Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	ghost_n	holy_a	son_n	5,168	5	5.9174	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44670	A calm and sober enquiry concerning the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead in a letter to a person of worth : occasioned by the lately published considerations on the explications of the doctrine of the Trinity by Dr. Wallis, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. S--th, Dr. Cudworth, &c. ...	Howe, John, 1630-1705.	1694 (1694)	Wing H3018; ESTC R10702	46,740	146

of the three Sacred Persons in the Godhead seem much more to challenge a greater distinction of the Persons than your Notion of a Person doth seem to admit That of sending and being sent spoken so often of the first in reference to the second and of the first and second in reference to the third as not to need the quoting of places If the same man were a King a General and a Judge methinks it would not well square with the usual forms of speaking among Men and God speaks to Men as Men to say that as the first he sends the two latter that is himself And one would think our being required to be Baptized in the distinct Names of the Father Son and Holy Ghost should signifie some greater distinction As also that three are said to bear witness in Heaven I doubt that in a Cause wherein our Law requires two or more Witnesses the same Man that should be a Father a Brother and a Son would scarce thereupon be admitted for three Witnesses And how the Incarnation of the Son can be understood according to your Notion of Person without the Fathers and Holy Ghosts Incarnation also I confess I cannot apprehend Your Notion of a Person contradistinct to the Scholastick Notion as was said before seems to leave the Godhead to be but one hypostasis or Person in the latter sense How then are we to conceive of the hypostatical union The assumed Nature will be as much hypostatically united with the Father or the Spirit as with the Son 3. And doth not this civil or meerly respective Notion of a Person the other being left fall in with the Antitrinitarian Will it not make us Unitarians only as they affect to call themselves Would any of them who as you are pleas'd to take notice Letter 6. p. 1 2. say none but a Mad-man would deny there may be three Persons in God have been so mad not yet professing themselves Converts as to say so if they had not suppos'd their Cause not hurt by this Notion of a Person For as you well say Letter 1. we need not be fond of words so the thing be agreed so have they equal reason to say we need not be afraid of words if in the sense you agree with us And with one sort of them I only desire you to consider how great an appearance the asserting only of three Persons in the one sense quitting the other will carry off an agreement And have they not all the advantage left them which they seek in arguing against the satisfaction made by our Saviour from the necessity of an alterity that in the business of making satisfaction there must be alter atque alter One who satisfies and another who is satisfy'd I do very well know what Instances are brought of humane Rulers making satisfaction for Delinquents but there is no parity in the Cases They being themselves Debtors to the governed Community as God is not who hath with most undoubted righteousness made all things for himself 4. And consider whether by your Notion of a Person you forsake not the generality of them who have gone as to this point under the repute of Orthodox Who no doubt have understood by three Persons three intelligent Hypostases tho' they have differ'd in thinking some of them that only a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the genitum or spiratum as to the two latter a notion that is either too fine or too little solid for some Minds to grasp or take any hold of Others that the divine Nature might it self be some way said to be communicated to them But I pass to the II d Enquiry Whether some further distinction may not be admitted as possible The only thing that straitens us here is the most unquestionable unity or unicity as we may call it of the Godhead Which if it cannot be otherwise defended I must yet for my part notwithstanding these hardships and I know no man with whom I could do it with more inclination fall in with you But I must crave it of you so far to fall in with you know not who as to apply your clearer mind as I do my more cloudy one to consider whether it can or no You will here say further than what and what would I have further To the former of these I only say further than the asserting in very deed but one Hypostasis in the Godhead distinguished no otherwise into three than by certain relative capacities like those which may among men be sustain'd by one and the same man and which distinction as you after add is analogous to what in created beings is called distinctio modalis To the latter I desire you to observe what I generally propose not that we may positively assert any further determinate distinction as certain and known but only whether we may not admit some further distinction to be possible in consistency with the Unity of the Godhead I do equally detest and dread to speak with rash and peremptory confidence about things both so Mysterious and so Sacred But may we not modestly say that if to that Oeconomy which God hath represented himself in his Word to bear and keep afoot towards his Creatures any further distinction than hath been assigned is necessary it is also possible and may be for ought we know if indeed we know nothing to the contrary What is impossible we are sure cannot be necessary But God himself best and only knows his own nature and what his own meaning is in the representation he hath made to us If we sincerely aim to understand his meaning that we may bear our selves towards him accordingly he will vvith mercifull indulgence consider our shortor mis-apprehensions But vve need not say there is not this or that distinction if really vve do not knovv there is not While vve knovv so little of natures inferiour to our ovvn and even of our ovvn nature and hovv things are distinguished that belong to our selves vve have little reason to be shy of confessing ignorance about the Nature of God Therefore I most intirely agree to the tvvo Conclusions of the Ingenious W. J. vvherevvith he concludes his Letter But in the mean time and pursuantly enough thereto cannot but doubt the concludingness of his very acute reasonings against at least some of the expressions of that learned Person Dr. Sherl vvhich he animadverts upon as I perceive you also do p. 16. of your 7 th Letter And even W. J. himself for vvith a pious modesty he tells us concerning infinite Natures he presumes not to determine Letter p. 8. What he objects against that Authors having said the divine Persons are three beings really distinct vvherein I instance not intending to run thorough that elaborate Letter that then there must be three distinct Essences seems to me a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I doubt not the Author vvill easily admit it But what will be the consequence That therefore there are three Deities