Selected quad for the lemma: father_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
father_n eternal_a person_n son_n 14,921 5 5.9485 4 false
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
A67368 An answer to Dr. Sherlock's examination of the Oxford decree in a letter from a member of that university to his friend in London. Wallis, John, 1616-1703. 1696 (1696) Wing W557; ESTC R24595 6,234 20

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

And it would be the Wisest thing he could do What are the thousand Iacobite Stories he talks of p. 1. I know not Whether now he be or be not a Jacobite Whether he have or have not been or Whether sometime he have and sometime have not is nothing to this purpose If he will still insist upon it that If a Person be a Mind a Spirit a Substance then three Persons must be Three distinct Minds Spirits and Substances p. 18. as distinct as Adam and Abel though not separate p. 20. he knows it will not be allow'd him Because Mind Spirit Substance are in their proper signification Absolute but Person in its proper signification is a Relative Term. If Dr. Sherlock were Dean of Paul s Dean of Windsor and Dean of Westminster should we thence argue That since a Dean is a Man an Animal a Substance therefore because of three Distinct Substantial Deaneries they be or he is three distinct Men three distinct Animals and three distinct Substances I think not Because Man Animal Substance are terms Absolute but Dean is Relative And the same Absolute Being may admit without being multiplied many Relative Predicates I should rather say that Dr. Sherlock would in such case sustain three Persons without being three Men three Animals or three Substances Yet this is not Sabellianism For though Dean of Paul's be a Relative Name yet it is not merely an Empty Name but doth import a Substantial Dignity as the Ground of that Relation and a Substantial Man as the Subject of That as well as of his Other Relations And this hath been told him so often that we cannot think the Dean so Dull as not to Apprehend the Distinction but so wilful as that he scorns to own it But would still have us think that Mind Spirit Person are terms Equivalent and therefore jumbles them together as such which will not be admitted Or if they be equivalent why cannot he content himself with what is generally received three Persons but must impose upon us his New Terms of Three Distinct Minds Three Distinct Spirits and Three Distinct Substances But Scorn and Flouncing will not carry it off The Consequence will hold more strongly thus If an Infinite Eternal Mind or Spirit be God Then Three Distinct Infinite Eternal Minds or Spirits are Three Gods For here the Terms are all Absolute not Relative And if to maintain obstinately That there be Three Gods that is Three Eternal Infinite Minds or Spirits be not Heresy What is It seems to me but a New Trick to play the Game into the Socinian's hand By granting to them their darling Notion that To affirm the Father Son and Holy-Ghost to be Three Persons of which each is God is the same as to affirm that they are Three Gods Which we must not allow If St. Hilary have sometime called them tres substantias he may know that substantia was at that time an ambiguous term and taken sometimes as the Latin word for Hypostasis and sometimes for Ousia For which reason the Latines were for some time shy of admitting the term Hypostasis least it should be thought to imply the same with Substantia in the same sense with Ousia And he might have understood from his own Citation p. 38. that by Substance is there meant Subsistence Tres Substantias esse dixerunt Subsistentium Personas per Substantias edocentes That is by his own Translation They said there were three Substances meaning thereby three Subsisting Persons But when as now for some Ages it is agreed for prevention of Ambiguity in the one sense to say Substance and in the other Subsistence it is not now the same to call them three substances in contradistinction to three subsistences as then it was while the word was used Ambiguously in both senses This I suppose may satisfy you so far as concerns the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses if it will not satisfy Dr. Sherlock let Him and the Animadverter dispute it out Yours c.