Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	holy_a	scripture_n	speak_v	14,888	5	5.2608	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40072	Certain propositions by which the doctrin of the H. Trinity is so explain'd, according to the ancient fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to natural reason together with a defence of them, in answer to the objections of a Socianian writer, in his newly printed Considerations on the explications of the doctrin of the Trinity : occasioned by these propositions among other discourses : in a letter to that author.; Twenty-eight propositions by which the doctrine of the Trinity is endeavoured to be explained	Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714.	1694 (1694)	Wing F1696; ESTC R14585	14,588	32

CERTAIN Propositions By which the DOCTRIN OF THE H. Trinity Is so Explain'd according to the Ancient Fathers as to speak it not Contradictory to Natural Reason TOGETHER With a Defence of Them in Answer to the Objections of a Socinian Writer in His Newly Printed Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrin of the Trinity Occasioned by these Propositions among other Discourses In a Letter to that Author LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons in Cornhil 1694. CERTAIN Propositions c. 1. THE Name of God is used in more Sences than one in Holy Scripture 2. The most Absolutely Perfect Being is God in the Highest Sence 3. Self-Existence is a Perfection and seems to be the Highest of all Perfections 4. God the Father alone is in reference to His Manner of Existence an Absolutely Perfect Being because He alone is Self-Existent 5. He alone consequently is Absolutely Perfect in reference to those Perfections which do praesuppose Self-Existence 6. Those Perfections are Absolute Independence and Being the First Original of all other Beings In which the Son and the Holy Ghost are comprehended 7. All Trinitarians do Acknowledge That these Two Persons are from God the Father This is affirmed in that Creed which is called the Nicene and in that which falsely bears the Name of Athanasius Tho' with this difference that the Holy Ghost is asserted in them to be from the Son as well as from the Father Wherein the Greek Church differs from the Latin 8. It is therefore a flat Contradiction to say that the Second and Third Persons are Self-Existent 9. And therefore it is alike Contradictious to Affirm them to be Beings Absolutely Perfect in reference to their Manner of Existence and to say that they have the Perfections of Absolute Independence and of being the First Originals of all things 10. Since the Father alone is a Being of the most Absolute Perfection He having those Perfections which the other Two Persons are uncapable of having He alone is God in the Absolutely Highest Sence 11. And therefore our Blessed Saviour calls Him The onely True God Joh. 17.3 This is Life Eternal to know Thee the onely True God and Iesus Christ whom Thou hast sent And it is most Absurd to think That in these Words and the following Prayer He did address Himself to the Three Persons of the Trinity conjunctly since throughout the Prayer He calls this Onely Truly God his Father and calls Himself twice His Son before these Words Not to mention the Absurdity of making our Lord to pray to Himself or of distinguishing Himself from those Three of which Himself was one If such a Liberty as this in interpreting Scripture be allowable what Work may be made with Scripture 12. Our Lord calls the Father The Onely True God because He only is Originally and of Himself God and the First Original of all Beings whatsoever As he calls him the Onely Good saying There is none Good but God because He alone is Originally so and the Spring of all that Good which is in other Beings 13. The God head or God in this Highest Sence can be but One Numerically Of which the best Philosophers were satisfied by their Reason and therefore the Oneness so frequently affirmed of Him in Scripture is a Numerical Oneness 14. There seems to be neither Contradiction nor Absurdity in supposing the First Original of all things to be productive of other Beings so Perfect as to have all Perfections but that of Self-Existence and those which are necessarily therein implyed 15. Supposing any such Beings to have immediately issued forth from that infinite Fullness and Foecundity of Being which is in the Deity each of them must have a Right to the Name of God in a Sence next to that in which it is appropriated to the Father since they have all the Perfections of the Godhead but those that must of Necessity be peculiar to Him 16. It is evident from the Holy Scripture That the Son and Holy Spirit are such Beings viz. That they have all Divine Perfections but the forementioned Such as Unlimited Power Wisdom Goodness c. 17. And they are always spoken of in Scripture as Distinst Beings or Persons according to the Proper Signification of this Word both from the Father and from Each Other Nor are so many Men or Angels more expresly distinguished as different Persons or Substances by our Saviour or his Apostles than the Father Son and Holy Ghost still are 18. It is a very presumptuous Conceit That there can be no way but that of Creation whereby any thing can be immediately and onely from God which hath a distinct Existence of its own Or That no Beings can have Existence from Him by way of Necessary Emanation Of which we have a Clearer Idaea than of Voluntary Creation It is the Word of the Ancients both Fathers and Philosophers nor can a better be found to express what is intended by it viz. A more excellent way of existing than that of Creation 19. It is no less presumptuous to Affirm That it is a Contradiction to suppose That a Being can be from Eternity from God the Father if 't is possible it may be from Him in a more Excellent Way than that of Creation And we have an Illustration of both these Propositions by something in Nature For according to our Vulgar Philosophy Light doth exist by necessary Emanation from the Sun and therefore the Sun was not before the Light which proceeds from thence in Order of Time tho' it be in Order of Nature before it And the Distinction between these Two Priorities is much Elder than Thomas Aquinas or Peter Lombard or any School-man of them all or Christian-man either 20. And if any thing can be from another thing by way of Necessary Emanation it is so far from a Contradiction to suppose that it must only be in order of nature before it that 't is most apparently a Contradiction to suppose the contrary 21. Our 18th and 19th Propositions do speak our Explication of the H. Trinity to be as contrary to Arianism as to Socinianism since the Arians assert that there was at least a moment of time when the Son was not and that He is a Creature 22. Altho' we cannot understand how it should be no Contradiction to affirm That the Three Persons are But One Numerical Being or Substance yet hath it not the least shadow of a Contradiction to suppose That there is an unconceivably close and inseparable Union both in Will and Nature between them And such a Union may be much more easily conceived between them than can that Union which is between our Souls and Bodies since these are Substances which are of the most unlike and even Contrary Natures 23. Since we cannot conceive the First Original of All things to be more than One Numerically and that we acknowledg the now mentioned Union between the three Persons according to the Scriptures together with the

of it You say that the Hypothesis expresly acknowledgeth in each of the Two Persons not onely whatsoever Properties can make them to be distinct intellectual Beings and Substances but also all the Attributes that are necessary to Essentiate a God that is to make Him a Perfect God onely it saith the Father hath this peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Priviledge that He is First in order of Nature He hath no Essential or Real Perfection more than the other Two Persons onely He hath this Honour that their Original is from Him And hence you Conclude that it is not possible to say what are Three GODS if this be not an Account and Description of Three Gods But Sir doth our Author's Hypothesis give the FATHER no other Priviledge above the Son and H. Spirit than his being First in Order of Nature and their Original Doth not the Fourth Proposition expresly say that he is Self-Existent too And His being their Original is so far from being the same thing with Self-Existence that simply in it self considered it doth not so much as necessarily suppose His Self-Existence Doth he who faith that the Sun is the Original of the Illustrious Splendour in the Heavens and of the Light which pervades the World in so saying affirm that it is Self-Existent And I shall wonder if Self-Existence be but an Imaginary Perfection I should rather Conclude it the very greatest of all Real Perfections How then can you say That this Hypothesis gives the Father no other Priviledge above the other Persons but onely that He is First in Order of Nature Again Is not Absolute Independence a Real Perfection and Being the First Original of all things another But doth not the Sixth Proposition considered with the Fifth ascribe both these too to the Father onely And whereas you say farther That this Hypothesis gives the Second and Third Persons all the Attributes that are necessary to Assentiate a God What Earnings will you make of this since it saith not that those which are ascribed to them viz. infinite Goodness Wisdom and Power are all that are necessary to Essentiate a God in the Absolutely Highest Sence which the Name of God is ever to be understood in in Holy Scripture And now you can need no Answer to what you say in the last Words of this Paragraph viz. The Perfections of the Deity that are Real are Gods infinite Wisdom Power Goodness Duration and such like Therefore the Son and Spirit are Gods in the Highest Sence of that Word if they have all those aforesaid real and positive Perfections of the Divine Nature tho' it be granted at the same time that they are Originated from the Father You need I say no Answer hereto since you were now minded that Self-Existence Absolute Independence and Being the First Original of All things are Perfections peculiar to God the Father and that this is part of the Explication And upon this Account Athanasius S. Basil Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostom with several of the Latin Fathers interpret those Words of our B. Saviour My Father is greater than I to have been spoken not of His Humanity but His Divinity as Dr. Cudworth hath shewed in his 599 th Page of his Intellectual System of the Universe Nor certainly did our Lord ever say so little a thing as that the Infinite MAIESTY of Heaven and Earth is greater than any Mortal Man And having this Occasion to Mention Dr. Cudworth the Honour I have for the Memory of that Excellent Person constraineth me to say That the Account he gives of the Fathers Judgment of the Trinity is not Represented as it ought to have been in the former Socinian Treatise of Considerations on the Explications thereof And I so word that most Learned Performance of the Doctor because he was therein an Historian rather than an Explicator Your next Paragraph begins with this Question A Father begets Two Sons that have all the Properties of the Humane Nature in as great Perfection as their Father shall we deny that they are Men in the Highest Sence of that Word because they are Originated from their Father And this say you is the very Case before us But Sir this is not with your Leave the very Case before us 'T is nothing like it because 't is the Perfection of no Man to be Self-Existent nor are a Humane Fathers Sons immediately dependent on him for the Continuation of their Being as the Two Persons are upon God the Father as Light is upon the Sun and as Streams on the Fountain But if a Humane Father could be supposed to be Self-Existent and that his Sons had the now mentioned kind of Dependence upon him the Consequence must be that their Nature is short of the Perfection of their Fathers Nature notwithstanding the many Properties they agree in and therefore that they are not Men in so high a Sence as he is a Man seeing the Humane Nature would be supposed capable of Perfections which they have not but their Father hath What follows of this Paragraph is only applying the Point in Controversie to this Case but I have said enough to shew that there is not the least Affinity between these Two Cases The Substance of what you farther Object against this Explication is a Remark upon the Twenty Second Proposition And you say In these few Words consist the strength and Hopes of this Explication The unconceivably Close Union in Will and Nature between the Three Gods makes them to be One God I see Sir you as odiously word it as you can but you would have lost nothing by it had you kept to our Author's Words and said Three Persons or if you had pleased Three distinct Proper Persons instead of Three Gods Well Sir the unconceivably Close Union in Will and Nature between the Divine Persons is that as you say in which the strength and hopes of this Explication do consist But you Object That this is as much as to say that they are One God by that very thing which most incontestably declares them to be Three Gods And this you make out by this Question what is the Union of Will and Nature between distinct intellectual Beings and different Substances is it any other but this in plain English that they always will the same things and their Natures and Substances are united in the same Properties Attributes or Perfections That is to say as you proceed these Three intellectual Substances or Beings are each of them Almighty Omniscient most Good and the rest Why this is the very thing that makes them to be Three Gods Next you give us a Proof of this but you might have saved your self that labour for 't is readily granted if this be all the Union that is between them But in Answer to your Question it must never be granted you that the inseparably Close Union between the Three Divine Persons both in Will and Nature is no more than their Union in the same Will

intire dependence of the two latter upon the First Person The Unity of the Deity is to all intents and purposes as fully asserted by us as it is necessary or reasonable it should be 24. And no part of this Explication do we think Repugnant to any Text of Scripture but it seems much the Easiest way of Reconciling those Texts which according to the other Hypotheses are not Reconcilable but by offering manifest violence to them 25. The Socinians must needs Confess that the Honour of the Father for which they express a very Zealous Concern is as much as they can desire taken care of by this Explication Nor can the Honour of the Son and Holy Spirit be more Consulted than by ascribing to them all Perfections but what they cannot have without the most apparent Contradiction ascribed to them 26. And we would think it impossible that any Christian should not be easily perswaded to think as honourably of his Redeemer and Sanctifier as he can while he Robs not God the Father for their Sake and offers no violence to the Sence and Meaning of Divine Revelations nor to the Reason of his Mind 27. There are many things in the notion of One God which all Hearty Theists will acknowledg necessary to be conceived of Him that are as much above the Reach and Comprehension of Humane Understandings as is any Part of this Explication of the H. Trinity Nay this may be affirmed even of the Notion of Self Existence but yet there cannot be an Atheist so silly as to Question it Since it is not more Evident that One and Two do make Three than that there could never have been any thing if there were not Something which was always and never began to be 28. Left Novelty should be Objected against this Explication and therefore such should be prejudiced against it as have a Veneration for Antiquity we add that it well agrees with the Account which several of the Nicene Fathers even Athanasius himself and others of the Ancients who treat of this Subject do in divers places of their Works give of the Trinity As is largely shewed by two very Learned Divines of our Church And had it not been for the Schoolmen to whom Christianity is little beholden as much as some Admire them we have reason to believe that the World would not have been troubled since the Fall of Arianism with such Controversies about this Great Point as it hath been and Continues to be This Explication of the B. Trinity perfectly agrees with the Nicene Creed as it stands in our Liturgy without offering the least Violence to any one Word in it Which makes our Lord Jesus Christ to be from God the Father by way of Emanation affirming Him to be God of God very God of very God and Metaphorically expressing it by Light of Light answerably to what the Author to the Hebrews saith of Him Chap. 1.3 viz. That he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Effulgency of his Glory and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Character of his Substance And so is as much Of one Substance with the Father as the Beams of the Sun are with the Body of it And since there have been of late so many Explications or Accounts Published of this most Adorable Mystery which have had little better Success than making Sport for the Socinians I thought it very Seasonable now to Revive That which I affirm with great Assurance to be the most Ancient one of all much Elder than the Council of Nice and to have much the fewest difficulties in it and to be incomparably most agreeable to H. Scripture A DEFENCE Of the Foregoing Propositions SIR THe Author of the Twenty Eight Propositions thanks you for the very Charitable Opinion you have expressed concerning him in the Entrance into your Reflexions upon them and hopes he shall always endeavour to deserve the Character of a Man so Honest as never to speak otherwise than he thinks and so true to his Understanding as always to make Reason one of his Guides in the Choyce of his Opinions He professing to believe that the Use of Reason is so far from being to be Condemned in Matters of Religion as no where else to be so well employed And that it is infinitely unworthy of Almighty God to conceive it possible for Him to Contradict his Internal by his External Revelations But so he must have done should such Writings be of His inspiring as are manifestly contradictory to the plain Dictates of Natural Reason which the Wise Man faith Is the Candle of the Lord. And Sir our Author takes no less Notice of your Candour in the Character you give in the Words following of his Explication of the Doctrin of the H. Trinity in those Propositions But after your Acknowledgment That he hath avoided a great many Contradictions which those of your Party do charge on this Doctrin as it is held by others and that his Explication is a Possible Scheme and that it is clear from any Contradictions to Natural Reason you Object that besides some insuperable Difficulties the Author hath not been able to avoid some Numerical Contradictions Now as to the insuperable Difficulties with which you charge his Explication since you acquit them from being Contradictions to Natural Reason you mean I suppose that it is fraught with several Contradictions to H. Scripture And I confess such Contradictions to be as insuperable Difficulties to us as we are Christians as those to Reason are as we are Men. If this be your Meaning the Author may well expect to have it shewn what Texts of Scripture are contradicted by this Explication but if you mean otherwise my Reply is That you are not so shallow a Thinker as not to be aware that there are also insuperable Difficulties in the Notion of One God both as His Nature is described by all Christians according to the Account given of Him in H. Scripture and as all Theists are compelled by Natural Light to conceive of Him Nay you will frankly own that there is not any one thing in the whole Universe which doth not suggest insuperable Difficulties to an Inquisitive Mind And whereas Sir you Charge our Author with not being able to avoid some Numerical Contradictions I confess I never before met with this distinction but I think I understand it by your Description of it You say that a Numerical Contradiction is an Error committed in the summing up of things But how is he guilty of such Contradictions If you mean that he hath made Contradictory Conclusions or such a Conclusion to several of his Premisses I cannot though you do excuse him from contradicting Natural Reason any more than from contradicting Himself And it appears from what follows that that is your Meaning for after you had given the Sum and Substance of the First Thirteen Propositions your Reflexion thereon is this One would think that such a Foundation being laid the Conclusion must be wholly in savour