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 |
|
A62253
|
An answer to an anonimous pamphleteer, who impugns the doctrine contain'd in St. Athanasius his creed by J. Savage Gent.
|
Savage, J. (John), 1645-1721.
|
1690
(1690)
|
Wing S767; ESTC R8106
|
11,495
|
20
|
the third is a Person but these Propositions being all affirmative cannot be verify'd but by applying that generical term a Person to different and distinct individuums for an affirmative Proposition cannot be true except there be an Identity between the Subject and the Predicate ex parte objecti now the Filiation is a singular individuation which cannot be identify'd with any other Personality therefore the Propositions import a multiplicity of Persons as the three former do import a singularity of the Deity Hence it is apparent that we cannot say yet not three Persons but one Person as we say yet not three Gods but one God What follows in the Author is meer stuff and deserves no further answer for he goes upon a false supposition which no Orthodox Christian will admit namely that there are two sorts of true Gods three personal Gods and besides one Essential God whereas the Christian Faith never admitted but one true God who by his Omnipotence Created this inferiour and Superiour World and by his infinite Prudence and Providence preserveth and Governeth all things wherefore we deny the supposition as false and Heretical as will be obvious to any who considers what hath been already said in this Treatise especially in the first and third Observation But this great Oracle of the Deists goes on upon the subsequent passages of this Creed and particularly upon these words The Son is of the Father alone not Made nor Created but Begotten to which he answers That if the Creed-maker had spoke here of the Creation of the Son by Divine Power on the Virgin Mary it would have been true that the Son is neither Made nor Created but Begotten but then the first part of the Article would be false that the Son is of the Father alone for he that has a Father and a Mother is of Both. But since he speaks of the pretended Eternal Generation the latter part of the Article is false and inconsistent with the first part of it The meer explanation of the terms Made Created and Begotten will evacuate this difficulty That which is Made or Created proceeds from the Maker or Creator as an Effect from its Cause by the mediation of a real action or casualty between the cause and the effect that which is begotten is produced by Generation but how shall we distinguish Generation from the production of the Effect from its Cause I answer that according to the known definition admitted and approved of in the Schools of Philosophers and Divines Generation is Origo viventis a vivente a principio conjuncto in Similitudinem naturae Now to admit a real Action or Causality between the Father and the Son in the Eternal Generation of the Divine Word were to make a change in the Divine Essence ad intra of that immutable God that can admit of no change Whence it unavoidably follows that the Eternal Son of God is neither Made nor Created but how then can we make it appear that he is Begotten I answer because he is produced by Generation according to the definition given for he is produced by the Divine Understanding as related to all Creatures possible by a clear and Conspicuous representation but especially a lively Image of all the Perfections of the Divinity which makes him to be in similitudinem naturae as I shall more largely explicate and prove in the Treatise of the Trinity which I intend shortly to bring to light But to talk of a Mother as this Author doth is an impertinent indignity offer'd to the Divine Word and savours too much of the mean thoughts of the ignorant Vulgar Next in the Athanasian Creed follows that the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither Made nor Created nor Begotten but Proceeding Here this Deist Cavils first with the Holy Ghost's proceeding from the Son contrary to the Tenet of the Greek Church for which he cites that Text of Scripture Iohn 15.26 When the Comforter is come which I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of truth which proceedth from the Father he shall testify of me Doth this Text prove that the Holy Ghost doth not proceed from the Son it only asserts that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father which we all grant but whether or no it proceedeth also from the Son it doth not determine but I shall prove this at large in my Treatise of the Trinity Secondly he says subjoyns this Author that the Holy Ghost is not begotten but proceeding yet he alledgeth that it is confessed by the most Learned Trinitarians that Begotten and Proceeding differ nothing at all But I would fain know who those Learned Trinitarians are for it is well known that the second Person of the Trinity therefore is Begotten because he is produced by the Understanding which represents the Deity and the Creatures possible so that by the internal vertue of his production he is intended to be in similitudinem whence he is called the Divine Word naturae whereas the Holy Ghost proceeds by the Will which is no representative power but he proceeds by an act of Love of the same Divinity who doth not see that these two are far different from each other and this clearly solves that frivolous Discourse which follows that in counting right we should say two Fathers two Sons and three Holy Ghosts or Spirits for which saying there is no ground at all as appears by the difference given between Begotten and Proceeding Next in the Creed follows None is afore or after other none greater or less than another Yet the Son himself saith John 14.28 the Father is greater than I. I answer That the Son says not this of his Divinity but being Hypostically united to flesh he spoke it when he was in flesh of his Humanity none is afore or after other I ask says this Deist whether the Son doth not as he is a Son derive both life and Godhead from the Father I answer affirmatively But says he if the Father gave to the Son Life and Godhead he must have both before he could communicate or give either of them to the Son I answer All this argues only prioritatem originis for as much as the Father was the Origine of all that is in the Son but all was done from Eternity so there could be no prioritas temporis for before Eternity there was no time neither could there be any prioritas naturae such as there is in a Cause in respect of his Effect since the Father was not the Cause and the Son the Effect for all Causes produce their Effects by the Mediation of an Action whereof the Cause is the Origine and the Effect is the term which receives the action and subjects it in it self as the Philosophers teach Now the Eternal Son of God was produced by an act of the Divine Understanding which doth not operate by acts distinct from it self as Men and Angels do but all acts of the Divine Intellect
he grosly confounds the notional and relative predicates with the absolute and essential predicates for consider the sublime Mystery that we are upon and what hath been said above in the third Observation upon it and you will find the Errour for this Deist insists upon two Persons the Father and the Son and supposing the Father to be the one true God he infers that therefore the Son which is a distinct Person is not the one true God and yet the same though a different Person yet hath all the absolute and essential perfections with the Father he hath the same numerical Essence Nature and Divinity with the Father Now I demand whether it be possible that he should have the compleat and adequate essential Constitution of the Godhead and yet not be the one true God For the Godhead is singular wherein a number is Chymerical you had as good tell me that one may have the adequate constitution of a Man which is animal rationale and yet not be a man which is impossible for where there is the compleat essence of a thing there is the thing it self which is nothing else but its compleat essence Then he proceeds In the Creed the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all one the Glory equal the Majesty coeternal Therefore I ask says this Author whether the Glory and Majesty with which the Son and Spirit are Glorious and Majestical be the same in number with which the Father is Glorious and Majestical I answer Affirmatively Then it follows says this Author that the Glory and Majesty of these Persons is neither equal nor co-eternal which he attempts to prove because equality and co-eternity import a distinction between the things equal and co-eternal therefore I distinguish the sense of this illation the Glory and Majesty of these Persons if taken absolutely and essentially is neither equal nor co-eternal I grant it if taken notionally and personally I deny it The meaning of this distinction is cleared by the former Observations for if you take them personally they constitute number and ground relations and correlations to each other but if understood essentially and absolutely they do neither in plain terms the Father Son and Holy Ghost which are three distinct Persons are equally Glorious by the same numerical and individual Glory which is singular and essential to the Divinity But he replies That in case the Glory of the three Persons be numerically the same then so are also all the other Attributes whence it ensues that there is no real distinction between the Father Son and Holy Ghost but are only three Names of the same thing without any distinction as the Sabellians hold I am sorry that I have to deal with a Person so meanly vers'd in Divinity as not to distinguish the Attributes of the Divinity from the notional and relative predicates the Attributes are singular and are all communicated to every one of the Persons because they are absolute predicates but the Relations are peculiar to each Person so the Father hath communicated to the Son all the Divine Attributes and what else is peculair to the Divine Essence but hath not given him his Paternity as is noted above for Paternity is a relative predicate peculiar to one Person alone and not communicable the same with proportion is to be said of the Filiation and passive Spiration In the next place says this Prophane Libeller This Creed teaches that the Father is Incomprehensible Vncreated Eternal Almighty the Son is Vncreate Eternal Almighty c. Also that each of these Persons by himself is God and Lord yet there are not three Gods nor Lords nor three Incomprehensibles c. Now if in imitation of this a Man should have a mind to say the Father is a Person the Son is a Person the Holy Ghost is a Person yet not three Persons but one Person I would know why this were not as good Grammar and Arithmetick as when Athanasius says the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God yet not three Gods but one God I answer that what ever Grammer or Arithmetick there is in it I am sure there is no true Divinity in it for this Deistical Author insists here still upon the same errour for the word Person is a relative and notional expression whereof there are three in God but the word God is an absolute and essential term which is singular and cannot be multiplied as hath been often reiterated in this Discourse but he demands Doth not a man contradict himself when the terms of his negation are the same with those in his affirmation Now for Logick I answer That two contradictory Propositions ought to be ejusdem de eodem that is ejusdem praedicati de eodem subjecto as Angelus est Spiritus Angelus non est Spiritus There are three Gods there are not three Gods there are three Persons there are not three Persons c. But where is the least appearance of any Contradiction in all this Yet to make this the more conspicuous I must take each Proposition in pieces and scan the several parts thereof according to the rates of Logick For in these three Propositions the Father is God the Son is God the Holy Ghost is God the Subject of the first is the Father the Subject of the second is the Son the Subject of the third is the Holy Ghost these three Subjects are three distinct Persons Really different from each other The Predicate of the first is God this is an absolute and Essential term not capable of being multiplied for it is the Deity it self which is singular and therefore the Predicate of the second Proposition which is also God must be the same Deity with the first not another distinct Deity for a second God would be a meer Chimera so likewise the Predicate of the third Proposition is also God which still imports the same Deity this term God not being capable of any multiplicity so that the Subject of these three Propositions are three different Persons Really distinct from each other the Predicate of the same three Propositions which is God hath for its Object the singular Essence of the Divine Nature and the Propositions being all affirmative do intentionally identify the Deity with the subject of the same Propositions which are the Father Son and Holy Ghost as they are identify'd a parte rei wherein consists the verity of the same Propositions As concerning the three last Propositions the Case is very different for in the first of them which is this the Father is a Person though the Subject be the same as in the three former Propositions yet the Predicate is very different for in the first of these last Propositions the Predicate is a Person a generical term common to all persons the Predicate of the second is also a Person but distinct from the former in application as the Mystery teaches so likewise the Predicate of