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 |
|
A25440
|
Animadversions on a postscript to the defence of Dr. Sherlock, against the calm discourse of the sober enquirer as also on the letter to a friend concerning that postscript.
|
|
1695
(1695)
|
Wing A3192; ESTC R7291
|
26,902
|
22
|
Goodness prepar'd his way to make a natural Trinity in Unity of them In truth any Man might have guess'd so as well as the Dean But the Enquirer tells us his Discourse was never intended to terminate in such a Trinity tho it seems plausible or not absurd It is a great Fall from possible to not absurd and then that it only seems not absurd is another great Fall Why did Mr. H concern himself with such an Hypothesis an Hypothesis of so ill a Nature Why he did it to disentangle Mens Minds from an apprehended necessity of conceiving the Three Attributes to be One and the same Thing A Proposition that only seems only not absurd is no very fine Argument to disentangle Mens Minds from Error but to let that pass who are they that apprehend a Necessity of conceiving the Three Attributes to be One and the same Thing Not the Unitarians he knows it none that ever wrote for he challenges the Dean to name that Writer that does not distinguish them at least ratione ratiocinatâ in contradistinction to ratiocinate let him no more than preface his Discourse with this natural Trinity in Unity unless he designs to disentangle the Dean's Mind with it and if so let him make his best on 't Upon his Success I will promise him Egregiam laudem magnum memorabile nomen He cannot get much more by freeing the Doctrine of the Trinity from the Difficulties in which it is entangled P. 26. Mr. H w teaches that the Son is from the Father by necessary eternal Promanation the Holy Spirit from Father and Son and that the Three most celebrated Attributes though I know not why Truth and Justice should not be celebrated as much as they are necessary Emanations con-natural to their Original Now all this must be taken in the unnatural improper theological Meaning of the Words which what it is none but the Sons of Art know and 't is against their Rule to make it common But from the proper natural Meaning of the Words the Wit of Man cannot make out an intelligible agreeable Proposition If Mr. H. thinks otherwise let him try and define what Promanation is what Emanation what Procession c. if he has any Idea in his Mind of what those Words signify he may desine them if he has no such Idea then let him confess himself beholding to the Dean who teaches a puzzled Trinitarian to rest his Terms upon a Theological Bottom But methinks the People are very hardly us'd when they are requir'd to believe Mysteries which will endure no Explanation but in Words that are to be taken in a Sense which neither they can find out nor will their Teachers tell them But I recal my self I think the People are not put to such hard Terms of Communion but Preachers only nay whether they are or no I am not positively certain for Assent and Consint may be as well interpreted cum grano salis in this Matter as it is generally in some other and as for the damnatory Clause at the End of one odd Creed very few are of that strong Stomach and Unchristian Temper as not to be sick and asham'd of it In the three next Leaves I meet with nothing but barbarous Stuff about Composition between the two Antagonists On which all I shall note is that the Dean puts a word or two out of joint which is no great matter in such a perplext Dispute and Mr. H. falls upon that and thence takes occasion to overlook the Intention and Force of his Adversary's Argument Mr. H. p. 33. brings in the Dean disputing against the Hypothesis of Three distinct Essences Natures Minds Spirits necessarily and eternally united in the Divine Being after this manner God is eternal and unmade but whatever has Three such Essences in it must have a Maker Mr. H. is the less concern'd for this Argument because it does the Dean's Business as well as his but concern'd for the Cause more than the Dean and therefore he will rub it off as well as he can and so he defies the Dean to prove that there is any Inconsistency between a Thing 's having Three distinct Essences naturally and necessarily united in it and its being eternal and unmade To this the Dean might answer whether consonant to his Hypothesis or no that troubles not me nor perhaps when he comes to answer will it affect him Be it granted that the Terms naturally and necessarily united are not inconsistent with those other eternal and unmade for Wisdom Power and Goodness I will add Justice and Truth are naturally and necessarily united in God and also eternal and unmade but then Three distinct Essences cannot be naturally and necessarily united and yet eternal and unmade because the Maker of all things is one Essence one single Essence and cannot possibly consist of Three distinct Essences which is Composition and that appears because the Three distinct Essences must either be suppos'd every of them God in an adequate Sense or only in an unadequate Sense Three distinct Essences each of which is God in an adequate Sense are without Contradiction Three Gods and Three distinct Essences two of which are God only in an inadequate Sense are in a just and true Sense less than God and what is less than God cannot be essentially united to him but does depend upon him and was made by him If there can be such Things as Three distinct Essences naturally and necessarily united they must then as the Dean said have a Maker and must differ in Union from what they were in Distinction as the Whole does from a Part or else must be one and three three and one in one and the same respect P. 34 and 35. Mr. H. strives not to understand the Dean which he ought not to do because the Dean is so oft not to be understood let who will strive to understand him but Mr. H. is to be excus'd because that which he is not willing to understand he is not able to answer In short all that I shall here offer is if Mr. H. determines that every of the Three Persons in his Trinity are adequately compleatly fully perfectly God then it is plain that his Trinity is a Trinity not of Persons only but of Gods also and if he determines that no one by himself but all Three together are perfect God then his Three Persons and Natures are no better nor worse but the Parts of a Composition as the Dean calls them and finite Parts as all things must be called whereof no one is perfect God will never make an infinite Composition which Truth though very obvious came not into my Mind till I read a Paper of that great Man's the Author of the Considerations P. 36. Mr. H. will not admit that the Three Persons are of a different Kind or Nature but that they differ only in Number that is as much as to say that they are all Three eternal which in terminis was too
the Writer suggests to us the Reason of that Appellation viz. the Dignity and Power bestowed on him by the Father For which reason also Moses Solomon and others are dignified with the same honourable Appellation Plainly told of Three that are each of them God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How hard a thing is it when a Man is engag'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to serve a Cause to make a Conscience of what he affirms We are indeed as he truly notes plainly told of Three and some things are spoken of each which cannot be truly spoken of all but this only proves that the Three cannot be essentially the same so that if any One of them be truly God the other two must be Creatures Mr. H is strangely rash to affirm that the Scripture plainly tells us of Three distinct Persons each of which is God for had that been true this Controversy had never been It is as Mr. H. judges easier to count Three than to determine of Infiniteness But then how bold is he to determine of the One as he does and how unlucky is he in counting the other for he determines that each of the Three distinct Persons are the Infinite God sometimes perhaps he uses abating Expressions and he counts God the Father God the Son God the Holy Ghost for One God The Dean had argued that if all Three Persons by Composition are but one God neither of them by himself is true and perfect God Which invidious Consequence he charges Mr. H to have own'd Mr. H replies that this is most untruly said and that for his part he denies both Antecedent and Consequent too If Mr. H can indulge himself to deny in one place what he has affirm'd in another he shall always have something to say for himself whatsoever is said against him but the Dean's Charge was honest for Calm Disc p. 47. Mr. H writes thus Father Son and Holy Spirit being suppos'd necessarily existent in this united State they cannot but be God Instead now of Composition put in the word together in the Dean's Argument and then surely Mr. H will not be so hardy as to deny the Antecedent and still the Consequence holds witness the good Man's next words When you predieate Godhead or the Name of God of any One of them you express an inadequate Conception of God And pray what is that but a half Conception of God a Conception short of what God is Indeed Mr. H did put in another Epither and with that his Phrase sounds thus A true but inadequate Conception But that is a Contradiction in Terms for a true Conception of a thing is an adequate full Conception of it and an inadequate Conception is not a true One What follows p. 41 and 42. is nothing but a sensless Stir concerning a Similitude of the Trinity which they both have us'd and both confess'd nothing to the purpose Mr. H says He brought the Union of Soul and Body not to illustrate Personal Union but Essential and yet his Business was to prove it possible that Three Persons might become one God So then by his Confession when he was to prove his Point he talk'd off from the Matter as many a fluent Orator has done that he might not lose but puzzle the Cause and so save it P. 42. Mr. H plays upon the Dean with scoffing Sarcasms But to his Argument returns nothing but plain dull Falshood or rather Theological Banter 1st He says that the Dean to make out something against him foists in a Supposition which never came into any Man's Head but a Socinian's and his own This is by a Rhetorical Hendiadis to call him a Socinian as if the Dean had wrote his Vindication of the Trinity to no purpose But herein Mr. H does him manifest wrong for on my Conscience he is no Socinian now whatever he may have been formerly But Mr. H has a Plaister for the Wound which that Imputation gives He said what he said if we will believe him contradistinguishing the Dean to the Socinians that so it might appear more strange that the Dean should foist in a Socinian Supposition Thus the Dean is excus'd from being a Socinian and to mend the Matter set out for a Man of no Conscience who being in truth an Anti-Socinian yet argues against Mr. H by virtue of a Socinian Supposition and that foisted in too Mr. H will not bate him a jot of being a Foister I see the Calm Enquirer is no Angel for he brings against the Dean a railing Accusation which is more than Michael did against the Devil a worse Creature than Dr. Sherlock by a great deal Come we now to the Supposition it self said to be foisted If God be a Person he can be but One. Now this Socinian Supposition or Argument or whatever it be does not look like a very unreasonable One and if the Dean should be ashamed of it because it is said to be Socinian he may for the same Reason be ashamed of the most unexceptionable things which he ever wrote But where 's the Foisting If Mr. H. did not say that God was a Person may not the Dean suppose it and argue from it Dares Mr. H. deny it Indeed he dares but with as empty metaphysical Pretence as can be imagin'd The Name of God says he is the Name of the Essence not the distinguishing Name of a Person This is perfect Theological Banter empty Words to which he cannot fix an intelligible Meaning But if Person signify an intelligent Being as both these Antagonists admit then the Essence and Person of God cannot be distinguish'd but are of the same Import then the Name of God is the Name of that Person or Intelligent Being which is God And if God be but one God then there is but one Person or Intelligent Being which is God Mr. H. pursues his Reasoning thus If Three Intelligent Natures be united in one Deity each will be Persons he should have said a Person and each will be God and all will be one God I grant it for Dato uno absurdo sequuntur mille Let me try my skill If Three Intelligent Natures may be united in One then Two may be so united and then the Dean will be Mr. H. and Mr. H. the Dean each will be a Trinitarian and both will be one Trinitarian The truth is nor Three nor Two Intelligent Natures can be united into One the same Intelligent Nature Nor can Mr. H. and the Dean be united into the same Man they come indeed close up to one another and are together by the Ears but they can never be united into One. Mr. H. thinks it makes for him tho I know not which way that he hath as Divines commonly do stil'd the Father Fons Trinitatis What is the Theological Sense of that Phrase I am not able to say the plain Sense is that a Trinity of Gods flow from the Father and Three and One makes Four unless some other Mystery forbid To