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	john_n	word_n	5,237	5	4.2998	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A66115	Remarks of an university-man upon a late book, falsly called A vindication of the primitive fathers, against the imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum, written by Mr. Hill of Killmington	Willes, John, 1646 or 7-1700.	1695 (1695)	Wing W2302; ESTC R11250	29,989	42

Trinity against the Charge of Novelty which he would have the World believe the Bishop alledges against it and to shew that the Primitive Fathers believed it But since I can find no such thing in all the Bishop's Discourse it will be unnecessary to give answer to it All that I can understand of the Bishop's Words is that the Ancients in their Explanations of the Trinity often differ'd from one another and that those who came after endeavour'd by other Explanations to supply those Defects which some who went before them had been guilty of Not that he means they believed differently concerning the Trinity but only that they made use of different Modes of explaining their Notions concerning it And the while Men go about to explain a thing of which they can frame no distinct Idea it is very natural for them to run out into a vast multiplicity of Words into great length and much Darkness and Confusion Many improper Similies will be urged and often impertinent Reasonings will be made use of All which are the unavoidable Consequences of a Man's going about to explain to others that which he does not distinctly understand himself And what is there in all this that charges the Doctrine of the Trinity with Novelty I can't but observe our Author's Ingenuity in saying that his Lordship in his Letter from Zurich has exposed that Passage in St. John ' s First Epistle for doubted There are Three that bear Witness in Heaven The Father the Word and the Spirit and these Three are one Since his Lordship only tells us that in some Manuscripts it is to be found and in others not in most of which he shews plainly that it was the Fault of the Copier that omitted it And also seems sufficiently to prove by the Authority of St. Hierom whose Preface he there makes mention of that it was left out by the Arians But besides if I must be said to expose every part of an Author for doubted by saying that it is not to be found in such a MS. which perhaps has all the rest almost all the Authors in the World must suffer by it since I can shew our Vindicator some thousands of MSS. which have only transmitted to us some small parts of Authors and have omitted those which yet by the help of others we can prove to be genuine I shall make no Observation upon this malicious Remark of our Vindicator's It may serve as a pregnant Instance with the rest of the Vindication of the great Power of Malice and ill Nature of transforming every thing into that peculiar Shape which they are resolved it should appear in and also to convince us how little Credit we are to give to things which our selves are not Witnesses of since there are so many False Prophets gone out into the World I can't but take notice of the Learned and Ingenious Observation of our Vindicator upon his Lordship's Simile which he brought not to explain but only to illustrate in some measure the Doctrine of the Trinity which he has transcribed at length I shall only mention those parts of it which our Author criticises upon He denies Pag. 104. Vnderstanding and Will which the Bishop affirms to be different Modes of Thinking to be such either as they are taken as Principles or as they may be supposed as Acts of the Mind Now here I suppose our Vindicator was lost in his own beloved Notions and I wish he had read over Mr. Lock ' s Essay of Humane Vnderstanding and I believe he would at least might have express'd himself less confusedly For I suppose our Vindicator like some others of his stamp takes Volition to be a distinct Agent in us which can command obey and perform several Actions as a distinct Being And no wonder then if it is no Mode of Thinking But certainly if we would speak properly Intellection and Volition if they are considered as Principles if our Vindicator understands any thing by that Word are only Powers of the Mind But if they are reduced to Acts they are then properly speaking Modes of Thinking and nothing more But our Vindicator is mightily disturb'd at the Bishop's saying That in Acts of Memory Imagination and Discourse there seems to be a mixture of both Principles or a third that results out of them For we feel a Freedom in one respect but as for those Marks that are in our Brain that set things in our Memory or furnish us with Words we are necessary Agents they come in our way but we do not know how We cannot call up a Figure of things or Words at pleasure some Disorder in our Mechanism hides or flattens them which when it goes off they start up and serve us but not by any Act of Vnderstanding and Will Now says our Critick to this As for his Mixtures I leave them purely to himself but for his third resulting Principle I am to seek For it must be such a Principle that is neither free nor necessary and such a one as is hard to be got for Love or Mony Nay not so hard neither For Mr. Lock tells us in his Chapter of the Modes of Thinking that this is what the French call Resvery but our Language has scarce a Name for it Which I take to be a good Authority to use our Author 's own Words in despight of a bad Judgment and defective Libraries Which may teach our Author if ever he writes more which I pray God forbid unless it be a Retractation of this ill-natur'd Book to do it with more Caution and Consideration And amongst the rest this was one Reason why I first undertook this since he tells us of another Treatise which he designs to publish to beg of him for his own sake and for the Churches sake and for the sake of his Brethren the Clergy to conceal it For I think it is enough for any Man semel insanire and to expose himself without any regard to his own or the Churches Honour I shall not search into our Author's Explication as he calls it of the Sacred Mysteries of the Ever-Blessed Trinity because as 't is Foreign to the present purpose so is it confusedly drest up with his affected dark way of Writing that I could hardly read it with Patience much less could I spend much time upon it in considering every Passage of it And now I should have left him but that I still find him spitting his Venome at his Lordship for saying that some have thought that the Term Son did not at all belong to the Blessed Three but only to our Saviour as he was the Messias the Jews having had this Notion of the Messias that as he was to be the King of Israel so was he to be the Son of God Now does it appear from hence that the Bishop is a Favourer of this Opinion Or that himself does believe that the Jews expected that their Messias should not be God As to the latter it is

Incarnation For this account will admit the Personality of Christ to be founded first in the Humane Nature according to some of his Lordship's Criticks which he dares not contradict who place the foundation of the Sonship in the lower Nature This is strange when his Lordship says a while after that Divine Person in whom dwelt the Eternal Pag. 45. Word Which makes him as well a Person before the Incarnation as it does the second Person in the Blessed Trinity because by the Eternal Word is always understood the second Person And since his Lordship does allow him to be a Divine Person as also to be Eternal I wonder how any Man can imagine that his Lordship does not teach any distinction in the Godhead before the Incarnation or that the Personality of Christ or the foundation of the Sonship was first placed in the Humane Nature Since his calling him the Eternal Word makes him a distinct Person from the Father from all Eternity as being second of the ever Blessed Trinity and his styling him a Divine Person supposes the Personality of Christ to be first founded in the Godhead For I should have thought had I not been prejudic'd by abundance of ill Nature that Christ could be called a Divine Person only upon the account of the Godhead dwelling in Flesh and not upon any account of his Manhood For else there would be two Persons in Christ And therefore I think that the Bishop can mean nothing else but that he was a Divine Person only as he was God and consequently so before he was Incarnate because he was Eternal in the Bishop's own Expression And therefore I may positively affirm that our Author's Assertion that the Bishop's plain intention by these words was to place Christ's Personality only in his Manhood to be False and Malicious Yea but says our Author this description of the Bishop's viz. That by the Vnion of the Eternal Word with Christ's Humanity God and Man truly became one Person will admit the Patripassian Heresie of but one Person in the Deity For if the Eternal Word were no Person distinct from the Father the Vnion thereof with the Humanity constitutes the Father an Incarnate Person or otherwise by this state of his Lordship's Doctrine the Father Son and the Holy Ghost may be conceived as one Incarnate Person How our Critick came to think of this Remark I can't apprehend For I never yet met with any Man that thought the Eternal Word meant the whole Trinity but that when the Eternal Word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was mentioned it was always understood of the second Person And when we use that Expression we always think we have explain'd our selves as much as though we had used the Name of tho second Person in the Trinity And the Bishop does seem so plainly to mean this by it that I wonder how any Man endued with Reason could force another Interpretation of it Especially when his Lordship in the very same Page calls the Father Son and Holy Ghost Pag. ●● three Persons by name and shews how far they are distinguisht the one from the other Which Doctrine I presume is impossible ever to admit the Patripassian Heresie of but one Person in the Deity or to make the Father Son and Holy Ghost be conceived as one Incarnate Person when at the same time the Bishop affirms them to be Three Persons Which I must leave to our Author to reconcile Nay in the same Page he has Person three times repeated which shews that he was not either afraid or unwilling to use that Expression as our Author would have us believe besides that which he applies particularly to the Incarnate Word and in every one of these he refers to the Blessed Three 1. He tells us of the Name Person being applyed to the Three 2. He shews what is meant by Person when it is applyed to the Three 3. He tells us that by explaining he does not mean that be will pretend to tell us how this is to be understood and in what respect these Persons are believed to be One and in what respect they are Three Now can any man after all this affirm that his Lordships words would lead one to a Conclusion or at least a fair Jealousie that his Lordship does not believe any Distinction really Personal between the Father Word and Holy Spirit but that the true and real Personality of Christ is proper to the Humane Nature When he has been all along asserting a Personal Distinction in the Trinity and made the Second Person in the Trinity that is the Incarnate Word Eternal as plain as words can make it I shall add to this as well as to some other of his bitter and indecent Reflections What shall be given unto thee or what shall be done unto thee thou false Tongue Oh deliver my soul O Lord from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue I have not time or if I had I should not think it well spent to take notice of every trivial Insinuation of our Author's I see no cause to believe that his Lordship has used the word Person in any different sense than what ours and the whole Catholick Church has ever used it and if at any time he has omitted it when he names the Blessed Three yet he means as much by it as the Scripture does by his endeavouring to follow as much as may be the Scripture phrase and makes them as much different as the Church does when she names the Persons And it is not only some sly Insinuations and malicious Suppositions to the contrary but direct Proofs and downright Arguments and solid Reason that can satisfie any Impartial and Inquisitive Mind I shall here beg leave to use the Bishop's own words which in his Letter to Dr. Williams he inserts as a just Reflection upon the odd Comments of the Socinians Namely That the Best and I am sure the fairest rule of Criticism is to consider the whole Thread Strain and Phraseology of a Book and not to descant upon the various significations that the words themselves taken severally may be capable of Had our Critick observ'd this Rule he would never have troubled the World with his rude and confused Notions nor have abused himself as he hath now too inconsiderately done But now let us see what our Vindicator has to urge against the Bishop's saying That the Term Person came to Pag. 11. be applied to the Three to discover those who thought that these Three were different names of the same thing which were for the most part and were generally called Patripassians and were expelled as Hereticks from the Church Now as to this he takes up two or three Pages to say nothing only to yield up the Cause and yet to censure the Bishop for saying the Truth He quotes indeed a passage or two from Tertullian and Athanasius but for any thing that they are to his purpose he might as well have quoted Aristotle or