Selected quad for the lemma: father_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A47735
|
Mr. Leslie's answer to the remarks on his first dialogue against the Socinians
|
Leslie, Charles, 1650-1722.
|
1697
(1697)
|
Wing L1120A; ESTC R216662
|
7,803
|
8
|
Nature or Essence of them no not of a Pile of Grass why of that Colour Shape or Vertue How then can we Know what the Nature of God is Or can we say it is not Rightly Reveal'd to Us in the Holy Scripture Do we Know of what Composition our own Souls are made Or how they Act in Us Do we Know any thing at all of the Soul but by the Effects We Know we Think therefore we Conclude we have a Soul but what that Soul is in its self we Know not Yet we wou'd Know the Nature of God! 10. This brings me to a Criticism of the Remarker upon the Parallel I made use of concerning the three Faculties of the Soul He says p. 3. That the Memory is not another Faculty but only an Act of the Vnderstanding Now I thought that the Vnderstanding was only Conversant about what was then Present before it And that the Memonry brought back Past things and so made them Present to the Vnderstanding Whence a Man may have a good Vnderstanding and yet a bad Memory Do we say of the Vnderstanding that it Forgets I take Truth or Falshood to be the Objects of the Vnderstanding But is Love or Hatred so A Man may have an Aversion and not know the Reason of it Non Amo te Sabidi nec possum dicere Quare Hoc tantum possum dicere Non Amo te Are ther Antipathys in the Vnderstanding I think this is generally Attributed to the Will and it is Agreed that it is a Distinct Faculty from the Vnderstanding And if ther be Different Faculties in the same Soul it Answers all the Purpose for which I brought that Parallel Nay if it be but so Thought it do's as well for me to Solve the Objection about Contradiction That Men shou'd not think a Plurality of Persons in God to be a Contradiction when the same Difficulty arises from a Plurality of Faculties in the Soul For Three Faculties can no more be One Faculty than Three Persons can be One Person And yet these Different Faculties make up but One and the Self same Soul 11. But I have Sufficiently Caution'd that I intend not to bring any Proof from these Parallels Nor lay the stress of the Cause upon them yet I thought them not altogether Useless to shew Men how far they may Mistake in Charging Contradictions from one Nature to another 12 I have likewise told That no Parallel in Created Natures can Answer Exactly or Come up to the Nature of God only Point Him out at a Great Distance and with Infinite Disproportion And therefore that we must not Argue Strictly from the One to the Other Yet the Remarker will not Observe this but Argues of the Persons of God as of Human Persons And says p. 4. If three Divine Persons be like three Human Persons And if three Divine Persons should as Properly be accounted three Gods as three Human Persons can in Strict Speech be accounted three Men Thence he Infers three Gods c. He cannot I think but see the Fallacie of this Argument after all that I have said But he will not see it He will still Argue Strictly from the Word Person and Apply it to God in the same manner that it is Us'd among Men. If he wou'd Apply the word Father so which himself gives to God or God's being said to Repent to Grieve c. What Work wou'd he make what Contradictions might he Infer His Brother Socinian Mr. Biddle as I have shew'd turn'd Anthropomorphit by this sort of Argument and from Man being said to be made after the Image of God held God to have a Body and of Human Shape And he might as well have made Him a Bird too because ther is Mention made of His Wings and Feathers Psal xci 4. This Savours not of the Sagacity the Socinians think Peculiar to Themselves 13. From the like Gross Conceptions the Remarker p. 7. raises Difficulties how a Begotten Being can be God Thinking of Begetting after the Manner of Men And then the Father must be in Time as well as in Nature before the Son And it having been told him that supposing the Sun to be Eternal its Light wou'd be as Eternal he Replys p. 7. That this Parallel will not do for that the Light which says he You call an Effect of the Sun is indeed the very Sun it self so may well be as Old By which the very Sun we see in the Firmament and is many times Bigger than the whole Earth can Creep through a Cranny and be All of it in this Room and in a Thousand other Places at the same Time This will help Trans-Substantiation not a little But is it so indeed that this Subtile Socinian can see no Difference betwixt the very Sun it Self and the Light that flows from it It is then time to have done Disputing with him And he Runs into as Great Absurdities to get Rid of these Parallels as he Charges upon me for making Use of them He says as before Quoted Sect. 4. That when we See the Stars our Eyes move not up to them but their extended Rays strike upon the Eye But if the Rays or the Light be the very Star it self then the very Star it self Strikes upon the Eye Let him Consider whether ther is any thing so very Gross as this in any of the Parallels I have produc'd And on whose side lies the poor Philosophy and Shallow Reasoning 14. Therefore leaving this Subject I will now only Answer an Observation he makes from Scripture wherein he says p. 2. God Almighty is Perpetually express'd in the Singular Number Vnder One He Me Thou c. Now lest the Reader of these Remarks should be Carry'd away with this I must mind him That this Socinian says this without taking any Notice of the Texts I have given to the Contrary in the 2d Dialogue p. 32 c. Beginning with the first of Genesis where God is Spoken of in the Plural as well as the Singular Number according to the Hebrew He is there called Gods and Vs as well as God and Me. And is He not spoken of in the Plural Number in the Form of Baptism in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost The Remarker ought to have Mark'd this and not to have put the Objection over again without saying something to the Answer had been made to it If this sheet gives him not full Satisfaction I shall be willing to hear from him again Contents 1. HIS Rude Treatment of me 2. The Argument I made use of That we ought not to Infer a Contradiction from a Nature we Understand to Another which we do not Understand 3. His Answer as to Thought Reply'd to 4. And as to a Man Born Blind 5. Other Instances I brought of which he takes no Notice 6. I join Issue with him as to the Instance of a Man Born Blind 7. What little Ground he had to Insult me here 8. He Expresly owns my Argument to the full 9. His Distinction of our Partial Knowledge of God will not do for we know nothing of the Nature or Essence of God Nor indeed of our own or any other Nature And our Dispute is concerning the Nature of God and not of His Attributes 10. He Confounds the Memory and the Vnderstanding Different Faculties in the Soul shew'd against him And the Parallel Justify'd 11. I make this no Proof nor lay the Stress of the Cause upon it 12. How grosly he Argues from Human Persons to the Divine This made Biddle turn Anthropomorphite 13. He makes no Difference betwixt the Light and the Sun By which the Sun it self comes in to our Eye On whose side lies the poor Philosophy and Shallow Reasoning 14. His Argument that God is Perpetually express'd in Scripture in the Singular Number shew'd to be otherwise And he gives no Answer to what I have said upon it I invite him to Reply FINIS
As that several Persons shou'd not be several Men and that the Father shou'd not be before the Son c. Whereas these Terms of Father Son Persons c. are not proper to the Nature of God tho' the most Proper we can use or understand And therefore we are not to Conceive of them in the manner they are us'd and apply'd to Men nor draw Consequences from them as we do when these Words are Apply'd to Men. Otherwise we shall Run into the like Contradictions as the Blind-man about Sight This will throw off all that the Remarker says of Inferring three Gods from the Term of three Persons because it is so among Men. He talks like a Blind-man of Colours of things which he must Confess he do's not understand yet will be inferring Contradictions in them He owns he cannot speak Properly of them yet finds fault with the Terms we use because they are not Proper tho' he can find none more Proper 5. He may as well say That God is not Eternal because we have no word to Express Duration higher than the word Beginning and ther can be no Beginning in Eternity He may say it is a Contradiction that all things shou'd be Present with God which yet he will not Deny to be an undoubted Verity because it is a Contradiction to Men that the Past or Future shou'd be Present because then a thing wou'd be Past and not Past Future and not Future at the same time These and other things I mentioned in my first Dialogue but the Remarker takes no notice of them nor will own the Absurdity of inferring Contradictions in God from Contradictions in Man occasion'd by the Improper Terms we are Forc'd to make use of to Express God after the manner of Men. 6. But he has laid his Stress upon this Instance I brought of the Blind man And here he thinks he has an Advantage of me And I am willing to join Issue with him upon it That if he can find out any Words that are Proper whereby to Express the Nature of Sight to a Man Born Blind and that he will give the Blind-man leave to draw Consequences and infer Contradictions from such Words according as he understands them then I will undertake to solve all the Contradictions that he pretends to muster up in the Terms whereby we Express the Holy Trinity And let him shew any Difference betwixt these Cases if he can only this That far greater Disparity ought to be Allow'd as to the Propriety of Words when Terms belonging to Men are spoke of God than when what belongs to one of our Senses is Apply'd to another 7. And now let the Reader Judge what occasion he had of thus Insulting me p. 1. But are you indeed says he to me so very weak as to think you move all the way to Rome and are got thither as soon as you think of it No Sir whatever hast you may be in thither you go no faster than your Legs can carry you And shou'd You Challenge all the Philosophy in the World Who have so little as not to know that when you think of Rome or any other Place 't is only the Idea of it in your Imagination which you Contemplate and not a Local Motion of your Thoughts to it In like manner when we see the Stars our Eyes move not up to them but their Extended Rayes strike upon the Eye I see you have a Head much fitter for entertaining and coining Mysteries than for Explaining or Defending ' em It 's a wonder you did not think rather that Rome or Constantinople shift and come into your Head And then since in other Cases a lesser Vessel cannot contain a greater nor a Nut-shel hold an House you might wonder how your little Head should hold such great Cities And with the same Philosophy infer that what is a Contradiction to Nutshels is none to Heads and Challenge all Philosophy to Reconcile it Now Reader has he not fully understood me do you think and answer'd me smartly 8. But will you see him freely Confessing what he thus Ridicules He says in this same p. 1. Indeed there may be something attributed to one Nature where there is nothing Inconsistent or Contradictory to it while if attributed to another it might meet with somthing Inconsistent whence a Contradiction will arise in the one and not in the other Now this is the whole of what I have been contending for I desire no more of him And having granted this how can he Deny that what is a Contradiction in one Nature that is of Man may not be so in another Nature that is of God Or are ther any two Natures more Distant and more Different than the Nature of God and of a Creature Or do we understand the Nature of God more Perfectly and Clearly than our own Nature Is it not Reasonable then what I said as he Quotes my words p. 2. That we must not object Contradictions in the Incomprehensible Nature of God from Comparing it with our own Because we Vnderstand not his Nature To which the Remarker says 9. I should grant this in an object of which we have no knowlege at all But surely if I have some tho' a partial knowlege of the Infinite God I may discern what is Contradictory to that little knowlege of him Nor is any thing more usual or Just than to Deny such or such a Doctrine because Incompatible to the Divine Attributes to his Spirituality Eternity Goodness c. To which I reply That the Nature and Attributes of any thing are Different We may know the Attributes when we cannot know the Nature As we may see the River but cannot Reach the Spring whence it flows And this Dispute of the Trinity is not about any of the Attributes of God but Concerning His very Nature and Essence and how His Being is Compos'd if I might use that Word of which I may say we are totally Ignorant it is a Light Inaccessible to us we know Nothing of it at all And therefore cannot Charge Contradiction in the Revelation that is given to us of it If we look Directly upon the Sun in its Strength we see Nothing at all it Strikes us Blind But if we turn our Backs we Discern the Light that comes from it The Attributes of God are the Rays of the Sun but His Nature is the Sun it self we cannot Look upon it It is Utter Darkness to Us through the Excess of the Light We can Discern Nothing at all in it or say it is Thus or Thus or that This or That is Contradictory to it Alass how little do we know of our own Nature We know it only by the Effects and the Qualities we find in our Selves But what it is in its self we cannot tell we are Exceedingly in the Dark And so as to the Nature of Trees Flowers Plants c. We find by Experience such Effects and Vertues in them but we know not the