Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	father_n	person_n	trinity_n	5,937	5	9.9723	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47735	Mr. Leslie's answer to the remarks on his first dialogue against the Socinians	Leslie, Charles, 1650-1722.	1697 (1697)	Wing L1120A; ESTC R216662	7,803	8

As that several Persons shou'd not be several Men and that the Father shou'd not be before the Son c. Whereas these Terms of Father Son Persons c. are not proper to the Nature of God tho' the most Proper we can use or understand And therefore we are not to Conceive of them in the manner they are us'd and apply'd to Men nor draw Consequences from them as we do when these Words are Apply'd to Men. Otherwise we shall Run into the like Contradictions as the Blind-man about Sight This will throw off all that the Remarker says of Inferring three Gods from the Term of three Persons because it is so among Men. He talks like a Blind-man of Colours of things which he must Confess he do's not understand yet will be inferring Contradictions in them He owns he cannot speak Properly of them yet finds fault with the Terms we use because they are not Proper tho' he can find none more Proper 5. He may as well say That God is not Eternal because we have no word to Express Duration higher than the word Beginning and ther can be no Beginning in Eternity He may say it is a Contradiction that all things shou'd be Present with God which yet he will not Deny to be an undoubted Verity because it is a Contradiction to Men that the Past or Future shou'd be Present because then a thing wou'd be Past and not Past Future and not Future at the same time These and other things I mentioned in my first Dialogue but the Remarker takes no notice of them nor will own the Absurdity of inferring Contradictions in God from Contradictions in Man occasion'd by the Improper Terms we are Forc'd to make use of to Express God after the manner of Men. 6. But he has laid his Stress upon this Instance I brought of the Blind man And here he thinks he has an Advantage of me And I am willing to join Issue with him upon it That if he can find out any Words that are Proper whereby to Express the Nature of Sight to a Man Born Blind and that he will give the Blind-man leave to draw Consequences and infer Contradictions from such Words according as he understands them then I will undertake to solve all the Contradictions that he pretends to muster up in the Terms whereby we Express the Holy Trinity And let him shew any Difference betwixt these Cases if he can only this That far greater Disparity ought to be Allow'd as to the Propriety of Words when Terms belonging to Men are spoke of God than when what belongs to one of our Senses is Apply'd to another 7. And now let the Reader Judge what occasion he had of thus Insulting me p. 1. But are you indeed says he to me so very weak as to think you move all the way to Rome and are got thither as soon as you think of it No Sir whatever hast you may be in thither you go no faster than your Legs can carry you And shou'd You Challenge all the Philosophy in the World Who have so little as not to know that when you think of Rome or any other Place 't is only the Idea of it in your Imagination which you Contemplate and not a Local Motion of your Thoughts to it In like manner when we see the Stars our Eyes move not up to them but their Extended Rayes strike upon the Eye I see you have a Head much fitter for entertaining and coining Mysteries than for Explaining or Defending ' em It 's a wonder you did not think rather that Rome or Constantinople shift and come into your Head And then since in other Cases a lesser Vessel cannot contain a greater nor a Nut-shel hold an House you might wonder how your little Head should hold such great Cities And with the same Philosophy infer that what is a Contradiction to Nutshels is none to Heads and Challenge all Philosophy to Reconcile it Now Reader has he not fully understood me do you think and answer'd me smartly 8. But will you see him freely Confessing what he thus Ridicules He says in this same p. 1. Indeed there may be something attributed to one Nature where there is nothing Inconsistent or Contradictory to it while if attributed to another it might meet with somthing Inconsistent whence a Contradiction will arise in the one and not in the other Now this is the whole of what I have been contending for I desire no more of him And having granted this how can he Deny that what is a Contradiction in one Nature that is of Man may not be so in another Nature that is of God Or are ther any two Natures more Distant and more Different than the Nature of God and of a Creature Or do we understand the Nature of God more Perfectly and Clearly than our own Nature Is it not Reasonable then what I said as he Quotes my words p. 2. That we must not object Contradictions in the Incomprehensible Nature of God from Comparing it with our own Because we Vnderstand not his Nature To which the Remarker says 9. I should grant this in an object of which we have no knowlege at all But surely if I have some tho' a partial knowlege of the Infinite God I may discern what is Contradictory to that little knowlege of him Nor is any thing more usual or Just than to Deny such or such a Doctrine because Incompatible to the Divine Attributes to his Spirituality Eternity Goodness c. To which I reply That the Nature and Attributes of any thing are Different We may know the Attributes when we cannot know the Nature As we may see the River but cannot Reach the Spring whence it flows And this Dispute of the Trinity is not about any of the Attributes of God but Concerning His very Nature and Essence and how His Being is Compos'd if I might use that Word of which I may say we are totally Ignorant it is a Light Inaccessible to us we know Nothing of it at all And therefore cannot Charge Contradiction in the Revelation that is given to us of it If we look Directly upon the Sun in its Strength we see Nothing at all it Strikes us Blind But if we turn our Backs we Discern the Light that comes from it The Attributes of God are the Rays of the Sun but His Nature is the Sun it self we cannot Look upon it It is Utter Darkness to Us through the Excess of the Light We can Discern Nothing at all in it or say it is Thus or Thus or that This or That is Contradictory to it Alass how little do we know of our own Nature We know it only by the Effects and the Qualities we find in our Selves But what it is in its self we cannot tell we are Exceedingly in the Dark And so as to the Nature of Trees Flowers Plants c. We find by Experience such Effects and Vertues in them but we know not the