Selected quad for the lemma: mind_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
mind_n	infinite_a	person_n	trinity_n	1,828	5	11.0963	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64989	The foundation of God standeth sure, or, A defence of those fundamental and so generally believed doctrines of the Trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence, of the satisfaction of Christ, the second person of the real and glorious Trinity, of the justification of the ungodly by the imputed righteousness of Christ, against the cavils of W.P.J. a Quaker in his pamphlet entituled The sandy foundation shaken &c. : wherein his and the Quakers hideous blasphemies, Socinian and damnably-heretical opinions are discovered and refuted ... / by Thomas Vincent.	Vincent, Thomas, 1634-1678.	1668 (1668)	Wing V438; ESTC R25705	51,791	83

former is come to passe and the last is most likely to follow and now let W. P. call my zealous endeavours to keep a poor soul out of the dark path which leadeth to utter darkness peevish zeal and railing accusations and what he pleaseth I am sure I neither did nor spake any thing unbecoming a Minister of the Gospel W. P. chargeth me with cautioning the Pater-familias to exercise his authority c. This is false and the Master of the Family I am confident will not a verr it and why he should charge it I know not except that he might usher in those expressions Forgetting that they hold their liberty by connivance and the many appeals made by their non-conforming Bretheren for indulgence unto which I say that we do not forget it neither would we be unthankful either unto God or man for it and if by the appeals made by our non-conforming Brethren for indulgence he doth mean and reflect upon the grateful acknowledgement which some of them lately made unto the Supreame Magistrate under the protection of whose government we all do live He discovers little of a Christian spirit if he finds fault with it since we have a command 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. That supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for kings and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty and therefore as we make conscience to pray for our Soveraign so we look upon our selves as obliged to give thanks both to God and unto him when through his clemency and favour we have liberty to live peaceable and quiet lives in all Godlinesse and honesty But to proceed in the narrative the daughter had such influence upon the mother that she was instrumental to draw her into this pernicious way which when I heard of I went to their house to use my endeavors for the reducing of them where I had not been long but the two men I had before discoursed with in Hounds-ditch came in amongst other things they flatly denied that there were three persons in the Godhead and that Father Son and Holy Ghost was a threefold variety or manifestation of God I did not think fit to enter into a dispute concerning that and other points then because it was so late and because I desired to have witnesses on my side as well as theirs This was the occasion of my meeting with the Quakers at my House which W. P. speaketh of and was present at but it is false what he saith that I bespake my usual Auditory an hour before the Quakers were appointed to come for I neither gave publick notice neither spake to any of a sooner time than I sent sent word to the Quakers of W. P. chargeth me for bringing not onely a second but a third and fourth least I should incur a non-plus c. That I should bring one with me was appointed when the Meeting was promised that our number might be the same with the two that were to dispute with us and whom we two had met with before but if other two of my Bretheren were present it was without any desire of mine but onely their our inclination brought them thither for some time after our discourse began and if they spake any thing it was not because they thought I stood in any need they should help me out but because of G. W's confused discourse and indirect answers to my Arguments they attempted to bring him to some order and to have gained an answer from him that the dispute might more intelligibly and successfully have proceeded When the assembly was come together I began with prayer which was no sooner ended but the other two Quakers who promised to meet with us not appearing George Whitehead began to speak and declared that he was there come to defend the Quakers opinions which I had asserted were damnable and when he would have first discoursed of the light within them I told him and the people that I owned my charge of damnablenesse on the Quakers opinions and though I did not decline to dispute about the light he spake of and other errours of the Quakers yet I thought it most proper to begin with the Doctrine of the Trinity denied by the Quakers I last met with who directly affirmed that the Father Son and Holy Ghost were not three distinct persons but a threefold variety or manifestation and this I asserted to be a damnable errour and would prove it to be so and therefore I asked him whether his opinion was the same with theirs unto which M. Danson added that he had asserted the Quakers to have an infallible spirit so that what was the opinion of one must consequently be the opinion of all and therefore that he must either own this opinion or disown them for Quakers G. W. at first did neither plainly assert nor directly deny the opinion but filled his mouth and the people eares with a multitude of words wherein was so much ambiguity and obscurity that the sentiments of his mind were not easily to be perceived But W. P. standeth up falsly and blasphemously reflecting on the Doctrine of the Trinity as an errour sprung up three hundred years after Christ and directly denied that there were three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties Then I asked G. W. whether he owned W. P. for a Quaker and not being disowned I urged an argument against his assertion If the Father be another from the Son and the Son another from the Father and the Holy Ghost another from each and all three are God and the property of the Father is to beget the Son and the property of the Son to be begotten of the Father and the property of the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son then there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three distinct incommunicable properties But the Father is another c. Therefore there are three c. When I had propounded my argument W. P. shrunk saying he did not come thither to dispute but left it to G. W. who neither would repeat my Sylogism nor give any direct answer either to the Major or Minor I could have multiplyed words as G. W. did and applyed my self to the people instead of speaking to the purpose but this I forbore propounding my argument Sylogistically and the distinction of three persons being denied though no direct answer given to the argument urged to prove it I added another argument from 1 Iob. 5. 7. There are three that bare record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one The Father Word and Holy Ghost are either three substances or three manifestations or three operations or three persons or something else But they are not three substances nor three manifestations nor three operations nor any thing else Therefore they are three persons G. W. maketh

or shew himself There was no need to save my Brethren for I do not remember one word either of Scripture or right reason that was opposed to what they asserted and proved so that it was neither to save my Brethren nor to shew my self that I then appeared but to stop a blasphemer's mouth and to make manifest his wickedness that he might proceed no further 2 Tim. 3. 8 9. Silences our further controverting the Principle Your further reproaching and reviling it you mean for if you would have disputed it without your wicked comparisons and reflections I would not have interposed By a Sylogistical but false and impertinent Reflection upon G. W. his person it runs thus He that scornfully and reproachfully compares the Doctrine of the Trinity of Father Son and Spirit to three finite men as Paul Peter and John is a Blasphemer But you G. W. have so done Ergo That this is a false and impertinent reflection on G. W. his person you assert but prove not I shall therefore prove the contrary And first that the minor is not false nor impertinent appears by his words and your confession for you acknowledge that in scorn to the Doctrine of the Trinity he compar'd it to three finite men viz. Paul Peter and Iohn which you call a most apt comparison to detect the ridicule of our Doctrine Secondly that the major is not false nor impertinent as is manifest for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to hurt or blast the fame of another is all one as to blaspheme him and hence the perverse disputings and railings of men of corrupt mindes that consent not to wholesom words and the Doctrine that is according to Godliness are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blasphemies 1 Tim. 6. 4. And what can be more derogatory to the glory of the infinite God than to fasten the imperfections and limitations of finite creatures upon him and to assert three separate essences as the necessary consequent of three distinct persons this was the old Arian Plot whereby he and his followers endeavored to prejudice the mindes of well meaning but simple men against the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost and this is to blaspheme God and the Scriptures A strange way of argumentation to beg what cannot be granted and to take for granted what still remains a question viz. that there are three distinct and separate persons in one essence What you mean by separate I know not if you mean so separate as to destroy the unity and simplicity of the Divine Essence I own no such separation if you take it to be all one with distinct then I say it was no begging of the question for it had been sufficiently proved that there are in the Divine Essence three distinct persons the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Let them first prove their Trinity and then charge their Blasphemy It is not for want of proof that this Doctrine is rejected and blasphemed and still called our Trinity in a way of reproach assure your self the day is coming when you will wish you had made it yours also but you have a way to scorn all that is offered in defence of it as mens lo here Interpretations and lo there and to brand all the determinations of Councels Fathers c. concerning it as the issues of Faction Prejudice and Cruelty and there is little hope that any Arguments though never so strong will convince men of such proud insolent humors this Doctrine is more than hinted in the first line of the Bible Gen. 1. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Verb of the singular number signifies the Unity of the Divine Effence and the Noun of the plural number denotes the Trinity of persons God that created Heaven and Earth is God the Father Son and Holy Ghost Read also Iob 35. 13. God thy Makers Heb. Consult Mr. Caryl on the place Eccles. 12. 1. Remember thy Creators c. Isa. 54. 5. My Makers is thy husband Heb. in all which Texts the Trinity of persons is denoted by words of the plural number See also Isa. 42. 1. where you have the Father choosing and upholding the Son and the Spirit put on him as Mediator three persons spoken of Mat. 3. 16 17. and 28. 19. Ioh. 14. 16. there is Christ praying the Father and he giving another Comforter the Spirit of Truth what can be more plain than a Trinity of persons in this Text So Ioh. 15. 26. the Spirit sent by Christ from the Father and Act. 2. 32 33. 2 Cor. 13. 14. 1 Ioh. 5. 7. for brevity sake I onely name the Texts I might also adde that the names properties or attributes works and worship of God are frequently in the Scripture given to each of these three Persons so that they are one and the same perfect and infinite Essence each of them God and one God by nature but three persons And now having proved the Trinity W. Pen must either deny Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles and God himself speaking from Heaven or else confess the Blasphemy But I must not forget this persons self-confutation who to be plainer called them three Hee 's But what self-confutation it is to call three persons three Hee 's you neither do nor can tell that each of them is frequently spoken of in the Scripture as a distinct he is so plain you cannot deny it and expressed by the Pronouns 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ioh. 1. 2 3. and chap. 16. ver 8. 13 14. 27. and I called them three Hee 's to try if you would own the Deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost under any Title and 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 union or one-ness of the Father Son and Holy Ghost which is no less than to deny and reject God for though you pretend to own God the Father yet in rejecting the Son you reject the Father for saith Christ he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me Luke 10. 16 and the beloved Disciple telleth us that whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father 1 Ioh. 2. 23. If he can finde a he without a substance or prove that a subsistence is any thing else than the form of a he he will do well to justifie himself from the imputation of ignorance That my calling the three persons three Hee 's implies a He without a substance is the first thing that you would here insinuate but this is your gross ignorance of this great mystery For each of these Hee s is by nature God and hath the entire undivided nature substance or essence of God and all that you can say to the contrary is but like childrens shooting Paper-pellets against a Rock your latter phrase discovers your ignorance of Philosophy