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	see_v	son_n	12,108	5	5.6436	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41016	Sacra nemesis, the Levites scourge, or, Mercurius Britan. disciplin'd, [Mercurius] civicvs [disciplin'd] also deverse remarkable disputes and resolvs in the Assembly of Divines related, episcopacy asserted, truth righted, innocency vindicated against detraction.	Featley, Daniel, 1582-1645.	1644 (1644)	Wing F593; ESTC R2806	73,187	105

licet sentiendum cum sapientibus we must use the language of the vulgar though we vote with wise men and think as they doe And certaine it is these three Creeds for many hundreds of years have generally passed under the titles of the Nicen the Athanasian and the Apostles So much for the titles Against the Creeds themselves the exceptions which are taken either concern the form of propounding the Articles or the matter and doctrine of them concerning the manner of propounding them it is objected to be in too peremptorie a way under pain of damnation and that they ought to be thoroughly beleeved To the former I answer with Leo where it is said Whosoever holds not this Creed shall perish everlastingly It is understood of such as have capacity to understand it and their consciences are convinced of the truth of it To the latter that thoroughly to beleeve it signifies no more then throughout and entirely and that not for the authoritie of the Creeds themselves but for the Scripture by which they are confirmed The exceptions against the matter or doctrine of the Creeds either concern the first Article God of God or the Article about the descent into hell For the first there can be no doubt at all of it for the Sonne is of the Father and therefore the Father and Sonne being God it must needs follow that Christ is God of God neither will it hence follow that the Deitie of the Sonne is of the Deity of the Father For the argument holdeth not a concreto ad abstractum verbi gratiâ it will not follow Deus passus est ergo deitas passa est God suffered ergo the deity suffered nor this Maria est mater Dei ergo est mater deitatis Mary is the mother of God ergo she is mother of the Deity Yea but Calvin saith Christ is autotheos God of himselfe the answer is easie Christ is God of himselfe ratione essentiae but God of God ratione personae And whereas it is objected that if he be Deus de Deo it must be either per productionem essentiae or communicationem by the production or communication of the essence though Beza and other of our Divines stick not at the latter phrase yet it followeth not for it is sufficient to prove him God of God that his person is generated of the Father and it is safer to say that hee hath communem essentiam cum patre then communicatam rather common then communicated For the latter concerning descent into Hell all the Christians in the world acknowledge that CHRIST some way descended into hell either locally as many of the ancient fathers Latimer the martyr Bilson and Andrews and Noel in his catechism commanded to be taught in all Schools soon after the publishing the 39 Articles expound it or vertually as Durand or metaphorically as Calvin or metonymically as Tilenus Perkins and this Assembly and therefore no man need to make scruple of subscribing to the Article as it stands in the creed seeing it is capable of so many orthodoxall explications and therein I desire that this Assembly in their aspersions would after the example of the harmony of confessions content themselves with branding onely the popish exposition of this Article which taketh hell for limbus patrum or purgatory Netherland regions extra anni solisquevias for any of the other foure interpretations they are so far from being Hereticall that it hath not bin proved that any of them is erroneous M. Prolocutor THough there is nothing more tender then Conscience every scrupulus there is more painful then surculus in carne a thorn in the flesh though nothing ought more now to be soght after when not only Christs seamlesse coat but his mysticall body is rent torn asunder then {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to seek the truth in love and love in truth and therfore I shal be most willing to any kind of reason able {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} condescending to give satisfaction to our learned brethren yet on the other side they may doe well to think of that maxime in the canon law turpis pars quae discordat toti it is an unsound part which differs from the whole body and not nodos inscirpo quaerere to except against undoubted verities and most warrantable expressions such as have bin debated in this Article namely Deus de Deo symbola recipi debere for these are the lapides offensionis rocks of offence That Christ is Deus de Deo God of God is thus cleerly proved out of Scripture whosoever is God and the Son of God must needs be God of God but Christ is God and the Son of God ergo c. But it hath bin objected if he be God of God then he must have his essence communicated to him from the Father and so be essentiatus a patre essentiated or natured from the Father this will not follow no more then that Socrates is essentiatus a Sophronisco but onely that he is genitus a patre begotten of his Father and so is recipiens essentiam or habens essentiam communicatam a patre which manner of speech is approved of by Beza filius est a patre per ineffabilem totius essentiae communicationem ab aeterno the Son is from the Father by an unspeakable communication of his whole essence from eternity and Symlerus non negamus silium habere essentiam a Deo patre sed essentiam genitam negamus we do not deny that the Son hath his essence from God the Father but we deny that the essence is begotten and why should we boggle at this phrase when our Lord himself acknowledgeth Ioh. 5.26 omnia mihi data sunt a patre meo pater dedit filio habere vitam in se all things are given me of my Father Neither doth this any way contradict Calvin his autotheos God of himself which form of expression though some protestants as well as papists have excepted against yet I am of Whitakers mind in his answer to the 7th reason of Campian hat it is verissime sanstissime dictum most truly and religiously spoken nam si ex se Deus non est omnino Deus non est for if he be not God of himself he is not God at all let St Augustine be the umpire and reconcile both Christus ad se Deus dicitur ad patrem filius Christ may be considered two wayes either absolutely and so he is Deus ex se God of himself as the Father is and the holy Spirit or relatively as filius and so he is Deus de Deo as he is the Son so he is God of God yea but these phrases may be taken in an ill sense and so may all the Articles of the Creed as you may see in the Parisian censure set out by the