall keep to our present Subject and our certainty of it in Point of Reason depends upon our Knowledge of the the Nature of Substance and Person and the Distinction between them but if we can have no such clear Ideas in our Minds concerning these things as are required from Sensation or Reflection then either we have no use of Reason about them or it is in sufficient to pass any Judgment concerning them 1. I begin with the Notion of Substance And I have great Reason to begin with it for according to this Man's Principles there can be no certainty of Reason at all about it And so our new Way of Reason is advanced to very good Purpose For we may talk and dispute about Substance as long as we please but if his Principles of Reason be true we can come to no certainty since we can have no clear Idea in our Minds concerning it as will appear from his own Words and the method he proceeds in 1. He saith That the Mind receives in Ideas two ways 1. By Intermission of the Senses as Colours Figures Sounds Smells c. 2. By the Souls considering its own Operations about what it thus gets from without as knowing doubting affirming denying c. 2. That these simple and distinct Ideas thus laid up in the great Repository of the Vnderstanding are the sole matter and Foundation of all our Reasoning Then it follows That we can have no Foundation of Reasoning where there can can be no such Ideas from Sensation or Reflection Now this is the Case of Substance it is not intromitted by the Senses nor depends upon the Operations of the Mind and so it cannot be within the compass of our Reason And therefore I do not wonder that the Gentlemen of this new way of reasoning have almost discarded Substance out of the reasonable part of the World For they not only tell us That we can have no Idea of it by Sensation or Reflection but that nothing is signified by it only an uncertain Supposition of we know not what And therefore it is parallel'd more than once with the Indian Philosophers He knew not what which supported the Tortoâ—se that supported the Elephant that supported the Earth so Substance was found out only to support Accidents And that when we talk of Substances we talk like Children who being ask'd a Question about somewhat which they know not readily give this satisfactory Answer that it is Something If this be the truth of the Case we must still talk like Children and I know not how it can be remedied For if we cannot come at a rational Idea of Substance we can have no Principle of certainty to go upon in this Debate I do not say that we can have a clear Idea of Substance either by Sensation or Reflection but from hence I argue that

the very Notion of Infinite implies that we can set no bounds to our Thoughts and therefore although the Infinity of the divine Attributes be evident to our Reason yet it is likewise evident to our Reason that what is infinite must be above our Comprehension II. I come now to the last enquiry which is that if we allow things above our Reason what stop can be put to any absurd Doctrine which we may be required to believe And this is that which our Vnitarians object in all their late Pamphlets In answer to my Sermon they say That on our principles our Reason would be in vain and all Science and Certainty would be destroy'd which they repeat several times And from hence they do so frequently insist on the Parallel between the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation They say That all the defence we have made for one will serve for the other or any other absurd and impossible Doctrine That what we say will equally serve all the Nonsense and impossible Doctrines that are to be found among Men and they particularly instance in Transubstantiation I need mention no more But I did not expect to have found this Parallel so often insisted upon without an answer to two Dialogues purposely written on that Subject at a time when the Doctrine of the Trinity was used as an argument to bring in Transubstantiation as that is now alledged for casting off the other But I must do them that right to tell the World that at that time a Socinian Answer was written to those Dialogues which I saw and wish'd might be Printed that the World might be satisfied about it and them But they thought fit to forbear and in all their late Pamphlets where this Parallel is so often repeated there is but once that I can find any notice taken of those Dialogues and that in a very superficial manner For the main Design and Scope of them is past over and only one particular mention'd which shall be answer'd in its due order But in answer to the general Enquiry I shall endeavour to state the due Bounds between Faith and Reason and thereby to shew that by those grounds on which we receive the Doctrine of the Trinity we do not give way to the Entertainment of any absurd Opinion nor overthrow the Certainty of Reason 1. We have no difference with them about the Vse of our Reason as to the Certainty of a Revelation For in this case we are as much as they for searching into the grounds of our Faith for we look on it as a reasonable Act of our Minds and if we did not allow this we must declare our selves to believe without grounds And if we have grounds for our Faith we can express them in Words that are intelligible and if we can give an account of our Faith in an intelligible manner and with a design to give others satisfaction about it I think this is making use of our Reason in matters of Faith 2. We have no difference with them about the use of our Reason as to the true Sense of Revelation We never say that Men are bound to believe upon the bare sound of Words without examining the Sense of them We allow all the best and most reasonable ways of attaining to it by Copies Languages Versions comparing of Places and especially the Sense of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages nearest the Apostolical Times and express'd in solemn and publick Acts. By these Rules of Reason we are willing to proceed and not by any late and uncertain methods of interpreting Scripture 3. We differ not with them about the right use of the Faculties which God hath given us of right Vnderstanding such matters as are offer'd to our Assent For it is to no purpose to require them to believe who cannot use the Faculties which are necessary in order to it Which would be like giving the Benefit of the Clergy to a Man with a Cataract in both his Eyes And it would be very unreasonable to put his Life upon that Issue whether he could read or not because he had the same Organs of Seeing that other Men had for in this case the whole matter depended not on the Organ but the Vse of it This needs no Application 4. We differ not with them about rejecting some Matters proposed to our Belief which are contradictory to the Principles of Sense and Reason It is no great argument of some Mens Reason whatever they pretend to talk against admitting seeming Contradictions in Religion for who can hinder seeming Contradictions Which arise from the shallowness of Mens Capacities and not from the repugnancy of Things and who can help Mens Understandings But where there is evident proof of a Contradiction to the Principles of Sense and Reason we are very far from owning any such thing to be an Article of Faith as in the case of Transubstantiation Which we reject not only as having no foundation in Scripture but as repugnant to the common Principles of Sense and Reason as is made to appear in the two Dialogues before-mention'd But our Vnitarians find fault with the Author of them for laying the force of his argument upon this That there are a great many more Texts for the Trinity than are pretended for Transubstantiation whereas many other arguments are insisted on and particularly the great Absurdity of it in point of Reason Dial. 2. from p. 33. to the end And it is not the bare number of Texts which he relies upon but upon the greater Evidence and Clearness of the Texâ—s on one side than on the other which depends upon figurative Words not capable of a literal Sense without overthrowing the Doctrine designed to be proved by it See with what Ingenuity these Men treat the Defenders of the Trinity and the Enemies to Transubstantiation which they call only a Philosophical Error or Folly but the Doctrine of the Trinity is charged with Nonsense Contradiction and Impossibilities But wherein then lies the difference in point of Reason For thus far I have shew'd that we are far from overthrowing Reason or giving way to any absurd Doctrines It comes at last to the point already treated of in this Chapter how far we may be obliged to believe a Doctrine which carries in it something above our Reason or of which we cannot have any clear and distinct Ideas And of this I hope I have given a sufficient Account in the foregoing Discourse FINIS Consideraton the Ezplications of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Dr. W. c. p. 10. P. 9. P. 13. Discourse concerning the Real and Nominal Trinitarians A. D. 1695 p. 3. Letter to the Universities p. 15. Discourse of Nominal and Real Trinit p. 7. P. 10. P. 11. P. 13. Tritheism charged c. p. 157. Animadvers p. 245. Animadv c. p. 243. Ibid p. 240. Basil Ep. 64. Considerat on the Explication p. 23. Animadv p. 291. Tritheism

Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Text snippets containing the quad