Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
sense_n father_n holy_a son_n 5,346 5 6.2821 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A59900 A vindication of Dr. Sherlock's sermon concerning The danger of corrupting the faith by philosophy in answer to some Socinian remarks / by William Sherlock ... Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707. 1697 (1697) Wing S3371; ESTC R21027 27,441 45

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

be not a good Objection against the Truth of any thing how comes a Contradiction to much more Fallible Reason to be so unanswerable an Objection And then we may much more safely believe a Trinity in Unity notwithstanding all their pretended Contradictions to Reason than we can believe Transubstantiation in Contradiction to Sense But in his Third Answer he seems to be in good earnest and I shall consider it as such and it is this Transubstantiation is contradicted by Sense saith his Lordship in an Object of Sense therefore 't is a false Mystery This is as much as to say That a Faculty or Power judging of its proper Object always judges truly and must determine our Belief He must say this or his Reasoning is nothing I ask now of what Faculty or Power is Almighty God the Object He will Answer God is the Object not of Sense which discerns him not but of Reason which discovers and sees this most Glorious Being Therefore Reason by his Lordship 's own Argument judges infallibly concerning God and must determine our Belief about him We must hearken to Reason when it finds Contradictions in what men affirm concerning God Now notwithstanding his vain Brags and his Triumphant Challenge to the Bishop a very little Skill will Answer this Argument For 1. The Bishop need not say because it is not true That every Faculty and Power judges as certainly of its proper Object as Sense does and then his Argument is quite lost For if Sense judges more certainly than Reason then a manifest Contradiction to Sense is a more unanswerable Objection than any appearing and pretended Contradictions to Reason I believe this Author is the first man who ever thus universally equalled the Evidence of Reason to that of Sense or that ever affirmed that Reason could judge infallibly of God And if Reason may be mistaken which I shall take for granted especially in the Infinite and Incomprehensible Nature of God some appearing Contradictions or what some men will call Contradictions are not a sufficient reason to reject a Revelation and to disbelieve what God tells us of Himself and his own Nature 2 dly Whatever certainty we allow to our Faculties in judging of their proper Objects we must extend it no farther than to what belongs to the judgment of that Faculty The same thing may be the Object of different Faculties as it is of our different Senses but every Faculty and every Sense judges of nothing in any Object but only what belongs to it self All the Objects of Sense are the Objects of Reason too but Sense judges of nothing but what belongs to Sense and Reason of what belongs to Reason and Reason can judge no farther of any Object than it is knowable by Reason and not only the Divine but even Created Nature has such Secrets and Mysteries as are not knowable by Reason and therefore it is manifest Ignorance or Sophistry to conclude from God's being the Object of Reason therefore Reason judges infallibly concerning God For not to Dispute about the Infallible Judgment of Reason God is the Object of Reason because Reason can know something concerning God but God can be the Object of Reason no farther than he is knowable by Reason and therefore if there be any thing which Natural Reason cannot know of God as I hope this Author himself will own with respect to such matters God is not the Object of Reason and Reason cannot judge at all much less judge infallibly concerning God But as Sense leaves room for Reason in the same Object so Reason leaves room for Faith But must we not hearken to Reason when it finds Contradictions in what men affirm concerning God Yes most certainly as far as God is the Object of Reason and knowable by Reason but no farther for in such matters as Reason cannot judge of at all it cannot judge of Contradictions Sense and Reason can judge of Contradictions only for themselves or as far as their judgment reaches but may appear Contradictions themselves to each other As for instance Reason assures us that Man consists of Soul and Body which are closely united to each other and yet the Union of Spirit and Matter is no better than contradiction to the judgment of Sense for Sense knows no Union but by Contact nor any Contact but between Bodies which have extended and solid Parts that can touch each other so that an Union without Contact is one contradiction to the judgment of Sense and a Contact without extended solid parts which a Spirit has not is another and yet Reason does not matter these Contradictions to the judgment of Sense because Sense is not the Judge of such things And it is the same Case between Reason and Faith which receives its information from a Divine Revelation concerning such Matters as are not knowable by Natural Reason should Reason contradict Faith in such Matters as Reason is no Judge of this is no more an Objection against the Superior Evidence and Authority of Faith than the Judgment of Sense is against the Evidence of Reason such Contradictions are not in the nature of things but are owing to our ignorance of Nature and presumption in judging of what we cannot understand The Example he gives of such a contradiction to Reason is a Trinity of Persons every one of which is perfect God and yet all of them but One God but for my life I cannot see this plain Contradiction That Three Persons each of which has all the Perfections of Divinity and is perfect God should be so essentially united in the s●me One Eternal and Infinite Nature as to be but One God This is not a Contradiction in terminis it is not Three Persons and but One Person or Three Gods and but One God but Three Divine Persons and One God If the Unity of the Godhead consisted in the Unity of a Person I grant it would be a flat Contradiction to say Three Persons and One God which would be equivalent to Three Gods and One God but if the Unity of the Godhead consists in the Unity of Nature that there is but One Eternal and Infinite Nature which is the One God and this Unity and Identity of Nature be perfectly and entirely preserved in Three Divine Persons it is so far from a Contradiction to say That Three Persons are One God that it would be a Contradiction to say That Three Divine Persons who have the same One Identical Nature should be more than One God for that is to say That One Divine Nature which can be but One God is Three Gods Now this is all that Natural Reason tells us of the Unity of the Godhead That there is and can be but One Eternal Infinite Nature which is but One God this we expresly teach and therefore do not contradict Reason but then Scripture tells us That there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost to whom the Name and Attributes of God and therefore this One Infinite Undivided Nature belong This Reason boggles at and Socinians call a Contradiction but it is such a Contradiction as Sense would
what he sees and feels or what he can prove to be true by plain and undeniable Reason meerly because there are unconceivable difficulties in it as there is in every thing even the most certain and familiar things in Nature And if revealed Truths are not more unconceivable than many Natural Objects of Sense and Reason why should their being unconceivable be a greater Objection against believing a Revelation than it is against believing our Sense and Reason in matters equally unconceivable Serm. p. 13. This Argument is easily understood but can never be Answered and therefore he wisely resolved not to understand it In Answer to this he tells us That he does not always believe his Senses nor his Reason neither when it is not clear but perplext with difficulties or darkening doubts but especially when there is a remarkable and manifest inconceivableness Nor do I require he should but my only Question is Whether he does not believe both his Senses and Reason that there are many things in the World whose Natures are so mysterious that he cannot conceive or comprehend the Reasons and Philosophy of them That though he sees Men and Beasts Heaven and Earth Sun Moon and Stars he will not believe that there are such things as he sees because he cannot understand the Philosophy of their Natures and sees a great many things done by them which are perfectly unaccountable and would have been thought absolutely impossible had we not seen them done These are all the contradictions and impossibilities which I say men may make or find when they know not the Philosophical Natures of things nor how they act and yet will be reasoning and guessing at them which this wise Author calls a Sermon for Contradictions But do I require any man to believe Contradictions Nay do I say that there are any such Contradictions But this I say that there are such unconceivable Mysteries in all Created Nature much more in the Incomprehensible Nature of God as some Gotham Philosophers as he who knows them best calls them charge with impossibilities and contradictions and yet these Gotham Philosophers are so wise as not to disbelieve their Senses as to the being of those things how unconceivable and incomprehensible soever their natures are and this is all I ask that in matters of pure Revelation we give the same credit to Revelation that in the Objects of sense we give to sense i. e. not to disbelieve what is revealed As that God has an Eternal Son and that this Eternal Son in time was made Man because the Eternal Generation and Incarnation are inconceivable Mysteries as we do not disbelieve that there are any Men in the World because Human Generations and the Union of Soul and Body are inconceivable Mysteries in Nature Towards the Conclusion of my Sermon I Answered Two Objections against believing a Revelation as to such Doctrines which are inconceivable and incomprehensible to meer Natural Reason And here to prepare the way he first scorns the Objections as never made before or however by none but my self That I pass over known and very dangerous Objections and Answer only to Chimera's and Follies never suggested or thought of by any p. 18. I am glad to find that he grows ashamed of these Socinian Chimera's and Follies but let us hear what they are 1. It is thought very unnatural that when God has made us reasonable Creatures and therefore made natural Reason to us the measure of truth and falshood he should require us to believe without Reason as we must do if he reveal such things to us as we do not and cannot possibly know the reasons of If we must believe with our understanding how can we believe things which we cannot understand Now this Socinian does not believe that any Sect of Religious ever made this or the like Objection Let him as he says snuff his Candle once more and look into the late Socinian Pamphlets What is the meaning of all their Zeal for Reason in this Cause of their great noise and outcry about Mysteries Nonsense Contradictions What is the meaning of their Expounding Scripture by Reason not like Fools but like Wise men Why has this Author shewn such a furious Zeal against believing a Revelation notwithstanding any Objections from meer Natural Reason and Philosophy against it If as he now says our Reason and Understandings are finite and imperfect and the Wisdom and Power of God most perfect Therefore he may reveal many things to us to be believed by us though we understand them not nor have any other cause of our believing them but only God's Revelation of them p. 19. Nothing can be more true than what he says that Reason is the measure of truth and falshood but not the frail Fallible Reason of Men but the Infallible Wisdom of God If he be sincere and hearty in this we are perfectly agreed for this is the very Doctrine of my Sermon which he has so furiously opposed or would be thought to oppose for to speak the Truth he has not opposed the Doctrine of my Sermon but in his own Language his own Chimera's and Follies But here is either a Fallacy in his Words or he gives up his Cause which it is plain he never intended The Question is not absolutely What is the Rule and Measure of Truth and Falshood but what is so to us Now if he will allow that Frail and Fallible Reason is not a Rule to us then we may believe things which our Reason does not approve nay which it may judge improbable and false And if the infallible Wisdom of God be a Rule to us it can be so only in a Revelation and then we may and must believe the infallible Wisdom of God in a Revelation against the Objections of Frail and Fallible Reason And one may easily guess there is something amiss still notwithstanding all these concessions for as silly an Objection as he says this is which I am glad to hear he will by no means own that I have Answered it and then I have very ill luck indeed to make a silly Objection which was never made before and not be able to Answer it when I have done The Answer I give to this Objection is this That the Matter of the Objection is not true for we do understand both what it is we believe and the reasons why we believe it and this I suppose may pass for an Answer to that Objection But then it is farther Objected That we believe such things whose Natures we cannot understand and cannot account for by natural Reason To this I Answer That Reason is not the judge of the Nature and Phil●sophy of things nor does it require us to believe nothing but what we thus understand and comprehend For then as I had shewn we must no more believe Sense and Reason than Revelation And this I take to be a good Answer too but then to shew the reason of this I add When we make