Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	ghost_n	holy_a	trinity_n	2,581	5	9.6972	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59822	The distinction between real and nominal trinitarians examined and the doctrine of a real Trinity vindicated from the charge of Tritheism : in answer to a late Socinian pamphlet, entituled, The judgment of a disinterested person, concerning the controversie about the Blessed Trinity, depending between Dr. S--th, and Dr. Sherlock.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1696 (1696)	Wing S3294; ESTC R19545	58,708	90

That all these Names of Father and Son begetting and being begotten c. respect the Oeconomy of the Covenant of Grace the manifestation of the Second Person in the Flesh as in the visible Image of God to execute the Mediatory Office for which purpose he was given by God the Father In which sense to beget is the same with to manifest and to be begotten to be manifested This he says is coincident with the Socinians and resolved into that Fundamental Error That the true and proper generation of the Son though acknowledged ineffable contradicts those natural Ideas which are imprinted in our minds by God and are the foundation of all Assent and all true and certain Knowledge And that we must not think that God has revealed any thing in his Word which cannot and ought not to be examined by men according to these Ideas or that God proposes nothing in his Word to be believed with a certain and firm assent which a man of a sound Reason cannot clearly and distinctly perceive according to these Ideas And now let our Author judge whose Character this is and on which side these Belgic Synods and Chairs have given Judgment SECT IV. The Arguments of the Nominals against a Real Trinity of proper subsisting Persons Examined And the Three First Arguments Answered SEcondly Let us now briefly examine his Reasons which he thinks so demonstrative that the so much talk'd of Mathematical certainty is not superior to them But I have heard some men brag much of Demonstration who have had nothing to say that would amount to a good Probability Now to make my Answer plain and easy I observe first That all his Arguments to prove the Realists to be guilty of Tritheism and to assert Three Gods are levelled against a Trinity of distinct real subsisting intelligent Persons as he himself owns for those invidious terms of Three Substances Three Minds and Spirits and Wills and Understandings signify no more than Three each of which in his own proper Person is Substance Mind Spirit Will Understanding So that all these Arguments are against the Catholick Faith of a Real Trinity that is to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to be Tritheism for that which is not a Real Trinity is no Trinity And therefore these Arguments do no more concern Dr. Sherlock and some few others whom this Author would fain single out from the Body of Catholick Believers by the Name of Realists than all other Christians who heartily Believe in Father Son and Holy Ghost and own Christ Jesus to be the Eternal Son of God and true and perfect God himself Secondly I observe That all these Arguments are no farther considerable than as they directly oppose the Catholick Faith in its full Latitude that is a Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity The Scripture assures us That there is but one God but teaches withall That the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God We believe God concerning himself and his own Nature and Unity because he best knows himself and therefore we believe that there is but one God but not that there is but One Person who is God for there are Three in the Unity of the same Godhead and each of them true and perfect God so that it is not enough for these Demonstrators to prove That there is and can be but One Eternal Divinity or one God for we readily own it and as heartily Believe it as they do but we say withall that this one Divinity subsists distinctly and indivisibly whole and perfect in Three and that therefore there is a Trinity in Unity Nor is it sufficient to prove That in the Trinity of the Realists there are Three each of which is by himself true and perfect God and therefore that there are Three Gods for we own such Three but say that these Three are not Three Gods but subsist inseparably in one Undivided Divinity and therefore that there is a Vnity in Trinity But if they would consute either the Trinity or the Unity they must prove That there are not and cannot be Three real subsisting Persons in One insinite undivided Essence and then they will effectually Confute the Scripture and a Trinity with it or they must prove That though Three such Persons should subsist distinctly in one undivided Essence yet they are not one and the same Divinity or one God and then they will Confute not only Scripture but common Sense That Three which are One are not One or that One Divinity is not One God Having premised this let us now consider his Arguments 1. In the first place he says Three infinite Intellectual Substances or Three Eternal Omnipotent Minds or Spirits or which we have heard is the same thing Three infinite intelligent Persons can never be but One God because 't is evident nay confessed That One such Spirit Mind or Substance is One absolute and most perfect God If the Definition is multiplied the thing defined is also therewith multiplied Seeing then 't is the definition of One God that he is One infinite intellectual spiritual Substance One Eternal Omnipotent and Omniscient Spirit or Mind Therefore if we multiply our definition by saying Three Infinite intellectual spiritual Substances c. we thereby multiply the thing we pretended to Define namely GOD which is to say we affirm more Geds as many Gods as such Substances and Spirits Here our Demonstrator stumbles at the very Threshold I grant That an infinite intellectual spiritual Substance an Eternal Omniscient Omnipotent Mind or Spirit is the Definition of One who is God or of a Divine Person but I absolutely deny That this is the Definition of One God that he is One Eternal Omniscient c. Personal Mind or Spirit as he fallaciously and absurdly represents it and in so doing instead of proving what he undertakes he very modestly and humbly begs the Question He is to prove That Three infinite Substances Minds or Spirits are Three Gods His Argument is Because One infinite Substance Mind or Spirit is the Definition of One God and if you multiply the Definition you multiply the thing defined and therefore Three infinite Substances and Minds must be Three Gods but how does he prove that One infinite Substance and Mind personally understood as we understand it is the Definition of One God for this is the thing in dispute which certainly no Trinitarian will grant him and therefore ought to be proved Those who Assert as all Trinitarians do That Three infinite intelligent Persons each of which is infinite Substance Mind or Spirit are but One God will not be so good-natur'd as to grant That One infinite Substance and Mind or One Divine Person is the definition of the One God this would not be to Dispute but to beg the Cause on one side and to give it away on the other But this may be thought perverseness to put men upon proving what is self-evident For Is not an infinite intelligent

Doctrine of the Nominals which I hope they can give a better account of but for fear some Men should not believe it he takes great pains to prove that it is so Now this is a very formidable Objection for if the Nominals have revived Sabellianism and Socinianism they have been condemned many hundred Years since by all those Catholick Fathers and Councils who condemned Noetus Sabellius Photinus Paulus Samosatenus and such like Anti-Trinitarian Hereticks And this justifies the Realists and undoes all that he has hitherto been doing for there is no Medium between a Real and a Nominal Trinity a Trinity of three real living subsisting Persons and One living subsisting Person with a Trinity of Names Offices Modes or immanent Acts and therefore as far as the Authority of the Catholick Church reaches the Condemnation of a Sabellian and Nominal Trinity must justifie a Trinity of real subsisting Persons And what now does he answer to this Why he owns it and says the Socinians at length see it and hope to make their Advantage of it That it is indeed an invidious Objection and that is the whole strength of it Invidious I confess it is because all sincere Christians abhor these Names and it would in a great measure put an end to this Controversie were our People satisfied that a Nominal Trinitarian and Socinian perfectly agree in renouncing the true Catholick Faith of the Trinity though the Nominalist still retains the Name of Trinity and Persons which the Socinians have hitherto rejected but are now willing to use them for Peace sake since they learn from these Men that they signifie nothing and that the Church never intended to signifie any thing real by them This is what he tells us with great Triumph Our English Socinians claim in their Writings that they are the Discoverers that the Feud between the Church and them was ill-grounded For that in very deed both the Nominals whom he calls the Church and the Socinians say the same thing As they pretend to this Honour so they are sufficiently paid in that themselves have the whole Benefit of it They may enjoy thereby that Peace and Tranquillity that Ease and Security from the Laws themselves which they before owed to the Indulgence or Connivence of Princes and Magistrates This now is very plain dealing and I hope will be a fair warning to all serious Christians how they suffer themselves to be cheated out of their Faith by the loud groundless Out-cries of Tritheism or imposed on by the old Catholick Names of Trinity and Persons without that Catholick Sense in which the Church always used those Words And I think those Persons to whom this Author affixes the Name of Nominals if they be not Sabellians and Socinians which God forbid ought to vindicate themselves from this heavy Imputation and not only deny the Charge but so explain themselves as to let us see wherein their Doctrine concerning the Trinity differs from the old condemned Heresies of Sabellius Photinus and Socinus And I doubt not but this will produce a much happier Agreement and put an end to this scandalous Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians 2. But our Author is much more troubled with the second Objection That the Predications or as others speak Attributions given in Holy Scripture and by the Catholick Church to the Divine Persons seem not well to consist or to be intelligible on the Hypothesis or Explication of the Nominals His Instance concerns the Son or second Person in the Trinity who is called God and we say he was Incarnate and all things were made by him In some places an Omnipresence in others Omnipotence and Omniscience are ascribed to him But how can we with any tolerable Propriety say that a meer reflex Wisdom is God created all things was incarnate is omnipotent omniscient omnipresent Or how can any of these things be affirmed of or applied to our Saviour in regard of the Incarnate or inhabiting Logos or reflex Wisdom the which also how it should be incarnate will be another unaccountable unintelligible Paradox This is a very notable Objection he has brought the Nominals on let him see how he can bring them off again Now in the first place he is not willing to own that any such things as these are said of Christ and therefore tells us We should do well to consider the Interpretations of the Texts wherein these things are said or seem to be said And here he is at his old Trade of admiring his Critical Interpreters whom he prefers much before Divines and of disparaging those Copies we have of the Scriptures the Mystery of which is That some Criticks give up some Texts of Scripture out of Wantonness and Vanity which the Catholick Church always thought good Proofs of the Divinity and Incarnation of our Saviour and he thinks it a better way to judge of the sense of Scripture by some new Critical Pointings or the Mistakes of some old Copies which may furnish them with various Readings than by the whole Series of the Discourse and the Traditional Interpretations of the Catholick Church but I shall not dispute this Matter now He is certainly so far in the right that the safest way of answering all this is to deny it all and this is what he means when he says It were easie to make such an Application of this Reflection as would perhaps offend many but would for all that be most true Now I would only ask the Nominalists how they like this way of answering these difficulties by criticizing away all the Proofs of the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ This their pretended but treacherous Friend says is the best and truest way and he is a Man of Skill in these Matters and seems to be ashamed of any other Answer but this which will unavoidably entangle him in unaccountable and unintelligible Paradoxes I verily persuade my self that many of those whom this Author calls Nominals abhor the Thoughts of this and therefore ought freely and openly to declare themselves in this Matter and not to suffer this bantering Socinian to impose upon the World in their Names But if this Answer don't please our Author has another for them as good to the full Let us says he distinguish the two Natures in Christ his Divinity and Humanity and rightly understand the Doctrine of the Incarnation This looks very promisingly for to acknowledge two Natures in Christ and rightly to understand the Doctrine of the Incarnation will rectifie all other Mistakes Let us then hear what he has to say of this As to the Incarnation every body knows that the most Learned Interpreters do not limit the Incarnation to the Person of the Logos or Son But they say the whole Divinity or as St. Paul speaks the fulness of the God-head was incarnate or dwelt in Christ. Who these most learned Interpreters are I can't tell unless he means the Patripassion Hereticks for all Catholick Christians believe