Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	father_n	son_n	substance_n	1,728	5	9.0864	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

Man living knows any thing at all for this Enumeration Substances Essences Reasons Unions Properties Operations comprehends all things even the whole of created and uncreated Nature It is certain and confess'd by all Men but this Gentleman who seems to delight in nothing so much as Paradoxes and thinks the Pulpit and Press the likeliest Places to make 'em famous and remarkable that our Reason can be no otherwise imployed but either about Substances or their Unions essential Reasons Operations or Properties What is it Sir I pray but either it is a Substance or the Property or Operation of a Substance For as to essential Reasons and Vnions the former as well as Modes and Accidents come under the general name of Properties Risibility for instance is an essential Reason of Man as he is Man and yet it is reckoned among the Properties as well as Gracility Grossness Agility Slowness Whiteness Redness and such like Modes and Accidents are called the Properties of particular Men Properties by which they are distinguished from one another As essential Reasons are but Properties so Unions are but the Operations of Substances or their Properties In short I say that without being needlesly nice Substances with their Properties and Operations will denote the whole Complex of things their Reasons and Vnions are superfluously added And if these are not the Objects of Reason Reason has no Objects at all In truth they are the only things about which Reason is conversant Metaphysicians consider spiritual Substances their Properties and Operations Natural Philosophers consider Bodies or corporeal Substances their Operations and their Properties Particular Arts and Crafts are conversant about particular Bodies as Physicians and Chirurgions about the humane Body Chymists about Plants and Metals the Lapidary about Jewels the Apothecary about Drugs Do these Artists know nothing about the Substances their Properties or Operations their Vnions and essential Reasons about which both their Minds and Bodies are every day imployed Assuredly when the Court desired Mr. Dean of St. Paul's to print this Sermon they could not have done him a greater Disservice than thus to prompt his Vanity to expose his scandalous Inadversions to the View and Scorn of every body It is well seen why this Dean has preach'd against Philosophy Because he hath very little himself He has heard of Essence Properties Operations essential Reasons and not knowing well what they mean he guesses they are things that a zealous Preacher ought to bestir himself against A little more Zeal and Ignorance might have qualified him to be one of my Lords the Inquisitors in the Inquisition-Office at Lisbon where lately they condemned an English Mare to be burnt as a Witch because she could signify the Hour of the Day on a Watch or Clock could dance to a Fiddle with several such little Feats as are easily taught to Beasts Some Persons interceded with the Holy Fathers for the Mare telling 'em she had been shown all over Christendom and that these Tricks had been often taught to other docile Beasts especially to Elephants But the Fathers as zealous as some body else against what they did not understand answered she shall be burnt for admitting she is not a Witch be sure coming from England she is a Heretick He says Lastly This that the Question is about Essences Vnions Properties is all the Incomprehensibleness that can be charged on the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation For my part to deal frankly after all the bustle and noise that has been made on both sides about Mysteries and Incomprehensibles I know no Incomprehensibleness or Mystery in the Catholick Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation I mean as they are explained and declared by the Church and now received by the Unitarians themselves not as they are perverted and misrepresented by a little Faction that have learned from Dr. Cudworth to call themselves Realists as if their Tritheism were the only real Trinity The Church teaches that there is but one Eternal All-perfect Spirit but one infinite spiritual Substance and this is what we indifferently call GOD the Divinity the Deity the Divine Nature the Divine Essence or Substance As to the distinction of Persons in the Deity to use the Words of the Bishop of Worcester When we consider a Divine Essence there can be no distinction conceived in it but by different Modes of Subsistence or what is the same different relative Properties The Trinity then is the Divine Essence Godhead or Deity consider'd under three different Modes of Subsistence which are called Relative Properties because they distinguish and because a threefold Relation arises in the Deity from them and Persons they are called because distinguishing characterizing Properties whether in a common Nature or in particular Natures or Substances when considered with the Nature or Substance make what antient and constant Custom nameth Persons These Modes or Properties are by some more particularly described St. Austin and from him the Divines of the Schools insist upon Intellectus Notitia Amor or Original Mind or Wisdom the Logos or reflex Wisdom generated by Mind and the Spiration of Divine Love The first as generating is named the Father the second being generated by a condescension to humane Language is called the Son the third being a Spiration has the name of Spirit I know not as I said what Mystery or Incomprehensibleness there is in this account which has been the Language and Explication of the Church ever since St. Austin and not of the Latin Church only but of the Greek as I intend to prove at large whenever leisure and a fit opportunity shall serve I see plainly that the occasion of calling the Trinity a Mystery except only among the Unlearned or not Learned in Scholastick and Philosophical Terms and the various Acceptations of them I say the occasion of calling the Doctrine of the Trinity a Mystery was this because the term Persons and again Father Son and Spirit are used concerning the Deity in a very different Sense from their Import or Meaning when used of Men or other created Beings For all humane Persons and Father and Son among Men are distinguished not only by different Modes and Properties but by distinct Substances Intellects and Wills but the Deity is but one Essence or spiritual Substance with one Understanding Will and Energy in number Thus the Idea of Persons and of Father Son and Spirit in God implying a Notion so very different from the meaning of the same terms when spoken of Men and created Beings 't was thought sit to say they are used concerning God in a mystical Sense concerning other Beings in a profane or common Sense A Sense of Words or Terms not so usually applied or rather contrary to the vulgar and secular Use of them was named Mystery at first I judg only by the less Learned afterwards to conciliate the greater Reverence to the Article by the more Learned also As to the Incarnation The Doctrine of the

or present Socinianism the Socinianism of Faustus Socinus for the Unity of God or that there is but one God can never be defended by these Men who hold Person and intellectual Substance to be the same but only on the Principles of Faustus Socinus and the modern Socinians Thus I say some Orthodox Writers argue they are perswaded that as this Doctor maintains the Heresy of Laelius Socinus he must of necessity by attending to the Consequences of his Doctrine make a Coalition or Closure in the end with Faustus Socinus and the present Socinianism if it be not already his Opinion and Aim As for Subscriptions Protestations and such like Dr. Sherlock may multiply them as much as he pleases but they are resolved never to believe him for they pretend that his Predecessors L. Socinus G. Blandrata c. never stuck at such Matters but made use of 'em as Artifices to get into Acquaintance and Esteem with the Orthodox and then seduce them But for my part I judg the Dean tho most certainly a Disciple of Laelius Socinus may easily be brought off from the Imputation of being a Socinian according to the Model of Faustus Socinus and the present Socinians For it is true he holds three Essences and Spirits and he thinks Person and intellectual Substance signify the same thing so that in multiplying the one you necessarily multiply the other and it is no less true that on these two Principles or in consequence of these two Principles he can never defend the Unity of God but on the grounds of Faustus Socinus and the modern Socinians namely that God is indeed but one Person I say I grant both these Imputations on the Doctor are true and yet it will not follow that in very deed he is a Socinian after the Model of Faustus or aims to introduce the Socinian Scheme as 't is held by the Modern Socinians For having disclaimed the use of Reason in Matters of Religion he is bound up by no Consequences tho never so clear or certain for all Consequences are the Children of Reason against which in Disputes of Religion and the Articles of Faith the Doctor has protested before my Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen If it be never so certain that he holds as Laelius Socinus did and never so evident that the necessary Consequence from thence is the Scheme of Faustus Socinus this can never affect him who disclaiming Reason is therefore discharged of the foolish Trouble of attending to Consequences which are mere Brats of Reason He may be as clear of any Design to introduce the Scheme of Faustus Socinus notwithstanding these Suspicions of some right Orthodox Men as he is of bringing in Presbytery which in my heart I cannot think he intends now he is become a Dean We have said enough to his first Proposition that Reason and Philosophy are the two Idols of Atheists and Hereticks and that make Atheists to be Atheists and Hereticks to be Hereticks To the Second He saith again That to ascertain what is the very and true Faith we must attend only to that Meaning of Scripture which the Words and Phrases do imply rejecting all mixture of Reason and Philosophy in our Disputes about Religion and our Inquiries concerning the Meaning of Scripture That is he is for giving up the Protestant Religion to the Old Gentleman at Rome and the Christian Religion in general to the certain Triumph of Deists and Hereticks Reason and Philosophy he saith must not be admitted into our Disputes about Religion or our Inquiries concerning the Meaning of Scripture no the Words and Phrases of Scripture in their obvious and natural Sense are the only things that must determine our Disputes form the Articles of Religion and settle the meaning of Scripture For instance the Question is concerning the Transubstantiation the Words and Phrases are these This is my Body My FLESH is Meat indeed my BLOOD is Drink indeed He that eateth my FLESH and drinketh my BLOOD the same dwelleth in me and I in him Yes say Reason and Philosophy the Lord Christ had a Body and that Body was Flesh and Blood but when Bread is called his Body or his Flesh and Wine his Blood it could not be intended that Bread is Humane Flesh or Wine is Blood in reality of the thing but only in signification or sign Bread is the Flesh of Christ and Wine his Blood by way of sign and signification and to say otherwise is a Contradiction to the nature of the things spoken of that is to Philosophy and also to Reason which assures us that the real Body of Christ cannot be in Heaven and on the Altar at the same time Exclude now Reason and Philosophy out of this Dispute and from the Enquiry concerning the meaning of the words and phrases of Scripture about this matter and it will be undeniable that the advantage is wholly on the Popish side a Protestant Doctor and he too a Dean of St. Pauls gives away our only Strengths against the common Adversary Our Saviour says of a piece of Bread This is my Body if now Reason and Philosophy must not interpret How will Dr. Sherlock avoid either the Papist on the one side or the Lutheran on the other He cannot have recourse to Sense in the case 't is only Philosophy or Reason that must help him out for tho the Apostles who saw and tasted that it was Bread only and not Flesh might have appealed also to their Senses yet we that never saw or tasted the Substance which Jesus gave then to the Disciples can know by Reason and Philosophy only by nothing else that it was not his Flesh and Blood We argue He took Bread and blessed it and gave to his Disciples and said Take eat This is my Body The Text expresly says it was Bread which he blessed and brake and called it his Body therefore it was his Body in sign and signification not in reality All this is arguing 't is Reason that convinces us not Sense that the Substance he divided to them was indeed Bread not his Flesh which he neither blessed nor brake But if our Preacher says he believes it was only Bread because the Text it self calls it Bread let him consider that seeing what was called Bread before Christ blessed it after the Blessing he calls it his Body We cannot know by Sense or by the Text but by Reason and Philosophy only that it was not changed by the Blessing into what now he calls it namely his Body The Papists believe it was Bread that Christ took but because when he had brake and blessed it he calls it his Body they conclude that by the Blessing it was changed into the substance of Flesh but without change of the Accidents I say now tho Sense might interpret the words this is my Body to the Apostles who saw it and tasted it yet to us who neither saw nor tasted those words cannot be rightly interpreted but only by