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
A65863	The divinity of Christ and unity of the three that bear record in heaven with the blessed end and effects of Christ's appearance, coming in the flesh, suffering and sacrifice for sinners, confessed and vindicated, by his followers, called Quakers : and the principal matters in controversie, between them, and their present opposers (as Presbyterians, Independants, &c.) considered and resolved, according to the scriptures of truth, and more particularly to remove the aspersions ... cast upon the ... Quakers ... in several books, written by Tho. Vincent, Will. Madox, their railing book, stil'd The foundation, &c, Tho. Danson, his Synopsis, John Owen, his Declaration / which are here examin'd and compared by G.W. ... ; as also, a short review of several passages of Edward Stillingfleet's ... in his discourse of the sufferings of Christ's and sermon preached before the King, wherein he flatly contradicts the said opposers.	Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.	1669 (1669)	Wing W1925; ESTC R19836	166,703	202

But if the separation relate to the Personallity or their distinctions of persons and not to the Essence then doth not this tend to divide God or to separate Father Son and Spirit who are in each other and how then are they three distinct coeternal coessential coequal Persons Or how are they three distinct increated persons of an infinite nature as before but another while not infinite in the Personality what wonderful confusion and gross contradictions are here and what strange boldness is it for men so dark in their understandings discomposed in their minds confused and incongruent in their Principles thus ignorantly to attempt to define or demonstrate the infinite Power or God-head which is out of their sight and beyond their earthly capacities who are so ignorant of God who is Light they count the Light within an Idol of our own brains as W. M. hath blasphemously done whereas it is the Light by which God hath shined in our hearts to give us the knowledge of his Glory in the face of Christ 2 Cor. 4. W.M. Read also Job 35.10 God thy Makers Heb. consult Mr. Carril on the place Eccles. 12.1 Remember thy Creators c. Isa. 54.5 Thy Makers is thy Husband in all which Texts the Trinity of Persons is denoted by words of the plural number Answ. Upon which I query is the distinction of three Persons derived from three Makers or three Creators Or dare they say That the Father Word and Spirit are three distinct severed or separate Creators and doth not this bespeak three Gods And what sense is it to say thy Makers is thy Husband from Isa. 54.5 where it is said Thy Maker is thine Husband the Lord of Hosts is his Name Is not this truly rendered See Pagnine's Versions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Osiik i. e. factor tnus It 's neither sunt nor est factores tui And Eccles. 12.1 it's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Borecha Creatoris tui in singular it 's not Creatorum tuorum And Job 35.10 it 's Osai factor meus not factores mei But whilst one God and one Lord is confessed how is it consistent that a plurality of severed Persons be in him as Makers Creators c. What ground have we to believe either Carryl or Madox herein more than Pagn and our English Translation with many others And notwithstanding this great stir they have made with their distinctions of separate persons incommunicable properties c. yet W. M. hath confest That the Names Properties or Attributes Works and Worship of God are frequently in Scripture given to each of these Three Persons so that they are one and the same perfect and infinite Essence one God by Nature c. but if he should distinguish personal Attributes from Attributes of God I ask what they are if not of God which if so how is infiniteness not applicable to them nor ascribed to them And how have you gone with your vain unscriptural distinctions to darken Counsel to darken Scripture to darken the minds of People by words without knowledge thereby going to demonstrate that to others which you cannot clear to your selves by demonstration As T. V. in his 26 pag. saith of the Trinity touching which he would have us Assent unto your terms and traditional distinctions upon Divine Authority which he cannot demonstrate by reason But how then shall we receive your bare Assertions upon Divine Authority when we have neither Scripture nor Reason nor yet any immediate Revelation from you for them must we pinn our Faith upon your sleeves or will you supply the places of so many Popes by Imposing an implicit Faith in those matters which you cannot demonstrate nor clear to your selves which then how can you clear them to others Which if this be the course you take to convince gain-sayers of your Doctrine you might have spared a great deal of labour in going about so confusedly to demonstrate your case to us and only have laid down your Doctrine of three distinct separate Persons in the Deity to which infiniteness is not ascribed as you have said in pag. 45. And so you might as well have said That we T.V. W.M. and T.D. do affirm it and therefore you must believe it or otherwise you are blasphemous Hereticks and so damned But we must have better ground for our Faith and a better Authority than Affirmations Revilings and Threatnings of men that are untaught themselves in those things which they presume to teach others W. M. I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost under any title As the subject of this Tryal is very mean and weak to wit the calling them three Hee 's to prove the Deity so his trying of us hereby was altogether groundless since that we never disowned the Deity of Christ or Holy Ghost as falsely and injuriously is insinuated against us And since that three Hee 's will now serve instead of Persons he saying they are three Persons or three Hee 's to prove the Deity of Father Son and Holy Ghost Why have they made such a pudder for their distinctions of Persons But would it be a strong Reason to induce Infidels to the belief of the Deity of each because they are three Hee 's as he saith for are all Hee 's either God or yet Persons or Divine But I need say little to the shallowness of this Work Let the ingenious Reader judge of it But when he thinks he mends the matter by calling them three divine Hee 's his intent is that the Father is called Hee the Son is Hee the Spirit Hee which neither proves them three separate nor incommunicable Persons distinct subsistences or bottoms whilst both the Father 's a Spirit the Lord is that Spirit Christ a quickening Spirit all inseparable W. M. You by refusing to call them Three Divine Hee 's have made it manifest that your Quarrel is not with the word Person as some then apprehended but with the Doctrine or Fundamental Truth expressed by the three Persons viz. the Modal Distinction and Essential Vnion or Oneness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Answ. It 's manifest that some of the Hearers that were present at our Debating this matter had a better apprehension and understanding of us than you prejudiced Teachers and Opposers had for some of them apprehended that we opposed your unscriptural terms and words put upon the Deity and not that we opposed either the Divinity or Union of Father Son or Holy Ghost neither did we in the least go to quarrel with any Fundamental Truth as most grosly and slanderously we are accused and misrepresented by thee W.M. who hast shewed thy self so far from either Truth Moderation or Reasonableness in this matter as one swallowed up with Envie and Prejudice And thy taking for granted that thy Model distinction and terms are Fundamental Truth and joyning them with the Oneness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is but a begging

separate Persons or finite subsistances in the God-head which is no less than Blasphemy But then how poorly maliciously and falsely this W. M. comes off in so positively deeming their Doctrine and terms in these matters to be Scripture Truth and charging us with designing to blast and overthrow the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost upon which Blasphemers and blasphemy and damnable speeches are hideously cast upon us but most unjustly and falsely for no such design ever had we as either to blast or over-throw the Deity of Christ or Holy Spirit we having openly professed and declared the contrary both in words and writings As also his accusing us with boldly spitting in the face of God is a gross and malicious slander and a presumptuous taking for granted that our opposing their corrupt unscriptural distinctions and vain babling was a spitting in the face of God as if we must believe all what these men say in this matter to be as true as God is and his Glory to be so deeply concern'd in their vain Philosophy Judge whether they ' herein are competent Disputants yea or nay and whether these our opposers or we have compared God or the Father Son and Spirit to men let the Reader judge by what follows In their Answer to that Argument of W. P's viz. The Divine Persons are either finite or infinite if finite then something finite is in God if infinite then there would be three distinct infinites and consequently three distinct Gods thus far W. P. Touching which after they have denied infiniteness to be applicable or ascribed to them as to their subsistences or personallities as they call them they bring a comparison of the subsistance of a man pag. 46. saying It would be improper to ascribe the property that belong to him unto his subsistence to say that his subsistance in the abstract is either a learned or unlearned subsistence a great one or a small one a white one or a black one What vain babling and a blind instance is here And so they say It is improper to say that either of the Persons in regard of the personallity or subsistence are finitie or infinite but in regard of their Essence in the concrete are infinite Now the Reader at length may see what 's become of their distinctions of three distinct subsistences or persons in the God-head or Divine Essence wherein they having here undertaken to demonstrate that which Reason cannot demonstrate to them nor they clear to themselves by demonstration as in pag. 26. they have run themselves as into a Wood and Labyrinth as persons bewildered and confounded so as now the subsistences or distinct persons in the Deity they so much contend for are such as are neither learned nor unlearned neither great nor small neither finite nor infinite what are they then what Gods are they that these men would have us believe in before they were not infinite now neither finite nor infinite What grosse Confusion and Contradiction is here for if not infinite then finite but the God whom we serve and believe in is infinite the only Wise God and nothing relating to him or his being finite Howbeit since these our Opposers are contending for that which they cannot by Reason demonstrate nor clear to themselves pag. 26. It is very unreasonable in them to Impose it upon others to believe without either reason or demonstration or to pronounce them Blasphemers who cannot own their Doctrine and distinctions therein to be according to the Scriptures whilst they cannot clear them by Reason to themselves but both a mis-calling and grossely mis-representing of Father Son and Holy Spirit as one while with being not infinite another while neither finite nor infinite instancing in the case the subsistence of a man which they say is neither learned nor an unlearned one They have accused W.P. with Blasphemy who never denied the infiniteness of either Father Word or Spirit but what greater Blasphemy can there be than their own And now let the indifferent Reader judge what effect this kind of their vain babling would have in the minds of an Auditory if thus God should be Preached in their blind confused terms and if one of them should exhort People to believe in a Trinity of separate persons or subsistences which are infinite in the concrete but not infinite in the personallity or subsistence in the abstract Another while they are neither finite nor infinite and what they are they cannot tell for by reason they cannot clear this their Mystery to themselves Another while they are three Hee 's that People must believe in and therefore three persons or subsistances with incommunicable properties by all which they go to demonstrate the Father Son and Holy Ghost who are infinite in the Essence but not in their Personallities They say another while neither finite nor infinite as they say what effect would this kind of Preaching have with People do you think and where ever did the Apostles and true Ministers of God Preach in this manner or allow of such Philosophy in Preaching the Mysteries of God Nay did they not Preach in the simplicity of the Gospel and Exhort in simplicity as of the Abilitiy that God gave And did not Paul absolutely forbid such Philosophy and vain deceipt And to avoid opposition of Science falsly so called Coll. 2.8 1 Tim. 6.20 And are there not words sufficient in the Scriptures of Truth to Preach God and Christ in according to the plainness and simplicity thereof but men pretending to be his Ministers and Scripture their Rule must thus run themselves into confusion and darkness by Humane Inventions and Traditions both of words terms and blind distinctions of man's fallen wisom which neither knows God nor can rightly speak of him but hath obscured the Glory of his Appearance from very many but the Light is risen and the Day dawned which hath not only discovered but will expel those thick Mists and Clouds of mens Inventions that the simple may come to be undeceived and unvailed and so be delivered from such as these confussed Babel builders that have made a prey upon them CHAP. III. Something farther Observed in Answer to Tho. Vincent NOw let us a little observe some Passages and Arguments in Tho. Vincent's Work For their distinctions about Trinity of Persons as they call them distinguished one from another by incommunicable personal properties But such kind of distinctions and terms he hath not learned from Scriptures but from humane Inventions by which they have darkned the simplicity of Truth as also he hath appeared as one in self-contradiction when he saith That one should be in another the first should be in the second and the second in the first and both in the third and all one and the same individual Essence Now if they be in each other they are not separate Persons as at the Dispute was affirmed and if one be in another where are the personal

own having known his Virtue and Power to redeem us from our vain Conversations and to save us from wrath to come And our knowledge of the only true God and our Faith in and concerning him and his Name unto our Salvation doth not consist in the traditional Names humane Inventions nor in Philosophical terms and nice School distinctions derived from Heathenish Metaphysicks which since the Apostles time men have put upon the God-head but in the living sense and feeling of his Divine Power Life and Love revealed in us by the Spirit of the Son of God whereby we have in his gift of Divine Light and Spirit received Life and Salvation from sin and death see Matth. 11.27 Luk. 10.22 Matth. 16.17 Rom. 1.17 ch 8.18 Gal. 1.16 Eph. 3.5 1 Pet. 15.12 ch 4.14 ch 4.13 ch 5.1 2 Pet. 1 3. Matth. 1.21 Also we judge That such Expressions and Words as the Holy Ghost taught the true Apostles and Holy Men mentioned in the Scriptures are most meet to speak of God and Christ and not the words of mans wisdom or humane inventions and devised distinctions since the Apostles dayes Finally We have received an Unction or Anointing from the Holy One which as it doth teach us we know a continuance in the Father and in the Son 1 Joh. 2. And for whom we know the Father is well pleased and in him we know the true Satisfaction Justification and Peace which all that abide in him enjoy and witness Now unto the Father Son and Holy Spirit the One Eternal Word The Only Wise Pure Perfect God who is Infinite Omnipotent Incomprehensible who giveth unto all Life and Being and is the Life of all and the Being of Beings who filleth all in all with his Presence Unto whom be Glory now and evermore saith our Souls G. Whitehead And for Definition of a Person or what a Person is we shall not need to go to Popish and Heathenish Authors as Thomas Aquinas Aristotle and others as some of these Presbyterian Teachers and others have done when they have gone about to demonstrate their Doctrine of a Trinity of distinct Persons in God And yet in Contradiction for a cloak they pretend the Scriptures to be their Rule wherein there is no proof of their calling the Father the Word and the Spirit three distinct Persons while the Scriptures be full and plain enough to prove define or shew what a Person is as namely a Man or Woman sometime the body the face or visible appearance of either c. But the Infinite God is not like unto corruptible man See first in the Old Testament so called as to Person Esau took his Wives his Sons and Daughters and all the Persons of his house Gen. 36.16 Joseph was a goodly person Gen. 39.6 The Number of your persons Exod. 16.16 No uncircumcised person Exod. 12.48 The person of the poor and of the mighty Levit. 19. The guilty person unclean person Numb 5.6 A clean person Numb 19.18 Thirty two thousand persons in all of Women c. Numb 31.35 Whosoever killeth any person vers 19. Numb 35.11 15 30. Josh. 20. 3 9. Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal hired vain light persons and slew his brethren the sons of Jerubbaal being threescore and ten persons Judg. 9. Note here that persons dyed or were slain But can it be said of the Immortal God whom they distinguish into three several Persons that he ever dyes And though Christ as concerning the Flesh or Person was put to Death so was not his Divine Life or God-head And again Not a goodlier person than Saul 1 Sam. 9.2 David a comely person 1 Sam. 16.18 When wicked men have slain a righteous person 2 Sam. 4.11 They shall come at no dead person Ezek. 44.25 Or will he accept thy person Mal. 1.8 These places before cited with many more are according to the English God accepteth not the person of Princes Job 34.19 which in the Hebrew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phene Sarim i. e. facies Principum the faces of Princes And the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Phene is in Gen. 1.2 for the face of the deep See likewise Gen. 4.14 Job 38.30 with many more places in the Old Testament so that the same word which is translated person having also relation to the outward face of men and things how can it be either proper seasonable or good Doctrine to Preach the Invisible Incomprehensible God under these terms of three distinct or separate Persons And whether it doth not render God or represent the Deity to be like visible men or finite creatures that are comprehended in time yea or nay And hath not this kind of representing the God-head produce those vain Conceptions and Imaginations in the minds of the Ignorant from whence they have formed the Images and Pictures of God and Christ and Holy Ghost made by men of corrupt minds in the night of Apostacy and Popery to the great reproach and abuse of the Name of God and Profession of Christianity in the World See also more Scriptures touching Persons to the same purpose as before Judg. 20.39 1 Sam. 9.22 22.18 22. 2 King 10.6 7. 2 Chron. 19.7 Psal. 26.4 Psal. 82.2 Prov. 12.11 Prov. 24.23 Jer. 52.29 30. Lam. 4.16 Ezek. 17.17 Chron. 27.13 Joh. 4.11 Zeph. 3.4 Mal. 1.9 And 2dly in the New Testament so called it appeares that the word Person or Persons is mentioned with the same acceptation as before in the Old As for instance Thou regardest not the person of men Matth. 22.16 Mar. 12.14 Luk. 20.21 In the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. faciem hominum the face of men In the Hebrew it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 phene haadam Doth not this still relate to the outward or visible appearance of man See also Matth. 27.24 1 Cor. 5.13 Gal. 2.6 Eph. 5.5 Heb. 12.16 2 Pet. 2.5 Luk. 15.7 Act. 10.34 17.17 Rom. 2.11 Jude 16. 2 Cor. 1.11 Eph. 6.9 Col. 3.25 1 Tim. 1.10 Jam. 2.1 9. 1 Pet. 1.17 2 Pet. 3.11 In all which it is evident That the word persons is attributed to men c. And as to that of 2 Cor. 2.10 where some of our English Copies have it To whom I forgave it for your sakes forgave I it in the Person of Christ The words in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are translated in facie Christi in the face of Christ And some of the Latins have it in conspectu Christi in the sight of Christ. And that in Heb. 1.13 where speaking of the Son of God In some of the English we have it thus Who being the Brightness of his Glory and the express Image of his Person In the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Et character substantiae ejus and the Character of his Substance It is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his Person As also in Heb. 11.1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is

the Word and the Apostle called it the Word of Faith which was nigh them in their mouthes and in their hearts but saith T. D. It is not the Light within but the Scriptures as if he should say the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were in their mouthes and hearts but this Word of which they give testimony was in the hearts of all the holy men of God that gave forth the Scriptures before they writ them and it was a Lamp to David's feet and a Light to his path and he hid it in his heart that he might not sin c. Psal. 119.11 verse 115. and the Word is for ever setled in Heaven verse 89. this was that which quickned sanctified and saved the Righteous in and thorow all Generations and of this the Scriptures or Writings do testifie in which are words of God but the Word was before they were spoke or writ And T. D.'s accusing the Quakers for not owning the Authority of the Scriptures is false for we are in the Spirit that gave forth and openeth and brings to the right use and end of them and in the same Spirit can and do make use of them not only to prove our Tenents and to Confute our Opposers but also to obey and practice the things contained in them which are truly moral and Christian as the Spirit of Truth doth direct and enable T. D. We are not now to expect any new discovery of Truth as to the matter revealed but only as to the person whom God enlightens gradually to discern the evidence of what is revealed in Scripture Answ. First If no new Discovery then what is in Scriptures then no need of Popish and Heathenish Authors to prove distinct and separate personal Subsistances in God nor any other such traditional distinctions which obscures the simplicity of Scripture Truth and darkens the minds of People but people should rather be referred singly to the Scripture Phrase and Language and to search them in the Light of Christ within Secondly if the discerning of the Scripture is from God's enlightning them people ought to be recommended to God to wait in his Light to know his Counsel and direction therein or otherwise they will remain ignorant of the Scriptures and Revelation of the things declared Again it s well that T. D. confesseth that there are Prophesies and Histories of things done before the Pen-mens birth as also personal experiences c. So now at length he doth a little assent to Truth as if he were a little convinced by S. Fisher's Answer to him that he doth not now bind up all to the Scriptures but confesseth that Prophesies Histories and personal experiences to be before the Pen-mens birth But herein he hath but manifested his uncertainty and wavering to and again one while opposing the Sufficiency of the Light and placing all upon the Scriptures as the only Rule another while upon the matter contained in the Scriptures which was before the Scriptures were written and was written on the heart of the Gentiles another while the Light within he seems to assent unto as in pag. 67. for them that have not Scripture another while Prophesies and Experiences where before the Scripture and thus at length the Spirit or Light that gave forth the Scriptures must be preferred as the most certain and universal Guide and Rule as indeed it is to all them who follow obey and believe in it and this Light the blind corrupt imaginary Teachers whose knowledge and profession is but natural and traditional cannot corrupt as they have done the Scriptures by their false glosses meanings and private interpretations contrary to the intent and end of the Spirit of God which gave them forth and which leads into all Truth and Righteousness for a further Answer to T. D. touching this matter I do refer the Reader to S. Fisher's Book titled Rusticus ad Accademicos And as for his accusing Quakers with error touching Baptism and the Lords Supper as to their ceasing and setting up the appearance of Christ within c. Answ. The one Baptism Ephes. 4.5 into the one Body 1 Cor. 12.13 and the eating drinking and supping with Christ at the table of the Lord in his house and Kingdom we own and experience but what Baptism it is he intends whether sprinkling Infants or John's Baptism he hath not discovered neither indeed doth it concern him now to make such a frivolous pudder against the Quakers upon this account for indeed we do not look upon him either as a true Minister nor as having a call either from God or man as one impowered to impose things he calls Ordinances its probable when he was Parish Priest at Sandwich in Kent in Cromwel's time he could shew a greater force for his impositions then now he can in Houses and Corners where he and his Brethren can creep and not only so but be ready to obscure and hide themselves if but a little Storm and Trial come He stiles himself sometime Minister of the Gospel at Sandwich but is not rather that report of him true that there he was given to Gaming Bowls and Nine-pins c But as to the appearance and enjoyment of Christ within we do confess him to be the Substance and the Living Bread and in him we are kept not only in a Living remembrance but also in a real Possession of the Power and Vertue of his Life having known a conformity to his Death which is more then a remembrance of it and we know him to be the enduring Divine Substance which ends all Types Shaddows and Figures and his Coming and Appearance in the Flesh wherein he went through the Types and Shaddows as Circumcision John's Baptism observing the Passover at his Supper and his Sufferings did make way for his coming in the Spirit as he consecrated a new and living way through the Vail that is to say his Flesh now the coming of Christ until which his Dispiples were to shew forth his Death in the observation of the figure this coming they did not put afar off as our Opposers yet do how long they know not it being already above Sixteen hundred years since and yet this his coming is still put off whereas the Disciples after they were with Christ at his last Supper were Witnesses of his coming after his Resurrection and also of his Spiritual Coming and Revelation in their hearts and now to suppose that what the Disciples did to shew his Death was till a third Coming not yet manifest is to overlook the two former as no Comings as also to render Christs own words and Promises ineffectual who said Verily I say unto you there be some standing here which shall not taste of Death till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom Matth. 16.28 Mark 9. Luke 9.27 And as to 1 Cor. 11.23 24 25. wherein the Apostle repeats what Christ did the same night he was betrayed in giving the Bread and Cup