Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	particular_n	person_n	plurality_n	24	3	15.8553	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A59250	Transnatural philosophy, or, Metaphysicks demonstrating the essences and operations of all beings whatever ... and shewing the perfect conformity of Christian faith to right reason, and the unreasonableness of atheists ... and other sectaries : with an appendix giving a rational explication of the mystery of the most B. Trinity / by J.S.	Sergeant, John, 1622-1707.	1700 (1700)	Wing S2598; ESTC R41713	309,154	596

to which that Common Notion is Apply'd Secondly Whether these Particulars are not Three and no more Thirdly Whether those Three Particulars are not most fitly call'd Persons Fourthly Whether those Three Persons be not most fitly to be call'd Father Son and H. Spirit Fifthly and Lastly Whether the Divine Nature notwithstanding this Plurality of Persons is not still Perfectly and Equally One in Nature or rather more that is under more Respects One in it's self than it would have been in case this Plurality of Persons had been secluded Now if it shall appear by our Explication that the Affirmative of all these is Consonant to Reason working upon our Natural Notions stript of their Imperfections and as such Transferr'd to GOD I hope it will satisfie Dissenters comfort the Faith of those who Believe already and convince every Intelligent Reader that nothing can with true Reason be objected against this Divine Mystery SECT III. The Terms or Words of which we make use in this Explication clear'd from Ambiguity 1. BY the word GOD is meant a most Actual and Self-Subsistent Being Infinite in His Nature and all it's Attributes 2. By the words Divine Nature we understand the same Infinitely Perfect Being But we are to mind the Reader once more of that which cannot be too often inculcated viz. That in all Creatures for Example in Man there is found what answers to diverse Notions in the Line of Substance of which one is more Perfect or Imperfect than Another For an Individual Man conceiv'd precisely under the Superiour Notions of Ens Corpus Mixtum Vivens Animal and Homo signifies only some Common and Inadequate Notion of Him whence nothing in Common being able to Exist but only Singulars as Peter Paul c. hence all those Former are Imperfect in the Line of Ens which signifies Capable of Existing Yet even these Singular or Individual Entities tho' we should allow them in some sort to Exist have not thence all the Completion or Perfection imaginable in that Line for a Thing may be Capable to Exist and yet not Capable to exist Alone or without the Support of Another which we call Subsisting To be Subsistent then which in Intelligent Things we call to be a PERSON being the most Perfect Notion of Ens must be attributed to the Divine Essence or Nature tho' the word Essence does not express it but rather signifies a●ter the manner of a kind of meer Form Otherwise the Divine Nature would be conceiv'd to want something which according to our Natural Notions is the utmost Perfection in the Line of Being which is impossible to be thought or said of GOD. who is Infinitely Perfect in Being 3. By the word Father I mean one Particular who communicates the Nature of which Himself is to Another Particular And by Son Him to whom that Nature is thus Communicated but that he does or does not Communicate the same Individual Nature or that he is Before his Son in Time and other Considerations arising from Matter spring from the Imperfection and Limitedness of Creatures and therefore they are not to be Transferr'd to GOD Nor are they Essential to the Notions of Father and Son as will be plain to any Man who reflects that if per impossible a Man did communicate his Individual Nature to Another and that Other had it thus Communicated from him and this Instantaneously he would not in that Supposition be therefore less a Father but more perfectly such because the Nature Communicated is more perfectly the Same Nor do Sooner or Later Instantaneous or Not-Instantaneous enter into the precise Notion of Father and Son as appears from the Definition of Generation which abstracts from all those Considerations Moreover 't is most Evident that in such a case the Person who Communicates his Individual Nature and He to whom 't is Communicated would have hence some very neer Relation to one another and what imaginable Relation could it be but that of Father and Son 4. I take the word Generation in the Sense of that Exact and Received Definition viz. Processio Viventis a Vivente tanquam a Principio Conjuncto in Similitudinem Naturae which I shall show is perfectly Verify'd in the Procession of the Eternal Word All other Considerations are Extrinsecal and Forrein to the Notion of Generation as may be gather'd from § 3. and therefore do not belong to it's precise Notion but spring from the Imperfection of Creatures nor consequently as such ought they be Transferr'd to GOD. 5. The word Person signifies Perseity as some Schoolmen explicate it or what 's so Subsistent of it self or by the merits of it's own Notion or Expression that it needs no other Formal Notion to compleat it nor Word to express it better The Etymology of that word if such a Consideration and not rather the Common Use of it only be much to be regarded seems to be this that as we say a Speech is Dissona when it varies from another in Sense and Consona when it agrees to it So a Thing is call'd Persona when it thorowly or perfectly sounds or speaks the Notion of Ens or expresses the utmost Completion of a Thing under the Notion of an Intelligent Being See § 2. 6. Subsistent and Suppositum signifie the same and are appliable to all Beings whatever whether they be Intelligent that is Persons or no and express their last Completion in the Line of Ens in their several Kinds The Notion of the former seems more to respect it's self or it 's own Absoluteness in the Line of Being The Notion of the Later regards the Nature or the Accidents ●hich it sustains in our Mind or as conceiv'd by ●… The Literal meaning of which kind of Say●ng is That we making diverse Conceptions of ●he same Thing the Formal Conception of the ●●ture or of it's Modes is not that Formal Conception of a Thing Existing Alone without needing any other farther Notion in our Mind or any other Word to mean or signifie it's standing thus Alone or without Dependency on any other Created Noti●● to compleat or make out that Full Sense Notwithstanding that the Notions of Subsistent ●nd Suppositum do bear such a nice Distinction ●●● in regard that which sustains another must 〈…〉 supposed able to subsist of it self hence they ●… not without reason promiscuously used The Explication of the rest of those words of which we shall have occasion to make use will I conceive come in more seasonably in their ●roper Places SECT IV. That the Divine Nature does Verifie some One Notion that is some way Common and some Others that are Particulars 1. SInce all Explications as well as Arguments are to be taken from the Nature of the Thing 〈…〉 from the Subject to be Explicated as being in ●●ality nothing else but the Unfolding that Nature and the laying open what with a Deep Inspection we discover to be included in it or to belong to it Intrinsecally and since the Nature

of that Act. Whence the Act it self is no Part of the Relation but is Extrinsecal to the precise Notion of it As farther appears hence that Relation is one of those Notions which are call'd Accidental Modes or Accidents whose whole Being such as it is is to affect the Substance in their several ways and denominate them such as they do formally make them Since then Relation does not affect or denominate the Act of the Understanding but the Things which that Act compares and as has been often demonstrated the Accidents or Modes are Really the Same with the Thing which they modifie it follows that Relation is the Thing it self in our Minds conceiv'd consider'd as bearing in it a Respectiveness or ●ther as Referrible to Another To penetrate this bet●… we will put a kind of Parrallel in the Predica●…nt of Quality A Pint is the same Quantity whereever it is Yet put the same Pint of Water 〈…〉 a Round Glass it will be Round in a Square ●lass and it will be of a Square Figure Yet both these Figures are Identify'd with the same Quantity and the same Substance of the Water whose Modes they are and 't is only the Containers and their Difference which gives them this Different Denomination So Whiteness in those Subjects which are White is Apprehended and Denominated by an Absolute Name and they are both call'd White but put two such Subjects with Whiteness in them in our Mind which is a Comparing kind of Container or a Comparing Power and they come thence to be Apprehended by a Relative Notion and Denominated by a Relative Word Alike So that the Things themselves do give themselves this Relative Notion and Denomination of being Alike taking them as in such a Container as our Mind is which is apt to consider them in order to one another or refer them Actually These Things consider'd no Man of Reason can imagine that tho' we use the Common Word Relation because it passes amongst Learned Men as we do other Abstract Words therefore it means something hovering in the Air as it were without a Subject like a kind of Idea Platonica or that it can be any thing but the very Thing it self which is Related And hence it is that that most Solid and Acute Distinguisher of our Natural Notions Aristotle rather chuses to make use of the Concretes and as he call'd the foregoing Predicaments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he names Relation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Thing● Related or as having in them the Ground of verifying a Respect to Another as I have noted in my Fifth Preliminary to Solid Philosophy Asserted 14. Prel XIV 'T is impossible to conceive a Real Relation without a Correlate answering to it in case it be grounded on Action and Passion or on the Unity of the Form nor to conceive such Correlates without conceiving some kind of Particularity or Difference between them There needs no more to evince this but only to reflect on the Word Ad which gives us the Notion of Relation and withall imports a Rapport or Respect to that which as is evident by it's Contraposition is in some Sense or other Distinct from it or Another 15. Prelim. XV. The Essence of GOD not only being Self-Existence but whatever is an Intrinsecal Attribute of Him being Eternally such it follows that the word is not only gives us the true Sense of what 's Predicated of GOD as is shown Prelim. IX but it must also signifie is Eternally there being no Temporary or Accidental Predications of any thing that is in the DEITY Wherefore we must in the truest Sense mean in all such Speeches that GOD Eternally that is from all Eternity and to all Eternity is Knowing and Loving Himself is Generating his Son is Generated is Proceeding from Father and Son c. So that the word is signifies here the most Absolute Necessity of His Being Eternally so as those Predicates import and not Contingently only as the same Word is does often signifie when we Predicate or speak of Creatures Which 〈…〉 at first amuse the Fancy but as I hope af●●●wards upon due Reflexion it will rectifie the ●…dgment of some Anti-Trinitarians who weak●… apprehending there can be no Pre-existence but 〈…〉 of Time imagine we put some Instant when 〈…〉 Son did not exist and that after he had got Existence the Father ceas'd afterwards to communicate it to Him any longer but left Him to stand done as Sons do here when their Fathers Die o● Disregard them and many other such Fool●●ies with which they delude the Ignorant Which as will be shown are abhorr'd by us and most Absurd in a Discourse concerning the DEITY and therefore most ridiculously objected by them SECT II. The State of the Question 1 THE Divine Nature which is the Subject of our present Discourse may be consider'd two manner of Ways One is as to what GOD is in himself as the Mysticks treat of Him in which Sense He Abstracts from all our Natural Notions because He Transcends them and therefore He is altogether Unconceiveable and Unnameable by us in this State and only Intelligible by the Angels and Saints in Heaven to whose Intellectual Eye purify'd from all Sinful Affections and Dispos'd by Perfect Charity he reveals His Blissful and Glorious Face to be seen by a Clear and Simple Intuition The other way is to consider Him as He is the Object of our Natural Notions which having first as is said above Refin'd them from their Imperfection we transfer to Him and thence become Enabled in some sort to speak and discourse of Him Truly tho' with some Impropriety in our Low and Homely Language 2. Since then 't is manifest that we cannot Speak or Discourse of much less Explicate what we cannot conceive or of which we cannot have any Notion 't is Evident that the Divinity being the subject of our intended Discourse is to be consider'd and taken according to the Later manner and not according to the Former in our Discourses concerning it This premis'd since Faith by Prelim. V. is deliver'd to us in Words expressing our Natural Notions the True State of the Question is this Whether the Divine Nature Conceiv'd by us according to such Notions as we had from Creatures which being depur'd first from their ImPerfections we Apply to GOD does not oblige us as we affirm of Him that He is Just Merciful Wise c. So with Equal Reason and Truth to affirm that He is ONE according to His Nature and Essence and withal THREE according to Another Notion or Respect which we fitly call Person To set this Question and our ensuing Explication in a Clearer Light we will divide this Entire Question into Five Distinct or Particular ones viz. First Whether it be not Agreeable to Rational Principles taken from our Natural Notions to affirm that the Divine Nature does verify some One Notion that is Common and some Others that are Distinct or Particulars