Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	father_n	holy_a	son_n	6,458	5	6.0598	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A60953	Tritheism charged upon Dr. Sherlock's new notion of the Trinity and the charge made good in an answer to the defense of the said notion against the Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's book, entituled, A vindication of the holy and ever-blessed Trinity, &c. / by a divine of the Church of England.	South, Robert, 1634-1716.	1695 (1695)	Wing S4744; ESTC R10469	205,944	342

you no further trouble having with all the Respect and Reverence due to such great and renowned Bodies given you an account of the Occasion of this Address to you as a Thing well deserving your most serious Thoughts and representing the cause of our Venerable Old Religion now at stake as in truth it is I humbly leave the whole matter before you and remain As by Duty and Inclination equally bound Honoured Sirs Your most faithful and devoted Servant A. A. A Collection of several Choice New Theological Terms made use of in Two Books One Entituled A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity c. The other A Defense of Dr. Sherlock 's Notion of the Trinity c. and first Introduced by the said Doctor for giving the Church a better Explication and a clearer Notion of a Trinity in Unity than it has had for above sixteen hundred years before Which Collection is as follows SElf-Consciousness Vind. p. 49. l. 27. Mutual Consciousness Vind. p. 52. l. 4. Natural Self-Consciousness Def. p. 8. l. 7. Natural Mutual Consciousness Def. p. 18. l. 8. Intimate conscious Knowledge Vind. p. 59. l. 4. Conscious life Def. p. 60. l. 20. Self conscious Principle Def. p. 67. l. 16. Natural Principle of mutual Consciousness Def. p. 67. l. 22. Conscious Union Def. p. 9. l. 10. Natural Unity of Mutual Consciousness Def. p. 33. l. 2. Communion of Mutual Consciousness Def. p. 72. l. 9. Self-Conscious Love and Self-Conscious Complacency Def. p. 68. l. 2 4. Intellectual Sensation Def. p. 77. l. 16. Self-Sensation Def. p. 39. l. 24. Conscious Sensation Def. p. 8. l. 4. Self Conscious Sensation Def. p. 7. l. 15. Natural Self Conscious Sensation Def. p. 7. l. 30. Natural Mutual Conscious Sensation Def. p. 8. l. 2. Feeling each other's Knowledge Vind. p. 56. l. 24. Self-Consciousness between the Father and the Son Vind. p. 60. l. 14. The Son 's feeling the Father's Will and Wisdom in himself Vind. p. 60. l. 22. The Son the Self Conscious Image of his Father's Will and Knowledge Vind. p. 60. at the end Continuity of Sensation Def. p. 7. l. 12 13. Three distinct Infinite Minds Vind. p. 66. l. 22. One Individual Nature subsisting thrice not by multiplying but only by Repeating it self Def. p. 24. l. 2 3. The Divine Nature repeated in its Image without multiplication Def. p. 37. l. 1. The same Substance repeated in Three distinct Subsistences Def. p. 91. l. 8. The same Individual Nature repeated in its living Image Def. p. 70. l. 4. One Eternal Infinite Mind repeated in Three Subsistences Def. p. 94. l. 6 c. Which Terms with some others like-them are to be substituted in the room of Nature Essence Substance Subsistence Suppositum Person Hypostasis and Relation All which though constantly used hitherto both by Fathers and Councils yet serving only as this Author affirms to pervert and confound mens Notions and Discourses about the Divine Nature and Persons ought utterly to be exploded and laid aside as meer Gibberish and Gipsie Cant especially by such as account all Greek and Latin so too Several New Heterodox and Extraordinary Propositions partly in Divinity and partly in Philosophy extracted out of the Two forementioned Books 1. THE Three Divine Persons are Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits and not to hold so is both Heresie and Non-sense Vind. p. 66. l. 25. 2. Unless every Person of the Blessed Trinity considered as a distinct Person be allowed to be a distinct Infinite Eternal Mind we shall have nothing left us but a Trinity of meer Modes Names and Postures Defen pag. 8. lin 24. pag. 30. lin 24. 3. That which makes a Spirit whether Finite or Infinite and consequently each of the Divine Persons which according to this Author are Three distinct Infinite Spirits One with it self and distinct from all others is Self-Consciousness and Nothing else Vind. p. 67. lin 11. p. 68. lin 5. 13. 74. lin 15 c. 4. A natural Self-Consciousness makes a Natural Person Def. p. 8. lin 7. 5. If the formal Reason of Personality be that which makes a Mind or Person which with this Author are always Terms convertible one with it self and distinguishes it from all others then Self-Consciousness is the formal Reason of Personality Def. p. 37. l. 8 9 10 c. 6. Mutual Consciousness is that which formally unites the Divine Persons in Nature or Essence and makes them all essentially and numerically one God Vind. p. 68. l. 6 7 8. and p. 84 l. 29 and elsewhere frequently 7. There is no other mutual In-being or In-dwelling of the Father in the Son and of the Son in the Father called by the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 conceivable or possible but by mutual Consciousness Def. p. 9. l. 15 16 c. 8. The Son and the Holy Ghost are in the Father as in their Cause Vind. p. 69. l. 29. Which Term Divines generally decline the use of using the word Principle instead thereof However this overthrows the foregoing Proposition viz. That the Son can be no otherwise in the Father than by mutual Consciousness 9. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used with reference to the Divine Persons by the Nicene Fathers is not sufficient to prove a Numerical Vnity of Nature or Essence in the said Persons Def. p. 69. l. 1 2 c. 10. The Unity of the Divine Nature in the Three Divine Persons is partly specifick partly numerical Def. p. 17. l. 27. 11. It is impossible to conceive a more close and intimate Union in Nature than mutual Consciousness Def. p. 35. l. 22. Whereas an Vnion in one Numerical Essence or Nature is and must be in the very Conception or Notion of it greater and more intimate as being the Ground the Reason and Foundation of the other 12. The very Nature and Subsistence of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is wholly Relative Def. p. 27. l. 21. And for their Subsistence I grant it to be so but if their Nature be wholly Relative too I am sure there is nothing absolute belonging to the Deity 13. The Case of a Man and his living Image though even by this Author 's own confession a meer Fiction or Supposition is a plain Account of the essential Vnity between God the Father and God the Son Def. p. 21. l. 10. That is to say in a Romance we have a clear Explication of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the first and second Person of the Trinity And in Two who are actually separate and loco-distant from one another we have a plain Account of the Union of Two who both in their Essence and Persons are actually and absolutely inseparable 14. If the Three Divine Persons be considered as Three Infinite Minds distinguished from each other by a Self-Consciousness of their own and essentially united to each other by a mutual Consciousness which is the only way of distinguishing and uniting Minds then a Trinity

Principle Concerning which we are to observe also That though a Cause or Principle by Emanation in a large sence is reckoned an Efficient Cause and reduced to it yet in the strictest and properest sense of an Efficient Cause it is not so as not producing its Effect by an Action or Efficiency properly so called but only by Resultance or Efflux which are the best words which Philosophers have to express the peculiar Causality of it by And now to explain what I have said by Instances All Properties are said to be Emanations or Effects resulting from their Forms And all Accidents immediately affecting and issuing from their Subjects are Emanations And all sensible and intelligible Species flowing from the Things which they represent are Emanations And the Light issuing from the Sun is an Emanation To all which we may add the Substantial derivative Modes belonging to the Divine Nature Which being premised let us see what Propositions this Man advances upon this Subject As First That an Image is not an Emanation but a Reflexion which is manifestly Oppositum in Apposito For an Image by Reflexion in Things Material is Both viz. an Emanation from the Prototype or Exemplar from which the Species Sensibiles issue or proceed and a Reflexion from that whether Medium or Object upon which they terminate and from which by Repercussion they are return'd back again Secondly He tells us That the Son and the Holy Ghost are not Emanations from the Father But on the contrary I affirm That the Son is an Emanation from the Father and the Holy Ghost from Both. For though Generation expresses the particular way of the Son 's issuing from the Father and Procession the particular way of the Holy Ghost's issuing both from Father and Son yet Emanation is here a general word properly applicable to and expressive of both of them And accordingly Aquinas affirms That the Son proceeds from the Father not as an Effect from a Cause viz. an Efficient Cause properly so called but by way of Intellectual Emanation Affirming withal That this is the Catholick Faith And one of higher Note in the Church than Aquinas even the Great Athanasius himself owns and commends the Doctrine of Dionysius concerning the Eternal Generation of the Son for that in his explaining of it and speaking of the Father as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Mind and of the Son as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word of that Mind he expresly calls the latter an Emanation from the former in those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly Emanatio aut Effluviam which all know are Terms Synonymous Athanas. Tom. 1. p. 565. Edit Colon. It is true indeed That in the Son 's issuing from the Father and the Holy Ghost's issuing from Both there is besides the Terminus producens and the Terminus productus assigned also an Act or Action viz. Generation with reference to the Son and Spiration to the Holy Ghost yet because these are not Actions or Efficiencies properly so called viz. distinct Entities from the Terminus producens and productus but really identified with both therefore the Production both of Son and Holy Ghost are truly and properly to be reckoned Emanations Thirdly The Defender affirms Than an Emanation is of the same Substance viz. specifically the same with that from which it proceeds of which I desire him to shew me so much as one Instance in the whole World if he can Fourthly That an Emanation multiplies Natures and Substances as being individually distinct from that from which it issues which yet in the Son 's issuing from the Father and the Holy Ghost's issuing from both is certainly false for though these Emanations multiply Persons yet they do not multiply Substances Nor are these two Propositions viz. the Third and Fourth less false with reference to those other forementioned Emanations or Emanative Effects set down by us for since none of them all are Substances they can neither be said to be Substances specifically the same with nor Substances individually distinct from those several Substances from which they flow Fifthly and lastly he tells us That when the Fathers call the Holy Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not in the Sence of Emanation but of Mysterious Procession To which I answer as before That he here opposes Things fairly subordinate viz. a General Term to a Particular For Procession is really and truly an Emanation though every Emanation it being a more general word is not a Procession and therefore for this Man to say as he here does That the Holy Ghost is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by Emanation but by Procession is just as if one should say of Peter That he is not a living Creature but a Man From all which it follows That this Author is grosly ignorant of the True Philosophical Sence of the Term Emanation sometimes applying it to one Thing and sometimes denying it of another but Both at a venture and just as People use to play at Blind-Man's Buff. In fine I conclude from what has been discoursed upon this whole Matter That this Autor's Fiction of a Man and his living Image ought not to be admitted or endured as at all Explicatory of the Trinity but to be rejected as a most senseless self-repugnant absurd Notion as he has started it and fit only to abuse the Minds of Men with wrong and perverse Apprehensions of this great Mystery The Scriptures indeed call the Eternal Son the Image of the Father Coloss. 1.15 and speak also of Adam's begetting a Son after his own Likeness Genes 5.3 But both these places import a quite different sort of Image from the living Image insisted upon by this Author For the Ratio Imaginis in both these consist not barely in Representation and Production but in such a peculiar sort of Production as is by Generation For the Holy Spirit has all the Natural E●●ential Perfections of the Father and the Son and consequently a substantial Likeness to both and is withal produced by them and proceeds from them But because this is not by a Generative Production which is the Proper Natural way of conveying Substantial Likeness therefore the Latine Fathers never give the Title of Image to the Holy Ghost though some of the Greek Fathers indeed upon the forementioned Account sometimes in a less proper and strict sence do From which it follows That since the Son 's being the Image of the Father consist not barely in his Representing him or being produced by him but in his being produced by way of Generation nothing can truly and strictly represent How he is the Image of his Father but a begotten Image an Image intellectually begotten and begotten not only in the Likeness of a Specifick Nature but of the same Numerical Nature with him who begot it And since none of all these Conditions do or can possibly agree to this Author 's living Image with reference to