Selected quad for the lemma: diversity_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
diversity_n	father_n	son_n	substance_n	392	5	9.2521	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59822	The distinction between real and nominal trinitarians examined and the doctrine of a real Trinity vindicated from the charge of Tritheism : in answer to a late Socinian pamphlet, entituled, The judgment of a disinterested person, concerning the controversie about the Blessed Trinity, depending between Dr. S--th, and Dr. Sherlock.	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1696 (1696)	Wing S3294; ESTC R19545	58,708	90

self-same Substance of Father and Son but so that the Son is a true and proper Son a real subsisting Person Substance of his Fathers Substance God of God Light of Light very God of very God Begotten not Made of one Substance with the Father by whom all things were made which so expresly declares the Sense of the Council that this Author durst not so much as mention God of God Light of Light c. which can never be reconciled with his Notion of One Substance which leaves no Substance nor any real subsistence to the Son distinct from the Father It is a bold stroke and worthy of our Author to make the Nicene Council determine for Sabellianism in the term Homoousios but yet he has a little Story which he thinks proves it beyond exception for which he quotes Socrates That Historian tells us That there happened a great quarrel in Aegypt about the word Homoousios which he says was like fighting in the dark without distinguishing Friends from Enemies for neither of them seemed to understand each other as to those matters for which they reproached one another This our Author takes no notice of for it would not serve his purpose it appearing from hence that the Accusations on both sides were causeless and like dealing blows in the dark But now our Author begins Those Fathers of the Council that were against the term Homoousios but those Fathers of the Council are not in Socrates but only those who declined the term Homoousios but the Fathers of the Council served his purpose better and therefore he makes bold with the Historian or of One Substance which the Historian has not added neither accused such as were for it as Sabellians and Montanists but the Historian says did suppose that those who received that Term did introduce the Doctrine of Sabellius and Montanus that is that this was their design in using that Term which as he observed before was their mistake calling them also blasphemous because they seemed to take away by that word the real Existence of the Son of God While on the other hand they that stood for Homoousios believed that such as were against it did introduce more Gods and therefore detested them as reviving Paganism Here our Author leaves off but I shall go on with the History Eustathius Bishop of Antioch accuses Eusebius Pamphili as Adulterating the Nicene Faith Eusebius denies That he in the least departed from the Nicene Faith and accuses Eustathius of Sabellianism And thus they wrote against each other as Adversaries and yet both of them Taught That the Son of God was a true and proper Person and had a real Subsistence of his own and that there was One God in Three Persons that one would wonder whence it came to pass that they could not agree From this Story our Author thus Reasons This is a deciding-testimony in the Case For the Realists will never be able to shew that if by Homoousios the Council intended Three distinct Substances Three Beings Minds or Spirits How the Fathers of the Council could be accused of Montanism and Sabellianism for Three intellectual infinite Substances Three Divine Beings Spirits or Minds was the Doctrine chiefly opposed by Sabellius and Montanus as all confess Then by his own Confession his Nominalists are Sabellians and all those Fathers and Councils which Condemned Sabellius were Realists and then we have got the Nicene Council again And on the other hand the Council which contrived and defended Homoousios could as little Censure those who were against it as introducers of Tritheism and Paganism if it had not been supposed that in opposing Homoousios they professed to believe Three infinite Substances in number Three Divine Minds and Spirits which is the very Doctrine of the Modern Realists 1. Now in answer to this I observe first That the Historian says all this was an angry mistake as angry men are very apt to mistake and to reproach each other with their own mistakes but neither of these Parties were guilty of the Heresies they were charged with neither the one were Sabellians nor the other Tritheists Now this I think proves the direct contrary to what he concludes from it For if those who were charged with Sabellianism for owning the Homoousion were not Sabellians then it is certain that they did not think that the Nicene Council by the Homoousion or One Substance meant One singular Substance for that is Sabellianism And when those who professed the Homoousion and were no Sabellians charged those who rejected the Homoousion with Tritheism they must believe That the Nicene Homoousion is neither Sabellianism nor Tritheism but the middle between both such a Unity and sameness of Substance as is neither a Sabellian singularity nor a Tritheistick diversity and multiplicity of Substances that is where Father and Son are in their own Persons as distinct from each other infinite Substance and yet but one Substance One of One God of God Light of Light This is the Medium which Socrates tells us they both agreed in and therefore wondered how they should come to differ That the Son of God was a true and proper Person and had a real Subsistence of his own and that there was One God in Three Persons 2. But if by Homoousios the Council intended Three distinct Substances that is according to our Sense Three each of which is true and perfect Substance and yet but One Substance How could the Fathers of the Council be accused of Montanism or Sabellianism Had he consulted Dr. Bull he would have learnt the difference between these two but let that pass He Phrases this as if he would insinuate That the Council it self was accused of Sabellianism for this Term which is false But this word Homoousios had sometimes been abused to a Sabellian Sense tho' the Council did not use it in that Sense and some men might still conceal their Heresy under the Covert of an Orthodox Word For this Reason some who professed the Nicene Faith yet disliked the Homoousion and when this Dispute had heated them it was too natural to charge those who from the Authority of the Nicene Council defended the use of that word with such secret Heretical Senses as they thought that word chargeable with And this is the whole Truth of the Case as Socrates tells us and this is a very strange way to prove the Sense of the Council from the groundless accusations of angry and jealous men 3. But how could the Council which contrived and defended Homoousios censure those who were against it as introducers of Tritheism and Paganism which the Historian witnesses that it did with great earnestness But Socrates his Historian says not one word of the Council but only of these angry Disputants censuring and accusing each other and both unjustly but he would sain ascribe all this to the Council because it is not Fathers but Councils he relies on of which more presently But there