Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	holy_a	person_n	trinity_n	2,662	5	9.6888	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

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

no less Contradiction than Transubstantiation why can't we say that it cannot be contained in Scripture We say Transubstantiation cannot be found in Scripture because it is a plain Contradiction to our Reason but if the Trinity be also a plain Contradiction to our Reason why shan't we be allowed to say that it cannot be contained in Scripture V. Def. of Brief Hist. of Unit. p. 4 and 6. But oh were the Press as free for the Unitarians as 't is for other Protestants how easily would they make it appear that the Follies and Contradictions so justly charged on Transubstantiation are neither for Number Consequence nor Clearness any way comparable to those implied in the Athanasian Creed and that the Trinity hath the same and no other Foundation with Transubstantiation So that we must of necessity admit Both or neither V. Acts of Athanasius p. 16. This is the Sum of what they Object To which I expect an Answer according to your Promise A. As preparatory to a just Answer I cannot but observe how exactly these Socinians do Symbolize with the Papists For as on the one hand they of the Church of Rome are so fondly and obstinately addicted to their own Errors how mishappen and monstrous soever that rather than the Dictates of their Church how absurd soever should be called in question they will question the truth even of Christianity it self and if we will not take in Transubstantiation and admit it to be a necessary Article of the Christian Faith they grow so sullen and desperate that they matter not what becomes of all the rest And rather than not have their Will of us in that which is Controverted they will give up that which by their own confession is an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith and not controverted on either Side In like manner These Unitarians are so impertinently zealous in their designs against the Trinity that rather than admit that Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith they will plead for Transubstantiation and this even contrary to the Light and Dictate of their own Conscience For the Socinians are hearty Enemies to Transubstantiation and have exposed the Absurdity of it with great advantage V. Arcbishop Tillotson ' s Serm. on 1 Tim. II. 5. p. 30. Q. Have you nothing further to say in this matter A. You must give me leave to add 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 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 wished it 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 V. Vind. of Trinit p. 287. And I must needs remind these Unitarians that it is not fair nor Scholar-like so insultingly to repeat the Parallel between the Trinity and Transubstantiation which hath been so fully confuted in those Two Dialogues Q. You promised an Answer and you bring me a Challenge Which I shall send to the Unitarians Who indeed are obliged in point of Honour to give Satisfaction by a just Reply to those Two Dialogues A. If they would consult their Reputation and credit their Cause they ought not to defer it For those Two Dialogues were writ by an Author Who to give you the very words of an Unitarian hath all the Properties for which an Adversary may be either feared or Reverenced He understands perfectly the Doctrine of the Church and the Points in Question He will commit no oversights through Ignorance Hast or Inadversion He is too experienced and Judicious to hazard his Cause as others have lately done on the Success of a Half-thought Hypothesis a Crude Invention a pretty New Querk In a word we can only say of him since there is no Remedy Contenti simus hoc Catone V. Consid c. in a Letter to H. H. p. 3. Such an Adversary as this is worthy the Pens of their Ablest Writers If therefore at this Juncture when the Press is open these Unitarians shall not Answer those Dialogues I must with freedom tell them It is not because they dare not but because they cannot Q. Leaving these Unitarians to defend their Parallel at their leasure let me now hear your Answer which you were pleased to Promise A. I shall endeavour to return a more particular Answer to this Objection and such a One as I hope will satisfy every considerate and unprejudiced Mind that after all this confidence and swaggering of theirs there is by no means equal Reason either for the receiving or for the rejecting of these two Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation Vid. Archbishop Tillotson's Serm. on 1 Tim. II. 5. p. 30. Q. First Let us examine whether there be equal Reason for the Belief of these Two Doctrines A. If this Suggestion of theirs be of any force we must suppose that there is equal Evidence and Proof from Scripture for these Two Doctrines Q. How do you prove there is not A. From the Confession of our Adversaries themselves For several Learned Writers of the Church of Rome have freely acknowledged that Transubstantiation can neither be directly proved nor necessarily concluded from Scripture But this the Writers of the Christian Church did never acknowledge concerning the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ but have always appealed to the clear and undeniable Testimonies of Scripture for the Proof of these Doctrines And then the whole force of the Objection amounts to this That if I am bound to Believe what I am sure God says though I cannot Comprehend it then I am bound by the same reason to believe the greatest Absurdity in the World though I have no manner of assurance of any Divine Revelation concerning it Q. You think then that as there is not equal reason for the Believing so neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of these Two Doctrines A. This the Objection supposes Which yet cannot be supposed but upon one or both of these Two Grounds Either 1. Because these Two Doctrines are equally Incomprehensible Or 2. Because they are equally loaded with Absurdities and Contradictions Q. As to the First Is not the Trinity as Incomprehensible as Transubstantiation and as such equally to be rejected A. It is not good ground of rejecting any Doctrine merely because it is Incomprehensible as I have abundantly shewed already But besides this there is a wide difference between plain matters of Sense and Mysteries concerning God And it does by

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.