Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	faith_n	holy_a	love_n	6,945	5	5.0558	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A25775	A short history of Valentinus Gentilis, the tritheist tryed, condemned, and put to death by the Protestant reformed city and church of Bern in Switzerland, for asserting the three divine persons of the Trinity, to be [three distinct, eternal spirits, &c.] / wrote in Latin, by Benedictus Aretius, a divine of that church, and now translated into English for the use of Dr. Sherlock ...; Valentini Gentilis justo capitis supplicio affecti brevis historia. English	Aretius, Benedictus, d. 1574.; South, Robert, 1634-1716.	1696 (1696)	Wing A3629; ESTC R6675	62,571	156

But afterwards he adds by way of Explication therefore there are not three Fathers nor three Sons nor three Holy Ghosts but one Father and one Son and one Holy Ghost and proves this Trinity from the Institution of Baptism in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost not into any one that had three Names nor yet into three that were made Men but into three of the same Majesty for there is one only who was made Man neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost but only the Son who was not so by estimation or in appearance only but in truth and reality for the Word was made Flesh and dwelt therein So that here St. Ignatius does plainly oppose the Patripassians and such like Hereticks but does not in the least favour or patronize Gentilis his Notion In the very same Epistle disputing against the Patripassians he writes thus And again How doth it appear unto you that Christ was not Born of the Virgin Mary but that it was he the Father who is God above all and Almighty Who then was it that sent him Tell me who was he that rul'd over him Whom did he obey or whose Law did he fulfill You who would have him yield to no one's Command or Power do separate Christ from him that begat him you make the Unbegotten to have been Begotten and him that was without Beginning to have been nailed to the Cross. Which is all said by him in direct opposition to the Patripassians or Sabellians In the same Epistle he brings in Christ disputing against the Devil I know says he and have known One only God whom I do not refuse to Obey but thou hast prov'd an Apostate and Rebel to him for I am not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. contrary to God but I acknowledge his Soveraignty and do not refuse to Worship him whom I know to have been the Author and Lord of my Nativity and only Preserver for I live in and through the Father c. But these are the Words of Christ Incarnate who owns himself in respect of his Humanity to be inferior to the Father For if these Words were to be understood with respect to the Divine Nature how could Christ be said to live propter Patrem or rather Per. seeing he as God is Self-existent or hath life in himself and power to lay it down In his Epistle to the Philadelphians he Exhorts them to Union and draws his Arguments from the Unity of the Flesh and Blood of Christ from the Mystical Union of the Bread and Wine and likewise from the Unity of the Father and the Son His words are these Because there is one Father Unbegotten and one only Begotten Son God the Word and Man and one Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth also one Gospel one Faith one Baptism and one Church By which words he only urges them to Unity and Concord in the Church Hence he makes this conclusion Therefore it behoov'd them as a chosen People a Royal Priesthood and an Holy Nation to be perfected in Love and Concord To the same purpose is what he says in this Epistle against Ebion who made Christ a meer Man and therefore he shews That Christ was God begotten of the Father which contains no absurdity in it unless violently wrested by a faithless Exposition In his Epistle to Polycarp Here says he is the Race here the Crown wait for Christ the Son of God who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Time and yet Born in Time Thus Damascene and others call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignatius adds That as God he was Impassible not capable of Suffering but that as Man he was Passible and did suffer for our sakes And what can Gentilis say against this Will he say that Christ as God did suffer And that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as such had properly Flesh and Blood St. Ignatius is of another mind and doth plainly and Orthodoxely distinguish the two Natures under or in the one Person of Christ. The one of which namely the Divine is properly and per se Impassible but the other viz. the Human is properly Passible Gentilis confounds these Proprieties of the two Natures and affirms that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had himself all these Affections Christ indeed has properly Flesh and Bones and Blood being truly and properly Incarnate But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Divine Nature in Christ has no such properly in it self In his Epistle to the Antiochians he says That we ought not to deny Christ under pretence of asserting One God and brings several Testimonies out of Scripture as Deut. 6. Isai. 44. Gen. 1. 17. which do all speak of One God and at the same time express different Persons as when Moses saith The Lord rain'd fire and brimstone from the Lord and yet in other places saith There is but One God which Unity doth not exclude the Son and Holy Ghost whom he on the contrary includes with the Father in the Unity of the Godhead So that a Trinity of Persons doth not at all interfere with the Unity of Essence And at the end of that Epistle he truly distinguishes the Properties of the Persons May he protect and defend you says he who is the Only unbegotten God speaking of the Father through him who was begotten before all Ages i. e. Through the Son whose property it is to be begotten But here Gentilis objects the last clause of this Epistle viz. Valete Deo Christo as if these were different and the Father alone was call'd God but Christ Dominus or Lord so as to be excluded from the communion or fellowship of the only God In his Epistle to the Ephesians he commends them for being one Body and adds this Argument for their Union for says he there is one Lord one Faith one Baptism one God and Father of us all But it is not Ignatius's Opinion that the Father was the Only one God no more doth it appear from the following sentence of his Medicus noster est Solus verus Deus Deus ingenitus For if these Epithets were to be understood of the Father only the Son would not then be our Physician But St. Ignatius distinguishes the Persons here only by their Proprieties for a little after he calls Christ our Physician impassible in a passible Body CHAP. XV. Concerning the Iudgment of Tertullian TErtullian without doubt is to be read with a great deal of caution as Gentilis himself confesses and therefore it is the easier for him either to pass by and reject his Authority as he pleases or else to extol and commend it as occasion serves But Tertullian as in many other places so particularly in his Book against Praxeas is very Orthodox where he expresly says of the Persons in the Trinity that numerum sine divisione patiuntur They allow of number without division And afterwards Ubique teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohoerentibus I do always acknowledge one

〈◊〉 by uttering of a word do make it which yet is not of our own Substance but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of another Nature but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begotten of God is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Substance And to the same purpose he says afterwards that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 begotten of the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by his Energy and Will is true God but he is not the true God if he is begotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by dividing or parting of his Substance or Essence since things that are so divided remain not the same they were before division From whence 't is as clear as the Sun that Iustin's Opinion was that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of the very same Substance with the Father that begat him Again we may gather that the Son always was with the Father from these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Begotten was always with the Father before the Creation of all things and with him did the Father converse from all Eternity Therefore there was always a Father and always a Son and they always were are and will be One God Or else 't would be improper to say the Word was inseparable from the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Light is inseparable from the Sun in the Firmament Therefore when Iustin says the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The Word or that which was Begotten is Numerically distinct from him that did beget him he must be understood with respect to the number of Persons not of Essences for they are indeed two Persons And if we do not understand Iustin with respect to the Persons we shall make him contradict himself who so often urges the Essential Unity of the Father and the Son Nay he would say the same with Arius who made use of this Argument to prove the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between the Father and the Son because he that did beget was One and he that was begotten was another Therefore he that was begotten differs from him that did beget and that in Number too but yet in number Personal not Substantial that is to say they differ in Subsistence not in Substance or Essence The same Father in his Apology to the Roman Senate has these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We Worship says he God viz. the Father the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word begotten by the Eternal and Ineffable God and love him who was made Man for our sakes that being made partaker of our Possions and Infirmities he might also heal them In which words he distinguishes between the Persons of the Father and the Son and shews that the Office of Mediator the Mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption of Mankind which is the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 belong properly to the Son Then he shews what form of Invocation the Christians did use which was unknown to the Romans namely That they call'd upon or Pray'd to the Father in the Name of the Son by whose Merits they receiv'd Redemption All these passages Gentilis wrests to another sence and utterly rejects all the rest of his Writings but especially his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. His Exposition of the Faith where there is express mention made of a Trinity For citing the place of St. Paul Ephes. 2. In whom you also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit Iustin adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That God Christ and the Holy Ghost one Godhead did by their energy or operations dwell in us And presently after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. There is one Name deliver'd down unto us which jointly agrees to the Father Son and Holy Ghost And again he expresly mentions and proves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Sameness or Identity of Essence Again In the Trinity says he we understand an Unity and in the Unity we acknowledge a Trinity And again We have deliver'd to you the Doctrine of one Godhead in three perfect Subsistences c. Now these and the like passages being so very plain that it was impossible to elude their force Gentilis has chosen rather to deny this whole Treatise viz. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than change his Judgment And therefore 't will be needless to produce any more Quotations since I think it fully appears from what we have said what was the Judgment of Iustin Martyr the Philosopher in this particular CHAP. XIV Containing the Iudgment of St. Ignatius ST Ignatius was Contemporary with Polycarp and Disciple to St. Iohn asis evident from Eusebius in his Chronicon St. Ierom says that he wrote several Epistles and reckons some of them Yet it is certain that several Spurious Pieces have been attributed to him However I shall not now Dispute their Authority but supposing with Gentilis that they are all Genuine let us see how far they do countenance his Opinion Gentilis endeavours to prove from these Epistles that the Son is in Essence distinct from the Father or to use his own expression that they are two Eternal Spirits distinct in Numerical Essence We on the contrary affirm That St. Ignatius never so much as Dream'd of any such thing but taught that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word was one and the same God with the Father yet so that they are in themselves personally distinct In his Epistle to the Magnesians he says that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not a Pronounced but a Substantial Word And for what he says a little after that he is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a begotten Substance thô it must be confess'd that this is an harsh expression yet on the contrary it plainly appears that he there meant nothing else by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that which doth really subsist i. e. an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Subsistent Being to which he opposes a vocal sound which presently vanishes In the same Epistle he says of the Son that he declar'd the One and Only true God to be his Father and speaking of the Doctrine of our Lord that he reveal'd to the World the true God his Father But what 's all this to a distinction of Essence In his Epistle to the Tarsenses he says that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not he who is God and Father over all but his Son which amounts to no more than this That the Son was not the Father which was the Heresie of the Patripassians who did thus confound the Persons In his Epistle to the Philippians he cites this place out of the 1 Cor 8. There is but one God Father of all things and presently after There is but one God and Father not two or three one who is and there is no other besides him the only true God

profane as in a vast many places plainly to condemn the Word Trinity although he makes use of it himself as is clearly prov'd by his Epistle to the King of Poland where in the sixth Page he complains that there were several Monstrous and Profane terms brought into the Church such as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Person Essence Unity Trinity whereby all the Holy Mysteries of Religion were overturn'd and the knowledge of the Eternal God with his Son and Holy Ghost was quite lost In this charge he was led on by Gregorius Paulus who calls these two Phrases viz. The One Essence of God and One God in three Persons the Inventions and cunning Contrivance of the Devil But however since the Phrases these Men endeavour to explode have been the constant Language of the Church I think it needs no other demonstration to prove that Gentilis is not only Profane in his Expressions but makes use also of Diabolical Stratagems to overthrow the Establish'd Doctrine of the Church But the last and most plausible Argument which they use is this Gentilis complains to King Sigismund that Luther Zuinglius and Bucer were wholly taken up in demolishing the Outworks of Antichrist and that amongst so many thousand Reformers only Philip had attempted any thing in this Glorious Undertaking and that too so indirectly that he seem'd rather to threaten its ruin than to have given it any deadly wound To the same purpose Gregorius Paulus says That God began by Luther to demolish the church of Antichrist at the Roof not at the Foundation left the noisome stench of the Ruins should have stifled them And all this is because they left the Doctrine of the Trinity unattacked therefore they are said by them to have begun at the Outworks and the Roof not at the principal Fort and Foundation of Antichrist Thus these Witty Gentlemen are pleas'd to sport amongst themselves Yet after all it is certain that their quarrelling with these Words is only to find some means to escape and therefore it is that they fall so foul upon the Blessed Labours of those Good Men. Then they interpret every thing as they please and take the liberty of condemning whatever makes against them and hence it is that they endeavour to refine and new model the Language and Expressions of the Church which being a task far above their weak abilities rather than seem to be Nonplust they despitefully scatter such horrid Expressions and bitter Calumnies as no good Christian can hear without horrour and astonishment His Book to the King of Poland is fraught with such Elegancies and Ornaments as these and his common Discourse was wont to be set off with the like Embellishments so that he seems to please himself and hopes to raise his Reputation by this means CHAP. XIX Of the vile Scandals he hath falsly thrown upon the Doctrine of our Church GEntilis is very dextrous in Forging of false Accusations for he unjustly Charges our Church with several Crimes he will never be able to prove against her as First That we do Impudently deny Christ to have been the Son of God Secondly That we have unadvisedly brought a new God into the Christian Religion Thirdly That we affirm that God did not beget his Son of his own Substance If Cardinal Cusanus said any such thing let him look to it the Reform'd or Evangelick Churches are not bound to Answer for his Errors Fourthly That we made a Triple God contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures Abundance more of such sort of Stuff is contain'd in his Antidotes all which I here industriously avoid For what good Man can hear with patience such a Rascally Fellow thus sawcily abusing and undermining the Christian Religion Hence it is that he gives us the Titles of Opposers of God Iudaïzing Hereticks and as bad as Turks and passes the same Complements upon the Churches of Savoy also which yet he acknowledges to be the most Uncorrupted and best Reform'd of any he knew He compares us with the Turks and Iews for denying as he says with Mahomet that God did beget his Son But who can say that he ever heard amongst us That we devis'd another God Superior to the Father of Christ Who amongst us ever taught or affirm'd any such thing Hence he took that specious pretence of a Quaternity a thing that was never seen or heard of much less Worshipp'd in our Church He accounts our Faith to be meer Sophistry and our selves Novices and Sophisters yet gives no reason for it Thus this Crafty Fellow comically sports with us but the true reason is because we deny his Three Eternal Spirits and do say with Athanasius There is One Eternal One Almighty but that the Three Persons are three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Only three Subsistences And when we say Deus est Trinus or there is a Trinity in the Godhead he starts up as if he were Mad and cries out That we make the Trinity a Fourth God as if we asserted any Deus Trinitas besides or without the Father Son and Holy Ghost But this is certainly too gross and palpable a Calumny for we own the Trinity only to relate to these Three Persons and besides or without them there is neither God nor Trinity Of the same strain is his Calumny of our defending an unknown God Superior to the Father of Christ and making three Christs out of one We acknowledge and defend the God that was known and reveal'd to our Fathers but do set up no unknown God We know there is but one Christ in whom two Natures do conspire to make one Person and therefore we judge it to be Impious and Heretical to say there are three Christs or that Christ is Tergeminus But that Scandal is of a blacker Dye of our dividing Christ and transforming him into another which is not the Son of the Living God Let this Blasphemer shew us any other Christ besides that Son of God and let him make it out where and how we do divide Christ. Of the same Nature are those Impostures he charges us with of Conjuring up a new Christ the Son of a new Relation and then deceitfully believing him to be the Son of God We believe in the Son of God as reveal'd in the Scriptures but acknowledge none of Gentilis's Impostures We constantly assert without any deceit or fraud three Persons in the Godhead nor do we divide the Substance but do distinguish between the Persons He hits us in the teeth with Sabellianism whilst we do more justly charge him with the Blasphemy of Arius The Doctrine of our Church doth plainly prove that there is nothing in it agreeing with Sabellius whereas he blushes not openly to defend Arius and to prefer him before all the Fathers of the Nicene Council And however cautious he may seem to be in his keeping the middle way between Arius and Sabellius yet I am perswaded his Opinions are