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
A62586	A seasonable vindication of the B. Trinity being an answer to this question, why do you believe the doctrine of the Trinity? : collected from the works of the most Reverend, Dr. John Tillotson, late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and the right Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, now Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Tillotson, John, 1630-1694.; Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.; Assheton, William, 1641-1711.	1697 (1697)	Wing T1221; ESTC R10019	21,341	116

of his own proper and peculiar to his own Person But he owns that although there are three distinct Persons or Minds each of whom is distinctly and by himself God yet there are not three Gods but One God or one Divinity Which he saith is intirely and indivisibly and inseparably in three distinct Persons or Minds That the same one Divine Nature is wholly and intirely communicated by the Eternal Father to the Eternal Son and by the Father and Son to the Eternal Spirit without any Division or Separation and so it remains one still V. Modest Exam. p. 15 17 29 30. This is the substance of this new Explication which hath raised such Flames that Injunctions from Authority were thought necessary to suppress them V. Pref. p. 25. Q. Pray tell me your Thoughts with freedom Is this Explication of the Trinity by Three distinct Infinite Minds and Substances Orthodox or not A. Now to deal as impartially in this matter as may be I do not think our Understandings one jot helped in the Notion of the Trinity by this Hypothesis but that it is liable to as great Difficulties as any other Q. You begin then to suspect his Explication A. None ought to be fond of it Or to set it against the general Sense of others and the currant Expressions of Divines about these Mysteries Nor to call the different Opinions of others Heresy or Nonsense which are provoking Words and tend very much to inflame Mens Passions because their Faith and Understanding are both call'd in question which are very tender Things V. Pref. p. 41. Q. Is it then your Opinion that this Hypothesis of Three distinct Substances in the Trinity can scarce be Defended A. I fear it will be impossible to clear this Hypothesis as to the reconciling Three Individual Essences with One individual Divine Essence which looks too like asserting That there are Three Gods and yet but One. Id. p. 31. Q. Will you please to explain this more fully that I may better understand it A. Can One whole entire indivisible Substance be actually divided into Three Substances For if every Person must have a peculiar Substance of his own and there be Three Persons there must be Three peculiar Substances And how can there be Three peculiar Substances and yet but One entire and indivisible Substance I do not say there must be Three divided Substances in Place or separate Substances but they must be divided as three Individuals of the same kind which must introduce a Specifick Divine Nature which I think very inconsistent with the Divine Perfections Ib. p. 29. Q. But every Person must have his own proper Substance and so the Substance must be divided if there be Three Persons A. That every Person must have a Substance to support his Subsistence is not denied But the Question is Whether that Substance must be divided or not We say where the Substance will bear it as in Created Beings a Person hath a separate Substance that is the same Nature diversified by Accidents Qualities and a separate Existence But where these things cannot be there the same Essence must remain undivided but with such Relative Properties as cannot be confounded V. Vind. p. 105. When we speak of Finite Substances and Persons we are certain that distinct Persons do imply distinct Substances because they have a distinct and separate Existence But this will not hold in an Infinite Substance where necessary Existence doth belong to the Idea of it Id. p. 261. Q. But say our Unitarians A Person is an Intelligent Being and therefore Three Persons must needs be three Intelligent Beings So true it is that whosoever acknowledges Three Persons in the Godhead if he takes the word in its proper sense must admit Three Gods Which the Learned Doctor cannot avoid who says they are Three distinct Minds Three Substantial Beings Three Intelligent Beings Therefore unavoidably Three Gods V. Defence of Hist. of Unit. p. 5. A. The full and adequate Definition of a Person from which the Learned Doctor doth draw his Argument and the Unitarians their Objection is not this as they suppose viz. A Person is an Intelligent Substance For this is but part of the Definition But the full and adequate Definition of a Person is this A Person is a compleat Intelligent Substance with a peculiar manner of Subsistence So that An Individual Intelligent Substance is rather supposed to the making of a Person than the proper Definition of it For a Person relates to something which doth distinguish it from another Intelligent Substance in the same Nature and therefore the Foundation of it lies in the peculiar manner of Subsistence which agrees to One and to none else of the kind and this is it which is called Personality Which doth not consist I say in a meer Intelligent Being but in that peculiar manner of Subsistence in that Being which can be in no other So that the proper Reason of Personality whereby one Person is constituted and distinguished from another it is the peculiar manner of Subsistence whereby one Person hath such Properties as are incommunicable to any other V. Vind. p. 260 72. From these Premises we are instructed Why in the Blessed Trinity the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are Three Persons and yet but One God The Reason is this God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are but One God because the Divine Essence Nature and Substance which alone makes God is intirely One and is not capable of any Separation Multiplication or Division Therefore there can be no more Gods than One. But since these Three Father Son and Holy Ghost have each of them a peculiar manner of Subsistence That is each of these Three hath a peculiar Property incommunicable to any other Therefore as to their mutual Relations and Personalities they are Three but as to the Divine Essence and Godhead they are but One. And this is so far from being contrary to Reason as the Socinians pretend that it is highly Rational to Believe a Trinity in Unity That is Three distinct Persons and yet but One God As I hope hath been fully proved and that to your Satisfaction Q. Before you talk too much of Satisfaction you must Answer me a Question A. What is it Q. Do you believe Transubstantiation A. No I do not But what 's this to the purpose Will you not allow me to believe the Trinity unless I will believe Transubstantiation And must I renounce the Trinity because I reject Transubstantiation Q. The Unitarians pretend that the Case is parallel A. Pray give me their Objection in their own words and then I shall instruct you what Answer to return to these Men of Sense and Reason Q. I find that the Belief of a Trinity does Contradict Reason as much as Transubstantiation Now who should not scruple an Opinion perfectly parallel with Transubstantiation and equally fruitful in Incongruities and Contradictions Well then if the Trinity implies

no means follow that if a man do once admit any thing concerning God which he cannot comprehend he hath no reason afterwards to Believe what he himself Sees This is a most unreasonable and destructive way of arguing because it strikes at the Foundation of all Certainty and sets every Man at Liberty to deny the most plain and evident Truths of Christianity if he may not be humoured in having the absurdest things in the World admitted for true The next step will be to persuade us that we may as well deny the Being of God because his Nature is incomprehensible by our Reason as deny Transubstantiation because it evidently contradicts our Senses Id. Ib. p. 32. Q. As Transubstantiation evidently contradicts our Senses So these Unitarians pretend that the Trinity as evidently contradicts our Reason And then say they are not these Two Doctrines loaded with the like Absurdities and Contradictions A. So far from this that the Doctrine of the Trinity as it is delivered in the Scriptures and hath already been explained hath no Absurdity or Contradiction either involved in it or necessarily consequent upon it But the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is big with all imaginable Absurdity and Contradiction As the Unitarians themselves do acknowledge And therefore I am not now concerned to prove it Q. However you are concerned to defend the Trinity The Contradictions and Absurdities of which as these Unitarians pretend are as great as those of Transubstantiation A. I cannot help their Pretences But if their Prejudices will allow them to examine my Reasons I shall yet further endeavour their Conviction And that I may do it the more effectually I shall desire You as their Advocate and in their Name to produce those Absurdities which appear the most dreadful Q. I shall reduce all to these Two which comprehend the rest 1. How there can be Three Persons and but One God 2. How these can agree in a Third and not agree among themselves For the First it seems very absurd that there should be Three Persons really distinct whereof every one is God and yet there should not be Three Gods For nothing is more Contradictious than to make Three not to be Three or Three to be but One. A. I hope now you will give me leave to make an Answer to your Difficulty as distinct as possible It is very true that according to Arithmetick Three cannot be One nor One Three But we must distinguish between the bare Numeration and the Things numbred The repetition of three Units certainly makes three distinct Numbers but it doth not make Three Persons to be Three Natures And therefore as to the Things themselves we must go from the bare Numbers to consider their Nature We do not say that Three Persons are but One Person or that One Nature is Three Natures but that there are Three Persons in One Nature If therefore One Individual Nature be communicable to Three Persons there is no appearance of Absurdity in this Doctrine And on the other side it will be impossible there should be three Gods where there is one and the same Individual Nature For Three Gods must have Three several Divine Natures since it is the Divine Essence which makes a God V. Two Dial. Part. II. p. 24. But of this there hath been given so full an Account in this Collection that those who shall seriously and attentively consider it will I hope through God's Blessing receive Satisfaction Q. But yet you have not Answer'd the other great Difficulty in Point of Reason viz. That those Things which agree or disagree in a Third must agree or disagree One with the Other And therefore if the Father be God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God then the Father must be Son and Holy Ghost and the Son and Holy Ghost must be the Father If not then they are really the same and really distinct the same as to Essence distinct as to Persons and so they are the same and not the same which is a Contradiction A. Now I think you have drawn out the most refined Spirits of Socinianism to make the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation parallel because you say it implies a Contradiction Which is the nearest Parallel you have yet offered at But this terrible Argument is grounded on this mistaken Supposition viz. That the Divine Essence is no more capable of communicating it self to Three distinct Persons than any Created Being is The Reason of that Axiom being That Created Things by reason of their finite Nature cannot diffuse or communicate themselves to more than one and therefore those which agree in a Third must agree together But supposing it possible that the same finite Nature could extend it self to several Individuals it would be presently answered The Axiom did hold only where they did adequately and reciprocally agree and not where they did agree only in Essence but differ'd in the manner of Subsistence For where a different manner of Subsistence is supposed possible in the same Individual Nature the Agreement in that cannot take away that Difference which is consistent with it which we attribute to the unlimitedness and perfection of the Divine Nature Q. But you can bring no other Instance but the thing in Question and therefore this is a Petitio Principii or taking that for granted which is in Dispute A. I do not think it to be so where the Reason is assigned from the peculiar Properties of the Divine Nature to which there can be no Parallel And I think it very unreasonable in the Socinians to send us to Created Beings for the Rules and Measures of our Judgment concerning a Being acknowledg'd to be Infinite Q. Are not the Divine Persons Infinite as well as the Divine Nature And therefore as Created Persons do take in the whole Nature so Infinite Persons will do the Infinite Nature A. No question but the Persons are Infinite in regard of the Nature which is so but if an Infinite Nature be communicable to more Persons than One every such Person cannot appropriate the whole Nature to it self Q. If the Difference be on the account of Infinity then there must be an infinite number of Persons in the Divine Essence A. I answer that infiniteness of Number is no Perfection and as to the Number of Persons we follow not our own Conjectures nor the Authority of the Church but Divine Revelation which hath assured us that there is but One God and yet there are Three that are One. Which depends not merely on the Place of St. John but the Form of Baptism is remarkable to this purpose which joyns together the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost without any other distinction besides that of Order and Relation And it is against the Fundamental Design of Christianity to joyn any Created Beings together with God in so solemn an Act of Religion And St. Paul joyns them together in his Benediction The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love

suppose it as being granted by the Socinians themselves The only thing therefore for us to prove and which they deny is this viz. That the Doctrine of the Trinity is Revealed by Almighty God For if we can make it appear that an infinitely Wise and Faithful God hath Revealed it we shall then easily convince them That there is the highest Reason to believe it Q. How then do you prove that God hath Revealed it Where hath God told us That there are Three distinct Persons in the same undivided Divine Essence and Nature A. Were I to Discourse an Atheist or a Deist then since all Conviction must be ex concessis I ought to prove these Two Things 1. The Possibility and Necessity of Divine Revelation 2. That the Books of the Old and New Testament which by way of Eminency we call the Scriptures do contain this Divine Revelation And that in these Books God hath Revealed so much of his own Nature as is necessary for us to know in order to our Salvation But since these Unitarians do profess themselves Christians and consequently to believe the Holy Scriptures I shall have so much Charity for them at present as to suppose it And shall treat them as such And then the only thing I am to prove is this viz. That the Doctrine of the Trinity is Revealed in the Scriptures Q. But neither the word Trinity nor the word Person are to be found in Scripture How then can you pretend to prove a Trinity of Persons from the Scriptures A. Though neither the word Trinity nor perhaps Person in the Sense in which it is used by Divines when they treat of this Mystery be any where to be met with in Scripture yet it cannot be denied but that Three are there spoken of by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost in whose Name every Christian is Baptized and to each of whom the highest Titles and Properties of God are in Scripture attributed And these Three are spoken of with as much distinction from one another as we use to speak of Three several Persons So that though the word Trinity be not found in Scripture yet these Three are there expresly and frequently mentioned And Trinity is nothing but Three of any Thing And so likewise though the word Person be not there expresly applied to Father Son and Holy Ghost yet it will be very hard to find a more convenient word whereby to express the distinction of these Three For which reason I could never yet see any just Cause to quarrel at this Term. For since the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture hath thought fit in speaking of these Three to distinguish them from one another as we use in common Speech to distinguish Three several Persons I cannot see any reason why in the Explication of this Mystery which purely depends upon Divine Revelation we should not speak of it in the same manner as the Scripture doth And though the word Person is now become a Term of Art I see no cause why we should decline it so long as we mean by it neither more nor less than what the Scripture says in other words V. Archbishop Tillotson's Sermon on 1 Tim. 2. 5. p. 19. Here then I fix my foot That there are Three Differences in the Deity which the Scripture speaks of by the Names of Father Son and Holy Ghost and every where speaks of them as we use to do of Three distinct Persons And therefore I see no reason why in this Argument we should nicely abstain from using the word Person Id. Sermon II. on John 1. 14. p. 120. Q. You confess then that the word Trinity is not to be found in Scripture However may these Unitarians reply Have you not found it in the Athanasian Creed And because the Church of England hath owned this Creed by taking it into her Liturgy that you may approve your Selves true Sons of the Church therefore say they you are resolved to Defend it V. Pref. to Mr. Milb p. 7. A. We assert Three Persons in the Godhead Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed but because the Scripture hath Revealed that there are Three Father Son and Holy Ghost to whom the Divine Nature and Attributes are given This we verily Believe that the Scripture hath Revealed and that there are a great many Places of which we think no tolerable Sense can be given without it and therefore we assert this Doctrine on the same Grounds on which we believe the Scriptures And if there are Three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them what must we do in this Case Must we cast off the Unity of the Divine Essence No that is too frequently and plainly asserted for us to call it into Question Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost as well as to the Father That we cannot do unless we cast off those Books of Scripture wherein those things are contained V. Bishop Stillingfleet's Vind. of the Trinity p. 112. Q. But is it not trifling to prove a Doctrine by Scripture which as the Socinians pretend is contrary to Reason It being a known Rule which I shall express in the words of Bishop Stillingfleet That Whatever speaks a direct Repugnancy to any of the Fundamental Dictates of Nature cannot be of Divine Revelation V. Orig. Sacr. p. 172. For the Law of Nature and of Right Reason imprinted in our hearts is as truly the Law and Word of God as is that which is printed in our Bibles V. Bishop Sanderson's Ser. 4. ad Cl. p. 78. And therefore since Truth is never contrary to it self is it not impertinent to prove this Doctrine of the Trinity by the Scriptures which is not only above Reason but plainly contrary to it A. As to its being above Reason which they are loth to admit any thing to be this I think will bear no great Dispute Because if they would be pleased to speak out they can mean no more by this but that our Reason is not able fully to comprehend it But what then Are there no Mysteries in Religion That I am sure they will not say because God whose Infinite Nature and Perfections are the very foundation of all Religion is certainly the greatest Mystery of all other and the most incomprehensible But we must not nay they will not for this reason deny that there is such a Being as God And therefore if there be Mysteries in Religion it is no reasonable Objection against them that we cannot fully comprehend them Because all Mysteries in what kind soever whether in Religion or in Nature so long and so far as they are Mysteries are for that very reason incomprehensible Vid. Archbishop Tillotson Serm. II. on Joh. 1. 14. p. 117. I desire it may be considered That it is not repugnant to Reason to believe some things which are incomprehensible by our Reason provided that we have sufficient ground and reason for the belief of