Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A67389
|
A fifth letter, concerning the sacred Trinity in answer to what is entituled, the Arians vindication of himself against Dr. Wallis's fourth letter on the Trinity / by John Wallis ...
|
Wallis, John, 1616-1703.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing W582; ESTC R18175
|
9,822
|
26
|
to Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And if it were there a Character of the Supreme God it is so here And if he think the simpler term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I AM to be more expressive of the Supreme God we have that also Emphatically given to Christ Rom. 9. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He which IS or the Being over all the Supreme Being To what further I had brought p. 30 31 32 33. to prove him to be the Supreme God the same God with the Father not a Middling or Titular God he makes no Reply which therefore stands as it was nor need I repeat it because it may be read there And it is so full and clear that I need add no more to it To what I had said of Ioh. 17. 3. To know Thee not Thee Only or Only Thee the Only True God He saith He hath Answered already And I have already Replied nor need I repeat it Their Argument from thence is just in this form The God of Abraham is the only true God therefore not the God of Isaac or the God of Iacob Yes say I the God of Isaac and the God of Israel is the same God but under another consideration So here God the Creator or God the Father is the Only true God therefore not God the Redeemer nor God the Sanctifier Yes God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier is the same God the only true God In like manner Ier. 16. 14 15. It shall no more be said The Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt But The Lord liveth that brought up the Children of Israel out of the North Country Now saith the First Commandment I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt Thou shalt have No Other God but Me Therefore not the God which brought them out of the North Country Yes say I even this God also Which is not another God but the same God though considered as the Author of another Benefit There be many other things both in his first and second Paper his Answer and his Vindication which lie very open to be Reflected on if it were worth the while But I think I have said enough already and he thinks too much that I have been too stiff too hard with him p. 8. which things I shall therefore omit to save my self and the Reader the labour But three things he calls me to account for omitting His Reproof of my false Idea of the Personality of God the Impossibility and Blasphemy of his Incarnation and of the Death of God p. 8. Now when I had proved the things to be True I thought that had been a sufficient Answer to his calling them False Impossible and Blasphemous For they are never the more so for his calling them so And I know not what further Answer he should expect unless he would have me say 'T is foul-mouthed Blasphemy in him to call it Blasphemy But if I should answer him all along at this rate according as his language deserves we should instead of Disputing fall to right down Railing which is the Character he was afraid of pag. 1. However to gratify him once more That by the Word Joh. 1. is meant Christ himself owns and That this Word was God from the beginning That he made the World and all things and that without him was not any thing made which was made and therefore say I Himself was not made unless our Arian would have us think He made Himself That this God is the Supreme God we have proved at large if he deny it to be proved we must leave it to the Reader to judge of the Arguments and this Word was made Flesh. I hope I need not tell him that to be made Flesh and to be Incarnate is all one for every one understands this who know that Caro carnis is Latin for Flesh. Therefore this is no Blasphemy Again That God in Christ suffered and died and that we are Redeemed by the Blood of God he had before told us p. 13 14. That this is the True God we have proved at large as was but now said Therefore the Death of God that is of him that was God as well as Man is no Blasphemy Yet again I do not take his Reproof as he calls it to be a Proof that my Idea of Personality is False And therefore I did not think it deserved an Answer having proved the thing before Yet I thought I had Answered it as much as it need to be answered when at my pag. 36. I told him nor doth he deny it that he seemed well pleased at his p. 20. that I owned the word Person to be but Metaphorical though at his p. 7. which is the Reproof he means he did not like it For tid after pag. 7. he acted the Socinian and did not come to act the Arian till afterward and then he seemed at p. 20. to like it well enough I shall yet add somewhat more upon that point which if it may not satisfy him who seems to intimate p. 8. that he will not be satisfied may give some further satisfaction to the Reader The word Person persona is originally a Latin word and doth not properly signify a Man so as that another person must needs imply another Man for then the word Homo would have served and they needed not have taken in the word Persona But rather one so Circumstantiated And the same Man if considered in other Circumstances considerably different is reputed another Person And that this is the true notion of the word Person appears by those noted Phrases personam induere personam deponere personam agere personam sustinere sustineo unus tres personas and many the like in approved Latin Authors Thus the same Man may at once sustain the Person of a King and of a Father if he be invested both with Regal and Paternal Authority Now because the King and the Father are for the most part not only different Persons but different Men also and the like in other cases hence it comes to pass that another Person is sometimes supposed to imply another Man but not always nor is that the proper sense of the word It is Englished in our Dictionaries by the state quality or condition whereby one Man differs from another and so as the Condition alters the Person alters though the Man be the same Our School-men of later Ages do sometimes apply the word Persona to Angels as well as Men but even that is but Metaphorical nor do I find that it ever was so used in approved Latin Authors either for Angels Genii or their Heathen Gods but for the different state or condition of Men only Now when the same Man doth thus sustain two Persons as that of a King and that of a Father he may as to one thing act as a King by his Regal Authority as to another thing as a
a great many gross mistakes that where I had mentioned the Lords and Commons of England declaring the Prince of Orange to be King of England France and Ireland he mis-recites it p. 4. King of England Scotland and France as if the Parliament of England had taken upon them to dispose of the Kingdom of Scotland and not that of Ireland But of this and a many more I passed over without reflecting on it Because in his Language he is so very negligent and careless and otherwise obnotions that it were endless to reflect on all But I was obliged to take notice because it quite alters my Argument of what he says p. 4. that I say Three sides make one Cube c. which is neither true nor are they my words I argued not from three sides but from the three Dimensions of a Cube This he calls Trifling and would perswade us that side and dimension differ no more than Muting and his other word which is fitter for his mouth than mine But though he perhaps know-no difference between them yet he should not have cited it as my words and say that I say so when I did not For I ought to know better and that a Cube hath six sides though but Three Dimensions Nor did I argue from the six sides but from the Three Dimensions Yet I can forgive him this rather than when he doth it willfully though it mis-recite my Argument Because I believe it to be out of pure Ignorance not of Malice He doth not like p. 6. either This or any other Simile's and would have me no more to insist upon them But he must excuse me from taking his advice herein unless he understood it better than by what was now said he seems to do Because if he be not mistaken as I think he is they are very far from my purpose That is He thinks they do not prove the Trinity True These alone do not prove it nor was it intended they should But they prove what they were brought to prove that it is not a Contradiction or Inconsistent with Reason that there may be three somewhats which we call Persons that are but one God And thus much he had before granted and doth now again confirm it p. 3 4. 'T is true indeed he says I cannot say that there is a Contradiction in holding that there may be three Persons in God For saith he There be two sorts of Contradictions The one Express the other Implyed I cannot say there is a Contradiction in holding it Because I have not the Definition of the word God so exact as to raise an implied contradiction And for an express contradiction I do not pretend to it If therefore there be no Contradiction either Express or Implied It is what I was to prove But saith he The dispute shall not end here He will be allowed the Privilege and no body doth deny it him to fetch in the First Commandment to define the word God With all my heart I was never against it For what he says more than once p. 3 4. that I meanly cry he flies to Scripture is but another piece of his wonted Art of mis-reciting There is nothing to that purpose in any thing of mine I do sometime blame him for changing the state of the Question As when he would have me prove by Reason that It is so I tell him That is not the Question nor is that to be proved by Reason The Question is whether there is any thing in Reason why it cannot be so Now let him keep to the Question and then if he think he can prove from Scripture that it is Inconsistent with Reason for Three somewhats to be One God or that it is a Contradiction for God the Creator and God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier to be the same God or that it is Impossible for the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Iacob to be One and the same God Let him try his skill And let him make what use he can of the First Commandment to Define the word God so as to prove this a Contradiction But when he had claimed this Privilege and no body doth deny it He makes no use of it for any such Definition The truth is I had already granted him from that Commandment p. 23 24 25 28 29. more than he was willing I should grant That we are to have NO OTHER GOD Great or Little Equal or Unequal but the Lord God of Israel Yes says he There is one Supreme God another Creature-God But that this is not to have Two Personal Gods How so If these be Two Gods and each of them a Person compleat and entire of himself as really and properly and fully and personally distinct as a Man or Angel as he had before told us at p. 8. 14. they must needs be Two Personal Gods But we according to the First Commandment acknowledge but One God and those three somewhats whom in a metaphorical sense we call Persons not so to be distinct as to become Three Gods He hopes however to avoid the First Commandment by saying that though they be Two Gods they are not two Gods Co-equal p. 5. and that they worship the Son not with supreme Worship with Mediation not Adoration p. 6. What he means by his two Worships of Mediation and Adoration I do not well understand unless they be new Names for Doulia and Latria Nor do I remember that I have before heard of a worship of Mediation That Christ is our Mediator I know but did not know that he is our Worshipper And what doth he think of the Israelites when they Worshipped the Golden Calf Surely they did not think this Calf to be Co-equal with the Supreme God Nor did they think it to be Deus natus a God by Nature but Deus factus a Made God for themselves had made it just before Yet I never knew that this did excuse them from Idolatry He doth not own Christ to be the True God for such there is but One the only true God nor yet a false God but a Mean between both p. 6. Now 't is true the Heathen had their Deos medioxumos their Middling Gods But I never knew that we could worship such without Idolatry Thou shalt Worship the Lord thy God the Supreme God and Him ONLY shalt thou serve was our Saviour's Doctrine Mat. 4. 10. And St. Iohn expresly calls him the True God 1 Joh. 8. 20. not a Middling God between True and False and therefore the same God with the Father the Only true God To that Character of Christ Rev. 1. 8 11. I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the First and the Last saith the Lord which IS and WAS and is TO COME the Almighty He says This stile is given him in opposition to Gods simpler one I AM. But he should have observed that the same title is at ver 4. given to God in Contradistinction