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	son_n	trinity_n	11,727	5	10.3297	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A30114	Man in paradise, or, A philosophical discourse vindicating the soul's prerogative in discerning the truths of Christian religion with the eye of reason	Bunworth, Richard.	1656 (1656)	Wing B5475; ESTC R176545	21,633	105

prejudice Then doth she conclude that there are three necessary distinct subsistences yet but one essence of the Deity or that the Deity which is essentially one is subsistentially three The Deity doth necessarily subsist first in the eternal contemplation of it self secondly it doth subsist eternally contemplated by it self and thirdly it doth subsist in an eternal complacency of it self yet are there not three eternals but one eternal because the notion we have of eternity excludes plurality neither do we conceive the first second and third subsistence to be one before another in time or duration because eternity is indivisible having neither priority nor posteriority but onely by a priority of order or disposition of their relation When we say that God is merciful or that God is just we speak improperly or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after the manner of men there being no real distinction betwixt God's mercy and his justice But when we denominate the Deity to subsist contemplating or contemplated c. we speak * Scientia seu contemplatio proprie competit divinae naturae improprie tribuitur creaturis notitia enim nostra est obscura imperfecta divina vero est perfecta ●bsoluta Multo magis ab aeterno in aeternum scire contemplari Dei proprium est quod nullo modo de creaturarum perfectissima predicari potest properly and absolutely Wherefore although these three subsistences be all concentred in the Deity yet they are * Distinguntur ab invicem quia ad invicem referuntur Ratio enim formalis relationis est semper supponere aliud cui unumquodque rela●orum referatur Quemadmodum Aristoteles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Et infra subjungit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinct each one from the other In that they do susibst invisible in themselves and really distinct from each other we may properly call them persons † Persona est substantia individua intelligens incommunicabilis Haec definitio a Zanchic lib. 1. De tribus Elohim uno Jehova cap. 2. ex communi Patrum Latinorum consensu affertur for a person according to Philosophers is a rational or intelligible subsistence distinct from others and indivisible in it self Hither is the Soul arriv'd viz. to the knowledge of three persons in one essence of the Deity or to the acknowledgement of a Trinity in Unity by the consideration of God's immanent actions Now doth she pass from hence unto his transient actions which are the Creation of the World and the preservation thereof Here she doth premise that the world was not from eternity but did commence with time as also that there could be no first matter * Absurdum enim esset 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 absolutam aeternitatem essendi necessitatem ali●ui nisi soli Deo tribuere eternally coexisting with the Deity Moreover she doth presuppose that it would be absurd either to affirm or grant that the Deity did act positively upon nothing although before the Creation of the world there was besides God privatively not any thing There was before the Creation of the world one onely absolutely necessary infinite Being viz. God who by reason of his infinity and absolute perfection could perform no action absolutely transient neither had he any object besides himself to act upon Time and place or finity might have then been denominated nothing it being contradistinct to infinity or a negation of that infinite being which did onely then exist Wherefore time and place before the Creation of the World could never have been * Nihil non est intelligibili nisi per notionem alterius de quo simplicitur negatur sed tempus locus ante creationem mundi nihil erant Ergo. conceived or willed by the Deity unless he had conceived and willed himself together with time and place So that it seems to the rational Soul that time and place had its being by the Deities conception and volition of himself together with time and place which was the position of the word of his minde in time and place Here is also so clear a Demonstration of the Trinity in the Creation of the world that it seems impossible to the rational Soul to have the true notion of Creation without the conceit of the Trinity Insomuch that the Ancients who were more profound Philosophers did express the word create by an Hebrew word consisting of three Letters viz. א Aleph ב Beth and ר Resch which signifie the Father the Son and the Spirit which three Letters by addition of their proper Vowels either exprest or understood are a Verb of the Preterperfect tense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying the Father the Son and the Spirit have joyntly acted or they have conspired to act This word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 creavit doth in it self sufficiently express the action of the Deity subsisting in a three-fold manner yet the Ancients go farther putting to it a word expressing the Deity in the Plural Number saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elohím bara the Gods have created or rather God as he is personally three hath created Hermes a most profound Rationalist who was therefore called Trismegistus in his Book intituled Pimander hath ●eft a sen●ence to posterity relating to the Creation of the World as some do interpret but as others do construe it it doth onely express the Trinity In this ambiguity it is not difficult to decide the controversie by affirming that Mercurius Trismegistus did by one and the same sentence primarily adumbrate the Trinity and secondarily the Creation of the World For God who is himself a pure and most simple act in the eternal contemplation of himself absolutely infinite doth necessarily contemplate himself coexisting with the world or time and place the World being an inclusion or parenthesis of infinity The sentence is this Monas genuit monadem in se suum reflexit ardorem In 1 Part summae theolog quaest 32. art 1. Thomas understands it to be onely related to the production of the world supposing it to be analogical to these words of his viz. Unus Deus produxit unum mundum propter suiipsius amorem but most Philosophers say that Hermes by ratiocination came to the knowledge of the Trinity and exprest it after the aforesaid manner He saith not Monas produxit monadem but Monas genuit monadem Now the world may not properly be said to have been begotten for in the Creation of the World by his will the World can in no wise be called verbum mentis the Word of his minde in that the world being nothing could not have been conceived in the minde of God had not he conceiv'd himself together with the World so that God himself being primarily conceiv'd of himself is verbum mentis Dei the word of his own minde by whom all things were made and without whom there could nothing have been made which was made who as he is conceived is personally distinguished from