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
A44701	A view of that part of the late considerations addrest to H.H. about the Trinity which concerns the sober enquiry, on that subject : in a letter to the former friend.	Howe, John, 1630-1705.	1695 (1695)	Wing H3047; ESTC R39277	33,067	106

distinction so as to be really and truly One thing If they cannot I would know why i. e. Why they cannot as well or much rather than the Soul and Body so as to be one entire Man If they can such a created Union is acknowledged possible which is all that part of our Discourse contends for And 't is enough for our present purpose for this will be an Union of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of things of the same nature the Soul and Body are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. things of very different Natures And it sufficiently prepared our way as was intended to advance further and add That if such a created or made Union be possible it cannot be understood why a like uncreated or unmade Union should be thought impossible And if it be possible the noisy Clamour that a Trinity in the Godhead is impossible or that it will infer Tritheism must cease and be husht into everlasting silence Or if it shall still be resolved to be kept up to carry on the begun Humour can only serve to fright Children or unthinking People but can never be made articulate enough to have any signification with Men of sense For when the Father is acknowledg'd on all hands to be the Original or Fountain-Being existing necessarily and eternally of himself the Son existing by eternal Promanation necessarily of and from and in the Father the Holy Ghost of and in them both These because they all exist necessarily cannot but be each of them God and because they exist in necessary natural eternal Union cannot but be one God And he that shall attempt to make Tritheism of this will sooner prove himself not the third part of a wise Man than from hence prove three Gods We may truly and fitly say the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God But that form of Speech the Father is a God the Son is a God the Holy Ghost is a God I think unjustifiable The former way of speaking well agrees with the Homoousiotes of the Deity the Substance whereof is congenerous You may fitly say of three drops of the same Water they are each of them Water But if you should say they are each of them a Water one would understand you to mean they were all drops of so many different sorts of Water I do upon the whole judg the Substance or Essence of the three Hypostases to be as perfectly One as can possibly consist with the emanation of some from other of them But now next In his way to his second Topick of Argumentation he is guilty of a strange sort of omission i. e. he twice over says he will omit what he greatly insists upon as a mighty matter that this meaning the Enquirer's Hypothesis is Heresy among those of his own Party whether they be the nominal or the real Trinitarians who all agree That each of the Divine Persons is perfect God in the most adequate and perfect sense and this too as such Person is considered sejunctly or as the Athanasian Creed speaks by himself c. To this I only say in the first place that if this weigh any thing it ought in reason to be as heavy upon him as me for I believe the same People that will call this account of the Trinity Heresy will call his denial of it Heresy much more But if he be not concern'd at that I am the more obliged to him that he hath a kinder concern for me than himself And if he really have let it ease his mind to know that let the Opinion be Heresy never so much I for my part am however resolv'd to be no Heretick as he and they may well enough see by the whole tenour of that Discourse But yet I humbly crave leave to differ from him in this as well as in greater Matters I am apt enough indeed to think that the Nominal Trinitarians will judg the Opinion of the Real Trinitarians to want Truth and the Real will perhaps more truly judg theirs to want Sense But neither the one nor the other will say that each of the Divine Persons is perfect God in the most adequate and perfect sense For both cannot but agree that God in the most adequate and perfect sense includes Father Son and Holy Ghost but they will none of them say that each or any of the Persons is Father Son and Holy Ghost And I am very confident he that shall so represent them will betray them by it into such inconveniencies and so much against their mind and intent that if ever they did trust him as I believe they never did this Considerator to express their sense for them they never will do it more As for Athanasius himself whose Creed he mentions tho he often speaks of an equality of the Persons in point of Godhead yet he also often Tom. 2. p. 576. most expresly excepts the Differences which I take to be very important of being unbegotten begotten and proceeding And which is a Difference with a Witness in his Questions and Answers He asks how many Causes are there in God Q. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and answers One only and that is the Father And then asks Q. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How many effects or things caused And answers two the Son and the Spirit And adds The Father is call'd a Cause because he begets the Son and sends out the Spirit The Son and Spirit are said to be caused because the Son is begotten and doth not beget the Spirit is sent forth and doth not send Now can he be thought all this while to mean an absolute equality And whereas he uses the Term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which our Author renders sejunctly or by himself that he may make it seem opposite to what is said by the Enquirer pag. 50. I for my part say as Athanasius doth that each of these Persons is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singly God and Lord but I say not as he doth not and he denies what the Sober Enquiry denies in the mentioned place That any one of the Persons sejunctly is all that is signify'd by the Name of God which words this Author slily leaves out for what purpose he best knows But his purpose be it what it will can no longer be served by it than till the Reader shall take the pains to cast back his Eye upon pag. 50. of the Sober Enquiry And I must here put the Considerator in mind of what I will not suppose him ignorant but inadvertent only at this time That one may be sejoin'd or abstracted from another two ways or by a twofold abstraction precisive or negative That we may truly say of the Father Son or Holy Ghost that the One of them is or is not God abstracting from both the other according as you differently abstract If you abstract any one of the Persons from both the other by precisive abstraction and each of them is God or Lord