Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	beget_v	father_n	son_n	11,645	5	6.8465	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30629	Cavsa dei, or, An apology for God wherein the perpetuity of infernal torments is evidenced and divine both goodness and justice, that notwithstanding, defended : the nature of punishments in general, and of infernal ones in particular displayed : the evangelical righteousness explicated and setled : the divinity of the Gentiles both as to things to be believed, and things to be practised, adumbrated, and the wayes whereby it was communicated, plainly discover'd / by Richard Burthogge ...	Burthogge, Richard, 1638?-ca. 1700.	1675 (1675)	Wing B6149; ESTC R17327	142,397	594

should be able to inspire and principle it He concludes that God did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I affirm it is God that is the Cause But to leave a Point that is not questioned I proceed to entertain you with another that almost deservs to be as little I mean the Doctrine of the Trinity which though denyed by the Modern Iews as we may read in Buxtorfe and called into question by many that profess themselves Christians yet it was undoubtedly acknowledged by the Antient Jews as you may find demonstrated in Morney and was intimated in that Form of Benediction which Galatinus mentions nor was it unknown unto the Gentiles which is now my task to Demonstrate And here I must profess how much I owe to the Learned and Industrions Patricius for saving me a great part of the labour which otherwise I must have put my self to by collecting out of Zoroaster and Hermes such Authorities as manifestly prove the point in hand which partly because they may not be so generally known the Author not lying in every bodies way and partly also to render this Discourse the more Absolute I shall compendiously repeat here For to begin with Zoroaster he speaketh of a Paternal Monad or Unite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Paternal Monad is and as Patricius well observes a Paternal is a Generative or Principiant Monad and so is this for he begetteth or Principleth the number next in Nature and that is Two the Son and Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Monad is Protended which begetteth Two which Two he calls the Diad and affirmeth of them that they alwayes sit with the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But the Diad sits with him In the beginning was with God Now a Monad and a Diad or One and Two makes Three or a Monad protended into a Diad is a Trinity of which he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Trinity whereof the Unity is the Principle shineth out in all the world But you will say here is a kind of Trinity indeed but of what Relation to the Christian Ours is a Father a Son the Wisdom of the Father and an Holy Spirit through which He worketh all and so was Zoroaster's for the first Principle which he mostly calleth the Monad otherwhere he calls the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father Ravished himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Father perfected all things The Second Person which he somewhere calls the Fathers Power He calleth otherwhere the Fathers Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The self-begotten Mind of the Father considering the things which were made And for the third Person which as Patricius thinks he calls the Second Mind for the Self-Begotten is the First 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father Perfected all things and gave them to the Second Mind I say the third Principle is by him acknowledged to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The term of the Patèrnal Abysse and the Spring of Intellectual Beings To whom ascribing the Efficiency and Making of all things that are made he calls him the Maker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and the Maker c. So much for Zoroaster and there are as many and as pregnant Testimonies in Hermes as in Him all which it were too long to enumerate wherefore I shall only touch on some and those the Principal as that he speaks of God the Father and calls him the Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the Mind God the Father Which had Zoroaster also ever done I should have thought the Second Mind to be the Son and that the saying which I quoted even now that the Father perfected all things and gave them to the Second Mind were to be understood of the Son to whom the Scripture tells us the Father hath given all things All Power in Heaven and Earth is given unto me but Patricius is express that Zoroaster never calls the Father Mind though Hermes do Indeed in my Opinion Hermes speaketh more expressly of the Son and Spirit and more consonantly to the Sacred Scriptures than Zoroaster for he saith of the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the First Mind proceeds the Lucid Word the Son of God Which Word he often calls the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He is the Issue of the most Perfect the Perfect the Begotten the Natural Son By this Word he sayes the Father made the World 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Great Creator or Demiurgus the Father He made the whole World not with hands but by his Word And for the Spirit what clearer Testimony can be had of him than this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God the Father Male Female Life and Light did by the Word principle another Demiurgical Mind which being the God of Fire and Spirit produced or effected the World In which Assertion as in the Holy Scriptures the Third Principle is compared to Fire and Spirit he shall baptize you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Holy Spirit and Fire which Spirit Hermes also representeth as the Ligament and band of Union between the Father and Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and there is no other Union of this than the Spirit that containeth all things And it is this Spirit that he somewhere calls the Life for speaking of the Father and the Son he sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they are indistant from one another for the Life is the Union of these two and so the Scripture speaks which also calls the Spirit the Life But in regard the Works of Hermes and Zoroaster are esteemed by many but Pious frauds though perhaps it were no hard task to evidence them very Antient and to restore them to their former credit a piece of Justice that the Learned Patricius hath in part done them I shall therefore add some other Testimonies not obnoxious to such suspicious in confirmation both of them and of the truths I have design'd to evince Not that I will much insist on the Trinity of the Antient Orpheus or his Three Creators and Makers of the World which some say he calls Phanes Uranos and Chronos concerning which you may peruse Reuchlin and Morney nor on the Testimonies of the Sibyls which yet are very plain and express nor on the three Kings of Plato neither under that Notion of which Patricius whom I have so often mentioned speaketh or on this that Plato in Gorgias if you will believe the Learned Du port teacheth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 autorem scil fuisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Homer was Author of the Trine subsistence of the Demiurgical Principles The first I will insist upon is that of the Pythagoreans who as Aristotle noteth in his Book de coelo affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the Universe and all things in it are terminated by three And it was as Plutarch tells us one of the Placits of Pythagoras Diis superis impari numero sacrificare inferis

pari That the number of the Sacrifices offered to the Celestial Gods should be Odd but to the Infernal Even Now we know Pythagoras had been initiated in Aegypt into the Mysteries of Hermes and in Chaldaea into those of Zoroaster and not unlikely in honour of the Doctrine of the Trinity wherein he was instructed he might put this Honorary Mark upon the Ternary number and Vogue it Sacred and Divine which also others did as well before as after him So Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are divided three manner of wayes So Theocritus Ter libo terque haec pronuncio mystica verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Virgil Numero Deus impare gaudet So Ovid Et digitis tria thura tribus sub limine ponit And how inefragable a Testimony of the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity that it was not utterly concealed and hid from the Antients is this of Aristotle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherefore receiving it from Nature as a Law of her establishment we are wont to use this Number viz. the Ternary in the Solemn Worship of the Gods And how could this Usage so obtain so Universally as to be thought a Sanction Law and Ordinance of Nature but that it was received by Tradition from the first and common Parents and so diffused all over So little reason had Cardinal Bassarion to deride Trapezontius But not to importune you with all that might be said I will only offer one consideration more to make it plain which is that the Antient Roman Pontifs who 't is likely might receive the custom from Pythagoras were in their Imprecations their Vota or Solemn Invocations of Divine Goodness and Clemency wont to hold Three fingers up Erect the other two depressed on the Palms of their hands as who would say imploring from the blessed Trinity the Father Son and Holy Ghost that good and blessing they Desired That this was an Antient Custom among the Romans and as Galatinus saith the High-Priest among the Iews when he pronounc'd within the Sanctuary the Nomen Tetragrammaton or name Iehovah did the like is proved by the learned Reuchlin who affirmeth that for this Reason their Imprecations Vows or Blessings were called Indigitaments So Imprecari in Festus Pompeius is indigitari which word though by occasion of the Ignorance of Persons uninitiated in the Mysteries it were read and now is written IN INDIGITARI yet antiently and in the Pontifs Books it was not so but TRI-DIGITARI thus III DIGITARI as they were wont to write One that had been thrice Consul III COSS. You may see more of this in Reuchlin Again and what among the Learned is more discoursed of than the Trinity of Plato who in his Timaeus mentions One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 An Eternal Being Ingenite whom he afterwards calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Maker and Father of this Universe and who is this but God the Father Almighty Then he mentions a Begotten God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For all these Reasons did He beget this Blessed God By which truly I think he understood not the Intelligible World or that Idea and exemplar of the sensible extant in the mind of God from all Eternity which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Eternal Form or Model but this sensible one or Nature which none can once question that but readeth what he further saith of this Begotten God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such indeed was the Eternal Ratiocination of God about the Future God which he made smooth and Equable on every side and from the middle rising up evenly a Body Perfect and absolute composed of absolute and Perfect Ones This is Plato his Begotten-God or the Son of God not that Intelligible World existent in the mind of God but the Sensible produced by it and of the same mind is Timaeus Locrus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God made this World c. which afterwards he calls the Son of God or the Begotten-God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God willing to beget a most fair and beautiful Off-spring produced this Begotten-God the World But to Return to Plato we have him mentioning another Principle which he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Soul for he supposeth that the sensible World is an Animal or living Creature and that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Principle that doth enliven and animate it of which he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But he Begot the Soul of the World a thing superiour to and before the Body both in Generation and in Vertue and set it over it as a Lady to Rule and Govern it And of this he speaketh in his tenth Book of Laws wherein he seems to make it to be God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is manifest that the Best soul God must be affirmed to superintend the whole Universe and to act and rule it in that way and method which we have mentioned So near this Great Truth was Plato and had he acquiesced in the General account thereof which it seems he had received from the Antients with the Tradition of the 〈◊〉 or Creation of the World which I am the apter to believe he did because as Moses hints a Trinity in His Genesis whence the Evangelist Iohn derives his so doth Plato in Timaeus or the Heathen Genesis I say had not Plato been too curious to pry into a Mysterie too hard for him to comprehend but had acquisced in the General account received he might have passed for a very Good and Orthodox believer of it For what is more agreeable to Christian Doctrine than that there is a Father without Beginning that there is a Blessed Begotten-God as who would say the Son and that there is a Soul or Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son Who doth inspire all the Motions in the whole Universe and Who doth govern them all But the Gloss and Comment of Plato as may be inferred from what I have Discoursed of it already out of his Timaeus is not as Orthodox and Christian as the text it self and no wonder when among Christians and in the advantage of the Gospel Light and Dispensation there is so little Understanding of the Mysterie and that little so imperfect that even most of us may have as much Reason to correct the Boldness Presumption Temerity of most of our pretending and splendid Talk upon it and explications of it as Plato had to correct his which yet he piously did We may as well say in this matter when we have said the most we can and the best as he sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but how rashly and inconsiderately do we speak in this matter which is so much above us By this it seems that what he wrote by way of explication of the Trinity was not so much what he believed of it Himself but what the People of whose capacity he had consideration and respect could bear For however in Timaeus