Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	father_n	son_n	word_n	4,740	5	4.9419	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67389	A fifth letter, concerning the sacred Trinity in answer to what is entituled, the Arians vindication of himself against Dr. Wallis's fourth letter on the Trinity / by John Wallis ...	Wallis, John, 1616-1703.	1691 (1691)	Wing W582; ESTC R18175	9,822	26

Father by his Paternal Authority And these Authorities may be in subordination one to the other though the Man be the same And what is done in either capacity may indifferently be said to be done by the Man or by the King as that David or the King pardoned Absolom and in like manner by the Man or by the Father This being the true and proper notion of the word Person we are next to consider what it is to signify in the present case Where we are to consider that the word Person is not applied in Scripture to these three so called It is not there said These three Persons are one but only These three are one 'T is but the Church's usage that gives to these three somewhats the name of Persons And therefore our Arian was much mistaken when he tells us p. 20. that the word Person is the Hinge of the Controversy The Hinge of the Controversy is that notion concerning these three somewhats which the Fathers who first used it did intend to design by the name Person So that we are not from the word Person to determine what was that Notion but from that Notion which they would express to determine in what sense the word Person is here used And if the word Person do not well fit that sense all that can be thence inferred is no more but that they have made use of an Unfit Name to express their Notion It is no more but as if a Cruel Pope take the name of Clement or a wicked one the name of Pius or if a Man be named Willson whose Father's name was Thomas And in all such cases certitudo Rei tollit errorem Nominis And if we know who is the Man designed by such a Name 't is a Ridiculous exception to say This is not the Man because that Name doth well agree with his Nature Now Two of these Three being represented in Scripture as Father and Son and this Father said to Beget the Son and all these in a sense metaphorical not in such sense as those words do properly signifie amongst Men they thought it not unfit in continuation of the same Metaphor to call them Persons Because as the word Person doth properly agree to the relations of Father and Son in a proper sense so doth the word Person in a metaphorical sense to the Father and Son so taken metaphorically and the word Beget by a like Metaphor When therefore it is certain that the Notion which the Ancient Fathers had concerning these Three which in a metaphorical sense they called Person was this That there is a Distinction between them greater than that of the Divine Attributes but not so great as to make them Three Gods it is manifest that they took the Metaphor not from that abusive sense of the word Person when amongst us it is put for Man but from that proper sense of the word Persona wherein it signifies the State Condition Office or Relation of a Man as variously circumstantiated with reference to others whereof the same Man may sustain more than One. As when David was the Son of Iesse the Father of Solomon and the King of Israel So if we say of any that he is a Person of Honour a Person of Worth and a Person of Interest That same Man may be all this without becoming Three Men. Now this our Arian may call this if he please a Quirk a Criticism an undermining the very Idea of the word Person as he did in his p. 7 15 17. or may neglect it if he pleases But the sober Reader who understands it better will have better thoughts of it And therefore I shall not take his advice p. 7 8. to say that God is the name of an Office that so he might know how to attack me as he says which while I talk so warily he knows not how to do I say God is the name of the Nature but if he will have Christ to be the name of an Office the Mediatory Office and the Comforter or even the Creator the Redeemer the Sanctifier to be names of Work or Office it will not be much amiss Now when I had said this Doctrine of ours is as old at least as the New Testament because I can prove it from thence he will have it p. 5. no older than the disputes of Alexander and Athanasius which the Primitive Church knew nothing of But he barrs Quotations all along And therefore I must not prove it to be known to the Church before that time but leave it to the Judgment of Readers versed in Church-History whose word must pass in this case his or mine To his Question p. 6. Did the Iews ever hear of it before Christianity I think they had some Intimations of it as they had of the Resurrection But not so clearly either of them as to be generally understood of all nor so fully as in the New Testament And I think it was from those notices of it amongst the Jews that not only Plato derived much of his Philosophy but other Heathens also much of their Mythology though they did much disguise and sometimes Ridicule the notices they had thence as our Arian now doth that of the Trinity But this is not the business now before us Toward the close he is so kind as not to desire Arianism to be imposed on others any more than Trinitarianism on him p. 8. But neither is this business before us who are but Disputants not Law-makers But so constant he means to be to his cause that he will be content to be perswaded out of his Name with his Opinion I think there is reason why he should change his Opinion but as to the changing of his Name he may use his discretion But having said much that he might not be thought to desert it he thinks it advisable to drop the cause Which he may if he please and leave it to the Reader to judge of what is said I conclude as he doth It is impossible but offences will come but wo unto him through whom they come It were better for him that a Mill-stone c. Febr. 14. 1690 1. Yours c. I. Wallis Advertisement THE Life of Faith in Two Sermons to the University of Oxford at St. Mary's Christ-Church Oxford On Ianuary 6. 168frac34 and Iune 29. following By the same Author Dr. Iohn Wallis Sold by Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside

to Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And if it were there a Character of the Supreme God it is so here And if he think the simpler term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I AM to be more expressive of the Supreme God we have that also Emphatically given to Christ Rom. 9. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He which IS or the Being over all the Supreme Being To what further I had brought p. 30 31 32 33. to prove him to be the Supreme God the same God with the Father not a Middling or Titular God he makes no Reply which therefore stands as it was nor need I repeat it because it may be read there And it is so full and clear that I need add no more to it To what I had said of Ioh. 17. 3. To know Thee not Thee Only or Only Thee the Only True God He saith He hath Answered already And I have already Replied nor need I repeat it Their Argument from thence is just in this form The God of Abraham is the only true God therefore not the God of Isaac or the God of Iacob Yes say I the God of Isaac and the God of Israel is the same God but under another consideration So here God the Creator or God the Father is the Only true God therefore not God the Redeemer nor God the Sanctifier Yes God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier is the same God the only true God In like manner Ier. 16. 14 15. It shall no more be said The Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt But The Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Israel out of the North Country Now saith the First Commandment I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt Thou shalt have No Other God but Me Therefore not the God which brought them out of the North Country Yes say I even this God also Which is not another God but the same God though considered as the Author of another Benefit There be many other things both in his first and second Paper his Answer and his Vindication which lie very open to be Reflected on if it were worth the while But I think I have said enough already and he thinks too much that I have been too stiff too hard with him p. 8. which things I shall therefore omit to save my self and the Reader the labour But three things he calls me to account for omitting His Reproof of my false Idea of the Personality of God the Impossibility and Blasphemy of his Incarnation and of the Death of God p. 8. Now when I had proved the things to be True I thought that had been a sufficient Answer to his calling them False Impossible and Blasphemous For they are never the more so for his calling them so And I know not what further Answer he should expect unless he would have me say 'T is foul-mouthed Blasphemy in him to call it Blasphemy But if I should answer him all along at this rate according as his language deserves we should instead of Disputing fall to right down Railing which is the Character he was afraid of pag. 1. However to gratify him once more That by the Word Joh. 1. is meant Christ himself owns and That this Word was God from the beginning That he made the World and all things and that without him was not any thing made which was made and therefore say I Himself was not made unless our Arian would have us think He made Himself That this God is the Supreme God we have proved at large if he deny it to be proved we must leave it to the Reader to judge of the Arguments and this Word was made Flesh. I hope I need not tell him that to be made Flesh and to be Incarnate is all one for every one understands this who know that Caro carnis is Latin for Flesh. Therefore this is no Blasphemy Again That God in Christ suffered and died and that we are Redeemed by the Blood of God he had before told us p. 13 14. That this is the True God we have proved at large as was but now said Therefore the Death of God that is of him that was God as well as Man is no Blasphemy Yet again I do not take his Reproof as he calls it to be a Proof that my Idea of Personality is False And therefore I did not think it deserved an Answer having proved the thing before Yet I thought I had Answered it as much as it need to be answered when at my pag. 36. I told him nor doth he deny it that he seemed well pleased at his p. 20. that I owned the word Person to be but Metaphorical though at his p. 7. which is the Reproof he means he did not like it For tid after pag. 7. he acted the Socinian and did not come to act the Arian till afterward and then he seemed at p. 20. to like it well enough I shall yet add somewhat more upon that point which if it may not satisfy him who seems to intimate p. 8. that he will not be satisfied may give some further satisfaction to the Reader The word Person persona is originally a Latin word and doth not properly signify a Man so as that another person must needs imply another Man for then the word Homo would have served and they needed not have taken in the word Persona But rather one so Circumstantiated And the same Man if considered in other Circumstances considerably different is reputed another Person And that this is the true notion of the word Person appears by those noted Phrases personam induere personam deponere personam agere personam sustinere sustineo unus tres personas and many the like in approved Latin Authors Thus the same Man may at once sustain the Person of a King and of a Father if he be invested both with Regal and Paternal Authority Now because the King and the Father are for the most part not only different Persons but different Men also and the like in other cases hence it comes to pass that another Person is sometimes supposed to imply another Man but not always nor is that the proper sense of the word It is Englished in our Dictionaries by the state quality or condition whereby one Man differs from another and so as the Condition alters the Person alters though the Man be the same Our School-men of later Ages do sometimes apply the word Persona to Angels as well as Men but even that is but Metaphorical nor do I find that it ever was so used in approved Latin Authors either for Angels Genii or their Heathen Gods but for the different state or condition of Men only Now when the same Man doth thus sustain two Persons as that of a King and that of a Father he may as to one thing act as a King by his Regal Authority as to another thing as a