Selected quad for the lemma: mind_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
mind_n	distinct_a	infinite_a	trinity_n	1,408	5	11.1792	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A36211	The Doctrine of the Catholick Church and of the Church of England concerning the blessed Trinity explained and asserted against the dangerous heterodoxes in a sermon by Dr. William Sherlock before my Lord Mayor and the court of aldermen.		1697 (1697)	Wing D1774; ESTC R1156	21,435	32

intelligent Essence or Substance are equivalent terms so that in saying three Persons you say also three Essences The Ground of Faustus Socinus and which if true all Men grant that his Scheme also of Religion would be true is that Person and a particular intelligent Substance are the same that as often as you multiply one you multiply the other from whence Faustus concluded we must not say three Divine Persons because 't is a granting three Divine Substances or Essences which would be three Gods Lest Dr. Sherlock should deny that he takes the same Ground with Faustus Socinus and therefore that in consequence their Schemes are coincident I will subjoin his very Words A Person and an intelligent Substance are reciprocal terms and three distinct Persons are three distinct numerical Substances and one numerical intelligent Substance is but one numerical Person Vindic. p. 69. Again How can three distinct Persons have but one numerical Substance What is the Distinction between Essence Personality and Subsistence p. 139. To conclude All the Difference between F. Socinus and this Man is Socinus saw the Consequences of his Principles without a Monitor the other even when admonish'd does not or as some think will not see them A POSTSCRIPT By another Hand THIS Author has told his Reader p. 7. that Dr. Sh. hath not indeed in this Sermon declar'd expresly what kind of Trinity he pleads for but he intimates it and plainly points to it at p. 7 10. But besides what is there said for making known the Dean's Doctrine of a Trinity of Spirits and Substances I conceive it may give greater Evidence of it to cite a Passage or two concerning it out of his Book The Vindication of the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity c. where we find p. 66. It is plain the Persons are perfectly distinct for they are three distinct and infinite Minds To say they are three Divine Persons and not three distinct Infinite Minds is both Heresy and Non-sense They are three intelligent Beings Father Son and Holy Ghost are as really distinct Persons as Peter James and John p. 105. They are three Holy Spirits p. 258. There is no Contradiction that three Infinite Minds should be absolutely perfect in Wisdom Goodness Justice and Power for these are Perfections that may be in more than one p. 81. And p. 47. We must allow the Divine Persons to be real substantial Beings the three Divine Persons are substantially distinct This now is that Doctrine which Dr. Sherlock must be understood to plead for in this Sermon It is the Mystery of this Trinity of which he says p. 12. The Inconceivableness can be no Argument against the Truth of the Revelation or that Sense of the Words which contains such Mysteries These are the things he says we must believe tho we do not see things which we have no natural Notion or Conception of things that are not evident to natural Reason The meaning is plainly this We must believe his Doctrine of three distinct and Infinite Minds and Spirits however it does in our clearest Reason improv'd also by most evident Revelation introduce the Worship of three Gods for what is so evident both in Reason and Revelation as that God is one Infinite Mind and Spirit and not three But Dr. Sh. has devis'd some pretty new terms such as Self-consciousness and mutual Consciousness whereby to elude the Testimony of Holy Scripture concerning the perfect Oneness of God but Reason contradicts him and will not suffer him to destroy that glorious Attribute under the notion of unconceivable Mystery She says it 's not Mystery but a plain Inconsistency therefore Dr. Sh. would have her Mouth stopp'd or our Ears stopp'd that we may not hear what Reason says tho in consent with Revelation or at least that we should give no heed to what she says Our Author has told us that the Oxford-Decree condemns this Doctrine as Impious and Heretical contrary to the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and the Church of England But if we will believe this Preacher the Oxford-Heads have pass'd that Sentence because they give too much heed to natural Reason and Philosophy and exalt what those say even above Revelation This brings to my mind what the late Archbishop of Blessed Memory determin'd in the Dispute between Reason and Revelation Dr. Sherlock did him a great deal of Right in a Sermon upon the sad occasion of his Death I hope he will not now despise his Judgment That great Man upon 1 John 4.1 says 1. That Reason is the Faculty whereby Revelations are to be discerned 2. All supernatural Revelation supposeth the Truth of the Principles of natural Religion 3. All Reasonings about Divine Revelations must necessarily be governed by the Principles of natural Religion that is by those Apprehensions which Men naturally have of the Divine Perfections and by the clear Notions of Good and Evil which are imprinted upon our Natures Because we have no other way to judg of what is worthy of God and credible to be reveal'd by him and what not but by natural Notions which we have of God and of his essential Perfections and by these Principles likewise we are to interpret what God hath revealed and when any doubt ariseth concerning the Meaning of any Divine Revelation as that of the Holy Scriptures we are to govern our selves in the Interpretation of it by what is most agreeable to those natural Notions which we have of God and we have all the Reason in the World to reject that Sense which is contrary thereto 4. Nothing ought to be receiv'd as a Revelation from God which plainly contradicts the Principles of natural Religion or overthrows the Certainty of them Under this Head that excellent Man concludes That a Miracle is not enough to give credit to a Prophet that teacheth any thing contrary to that natural Notion which Men have That there is but one God who only ought to be worshipped Thus we see that in the Judgment of the late Archbishop Dr. Sherlock's Trinity would not be made credible tho a Miracle should be wrought in Testimony of it because it contradicts the Principles of natural Religion that is of natural Reason FINIS