Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	father_n	ghost_n	word_n	6,971	5	4.2779	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66372	An answer to the address presented to the ministers of the Church of England	Williams, John, 1636?-1709.	1688 (1688)	Wing W2680; ESTC R96	20,716	37

John Item in S. John ' s Gospel signifies a strict Identity which notwithstanding I conceive ought to be if all Necessaries to Salvation be clearly contained in Scripture Now if the Belief of a Trinity be not necessary to Salvation I desire it may be clearly owned in these or the like words 'T is not necessary for Salvation to believe Three Persons and one God notwithstanding the Creed of S. Athanasius and Definition of the first Council of Nice when the Church was in her Purity not the least corrupted The sum of our Author's Argument is this That the Doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly contained in Scripture because Unity in some places signifies not a Unity of Essence but of Will which way of arguing supposes that if a word be taken in two or more different senses then the Scripture doth not clearly contain the things contained in those words As for Example the word Door is sometimes taken in Scripture in a proper sense sometimes in a Metaphorical and being thus differently taken we cannot according to him certainly know when it is to be understood Properly and when Metaphorically and must be at a perfect loss to understand whether when our Saviour is called a Door John 10.7 it 's not meant properly and when St. Peter is said to stand at the Door John 18.16 it 's not meant Metaphorically Or to come nearer to our Author the Body of Christ is sometimes taken for a Natural sometimes for a Mystical Body and therefore we cannot be certainly assured whether when Joseph begg'd the Body of Jesus it 's not to be understood of the Mystical Body and that when the Apostles and Prophets c. were given for the edifying the Body of Christ Eph. 4.11 12. it 's not to be understood of Christ's Natural Body In this so difficult a case which is absolutely necessary to be answer'd for the salvation of his Soul p. 4. if you will believe the Addresser What is to be done What in reason will content him It 's nothing less than this That it be shewn that in some Verse and Chapter in Scripture we have these or the like words The Word One in St. John ' s Epistle signifies a strict Identity And he might have gone on without end in the same way and one as obstinate as himself may say Shew me some other Chapter and Verse wherein it is said that the word Door John 10. is to be understood Metaphorically and the word Body Ephes. 4. is to be understood Mystically or else it is apparent that we cannot know what Door Proper or Metaphorical or what Body whether Natural or Mystical is meant in those places for This ought to be if these things are clearly contained in Scripture This is a Thought for ought I know peculiar to our Author for I don't find this Address comes out with other Allowance than Printed for R. Taylor and as I do not envy him the Glory of the Invention so I shall leave him the satisfaction of self-enjoyment Indeed his Friends the Learned Arrians went not his way in opposing the Trinity nor the Orthodox in defending it and therefore if this Point was now to be argued the Ministers of the Church of England that hold with the Orthodox and amongst other places produce this of 1 John 5.7 for it would say that it 's as plainly said The Father Word and Holy Ghost are One as that they are Three and that tho Unity is sometimes taken in a Moral sense as John 17.21 yet the arguing of St. John in the former place shews it not to be understood in the same sense as the latter he making a plain difference betwixt the Unity that is betwixt the Three that bear record in Heaven and the Three that bear witness in Earth for of the Three that bear Record in Heaven it 's said They are one but of the Three that bear witness on Earth it 's said They agree in One. Now if it had been a mere Moral Union that was betwixt the Father Word and Holy Ghost who are the Three in Heaven it would have been as well said of them as of the Spirit the Water and the Blood which are the Three in Earth that they Agree in One. In like manner would the Ministers of the Church of England support the proof of this Article from John 10.30 I and my Father are One and shew that it 's to be understood of the Unity of Essence and not of mere Will and Consent because the Jews took up stones to stone him for blasphemy and because that thou being a man makest thy self God. But since there is a Union that may be betwixt God and Man without making man to be God as it is John 17.21 it follows that neither did our Saviour speak nor the Jews understand him to have spoken of a Moral but a Natural Union but for this let me recommend the Addresser to the Second Part of the Dialogue concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared p. 10 11. and Published the last Year His second Instance is of the Incarnation of which he saith Again Is the Belief of the Incarnation necessary for Salvation Where is it clearly expressed in Scripture You refer me to S. John chap. 1. The Word is made Flesh. But you know that many Learned Men Nestorius and others denied that word to signifie a strict Incarnation but either a Moral Vnion or a meer external appearance of a Man as those who held Christ not to have a real but a phantastick Body Now be pleased to shew me in what Verse or Chapter it is clearly expressed that the said words signifie a strict Incarnation But if you deny the belief of this Mystery to be necessary to Salvation own it for our satisfaction in these or the like words It is not necessary for Salvation to believe that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was made true Man. And if the Belief of neither Trinity nor Incarnation are necessary shew me what 't is and where expressed in Scripture Setting aside what the Opinion of Nestorius was which our Author for ought I perceive understands not the sum of what is said amounts to this That the Scripture is not clear in this Point because as he saith Many learned Men Nestorius and others deny that word he means that phrase to signifie strict Incarnation So that if a learned Man or learned Men dispute the Point that Point so disputed or the words expressing it cannot be clear or the Sense certain But I have before shewed that this is no reason against the perspicuity of Scripture in such a case because nothing can be clearer express'd than many of those things which are sometimes made matter of Disputation As what can be clearer than that Christ had a Body of Flesh and Bones Yet there were some of our Authors Learned men that held Christ was a meer external appearance of a man and not