Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	holy_a	lord_n	spirit_n	8,095	5	5.0560	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40721	The Socinian controversie touching the Son of God reduced, in a brief essay, to prove the Son one in essence with the Father, upon Socinian principles, concessions and reason : concluded with an humble and serious caution to the friends of the Church of England, against the approaches of Socinianism / by F.F. ...	Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.	1693 (1693)	Wing F2516; ESTC R17950	19,397	38

Father the Son and the Holy Ghost that these are Three and that the Father is the God of Christians the Son is the God of Christians and the Holy Ghost is the God of Christians Certainly the Socinians as well as the Arrians may apprehend the matter so far And further That they are all True God for we are not baptized in the Name to the worship of any false God And lastly That as the Apostle saith To us Christians there is but one true God Yes all this they can apprehend as 't is revealed but they know not how to understand three in one and one in three Here I cannot give them better Advice than not to lean to their own Vnderstandings but to believe the Revelation and with Modesty and Humllity to adore the Mystery Quomodo Pater genuit Filium nolo discutias St. Hierom. Yet I must remark that the Mystery as to the Matter of it was conceivable and upon a plain Text not then disputed believed too before the Council of Nice and though I know such Authorities weigh little with our Adversaries and Dr. Bull and Dr. Whitby might have spared their Excellent Pains in evincing such Authorities seeing they protest against them I mean as to them yet I have some reason to mention Two of them The first is that of Tertullian Ex Conscientia scimus c. Of Conscience we know that the Name of God and Father and Son and Spirit do agree so as the Connexion of the Father in the Son and of the Son in the Paraclete makes Three cohering alterum ex altero which Three are One Vnum non unus as it is said I and my Father are One for Unity of Substance not for Singularity of Number De anima c. 14. The other is St. Cyprian De Vnitate c. The Lord said I and my Father are One. And again Of God the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit it 's written And these Three are One Hanc unitatem Those that hold not this Unity hold not the Truth to Salvation These I have noted to shame the Scoffer that shall say We had but two Gods before the Council of Nice as well as to shew that wise and good men of old understood the Object and Rule of our Christian Faith in this great Article and what was then thought of the Oppugners of it Obj. So much for the Trinity but the Eternity of the Son of God and his Co-essentiality with the Father they say is unintelligible But can they conceive how God should be a Father from Eternity without a Son Can they not conceive that which their Brethren the Arrians believed according to abundance of Scriptures that our Saviour did exist before his Incarnation And then that being supposed their own Reason assures them that He must from Eternity as before was observed Can they not conceive that if all things were made by him and without him nothing was made that was made that he existed before any thing was made and therefore was a God born and not made Can they not apprehend that seeing whatsoever is in God is God and therefore the Wisdom and Power in God is the Divine Nature and that if God communicate his own Wisdom c. to his Son he communicates with it his Divine Nature Can they conceive that God was ever without his Wisdom Can they not conceive that Thought is the proper issue of a Mind and that God's Mind is eternal and Thought or Wisdom and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Son of God are eternally begotten of him Have these men peculiar and distinct Faculties from all Mankind The World is divided into Jews Turks Infidels Hereticks and the Church of God 1. As to our Saviour's Eternal Divinity the Apprehension and Faith of the Church of God is sufficiently manifest for Fifteen hundred years after our Saviour before Socinianism was formed And 't is well observed that those supersine Colours that Socinus and his Followers put upon those Texts by which the Catholick Church ever defended the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour were at least most of them never thought on by the Ancient Hereticks and never heard of before Socinus's time 2. The Jewish Doctors hold that the Messias is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Jehovah is a Name given to him that he is the Eternal Character of God therefore the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour was no inconceivable Mystery to them 3. As for the wiser Heathen Philosophers they speak a great deal plainer tho' it is fairly supposed they had their Light from the Jews The Indefatigable and Learned Dr. Whitby after the famous Dr. Cudworth hath given us a great deal to this purpose and observes what Socinus himself insinuates when he tells us we have our Doctrine out of Plato's School That the words of St. John c. 1. taken in their familiar and proper sence do exactly agree with the Sayings of the Platonists and Pythagoreans and other Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Word 1. The Philosophers acknowledge a Second Hypostasis which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mind Word and Son of the First 2. That this Second Hypostasis did exist from Eternity and declared him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sempiternal Word Mens temporis expers sempiterna 3. They pronounced this Word to be a Second God to denote his dependance upon the First 4. They asserted him to be the Cause Principal and Maker of all things such Conceits had these great Philosophers who we may imagine were Masters of as much Reason as the men we deal with Thus our Faith in our Saviour's Divinity was not abhorrent from the Reason of the learned Jews and wisest Philosophers 3. What Apprehension hath the Mahumetan part of the World in this mysterious Article Indeed I was much taken with some Passages in The Turkish Spy when I first saw his Letters which I shall transcribe out of his 31st Letter of Vol. 2. to the Mufti ' Tell me saith he why it is Blasphemy to say that God hath already taken Flesh since our holy Prophet avoucheth that GOD shall assume a Body at the Resurrection If a Body be competible with the Divine Essence it seems not to me a Blasphemy to assert the Incarnation of the Word whom our Prophet calls the Breath of God If this Breath or Word of God be not of the Essence of the Divinity why is that part of the Christian Gospel had in such reverence by the faithful Mussulman In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and God was the Word If the Word be of the Essence of God then it will necessarily follow that God has taken a human Body since our holy Prophet calls him the Word of God whom the Christians adore for God Incarnate Thus we have the sence of the Turkish Religion itself not the Authority of the Spy whoever he was but Reason grounded upon the very Alcoran Now seeing