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
A62586	A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? : collected from the works of the most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.; Assheton, William, 1641-1711.	1697 (1697)	Wing T1221; ESTC R10019	21,341	116

of his own proper and peculiar to his own Person But he owns that although there are three distinct Persons or Minds each of whom is distinctly and by himself God yet there are not three Gods but One God or one Divinity Which he saith is intirely and indivisibly and inseparably in three distinct Persons or Minds That the same one Divine Nature is wholly and intirely communicated by the Eternal Father to the Eternal Son and by the Father and Son to the Eternal Spirit without any Division or Separation and so it remains one still V. Modest Exam. p. 15 17 29 30. This is the substance of this new Explication which hath raised such Flames that Injunctions from Authority were thought necessary to suppress them V. Pref. p. 25. Q. Pray tell me your Thoughts with freedom Is this Explication of the Trinity by Three distinct Infinite Minds and Substances Orthodox or not A. Now to deal as impartially in this matter as may be I do not think our Understandings one jot helped in the Notion of the Trinity by this Hypothesis but that it is liable to as great Difficulties as any other Q. You begin then to suspect his Explication A. None ought to be fond of it Or to set it against the general Sense of others and the currant Expressions of Divines about these Mysteries Nor to call the different Opinions of others Heresy or Nonsense which are provoking Words and tend very much to inflame Mens Passions because their Faith and Understanding are both call'd in question which are very tender Things V. Pref. p. 41. Q. Is it then your Opinion that this Hypothesis of Three distinct Substances in the Trinity can scarce be Defended A. I fear it will be impossible to clear this Hypothesis as to the reconciling Three Individual Essences with One individual Divine Essence which looks too like asserting That there are Three Gods and yet but One. Id. p. 31. Q. Will you please to explain this more fully that I may better understand it A. Can One whole entire indivisible Substance be actually divided into Three Substances For if every Person must have a peculiar Substance of his own and there be Three Persons there must be Three peculiar Substances And how can there be Three peculiar Substances and yet but One entire and indivisible Substance I do not say there must be Three divided Substances in Place or separate Substances but they must be divided as three Individuals of the same kind which must introduce a Specifick Divine Nature which I think very inconsistent with the Divine Perfections Ib. p. 29. Q. But every Person must have his own proper Substance and so the Substance must be divided if there be Three Persons A. That every Person must have a Substance to support his Subsistence is not denied But the Question is Whether that Substance must be divided or not We say where the Substance will bear it as in Created Beings a Person hath a separate Substance that is the same Nature diversified by Accidents Qualities and a separate Existence But where these things cannot be there the same Essence must remain undivided but with such Relative Properties as cannot be confounded V. Vind. p. 105. When we speak of Finite Substances and Persons we are certain that distinct Persons do imply distinct Substances because they have a distinct and separate Existence But this will not hold in an Infinite Substance where necessary Existence doth belong to the Idea of it Id. p. 261. Q. But say our Unitarians A Person is an Intelligent Being and therefore Three Persons must needs be three Intelligent Beings So true it is that whosoever acknowledges Three Persons in the Godhead if he takes the word in its proper sense must admit Three Gods Which the Learned Doctor cannot avoid who says they are Three distinct Minds Three Substantial Beings Three Intelligent Beings Therefore unavoidably Three Gods V. Defence of Hist. of Unit. p. 5. A. The full and adequate Definition of a Person from which the Learned Doctor doth draw his Argument and the Unitarians their Objection is not this as they suppose viz. A Person is an Intelligent Substance For this is but part of the Definition But the full and adequate Definition of a Person is this A Person is a compleat Intelligent Substance with a peculiar manner of Subsistence So that An Individual Intelligent Substance is rather supposed to the making of a Person than the proper Definition of it For a Person relates to something which doth distinguish it from another Intelligent Substance in the same Nature and therefore the Foundation of it lies in the peculiar manner of Subsistence which agrees to One and to none else of the kind and this is it which is called Personality Which doth not consist I say in a meer Intelligent Being but in that peculiar manner of Subsistence in that Being which can be in no other So that the proper Reason of Personality whereby one Person is constituted and distinguished from another it is the peculiar manner of Subsistence whereby one Person hath such Properties as are incommunicable to any other V. Vind. p. 260 72. From these Premises we are instructed Why in the Blessed Trinity the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are Three Persons and yet but One God The Reason is this God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are but One God because the Divine Essence Nature and Substance which alone makes God is intirely One and is not capable of any Separation Multiplication or Division Therefore there can be no more Gods than One. But since these Three Father Son and Holy Ghost have each of them a peculiar manner of Subsistence That is each of these Three hath a peculiar Property incommunicable to any other Therefore as to their mutual Relations and Personalities they are Three but as to the Divine Essence and Godhead they are but One. And this is so far from being contrary to Reason as the Socinians pretend that it is highly Rational to Believe a Trinity in Unity That is Three distinct Persons and yet but One God As I hope hath been fully proved and that to your Satisfaction Q. Before you talk too much of Satisfaction you must Answer me a Question A. What is it Q. Do you believe Transubstantiation A. No I do not But what 's this to the purpose Will you not allow me to believe the Trinity unless I will believe Transubstantiation And must I renounce the Trinity because I reject Transubstantiation Q. The Unitarians pretend that the Case is parallel A. Pray give me their Objection in their own words and then I shall instruct you what Answer to return to these Men of Sense and Reason Q. I find that the Belief of a Trinity does Contradict Reason as much as Transubstantiation Now who should not scruple an Opinion perfectly parallel with Transubstantiation and equally fruitful in Incongruities and Contradictions Well then if the Trinity implies

Mysteries but Contradictions Impossibilities and pure Nonsense V. Consid. on Expl. of the Trinity in a Letter to H. H. p. 4. Now what Reply hath his Lordship made to this A. This is a very bold Charge and not very becoming the Modesty and Decency of such who know at the same time that they oppose the Religion publickly established and in such things which they look on as some of the principal Articles of the Christian Faith V. Vind. of the Trinity p. 54. These words contain in them so spiteful so unjust and so unreasonable a Charge upon the Christian Church in general and our own in particular that I could not but think my self concerned especially since they are Addressed to me to do what in me lay as soon as my uncertain State of Health would permit towards the clearing the Fundamental Mystery of the Athanasian Religion as they call it viz. The Doctrine of the Trinity which is chiefly struck at by them V. Pref. p. 2. Q. 'T is a seasonable Service to the Christian Church in general and our own in particular that a Person so eminent for Learning and Prudence hath at this juncture undertaken the Defence of the B. Trinity But in what manner doth his Lordship propose to Defend it A. Without running into any new Explications or laying aside any old Terms for which he could not see any just occasion For however thoughtful Men may think to escape some particular Difficulties better by going out of the common Roads yet they may meet with others which they did not foresee which may make them as well as Others judge it at last a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way which the Christian Church hath used ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms which were thought most proper for that purpose Why then are new Explications started and Disputes raised and carried on so warmly about them We had much better satisfy our selves with that Language which the Church hath received and is expressed in the Creeds than go about with new Terms to raise new Ferments especially at a time when our united Forces are most necessary against our common Adversaries No Wise and Good Men can be fond of any new Inventions when the Peace of the Church is hazarded by them And it is a great pity that any new Phrases or Ways of Expression should cause unreasonable Heats among those who are really of the same Mind Vtd. Pref. p. 2. and 31. and Vind. p. 106. Q. But how can these Unitarians pretend that the Doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to Reason How and in what manner have they attempted to prove it What Grounds have they for such a Charge as this of Contradiction and Impossibility A. I shall draw up the Charge in their own Words Theirs they say is an Accountable and Reasonable Faith but that of the Trinitarians is absurd and contrary both to Reason and to it self and therefore not only false but impossible But wherein lies this Impossibility That they soon tell us Because we affirm that there are Three Persons who are severally and each of them true God and yet there is but One true God Now say they this is an Error in counting or numbring which when stood in is of all others the most Brutal and inexcusable and not to discern it is not to be a Man V. Hist. of the Unit. p. 9. n. 7. For we cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three We are most certain that One is not Three and Three are not One. V. Def. of Hist. of Unit. p. 7. So that here is an Arithmetical as well as Grammatical Contradiction For in saying God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost yet not Three Gods but One God a man first distinctly numbers Three Gods and then in summing them up brutishly says not Three Gods but one God V. Acts of Athanasius p. 13. Which is plainly as if a man should say Peter James and John being three Persons are one Man and One Man is these Three distinct Persons Peter James and John Is it not now a ridiculous Attempt as well as a barbarous Indignity to go about thus to make Asses of all Mankind under pretence of teaching them a Creed V. Notes on Athanasius's Creed p. 11. This is their Charge And 't is very freely spoken with respect not merely to our Church but the Christian World which owns this Creed to be a just and true Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity But there are some Creatures as remarkable for their untoward Kicking as for their Stupidity V. Bishop of Worcester's Defence of the Trinity p. 101. It is strange boldness in men to talk thus of Monstrous Contradictions in things above their reach But some have so used themselves to the Language of Jargon Nonsense Contradiction Impossibility that it comes from them as some men swear when they do not know it Id. p. 76. But that the Rudeness of these Unitarians in thus condemning the Christian Church may more fully appear let us proceed very distinctly to examine this matter Do you therefore First give their Objection its full strength and then through Divine Assistance I 'll return you my Answer Q. Are not Peter James and John Three distinct Humane Persons A. 'T is granted Q. Are not Peter James and John Three distinct different Men A. Who doubts it Q. Is it not a Contradiction to say That Peter is James or that James and John are Peter A. This likewise must be acknowledg'd Q. Is it not a Contradiction to affirm That Peter James and John being Three Men are but One Man And is it not equally absurd to Declare That One Man is these Three Men A. Sure I cannot be mistaken in the Notion of One and Three But am most certain That One is not Three and Three are not One. But what of all this Q. Observe what follows Are not the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost according to the Athanasian Creed Three distinct different Divine Persons A. I firmly believe it Q. And if these Three Divine Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Gods is it not a Contradiction to say there is but One God A. To say there are Three Gods and yet but One God is doubtless a Contradiction But who affirms There are Three Gods Q. Doth not the Athanasian Creed A. No. That Creed expresly saith There are not Three Gods but One God Q. If you will not renounce your Reason I do thus prove it to you The Father is God There is One. The Son is God There is Two The Holy Ghost is God There is Three Are not here Three Gods Do you think me such a Fool that I cannot count One Two and Three A. Thus indeed the Unitarians do wisely argue But can these Men of Sense and Reason think that the Point in Controversy ever was Whether in Numbers One could be Three or Three One If

no less Contradiction than Transubstantiation why can't we say that it cannot be contained in Scripture We say Transubstantiation cannot be found in Scripture because it is a plain Contradiction to our Reason but if the Trinity be also a plain Contradiction to our Reason why shan't we be allowed to say that it cannot be contained in Scripture V. Def. of Brief Hist. of Unit. p. 4 and 6. But oh were the Press as free for the Unitarians as 't is for other Protestants how easily would they make it appear that the Follies and Contradictions so justly charged on Transubstantiation are neither for Number Consequence nor Clearness any way comparable to those implied in the Athanasian Creed and that the Trinity hath the same and no other Foundation with Transubstantiation So that we must of necessity admit Both or neither V. Acts of Athanasius p. 16. This is the Sum of what they Object To which I expect an Answer according to your Promise A. As preparatory to a just Answer I cannot but observe how exactly these Socinians do Symbolize with the Papists For as on the one hand they of the Church of Rome are so fondly and obstinately addicted to their own Errors how mishappen and monstrous soever that rather than the Dictates of their Church how absurd soever should be called in question they will question the truth even of Christianity it self and if we will not take in Transubstantiation and admit it to be a necessary Article of the Christian Faith they grow so sullen and desperate that they matter not what becomes of all the rest And rather than not have their Will of us in that which is Controverted they will give up that which by their own confession is an undoubted Article of the Christian Faith and not controverted on either Side In like manner These Unitarians are so impertinently zealous in their designs against the Trinity that rather than admit that Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith they will plead for Transubstantiation and this even contrary to the Light and Dictate of their own Conscience For the Socinians are hearty Enemies to Transubstantiation and have exposed the Absurdity of it with great advantage V. Arcbishop Tillotson ' s Serm. on 1 Tim. II. 5. p. 30. Q. Have you nothing further to say in this matter A. You must give me leave to add I did not expect to have found this Parallel so often insisted upon without an Answer to Two Dialogues purposely written on that Subject at a time when the Doctrine of the Trinity was used as an Argument to bring in Transubstantiation as that is now now alledged for casting off the other But I must do them that right to tell the World That at that time a Socinian Answer was written to those Dialogues which I saw and wished it might be Printed that the World might be satisfied about it and them But they thought fit to forbear And in all their late Pamphlets where this Parallel is so often repeated there is but once that I can find any notice taken of those Dialogues and that in a very superficial manner for the main Design and Scope of them is past over V. Vind. of Trinit p. 287. And I must needs remind these Unitarians that it is not fair nor Scholar-like so insultingly to repeat the Parallel between the Trinity and Transubstantiation which hath been so fully confuted in those Two Dialogues Q. You promised an Answer and you bring me a Challenge Which I shall send to the Unitarians Who indeed are obliged in point of Honour to give Satisfaction by a just Reply to those Two Dialogues A. If they would consult their Reputation and credit their Cause they ought not to defer it For those Two Dialogues were writ by an Author Who to give you the very words of an Unitarian hath all the Properties for which an Adversary may be either feared or Reverenced He understands perfectly the Doctrine of the Church and the Points in Question He will commit no oversights through Ignorance Hast or Inadversion He is too experienced and Judicious to hazard his Cause as others have lately done on the Success of a Half-thought Hypothesis a Crude Invention a pretty New Querk In a word we can only say of him since there is no Remedy Contenti simus hoc Catone V. Consid c. in a Letter to H. H. p. 3. Such an Adversary as this is worthy the Pens of their Ablest Writers If therefore at this Juncture when the Press is open these Unitarians shall not Answer those Dialogues I must with freedom tell them It is not because they dare not but because they cannot Q. Leaving these Unitarians to defend their Parallel at their leasure let me now hear your Answer which you were pleased to Promise A. I shall endeavour to return a more particular Answer to this Objection and such a One as I hope will satisfy every considerate and unprejudiced Mind that after all this confidence and swaggering of theirs there is by no means equal Reason either for the receiving or for the rejecting of these two Doctrines of the Trinity and Transubstantiation Vid. Archbishop Tillotson's Serm. on 1 Tim. II. 5. p. 30. Q. First Let us examine whether there be equal Reason for the Belief of these Two Doctrines A. If this Suggestion of theirs be of any force we must suppose that there is equal Evidence and Proof from Scripture for these Two Doctrines Q. How do you prove there is not A. From the Confession of our Adversaries themselves For several Learned Writers of the Church of Rome have freely acknowledged that Transubstantiation can neither be directly proved nor necessarily concluded from Scripture But this the Writers of the Christian Church did never acknowledge concerning the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ but have always appealed to the clear and undeniable Testimonies of Scripture for the Proof of these Doctrines And then the whole force of the Objection amounts to this That if I am bound to Believe what I am sure God says though I cannot Comprehend it then I am bound by the same reason to believe the greatest Absurdity in the World though I have no manner of assurance of any Divine Revelation concerning it Q. You think then that as there is not equal reason for the Believing so neither is there equal reason for the rejecting of these Two Doctrines A. This the Objection supposes Which yet cannot be supposed but upon one or both of these Two Grounds Either 1. Because these Two Doctrines are equally Incomprehensible Or 2. Because they are equally loaded with Absurdities and Contradictions Q. As to the First Is not the Trinity as Incomprehensible as Transubstantiation and as such equally to be rejected A. It is not good ground of rejecting any Doctrine merely because it is Incomprehensible as I have abundantly shewed already But besides this there is a wide difference between plain matters of Sense and Mysteries concerning God And it does by

they think so I wonder they do not think of another thing which is the begging all Trinitarians for Fools because they cannot count One Two and Three and an Unitarian Jury would certainly cast them One would think such Writers had never gone beyond Shop-books for they take it for granted that all depends upon Counting But these terrible Charges were some of the most common and trite Objections of Infidels St. Augustin mentions it as such when he saith The Infidels sometimes ask us What do you call the Father we answer God What the Son we answer God What the Holy Ghost we answer God So that here the Infidels make the same Objection and draw the very same Inference Then say they the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three Gods But what saith St. Augustin to this Had he no more skill in Arithmetick than to say there are Three and yet but One He saith plainly that there are not three Gods The Infidels are troubled because they are not Inlightned their heart is shut up because they are without Faith By which it is plain he look'd on these as the proper Objections of Infidels and not of Christians But St. Augustin doth not give it over so When you begin to count saith he you go on One Two and Three But when you have reckon'd them what is it you have been counting The Father is the Father the Son the Son and the Holy Ghost the Holy Ghost What are these Three Are they not Three Gods No. Are they not Three Almighties No. They are capable of Number as to their Relation to each other but not as to their Essence which is but one V. Bishop Stillingfleet's Vindic. of the Trin. p. 58. Will men never learn to distinguish between Numbers and the Nature of Things For Three to be One is a Contradiction in Numbers but whether an Infinite Nature can communicate it self to Three different Subsistences without such a Division as is among Created Beings must not be determined by bare Numbers but by the Absolute Perfections of the Divine Nature which must be owned to be above our Comprehension Id. Serm. on 1 Tim. 1. 15. p. 16. This is plain and convincing to all Modest Unprejudiced Persons But it seems our Unitarians are not thus to be convinced Who do further Object That it is as ridiculous to affirm That the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost being Three Persons are One God as it is to say that Peter James and John being Three Persons are One Man Q. If I rightly apprehend them their Argument is this Three Human Persons are Three Men Therefore Three Divine Persons are Three Gods And this they repeat with great Triumph in several of their Pamphlets What Answer therefore can you return to this A. How can any Man of Sense be satisfied with such kind of Arguments as these One would think they wrote only for such as would take their words they join so much Confidence with so very little appearance of Reason For is not this great skill in these Matters to make such a Parallel between three Persons in the Godhead and Peter James and John Do they think there is no Difference between an infinitely perfect Being and such finite limited Creatures as Individuals among Men are Do they suppose the Divine Nature capable of such Division and Separation by Individuals as Human Nature is Q. No they may say but ye who hold three Persons must think so A. For what reason We do assert Three Persons but it is on the account of Divine Revelation and in such a manner as the Divine Nature is capable of it For it is a good Rule of Boethius Talia sunt praedicata qualia subjecta permiserint We must not say that there are Persons in the Trinity but in such a manner as is agreeable to the Divine Nature and if that be not capable of Division and Separation then the Persons must be in the same undivided Essence Id. Vind. p. 102. So that herein lies the true Solution of the Difficulty by considering the difference between the Humane and Divine Nature The Humane Nature being finite is capable of Division Multiplication and Separation But the Divine Nature being Infinite is not capable of any Division Multiplication and Separation Now the Divine Essence is that alone which makes God that can be but One and therefore there can be no more Gods than One. But because the same Scripture which assures us of the Unity of the Divine Essence doth likewise join the Son and Holy Ghost in the same Attributes Operations and Worship therefore as to the mutual Relations we may reckon Three but as to the Divine Essence that can be no more than One. Here then is the true Reason why we affirm That Three Human Persons Peter James and John are Three Men and yet Three Divine Persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are but One God Because The Divine Essence is not capable of such Division and Separation as the Human Nature is Id. p. 64 76. Q. This is full and to the purpose and hath given great Satisfaction to my Self as well as others But is there nothing further Objected against the Doctrine of the B. Trinity wherein I may be instructed by you A. There is an Objection lately started and I wonder you have not charged me with it Q. Pray let me hear it A. 'T is this Three Divine Substances are Three Gods But Three Divine Persons are Three Divine Substances Therefore Three Divine Persons are Three Gods This hath most insultingly been repeated by our Unitarians and hath made no little noise in their late Papers and Pamphlets Q. Who revived this old Objection and how came it now to be brought again upon the Stage A. To understand this matter rightly we must consider that when the Socinian Pamphlets first came abroad some years since a Learned and Worthy Person of our Church who had appeared with great Vigour and Reason against our Adversaries of the Church of Rome in the late Reign which ought not to be forgotten undertook to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity against the History of the Unitarians and the Notes of the Athanasian Creed But in the warmth of Disputing and out of a desire to make this matter more intelligible he suffer'd himself to be carried beyond the ancient Methods which the Church hath used to express her Sense by still retaining the same Fundamental Article of three Persons in one undivided Essence but explaining it in such a manner as to make each Person to have a peculiar and proper Substance of his own V. Bishop of Worcester's Pref. to Vind. of Trin. p. 20. Q. Let me hear the Opinion of that Learned Person more distinctly A. In short it is this That the same Author asserts 1. That it is gross Sabellianism to say That there are not three Personal Minds or Spirits or Substances 2. That a distinct substantial Person must have a distinct Substance