Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	father_n	person_n	trinity_n	5,937	5	9.9723	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86003	Male audis or An answer to Mr. Coleman his Malè dicis. Wherein the repugnancy of his Erastian doctrine to the word of God, to the solemne League and Covenant, and to the ordinances of Parliament: also his contradictions, tergiversations, heterodoxies, calumnies, and perverting of testimonies, are made more apparent then formerly. Together with some animadversions upon Master Hussey his Plea for Christian magistracy: shewing, that in divers of the afore mentioned particulars he hath miscarried as much, and in some particulars more then Mr Coleman. / By George Gillespie, minister at Edinbrugh. Published by authority.	Gillespie, George, 1613-1648.	1646 (1646)	Wing G754; Thomason E317_16; ESTC R200545	44,904	65

turneth over to the Essence and Nature of God what I spake of the second Person in the Trinity or of Christ as he is the eternall Son of God Was not the Question between him and me Whether the Kingdome and Dominion over all things may be said to be given to Christ as he is the eternall Son of God This is the point which he did argue against because it takes off his Argument first brought to prove that all Government even civill is given to Christ as he is Mediator And still from the beginning I spake of Christ as the second person in Trinity or the eternall Sonne of God Thus therefore the case stands The Reverend Brother to prove that an Universall Soveraignty and Government over all things is given to Christ as he is Mediator and to confute my Assertion that it is given to Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God doth frame this Argument against me That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God But here dignity is given to Christ Therefore not here to be taken as God Where there is more in the conclusion then in the Premisses for the conclusion which naturally followes had been this Therefore Christ hath not here dignity as God It seemes he was ashamed of the conclusion yet not of the premisses which inferre the conclusion But this by the way I speake to his Proposition That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God These words as God either he understands {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} essentially or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} personally that is either in regard of the nature and essence of God which is common to the Sonne of God with the Father and the Holy Ghost and in respect whereof they three are one or in regard of the person of the Word as Christ is the second Person in the Trinity and personally distinct from the Father and the Holy Ghost If in the former sense then he must lay aside his whole Argument as utterly impertinent and making nothing at all against my Theses which affirmed that an Universall Dominion and Kingdome over all things is given to Christ not as he is Mediator in which capacity he is onely King of the Church but as he is the Eternall Sonne of God In opposing of which Assertion as the Reverend Brother was before Nihil Respondens so now he is twice nought But if in the other sense he understands his Proposition which I must needs suppose he doth it being in opposition to what I said then I still averre his Proposition will inferre a blasphemous heresie as I proved before by a cleare demonstration That which is given to Christ he hath it not as God But life glory c. is given to Christ Ergo Christ hath not life glory c. as God The Reverend Brother saith I acknowledge the conclusion unsound and I deny not but that the Major is mine owne and the Minor is the very Scripture Yet he denies the conclusion and cleares himselfe by this simile That which was given this poore man he had not before but a shilling was given this poore man Ergo He had not a shilling before Where both Propositions are true yet the conclusion is false saith he contrary to the axiome Ex veris nil nisi verum You are extreamly out Sir your Syllogisme of the poore man is fallacia ab amphibolia The Major of it is ambiguous dubious and fallacious and cannot be admitted without a distinction But here you acknowledge the Major of my Argument to be your owne and so not fallacious in your opinion You acknowledge the Minor to be Scripture You have not found foure termes in my Premisses nor charged my Major or Minor with the least fault in matter or forme and yet forsooth you denie the Conclusion and doe not admit that uncontrovertible Maxime in Logick Ex veris nil nisi●●rum or as Kekerman hath it Ex veris praemiss●s fal●●● conclusionem colligi est impossibile It is impossible that a false Conclusion s●●uid be gathered from true Premisses Now let us heare what he would say against my Conclusion it is concerning the sense of the word hath For hath saith he by me is used for receiving or having by vertue of the gift but by him for having fundamentally originally You are still out Sir I take it just as you take it for though the Sonne of God as God essentially or in respect of the nature and essence of God which is common to all three Persons in the blessed Trinity hath originally of himselfe a Kingdome and Dominion over all yet as he is the second Person in Trinity begotten of and distinct from the Father he hath the Kingdome and Dominion over all not of himselfe but by vertue of the gift of his Father So that the Reverend Brother is still Nihil Respondens and therefore he shall be concluded in this Syllogisme He who holds that whatsoever is given to Christ he hath it not by vertue of the gift as he is the eternall Sonne of God or second Person in the Trinity but onely as Mediator he holds by consequence that Christ hath not glory by vertue of his Fathers gift as he is the eternall Sonne of God or second Person in the Trinity But Master Coleman holds the former Ergo Master Coleman holds the latter The consequence in the Proposition is proved from Joh. 7. 22. The glory which thou gavest me The assumption he will owne or else quit his argument against my distinction of the double Kingdome given to Christ as the eternall Sonne of God and as Mediator The conclusion which followes is hereticall for wheras the Nicen Creed said that Christ in regard of his eternall generation that he is Deus de Deo Lumen de Lumine God of God Light of Light Master Colemans argument will infe●●e that he is not onely ex seipso Deus but ex seipso filius and so denie the eternall generation of the Sonne of God and the communication of the Godhead and the Soveraignty Glory and Attributes thereof from the Father to the Sonne For if Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God hath not glory by vertue of his Fathers Gift then he hath it not by vertue of the eternall generation and communication but fundamentally and originally of himselfe As for the other branch of Master Colemans Argument tending to prove that Christ as he is the eternall Sonne of God cannot be given which he indeavours to vindicate pag. 14. 15. I answer these two things First Granting all that he saith he concludes nothing against me for I did from the beginning expound those words Eph. 1. 22. And gave him to be the head over all things to the church in this sence that Christ as Mediator is given only to the Church to be her head but he that is given as Mediator to the Church is over all So that the giving of