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
A62253	An answer to an anonimous pamphleteer, who impugns the doctrine contain'd in St. Athanasius his creed by J. Savage Gent.	Savage, J. (John), 1645-1721.	1690 (1690)	Wing S767; ESTC R8106	11,495	20

the third is a Person but these Propositions being all affirmative cannot be verify'd but by applying that generical term a Person to different and distinct individuums for an affirmative Proposition cannot be true except there be an Identity between the Subject and the Predicate ex parte objecti now the Filiation is a singular individuation which cannot be identify'd with any other Personality therefore the Propositions import a multiplicity of Persons as the three former do import a singularity of the Deity Hence it is apparent that we cannot say yet not three Persons but one Person as we say yet not three Gods but one God What follows in the Author is meer stuff and deserves no further answer for he goes upon a false supposition which no Orthodox Christian will admit namely that there are two sorts of true Gods three personal Gods and besides one Essential God whereas the Christian Faith never admitted but one true God who by his Omnipotence Created this inferiour and Superiour World and by his infinite Prudence and Providence preserveth and Governeth all things wherefore we deny the supposition as false and Heretical as will be obvious to any who considers what hath been already said in this Treatise especially in the first and third Observation But this great Oracle of the Deists goes on upon the subsequent passages of this Creed and particularly upon these words The Son is of the Father alone not Made nor Created but Begotten to which he answers That if the Creed-maker had spoke here of the Creation of the Son by Divine Power on the Virgin Mary it would have been true that the Son is neither Made nor Created but Begotten but then the first part of the Article would be false that the Son is of the Father alone for he that has a Father and a Mother is of Both. But since he speaks of the pretended Eternal Generation the latter part of the Article is false and inconsistent with the first part of it The meer explanation of the terms Made Created and Begotten will evacuate this difficulty That which is Made or Created proceeds from the Maker or Creator as an Effect from its Cause by the mediation of a real action or casualty between the cause and the effect that which is begotten is produced by Generation but how shall we distinguish Generation from the production of the Effect from its Cause I answer that according to the known definition admitted and approved of in the Schools of Philosophers and Divines Generation is Origo viventis a vivente a principio conjuncto in Similitudinem naturae Now to admit a real Action or Causality between the Father and the Son in the Eternal Generation of the Divine Word were to make a change in the Divine Essence ad intra of that immutable God that can admit of no change Whence it unavoidably follows that the Eternal Son of God is neither Made nor Created but how then can we make it appear that he is Begotten I answer because he is produced by Generation according to the definition given for he is produced by the Divine Understanding as related to all Creatures possible by a clear and Conspicuous representation but especially a lively Image of all the Perfections of the Divinity which makes him to be in similitudinem naturae as I shall more largely explicate and prove in the Treatise of the Trinity which I intend shortly to bring to light But to talk of a Mother as this Author doth is an impertinent indignity offer'd to the Divine Word and savours too much of the mean thoughts of the ignorant Vulgar Next in the Athanasian Creed follows that the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither Made nor Created nor Begotten but Proceeding Here this Deist Cavils first with the Holy Ghost's proceeding from the Son contrary to the Tenet of the Greek Church for which he cites that Text of Scripture Iohn 15.26 When the Comforter is come which I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedth from the Father he shall testify of me Doth this Text prove that the Holy Ghost doth not proceed from the Son it only asserts that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father which we all grant but whether or no it proceedeth also from the Son it doth not determine but I shall prove this at large in my Treatise of the Trinity Secondly he says subjoyns this Author that the Holy Ghost is not begotten but proceeding yet he alledgeth that it is confessed by the most Learned Trinitarians that Begotten and Proceeding differ nothing at all But I would fain know who those Learned Trinitarians are for it is well known that the second Person of the Trinity therefore is Begotten because he is produced by the Understanding which represents the Deity and the Creatures possible so that by the internal vertue of his production he is intended to be in similitudinem whence he is called the Divine Word naturae whereas the Holy Ghost proceeds by the Will which is no representative power but he proceeds by an act of Love of the same Divinity who doth not see that these two are far different from each other and this clearly solves that frivolous Discourse which follows that in counting right we should say two Fathers two Sons and three Holy Ghosts or Spirits for which saying there is no ground at all as appears by the difference given between Begotten and Proceeding Next in the Creed follows None is afore or after other none greater or less than another Yet the Son himself saith John 14.28 the Father is greater than I. I answer That the Son says not this of his Divinity but being Hypostically united to flesh he spoke it when he was in flesh of his Humanity none is afore or after other I ask says this Deist whether the Son doth not as he is a Son derive both life and Godhead from the Father I answer affirmatively But says he if the Father gave to the Son Life and Godhead he must have both before he could communicate or give either of them to the Son I answer All this argues only prioritatem originis for as much as the Father was the Origine of all that is in the Son but all was done from Eternity so there could be no prioritas temporis for before Eternity there was no time neither could there be any prioritas naturae such as there is in a Cause in respect of his Effect since the Father was not the Cause and the Son the Effect for all Causes produce their Effects by the Mediation of an Action whereof the Cause is the Origine and the Effect is the term which receives the action and subjects it in it self as the Philosophers teach Now the Eternal Son of God was produced by an act of the Divine Understanding which doth not operate by acts distinct from it self as Men and Angels do but all acts of the Divine Intellect