Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	great_a	parliament_n	3,586	5	6.2777	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59831	A modest examination of the authority and reasons of the late decree of the vice-chancellor of Oxford, and some heads of colleges and halls concerning the heresy of three distinct infinite minds in the Holy and Ever-blessed Trinity / by William Sherlock ...	Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.	1696 (1696)	Wing S3303; ESTC R14301	29,861	49

the Three Divine Persons of the ever Blessed Trinity when each of them is and is owned to be a distinct infinite Mind think themselves reproach'd to be call'd Three and if the Divine Persons will not think themselves blasphem'd by this there is no danger that the Divine Nature should For the Divine Nature is whole and entire in each Divine Person and there is no danger but three distinct infinite Minds must have the same One Divine Nature for Infinite Infinite and Infinite are but one and the same Infinite Nature But as I take it the danger of Blasphemy is on the other side for if they deny the Three Persons of the Trinity to be three distinct infinite Minds which of these Divine Persons Father Son or Holy Ghost will they deny to be an Infinite Mind for when we know him we must strike him out of the Trinity as not being true and perfect God Or if they allow Person to signifie the same thing when applied to the Father to the Son or to the Holy Ghost then neither of these Persons is a Divine Infinite Mind or each of them is and then there are three as there are three Persons or there is never a Divine Infinite Mind among them all the Consequence of which is so blasphemous that I know not whether I may venture to say it for fear the Animadverter should serve me as he has done once already to make these Consequences my own Doctrine But yet I will tell these Gentlemen what a bolder man than I am would venture to say upon this occasion that if a Divine Person as a Person and as distinct from the other Persons be not an Infinite Mind there is an end of the Christian Trinity in which every Person is true and perfect God which no Person is who is not an Infinite Mind and therefore if any one Person considered in his distinct personal Capacity be not an Infinite Mind he does not belong to the Christian Trinity and if all the Persons are in this respect alike that not any one of them in his distinct Personal Capacity is a distinct Infinite Mind then there is no Trinity at all and if they will find a God when they have renounced a Trinity it must be one singular Divine Nature which they themselves will not allow to be a Person And thus we have lost a Trinity and lost a God who is a Person This is plain sence and I fear neither Thomas nor Scotus can help them out But let us suppose and I am sure they ought to be thankful for such a Supposition for their Notion of a Person will not admit it unless they understand one thing by a Person when apply'd to the Father and another when apply'd to the Son and Holy Spirit but I say let us suppose that the Divine Nature is originally in the Person of the Father or that the Father is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the unbegotten self originated God as he certainly is and therefore a Divine substantial Person who is essentially God Now the very Name of Father is a relative Term and signifies that he has a Son begotten of himself and let any Man consider which sounds most like Blasphemy both against the Father and the Son to say that the Father begets a Son who is his own perfect Likeness and Image the express Character of his own Substance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance with himself but distinct in Substance as Father and Son are true and perfect God as his Father is without any other the least difference but that one is the Father and the other the Son or to say that the Father begets no Substance at all but only a Mode or a Relation without a Relative in his own Substance That the Father begets Filiation not a Son but Sonship is not this to ridicule the Divine Generation and to make Sport for Atheists and Hereticks If God begets no Substance he begets nothing real nothing substantially distinct from himself and therefore no substantial Person and then neither God is a true and real Father nor the Son a real Son which overthrows the whole Mystery of our Redemption by the Incarnation Death and Sufferings of the Son of God For God was not incarnate if the Divine Nature was not incarnate And if there be but one singular divine Nature and Substance in the Deity though they could find a Trinity of Persons in this one singular Nature the Incarnation of this one singular Nature is impossible without the Incarnation of the whole Trinity Men may wrangle as long as they please about these Matters but it is a manifest Contradiction to say That the Divine Nature is incarnate in the Son and is not incarnate in the Father and the Holy Ghost when there is but one singular Divine Nature and Substance in them all which is to say that the same one singular Nature is incarnate and is not incarnate and is and is not is a Contradiction or there never can be a Contradiction And now I leave it to all impartial Judges on which side the Impiety lies 3. The third Charge is Heresie But if it be neither false nor impious I hope there is no Heresie in it neither However they would have done well to have given this Heresie a Name that we might have known where to find it who were the first Authors of it in what Age of the Church it began and by what General Councils it was condemn'd For I can find no Heresie in these censur'd Words but the Heresie of a real substantial Trinity the Heresie of three substantial Persons or of three Personal Minds and Substances and I do not find any mention of this Heresie in the ancient Records of the Church unless those who called themselves Catholicks were these Hereticks for this was always their Doctrine as some of our Modern Orthodox Zealots and Heresie-makers confess and know not how to excuse them from Heresie upon this account Well! if this be the Case we must be contented to be Hereticks with all the ancient Fathers and the four first General Councils but these Gentlemen should have remembred that the Church of England requires them to expound Scripture as the ancient Catholick Doctors expound it and receives the four first General Councils where this Heresie is in great Perfection and it had not been amis if some body had minded them that the Laws of England as I observ'd before forbid the declaring any Doctrine to be Heresie which is not condemn'd for Heresie in the four first General Councils But let Fathers and Councils Canons or Acts of Parliament say what they please they have a greater and more venerable Authority than all of them The Animadverter has told them it is Heresie and has told them what Heresie it is no less than the Heresie of Tritheism Now I confess I am much to seek what this Heresie of Tritheism is It is not Paganism for the Heathens