Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	father_n	ghost_n	son_n	4,633	5	6.0871	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40088	A second defence of the propositions by which the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is so explained according to the ancient fathers, as to speak it not contradictory to natural reason : in answer to a Socinian manuscript, in a letter to a friend : together, with a third defence of those propositions, in answer to the newly published reflexions, contained in a pamphlet, entituled, A letter to the reverend clergy of both universities / both by the author of those propositions.	Fowler, Edward, 1632-1714.	1695 (1695)	Wing F1715; ESTC R6837	47,125	74

should have said that God in this Highest of Sences can be but one Numerically And now he saith that Point-blank against all this A. T. affirms that a Being which is not Absolutely Perfect which wants Self Existence which wants the Highest Perfection which derives it self from God which depends on God the Original of all things who is but one Numerically may be Properly said to be Essentially God upon the account of some Perfections for two it seems are not Communicated or to be induced with the Divine Nature Now Sir what a Multiplying of words is here Which wants Self-Existence Which wants the Highest Perfection Which derives it self from God as if these Three were more than One thing Tho I had no such Expression neither as derives it self from God And he is a little Injurious to me too in representing me as Saying that the Son and Holy Ghost have only some Perfections notwithstanding the following Parenthesis whereas he knows he ought to have represented me as saying That they have all that are Capable of being Communicated which are all but Self-Existence and what is necessarily therein Implyed And I say that this is not Capable of being Communicated because there is not a more Gross Contradiction than to say it is But how is this Proposition Point-blank Contrary to my foregoing ones This Question he Answers by Askking Questions For he next saith he must make bold to ask me these following Questions And I will answer them as well as I can as he asks them Quest. 1. Doth the Divine Nature Comprehend all Perfections or can it want one or two of the Chiefest and be still the same Divine Nature I Answer that the Divine Nature doth Comprehend all Perfections but Self Existence is a Perfection relating immediately to the Fathers Existence not to His Nature or Essence it speaking the most Excellent Manner of Existing peculiar to Himself Even as Adam's Coming into Being by Gods immediate Creation speaks not the Humane Nature in him a different Nature from that of his Posterity tho it spakes his Person to have an Excellency above all that have come into the World by Ordinary Generation And as the Humane Nature of our B. Saviour is not of a different kind from other Mens because he came by it in a Supernatural way so I say God the Father's Existence being without a Cause doth not make him to have another sort of Nature from that of the Son and H Ghost Which may be a Necessary Nature and Uncreated and be Constituted of all the Boundless Perfections of which the Nature of the Father Consists abstracted from the Consideration of the manner of His Existence notwithstanding whatsoever your Friend can Object against the Possibility thereof And notwithstanding any thing I have said in my first 8. Propositions this may be asserted without danger of being caught at Contradicting my self as I hope you 'l be Convinc't anon And now for his next Question Quest. 2. Can the Divine Nature be Communicated to a Being when less than all Perfections are Communicated to it I Answer that if you 'l read again what I have said to the Former Question you will find there needs no other Answer to this But I must blame the wording of this Question because it seems to suppose Prae Existent Beings to which the Divine Nature is Communicated Whereas the possibility of the Existence of other Beings from God the Father which have the Perfections of his own Nature is that which is to be understood by the Communicableness of those Perfections Quest. 3. Can a Being that depends on God be properly said to be Essentially that God on whom it depends I Answer that such a Being can be properly said to be Essentially that God in one sence but cannot in another i. e. It can have an Essence of the same kind tho' not the same Numerical one Quest. 4. Can a Being that distinguisheth it self from the Only True God be properly said to be Essentially that God who is the Onely True God and but one Numerically I Answer that because he loves needlesly to Multiply Questions I am not obliged so to Multiply Answers And this being the self-same with the other Question I have given my Answer to it And now I hope the Gentleman may be satisfied of the true reason of my Parenthesis in the 4th Proposition Namely because the Son and H. Ghost may be Absolutely Perfect as to their Nature abstracted as I said from the Consideration of the manner of their Existence wherein yet they may be said infinitely to Excel even Arch-Angels These Existing by voluntary Creation but those by Necessary Emanation Which is the Word of the Ancients and I cannot find a better to Express what is intended by it viz. a more Excellent manner of Existence than that of Creation Which Thousands of Persons no whit inferiour to the greatest Masters of Reason the Socinians can bost of both Ancient and Modern Divines and Philosophers have not thought deserves to be Scoffed at as Non-sence and a Contradiction to Natural Reason as much as it is above the Comprehension thereof and is every whit as intelligible as are many Notions relating to the DEITT in which all true Theists as well as Christians are agreed and also as are not a few relating to our own Souls their Powers and Faculties and their Union with and influence upon our Bodies and as are innumerable Notions too relating to Material things which an Experimental Philosopher cannot doubt the truth of In the next place Sir your Friend saith he despairs of hearing a wise Word answered to these Questions viz. the forementioned But I will not say where was his Wisdom then when he askt them because you will Reply they are however wise Questions if they serve to Expose the Trinitarian to whom they are put and to make his Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity down right Non-sence But I Reply let the Unbyassed Readers judge of this and Sir I heartily wish that your Self may be one of them And whereas he saith that he will do what he can to prevent troubling that is my troubling the Questions with Confused Empty Jargon My Answer is That I think I have not at all troubled the Questions whether I shall trouble him or no by my Answering them But I expect he will tell you that my Answers are Confused Empty Jargon and if he will please to tell me so I shall give him no Rougher Reply than this Sir This is a rare demonstration that your self is one of those Anti-Trinitarians whom you Extol in the beginning of your Answer to my Propositions as having Modestly as well as Learnedly and Piously and Strongly Impugned the Commonly received Doctrine of the Trinity But how does he Endeavour to prevent my troubling his Questions with Confused Empty Jargon He does it thus By Essence I suppose he means Nature I Answer I am willing to do so too And saith he in that

manner of Existence or that any thing can have it's Existence from God and be Self-Existent And now he will display he saith the Absurdity and impossibility of this Necessary Emanation in two or three Questions and I thank him in Consideration of my Soft place he himself answers them for me Q. 1. Was God Conscious to the Emanation Yes saith he Else His understanding is not infinite Q 2. Was He sensible of the Necessity Yes again for the same reason And I answer yes yes too though he has Excused me But now when I have most need of his help he leaves me to answer for my Self to a stabbing Consequence from those Concessions viz. But then it follows that he was determined to one thing and sensible that He was so I will here too adventure to give him two more Yesses Then proceeds he there is some Power above Him or such a determination is the Law of His Nature the former he saith cannot be because God is the Supreme Being And he would have done like himself had he given us a reason why nothing can be above the Supreme Being Nor saith he can the latter because neither Reason nor Scripture describes God by any such Law But being aware that this is too difficult for my Brains he tells me he 'l make the matter Plain by a Question I see he 's Excellent at Questions and his Question is this By what Evident Principle of Reason or what Text of Scripture does it appear to be the Law of an Infinite Nature to beget Infinite Power Wisdom Goodness and that in a Being that must want Self-Existence and being the Maker of all things I answer That if he hath any Idea of the thing called Non-sense and any true mark to find it by he cannot miss of it in this Question But who Ever talked of the Fathers Begetting infinite Power Wisdom and Goodness in any Being or otherwise than of His Begetting an infinitely Powerful Wise and Good Being And now comes a Third Question Does the Idea of an infinitely Perfect Being Evidently imply the Necessary Emanation of another Being This Question sure he asked for askings sake For he knows I desired to have no more granted me than that it is not impossible or there is no Absurdity in it That Beings may have Exstence from God by way of Necessary Emanation And now for the 13. Proposition Prop. 13. It is no less Presumption to Affirm That it is a Contradiction to say that a BEING can be from all ETERNITY from God the Father supposing it Possible that it may be from Him in an higher and more Excellent way than that of Creation since the Sun tho' it is the Cause of Light is onely in order of Nature before it To this he saith First That for one Being to be from all Eternity from the Eternal Father is a Contradiction one degree more Absurd than barely two Eternals Not to tell him that I have hitherto thought that all Contradictions are alike Absurd how does he Prove this to be in any degree an Absurd Contradiction He saith that it is so is the most manifest thing in the World If I demand a Proof now hereof I should affront him had I not already Catcht him at proving after his manner the most manifest thing in the World But I need not demand a proof hereof for he presently sets about it And the Argument whereby he proves this most manifest thing in the World is this We neither have nor can have any notion of Proceeding or Being from Another but what implyes the Proceeder who derives his Being to be inferiour he should have said Posteriour to that other Being in order of Time In truth 't is a pleasant thing to see Men all of a Piece This is perfectly like his Arguing that is Proving the most Manifest thing by what is less manifest nay this is proving it by what is very false He saith we have no Notion of such a thing and I have already told him that a thing may nevertheless be for our having no Notion of it But he also saith we can have none here 's Confidence too like his own but let him speak for himself and not say We for I both can have and have some Notion of such a thing and so may any one that pleaseth for such a thing is a daily Object of our Sight Of which anon after I have Considered 2. more of his Wise sayings The Absurdity and impossibility saith he of deriving Existence from God by a more Excellent way than that of Creation I have already made manifest But if any Man of sense be found to be herein of his mind I will never trust my sense more in the most Manifest matters And then he sayes I therefore Conclude that Eternal Generation cannot be proved by it unless it can be made to appear that a true Notion is a necessary Consequence of a false But Sir Can you think it possible that your Friend should do such mighty Feats as he makes his Brags of since he cannot distinguish between Denying a thing to be Contradictions and Impossible and Asserting the truth of it And if he knows not that the Proof of such a thing as Eternal Generation was now none of my business and much more if he needs to be told that I only affirmed that there is no Contradiction therein to Natural Reason 't is hard to say whether he was more weak in offering to Animadvert on my Propositions or I in troubling my self with taking any notice of his Animadversions And now we come to the Instance I give in this Proposition of an Effect every whit as Old as the Cause of it and your Friend being come to it too asks me How I know that the Sun is the cause of Light And adds by the Revelation of School-Divines perhaps not by the History of the Bible for if the Account of the Creation in Genesis be to be taken in a litteral sence that will Convince me of a Philosophical Errour for there 't is said That God made the Light the first day the Sun not till the fourth But Sir did you ever meet with such Triflng First He saith perhaps I have learnt that the Sun is the cause of Light from the Revelation of School-Divines How well was this Flurt bestowed on me since he knew what a Veneration I Exprest for those Divines in my last Proposition Secondly He saith I could not have this rare Notion from the History of the Bible because the Book of Genesis saith that Light was made the first day and the Sun the fourth Admirable I profess Sure this Man hath himself been dabling with the School-men he 's so Subtil But what if I grant him that that Light which was Created before the Sun the Sun was not the cause of Does it follow thence that the Sun is the cause of no Light My Candle is the cause of the Light I now write by therefore the Sun is

But the Truth is I find his Arguing to be such as if well followed upon Other Arguments it might make those who are willing to be so down right Scepticks as to almost Every thing He needs not to be informed what doughty Dexterity a Sophister might shew in making it out that Creation is a Perfect Impossibility That Eternity in both the Notions thereof is a Monstrous Contradiction to the Reason of our Minds And that so is also the Notion of an Incorporal Substance And of Liberty nay even in God Himself And of the Divine Omnipresence And that both parts of a Contradiction may possibly be true And perhaps a thousand other things for which we have the highest Rational Evidence may be Exposed to Ridicule by a Man who loves to Chop Logick And likewise a many other things the Contrarys to which we have even Ocular and the most Sensible demonstrations of may one make such a shew of demonstrating as to Baffle most men As that there is no such thing as Motion That a Body can have no influence upon a Spirit nor a Spirit upon a Body and much less can they be vitally United That 't is impossible that Will and Thought should Stir a Finger That all Bodies are alike Big c. I say most if not all these Strange Propositions are Capable of being with as Plausible a shew of reason defended by a Subtile Sophister as the Emanation of the Son and Holy Ghost from the Father hath bin now Confuted by this Gentleman So that I cannot but apply those words of the Apostle to such Disputers They have turned aside unto vain jangling understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm But I have said Enough to this Section Each of the following I shall I think dispatch as Easily Sect. 58. He saith that whatsoever Emanes or any way proceeds from a Self-Existent Substance except it were Created and then joyned to it is as Self-Existent as that Substance But I say with as great assurance that whatsoever Substance Emanes from another must Owe its Existence to that other and the Contrary is a manifest Contradiction As to his Reason for thus asserting viz. Because before its Emanation it was a Part of the Self-Existent Substance it is taken from Material Substances which do Consist of Parts but this cannot be said of Spiritual ones because they are not divisible and therefore have no Parts And it is Observable too how well this Reason Suits to Eternal Emanations Sect. 59. This Section hath several very Surprizing things in it As 1. Our Author cannot see since the Son and Spirit are necessary Emanations how they owe their Origin more to the Father than the Father Owes His to them Which is as much as to say since the Tree necessarily issues forth from the Root and the Rays from the Sun therefore the Root owes its Origin no less to the Tree and the Sun to its Rays than the Tree to the Root and the Rays to the Sun 2. His Reason for that Assertion is that the Father Son and Spirit are all three of a Substance that is Self-Existent But I say onely the two latter are so for the First as he needs not to be told is the Self Existent Substance not of or from such a substance But if he asks me How they Emane from the Father I know not which of us would be the more Presumptuous he for Asking and for Endeavouring to Answer thatQuestion But on second thoughts I will undertake to Answer it when he shall be pleased to Answer me this How did your self come into Being Or What is the Modus how any thing comes to be what it is or to be at all 3. He adds Nor could the Father more than They be the cause of the Separation since They necessarily Separated from one another But can I need to mind him that our Hypothesis will not bear a Separation between the Divine Persons and only asserts a Distinction betwen them And sure I need not tell him that he is not over-fit to Write Books who knows not that Distinction and Separation and Difference too are Several things But 4. Whereas he saith that no one of these Persons can be the cause of their Separation because they Necessarily Separated doth he think that God can be the Necessary Cause of nothing Or that He is in His own nature Indifferent to every thing If he believes for Instance that the Perfection of His Nature doth not Necessarily determine Him to what is best or to do whatsoever He in His Infinite Wisdom knows fit to be done I hope there are not many of his mind He saith 5. That it is another Contradiction to Affirm that an Infinite Substance is divided into Three Infinite Parts How does our Author already run Taplash But I will not therefore forbear Replying and I Answer No doubt it is a Horrid Contradiction so to Affirm But how rank does this smell of the Gross thing called Body His mind runs altogether upon Material Substances which alone I say have Parts to be divided into And if a Spiritual Substance cannot be divided into spiritual Parts much less can an Insinite Spiritual Substance be divided into Infinite Spiritual Parts And he who thinks that a Spirit can be divided into parts had as good never take that word into his Mouth and much less can he Pretend to believe it a thing of an Immortal nature which whosoever does not whatever Theologers they may be I can't admire them for Philosophers 6. He makes it in what follows an Absurdity to deny that whatsoever proceeds from another thing must be in Order of Time after it These are his words Whatsoever Proceeds from a thing must first be in it Except it can be in it and Proceed from it at the same time But as we never thought of such a thing as the Two Persons so Proceeding as to be Separated from the First nor of any more than their having their Origin from Him so this they may have and yet still be in Him and might ever have been in Him Can our Author think not to trouble him too often with the Rays being from the Sun and yet as Old as it that all Thoughts must be Younger than Minds because they have their Original from them This can be denied by none that make Minds to be Thinking Beings I mean that do acknowledg Thinking to be Essential to Minds But this I have spoken to in the Preceding Defence p. 29 30 c. Sect. 60. He saith That it had bin Intolerable in the Pagans to believe those Rays that come from the Sun to be the Sun it self And I need say no more than that it is as Intolerable to believe the Son and Spirit who have their Existence from the Father to be the Father Himself But I desire him to think sedately with himself whether Gods Decrees could none of them be Eternal I Phansy he is not so much a School-man as