Selected quad for the lemma: mind_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
mind_n	conceive_v	nature_n	subsistence_n	1,464	5	15.1740	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43808	A vindication of the primitive Fathers against the imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum, in his Discourse on the divinity and death of Christ referred to the sense and judgment of the church universal, the arch-bishops and bishops of the Church of England, the two famous universities of Oxon and Cambridge, and the next session of the convocation / Samuel Hill ...	Hill, Samuel, 1648-1716.	1695 (1695)	Wing H2013; ESTC R12727	83,119	189

grant such a conception allowable that there may be three that may have a diversity of Operations as well as Oeconomies For if he be no Tritheist in allowing this Conception why does he reflect on it as Tritheite in the Fathers And yet his Lordship diversifies the Operations much more exclusively each of other Person than any Fathers do and in such a manner as inferrs a Tetrad in the Deity in which according to his Lordship the Father must be a second Principle For his words run thus † P. 42. In the Divine Essence which is the simplest and perfectest Vnity there may be three that may have a diversity of Operations as well as Oeconomies By the first God may be supposed to have made and to govern all things by the second to have actuated and been most perfectly united to the Humanity of Christ and by the third to have inspired the Penmen of the Scriptures and the Workers of Miracles and still to renew and purifie all good Minds all which notwithstanding we firmly believe there is but one God Now whatsoever acts by another is distinct from that other by which it acts and prior in the Agency by the order of Reason If then God acts by the first which is the Father that God is in Nature and Subsistence antecedent to the Father and the first hath a former and if God who acts by three be distinct from those three by which he acts there are then four Distincts and Distinctions in the Deity or else the three are not essential in the Deity but only operant and unsubstantial Powers and Qualities Yet is it against Faith to say that God acts or creates by the Father because it makes him secondary by an unallowable conception the Canonical Faith herein being that God original or God the Father acts by his Son and Holy Spirit But whether we make the Father primary or secundary if we attribute the Creation to him exclusively of the Logos and Holy Spirit and the Inspirations to the Spirit exclusively of the Father and the Son and the Divine Operations in the Union of our Nature with the Logos to the Logos only exclusively of the Father and Holy Spirit according to his Lordship's scheme of conceptions we rove from truth from Scripture from Catholick Tradition which ascribes these to the single Persons by a peculiar respect of Oeconomick Order but not by an exclusive propriety of Operation And yet though his Lordship recommends this conception of such a separate Agency in his three Divine Anonymities yet can he find no such incongruities in the received Doctrines of those his despised Fathers But 't is time to take breath and consider what reformation following extinguished this Tritheism in the Catholick Church and Faith Why Others therefore laid another foundation in one numerical Deity or Being Now what is this but to insinuate nay openly to assert that the former Fathers that believed Emanations and Foecundity and argued from the specifick Homoousion with the respective Operations did not fundamentally own one individual Deity And yet how could they that stuck to the Nicene Creed deny the fundamental Article of one God which yet all the taxed Fathers defended as the Faith of all the former Fathers who made the Monarchy a fundamental Principle against Gentilism and were herein exactly and professedly followed by all their Successors Nay the feature of his Lordship's reflexion seems to attaint all Antiquity of Tritheism till after the Doctors of the specifick Homoousion and distinct Operations ceased as not holding the Unity of the Godhead for his conjunction therefore makes this Unity a post-nate Principle taken up upon the apprehension that the former Doctrines of the Church were Tritheite according to his Lordship's general Imputation § 14. And now it seems high time to observe upon what fancies for they are represented as such these Tritheite Principles were reformed by these over seri patrum nepotes * They then observed † P. 32. that the Sun besides its own Globe had an Emanation of Light and another of Heat which had different Operations and all from the same Essence And that the Soul of Man had both Intallection and Love which flowed from its Essence So they conceived that the Primary Act of the Divine Essence was its Wisdom by which it saw all things and in which as in an Eternal Word it designed all things This they thought might be called the Son as being the generation of the Eternal Mind while from the fountain Principle together with the inward Word there did arise a Love that was to issue forth and that was to be the Soul of the Creation and was more particularly to animate the Church and in this Love all things were to have life and favour This was rested on and was afterwards dressed up with a great deal of dark nicety by the Schools and grew to be the universally received explanation So that it seems these conceptions these reforming conceptions are very novel and the Doctrine derived from them became not universal but by the Definitions of the Schools § 15. But before we come to justifie their due Antiquity let us consider whether as his Lordship represents them the Tritheism of the former Fathers were really amended by them For in this Simile here are two Emanations from the Globe of the Sun Light and Heat which have different Operations which if they represent different Operations of the different Persons in the Deity this reduces that Tritheism which the Simile was designed to avoid So unhappy were these Theological Tinkers in mending the former Theories § 16. But however let us see whether these Theories had not really a more early Original and Reception in the Universal Church I begin with the Simile of the Sun † Apolog c. 21. sup citat §. 7. Vide. Now Tertullian the most ancient of all our Latin Writers used this Simile and says that in respect thereof the Logos was ever backward celebrated under this Title as the Ray of God So * Instit l. 4. c. 29. ille tanquam Sol hic quasi radius à Sole porrectus Lactantius had learned the same Simile from Tertullian or his Church So † In Evan. Joh. c. 5. Tract 20. Si separas candorem Solis à Sole separa Verbum à Patre St. Austin an African likewise had from his Fathers derived the same Example of the Sun The Greek Fathers that lived in and just after the Nicene Council so often so uniformly and canonically use it who yet argued from the specifick Sense of the Homoousion that the citations of them would fill a Volume so this Fancy is not later than these Tritheit Homooufiasts And to let his Lordship see that it was an Ante-Nicene Simile not only the Scripture term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may convince but the express production of it * Theognost ap Athan de Syn. Nic. con Arian Decret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Principium commonly denote And I call them so only in respect of the creatures not absolutely in respect of their own subsistence as if they were three unprincipiated Principles for so there is but one viz. God the Father So I agree with the Doctrine of the Fathers as they deny three Principles nonprinoipiate for otherwise three such Principles would be three Gods Principles and so are not really distinct from them or simply describe the whole Divine Essence and so no single one of these Principles or else are merely negative and so signifie no positive Principle or Hypostasis in the Deity or else are extrinsecal and relative only to exteriour productions and so touch nothing Eternal or Inessential to the Divine Nature that I mention not how that Eternal Generation and Procession can be conceived of no Attributes distinct from the Trinity the Father Logos and Holy Spirit There is therefore in the Deity no positive distinct intelligible Power Virtue or Principle but Father Son and Holy Spirit Mind Reason and the Holy Spirit of Love by the Revelation of whose Nature Subsistence Personality Counsels and Operations the Christian Theology and Religion is most pure desecate sublime full and absolute as became the last revelations by the Son of God but had not been so had it wanted any of these received Articles and Theories concerning the adorable and ever blessed Trinity § 38. But whereas there are who professing the Catholick Faith themselves would yet open the Church Doors to contrary Opinions by making the Gospel Fathers and Religious Councils naked unto shame and contriving to abrogate the Sanctions of our Faith I pathetically beg them to consider deeply what I have said hereupon especially in the four last Sections and further remark that since by the Grace of the Holy Spirit and the Mediation of the Son we have an access unto union with God the Father the first Parent and Principle of all that dwells in Light otherwise altogether inaccessible it was necessary that our Rule of Faith if justly perfect should shew us the way of this ascent and particularly what that Logos and Holy Spirit properly and essentially are by whom we arise into this Communion with the Father Else such a defect had remained in these necessary Notices as had rendred our Faith and Theology blind and uncertain to the inevitable danger of a fundamental Impiety For Men hearing of the Son and Holy Spirit must have been curious for a Notion of them and must have taken them for create or uncreate Now if being uncreate Men had taken them for created as we see many will against express Revelation and universal Tradition to the contrary Men would have prosaned them and their Deity the sault whereof had been imputable to God had he not yielded us the necessary Revelation of their Order and Godhead And so likewise had they been created God would not have left us without sufficient notice thereof lest we mistaking should have adored them for Divine as the whole Church hath done and does But certainly he could not so much so fully so often so perpetually have asserted their Godhead and Personality had they been merely created or impersonal To have revealed nothing of them had been to have shewed no way to Communion and Knowledgge of God the Father and to have said somewhat of them but not enough to fix a Faith and Notion of their Essence and Character had been a Snare But since what is now taught is both necessary and perfect I think it a damnable Sin not to keep such a Divine Depositum perfect whole and undefiled as it was delivered unto us but by false indulgences of Latitude to betray it up to profanation corruption contempt and infidelity § 39. And here having made a sufficient Apology for those Theories of the Fathers against his Lordship's charge of Novelty and Humane Fancy I could heartily have begg'd a Nunc Dimittis and have ended in these pleasing Contemplations But our Life is a Warfare and his Lordship 's further process requires my further attendance But many saith his Lordship have thought that the Term Son did not at all belong to the * He means to any one of them blessed Three but only to our Saviour as he was the Messias the Jews having had this Notion of the Messias that as he was to be the King of Israel so he was to be the Son of God We find Nathanael addressed himself thus to him and when the High Priest adjured our Saviour he knits these two together art thou the Christ the Son of the most High God Which shews that they did esteem those two as one and the same thing This account of the Jews notion his Lordship seems to have taken out of Dr. Hammond's Annotation on Psal 2. v. 7. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee For these are that great and good Doctor 's words the learned Jews themselves resolved that he was to be the Son of God and that in an eminent manner So the High Priest Matth. 26.63 Tell us whether thou art the Christ the Son of God and Joh. 1.49 Rabbi thou art the Son of God thou art the King of Israel c. Which Text therefore the Doctor prophetically interprets of his resurrection and exaltation according to good New Testament Authorities But he that said this never taught his Lordship that the term Son did not at all belong to any of the blessed Three but expresly in the same Annotation proves from Rom. 1.4 that he was declared to be the Eternal Son of God the second of the blessed three by his Resurrection from the dead And it is not fair play in his Lordship to cite a place and conceal the Author that so God's truth and his doubling might not be discerned But since we are upon a critical disquisition of these terms Messias and Son of God we will consider first what the real truth is and secondly the opinion of the Jews First then it is certain that God's constitution of any Person in a State of favour gives the favourite the Title of a Son by virtue thereof Thus God calls the People of Israel his Son and his First Born Exod. 4. 22. and so literally Hosea 11.1 and many other places set God as their Father because God had admitted them as the seed of Abraham into his especial Covenant as we are also Sons of God by the adoption of the New Covenant And hence exaltation by God to an high Authority has founded a title of Gods and Sons of God unto Men and Angels And consequently the various signal Exaltations of Christ in his Humane Nature above all others make him in those respects justly to be styled the Son of God If then he had been only exalted into the heavenly Throne without any antecedent Death or Resurrection this alone would have founded a Filial Title much more when in Order thereto he was born again our of a