Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	ghost_n	holy_a	john_n	17,081	5	6.2026	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A38042	Socinianism unmask'd a discourse shewing the unreasonableness of a late writer's opinion concerning the necessity of only one article of Christian faith, and of his other assertions in his late book, entituled, The reasonableness of Christianity as deliver'd in the Scriptures, and in his vindication of it : with a brief reply to another (professed) Socinian writer / by John Edwards ...	Edwards, John, 1637-1716.	1696 (1696)	Wing E214; ESTC R3296	60,720	171

time it is no doubt use the same discipline towards the latter i. e. lop off some of the Precepts of the Decalogue and diminish that Form and Pattern of Prayer which our Saviour hath left us Thus this Writer sees how sitly his book of the Reasonableness of Christianity c. was brought into my Discourse about the Causes and Occasions of Atheism which he seems to wonder at p. 2. It appears also that if I gave his book an Ill Name as he complains it doth deserve it and that it hath not only a Socinian but an Atheistick Tang. I have proved and shall yet further do it in this present Undertaking that he hath corrupted mens minds depraved the Gospel and abused Christianity And is there no Atheism in this To conclude if after all he will stand to his Proposition and assert there is but One Article of Faith just one and no more and it is sure there can be no less necessarily to be assented to he may enjoy his Confident Humour but it is to be hoped that there is not any considerable number of men in the world that will admit of such an Unaccountable Paradox and forfeit their Reasons merely to please their Fancy But because I design'd these Papers for the satisfying of the Readers Doubts about any thing occurring concerning the matter before us and for the establishing of his wavering mind I will here before I pass to the Second General Head of my Discourse answer a Query or Objection which some and not without some shew of Ground may be apt to start How comes it to pass they will say that this Article of Faith viz. that Iesus is the Messias or Christ is so often repeated in the New Testament Why is this sometimes urged without the mentioning of any other Article of Belief Doth not this plainly shew that this is All that is requir'd to be believ'd as Necessary to make a man a Christian May we not infer from the frequent and sole repetition of this Article in several places of the Evangelist and the Acts that there is no other Point of Faith of absolute necessity but that this alone is sufficient to constitute a man a True Member of Christ To clear this Objection and to give a full and satisfactory Answer to all doubts in this affair I offer these ensuing Particulars which will lead the Reader to the right understanding of the whole case 1. It must be consider'd that the believing of Iesus to be the promised Messias was the first step to Christianity and therefore This rather than any other Article was propounded to be believ'd by all those whom either our Saviour or the Apostles invited to imbrace Christianity If they would not if they did not give credit to This in the first place viz. That Iesus of Nazareth was that Eminent and Extraordinary Person prophesied of long before and that he was Sent and Commission'd by God there could be no hope that they would attend unto any other Proposal relating to the Christian Religion This is the true reason why that Article was constantly propounded to be believ'd by all that look'd towards Christianity and why it is mention'd so often in the Evangelical Writings It was that which made way for the embracing of all the other Articles it was the passage to all the rest But our Anonymous Author not thinking of this but observing that this One Article was usually required to be assented to in the Gospel-Writings he thence inconsiderately concludes that this is the Whole of the Christian Belief and that there is nothing else to be necessarily assented to to make a man a Christian. I am sorry to see that a person of some Sense can have so little a feeling of the True Nature and Import of Christianity that he can harbour such a thought as this that all the necessary part of our Belief is summ'd up in a bare giving assent to this Proposition Iesus is the Messias He mistakes a part of Christian Faith for All and the Entrance and Beginning of it for the full Consummation of it 2. It is to be remembred that though this One Proposition or Article be mention'd alone in some places yet there is reason to think and be perswaded that at the same time other Matters of Faith were proposed For it is confess'd by all Intelligent and Observing men that the History of the Scripture is concise and that in relating of matter of Fact many passages are omitted by the Sacred Pen-men Wherefore though but this One Article of belief because it is a Leading one and makes way for the rest be expresly mention'd in some of the Gospels yet we must not conclude thence that no other matter of Faith was requir'd to be admitted of For things are briefly set down in the Evangelical Records and we must suppose many things which are not in direct terms related The not attending to this hath been one occasion of the present mistake Hence it was that this Narrow-minded Writer shuts up all in belief of Iesus's being the Christ. 3. This also must be thought of that though there are Several parts and members of the Christian Faith yet they do not all occur in any One place of Scripture This is well known to those that are conversant in the Writings of the New Testament and therefore when in some places only One single part of the Christian Faith is made mention of as necessarily to be imbrac'd in order to Salvation we must be careful not to take it alone but to supply it from several other places which make mention of other Necessary and Indispensable Points of Belief I will give the Reader a plain Instance of this Rom. 10. 9. If thou shalt believe in thy heart that God hath rais'd him i. e. the Lord Jesus from the dead thou shalt be saved Here One Article of Faith viz. the belief of Christ's Resurrection because it is of so great importance in Christianity is only mention'd but all the rest must be supposed because they are mention'd in other places And consequently if we would give an impartial account of our Belief we must consult those places and they are not all together but dispers'd here and there wherefore we must look them out and acquaint our selves with the Several Particulars which make up our Belief and render it entire and consummate But our hasty Author took another course and thereby deceiv'd himself and unhappily deceives others 4. This which is the Main Answer to the Objection must be born in our minds that Christianity was erected by degrees according to that prediction and promise of our Saviour that the Spirit should teach them all things John 14. 26. and that he should guide them into all truth John 16. 13. viz. after his Departure and Ascension when the Holy Ghost was to be sent in a special manner to enlighten mens minds and to discover to them the great Mysteries of Christianity This is to be

for a man shall scarcely hear a more Audacious word though 't is true he endeavours to mollifie it with an if As to what he saith about my taking notice of the Gentleman 's slighting the Epistolary Writings I have fully answered it in the foregoing Papers and therefore shall add no more here He proceeds next to those Socinan Authors whose undue Notions concerning God I glanc'd upon The Author of the Considerations c. in reply to the Right Reverend Bishop who had from the notion of God's Eternity inferr'd that he was Self-existent or from himself hath these words What makes him viz. the Bishop say God must be from himself or self-originated for then he must be before he was which this Writer concludes to be a Contradiction Therefore he would make this Conclusion that God's Self-existence is a Contradiction I know it will be pretended that this is the Consequence only of the Bishops Notion of Eternity but it is plain that that Writer makes use of this Arguing to shake the belief of the Eternity and Self-Existence of the Allmighty and that will appear from what he further adds in way of Exception to what that Reverend Person saith afterwards concerning God's Eternity This Examinator talks of a false notion of Self-existence but doth not say what it is If I have mistaken the Considerer let him write plainer another time As to the Examinator's question How the Second and Third Persons can be Self-existent I answer They are Self-existent as they are eternally from the Self-same Deity Though according to the Nicene Creed Christ be God of God yet that doth not infring his Self-Existence because those words are not spoken of the Essence of Christ which is common to him with his Father but of his Personality He being the same with the Father as to the former hath his Existence of himself but differing from the Father as to the latter he is rightly said to be from him or of him as he is the Second Person in the Trinity This is easily reconciled with what he saith an Other Bishop asserts if this Vnitarian hath not a mind to quarrel In the next Paragraph he is quite non-plus'd for I had charg'd the Sacinian Authors with their denial of God's foreknowing future Contingencies and consequently denying the Omniscience of God which is an inseparable Attribute of the Deity and he having nothing to reply to the purpose first tells us he is not concern'd in it p. 18 whereas every one knows that he being one of the Party is concern'd Secondly assoon as he had as it were renounced the Socinian doctrine by saying he was not Concern'd in it he presently owns it for Truth as those words import p. 18. to deny his foreknowledg of the certainty of that which is not certain c. which is as much as to say that there are some things that are Uncertain and therefore Unknowable and these God can have no knowledg of And yet thirdly he would seem to hint that it is a dishonourable thing to God those are his words that he should not have a foresight of these things Thus Confused is our Author which shews he is not fit to be an Examiner of other mens Writings when he can't write Consistently himself but in three or four lines hath as many Blunders In the next words and what follows he perfectly gives up the Cause p. 18. for I had laid this to the charge of the Racovians that they denied the Immensity or Omnipresence of God which is a Property or Perfection never to be disjoyn'd from the Deity whereupon he tamely acknowledges that Crellius and the rest of the Fraternity are of this perswasion Only because the Gentleman must be wagging his tongue he gives us a scrap out of a Latin Poet and just names a Greek Father who never said any thing to that matter and so we are rid of them But he comes on again and goes off assoon for he barely mentions the Spirituality of God which I had asserted to be another Divine Excellency and it is such an Attribute of God that we can't conceive of him without it and therefore it is made the short and comprehensive Definition of him that he is a Spirit Iohn 4. 24. In my Discourse which this Examinator calls in question I took notice that the Socinians denied this Property of the Deity which I justly tax'd as an Atheistick Tang and I think it was a mild term for it is a Rank Sign of a great tendency to Atheism to deny that God is a Spirit i. e. an Immaterial Incorporeal Being But our present Author resolves himself into the opinion of those modest Divines who by their Blushing can be no other than Socinus's Scholars who determine nothing about the Point which is as much as to say he and they deny it But you must know they are now a little upon their Credit this Gentleman who speaks in the name of the rest had before given up the Immensity and Omniscience of God and therefore it is high time now to be upon the Reserve and to pause a little that the world may not see that they reject All those Properties of the Deity which I mention'd But notwithstanding this cunning practice of theirs the world may see yea it cannot but plainly see that they deny every one of these Divine Attributes more or less and this particularly which I mention'd last viz. that God is a Spirit properly so call'd For whereas I quoted Socinus and Crellius their Grand Patriots to prove this denial this Writer takes no notice of my doing so which lets us see that the opinion of those Great Masters is humbly submitted to by all the rest So now I hope the Reader is convinc'd that I was not Vnjust to the Socinians that I did not highly injure them as they have cried out when I charg'd them with Atheism or a Strong Tendency to it in some Points I tax'd them with denying these four Attributes the Self-Existence the Omniscience the Omnipotence the Spirituality of God and lo this professed Son of Socinus who was chosen out with great deliberation and judgment without doubt from the rest of his brethren to undertake the Cause to refute what I had alledg'd against them and who questionless hath said all that he could in the Case lo I say this professed and known Writer of the Brotherhood confirms and ratifies what I have laid to their charge For he produces the words out of their own Author which I referr'd to whence it appears that he had a mind to distort the Right Reverend Bishop of Worcester's words and to argue against the Self-Existence of God This Examinator without any more ado rejects the Second and third Attributes and by his boggling at the fourth we know what must be the fate of that Thus he and his fellow-Criminals being conscious to the truth and Justice of the Charge confess themselves Guilty They are so far from clearing themselves