Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
work_n father_n ghost_n son_n 14,714 5 6.2490 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A67386 An eighth letter concerning the Sacred Trinity occasioned by some letters to him on that subject / by John Wallis ... Wallis, John, 1616-1703. 1692 (1692) Wing W577; ESTC R28904 17,133 22

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

given to Man I say when we consider these what necessity is there of limiting and confining God Almighty here May we not as reasonably think that if in his infinite Wisdom he so thought fit he might as well make a Being yet more perfect Why is it not as conceiveable that to bring about his own eternal purposes he might actuate the Humane Nature by the Divine Power and make a Man in whom even the perfections of the Deity should reside Is the principle of Essentiality and Vitality any whit divided in or from the Deity by giving Life and Being to those Creatures Is the Eternal Mind any whit multiplied or divided by giving a Rational Soul or Mind to Man NOR is the Infinite and Eternal Spirit of the World multiplied or divided by creating and giving Being to those Glorious Spirits the Angels What necessity then to think that the Godhead must be either multiplied or divided or in any wise varied by acting the Divinity in the Humane Nature Oh rebellious Mankind that hast offended thy Creator but more ungrateful that wilt not accept his Mercy upon his own terms and believe it exhibited in that manner that he himself has revealed it Is it not that God whose Justice is infinite that is offended Is it not the same God who is also Infinite in Goodness and Mercy that is appeased What room for his Mercy without derogation to his Justice unless there be satisfaction And what satisfaction can be competent to the offended Deity Were Men or Angels fit to mediate or could they make a satisfaction Surely not 'T is his infinite mercy only that can appease his Justice There is Mercy with him that he may be feared yea Mercy rejoycing over Judgment NOW because it is inconceivable to man how the offended Deity should make a satisfaction to it self God Almighty is pleased thus far to condescend to the Capacity of Humane Nature as to tell us in what manner he hath done it viz. That he hath sent his only begotten Son into the World to be born of a Woman to live a life of righteousness for our instruction and example and to dye the Death of Sinners to satisfie for our defection And further that our Original Taint might not prevail over and misguide us into actual transgressions he hath sent his Holy Spirit amongst us to lead us into the ways of Truth and Righteousness This he was pleased to promise after the Fall by his Prophets in the times of the Old Testament and has now performed it to us in the times of the New Now is it fit for us to object against this manifestation of his Mercy to us and glorious contrivance of our Redemption because we cannot comprehend the mystery of it That surely was ne're meant to be within our fathom In the days of the Old Testament when God was pleased to command the adoration and duty of his People he manifested himself to them under several appellations whereby he put them in mind of his Mercies to them and their duty to him I am says he the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. And so in the Prologue to the Decalogue I am the Lord thy God which brought the out of the Land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage c. Intimating thereby to them the great mercies he had shewn in his Miraculous preservation of the Patriarchs and People of Isreal So now in the days of the New Testament God Almighty has been pleased to manisest himself to us under other denominations and appellations viz. those of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost intimating thereby to us in what manner be hath made good his promised Mercy and brought about the great work of our Redemption and that under those appellations and manifestations of himself he will now be worshipped in the times of the Gospel But for us to understand the great mysteries of our Salvation in this manner offered unto us viz. That the Trinity in the Vnity of the Godhead and that of the Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour c. was certainly never intended by God Almighty And shall we doubt what God himself tells us because we cannot comprehend it When God said to the People of Israel I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt c. had it been fit for them to have enquired how he brought them out of Egypt and to have ravelled into all the Miracles he wrought for that purpose and to have brought them to the touch of their understandings and to have doubted the truth thereof or the Power of God that did them because they could not reconcile them to their own reason Yet thus ill certainly do they use God Almighty who will doubt the Manner of our Salvation because they cannot understand the Mystery Alas vain Men that will not believe what God himself has Reveal'd because it will not bear the Test of their weak reason Do they think the Wisdom and Power of the Almighty are to be bounded by the Scanty Limits of their Vnderstanding That were for what is Finite to comprehend Infinity God were not God if that were so And these very Men who value themselves so much upon their Reason that they think they ought to understand the very Arcana of Heaven would I doubt not be ready enough by the same strength of Reasonng to disown that Deity that they could comprehend Thus I have presumed Reverend Sir to trouble you with this Draught of my Rude Notions about this matter which I hope you will excuse they coming from a private Countrey-Gentleman unread in Polemick Divinity and particularly in this Dispute and in whom these thoughts were occasioned by the Perusal of your late Papers I am Sir May 28th 1691. Yours most Humbly A. B. THIS Letter being for substance much to the same purpose with what I had undertaken to maintain and the expressions not much different and in nothing contrary to it I shall not detain the Reader with any long discourse upon it because it speaks sufficiently for it self It hath been suggested to me by another Anonymous That we knowing so little of the Infinite Divine Nature there may possibly be greater distinction between the Three which we use to call Hypostases or Persons than what he calls the Civil or Relative acceptation of the word Person and we may as well Prejudice the Truth by affirming too little as by affirming too much And it is very true there may be for ought we know and perhaps there is more than so nor have I any where denyed it But how much that more is we cannot tell Sure we are not so as to be three Gods or more Gods than one And I choose to say with St. Austin That these Three are One Spirit as we say they are One God not Three Spirits The true ancient import of the Word Person when first applied to the Trinity implies no
An EIGHTH LETTER Concerning the Sacred Trinity Occasioned by some Letters to him on that Subject By JOHN WALLIS D. D. c. SInce my publishing Seven Letters and Three Sermons concerning the Sacred Trinity I have received on that occasion several Letters from divers Persons some known some unknown concerning that Subject Mostly by way of Gratulation and Approbation of what I have done And where some Expressions therein are not just the same with mine they are much to the same purpose and not at all contrary to what I undertook to maintain One of them from an unknown Person subscribed A. B. was written it seems by a Countrey Gentleman not a professed Divine Who though he do not pretend to be much versed in School-Divinity yet is I find not a Stranger to it It was left for me at my Booksellers with an Intimation that the Author was willing to have it Printed And I left it again with the Bookseller for that purpose though it hath been delayed hitherto Which because the Author did desire it is as followeth A Letter to the Reverend Doctor Wallis occasioned by his several Letters touching the Doctrine of the Trinity c. Reverend Sir 'T IS gratitude and acknowledgement directs these lines to you I have been so fortunate to meet with your several Letters in affirmance of the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity c. And cannot but confess my self not only confirmed but much enlarged in my notions about that Doctrine by the so plain and pressing reason of your Discourses But lest I should seem fond of my own understanding and fancy to my self that I do comprehend more touching these matters than I indeed do I shall humbly offer to you my method of thoughts and submit the same to your Grave Judgment and Allowance THE Metaphysicians I remember teach us that one way to know the Deity is by way of Eminency Is there any good or perfection in the Creature Then say they God that is the great Author and Cause of all things must be so in a more eminent and high Degree The Attributes of God are Competent to man whom he made after his own Image in some measure but in God they are in the highest and superlative Degree NOW besides these Eminences and Perfections in the Deity there are three more particular and more transcendent Eminences wherein and whereby God hath manifested himself to and for the good of Mankind GOD Almighty was pleased in his infinite Mercy to determine that Mankind should be rescued from that state of Sin which the defection of our first Father brought us into and be brought back into a state of Salvation But how he should bring about and effect this great work is out of the reach of Humane contemplation and can no otherwise be known than as God himself hath been pleased to reveal and discover the same to us in the Scriptures NOW the Scriptures intimate to us three several Manifestations of the Deity in this great work of our Salvation THE first is that of a Father That God the Father of Heaven and Earth who created the World by his Power and preserveth it by his Providence so loved this World that he sent his only begotten Son to be our Saviour and mighty Redeemer THE second is that of a Son That Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God undertook this great work of Man's Redemption and to that purpose came into the World and became Man a second Adam who by his holy life and absolute and perfect obedience to the Will of God did expiate and make atonement for the disobedience of the first THE third is that of the Holy Ghost who by his inward operations and gracious influences doth incline and prevail with man to embrace the Redemption purchased for him upon the terms of the Gospel Now in respect of these three several manifestations of the Deity there is said to be a Trinity of persons in the Vnity of the Godhead and the same God in respect of one of these manifestations of himself is called God the Father in respect of another is called God the Son and in respect of the third is called God the Holy Ghost THAT there are these three more eminent manifestations of the Deity and under these denominations of Father Son and Holy Ghost is most plain in the Scriptures But the great doubt is whether these be three Personalities in the Deity And this doubt I take it ariseth from a misunderstanding and mistaking the true sense of the word Persona FOR this word Persona I think the Philosophers are short in their definitions of it Boethius defines it to be Naturae Rationalis individua substantia This other Philosophers dislike as too scanty because it is applicable to man only and doth not include Spiritual Beings And therefore They to inlarge it and make it more comprehensive call it Substantia particularis intelligens incommunicabilis c. But for my part I cannot but like Boethius his definition best and think him so far in the right in that he makes the word Persona only applicable to Man for so doubtless it is in its true and proper signification and it is applicable to Spirits by a Metalepsis only and Transumption of the Word AND herein the Philosophers are too short in their definitions of Persona that while they done so much upon the word Substance they forget that Accidents are a more necessary ingredient in its true definition The word Persona in relation to Man doth not only signifie Individuality and denote a particular or single man but it doth imply those Qualities also whereby one Man differeth from another By the word Quality her I do not mean the single Predicament so called but all the other Predicaments except that of Substanee it being those whereby the Naturae Rationalis Substantia is individuated 'T is Quantity that differs the Person of taller Stature from the lower 'T is Quality that differs the Learned from the Vnlearned Person 'T is Relation that differs the Father from the Son 'T is the Ubi or Locality that differs John of Noke from John at Style And so of the other Predicaments I would therefore propose the adding a few words to Boethius his definition and then I think it will be well enough Let it then be thus viz. Persona est Naturae rationalis individua substantia taliter qualiter ab aliis differens Thus defined it relates to Man only and so to one Man as he differeth from another by accidental Individuation For though 't be true that every Person is a single substance yet 't is as true that they are accidents that do determine the Personality And as the Specifick differences do constitute the Species so Predicamental Accidents do constitute the Individual Thus Rationality doth constitute the Species of Man and differs it from that of the Brute And thus Wisdom Fortitude c. do differ this particular Man from another and make him