Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A41688
|
The court of the gentiles. Part IV. Of reformed philosophie wherein Plato's moral and metaphysic or prime philosophie is reduced to an useful forme and method / by Theophilus Gale.
|
Gale, Theophilus, 1628-1678.
|
1677
(1677)
|
Wing G142; ESTC R25438
|
525,579
|
570
|
follows his Simplicitie The Simplicitie of God explicated which is most absolute as both Sacred and Platonic Philosophie teacheth Sacred Philosophie expresseth the absolute Simplicitie of God under the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jehovah as also by the Paraphrase thereon Exod. 3.14 I am that I am i. e. a simple pure Act Exod. 3.14 a Being necessarily existent in Act and therefore most simple without the least shadow of Power either objective or receptive So Psal 102.27 Psal 102.27 but thou art the same i. e. a uniforme simple Being Plato in imitation of sacred Philosophie expresseth the same by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first entire perfect uniforme most simple Being without the least composition Thence in his Conv. p. 211. he stiles God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the sincere and uniforme Beautie because without al mixture and composition The Simplicitie of God is described by our Lord under the notion of a Spirit Joh. 4.24 God is a Spirit Joh. 4.24 i. e. 1 As he is a pure Act void of al passive power either physic or metaphysic Althings are so far spirital as they partake of Act and by how much the more spirital things are by so much the more simple Among the Elements the Wind and Fire are most simple because most spirital Angels and human Souls are in an higher degree spirital and simple because exemted from al Laws of physic Mater yet they are in some respect composite of Act and Power Substance and Accidents because they are under the laws of metaphysic obediential passive power as Creatures But God is so pure a Spirit and Act as that al metaphysic as wel as physic power is denied of him 2 God is said to be a Spirit as most vigorous and active Our Lord assures us that the Wind being of a spirital nature Joh. 3.8 bloweth whithersoever it listeth Yet Angels and human Spirits are much more active and potent But God infinitely transcendes al other Spirits in point of activitie and efficacitie which also speakes the simplicitie of his Being For by how much the more simple any thing is by so much the more active and vigorous Al mater is dul and phlegmatic Plato philosophiseth much of the Simplicitie of God So Repub 2. pag. 380. he saith God doth not varie his forme or shape but that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a most simple Being and of althings least varies from his own Idea or Essence So pag. 381. he saith God remains always 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 simply one and in the same forme Of which more in what follows of Gods Immutabilitie But he treats more fully of the Simplicitie of God in his Metaphysics Parmenid pag. 137. If one i. e. God be any thing it cannot truely be many i. e. compound and he gives this reason of his Hypothesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither can there be any part thereof neither can it be a whole for a part is the part of a whole and that is a whole to which no part is wanting Whence he concludes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore neither wil it be a whole neither wil it have parts if one shal be one His meaning is that God who is one simple Being is neither whole nor has he parts This Argument he more fully improves pag. 138. Simplicitie doth not adde any real entitie or mode to that which is thereby denominated simple but only a negation of composition For simplicitie is the same with perfect and indivisible Unitie This Simplicitie of God is most absolute For 1 he is not composed of Logic parts as of Genus and Differentia because there is nothing before God nor yet a Species contradistinct to him 2 God is not composed of physic parts either essential or integral because he is a Spirit Thus Damascene Orthodox Fid. lib. 1. cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Whatever things are spoken of God corporally are spoken symbolically but they have an higher mind for the Deitie is simple and has no figure 3 Neither is he composed of metaphysic parts namely Act and Power because he is pure Act. 4 He is not composed of Ens and Essence or of Essence and Existence because he is Being in the abstract Exod. 3.14 He so lives as that he is life it self Joh. 5.26 14.6 5 He is not composed of Subject and Accident because whatever is in God is God Moreover God being the most perfect Being he can neither admit nor need any accidental perfection So Damascene Orthod Fid. l. 1. c. 18. In us habits come and go but not in God for in him nothing comes or goes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for he is inalterable and immutable neither is it lawful to ascribe any accident unto him for goodnesse in God is coincident with his Essence The same he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neither may we say that there is a Qualitie in God or that he is compounded of Essence and Qualitie 6 He is not composed of Attributes because they are the same with his Essence Thus Damascene Orthodox Fid. l. 1. c. 13. having spoken of the divine Attributes and Relations he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore al these must be considered in the whole Deitie in commun and as the same and indistinctly and unitely 7 Neither is he composed of Decrees because they differ not from his Nature 8 He is not composed of Essence and Relation or Nature and Personalitie because the personal relations albeit they admit some kind of distinction yet they give no composition seing each Person is the very divine Essence though with some incomprehensible modification Thus Damascene Orthodox Fid. l. 1. c. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Deitie is not a composite but in three perfect Persons one perfect indivisible and incomposite Essence So cap. 8. God is both Father always existing and ingenite God is also the Son who always eternally influxibly impassibly is begotten of the Father God also is the holy Spirit c. The Essence and Personalitie are included in the Person of the Father Son and Spirit in a way not of composition but of ineffable conjunction and union 9 Neither is the Deitie composed of Essence and Operation It 's true the operations of God considered in their passive Attingence and as they terminate on create effects are the same with or at least only modally distinct from the effect and therefore really distinct from God but if we consider them in regard of their active Attingence as relating to God the Principe so they are the same with the Divine Wil and therefore not really distinct from the Divine Essence as in what follows Chap. 7. § 3. Thus Damascene Orthod Fid. lib. 1. cap. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The true word teacheth that God is simple and hath one simple operation So Chap. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The divine effulgence and operation is one Essence both simple and
the same manner as they who follow Arius he divides and supposeth Subjects inducing Hypostases subordinate among themselves and conceits the Holy and Consubstantial Trinitie to be three distinct Gods And albeit Learned Cudworth B. 1. C. 4. p. 590. against Atheisme endeavors to wipe off this aspersion yet he grants the conclusion as hereafter But to speak the truth I find no express mention of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Trinitie in Plato only he speaks confusedly of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Father Lord and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mind c. But among the later Platonistes of the Schole of Alexandria ' specially those of the golden succession the Sectators of Ammonius Plotinus Porphyrie Iamblichus Proclus we find frequent mention and notices of a Trinitie which they thus distinguish 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Supreme self-being whom also they stile 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Good 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Divine mind the Creatrix or Framer of althings who is also termed by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the seminal Word or Reason that gives Being to althings 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Soul of the Vniverse and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first Soul as c. 8. § 2. These more distinct notices of a Trinitie I am very apt to perswade my self they received not so much from Plato but from Ammonius the famose Head of that Succession who was either a Christian or a friend to their Sacred Philosophie out of which he stole most of his choisest Philosophemes and incorporated them into the bodie of his Platonic Philosophie in order to a refinement thereof which albeit his designe might be good yet it proved the peste and subversion of the Christian Theologie at least among those of that Schole For Origen his Scholar following in his steps out of too fond a love for Platonic Philosophie reduced Sacred Philosophie to Platonic Dogmes which proved the original cause of the greatest Errors that befel the Church in succeeding Ages Thus he makes the Three Persons in the Trinitie to be according to the Three Platonic Hypostases One not in Essence but Wil only So Origen contra Celsum l. 8. p. 386. Edit Cantabr 1658. Where having cited that Act. 4.32 There was of al the Believers one Heart and one Soul he brings it to prove what our Lord affirmes Joh. 10.30 I and the Father are one And thence in what follows concludes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Therefore we religiosely worship the Father of Truth and the Son who is Truth as being truely two in Hypostase but one in concord consent and identitie of Wil So that whosoever sees the Son shall in him see God as in the Image of God c. Hence Origen in imitation of these Platonistes supposed an essential dependence of the Son the second Hypostasis on the Father as also of the Spirit the third on the Son of which essential dependence and subordination see Cudworth against Atheisme L. 1. C. 4. p. 581 c. Yea Origen in his Comments on John wil needs persuade us That the Word in Divine things is taken only metaphorically How far Origen's Platonic Philosophemes laid the foundation for the Arian and other Heresies touching the second and third Person in the Trinitie see Court Gent. p. 3. l. 2. c. 1. § 8 9. Samosatenus also had his pestiferous infusions from Plotinus's Philosophemes about the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Arius his from the same Schole as we have more fully proved in our Discourse of the Vanitie of Philosophie B. 2. C. 1. § 8. But whereas Amelius of old and some late Socinians would fain persuade us that John borrowed his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. 1.1 from Plato it 's evident that he had it from the Sacred Philosophie among the Hebrews for in the ancient Chaldaic Thargum we find frequent mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word of Jehovah whereby they understood the Messias as Gen. 3.8 Psal 2.12 and 27.1 as elsewhere Yea Celsus would needs persuade us That the Christians came to cal their Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THE SON OF GOD from their Pagan Ancestors who called the World made by God the Son of God But this is refuted by Origen Contra Celsum l. 6. p. 308. Edit 1658. Where he proves that this Character of Jesus was to be found in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets who writ long before the Grecian Philosophers That al those confused notices of a Trinitie among the Platonistes were originally traduced from Sacred Philosophie see Clem. Alexandr Strom. 5. p. 436. Eusebius praepar Evangel l. 11. from cap. 14. to 23. Philos General Part. 1. l. 1. c. 2. sect 5. § 2. and l. 3. c. 4. sect 1. § 13. also Court Gent. P. 1. B. 3. c. 5. § 7. Learned Cudworth in his Book against Atheisme B. 1. C. 4. sect 35. p. 548. saith We may reasonably conclude that which Proclus asserteth of this Trinitie as it was contained in the Chaldaic Oracles to be true that it was at first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Theologie of Divine Tradition or Revelation or a Divine Cabala viz. amongst the Hebrews first and from them afterwards communicated to the Egyptians and other Nations However addes he we freely acknowledge that as this Divine Cababa was but little understood by many of those who entertained it among the Pagans so was it by diverse of them much depraved and adulterated For 1 the Pagans universally called this their Trinitie a Trinitie of Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First the Second and the Third God 2 Whence p. 557. he procedes to demonstrate that the direct designe of this Platonic Trinitie was nothing else but to lay a foundation for infinite Polytheisme Cosmolatrie and Creature-worship Where by the way he wel observes That these Pagans who so much cried up this Platonic Trinitie were the only public and professed Champions against Christianitie and the Christian Trinitie 3 He addes p. 559. That the Three Hypostases or persons asserted by the Christians are truely and really one God and not one only in Wil as Origen and the Platonistes avouch 4 He informes us p. 564. That Proclus and other of the Platonistes intermingle many particular Gods with those three Vniversal Principes or Hypostases of their Trinitie as Noes Minds or Intellects superior to the first Soul and Henades and Agathotetes Vnities and Goodnesses superior to the first Intellect too thereby making those particular Beings which must needs be Creatures superior to those Hypostases that are Universal and Infinite So great confusions yea contradictions attendes the Platonic Trinitie which yet is too much admired CHAP. VII Of Gods prime Causalitie Efficience and Concurse in general God the first Cause demonstrated The Object of Divine Concurse Gods Concurse not merely conservative of the