Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	find_v	read_v	word_n	3,143	5	3.9137	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67408	A seventh letter, concerning the sacred Trinity occasioned by a second letter from W.J. / by John Wallis ...	Wallis, John, 1616-1703.	1691 (1691)	Wing W604; ESTC R18000	12,865	24

rather than the Name that we contend for and content our selves to say They be three Somewhats which are but One God Or we may so explain our selves That by three Persons we mean three such Somewhats as are not inconsistent with being One God And hitherto I suppose that You and I do well enough agree Now as to what you observe concerning the Learned Author Dr. Sherlock I shall begin where you end And agree with you that the Treatise to which you refer contains many Excellent things The Strength and Weight of his Arguments as to those to whom he undertakes Answer doth not depend upon those Expressions against which you object But his Arguments against those are of equal Force though these Expressions were spared As to those Expressions of his by you noted That the three Divine Persons are Three Beings three Intelligent Beings three Substantial Beings three Holy Spirits Really Distinct even as distinct as Peter Iames and Iohn and One God onely as they are mutually Conscious I was I confess Unsatisfied therein as You are from the first Looking upon them as Expressions too Hardy for one to venture upon and so I find are most others with whom I have discoursed about them and wish he had declined them Yet I did not think it necessary for me to write against them though I did not like them but chose rather to wave them and express my self otherwise For it would be Endless if I should make it my business to write Books against every one who hath some Expressions which I cannot approve amongst many others wherein I think he doth well Nor shall I Aggravate the Objections which you have Urged against them But leave them as they are I might perhaps mollifie some of his Expressions by putting a softer sense upon them than at first view they seem to bear for I find some Men in such matters do use words at a very different rate from what others do But I have not where now I am the Book at hand and have read it but once a good while since when it first came out and therefore am not willing to say much without Book least I should miss his sense or not perform it to his mind That learned Author may if he think fit so Vindicate or Explain those Expressions as he shall judge convenient Or he may which I had rather he should Decline them without prejudice to his main Cause which in my opinion he may as well defend without them and thereby less expose himself to the Cavils of the Anti-trinitarians who are catching at every colourable pretence of Objecting though not against the main Cause concerning the Trinity if but against some Expressions of those who maintain it Thus far I think He and both of Us do agree namely That there is a Distinction between the Three more than meerly Notional and even more than that between what we commonly call the Divine Attributes yet not so as to be Three Gods or more Gods than One which is as much as we need maintain against the Anti-Trinitarians And that the word Person is no unfit Name to denote that Distinction And thus far we may close with him notwithstanding some other Inconvenient Expressions And if it be agreed that these Three thus distinguished are but One God each Communicating in one and the same Numerical Essence then they are all Equal as to that common Internal Essence and the common Attributes thereof and then an External Subordination as to Oeconomy you grant signifies nothing in this case Now Sir if you look back upon your own Discourse You will find that the whole Edge of your Arguments is directed against those Expressions Three Beings Three Substances Three Spirits and I do acknowledge that as to these the Arguments seem to me sharp enough and to do their work But if instead of these he say as I think he should that The Three Persons are One Being One Substance One Spirit like as he says they are One God that Edge will be taken off That I conceive which did impose upon him in this Point is the forced sense which in our Language we sometimes put upon the word Person for want of another English Word answering to Homo which might indifferently respect Man Woman and Child and a like forced sense put by the School-men upon the word Persona for want of a Latin word which might equally relate to Men and Angels as signifying an Intelligent Being Whence he was induced to think that Three Persons must needs be Three Intelligent Beings Whereas Persona in its true and ancient sense before the School-men put this forced sense upon it did not signify a Man simply but one under such and such and such Circumstances or Qualifications So that the same Man if capable of being qualified thus and thus and thus might sustain three Persons and these three Persons be the same Man Now if as he says of himself elsewhere in a like case he have not been taken to be a Fool Yet a wise Man may sometimes upon second thoughts see Reason to change his Opinion as in that case he did or rectify his Expressions And if then he consider how much easier it will be and less obnoxious to Exceptions to maintain his Hypothesis thus Rectified He may think I have done him no ill Offices thus to suggest Having thus given you my thoughts of this Hypothesis If you press me further as between our selves to tell you What Degree of Distinction as in our Metaphysicks they are wont to be Reckoned up I take this to be between the Three Divine Persons I think we need not much trouble our selves with such niceties And if I do tell you it is only ex abundanti as what doth not much concern the main question in hand which is safe enough without it Nor that I so prescribe therein as to require others to express their Sentiments just as I do The Degrees of Distinction commonly mentioned in our Metaphysicks are such as these Distinctio rationis ratiocinantis which is purely Notional and depends meerly on our Imagination Destinatio rationis ratiocinatae which is otherwise said to be secundum inadaequatos conceptus ejusdem rei Distinctio Modalis either ut res modus or ut modus modus which is otherwise said to be ex parte rei sed non ut res res And Distinctio realis or ut res res Though in the Names of these several Degrees all Writers do not always speak alike One perhaps by a distinction ex parte rei may mean the same which another means by Distinctio Realis And so of the rest And these thus marshalled are but a contrivance of our own They might for ought I know have been made more or fewer if the Contriver had so thought fit But these Degrees of Distinction I take to be primarily fitted to our Notions of Created Beings And are not intended as applicable to God otherwise than by Analogy as other Words properly fitted to created Beings are wont to be so applied And therefore I should choose to say that in strictness of speech our Metaphysicks have not yet given a Name to these Distinctions Nor do I know any need of it The Divine Attributes we use to say are distinguished ratione ratiocinata or as inadaequati conceptus ejusdem rei And it is well enough so to say to those that have not a mind to be captious but are willing to understand Figurative Words in a Figurative sense But to those that have a mind to Cavil I would speak more cautiously and say It is in God somewhat Analogous to what we so call in Created Beings And That of the Divine Persons somewhat Analogous in the Deity to what in Created Beings is called Distinctio Modalis or Distinctio à parte rei sed non ut res res If it be asked What that Distinction is which is thus Analogous I say that I cannot tell You must first tell me and enable me to comprehend what is the full and adaequate import of the words Father Son Beget Proceed c. when applied to God in a sense Analogous to what they signify as to Created Beings If you cannot tell me precisely what they are How should I tell you How they Differ But what need we trouble our selves with these Niceties or Names of these Degrees of Distinction Which when we have all done will by divers Men be diversly expressed I think it is enough to say The Distinction is Greater than that of what we call the Divine Attributes but not so as to make them Three Gods Or That they be so Three as yet to be but One God And I am content to rest there I am Sir Yours to serve you I. Wallis Apr. 11. 1691. * Augustin Epist. 174. Spiritus est Deus Pater Spiritus est Filius ipse Spiritus Sanctus nec tamen Tres Spiritus sed Vnus Spiritus sicut non Tres Dii sed Vnus Deus