Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	father_n	ghost_n	son_n	4,290	5	5.9916	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A70690	Observations on the four letters of Dr. John Wallis concerning the Trinity and the Creed of Athanasius	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.	1691 (1691)	Wing N1508A; ESTC R41199	24,893	22

three Answers And of these the first and third are contrary to and destructive of one another if the first is true the third must be false if the third be true the first is false For the first supposes that by Father here is meant only the Person of the Father or the first Person in the Trinity the other supposes that by Father is meant God in the most large sense so as to comprize the Father Son and Holy Spirit I will examine the three Answers severally 1. He saith I should have considered that it is not said Thee only to be the true God but Thee the only true God The restrictive Only is not annexed to Thee but to God His meaning in plainer terms is this I should have noted the vast difference between these two Forms Thee only the true God and Thee the only true God If the objected Text had been in the first of these Forms the Socinians had undoubtedly gained their Point but the latter which is the Form in the alledged Text does them no service This may be called a Fineness a Subtlety a Querk not an Accurate Reasoning or a real and true Distinction For first There is no difference in the Signification of these Propositions Thee only the true God and Thee the only true God the last is as exclusive of all other Persons besides the Father as the first As there is no difference between saying Thee only Leopold the true Emperour of Germany and saying Thee Leopold the only true Emperour of Germany Secondly If there were indeed a difference between these two Forms yet the latter is as hurtful to the Trinitarians as the former They will not have it to be here said the Father only is the true God no no that destroys the Trinity but the Father is the only true God I say now if this last does not destroy the Trinity it certainly confounds the Persons which in their Creed is no less Heresy than the other For seeing in the Trinitarian Hypothesis God or the One true God is Father Son and Holy Sprit these words Thee Father the only true God must be to say Thee Father the Father Son and Holy Spirit But this is Heresy it confounds the Persons it makes the Father to be Father Son and Holy Spirit Thus the Doctor 's first Answer has two Faults 't is founded not on a real but chimerical and imaginary Distinction and it implies Heresy 2. He answers The words may be thus expounded To know Thee Father to be the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Or thus to know Thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the only true God This Interpretation is generally rejected by the more Learned Trinitarians because it apparently destroys the Divinity of the Holy Spirit For if the Father and Son be the only true God it remains that the Spirit either is only a Creature as the Arians and Bidellians say or the Power and Inspiration of God as the Pholinians and Socinians affirm I believe the Doctor was aware of this unlucky Consequence and therefore advanced a third Interpretation which himself seems to approve because afterwards he repeats and urges it again 3. He says The Scope of the place may be this to set forth that there is but One true God though in this Godhead be Three Persons Father Son and Spirit and the Doctrine of Redemption by Jesus Christ whom God hath sent Which Things the Heathens knew not Now according to this Answer Father in this Text is God as comprizing the Three Persons Father Son and Spirit and Jesus Christ is the Man Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ as Man But I would know how it comes to pass that the particular Title and very Characteristic of the first Person is here given to the Son and Spirit At this rate of interpreting how shall we ever distinguish the Persons One while we are told Father is the perpetual and incommunicable Character or Description of the First Person another while Father is the Three Persons even Father Son and Holy Spirit But so it is They that maintain a false Opinion must answer according to the present Exigence sometimes this Thing sometimes the contrary only Truth is stable coherent consistent with it self always the same Farther That by Father here is meant only One Person not Three Persons is clear by this that otherways our Saviour should have said Fathers not Father For Three Persons who All have the relation of Paternity as this Answer supposes are as much Three Fathers as they are Three Persons Next I objected 1 Cor. 8.6 But to us there is but One God the Father of whom are all Things and we in Him and One Lord or Master i. e. Teacher Jesus Christ by whom are all Things and we by Him Or rather Jesus Christ for whom are all Things and we for Him For all Things were originally created for Him that is with Intention to subject them in the fulness of time to Him as their Principal and Head under God To this the Doctor answers as before It is manifest that One God is here put in opposition not to Plurality of Persons in one Deity but to the many Gods of the Heathen and our one Saviour against their many Saviours But I do not know that the Heathens distinguished between their Gods and their Saviours as the Doctor here and many other Interpreters suppose He should have said our one Master or Teacher to their many Teachers to the numerous Professors of different Philosophies among the Heathen But the One God is opposed not only to the Many Gods of the Heathen but to all other Persons but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father I ask as before How could St. Paul call Three Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father and how this Characteristic of the First Person can by him be given to the Son and the Proceeder is not this plainly to confound the Persons He that confounds the Characters necessarily confounds the Persons If the Apostle had known and believed the Divinity of our Times he must have said To us there is but one God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and one Teacher Jesus Christ as Man Nay were that Doctrine true he had more reason so to speak to the Corinthians than we now have For they were Novice Christians to whom it was necessary to speak of so high a Point in the most explicit open and plain Terms We may therefore certainly infer that when he teaches them To us there is but One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father he meant to deny that there is any other Person but the Father who is or can be God Lett. 3. pag. 57. He objects Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen He observes hereupon that in the Greek 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to JAH and Jehovah And that Christ is again