Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	doctrine_n	scripture_n	tradition_n	1,725	5	9.4842	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A23823	A Defence of the Brief history of the Unitarians, against Dr. Sherlock's answer in his Vindication of the Holy Trinity	Allix, Pierre, 1641-1717.	1691 (1691)	Wing A1219; ESTC R211860	74,853	56

Person of God the Father and the Father indeed is but one Person But here he takes for granted that the Son is the second Person of the Trinity contrary to the Apostle who speaks only of the Person of God not of the Person of God the Father distinct from the Person of God the Son If the Person of whom the Son is here said to be the express Image is only the Person of the Father then the Person of the Father only at sundry Times and in divers Manners spake in times past to the Fathers by the Prophets Ver. 1. for Ver. 2. the Son is called the Image of the same Person who spake to the Fathers at Ver. 1. But the Person of the Father only is not the true God in the Author's Hypothesis therefore he must conclude that the true God spake not to the Fathers which is a plain Contradiction to the Apostle who says that God undoubtedly the true God spake to the Fathers Farther by God who spake to the Fathers we must understand either Father Son and Holy Ghost or the Father only If Father Son and Holy Ghost spake to the Fathers it could not be here said that Christ is the Image of that God's Person for he is Three Persons If the Father only spake to the Fathers then the Father only is the true God for the true God spake to the Fathers also then God is but one Person Which are the things we contend for He goes on As for his Singular Pronouns I Thou c. They prove indeed that there is but one God as we all own not that there are not Three Persons in the Godhead But do not Singular Pronouns denote Singular Persons in all Languages When therefore they are applied to God they show that he is a Singular that is but one Person unless they will say that the Scripture is a particular Language different from all others but this is false for being written to Men the Forms of speaking and the Senses of them are the same as in all other Languages and otherways the Scripture would not be given us to instruct us but to pervert and deceive us 5. The fifth Argument Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed He answers Had not the Son been God and also the Holy Ghost they would never have been put into the Apostles Creed no more than the Form of Baptism which is the Original of the Apostles Creed But why not Suppose the Son and Holy Ghost were not God since the Gospel was preached by the One and confirmed by the Other why may not they be put into the Creed as well as the Catholic Church by whom the Gospel is to be believed If our Creed only mentioned God the Father Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth it would fit a Jew as well as a Christian therefore a Christian Creed as such must make mention of the Son and of the Holy Ghost thô they are not Gods or God A Christian as such must profess in his Creed that he believes not only in God the Father Almighty but also in his Son Jesus Christ who was sent by him to preach the Gospel and in the Holy Ghost by which it pleased God to confirm the truth of it By such a Belief he is distinguished from a Jew or any other Man He adds That the Primitive Christians did believe the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost we are sufficiently assured from all the Antient Records of their Faith but there was no Reason to express this in so short a Creed before the Arian and Socinian Heresies had disturbed the Church 'T is plain our Author has not read the Records of which he speaks And whereas he says there was no reason to express the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Creed 't is very marvellous to me that there should be no reason to express an Article which he and his Party say is necessary to Salvation and that a Man is no Christian that believes it not But he saith it was not necessary in so short a Creed but I say had the Article been necessary or so much as true the Apostles and Primitive Church would have inlarged their Creed to make room for a necessary Article an Article much more necessary than the Holy Catholick Church and other Articles there expressed Besides what Inlargement would it have been what Incumbrance to the Learner's Memory to have added twice this single and short Word God And in God the Son Jesus Christ our Lord c. I believe in God the Holy Ghost c. as Trinitarians express themselves now a days It is plain therefore that the Apostles and Antient Church could have no other Reason why in their Creed they made no mention of the Trinity and the Divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost no other but that they believed it not But why has our Author taken no notice of what the Socinian Historian had objected at pag. 22 23 24. was it too hot or to heavy for him Lastly he says It needed not to be added because the Son of God must be by Nature God and the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man But must he that is the Son of God be also by Nature God St. Luke says of Adam who was the Son of God Luke 1. 38. Was Adam by nature God Are not Angels in Scripture called Sons of God and all good Christians are they not also Sons of God in the Language of Scripture Job 1. 6. and 38. 7. John 1. 12. 1 John 3. 2. For his other saying that the Spirit of God is as essentially God as the Spirit of a Man is essential to a Man If one had leisure there might be Answers enow made to it all that I say is I pray prove it 6. The Historian concludes That The Socinian Faith is an accountable and reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible On the contrary our Author draws up against the Socinian System this Charge 1. It ridicules the Scriptures 2. It ridicules the whole Jewish Occonomy 3. It ridicules the Christian Religion 4. It justifies at least excuses both Pagan and Popish Idolatries If it be so my Masters the Socinians are ill Men indeed but let us do them this Common Right to examine what Proof there is of this Indictment CHAP. VII 1. THE First pretence is That The Socinian Doctrine ridicules the Scripture by putting either a very absurd or a very trifling Sense on it unworthy of the Wisdom of God by whom it was inspired He instances in some Expositions of Scripture which he finds in the brief History of the Vnitarians For Example The Historian in answer to Psal 45. 6 7. which the Apostle at Heb. 1. 8. applies to Christ says In the Hebrew and in the Greek

if he be but sincere that those Fathers follow the Ideas of Plato concerning the three Principles and therefore speak rather like Arians than Orthodox They tell us that the Son and Holy Ghost have each of them his own Nature and Essence whereby they are distinguish'd from each other and that the Son is subordinate and inferior to the Father both in Nature and Power as likewise the Holy Ghost is subordinate to the Son If any one desires to see some undeniable Proofs of what I assert I refer him to the Quaternio of Curcellaeus whereby he will be fully satisfied The succeeding Fathers finding fault with this Notion brought into the World a new Interpretation of the three Principles They won't have them to be subordinate but equal both in Nature and Power However they acknowledg them to be three Essences or Collateral Beings If you ask them how they can avoid admitting a Plurality of Gods They will answer That those three Beings are but one God as Peter James and John are but one Man If you deny that Peter James and John are but one Man they will tell you that you are mistaken because in Propriety of Speech this term Man ought not to signify an Individual as Peter or James or John but a specifical Nature common to them all so that thô they be three Individuals or three Persons yet they are but one Man being Partakers of the same specifical common Nature This they apply to their three Principles They are indeed say they three Hypostases or Persons yet they are but one God This term God denoting not an Individual Hypostasis but a Nature common to the three Persons of the Trinity whereby thô they are three yet they are said to be but one God Thus they made shift as well as they could It was indeed a very unsufficient way of explaining the Unity of God and did by no means resolve the difficulty They made an abstract specifical God as the Heathens might equally have done but there were still three Individual or Numerical Gods as Peter James and John may be said to be by Abstraction one specifical Man because they have the same specifical Nature but however they are still three Individual Numerical Men. Therefore the Schoolmen disliking this Notion as favouring Polytheism found out a new one more agreeable as they thought to the Unity of God They won't have the three Persons of the Trinity to have each of them his own Essence and Nature No this too plainly destroys the Unity of God There is say they but one Divine Essence Right but then they must not part with three Persons of the Trinity Therefore what are those three Persons They are Three Subsistences Three Modes Three Relations Three I know not what 's This is meer Nonsense for a Person is an Intelligent Being and 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 Now is it fair to boast so much of the Tradition concerning the Trinity as if it had been constant and unalterable in all the Ages of the Church when the contrary appears to any sincere Reader The Fathers who lived before the Council of Nice speak like Platonic Philosophers and Arians the Nicene Fathers like Tritheists and the School-men like Mad-men Where now is that unchangeable Tradition so much cried up Considering the ridiculousness of those Men who in their respective Ages set up new Notions of the Trinity I am apt to say contrary to Averroes his Wish Let not my Soul be with the Philosophers To conclude this Chapter those great Boasters of the pretended Tradition should do well to apply themselves to the confuting the Quaternio of Curcellaeus before mentioned which when they have fully and truly performed we may perhaps begin to think of parting with Tradition which indeed is not the Foundation whereon we build our Faith Knowing only the Scriptures which are able to make wise unto Salvation CHAP. II. Containing an Examination of the Doctor 's Answers to the Arguments against the Trinity in the History of the Unitarians HAving premised this general Observation I come to examine what Answer the Doctor returns to the Arguments alledged against the Trinity by the Author of the Brief History of the Vnitarians But I must first consider his Reflections concerning the use of Reason in expounding Scripture This is saith he an Impudent Argument which brings Revelation down in such sublime Mysteries to the level of our Understandings to say such a Doctrine cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction whereas a modest Man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not and if it he plainly contained there he would conclude how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught in Scripture p. 141. But is this Impudence to say Transubstantiation cannot be contained in Scripture because it implies a Contradiction I hope not Well then if the Trinity implies 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 I think both Consequences are right But saith the Author A modest Man would first inquire whether it be in Scripture or not But we have already made such an Inquiry and cannot find the Trinity in Scripture We never could read there that there are Three Persons in one Numerical God Indeed how could we We might as well find there that the Bread of the Sacrament is Transubstantiated into Christ's Body But he goes on And if it be plainly contained there he should conclude how Vnintelligible soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught in Scripture I beg the Author's pardon there is a vast difference between Vnintelligible and Contradictions He should not have said How Unintelligible soever but how Contradictions soever And thus his Words ought to run He should conclude how Contradictions soever it appeared to him that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture I perceive the Author found it too harsh to say that how Contradictions soever a thing appears to be that yet there is no Contradiction in it because it is taught by Scripture and therefore he puts the word Vnintelligible instead of the word Contradictions In effect we do not say that every Unintelligible Thing contained in Scripture is a Contradiction We acknowledg the Resurrection plainly set down in Scripture does imply no Contradiction