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	person_n	son_n	3,185	5	5.8825	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A63906	A discourse concerning the Messias, in three chapters the first concerning the preparatories to his appearance in the types and prophesies of the Old Testament : the second demonstrating that it was typically and prophetically necessary that he should be born of a virgin : the third, that he is God as well as man : to which is prefixed a large preface ... : and an appendix is subjoyned concerning the divine extension ... / by John Turner ...	Turner, John, b. 1649 or 50.	1685 (1685)	Wing T3306; ESTC R34684	134,054	328

by which the Son and Holy Ghost are distinguished from the Father and from each other is on both hands a Creature though it be an eternal one depending upon and eternally flowing from an eternal cause for that which constitutes the Person of the Son is the human nature united to the Divine and that which fills up the nature and notion of the Holy Ghost is a certain subtle subeternal matter united and incorporated with the Divine and Human Nature and animated by the common life of both and yet though these two things by which the Persons are distinguished from each other and from God the Father who is the Source and Fountain of the Godhead are without all question Creatures of his making yet the whole Person which results on either hand from the Vnion of the Created and Vncreated Nature together is truly and properly God for by God nothing else is or can be understood but a Person acted and animated by a life that is truly and properly Divine and such without question both of these Persons are otherwise there can be no vital Vnion between the created and uncreated Nature in them which is that upon which their Divine personality depends and as they may all three as well the one as the other be truly and properly said to be God so also notwithstanding what hath been said yet is the Father uncreate the Son uncreate and the Holy Ghost uncreate that is the Godhead which is in the whole Person the eternal simple abstracted Life in the one the cause of life and personality and the principal ingredient of life and personality in the two other which are Persons of a Dissimilar Heterogeneous and Compounded Nature and the whole Person is rightly denominated from its principal and chiefest Life is in all three not only Vncreate but Numerically the same so that there are not three Vncreates but one Vncreate nor three Incomprehensibles but one Incomprehensible nor three Gods but one God as it is expresly asserted in that Creed which goes how truly I do not now dispute under the Name of Athanasius and was allowed for Orthodox before the Lateran Council But yet as the rest of the Trinitarian Fathers when they were pressed by the Arians or other Heretics or disputed and argued the case too nicely with themselves were used to recur to the Specific Vnity and the Emperichoresis and the Vnity of Integration and such like very improper and inadequate expedients to help themselves so Marcellus being equally at a loss how to explain the Doctrine of the Trinity being a firm and resolute Assertor of the Vty of the Godhead and disdaining to make use of such Vnphilosophical ways of solving the difficulty which was in effect but to make a new riddle instead of explaining the old though he could not for his life being as he was a very honest and impartial Person bring himself to doubt but that the Language of the Scripture in its most plain and obvious Interpretation did assert the Divinity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost yet at some times being startled with the difficulty of the thing he would say with something of doubt and hesitation betwixt the difficulty of the thing and the plainness of the Scripture in asserting and maintaining it that the Scripture did seem to say thus much for so in the Confession sent to Julius he says of those that denied the Divinity of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seems to be repugnant to the Orthodox Faith grounded upon the Scriptures for that is his meaning as it follows in the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for so the Evangelist St. John tells us that the word was God but yet it must be confessed that this Interpretation which I have put upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not the only possible Interpretation neither as I do verily believe so agreeable to the Sentiments of Marcellus as another which I will now mention and that is that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be understood not as if he had spoken doubtfully that the Scripture seems to look that way as if Christ were a Divine Person as well as God the Father but that he really is so and that this appears plainly to be the sence of the Scriptures for so the word seems to have been used in that place of the Author to the Hebrews where God is said to have made the things that are seen out of things which did not appear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is out of things which really were not and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place are things not which barely appear or are supposed to be but which have a real undoubted and positive existence and in this sense the Adjectives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used not for things which are only in fancy or opinion but which have a real and a manifest Existence and are discovered by their own light and it is plain that this sense is most agreeable to what follows in Marcellus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. But I saith he have learnt or know for certain that the Son is the indivisible or inseparable Power of the Father for our Saviour himself even our Lord Jesus Christ saith I am in the Father and the Father in me and I and the Father are one and he that hath seen me hath seen the Father also which citations of his as they cannot so clearly and so naturally be applied to any thing as to the Numerical Essence so when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know or I have learnt for certain that the Son c. The Rules of Connection do require that this be spoken in opposition to the two Opinions just mentioned before one of which asserted a Plurality of Gods and the other denyed the Divinity of Christ and being exprest in such peremptory dogmatical and categorical Terms this is a plain and undenyable Testimony of Marcellus to himself that he was for the singular existent Essence which he did not only maintain in this Epistle to Pope Julius but he tells him it had always been his constant Doctrine for so he goes on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Faith I having received from the Scriptures and Tradition I preach in the Church as well as I have owned and asserted it in this Epistle to you Nevertheless for that he would not presume as others did when they were prest upon it by their Adversaries or intangl'd in their own private Meditations to explain the Modus of the Trinity for this reason he was charged by his Enemies with denying the thing it self as if in effect he had asserted but one divine Person because he stuck to one Numerical Substance without so much as pretending to explain how it was possible for a Trinity of Persons at this rate to exist this was the reason why Athanasius himself would sometimes speak with doubt and hesitancy concerning him or at

which distinguishes the Persons notwithstanding the same singular Essence belong in common to them both shall be considered more largely by and by so that if we reflect upon this Passage of Marcellus which is the only thing that can derive an Imputation of Heresie upon him and consider first that it is no more than the Language of the Scripture it self and secondly who it was to whom this Epistle was directed in his own just and necessary Vindication it will appear in both respects not only charitable but highly just and reasonable to believe that Marcellus meant nothing but what was truly Orthodox and unquestionably sound and it is strange to me that Petavius should discern so much Art in this Confession of Marcellus as if it were written so that it might possibly bear a Sabellian Interpretation notwithstanding that he hath taken no notice of this Passage in it which is the only thing that looks that way And what if Eusebius condemned him in his Writings and by his interest deposed him from his Bishoprick certainly the Opinion of the Bishops that sat in Council concerning his Affair and his Restoration to his See which was consequent upon it is more considerable in his Justification then the other can redound to his prejudice or disgrace they did not condemn him after the example of Eusebius but on the contrary censured Eusebius for what he had done which is a very great testimony of Antiquity in his behalf besides that notwithstanding some of those excerpta which Eusebius pretends to have taken out of Marcellus cannot perhaps be reconciled to an Orthodox Sence yet since it was the Opinion of so many Ancient and unquestionably Orthodox Bishops with whom Petavius himself in part agrees that Eusebius was possest with a violent prejudice against his adversary and that he laid hold of the most trifling occasions of things that would by no means bear it to run him down which the Learned Jesuite confesses him to have done how can we tell but he might misquote him also for there is nothing more ordinary even in our dayes notwithstanding that since Printing came in and so many Copies are immediately spread abroad it is more dangerous to do it now then it was then and may be more effectually remedied by Printing and dispersing a true and impartial representation of the case Nay that there was indeed a great deal of foul play in the behaviour of Marcellus his adversaries towards him of which adversaries Eusebius of Caesarea was the chief appears from the great praecaution of Marcellus as to that very Epistle which he sent to Julius for he took a Copy of it for himself before he sent it away and he beggs likewise of Julius to send faithful Copies of it to the Bishops within his Jurisdiction for the prevention of mistakes and that the world might be satisfyed from himself what manner of man he was which would have been a needless thing had there not been some ill practices made use of to represent him amiss and to make him say what he never intended That Marcellus was a firm and resolute Assertor of the singular Divine Essence in the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity may be proved undenyably from the words of his Confession For first he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Godhead of the Father and Son are divisible and inseparable from each other which is as much as to say in other words as Athanasius himself did sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Godhead of the Son is the Godhead of the Father which can be understood of nothing but the Numerical Essence as I have shown already and so I find since Dionysius Petavius to have applyed it before me but now upon supposition of a specifical Vnity there will as really be Two Godheads and by consequence Two Gods as any two things specifically united are numerically distinct from one another and yet this was that which Marcellus plainly endeavoured to avoid by saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Godhead of the Father and the Son was inseparable and indivisible as it appears by what is immediately subjoyned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is He that separates or divides the Son that is the Word from God the Father Almighty it is necessary either that he assert Two Gods which is repugnant to Scripture or that he deny the Son to be God which seems to be every whit as inconsistent with the Catholic Faith as the other In which Words it is as plain as Words can make it that he affirms there is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Almighty and that Christ himself is that one Almighty or that he does not differ from him because upon supposition that he did one of these two things must be granted either that Christ was not God which he rejects as repugnant to the Scripture or that there must be at once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Two Gods at least Numerically distinct which is all the sence in which it is possible to conceive of Two Gods supposing them both to be Omnipresent Omnipotent and Infinitely Perfect Beings and otherwise then this they are not properly Gods For they will both of them have the same Attributes and the same Perfections and so can be only Numerically distinct from one another from whence it follows that if the Numerical distinction be not of its self sufficient to introduce a Plurality of Gods then there can be no Polytheisme in the world that is Polytheism strictly and properly so called and understood of several Beings infinitely perfect Besides that the Specifick Vnity as it is in it self perfect Non-sence as hath been already sufficiently declared so is it perfectly inconsistent with that notion of the Trinity to which the Assertors of the Specific Vnity did themselves subscribe For the Son as such is begotten by the Father and the Holy Ghost as such proceeds or flows from the Father and the Son so that here is a manifest and a confest Subordination of the one Person to the other and the Son though he be begotten by an eternal Generation though it be true as the Antient Confessions are used to express it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there was no time when he was not yet it is manifest that an eternal Generation argues an eternal Dependance upon an eternal Parent and an eternal Emanation or Procession an eternal Dependance upon an eternal Cause so that here is self-existence on the one hand and Dependance on the other and these two are so far from being specifically united that they do toto genere and toto coelo distare and as the Son hath an eternal dependance on the Father as his eternal Parent so is the Holy Ghost proceeding from both with respect to the Son posterior natura though not cognitione as the Logicians speak because there is no time when he was not so that the Son and Holy Ghost that is that Characteristic mark or difference whatsoever it is