Sensit Petrus de Aliaco, in 1 Q. 3. circa finem, et Q. 5. per totum, et ut videtur, Marsilius in 1. q. 5. art. 2. ad 5. Sc. de rigore Sermonis recte posse dici personas esse tres Deos, et tantum vitari oportere eum modum loquendi propter periculum ne credantur tres Divinitates, Valent. Disp. 2. Qu. 13. Punct. 3.
Saint Peter de Aliaco, in 1 Q. 3. circa finem, et Q. 5. per totum, et ut videtur, Marsilius in 1. q. 5. art. 2. and 5. Sc. de Rigore Sermon recte posse dici personas esse tres Gods, et Tantum vitari oportere Eum modum loquendi propter periculum ne credantur tres Divinitates, Valent. Disp 2. Qu. 13. Punct. 3.
Quúm Deus ponitur respectu termini vel praedicati essentialis supponit pro essentiâ, sed quúm in respectu termini vel praedicati notionalis supponit pro personâ, et hoc intelligitur quùm ponitur respectu termini precisè supponentis pro supposito vel essentiâ, et hoc rationabiliter tum propter identitatem divinae naturae et suppositi, tum etiam propter Haereticos,
Quúm Deus ponitur respectu termini vel praedicati essentialis supponit Pro essentiâ, sed quúm in respectu termini vel praedicati notionalis supponit Pro personâ, et hoc intelligitur quùm ponitur respectu termini precisè supponentis Pro supposito vel essentiâ, et hoc rationabiliter tum propter identitatem Divinae naturae et suppositi, tum etiam propter Haereticos,
ne si Deus precisè supponeret pro supposito, multae propofitiones essent concedendae quae per astutiam Haereticorum simplicibus propositae, essent ijs occasio errandi & credendi pluralitatem Deorum ac Divinarum Essentiarum.
ne si Deus precisè supponeret Pro supposito, Multitude propofitiones essent concedendae Quae per astutiam Haereticorum simplicibus propositae, essent ijs Occasion errandi & credendi pluralitatem Gods ac Divinarum Essentiarum.
Biel Repertorium, L. 1. Dist. 4. Qu. 1. Notandum quòd cum Deus ponitur cum signo alietatis, aut importante pluralitatem supponit essentialitèr, & hoc ne si concederent quod Pater est alius Deus à Filio, simplices putarent esse plures Deos;
Biel Repertorium, L. 1. Dist 4. Qu. 1. Notandum quòd cum Deus ponitur cum Sign alietatis, Or importante pluralitatem supponit essentialitèr, & hoc ne si concederent quod Pater est alius Deus à Filio, simplices putarent esse plures Gods;
& ideo illae negantur Deus genuit Deum, Pater Filius & Spiritus sanctus sunt tres Dij, quamvis concedatur quod persona genuit aliam personam divinam. Ibid.
& ideo Those negantur Deus genuit God, Pater Filius & Spiritus Sanctus sunt tres Dij, Quamvis concedatur quod persona genuit aliam Personam divinam. Ibid
Catholicè dici potest una essentia trium personarum et tres personae unius essentiae, non autem unus Deus trium personarum, vel tres personae unius Dei. Id. L. 1. Dist. 34. Haec cum Petro Aliaco non satisfacerent, ( Sc. Explicatio symboli Athanas. non tres aeterni, &c. quam Thom. Aquin. Holcot & alij dabant) aliam interpretationem indagare coactus est;
Catholicè dici potest una Essentia trium personarum et tres personae unius essentiae, non autem Unus Deus trium personarum, vel tres personae unius Dei. Id. L. 1. Dist 34. Haec cum Peter Aliaco non satisfacerent, (Sc. Explication Symboli Athanasius non tres aeterni, etc. quam Tom Aquinas Holcot & alij dabant) aliam interpretationem indagare Coactus est;
postea dum quaerit sitne aliquo sensu concedendum tres esse Deos, quid his responderi velit, indicat, ait Dei nomen aliquando sumi essentialitèr, at { que } ita reciprocari cum essentiae divinae sen divinitatis vocabulo, ei { que } esse plane NONLATINALPHABET, aliquando intelligi personaliter supponere { que } NONLATINALPHABET pro divina personâ et sic Deum generari à Deo, et Christum Dei esse Filium;
postea dum Query sitne Aliquo sensu concedendum tres esse Gods, quid his responderi velit, indicat, ait Dei Nome aliquando sumi essentialitèr, At { que } ita reciprocari cum essentiae Divinae sen divinitatis Vocabulo, ei { que } esse plane, aliquando intelligi personaliter supponere { que } Pro Divine personâ et sic God generari à God, et Christ Dei esse Son;
priore designatione non credendum esse tres Deos, ne Dei essentia multiplex existimetur, posteriore quemmodum istae propositiones recipiuntur, non tantum est una persona divina vel tres sunt personae divinae quarum quaelibet est Deus,
priore designatione non credendum esse tres Gods, ne Dei Essentia multiplex existimetur, Posterior quemmodum Istae Propositiones recipiuntur, non Tantum est una persona Divine vel tres sunt personae Divinae Whom Quaelibet est Deus,
sic agnoscendas esse has non tantum est unus Deus, vel plures sunt Dei, quod tales idem penitus valeant juxta hanc alteram significationem id { que } apparere per nominis rationem at { que } vim. Aliaco q. 5. prim. Sentent.
sic agnoscendas esse has non Tantum est Unus Deus, vel plures sunt Dei, quod tales idem penitus valeant juxta hanc Another significationem id { que } apparere per Nominis rationem At { que } vim. Aliaco q. 5. prim. Sentent.
Posset etiam dici nomen Deus interdum spectare ad personam & eo sensu esse tres Deos, — interdum id { que } saepius ad essentiam referri, — tum { que } Ʋnicus est Deus, Id. p. 237.
Posset etiam dici Nome Deus Interdum spectare ad Personam & eo sensu esse tres Gods, — Interdum id { que } Saepius ad essentiam referri, — tum { que } Ʋnicus est Deus, Id. p. 237.
Si mavis tres Deos in tres divinas personas possis dicere at { que } interpretari, non vocabulum Deus aliquando sumitur hypostaticè ut Deus a Deo, Id. L. 2. p. 155.
Si mavis tres Gods in tres divinas personas possis dicere At { que } interpretari, non Vocabulum Deus aliquando sumitur hypostaticè ut Deus a God, Id. L. 2. p. 155.
Ad eosdem pertinet, quod adjicio de tribus Dijs, hoc NONLATINALPHABET, quum Petrus Aliacensis assentientibus Theologis putet in aliquo sensu verum, tamen apud populum magno offendiculo dicitur, inter eruditos nihil habet offensae, quibus cognitum est Dei vocabulum, non semper sonare divinam essentiam,
Ad eosdem pertinet, quod adjicio de tribus Dis, hoc, Whom Peter Aliacensis assentientibus Theologis putet in Aliquo sensu verum, tamen apud Populum magno offendiculo dicitur, inter Eruditos nihil habet offensae, quibus cognitum est Dei Vocabulum, non semper sonare divinam essentiam,
sed accipi nomen pro personâ ut cum dicimus Deus gignit Deum, & Jesum esse Filium Dei, nihil enim aliud intelligunt docti, quam esse tres personas in quarum unamquam { que } competat Dei vocabulum.
sed accipi Nome Pro personâ ut cum dicimus Deus gignit God, & Jesus esse Son Dei, nihil enim Aliud Intelligunt Learned, quam esse tres personas in Whom unamquam { que } competat Dei Vocabulum.
Ne { que } prorsus negat Alliacensis posse dici tres omnipotentes ac tres aeternos, & si negaret consequitur tamen ex his quae concessit posse dici tres Deos, licet non simplicitèr, quemadmodum enim juxta Dialecticam non est absurdum dicere tres sapientes uná sapien tià, tres bonos eadem bonitate, tres omnipotentes eádem omnipotentiā, tres esse sed eâdem essentiâ, tres volentes eâdem voluntate, it a non arbitror impium dicere tres Deos eodem Deitate, non enim minùs ad substantiam Dei pertinet Deum esse quam sapientem esse, verum ut haec non asserit Alliacensis, ita nec ego assero in hoc tantum adduxi ut docerem fieri posse ut quaedam sint vera juxta sensum aliquem, quae tamen apud imperitos efferri non expediat. Erasmus in Hyperaspist.
Ne { que } prorsus negate Alliacensis posse dici tres omnipotentes ac tres aeternos, & si negaret consequitur tamen ex his Quae concessit posse dici tres Gods, licet non simplicitèr, quemadmodum enim juxta Dialecticam non est absurdum dicere tres Wise uná Sapien tià, tres bonos Same bonitate, tres omnipotentes eádem omnipotentian, tres esse sed eâdem essentiâ, tres volentes eâdem voluntate, it a non arbitror Impious dicere tres Gods Eodem Deitate, non enim minùs ad substantiam Dei pertinet God esse quam sapientem esse, verum ut haec non asserit Alliacensis, ita nec ego assero in hoc Tantum adduxi ut docerem fieri posse ut quaedam sint vera juxta sensum aliquem, Quae tamen apud imperitos efferri non Expedite. Erasmus in Hyperaspist.
However exceptionable the Assertions of these Men are, yet the Church of Rome never censured them, and the Socinians cannot take any advantage against them, fince Socinus says ( against Wiekus) that it is so far from Pagan to worship two Gods, that 'tis most Christian,
However exceptionable the Assertions of these Men Are, yet the Church of Room never censured them, and the socinians cannot take any advantage against them, fince Socinus Says (against Wiekus) that it is so Far from Pagan to worship two God's, that it's most Christian,
c-acp j dt n2 pp-f d n2 vbr, av dt n1 pp-f vvb av-x vvn pno32, cc dt njp2 vmbx vvi d n1 p-acp pno32, c-acp np1 vvz (p-acp np1) d pn31 vbz av av-j p-acp j-jn pc-acp vvi crd n2, cst pn31|vbz av-ds njp,
and Smalcius says 'tis Jewish to believe and worship but one God, and Crellius says 'tis no way contrary to Scripture to have two Gods, they who are for worshipping Christ, must all say this,
and Smalcius Says it's Jewish to believe and worship but one God, and Crellius Says it's not Way contrary to Scripture to have two God's, they who Are for worshipping christ, must all say this,
cc np1 vvz pn31|vbz np1 p-acp vvi cc vvi p-acp crd np1, cc np1 vvz pn31|vbz xx n1 j-jn p-acp n1 pc-acp vhi crd n2, pns32 r-crq vbr p-acp vvg np1, vmb d vvi d,
and their Heresie lyes in making him a God only by Office and not by Nature, they are therefore truly chargeable with Polytheism as the Arriaus were of old, who worship a Creature as God,
and their Heresy lies in making him a God only by Office and not by Nature, they Are Therefore truly chargeable with Polytheism as the Arriaus were of old, who worship a Creature as God,
cc po32 n1 vvz p-acp vvg pno31 dt n1 av-j p-acp n1 cc xx p-acp n1, pns32 vbr av av-j j p-acp n1 p-acp dt np1 vbdr pp-f j, r-crq n1 dt n1 c-acp np1,
all the Tritheists who were condemned in late and dark times, holding three Essences and so opposing the NONLATINALPHABET, as the Peratae in Theodoret, Philoponus in Nicephorus, and Photius:
all the Tritheists who were condemned in late and dark times, holding three Essences and so opposing the, as the Peratae in Theodoret, Philoponus in Nicephorus, and Photius:
d dt n2 r-crq vbdr vvn p-acp j cc j n2, vvg crd n2 cc av vvg dt, p-acp dt fw-la p-acp np1, np1 p-acp np1, cc np1:
Joachim in the Lateran Council, Roscelin in the Synod of Soissons, Abaelardus in the Synod of Soissons, Porretanus in that of Rhemes, but of this elsewhere. I shall only instance further in the Opinions and Differences of the Scholastick and Romish Divines about three Eternals, Omnipotents, &c. and three Subsistencies.
Joachim in the Lateran Council, Roscelin in the Synod of Soissons, Abaelardus in the Synod of Soissons, Porretanus in that of Rheims, but of this elsewhere. I shall only instance further in the Opinions and Differences of the Scholastic and Romish Divines about three Eternals, Omnipotents, etc. and three Subsistencies.
np1 p-acp dt np1 n1, np1 p-acp dt n1 pp-f np1, np1 p-acp dt n1 pp-f np1, np1 p-acp d pp-f np1, p-acp pp-f d av. pns11 vmb av-j n1 av-jc p-acp dt n2 cc n2 pp-f dt j cc jp vvz p-acp crd n2-j, j, av cc crd n2.
Dicimus tres existentes, vel tres sapientes, aut tres aeternos & increatos si adjective sumantur, si vero substantive sumantur dicimus unum increatum, immensum & aeternum, ut Athanasius dicit. Cajetan Comment.
Dicimus tres existentes, vel tres Wise, Or tres aeternos & increatos si adjective sumantur, si vero substantive sumantur dicimus Unum increatum, immensum & aeternum, ut Athanasius dicit. Cajetan Comment.
Petavius explains this otherwise against these and Thomas Aquinas too, — Quem ad finem verba illa in Symbolo posita sunt imprimis spectare convenit, haec igitur adversus Arrianorum Haeresin opposita videntur á conditore symboli, quae Trinitatem cum tribus componebat personis inaequalibus et substantia diversis quarum singulae singulis constabant ut naturis it a proprietatibus naturae. Petav. de Trin. p. 286. Molina had before upon the Principles of Aquinas, endeavoured to reconcile the Athanasian Creed, about one Omnipotent Eternal, with the Council of Lateran, which declared for three Coeternals, &c. thus; Ex conclusione D. Thomae regulâ { que } propositâ, facile erit intelligore rationem conciliandi quaedam dicta in Symbolo Athanasij & in Concilio Lateranensi Cap. Firm. de summa Trin. & in fide catholicâ, quae primo aspectu videntur contraria inter se.
Petavius explains this otherwise against these and Thomas Aquinas too, — Whom ad finem verba illa in Symbolo Posita sunt imprimis spectare convenit, haec igitur Adversus Arrianorum Heresy Opposita videntur á conditore Symboli, Quae Trinitatem cum tribus componebat Persons inaequalibus et Substance diversis Whom Singular Singulis constabant ut naturis it a proprietatibus naturae. Petav de Trin. p. 286. molina had before upon the Principles of Aquinas, endeavoured to reconcile the Athanasian Creed, about one Omnipotent Eternal, with the Council of Lateran, which declared for three Coeternals, etc. thus; Ex conclusion D. Thomae regulâ { que } propositâ, facile erit intelligore rationem conciliandi quaedam dicta in Symbolo Athanasij & in Concilio Lateranensi Cap. Firm. de summa Trin. & in fide catholicâ, Quae primo aspectu videntur contraria inter se.
sed unus aeternus, sicut non tres increati nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus & unus immensus & infra, non tres omnipotentes sed unus omnipotens. Cap. vero firm.
sed Unus Eternal, sicut non tres increati nec tres immensi, sed Unus increatus & Unus immensus & infra, non tres omnipotentes sed Unus omnipotens. Cap. vero firm.
fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-fr fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-la fw-la cc fw-la fw-la cc fw-la, fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la. np1 fw-la j.
de eodem Patre, Filio & Spiritu sancto dicitur in plurali, consubstantiales, et coequales, et co-omnipotentes, et coeterni, imo in eodem Symbolo Athanasij, eaedem personae etiam dicuntur coeternae, eis verbis coeternae sibi sunt et coequales;
de Eodem Patre, Filio & Spiritu sancto dicitur in plurali, consubstantiales, et coequales, et coomnipotentes, et coeterni, imo in Eodem Symbolo Athanasij, eaedem personae etiam dicuntur coeternae, eis verbis coeternae sibi sunt et coequales;
Athanasius in locis primo loco citatis, sumpsit nomina illa substantive, (tametsi quaedam eorum, quod non sumantur in terminatione neutrâ, pre se ferant formam Adjectivorum) ideo { que } negavit dici pluraliter de tribus personis.
Athanasius in locis primo loco citatis, sumpsit nomina illa substantive, (Tametsi quaedam Their, quod non sumantur in termination neutrâ, pre se ferant formam Adjectivorum) ideo { que } negavit dici pluraliter de tribus Persons.
Concilium vero Lateranense, idem { que } Athanasius, ubi seoundo loco citatur, sumpserunt illa alia nomina adjectivè eâ { que } rationè tribuerunt illa tribus personis in numero plurali. Molina Comment. in Thom. p. 1. q. 39. art. 3. disp. 1.
Concilium vero Lateranense, idem { que } Athanasius, ubi seoundo loco citatur, sumpserunt illa Alias nomina adjectivè eâ { que } rationè tribuerunt illa tribus Persons in numero plurali. molina Comment. in Tom p. 1. q. 39. art. 3. Disp. 1.
Arriba opposes Molina, and gives another Answer to this Difficulty, Respondeo ad difficultatem, quod concilium Lateranense dum affirmat Patrem, Filium & Spiritum sanctum in plurali numero esse consubstantiales, coequales & coeternos,
Arriba opposes molina, and gives Another Answer to this Difficulty, Respondeo ad difficultatem, quod concilium Lateranense dum Affirmative Patrem, Son & Spiritum sanctum in plurali numero esse consubstantiales, coequales & coeternos,
np1 vvz np1, cc vvz j-jn n1 p-acp d n1, fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-la n1 fw-la n1 fw-la, fw-la cc fw-la fw-la p-acp fw-la fw-it fw-la fw-la, fw-la cc fw-la,
& coomnipotentes, loquitur de ipsis secundum rationem & habitudinem relativam, quae ratione praedictae particulae defert pluralitatem in suppositis Existentibus à parte subjecti.
& coomnipotentes, loquitur de Ipse secundum rationem & habitudinem relativam, Quae ratione praedictae particulae defert pluralitatem in suppositis Existentibus à parte Subject.
As to the Divine Subsistencies the Differences are greater, Tres sunt de hâc re Scholasticorum Opiniones, prima unum esse subsistentiam essentialem seu absolutam,
As to the Divine Subsistencies the Differences Are greater, Tres sunt de hâc re Scholasticorum Opiniones, prima Unum esse subsistentiam essentialem seu absolutam,
& nullas personales seu relativas, ita Durandus, Paludanus, Capreolus, in 3. d. 1. quibus videtur favere Thomas qu. 2. de poten. a. 1. & qu.
& nullas personales seu relativas, ita Durandus, Paludanus, Capreolus, in 3. worser. 1. quibus videtur favere Thomas queen. 2. the poten. a. 1. & queen.
cc fw-la fw-la fw-la n1, fw-la np1, np1, np1, p-acp crd n2. crd fw-la fw-la fw-la np1 n1. crd dt j. n1 crd cc n1.
8. a. 3, & 7. secunda tres esse subsistentias relativas & nullam absolutam sen essentialem ita Bonaventura & alij multi, tertia unam esse subsistentiam absolutam & tres relativas ita Cajetanus in 1 p. q.
8. a. 3, & 7. Secunda tres esse subsistentias relativas & Nullam absolutam sen essentialem ita Bonaventura & alij multi, tertia unam esse subsistentiam absolutam & tres relativas ita Cajetan in 1 p. q.
crd n1 crd, cc crd fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la n1 cc n1 fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la np1 cc fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la cc fw-la vbds fw-la np1 p-acp crd n1 vvd.
3. a. 3. & in 3 p. q. 2. a. 2. Becanus de Trin. C. 3. Qu. 11. Singularis quaedam opinio doctissimi alioqui Theologi Cajetani, qui in 1 p. qu. 3. art. 3. & qu. 39. art.
3. a. 3. & in 3 p. q. 2. a. 2. Becanus de Trin. C. 3. Qu. 11. Singularis quaedam opinio doctissimi Otherwise Theologians Cajetani, qui in 1 p. queen. 3. art. 3. & queen. 39. art.
4. existimavit praeter tres subsistentias relativas, quibus constituuntur personae, esse etiam in Divinis quandam subsistentiam absolutam, quae cum essentiâ divinâ constituat hunce Deum subsistentem, pro quo supponitur ille terminus, Deus acceptus essentialiter. Valent. disp. 2. qu. 13. Secunda sententia referri potest asserens tres personas vere & propriè esse unum Deum ratione untus subsistentis communitèr in Deitate, ablatâ vero subsistentiâ communi non posse tres personas dici proprie & simplicitèr unum Deum:
4. existimavit praeter tres subsistentias relativas, quibus constituuntur personae, esse etiam in Divinis quandam subsistentiam absolutam, Quae cum essentiâ divinâ constituat hunce God subsistentem, Pro quo supponitur Isle terminus, Deus Accepted essentialiter. Valent. Disp. 2. queen. 13. Secunda sententia referri potest asserens tres personas vere & propriè esse Unum God ratione untus subsistentis communitèr in Deitate, ablatâ vero subsistentiâ Communi non posse tres personas dici Properly & simpliciter Unum God:
5. ratio est quia positâ subsistentiâ communi, hoc subsistens in Deitate est hic Deus, qui proprie dicitur Pater, Filius & Spiritus Sanctus, ablatâ vero subsistentiâ non potest designari in concreto unus numero Deus, qui sit tres personoe.
5. ratio est quia positâ subsistentiâ Communi, hoc subsistens in Deitate est hic Deus, qui Properly dicitur Pater, Filius & Spiritus Sanctus, ablatâ vero subsistentiâ non potest designari in Concrete Unus numero Deus, qui sit tres personoe.
Non potest admitti quod sit unum suppositum commune tribus personis, quia hoc esset confundere tres personas in unam personam seu hypostasin, unde merito reprehenditur Gajetanus, quod aliquo modo admiserit unum suppositum commune tribus perfonis quanquam non simpliciter,
Non potest admitti quod sit Unum suppositum commune tribus Persons, quia hoc esset confundere tres personas in unam Personam seu hypostasin, unde merito reprehenditur Gajetanus, quod Aliquo modo admiserit Unum suppositum commune tribus perfonis quanquam non simpliciter,
sed cum addito id dixerit, scilicec suppositum incompletum vel personam incompletam, nam ratio suppositi repugnat cum communicabilitate divinae substantiae.
sed cum addito id dixerit, scilicec suppositum incompletum vel Personam incompletam, nam ratio suppositi repugnat cum communicabilitate Divinae substantiae.
Possumus intelligere hunc Deum esse quid commune tribus personis non solum ratione naturae & personalitatis confusè conceptae, sed etiam ratione subsistentiae communis. Id. T. 1. Comment. in 3 Thom. disp.
Possumus intelligere hunc God esse quid commune tribus Persons non solum ratione naturae & personalitatis confusè Conceived, sed etiam ratione subsistentiae Communis. Id. T. 1. Comment. in 3 Tom Disp.
and sometimes personally, sometimes abstractly and sometimes concretely, sometimes substantively and sometimes adjectively, sometimes indefinitely and sometimes precisely, sometimes absolutely eminently and appropriately, and sometimes particularly and connotatively.
and sometime personally, sometime abstractly and sometime concretely, sometime substantively and sometime adjectively, sometime indefinitely and sometime precisely, sometime absolutely eminently and appropriately, and sometime particularly and connotative.
cc av av-j, av av-j cc av av-jn, av av-j cc av av-j, av av-j cc av av-j, av av-j av-j cc av-j, cc av av-j cc av-j.
Those who are versed in them cannot be ignorant of this, and that these distinctions are necessary to account for God's being one and three, Deus unus & trinus, and to take off the Contradiction of three Gods and one God in the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Those who Are versed in them cannot be ignorant of this, and that these Distinctions Are necessary to account for God's being one and three, Deus Unus & Trinus, and to take off the Contradiction of three God's and one God in the Doctrine of the Trinity.
d r-crq vbr vvn p-acp pno32 vmbx vbi j pp-f d, cc cst d n2 vbr j pc-acp vvi p-acp npg1 n1 crd cc crd, fw-la fw-la cc fw-la, cc pc-acp vvi a-acp dt n1 pp-f crd n2 cc crd np1 p-acp dt n1 pp-f dt np1.
like the Philosophers Acroamata, that while it is understood by the Wise and Learned, it may not be obnoxious to the Ignorant and Captious , upon the best Judgment I can make with my little Parts and Reading, having nothing but Truth and Faith before my Eyes:
like the Philosophers Acroamata, that while it is understood by the Wise and Learned, it may not be obnoxious to the Ignorant and Captious, upon the best Judgement I can make with my little Parts and Reading, having nothing but Truth and Faith before my Eyes:
av-j dt ng1 fw-gr, cst cs pn31 vbz vvn p-acp dt j cc j, pn31 vmb xx vbi j p-acp dt j cc j, p-acp dt js n1 pns11 vmb vvi p-acp po11 j n2 cc n-vvg, vhg pix cc-acp n1 cc n1 p-acp po11 n2:
The School-men have perplexed and entangled themselves and this Doctrine with Endless Difficulties, and run it into such Contradictions as themselves own would be so in any thing else , (as for the same thing to be one and three, the same and not the same, produced and not produced) and have obscured it with dark and unintelligible (not to say false) terms, which only amuse but do not satisfie,
The Schoolmen have perplexed and entangled themselves and this Doctrine with Endless Difficulties, and run it into such Contradictions as themselves own would be so in any thing Else, (as for the same thing to be one and three, the same and not the same, produced and not produced) and have obscured it with dark and unintelligible (not to say false) terms, which only amuse but do not satisfy,
dt n2 vhb vvn cc vvn px32 cc d n1 p-acp j n2, cc vvb pn31 p-acp d n2 p-acp px32 vvi vmd vbi av p-acp d n1 av, (c-acp p-acp dt d n1 pc-acp vbi crd cc crd, dt d cc xx dt d, vvn cc xx vvn) cc vhb vvn pn31 p-acp j cc j (xx pc-acp vvi j) n2, r-crq av-j vvi cc-acp vdb xx vvi,
but only in latter School-men and modern Metaphysicks , that they have thereby given too much advantage to the Socinians, who have been prejudiced and hardned by these Scholastick Explications against the Doctrine it self,
but only in latter Schoolmen and modern Metaphysics, that they have thereby given too much advantage to the socinians, who have been prejudiced and hardened by these Scholastic Explications against the Doctrine it self,
cc-acp av-j p-acp d n2 cc j n2, cst pns32 vhb av vvn av d n1 p-acp dt njp2, r-crq vhb vbn vvn cc vvn p-acp d j n2 p-acp dt n1 pn31 n1,
so that the plainest Evidence and Demonstration of it from Scripture will not perswade them to believe, what appears so unintelligible and unreasonable as 'tis represented to them.
so that the Plainest Evidence and Demonstration of it from Scripture will not persuade them to believe, what appears so unintelligible and unreasonable as it's represented to them.
av cst dt js n1 cc n1 pp-f pn31 p-acp n1 vmb xx vvi pno32 pc-acp vvi, r-crq vvz av j cc j c-acp pn31|vbz vvn p-acp pno32.
but to be more plain & easie to our Thoughts, (tho' it has many things in it very mysterious and incomprehensible, both as to the thing and the manner of it) as 'tis proposed by Revelation,
but to be more plain & easy to our Thoughts, (though it has many things in it very mysterious and incomprehensible, both as to the thing and the manner of it) as it's proposed by Revelation,
cc-acp pc-acp vbi av-dc j cc j p-acp po12 n2, (cs pn31 vhz d n2 p-acp pn31 av j cc j, d c-acp p-acp dt n1 cc dt n1 pp-f pn31) c-acp pn31|vbz vvn p-acp n1,
An Original, Eternal Mind, with an Eternal NONLATINALPHABET, or substantial NONLATINALPHABET issuing from it, and an Eternal Divine Spirit proceeding from both,
an Original, Eternal Mind, with an Eternal, or substantial issuing from it, and an Eternal Divine Spirit proceeding from both,
dt j-jn, j n1, p-acp dt j, cc j vvg p-acp pn31, cc dt j j-jn n1 vvg p-acp d,
for the Ancients do not call them NONLATINALPHABET, or NONLATINALPHABET, or NONLATINALPHABET, which would represent all of them rather as original and absolute,
for the Ancients do not call them, or, or, which would represent all of them rather as original and absolute,
c-acp dt n2-j vdi xx vvi pno32, cc, cc, r-crq vmd vvi d pp-f pno32 av-c p-acp n-jn cc j,
and not relative and derived from another, as two of them are from one NONLATINALPHABET, Principium, Fons, Origo, &c. in which they chiefly lay the Divine Unity,
and not relative and derived from Another, as two of them Are from one, Principium, Fons, Origo, etc. in which they chiefly lay the Divine Unity,
cc xx j cc vvn p-acp j-jn, c-acp crd pp-f pno32 vbr p-acp crd, fw-la, np1, fw-la, av p-acp r-crq pns32 av-jn vvd dt j-jn n1,
One God the Father, with an only begotten Son, (and so of the same Nature with himself) and a Divine Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and the Son (who has Personal and Divine Attributes,
One God the Father, with an only begotten Son, (and so of the same Nature with himself) and a Divine Spirit, the Spirit of the Father and the Son (who has Personal and Divine Attributes,
pi np1 dt n1, p-acp dt av-j vvn n1, (cc av pp-f dt d n1 p-acp px31) cc dt j-jn n1, dt n1 pp-f dt n1 cc dt n1 (r-crq vhz j cc j-jn n2,
as the Father who is NONLATINALPHABET, and to whom therefore the term of God and one God, is more peculiarly attributed and even appropriate in the Judgment of the Antients and Moderns .
as the Father who is, and to whom Therefore the term of God and one God, is more peculiarly attributed and even Appropriate in the Judgement of the Ancients and Moderns.
c-acp dt n1 r-crq vbz, cc p-acp ro-crq av dt n1 pp-f np1 cc crd np1, vbz av-dc av-j vvn cc av j p-acp dt n1 pp-f dt n2-j cc np2-j.
The School men mist this plain Notion, whilst they carefully maintain the other, but run into a Labyrinth of Subtleties and Difficulties about One's being Three,
The School men missed this plain Notion, while they carefully maintain the other, but run into a Labyrinth of Subtleties and Difficulties about One's being Three,
and Three One, and weave an artificial cloudy Net-work of thin but dark Cobwebs, such as Real Universals, Substantial Modes, Subsistent Relations, Unsubsistent Existencies, Concrete Personal Properties, &c. that thro' it One Being may look and appear as Three, and yet be One;
and Three One, and weave an artificial cloudy Network of thin but dark Cobwebs, such as Real Universals, Substantial Modes, Subsistent Relations, Unsubsistent Existencies, Concrete Personal Properties, etc. that through it One Being may look and appear as Three, and yet be One;
cc crd crd, cc vvi dt j j n1 pp-f j p-acp j n2, d c-acp j n2, j n2, j n2, j n2, j j n2, av cst p-acp pn31 crd vbg vmb vvb cc vvi p-acp crd, cc av vbi crd;
and my Pity to see so many groping for the Light at Noon-day, and looking so carefully for what they have in their hands, has made me venture to show that which I wonder I did not always see,
and my Pity to see so many groping for the Light At Noonday, and looking so carefully for what they have in their hands, has made me venture to show that which I wonder I did not always see,
cc po11 n1 pc-acp vvi av d vvg p-acp dt n1 p-acp n1, cc vvg av av-j p-acp r-crq pns32 vhb p-acp po32 n2, vhz vvn pno11 n1 pc-acp vvi d r-crq pns11 vvb pns11 vdd xx av vvi,
SImplices enim quique ne dixerim imprudentes, & idiotes, quae major semper credentium pars est, quoniam & ipsa regula fidei à pluribus Deis saculi ad Ʋnicum & verum Deum transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidam sed cum suâ oeconomiâ esse credendum, expavescunt ad oeconomiam, numerum & dispositionem Trinitatis.
SImplices enim Quique ne dixerim imprudentes, & Idiots, Quae Major semper credentium pars est, quoniam & ipsa regula fidei à Pluribus Deis saculi ad Ʋnicum & verum God transfert, non intelligentes unicum quidam sed cum suâ oeconomiâ esse credendum, expavescunt ad oeconomiam, Numerum & dispositionem Trinitatis.
fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la n1 fw-la, cc n2, fw-la j fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la cc fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-fr fw-la d fw-la fw-la np1 cc fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la cc fw-la fw-la.
Itaque duos & tres jam jactitant a nobis praedicari, se vero unius Dei •ultores •pr••sunm•t, quasi non & unitas irrationaliter collecta Heresin faciat? & Trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. Tertul. adv. Praxeam. NONLATINALPHABET. Athanas. contra Sabellij Gregales. NONLATINALPHABET. Ibid. NONLATINALPHABET. Basil Epist. 64. ad Neocaesar. NONLATINALPHABET. Ibid. NONLATINALPHABET. Ibid. NONLATINALPHABET. Id. contra Sabel. & Arr. NONLATINALPHABET. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 25. NONLATINALPHABET. Id. Orat. 1. NONLATINALPHABET, Cyrll Alexandrin. in Thesauro, p. 109. It was Sabellius his plausible and twitting Question; NONLATINALPHABET? Epiphan.
Itaque duos & tres jam jactitant a nobis praedicari, se vero unius Dei •ultores •pr••sunm•t, quasi non & unitas irrationaliter Collecta Heresin Faciat? & Trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat. Tertulian Advantage. Praxeas.. Athanasius contra Sabellij Gregales.. Ibid. Basil Epistle 64. and Neocaesar.. Ibid. Ibid. Id. contra Sabel. & Arr.. Greg. Nazianz Orat 25.. Id. Orat 1., Cyril Alexandrian. in Thesauro, p. 109. It was Sabellius his plausible and twitting Question;? Epiphanius.
Heres. 62. Thus Noetus gloried in his being an Unitarian, NONLATINALPHABET, Id. Heres. 57. But the Father calls him NONLATINALPHABET for those Reasons, which are a Demonstration against his Opinion of One Being; NONLATINALPHABET. Epiphan. Ibid.
Heres. 62. Thus Noetus gloried in his being an Unitarian,, Id. Heres. 57. But the Father calls him for those Reasons, which Are a Demonstration against his Opinion of One Being;. Epiphanius. Ibid
From all which it is plain, and will be plainer to those who read these Authors at large, that it is Heretical to believe One God in a Jewish and Sabellian (I may add now in a Mahometan and Socinian ) Sense,
From all which it is plain, and will be plainer to those who read these Authors At large, that it is Heretical to believe One God in a Jewish and Sabellian (I may add now in a Mahometan and Socinian) Sense,
p-acp d r-crq pn31 vbz j, cc vmb vbi jc p-acp d r-crq vvd d n2 p-acp j, cst pn31 vbz j pc-acp vvi crd n1 p-acp dt jp cc np1 (pns11 vmb vvi av p-acp dt jp cc np1) n1,
as well as Three Gods in a Gentile and Pagan, or Marcionite and Valentinian; and that Christianity is between those Extreams, believing One God the Father, a Son, who is God begotten of him,
as well as Three God's in a Gentile and Pagan, or Marcionite and Valentinian; and that Christianity is between those Extremes, believing One God the Father, a Son, who is God begotten of him,
c-acp av c-acp crd n2 p-acp dt j cc j-jn, cc n1 cc np1; cc cst np1 vbz p-acp d n2-jn, vvg crd np1 dt n1, dt n1, r-crq vbz np1 vvn pp-f pno31,
and a Holy Ghost, who is God proceeding from both. I conclude with a Quotation which the Learned Reader will understand the full Purport of: NONLATINALPHABET. Greg. Nyssen. adv.
and a Holy Ghost, who is God proceeding from both. I conclude with a Quotation which the Learned Reader will understand the full Purport of:. Greg. Nyssen. Advantage.
Tantum abest ut qui ista profitetur (sc. Christianis duos esse Deos, hoc enim objecrat Wiekus) propter id ut Wieko placet, non Christianus sed Ethnicus sit appellandus. Socin. Respon. ad Wiekum. C. 1.
Tantum abest ut qui ista profitetur (sc. Christianis duos esse Gods, hoc enim objecrat Wiekus) propter id ut Wieko placet, non Christian sed Ethnicus sit appellandus. Socinian. Response. ad Wiekum. C. 1.
Quasi aut duos Deos haberemus summos, aut Unum babere Deum summum, alterum vero ab eo dependentem ei { que } subordinatum sacris literis sit adversum? Crel. de uno Deo, C. 1. S. 2. C. 18.
Quasi Or duos Gods haberemus summos, Or Unum babere God summum, alterum vero ab eo dependentem ei { que } subordinatum sacris literis sit adversum? Criel. de Uno God, C. 1. S. 2. C. 18.
Carpere & Detrahere vel imperiti possunt, doctorum autem est & qui laborantium novere sudorem vel lassis mauum porrigere, vel errantibus iter ostendere. Hieron. in Jon. c. 4.
Carpere & Detract vel imperiti possunt, doctorum autem est & qui laborantium novere sudorem vel lassis mauum porrigere, vel errantibus iter ostendere. Hieron. in Jon. c. 4.
Tenet praeterquam in proposito in divinis, eo quod nusquam alibi possunt esse tres res quarum nulla est alia quae tamen sunt una res numero, sed tantum in divinis illa reperitur. Biel Repertor L. 1. Dist. 5. Qu. 1. Impossibile putant unam rem singularim esse plures res ficut impossibile est in creaturis, — & quidem in Creaturis non datur instantia, sed in divinis datur. Ibid. Distinctionem virtualem in eo formalissimè consistere, quòd uni realiter indivisibili à parte rei & independenter a nostris conceptibus conveniant praedicata quae alioquin videtur contradictoria, & quidem in creaturis essent contradictoria, — in divinis posse eandem rem produci & non produci communicari & non communicari quod nulli Creaturae convenit, — in divinis capacitatem majorem in una indivisibili re ad habenda praedicata contradictoria quam in humanis, — quod si rationem a priori hujus distinctionis quaeramus, non aliam possumus reddere nisi infinitam perfectionem Dei, ratione cujus in ordine ad aliqua praedicata in se opposita habet capacitatem ea recipiendi simul, perinde ac si esset multiplex realiter, — fateor eam aequivalentiam difficulter intelligi, non est tamen propterea neganda, eam enim fides, in cujus obsequium debemus captivare intellectum, manifeste ostendit. Arrlaga Tractat. de Mysterio Trinit. Disp. 42. Sect. 1. Eidem indivisibili rei respectu alterius etiam indivisibilis convenit realiter distingui & realiter esse idem. Ibid. Qui non attingunt non aliud non esse idem, & non idem non esse aliud non possunt capere &c. Cusan. in Crib. Alcor. L. 2. C. 8.
Tenet Except in Purpose in divinis, eo quod nusquam alibi possunt esse tres Rest Whom nulla est Alias Quae tamen sunt una Rest numero, sed Tantum in divinis illa reperitur. Biel Repertor L. 1. Dist 5. Qu. 1. Impossibile Putant unam remembering singularim esse plures Rest ficut impossibile est in Creaturis, — & quidem in Creaturis non datur Instantia, sed in divinis datur. Ibid Distinctionem virtualem in eo formalissimè consistere, quòd uni realiter indivisibili à parte rei & independenter a nostris conceptibus conveniant praedicata Quae Alioquin videtur contradictoria, & quidem in Creaturis essent contradictoria, — in divinis posse eandem remembering produci & non produci Communication & non Communication quod None Creaturae convenit, — in divinis capacitatem majorem in una indivisibili re ad Habenda praedicata contradictoria quam in humanis, — quod si rationem a priori hujus distinctionis quaeramus, non aliam possumus reddere nisi infinitam perfectionem Dei, ratione cujus in Order ad Any praedicata in se Opposita habet capacitatem ea recipiendi simul, Perinde ac si esset multiplex realiter, — Fateor eam aequivalentiam Difficult intelligi, non est tamen propterea neganda, eam enim fides, in cujus obsequium debemus captivare Intellectum, manifest ostendit. Arrlaga Tractate de Mysterio Trinity. Disp 42. Sect. 1. Eidem indivisibili rei respectu alterius etiam indivisibilis convenit realiter distingui & realiter esse idem. Ibid Qui non attingunt non Aliud non esse idem, & non idem non esse Aliud non possunt capere etc. Cusan. in Crib. Alcor. L. 2. C. 8.
Tunc igitur existentia naturae substantialis erit complete terminata quando suerit affecta modo existendi per se, hic ergo modus complet rationem subsistentiae creatae, ille ergo habet propriam rationem personalitatis seu suppositalitatis. Suarez Disp. Metaphys. 34. — Pestquam essentia est in actu, solum indiget modo existendi in se & per se declaratur ex incarnatione Christi, nihil enim aliud intelligimus deesse humanitati Christi, ut non subsistat subsistentiâ propriâ nisi talem existendi modum quo sit per se & non in alio, nam in ea est integra omnis essentia actualis & creata, & consequenter est etiam substantialis existentia humanae naturae, tamen quia illa existentia ita est affecta ut innitatur verbo, a quo sustentatur & pendet, ideo caret illa humanitas modo existendi per se, ergo solum ex defectu hujusmodi non est subsistens nec persona creata, ergo talis modus est qui babet rationem personalitatis creatae. Id quod suppositum creatum addit supra naturam, distinguitur quidem in re ab ipsâ naturâ, non tamen omnino realiter tanquam res a re, sed modaliter, ut modus rei a re. Est ergo substantia transcendenter sumpta ut distinguitur contra accidens (quia non potest substantia ab accidente formaliter accipere suum complementum) non tamen entitas sed modus substantialis, at { que } ita non directe sed reductive ponitur in praedicamento substantiae quia est aliquid substantiale. Suarez Metaphys. Disp. 34.
Tunc igitur existentia naturae Substantialis erit complete terminata quando suerit affecta modo existendi per se, hic ergo modus complete rationem subsistentiae creatae, Isle ergo habet propriam rationem personalitatis seu suppositalitatis. Suarez Disp Metaphys. 34. — Pestquam Essentia est in Acts, solum indiget modo existendi in se & per se declaratur ex incarnation Christ, nihil enim Aliud intelligimus deesse Humanitati Christ, ut non subsistat subsistentiâ propriâ nisi talem existendi modum quo sit per se & non in Alio, nam in ea est Whole omnis Essentia actualis & Created, & Consequently est etiam Substantialis existentia humanae naturae, tamen quia illa existentia ita est affecta ut innitatur verbo, a quo sustentatur & Pendet, ideo caret illa humanitas modo existendi per se, ergo solum ex defectu hujusmodi non est subsistens nec persona Created, ergo Talis modus est qui babet rationem personalitatis creatae. Id quod suppositum Creatum Addit supra naturam, distinguitur quidem in re ab ipsâ naturâ, non tamen Omnino realiter tanquam Rest a re, sed modaliter, ut modus rei a re. Est ergo Substance transcendenter sumpta ut distinguitur contra Accidents (quia non potest Substance ab accident formaliter accipere suum complementum) non tamen entitas sed modus Substantialis, At { que } ita non Direct sed reductive ponitur in praedicamento substantiae quia est Aliquid substantial. Suarez Metaphys. Disp 34.
Nam quum id sit principium caeteris quod ingenitum, Deus solus Pater est, qui extra originem est, ex quo hic est qui genitus. Tertul. seu Novatian. de Trin. Deus quidem ostenditur Filius cui Divinitas tradita & porrecta conspicitur, & tamen nihilominus unus Deus Pater probatur. Ibid. NONLATINALPHABET. Athanas. Orat. coutra Arrianos. Deum in verbo suo omnia fecisse, dum enim Deum audio Patrem cogito. Scotus Erigena de Divis. Naturae, L. 1. P. 61. Habeo libenter { que } accipio Dei nomine Patrem, Principij Filium Dei, Spiritus Dei Spiritum Sanstum significatos. Ibid.
Nam Whom id sit principium caeteris quod ingenitum, Deus solus Pater est, qui extra originem est, ex quo hic est qui Genitus. Tertulian seu Novatian. de Trin. Deus quidem Ostenditur Filius cui Divinitas tradita & porrecta conspicitur, & tamen nihilominus Unus Deus Pater Probatum. Ibid. Athanasius Orat coutra Arrianos. God in verbo Sue omnia To have made, dum enim God audio Patrem cogito. Scotus Erigena de Divis. Naturae, L. 1. P. 61. Habeo Libenter { que } accipio Dei nomine Patrem, Principij Son Dei, Spiritus Dei Spiritum Sanstum significatos. Ibid
Peculiaritèr & NONLATINALPHABET tribuitur Patri Dei nomen. Ravanel. biblioth. v. Deus & Persona. Caeterum Attributionem seu Appropriationem ut vocant nominis Deus omnes in Scriptura pie ac prudenter exercitati facile animadvertunt. — Appropriatio autem omnino in eo sita est, quod vox Deus quae caeteroquin pluribus numero personis est communis, tanquam unius nempe Patris propria sumatur. Bisterfield contra Crel. L. 1. P. 41. Nonne in hoc regno-solus Condaeus absolutè princeps dicitur, id { que } elogium pro ejus nomine proprio saepissimè ponitur cum alij. — Exemplum in quo Attributum commune uni tantum ex illis ita rectè tribuitur ut dicere ci soli competere. — Placaeus contra Crell. P. 33.
Peculiariter & tribuitur Patri Dei Nome. Ravanel. Biblioth. v. Deus & Persona. Caeterum Attributionem seu Appropriationem ut Vocant Nominis Deus omnes in Scripture pie ac Prudent exercitati facile animadvertunt. — Appropriation autem Omnino in eo sita est, quod vox Deus Quae caeteroquin Pluribus numero Persons est Communis, tanquam unius nempe Patris propria sumatur. Bisterfield contra Criel. L. 1. P. 41. Nonne in hoc regno-solus Condaeus absolutè princeps dicitur, id { que } elogium Pro His nomine Properly saepissimè ponitur cum alij. — Exemplum in quo Attributum commune uni Tantum ex illis ita rectè tribuitur ut dicere ci soli competere. — Placaeus contra Crell. P. 33.
