Selected quad for the lemma: power_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
power_n	ghost_n	holy_a	trinity_n	2,914	5	9.7351	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A51289	A brief reply to a late answer to Dr. Henry More his Antidote against idolatry Shewing that there is nothing in the said answer that does any ways weaken his proofs of idolatry against the Church of Rome, and therefore all are bound to take heed how they enter into, or continue in the communion of that church as they tender their own salvation.	More, Henry, 1614-1687.	1672 (1672)	Wing M2645; ESTC R217965	188,285	386

Memory Understanding and will ●his is as near as in this impe●scrutable Mystery we can come speaking in a Parable with that ancient Father And we must say so rather than acknowledge any similitude with that of the common humane nature in Pythagoras Plato and Socrates least we run into that dreadfull absurdity of making more Gods than One. But now speaking according to the sense of St. Austin it is plain that that One Divine Nature being not in the three Persons as one general humane nature in three Men but the Union and mutual inexistence being as that of the Soul and her Powers it is plain I say that tha● One Divine Nature will be no more divided from it self by being thus inexistent in the three Persons than the Soul will be divided from her self by reason of her three Powers Memory Understanding and will or M●ns Notitia Amor or Sapientia Amor which Peter Lumbard contends to be the proper titles of the Son and Holy Ghost which also is very consonant to the doctrine of the ancient Phílosophy of the Jews and Greeks touching their Trinit● And lastly as the Soul is sufficiently divisa ab aliis in a Metaphysical sense though she be really identi●ed with her three Powers so is the Divine Nature sufficiently divisa ab aliis though it be identified reall● with the three Persons So that my Adversar● does here nodum in scirpo qu●rere out of an ill will to the clearness of my Arguments which he would thus obliquely obscure and teach the Infidel to cavil against the solid Mystery of the Trinity because neither himself nor any else can make good that false Opinion of Transubstantiation Which how pious and warrantable an act of him it is let any man judge This is onely to cast dust into the eyes of the Vulgar to dishearten them from endeavouring to see the Truth His Answer to the Argument from Mathematicks in the sixth Paragraph This Argument is meer Cob-web stuff half an eye may look through it For these words of the Doctor That a part of the Division is equal to the whole either refer to the species and then it is false that a part of the Division is equal to the whole or they point at the Body of Christ and then the words are de subjecto non supponente for there is no division of any part of Christs Body from the whole The Reply I will not say That my Adversary looks through too thick a Cob-web to discern the force and scope of my Argument But this I will say that he has plainly missed it For the very absurdity that I drive at is that in dividing suppose an entire consecrated Host into two parts in which one entire consecrated Host there is but one continued Body of Christ veiled as he says but co-extended with the species that in the dividing this Host or species of the Host if you will that one continued Body of Christ there before is discontinued and separated into two as sure as it is in two places at once And what I pray you is this but to be divided into two And being Division here is into two intirely the same with the divided what is it but to be divided into parts of a Division which singly are equal to the whole contrary to that common Notion in Euclid Or if you think this less absurd to be divided into two wholes For they may be called either in such an Hypothesis as brings in the con●usion of all things His Answer to the Argument from Logick in this sixth Paragraph This says he is the same in effect with the former and requires no new Answer Because these his trisling expressions if applied to the separated species are false if to Christs Body then they proceed upon a false supposition as hath been declared in my Answer to the third Objection The Reply That this Argument stands upon the same supposition that the former I grant But that the supposition is false I may well deny having proved it true in my Reply to his former Answer Nor is this Argument altogether the same in effect because it illustrates the grand absurdity of the opinion it oppugns from new Maximes So little tri●ling is the argumentation which I have here produced But it is the Policy of my Antagonist to slight and make himself merry with such things as are too solid to be really Answered For this is succedaneous to a real Confu●ation in the eyes of the Vulgar and it may be of more consequence with them that are taught not to examine but believe In which Method he shows himself an egregious Artist in his attaque upon my next Objection where he begins with some few scoptical and undervaluing Reflections as he calls them But a Man of his parts and wit cannot but know that they are insignificant to any but the Vulgar before whom he thinks it very conducing to seem to trample on his Antagonist right loftily acting his part as it were on a Stage His Reflections on some Passages in my Argument from that fundamental Principle in Logick and Metaphysicks in this sixth Paragraph together with my Replies thereunto First saith he a knowing Reader cannot chuse but smile to see Can be or a capacity of Being brought in for a piece of an Argument to prove that a thing is not That individual thing that can be saith the Doctor and is to be made of any thing is not So my Adversary in his first Reflection To which I Reply That some knowing Reader it may be may not onely smile but laugh quite out while he observes to what pretty shifts my Adversary is pu● to make the Doctor as he calls him seem an old doting fool to the heedless and ignorant For the knowing Reader will easily discern that That that can be is not to be disjoyned from the rest of the sentence but that made is to be referred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be in both places and that the sense is though the sentence is then less succinct and elegant That that individual thing that can be made or is to be made of any thing is not But here he makes another oblique Reflection and observes how fondly the Doctor playes the confident Dogmatizer asserting as evident That that individual thing that can be and is to be made of any thing is not As if forsooth it were evidently demonstrable that that individual thing which is to day in actual being could not possibly be destroyed and made anew again to morrow by a second generation Reply This is a very oblique and distorted Reflection indeed and cast off quite from the mark it should aim at nor does it at all respicere Titulum the Argument in hand which is our ever blessed Saviours Body never to be destroyed So that this Answer is onely an argute Cavil For my Antanist is not so short sighted but he could easily discern that I understand the individual thing I

Guilt whereby she is plainly equallized to the Son of God and made as it were a She-Christ or Daughter of God To this sense also are those Prayers put up to her in her Feast of the Conception and of the Annunciation But it were infinite to produce all Read that Prayer in 〈◊〉 sung to her by the Council of Constance It is a perfect ●mitation of the ancient Prayer of the Church to the Holy Ghost CHAP. V. Vpon the first Paragraph IN that Prayer to the blessed Virgin in this Paragraph are such Compellations as if they were in the masculine gender were onely proper for God and Christ and such things are asked as are in their power onely to give which is a further Reply to his second general Answer Vpon the second Paragraph And the very same may be said of the Invocation in this second Paragraph out of the same Rosary of the Virgin which though my Adversary seems desirous to signifie his slighting of yet he dare not deny but that it passes current with them And why may I not produce what forms of Invocation I please which are allow'd amongst them and are made use of in the devotions of them that are of the Church of Rome For this does plainly prove the Idolatry that Chuch is lapsed into But if some few flowers out of the Hortulus Animae may be more gratefull to him he shall find what will amount to as much as is in the above said Rosary For in a Recommendation to the blessed Virgin we read thus I commend unto thee blessed Virgin my whole Body and Soul and my whole life the five senses of my Body all my actions and my death who art with thy Son Christ blessed for ever and ever What can be said more to Christ or God himself This is surely more than an Ora pro nobis Pray for us For in a Recommendation immediately going before the form is Precor te I pray thee that thou wouldst keep me from sins from scandals from all the Confusion of humane life from unclean thoughts from all perils of Soul and Body And some few leaves before in the Canticum ad Virginem it is said Dignare dulcis Maria nunc semper nos sine delicto custodire O sweet Mary vouchsafe to keep us now and for ever without sin As if they had a mind to turn the Te Deum into a Te Deam and indeed in this Canticle they have indeavoured it as near as they can But this in it verbatim Answers to Vouchsafe to keep us this day without sin in the Te Deum I will close all with that Rhyme in their Oratio ad beatam Mariam Esto custos cordis mei Signa me timore Dei Confer vitae Sanctitatem Et da morum honestatem Da peccata me vitare Et quod justum est amare O Dulcedo Virgin●lis Nunquam fuit nec est talis Can any one be the keeper of ones heart b●t God that knows the hear● This therefore is such a sweet strain of Devotion as never was heard till the lapse of the Church into gross Idolatry And yet all this and a great deal more is in that Hortulus Animae which questionless is a most delicious Paradise with those of that Church and has a sufficient stamp of Authority upon it Which I speak in reference to his third general Answer Nor have I gathered any examples of Invocation but such as the Author I have them out of does expresly profess to have been confirmed by publick Authority and to have been in publick use See Chemnitius his third part of the Examination of the Council of Trent pag. 135. I do not profess to have all their Rituals and Pontificals and Rosaries by me but what I have by me and under my eye are so like what Chemnitius has produced that I think it the greatest folly and stupidity in the World to misbelieve his Quotations Vpon the third Paragraph As for Example in the Invocation in this Paragraph Cor meum illumina fulgens stella Maris why should I at least doubt of that form when I have before mine eyes in Hortulus Animae Esto custos cordis mei Signa me timore Dei Out of both which in the mean time there may be a further Reply to his second general Answer or an In●stance of one of those Generals in my general Reply to that Answer Vpon the fourth Paragraph That I take notice that these Invocations imply that the Virgin Mary is the daughter of God is in reference to my Exposition of the Epistle to the Church of Thyatira which the Reader if his Genius lead him to such things may please to peruse But in the mean time they implying so plainly that the Virgin is the daughter of God in such a kind of sense as Christ is his Son it plainly appears from hence that the Invocation is not a mere Ora pro nobis or the Pra●ing for such things as are not greater then is in the power of any Creature to give which therefore again is a further Reply to the second and last general Answers Vpon the fifth Paragraph Besides that she is again in this Invocation made the daughter of God in that high sense and that the same Arguments that prove ●er Titles bigger imply the boons she can bestow to be greater then what is competible to a mere Creature and so it respects the second general Answer of my Adversary It is plain also from veni and visita that it is impossible to be understood of a mere Ora pro nobis contrary to my Adversaries last Answer And lastly it is to be observed in reference to his third general Answer that this song in her Feast of Visitation must be in the number of those forms quae publicè in Eccl●sus legunt●r magnis ●oatibus proclamantur Chemnitius speaks And the like is to be said of her Feast of Conception and Annunciation in Reply to the said third general Answer As also of that Prayer sung to her at the Council of Constance in imitation of Veni Creator Spiritus as that in Hortulus Animae is of Te Deum Laudamus And why should I doubt of that when I see this before mine eyes But instead of V●ni Creator Spiritus which is the usual Prayer to the Holy Ghost it is here Veni mater Gratiae Fons misericordiae Miseris Remedium Veni lux Ecclesiae Tri●tibus laetitiae Nunc infunde radium c. And now let any one judge whether these are the words of suppliants onely saying Ora pro nobis For whereas it is said Veni lux Ecclesiae Nunc infunde radium O come thou light of the Church Now infuse thy rayes This is both a calling her to them not a bidding her pray for them in Heaven and also the styling her the light of the Church and upon that account Praying her to illuminate them it is plain they suppose her from self to shine forth