Selected quad for the lemma: soul_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
soul_n	body_n	part_n	whole_a	26,351	5	6.3148	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

already to this Person relating to the matter of this Section I shall onely observe upon it 1. That I wonder how any man that hath a due Awe of the Infinite Majesty of God upon his Mind can give himself leave to use such an Expression as Tacking two Persons to God the Father I scrupled a while whether I might foul my Pen with Transcribing it 2. He tells us that Nothing can be more Absurd than to say that the 3. Persons are One God by Union and yet are distinct from One Another But is there no difference betwixt Union and Identity or self samenefs Is there not a real distinction between our Souls and Bodys tho' United so closely as that he cannot conceive how closely nor any Man else If he shall say that Union is but another word for Composition I shall say he is Extreamly out Composition being a blending or mixing of the Parts of distinct things The word is Commonly used onely of Heterogeneous things Spiritual Substances therefore having no parts are incapable of being Compounded And in my poor Opinion tho' a Man Consists of a Soul and Body he cannot be said to be Compounded of them because onely one of these hath parts Our Author 't is like will Cry Mystery Mystery to this Talk as he despiseth Trinitarians for calling the Union of the three Divine Persons a Mystery But if even to the Union of the two Created Beings himself Consists of he cannot Seriously Cry Mystery I know what I know of him I will not say Every Witty Man but I am sure Every Wise Man will cry Mystery to Every thing as ill as some can bear that word I confess no Man shall perswade me any more than him and his Friends to swallow a Palpable Contradiction by calling it a Mystery till he can perswade me too that God Almighty indued me with false Faculties and then do what I can I am like to believe but few things more than Cogito ergo Sum. But I am as certain as I can be of any thing but what I see or feel that it is not more difficult to understand this Union than Abundance of other things Relating to the Deity and innumerable things which our Author must believe in spight of Fate if he will be a Christian or a Theist or but a Man Sest 68. He here Banters the real Trinitarians as doing very Wisely in supposing their three infinite Substances to be as close together as can be lest there should not be room enough for them in but one infinite Space c. And then he Enquires if the Substance of the Father be Every where how the Substance of the Son can be every where too I shall be a little closer upon this Gentleman for the strange liberty he takes in talking of Infinite Substances as soon as I have done with his Sections than I have bin yet or will now be In the mean time I will be satisfied to Reply thus to this Section viz. Doth not this kind of Talk Suppose that he takes the three Divine Persons if he thinks two of them are any thing to be Corporeal Substances which is so gross a Conceit and speaks such beastly Stupidity that I would charge no Man therewith who doth not Expresly own it But hoping he doubts not of the Being of Spiritual substances nor of the Divine Omnipresence I ask him how the Substance of God the Father can be in those spaces which are filled with Bodies Or how can his Soul and Body or that part of his Body which his Soul possesseth if his Philosophy will permit him to think it doth not pervade the whole of his Body how can they be I say in the Self-same place or Ubi call it which he pleases Surely one would think that several Spirits may be together in the same individual space seeing the Penetrability of Spirits must be acknowledg'd by all that believe there are such Substances except they have no manner of Notion of what they believe as well as that a Spirit and an Impenetrable Body may be together in the same space As to his adding and after the same manner to at the same time this can be onely for a Blind But we may talk Endlesly upon this Subject and little understand one another or Our selves for this for certain is one of those things which our minds were never made for any thing like a clear perception of at least in these gross Bodies And much more then as he will be shewed anon is the infinity of the Divine Substance to be reckoned of that number And he is an intolerably Conceited Fop who will not Confess so much Ignorance as to have no other Idea of Gods Infinity than that He hath all Possible Perfections and that all His Perfections are Unlimited And we are at a perfect loss what to say or think further about the Divine Essence Nay we have now no Cognizance of more than the Modes and Properties of Bodily Substance we have none at all of its Naked Essence All we can say of Body as Body is that 't is Extended Penetrable Bulk Sect. 69. He saith 1. That the Trinitarians say the Persons are one God as the Soul and Body are one Man And then he Exposeth the folly of that Simile But he might have saved himself this little labour for as I never said so so neither know I of any other Trinitarian that hath The Creed indeed which is called the Athenasian saith That as the Soul and Body are one Man so God and Man are one Christ but what is this to his Purpose But what I have said is That the Union between the three Divine Persons is not more Unaccountable than is the Union between the Soul and Body and that in one respect it is less Unaccountable than this Union viz. because this is between Beings of perfectly Unlike Natures whereas that is between Persons of the same Nature And why distinct intelligent substances which is the onely definition I can give of Persons may not be as closely United because they are all intelligent as one intelligent Substance and a Body is above the little Philosophy that I can pretend to be Master of to understand 2. Upon the Simile of the Close Union of the Sun with its Light and Heat as he words it he saith There are no such Perceptions as those we call Light and Heat in any Beings but those that are Capable of seeing and feeling And that this every Common Systeme demonstrates And that this is Obvious to all but Children and Metaphysicians What a Wonderful Piece of Learning is here 1. Light and Heat Perceptions I have heard of Perceptions and Sensations of Light and Heat but that they are Perceptions and Sensations themselves I have hitherto bin to learn 2. But they are not tho' Perceptions in any Beings but such as have faculties Capable of Seeing and Feeling And 't would be some what Extraordinary if any thing could perceive Light

Stunned People are not good at Talking I have no more to say but that I know not whether there be more of Arrogance than Ignorance or of Ignorance than Arrogance in these words And now Sir if you shall think that I have Treated your Friend with too much Freedom and have given him too Course a Farewell the onely Apology I can make for it is That I find him such a sort of Adversary as would not Permit me to Treat him otherwise However the Liberty he hath taken with me hath not the least Influence upon my Spleen and I wish him as well as you know I do your self And particularly that he may learn to be more Modest and think it Possible that those Opinions which he takes for most Evident and most Necessary Truths may be as Gross and Dangerous Errors and that his Understanding is not so much above the Pitch os other fallible Mortals but that he may be mightily Mistaken when he is most Confident And I heartily Pray that you both may with all Sincerity and Impartiality Consider what is here offered to you and that God would give us all a right Understanding in all Divine Truths These things I say are heartily Prayed for by Your Affectionate Friend E. G. The Latter Defence THERE are other Trinitarians Concerned with me in this Gentlemans Book of Reflexions mentioned in the Title-Page His 7th Chapter Conteins those he hath made upon the 28. Propositions which consists of 15. Sections that begin with Numb 56. The First is no more than a Recital of 3. or 4. of my Propositions The Writer saith upon them Sect. 57. 1. That two Infinite Substances should Emane from one Infinite Substance is so gross a Notion that I wonder any Man of Sense should be guilty of it And my Reason is because all Infinites of what sort or nature soever are equal for if one Infinite be less than another there must be some Terminus Bound or End of it and Consequently it cannot be Infinite of which there can be no Bound or End or if one Infinite were any ways more than another there would be somewhat more than Infinite which is Evidently Absurd Therefore to suppose two Infinites to Emane from one is to suppose two to Emane from one when each is equal to the one from which it Emanes Here and in the remaining part of this Section is Demonstration with a Witness against the Ancient Fathers Hypothesis of the Sons and H. Spirits being from the Deity by Emanation and against my Hypothesis of the Possibility hereof I will take a little more Liberty with this Subtil Gentleman when I am better acquainted with him as I shall be quickly than I will at present For he may think it no good Breeding to tell him homely all my mind at our very first Meeting But now a Complement is more Civil as I thank him he begins with too great a one to me And my Complement is Sir I Commend your Wisdom in Changing all along my Phrases viz. Beings whose Perfections are unlimited and who have all they can have without a most manifest Contradiction for a Phrase I not once use in my Propositions viz. Infinite Substances because I understand it nothing so well as those Phrases And I say he did Wisely herein Since had he used my Phrases this Section would not have looked quite so scaringly But let the Reader still put one of my Phrases in the place of Infinite Substances and then Consider whether Contradictions would so Immediately and at first Sight seem to appear in this Hypothesis But I shall deliver my mind a little more freely to him relating to the matter of this Section when I come to his 63d But I have not so done with this but shall farther Consider what it sayes And be he pleased to take notice that there is nothing in this Acute Arguing except he means by Infinite Substances Substances of an Infinite Quantity or Bigness But I hope he will be so far from attributing Quantity or Bigness to the Substance of the Deity that he will not do it to the Substance of an Angel or Humane Soul 2. It next follows To suppose one Infinite Substance to Emane from another is to suppose the whole entire Substance to Emane from it self But this I deny and do Acknowledg that if I granted it I must without any farther troubling either him or any of his Brethren bid adieu to the Fathers Hypothesis they are so displeased with as a plainly Contradictions one Seeing it asserts a real Distinction of the Divine Substances tho' no Difference in them It follows 3. And what makes it stranger is that the two Infinite Substances Emaned from the Fathers single Substance yet there was no diminution in the Substance of the Father it is as Infinite as it was at first But how should this make the Hypothesis Stranger when it would be the Strangest thing in the World if the Divine Substance were Capable of the least Diminution since those that believe Spiritual Substances know that none of them are But anon a little more of this But it may be said saith he 4. Why may not one Infinite as well as one Finite proceed from another And then he thus answers himself But nothing can be more absurd than to suppose one Finite much more two to Proceed from one but of the same Bigness Yes I 'le tell him what is more Absurd viz. To suppose one or more Infinite Substances to Proceed from another Infinite Substance of the same Bigness This is more Absurd because there is one more Contradiction in this Supposition than in that viz. That Bigness belongs to a Spiritual Substance which kind of Substance I hope he will acknowledg to be alone Capable of Infinity But as notable Work as our Author makes at demonstrating the Absurdity of two infinite Substances Emaning from one I fancy I know those who may almost as much put him to it to defend the Non-Absurdity of a Sparks being kindled by or Emaning from a Spark both being of the same bigness as a Trinitarian shall need to be by his Arguments I will not be so rude as to Call them Cavils against the Possibility of the Other Emanation But to use his own Phrase infinite Substance 't is so far from being impossible that an infinite Substance should Emane from an infinite Substance or to use the Scripture-Phrase be begotten by it that if any Being can Emane or be begotten by an infinite Substance it must be infinite too For as Athanasius saith It is impossible that that which is begotten should be a different Essence from that which Begat The Reader may see what is farther said of Emanations in 2d Defence p. 26. I have abundantly too much business lying now upon my hands to find Leisure for so Close a Consideration of all that this Gentleman hath reflected on the 28. Propositions as possibly I might apply my self to had I time to Spare