Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
nature_n divine_a person_n reason_n 5,359 5 5.6209 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
A56411 The fire's continued at Oxford, or, The decree of the convocation for burning the Naked gospel, considered in a letter to a person of honour Parkinson, James, 1653-1722. 1690 (1690) Wing P494; ESTC R1197 18,231 16

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

of the Blasphemies ' Pref. Whether Mahomet or Christian Doctors have more corrupted the Gospel is not so plain by the Light of Scripture as it is by that of Experience that the later gave Occasion Encouragement and Advantage to the former For when by nice and hot Disputes especially concerning the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity the Minds of the whole People had bin long confounded and by the then late Establishment of Image-Worship the Scandal was encreased so that to vulgar understandings the Doctrine of the Trinity appeared no less guilty of Polytheism than that of Image-Worship did of Idolatry Then was there a tempting opportunity offered to the Impostor and he laid hold on it to set up himself for a Reformer of such Corruptions as were both too gross to be Justified and too visible to be Denied Answ The Christian Doctors had not indeed in Mahomet's Time so far corrupted the Gospel as they have done since But their then late establishment of Image-Worship gave such scandal to the vulgar rude Arabians that the Idolatry which was visible therein made them infer that those who were so guilty thereof were no less guilty of Polytheism in the Doctrine of the Trinity which to this Day they still believe But where doth the denial of Christ's God-head appear in all this ' Cap. 7. pag. 40. The great Question concerning the God-Head of Christ is 1. Impertinent to our Lord's Design 2. Fruitless to the Contemplators own purpose 3. Dangerous Answ The great Question was not concerning the Godhead of Christ for therein both Parties agreed but concerning the Eternity of his Godhead They both held he was before the World and made the World Judges in Criminal Matters should not corrupt the Evidence And whatever the Author speaketh of that Question is by way of Gloss upon the Great Constantine's Letter never yet judged Heretical as I observ'd before Is here a Tittle of the Author 's denying the Godhead of Christ ' Cap. 8. pag. 46. Two Evangelists trace our Lord's Genealogy but as they derive it not from his real but supposed Father so do they take two several ways not to satisfy but to amuse us What is this but to admonish us against Curiosity The Pedigree of his Flesh might easily have bin either cleared or unmentioned ●ad the Evangelists bin wholly silent concerning it We had less wondred but that they should profess to instruct us yet doubly disappoint us first by deriving it from a wrong Father and then by distracting us between two ways what is this but to verify the Propher's Description Who shall declare his Generation and what doth this so careful concealment of his Generation according to his Humane Nature signify more plainly than a warning against searching after the Eternal Generation of his Divinity If it were needless and therefore left impossible to prove him derived from David which was one of his most revealed Characters How can it be otherwise to understand that Generation of his which must needs be so much the more above our Understanding as the Nature of God is above our own Answ Matter of Fact is plain Our Bibles shew us that the two Evangelists derive our Lord's Pedigree from his reputed Father and that they proceed therein two several ways The Inference is innocent What doth this so careful concealment of his Generation according to his Humane Nature signify more plainly than a warning against searching after the eternal Generation of his Divinity which must be so much the more above our understandings as the Nature of God is above our own Here again the eternal Generation of his Divinity is plainly suppos'd so far are they from proving the denial of it ' Pag. 48. And might not a Heathen at this rate justify Polytheism provided his Gods disagreed not amongst themselves The Schoolmen therefore will not stand to this State of the Question but distinguish between Person and Suppositum rationale which yet they cannot so do as to satisfy themselves and therefore shelter themselves in their impregnable Fort Mystery and thence thunder upon the Adversaries both of this and of another no less beloved Mystery For they make this their Cock-argument for Transubstantiation That since the Scripture is no less express for the One than the Other and the Contradictions no less gross in the One than in the Other therefore we must embrace the One as well as the Other 'To this Objection of the Romanists and to others of the Vnitaries we have found an Answer That we must not infer from our Own Nature to God's for that Ours is finite and God's is infinite Three Persons among us are Three Men because they agree in one Common Nature but the Divine Nature is not a Common One but a Singular and therefore Three Persons do not make Three Gods If you understand not this you must not wonder or at least you must not Gainsay it for it is a Mystery which Reason may not pretend to fathom Answ This Censurer understood well how to stop short for had he gone one Line further he had discovered the Innocency of the Author's Intentions the Words are Why if it be a Mystery and must still be so to what purpose do we enquire into it or dispute concerning it which plainly shew he did not intend either to Assert or Deny either side of the Question but set aside the whole as not to be Understood and therefore not to be Disputed These Words are not in the Author's Second Impression so unwilling was he it seems to displease that he was at a great charge to have these and other things left out But how justifiable are they even in the first for they follow Athanasius's way of stating the Trinity which was That Peter James and John are not three Men if they be of one Mind because then they are one in the Lord. And doth it not thence clearly follow that a Heathen might at the same rate justify Polytheism provided his Gods disagreed not among themselves But who knows not that the Schoolmen and Moderns do generally as the Author says reject that way of Arguing as indeed introducing three Gods one in specie but three in number ' Pag. 51. Thus have we pointed and only pointed at some of the many intangling Questions which puzzeled and divided the subtilest Wits of several Ages and were at last decided by no other Evidence but of Imperial and Papal Authority sufficient to silence Disputes but not stablish Truth And who is he that is not discouraged from giving a confident Assent to what is this way obtruded upon his Belief Answ This is not in the Second Impression if it were where is the Heresy of it Matter of Fact appears in the Historians and the Inference Who is he that is not discouraged from giving a confident assent to what is this way obtruded upon his Belief What consisidering Man would not ask the fame Question ' Cap. 9. pag. 53. I. There is