Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	call_v	father_n	son_n	22,994	5	6.0917	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A52603	An accurate examination of the principal texts usually alledged for the divinity of our Saviour and for the satisfaction by him made to the justice of God, for the sins of men : occasioned by a book of Mr. L. Milbourn, called Mysteries (in religion) vindicated.	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.	1692 (1692)	Wing N1502A; ESTC R225859	84,564	68

the objected Text In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit were not spoke by our Saviour but have been added to the Gospel of St. Matthew from the common Form and Practice of the Church in administring Baptism as 't is certain that these words For thine is the Kingdom the Power and the Glory for ever have been added to the Lord's-Prayer in the same Gospel of St. Matthew from the Greek Liturgies or Forms of Common-Prayer These Criticks observe that Cardinal Bellarmine is very angry with the Unitarians who maintained the Dispute at Alba because they said those words were added to the Bible but only since the Nicene Council had corrupted the Faith all Antiquity saith the Cardinal is witness against them that those words were always read in the Gospel of St. Matthew But the Learned Cardinal does not produce one Testimony in Confirmation of what he says tho he uses to be very free in his Quotations of Fathers and ancient Ecclesiastical Historians In short we have nothing but Cardinal Bellarmine's word for it that the Ancients did read the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Whereas some pretend to find these words cited by St. Ignatius as spoken by our Saviour in the Epistle of the said Ignatius to the Philippians that Epistle is all of it a meer Forgery by Confession of all the Criticks who have publish'd the Works of Ignatius or have written Notes upon them They observe that Epistle is never quoted by any of the Ancients nor was heard of in the World before Ado Viennensis who flourish'd about the Year 859. Eusebius the famous Ecclesiastical Historian quotes the objected Text nine times in several parts of his Works but never with the words In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost he reads thus Teach all Nations in my Name instructing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you The constant Practice of the ancient Unitarians was to baptize only in the Name of the Lord Christ and therefore it was ordered by the Councils of Nice and Laodicea that the Paulinists i. e. the Unitarians who came over to the Church should be re-baptized Whether they or the Catholick Church so called are in the right concerning the Form of Baptism is best determined from the Practice of the Apostles for we cannot well suppose that if the Form prescribed by our Saviour himself was In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that the Apostles would depart from that Form or that 't was lawful for them so to do But where-ever there is mention in Scripture-History of the Administration of Baptism either by the Apostles or by their Order the Form of such Baptism was only In the Name of the Lord Christ or Vnto the Lord Christ Acts 2.38 Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus The same thing is said at Acts 8.16 Acts 10.48 Acts 19.5 Rom. 6.3 Gal. 3.27 1 Cor. 1.13 Add to this that besides the School-men and other Moderns St. Basil St. Hilary and St. Ambrose do expresly own that the Apostles administred Baptism only in the Name of the Lord Jesus Finally the other Evangelists mention the Institution of Baptism by our Saviour after his Resurrection but they say not that he appointed it to be administred In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which 't is not likely they would have omitted if our Saviour had injoined that Form of performing the Rite of Baptism Nay it should seem by what St. Luke says that the Form of Baptism appointed by our Saviour was only in his Christ's Name not in the Name of more Persons Luke 24.46 47. Jesus said unto them that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preached in his Name unto all Nations Here Remission of Sins seems to be no other thing but Baptism administred in Christ's Name as a sign of the Remission of Sins and therefore it is that elsewhere instead of Repentance and Remission of Sins the holy Writers say Repentance and Baptism so St. Peter speaks Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus To this effect speak the forementioned Criticks and from hence they infer that we cannot make use of this Text to warrant the Church's Form of Baptism In the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit much less to prove that the two latter are God or Gods equal with the Father I desire and resolve Sir to argue this great Question concerning the Divinity of our Saviour or whether there is more than one Divine Person with all possible sincerity Therefore I will ingenuously own to you that tho the before-mentioned Exceptions to this Text are not without their weight yet I have observed divers things which make me to think that this Text is a genuine part of Scripture was spoken by our Saviour and written by St. Matthew First 'T is found in all the Copies of the Bible both Printed and Manuscript and in all the ancient Translations which cannot be said of any other Text which is rejected by us or by our Opposers all the doubtful and suspected Texts are wanting in divers Copies of the Original Greek and of the Ancient Translations I conceive we ought not to argue against the Truth of any Text from only Negative Proofs or from some possible Interpretations of other Texts tho those Texts are perhaps many It ought to be shown that either Church-Historians or Fathers have said that such Text was not read or was otherways read in the Copies of their Times Secondly To the Allegations out of the Acts of the Apostles and some Epistles of St. Paul it may be answered That those Texts mention only the Name of the Lord Jesus and not the other two Names the Father and the Holy Ghost because by the Name of the Lord Jesus and unto the Lord Jesus they mean to the Profession of the Lord Jesus and of the Doctrine by him taught without at all intending to express by those words the Form of Baptism which every one knew to be In the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost I like this Interpretation because when St. Paul asked some Disciples at Ephesus whethey they had yet received the Holy Ghost and they had answered that they had not heard whether there was an Holy Ghost He replies Vnto what then were ye baptized Acts 19.3 This Reply of the Apostle seems to suppose that if they were baptized with Christian Baptism and not only with the Baptism of John they must needs have heard of the Holy Ghost because the Form was in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Thirdly The ancient Unitarians baptized only in the Name of the Lord Christ I think 't is grounded only on the Report of Pope Innocent I. who might not understand their Discipline or

designedly misreport it and besides his Epistles are supposed to be forged by most learned Men because they make mention of Rites and Persons that were not in Being in Innocent's time Lastly Whereas the Unitarians at Alba said that this Text has been added to St. Matthew since the first Nicene Council tho Cardinal Bellarmine has only denied this he might most easily have proved the contrary For Tertullian who flourish'd above 120 Years before the Nicene Council often quotes this Text. In his Book concerning Baptism Chap. 13. he saith The Law of baptizing is imposed and the Form prescribed Go saith he teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit And again in his Book against Praxeas Chap. 26. After his Resurrection he commanded that they should baptize to the Father Son and Holy Ghost not to one of them only It is true none of the Ante-Nicene Fathers do ever alledg this Form of Baptism to prove the Divinity of the Son or Holy Spirit but the reason of that was because tho they allowed that the Son might be called God on account of his perfect Conjunction by Love Unity of Will and Subjection with the Father who only is true God yet they thought otherwise of the Holy Ghost some of them understanding him to be only the Energy or Power of God others that he was a Creature of the Son and only the chief of the ministring Spirits or Angels But to return to our Opposer He saith We are baptized alike and equally to the Father Son and Spirit therefore the two latter are equal in all respects to the former or are God no less than he they are mentioned together in this Text without any Note of Dignity or Superiority in one more than in another which were of dangerous Consequence and apt to lead Men into Error if only one of these is true God But 1. 'T is not true that here is no Note of Distinction or Superiority for the words at length are these All Power is given to me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit I would know of our Opposer what greater Distinction could be made than our Saviour here makes between God and himself doth he not here expresly profess and own that his Power is given to him that he hath received it from the Liberality of another and not from himself Can any one be said to give Power to himself And the Apostle hath told us how we are to understand it that all Power is given to the Lord Christ in these words to the Ephesians God gave to him to be Head over all things to the Church Ephes 1.22 As who should say He is over all things and hath all Power with respect to the Church 't is He and He only that must prescribe her standing Laws and Rites and appoint by what Persons and what Means the Church shall be first gathered and then preserved 2. But supposing now there had been no Note of Superiority here made or Distinction of Dignity and Power I see not what could be truly inferred from thence to the advantage of our Author's Cause For when God is joined in the same form of Speech with any others sure that needs not to be expressed which all Men know and acknowledg even God's Superiority above all others 1 Chron. 29.20 The Congregation bowed their Heads and worshipped the Lord and the King 1 Tim. 5.21 I charge thee before God the Lord Jesus Christ and the Elect Angels Rev. 22.17 The Spirit and the Bride say Come Will our Author say upon these Texts and upon that other parallel Text 1 Sam. 12.18 All the People greatly feared the Lord and Samuel Will he say that Samuel and David the Angels and the Bride i. e. the Church are equal with God or with the Spirit because they are mentioned together without any Note of Distinction or of Dignity and Superiority in one more than in the other The Acts of Religion mentioned in those Texts are no less solemn or important than Baptism is fearing the Lord worshipping the Lord adjuring by the Lord are the very highest Acts of Devotion and Religion yet even in them God is joined with Creatures without any Mark of Distinction or Superiority because as I said when God is joined with any others there is no need of such Note or Mark. Therefore the more learned of our Opposers especially the Ancients of the first 400 Years do not insist on this Text of St. Matthew to prove the Divinity or Personality of the Son or Spirit by these words In the Name of the Father Son and Spirit they understand only to the Profession and to the Obedience of the Father Son and Spirit According to these Criticks the Sense of the objected Text is only this Baptize the Nations into the Profession and Obedience of the Father or God and of Jesus Christ whom the Father hath commanded us to hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us and of the other Teacher even the Spirit or Inspiration of God by which he advises and comforts the Faithful in all extraordinary Exigences Our Author may please to consult Mr. Pool's Collections on this Text where he will see divers such Interpretations as this all of them by the Criticks of his own Party and all of them consistent with the Vnity of God as 't is held by the Socinians Therefore all those Interpreters and Criticks must be understood as giving up to us this Text. CHAP. V. On the first Verses of St. John's Gospel OUR Author's next Effort is from that well-known Context even the first Verses of St. John's Gospel The Clauses by him urged are these In the Beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God All things were made by Him namely by the WORD and without Him was not any thing made that was made He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not Others have added to these And the WORD was made Flesh and dwelt among us Also that Testimony of the Baptist He that cometh after me is preferred before me for He was before me Our Author endeavours to Ridicule the common Socinian Interpretation of these Verses by Misrepresenting it and by concealing the remarkable and probable Proofs which the Socinians add to every Clause of their Interpretation He recites also the Explication of this Context by Dr. Hammond which he saith is a full Explication and the Sense of the Catholic Church Indeed Dr. Hammond has given us the Belief of the Catholic Church so called and has set it down as the Sense of this Context of St. John but that 's the very thing in question whether that Belief be the Sense of these Verses Our present Opposer has performed so Meanly in the long Discourse he has made on this Proem of St. John's Gospel

sort of People called Schismaticks and Hereticks who having free and discerning Minds stout and brave Souls finding themselves in some Particulars either cheated or wronged by the strongest side they maintain tho a dangerous and bazardous yet a generous and perpetual War for the Natural Liberties of Mankind in Matters of Conscience and Religion They assert by all possible and honest means the Kingdom of God that is they admit of no Lords over Conscience but only God nor any Law of Faith of Worship or Manners but only God's Word no Canons or Articles no humanly devised Creeds or Catechisms nothing but God's Word the naked Gospel without any Interpretations or Interpreters but only Reason and Good Sense These have the luck sometimes to baffle Mother-Church and to bear up against all her Indignation But this Sir shall serve in Answer to your Dedication and Preface only let me advise you as you would come off with more Credit and do more Good in the Parish of Great St. Hellens than you did at Great Yarmouth that you carry it with more Modesty and Respect to all the Inhabitants and to forbear such smutty Lampoons as you made upon that Town What follows is an Answer to your Book and I address it to Friend T. F. An Accurate EXAMINATION of the principal Texts usually alledged for the Divinity of our Saviour and for the Satisfaction by him made to the Justice of God for the Sins of Men Occasioned by a Book of Mr. Luke Milbourn called Mysteries in Religion vindicated To T. F. CHAP. I. Containing an accurate Examination of 1 Tim. 3.16 SIR YOUR particular Friend Mr. Milb has begun his Attack on Socinianism with a Text of St. Paul in the Explication and Vindication of which he wastes no fewer than 82 Pages The Text is this Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifest in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory 1 Tim. 3.16 He saith hereupon that indeed some Translators read here Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH which Mystery was manifested by Flesh that is the Law was given by Angels but the Gospel by the Ministry of Men even by Jesus Christ and his Apostles called Flesh here in opposition to Angels who are Spirit and because Flesh is the usual Scripture-Term for Man but all the Greek Copies he saith agree in reading this Text as we read it in our English Bibles as also does the famous Manuscript in the King of England's Library which is about 1300 Years old And if saith he the Providence of God as the Socinians contend is concerned to preserve his own holy Word from Corruptions and Falsifications 't is reasonable to think such Providence has been exercised rather about the Original Greek than about Translations But neither saith he do all the old Translations read here as the Socinians do for the Arabick reads as we do GOD was manifested in the Flesh Further more Macedonius to whom the Socinians impute the Corruption of this Text was too late in time for he lived in the Year 512. to attempt an Innovation in Scripture And besides he could have no design in so doing because he had no peculiar Opinions about our Saviour Finally the word God in the first Clause of this Verse makes that Clause to accord with all that follow it for all of them together will make this most proper Sense The Eternal Son of God God equal with his Father and Creator of the World took upon him and was manifested in our weak and passible Nature being incarnate in the Man Christ Jesus He was justified to be God notwithstanding his mean outward Appearance by divers glorious Actions and Miracles done on that behalf by the Holy Spirit He was seen i. e. known by Angels to be the Eternal Son of God and God thô covered with the Veil of Flesh He was preached as such by the Apostles to the Gentiles was believed on generally in the World where-ever they came and after his Resurrection He was received up into the Glories of Heaven But if saith our Author we read here as the Socinians do Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh that is by Men what Sense shall we make of the other Clauses Will it be Sense to say The Mystery of Godliness the Gospel was seen by Angels Or will it be true that it was received up into the Glory of Heaven The Socinians indeed here answer That instead of these words received up into Glory it should have been said by our Translators was gloriously extolled was magnified and lifted up but this saith our Author is false for on the contrary the Gospel was despised and derided both by Jews and Gentiles This is the Sum and Force of what he has transcribed out of Authors in behalf of his Opinion from the words of this Text. He might if he had pleased have given us too the full and solid Answer made by the Socinians to these Pretences of his Party for I see he has quoted the Books in which those Answers are to be found but that was not the way he thought to mend his Fortunes in the World which is what he aims at and the cause of his writing his Book I will briefly evince these two things 1. This Text of St. Paul has been falsified by those who affirm the Ante-mundan Existence and Divinity of our Saviour 2. This Corruption has been so unskilfully performed that the Attempt serves only to betray their Unfaithfulness and Partiality but does not a whit avail their Cause 1. This Text has been most certainly falsified by substitution of the word God instead of Which WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh The first time I meet with this Text read with the word God among the Antients is in the Acts of the first Council of Nice a Council of next Authority to the Scriptures themselves in the Opinion of our Opposers In this Council a Person repeated the words of St. Paul as they are now read by Trinitarians God was manifested in Flesh the Person who made this Mistake probably from some Marginal Note where he found the word God put as an Explanation of the word Which in the Text was answered by Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem that he mistook the reading for St. Paul's words are Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH was manifested by Flesh Mr. Milbourn will not say that the Authors of the Old Translations the Latin Syriac and Armenian were Unitarians be sure St. Jerom Author of the Latin was a bigotted Trinitarian yet they and he read with the Nicene Council WHICH was manifested by Flesh not GOD was manifested in Flesh I appeal to any Man of ordinary sense whether he can think those Translators and Fathers would have corrupted the Bible in favour and to the advantage of their Adversaries the Unitarians by saying not GOD but WHICH was manifested by Flesh