Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A67386
|
An eighth letter concerning the Sacred Trinity occasioned by some letters to him on that subject / by John Wallis ...
|
Wallis, John, 1616-1703.
|
1692
(1692)
|
Wing W577; ESTC R28904
|
17,133
|
22
|
An EIGHTH LETTER Concerning the Sacred Trinity Occasioned by some Letters to him on that Subject By JOHN WALLIS D. D. c. SInce my publishing Seven Letters and Three Sermons concerning the Sacred Trinity I have received on that occasion several Letters from divers Persons some known some unknown concerning that Subject Mostly by way of Gratulation and Approbation of what I have done And where some Expressions therein are not just the same with mine they are much to the same purpose and not at all contrary to what I undertook to maintain One of them from an unknown Person subscribed A. B. was written it seems by a Countrey Gentleman not a professed Divine Who though he do not pretend to be much versed in School-Divinity yet is I find not a Stranger to it It was left for me at my Booksellers with an Intimation that the Author was willing to have it Printed And I left it again with the Bookseller for that purpose though it hath been delayed hitherto Which because the Author did desire it is as followeth A Letter to the Reverend Doctor Wallis occasioned by his several Letters touching the Doctrine of the Trinity c. Reverend Sir 'T IS gratitude and acknowledgement directs these lines to you I have been so fortunate to meet with your several Letters in affirmance of the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity c. And cannot but confess my self not only confirmed but much enlarged in my notions about that Doctrine by the so plain and pressing reason of your Discourses But lest I should seem fond of my own understanding and fancy to my self that I do comprehend more touching these matters than I indeed do I shall humbly offer to you my method of thoughts and submit the same to your Grave Judgment and Allowance THE Metaphysicians I remember teach us that one way to know the Deity is by way of Eminency Is there any good or perfection in the Creature Then say they God that is the great Author and Cause of all things must be so in a more eminent and high Degree The Attributes of God are Competent to man whom he made after his own Image in some measure but in God they are in the highest and superlative Degree NOW besides these Eminences and Perfections in the Deity there are three more particular and more transcendent Eminences wherein and whereby God hath manifested himself to and for the good of Mankind GOD Almighty was pleased in his infinite Mercy to determine that Mankind should be rescued from that state of Sin which the defection of our first Father brought us into and be brought back into a state of Salvation But how he should bring about and effect this great work is out of the reach of Humane contemplation and can no otherwise be known than as God himself hath been pleased to reveal and discover the same to us in the Scriptures NOW the Scriptures intimate to us three several Manifestations of the Deity in this great work of our Salvation THE first is that of a Father That God the Father of Heaven and Earth who created the World by his Power and preserveth it by his Providence so loved this World that he sent his only begotten Son to be our Saviour and mighty Redeemer THE second is that of a Son That Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God undertook this great work of Man's Redemption and to that purpose came into the World and became Man a second Adam who by his holy life and absolute and perfect obedience to the Will of God did expiate and make atonement for the disobedience of the first THE third is that of the Holy Ghost who by his inward operations and gracious influences doth incline and prevail with man to embrace the Redemption purchased for him upon the terms of the Gospel Now in respect of these three several manifestations of the Deity there is said to be a Trinity of persons in the Vnity of the Godhead and the same God in respect of one of these manifestations of himself is called God the Father in respect of another is called God the Son and in respect of the third is called God the Holy Ghost THAT there are these three more eminent manifestations of the Deity and under these denominations of Father Son and Holy Ghost is most plain in the Scriptures But the great doubt is whether these be three Personalities in the Deity And this doubt I take it ariseth from a misunderstanding and mistaking the true sense of the word Persona FOR this word Persona I think the Philosophers are short in their definitions of it Boethius defines it to be Naturae Rationalis individua substantia This other Philosophers dislike as too scanty because it is applicable to man only and doth not include Spiritual Beings And therefore They to inlarge it and make it more comprehensive call it Substantia particularis intelligens incommunicabilis c. But for my part I cannot but like Boethius his definition best and think him so far in the right in that he makes the word Persona only applicable to Man for so doubtless it is in its true and proper signification and it is applicable to Spirits by a Metalepsis only and Transumption of the Word AND herein the Philosophers are too short in their definitions of Persona that while they done so much upon the word Substance they forget that Accidents are a more necessary ingredient in its true definition The word Persona in relation to Man doth not only signifie Individuality and denote a particular or single man but it doth imply those Qualities also whereby one Man differeth from another By the word Quality her I do not mean the single Predicament so called but all the other Predicaments except that of Substanee it being those whereby the Naturae Rationalis Substantia is individuated 'T is Quantity that differs the Person of taller Stature from the lower 'T is Quality that differs the Learned from the Vnlearned Person 'T is Relation that differs the Father from the Son 'T is the Ubi or Locality that differs John of Noke from John at Style And so of the other Predicaments I would therefore propose the adding a few words to Boethius his definition and then I think it will be well enough Let it then be thus viz. Persona est Naturae rationalis individua substantia taliter qualiter ab aliis differens Thus defined it relates to Man only and so to one Man as he differeth from another by accidental Individuation For though 't be true that every Person is a single substance yet 't is as true that they are accidents that do determine the Personality And as the Specifick differences do constitute the Species so Predicamental Accidents do constitute the Individual Thus Rationality doth constitute the Species of Man and differs it from that of the Brute And thus Wisdom Fortitude c. do differ this particular Man from another and make him
Imperfection we find in the Creature we conclude that in God who is Infinitely Perfect there is nothing of this Imperfection And from both we conceive a Notion of somewhat in God which is more Great than is possible for us fully to comprehend But what that somewhat is we cannot fully understand Now these being the Steps by which we form these Notions we know no better way to express these Conceptions than by Metaphors taken from such Objects from whence these Notions take their Rise or some such Figurative Expressions And it was with this Prospect that I mention'd that Observation And in the same way God is pleased in Scripture to express himself to us by somewhat Analogous not just the same with what we meet with in the Creature As when it speaks of God's Eyes Ears Hands Feet c. of his Seeing Hearing Striking Going c. So when the Father is said to Beget the Son to be Begotten and both these to send out and the Holy Ghost to Proceed or Go forth from them All which expressions are such as we commonly apply to what we call Persons And in what sense those are to be understood concerning God in such sense they are fitly called three Persons And those who in such sense cavil at the word Person would no doubt if there were not somewhat else in the Wind as well cavil at those other words But because so to do were directly to affront the Scripture whose words they are they do not think fit so to speak out whatever they think When Christ saith of himself and the Father John 16. 28. I Came forth from the Father and am Come into the World again I Leave the World and Go to the Father Of Himself and the Holy Ghost ver 7 8. If I Go not away the Comforter will not Come unto you but if I Depart I will Send Him unto you and when He is Come He will Reprove the World c. Of himself and the other two Iohn 14. 26. and 15. 26. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will Send in My Name He shall Teach you all things and Bring all things to your Remembrance whatsoever I have Said unto you And again When the Comforter is Come whom I will Send you From the Father even the Spirit of Truth which Proceedeth from the Father He shall Testifie of Me What could be said as of Three Persons more distinctly And if the Scripture speak of them as Three Persons why should we scruple to call them so But these Three Persons are but One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Three are One Vnum not unus One Thing 1 Iohn 5. 7. And John 10. 30. I and the Father are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unum sumus we are One and the same Thing and therefore One God And that there is no other God but One is known to be so often said that I need not repeat it But 't is not so much the word Person is the Deity of Christ which these Men are offended at and all their Cavils at the word Person and the Athanasian Creed are but to undermine our Saviours Deity Of this I have said enough elsewhere and need not here repeat it The LORD our God is One LORD Deut. 6. 4. That is The Lord God of Israel is One Lord or Iehovah the God of Israel is One Iehovah There are not more Iehovah's than One And this One Iehovah is the Lord God of Israel And Isa. 45. 3 5. I the LORD Jehovah am the God of Israel I am the LORD Jehovah and there is none else There is no God beside Me No God beside the Lord God of Israel So in 2 Kings 19. 15. and many other places to the same purpose Now our Christ is this Lord God of Israel Luke 1. 16 17. Many of the Children of Israel shall He Iohn the Baptist turn to the Lord THEIR God to the Lord God of Israel and he John Baptist shall go before Him this Lord God of Israel in the Spirit and Power of Elias Now no Man doubts but that it is our Christ whose Fore-runner John Baptist was and before whom he was to go in the Spirit and Power of Elias Therefore our Christ is this Lord God of Israel This One IEHOVAH 'T is true that the Greek Septuagint's Translation of the Old Testament doth not retain that word but doth every where wave the word Iehovah and puts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of it And accordingly the New Testament which mostly follows the Language of that the only Greek Translation then in use doth so too But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they substitute for Iehovah is so oft applied to Christ even in those places cited out of the Old Testament wherein Iehovah is used that none can be ignorant of it And though we have not there the word Iehovah yet we have as full a Periphrasis of it as can be desired 'T is well known and owned by all that the two Proper Names of God Iah and Iehovah are derivatives from the Verb Hajah or Havah which signifieth to Be which whether we take for one and the same Root or Two Roots of one and the same signification is not material the Letter Iod and Vau in Hebrew being so oft used promiscuously or one changed for the other And therefore the Noun Verbal must needs import a Being And it hath been further observed long since by Hebricians that the Name Iehovah hath moreover the peculiar Characteristicks of the Three Times past present and future Ie the Characteristick of the Future Tense Ho of the Present Tense or Participle and Va of the Preter Tense which I did forbear to mention formerly lest they should throw it off as a Criticism till I had a fresh Voucher for it so good as Dr. Pocock in his late Commentary on Ioel. Chap. 1. 19. And we have all this in that Character of God indefinitely Rev. 1. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from that Being who Is and Hath been and Shall be for the time to come And it is particularly applied to Christ at ver 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am Alpha and Omega saith the Lord God Jehovah Elohim which Is which Was and which is to Come the Almighty Which is a full Account of the Name Iehovah here Translated as elsewhere by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with a discant upon it importing his Being with the three diversities of Times past present and future and his Omnipotence superadded That Being which now Is which ever Was and which ever Shall be the Lord God Almighty So Rev. 4. 8. and Rev. 11. 17. And in Rev. 16. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Beza and so Dr. Pocock reads it and so ours Translate it And much to the same purpose is that Rev. 1. 11 17 18. Rev. 2. 8. and elsewhere I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end the first and the last he that liveth and was