dead and behold I live for evermore So Rev. 4. 9 11. Rev. 5. 12 13 14 Who liveth for ever and ever Which fully answers that Title The Living God whereby the True God doth so oft distinguish himself from other Gods as Ier. 10. 10. and elsewhere frequently But I have said so much formerly to this point that I shall now add no more I had almost forgotten one piece wherein I find my self mentioned Intituled A suit for forbearance c. It aims chiefly at two things One is against arging on others too strict an Vnion wherein Christianity as delivered by our Lord and his Apostles hath left a Latitude and Simplicity But herein I think he hath no cause to blame me nor do I see that he doth He doth not find me to trouble him with cramping Scholastick Terms I know not how I could speak more tenderly than to say these Three are three Somewhats not three Nothings and if he please to sport himself with that he may And that 't is convenient to these Somewhats to give a Name and that I know no better Name than Persons And therefore that we may still say as we were wont to do three Persons and one God even though by Person I do not require Men to fancy just such a Person as what we so call amongst Men. Like as by Father Son Beget c. I do not understand in God just such as what these words signifie amongst Men. And I do not know how he could wish me to speak more tenderly or more agreeing to the Christian Simplicity wherein it is delivered by our Lord and his Apostles The other is He thinks it not Adviseable in things sufficiently setled by just Authority as is that of the Trinity to revive a Controversie long since determined and draw the Disputatious Saw Because to litigate about a Fundamental is to turn it into a Controversie And herein I am so much of his Mind that I would not have advised to start the Controversie about what we have been in quiet possession of for so long a time And I am ready to own That it is an Art of our Adversaries the Papists to perswade the World that we have no better ground for the Doctrine of the Trinity than they have for Transubstantiation for they care not what they overthrow if thereby they may advance their own ends And That Atheistical and Irreligious Men will be glad of any opportunity to Ridicule Religion But if others will make it their business to run down Religion and profess to the World there is nothing but Authority to define it which they despise and no Reason or Scripture for it more than for Transubstantiation I think we are not obliged to stand all of us so silent as if we had nothing to say for it or yielded up the cause There is a middle way for the promoting what he calls a Purer and more Scriptural Divinity between a rigorous imposing all the Scholastick Cramping Terms and a giving up the Cause A modest defence of what the Scripture teacheth us without Excursions into a rigorous pressing of Extravagant Niceties of our own Inventions may be of good subserviency to shew that the Doctrines of our Religion are not inconsistent with right Reason What he tells us of some body who had been heretofore Master of the Temple that did express himself to this purpose The Substance of God with this Property To be of none doth make the Person of the Father The very self same Substance in number with this Property To be of the Father maketh the Person of the Son The same Substance having added to it the Property of Proceeding from the other Two maketh the Person of the Holy Ghost So that in every Person there is implyed both the Substance of God which is One and also that Property which causeth the same Person really and truely to differ from the other Two This I say would pass with me well enough And if he please so to express himself I should not quarel with it Again If I should express it thus That God considered as the Original or Fountain of Being who himself Is and gives Being to all things else may be called God the Father or The God and Father of all And the same God as the Fountain of Wisdom or Knowledge be called God the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Word Wisdom or Reason The true Light that lighteth every Man that cometh into the World Gods Wisdom resulting from his Essence or Being And the same God as the Fountain of Power Might or Action be called God the Holy Ghost Gods power of Acting proceeding from his Essence and Wisdom also And this Eternal All-wise and Almighty God is One God Perhaps he would not much mislike this Or if he should I would not quarel with him on that account or be Positive that it must just be so We know that Christ is called the Wisdom of God the Son of God the Son of the Highest And the Holy Ghost is called the Power of the Highest And we know that amongst our selves Knowledge results from the Essence of our Soul and Action proceeds from Both. 'T is said also that in Him we Live and Move and have our Being From God we have our Being our Rational Life and our Motion In whose Image and Likeness we are Created Yet would I not be positive much less would I require every one to be of that Opinion that the Personalities in God must needs be These I am content to rest here That These Three Father Son and Holy Ghost whatever Name you call them by differ in somewhat more than what we commonly call the Divine Attributes yet not so as to be Three Gods or more Gods than One but are One and the same God And so far we be safe Nor is there any danger that I can see in giving the Name of Persons to these Three Nor know I a fitter Name to give them And this I think is as much as need be said as to all those Letters which on this Occasion have come to my Hand since the Publishing of those already Printed There being nothing in all these which is contrary to what I therein undertook to defend Nor should I have said thus much if the Author of the Letter here inserted had not desired to have it Published And now I hope to trouble the Press no more upon this Occasion Novemb. 23. 1691. Yours John Wallis FINIS
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
to be this Person and not another Nor can we have any certain notion of naked substances or otherwise conceive of them than as they are clothed with and variegated by accidents To this purpose also is the true sense and meaning of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which strictly Translated is in Latine Subsistentia Now Subsistentia doth not only import the Esse of the substance but the Modus Essendi And what is that doth modifie substance but qualities and accidents The Fundamental mistake therefore in this great point hath been in making the word substance so more than necessary in the definition of Persona and concluding from thence that there cannot be three Persons but there must be three several substances Whereas in truth there may be in the same one particular Man diversly qualified and circumstanticated diverse Personalities Thus in the Man Melchisedeck Melchisedeck King of Salem may be said to be one Person and Melchisedeck the Priest of the most high God another So in David in respect of his double qualification of a King and a Prophet Thus much for what I conceive to be the true Notion of Persona Now to consider this word Persona as it hath been applyed to the Godhead And here I must say again as I said before that this word Persona is used only in a borrowed sence and for want of another word that might more appositely and fully signifie what is intended by it God cannot properly be said to be a Person There are no accidents in him All his Attributes are Essential to him That Wisdom that is Finite in Man and Accidental to him is Infinite in God and Essential to him And so of all the other Attributes and Perfections of the Deity that are in an imperfect and low degree competent to Man In this borrowed sence therefore it is that this word Persona is applyed to the Deity and in respect of those three Eminent manifestations of the Deity there are said to be three Persons in it Not that the word Person and distinction of Personalities in respect of Men doth bear a full Analogy to the difference of Personalities in the Deity for in this as in all other Contemplations of God we must expect to fall short and not comprehend But that the consideration of the different Personalities amongst Men may help us in some imperfect measure to conceive of that Trinity that we adore in the Vnity of the Godhead Object But here I expect an Objection that if in respect of these three manifestations of the Deity there are said to be three Persons why are there not said to be more Persons in the Godhead than three even as many as there are Divine Attributes for so many are the manifestations of the Deity to us Answ. There is not so much reason to imagine more Personalities in the Godhead than these three as that there are these three and no more For although it be true that every Attribute doth import the Deity and can be Predicated of nothing else but the Deity yet every single Attribute doth not if I may so speak import the whole Deity His Infinite Wisdom doth not necessarily import or administer to us the Notion of his Infinite Power And so of the other Attributes But these three several manifestations of the Godhead that are called three Persons are such wherein the whole Deity as I may say doth exert it self and appear in all its Attributes and therefore I call them three more transcendent Eminences or Manifestations of the Deity Thus I do conceive this Trinity of Persons in the Godhead in some sort intelligible without any necessity of thinking that these three Persons must be three several substances and consequently three Gods And I must confess I cannot but think this great dispute a meer wrangling business and a contest more about words than things For at the same time that our Adversaries are so fearful of multiplying the Deity by dividing the substance we tell them that we believe in one God only and that these three Persons in the Godhead are but one God So that all the dispute is whether to say there are three Persons in the Deity doth necessarity imply that there are three Substances which we declare we do not mean nor intend by it And for my part if they will as fairly declare that they believe these three several manifestations of the Deity viz. of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost as held forth to us in the Scriptures I would willingly compound with them for the word Person and comply with them in the use of any other word they shall find out that may better or as well express what we mean by it I come now to the other great Objection of our Adversaries touching the Hypostatical Vnion How the Divine and Humane Nature could be united in the same Person and this Person be at the same time both God and Man and this without multiplying or dividing the Deity or without confining the Omnipresent to the scanty Tenement of an Humane Body How this God-Man should be born of a Virgin by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost and Humane Nature Propagated without the Natural help of a Man These things seem so utterly impossible to these men of great reason that therefore they must not cannot be and the Scriptures themselves must rather be mistaken or false than that can be true which they think cannot BVT when they argue thus from Impossibility I wonder their Curiosity doth not question the Creation it self how it was possible for God to make all things of nothing And for the Hypostatical Vnion methinks before they question that so strictly they ought to give a better account than yet can be given of the Vnion of the Soul of Man with his Body And when they question the being born of a Virgin may they not as well question how the first Woman was made of the Rib of a Man one as well as the other being supposed to come to pass by the Divine Power BVT because I am apt with you to suspect how far the Scriptures are of authority amongst these reasoning men I will adventure to propose to them one consideration touching the Hypostatical Vnion to shew that it is not so inconceivable a thing to Humane Reason as they would have it Let them but consider the several degrees of Beings that God hath made in the World The Trees and Plants to which he hath given Vegetation The Brutes to which besides Vegetation he hath given Animal life Senses and Appetites to discern and endeavour after what is necessary to the preservation of their Beings Then to step further and consider Man to whom besides all these God hath given a Rational Mind and Soul And to step yet further let them consider those higher Beings the Angels what pure Intellectual Beings they are and what degrees of perfection God hath given them beyond what he hath
given to Man I say when we consider these what necessity is there of limiting and confining God Almighty here May we not as reasonably think that if in his infinite Wisdom he so thought fit he might as well make a Being yet more perfect Why is it not as conceiveable that to bring about his own eternal purposes he might actuate the Humane Nature by the Divine Power and make a Man in whom even the perfections of the Deity should reside Is the principle of Essentiality and Vitality any whit divided in or from the Deity by giving Life and Being to those Creatures Is the Eternal Mind any whit multiplied or divided by giving a Rational Soul or Mind to Man NOR is the Infinite and Eternal Spirit of the World multiplied or divided by creating and giving Being to those Glorious Spirits the Angels What necessity then to think that the Godhead must be either multiplied or divided or in any wise varied by acting the Divinity in the Humane Nature Oh rebellious Mankind that hast offended thy Creator but more ungrateful that wilt not accept his Mercy upon his own terms and believe it exhibited in that manner that he himself has revealed it Is it not that God whose Justice is infinite that is offended Is it not the same God who is also Infinite in Goodness and Mercy that is appeased What room for his Mercy without derogation to his Justice unless there be satisfaction And what satisfaction can be competent to the offended Deity Were Men or Angels fit to mediate or could they make a satisfaction Surely not 'T is his infinite mercy only that can appease his Justice There is Mercy with him that he may be feared yea Mercy rejoycing over Judgment NOW because it is inconceivable to man how the offended Deity should make a satisfaction to it self God Almighty is pleased thus far to condescend to the Capacity of Humane Nature as to tell us in what manner he hath done it viz. That he hath sent his only begotten Son into the World to be born of a Woman to live a life of righteousness for our instruction and example and to dye the Death of Sinners to satisfie for our defection And further that our Original Taint might not prevail over and misguide us into actual transgressions he hath sent his Holy Spirit amongst us to lead us into the ways of Truth and Righteousness This he was pleased to promise after the Fall by his Prophets in the times of the Old Testament and has now performed it to us in the times of the New Now is it fit for us to object against this manifestation of his Mercy to us and glorious contrivance of our Redemption because we cannot comprehend the mystery of it That surely was ne're meant to be within our fathom In the days of the Old Testament when God was pleased to command the adoration and duty of his People he manifested himself to them under several appellations whereby he put them in mind of his Mercies to them and their duty to him I am says he the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. And so in the Prologue to the Decalogue I am the Lord thy God which brought the out of the Land of Egypt out of the House of Bondage c. Intimating thereby to them the great mercies he had shewn in his Miraculous preservation of the Patriarchs and People of Isreal So now in the days of the New Testament God Almighty has been pleased to manisest himself to us under other denominations and appellations viz. those of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost intimating thereby to us in what manner be hath made good his promised Mercy and brought about the great work of our Redemption and that under those appellations and manifestations of himself he will now be worshipped in the times of the Gospel But for us to understand the great mysteries of our Salvation in this manner offered unto us viz. That the Trinity in the Vnity of the Godhead and that of the Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour c. was certainly never intended by God Almighty And shall we doubt what God himself tells us because we cannot comprehend it When God said to the People of Israel I am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt c. had it been fit for them to have enquired how he brought them out of Egypt and to have ravelled into all the Miracles he wrought for that purpose and to have brought them to the touch of their understandings and to have doubted the truth thereof or the Power of God that did them because they could not reconcile them to their own reason Yet thus ill certainly do they use God Almighty who will doubt the Manner of our Salvation because they cannot understand the Mystery Alas vain Men that will not believe what God himself has Reveal'd because it will not bear the Test of their weak reason Do they think the Wisdom and Power of the Almighty are to be bounded by the Scanty Limits of their Vnderstanding That were for what is Finite to comprehend Infinity God were not God if that were so And these very Men who value themselves so much upon their Reason that they think they ought to understand the very Arcana of Heaven would I doubt not be ready enough by the same strength of Reasonng to disown that Deity that they could comprehend Thus I have presumed Reverend Sir to trouble you with this Draught of my Rude Notions about this matter which I hope you will excuse they coming from a private Countrey-Gentleman unread in Polemick Divinity and particularly in this Dispute and in whom these thoughts were occasioned by the Perusal of your late Papers I am Sir May 28th 1691. Yours most Humbly A. B. THIS Letter being for substance much to the same purpose with what I had undertaken to maintain and the expressions not much different and in nothing contrary to it I shall not detain the Reader with any long discourse upon it because it speaks sufficiently for it self It hath been suggested to me by another Anonymous That we knowing so little of the Infinite Divine Nature there may possibly be greater distinction between the Three which we use to call Hypostases or Persons than what he calls the Civil or Relative acceptation of the word Person and we may as well Prejudice the Truth by affirming too little as by affirming too much And it is very true there may be for ought we know and perhaps there is more than so nor have I any where denyed it But how much that more is we cannot tell Sure we are not so as to be three Gods or more Gods than one And I choose to say with St. Austin That these Three are One Spirit as we say they are One God not Three Spirits The true ancient import of the Word Person when first applied to the Trinity implies no
more than as I explained it Which was a full Answer to the Anti-trinitarians Popular Argument from the modern gross acceptation of the Word Person in English as if three Divine Persons must needs be three Gods because three Persons amongst Men doth sometimes not always nor did it anciently so imply three Men. And when we say these three Persons are but one God 't is manifest that we use this Metaphor of Persons when applyed to God as borrowed from that sense of the Word Person wherein the same Man may sustain divers Persons or divers Persons be the same Man I have seen more than once an Address From Edward Earl of Clarendon Chancellor of the Vniversity of Oxford To Edward Earl of Clarendon Lord High Chancellor of England in a Claim of Privilege to remove a Cause from the Court of Chancery to that of the Vniversity Yet these two Chancellors were not two Men nor two Earls of Clarendon but one and the same sustaining two Persons one addressing to the other And if this do sufficiently answer that Popular Cavil 't is as much as 't was brought for If it do otherwise appear that the distinction between these Three Divine Persons be more than so but yet more God's than One that may well enough be though this Metaphor do not necessarily imply so much 'T is certain that three Persons neither according to the true import of the words nor according to the intent of those who so speak doth not imply three Gods But Three Persons which are One God or One God in Three Persons I have also a Third Letter from W. I. much to the same purpose with what he had Written in his two former And therefore I do not think it needful to insert it here nor do I see that he desires it It is he tells me to take his leave of me as not meaning to give me any farther trouble in this kind 'T is full of divers expressions of Respect Thanks and Approbation And he doth insist as in his two former he had done upon these two things Not to be too positive in these matters beyond what the Scripture tells us And Not to lay the like stress upon our Argumentations from thence as on what we find thore In both which as before I did I do fully agree with him Because in matters of pure Revelation we know no more than what is Revealed And because 't is very sure that even in Natural things Men do oft mistake in their Argumentations from Principles which they think to be True and Clear Else it could not be that divers Men from the same Principles should infer contrary Conclusions And because we find it difficult sometimes to reconcile some things which yet we cannot well deny to be true And if it be so even in Natural things much more may it be so in things of an Infinite Nature So that herein I think He and I do not disagree Yet would I not infer from hence nor doth he that we must therefore be Scepticks in All things because it is possible that in Some things we may mis-take For it is one thing to be Infallible another thing not to Err. A Man who is not Infallible may yet Argue Truly and where he doth so his Argument is Conclusive And we may accordingly rest in it and insist upon it more or less according to the degree of Evidence For things equally True are not always equally Evident nor equally Necessary to be known Where the Evidence is not clear and the matter not needful for us to know we are not to be too Positive in our Determinations but rather be content to be ignorant farther than God is pleased to reveal But where it is and the things be of Moment we must hold fast that which is true and not suffer our selves to be easily wheedled out of it Which I suppose is his Opinion as well as mine For he seems to interpose this Caution particularly as to that Hypothesis to which as before he had done he doth suggest some new Difficulties But wherein I am not concerned That God is Trin-unus he doth profess And the word Person he doth not dislike But thinks it safe not to be too Positive in determining precisely how great that Distinction of Persons is In all which I do concur with him Now as to the Word Person though I am not fond of Words where the Sense is agreed I am not willing to quit it because I do not know a better to put in the Room of it And because if we quit the word which the Church hath with good reason made use of for so many Hundred years without any just exception made to it those Anti-trinitarians who would have us quit the Word will pretend that in so doing we quit the Doctrine too That we do not by Person when applyed to the Sacred Trinity understand such a Person as when applyed to Men and that by Three Divine Persons we do not mean Three Gods hath been so often said and so fully by those who believe the Trinity that those who cavil at it cannot but know it But by Person in the Deity we mean only what bears some Analogy with what amongst Men is said of several Persons even without being so many several Men which the true sense of the word Person doth not import as hath been often shewed as do the words Beget Begotten Sending Proceeding or Going-forth and many more which all are Metaphorical Expressions taken from what amongst Men is wont to be said of Persons For of whom but Persons are such expressions used And they who use to cavil at it may as well do it when we talk of the Foot of a Stool the Arm of a Chair or the Head of a Staff And perswade us that when we so speak we do believe a Stool a Chair a Staff to have Life and Sense because a Foot an Arm a Head properly taken have so And they may as well cavil at the word Sacrament which is a Name that we have given to that of Baptism and the Lord's Supper Attributes which is a term we give to some of the Divine Perfections Creed by which we mean an Abstract of some Principal things that we Believe And a great many such other words that we find occasion to make use of Whereof yet there is no danger when it is defined and determined what by such word in such discourse we mean even though in some Other discourses such word may signifie otherwise 'T is well known that a Cone in Euclide doth not signifie just the same as in Apollonius nor a Triangle in Euclide just the same as in Theodosius and others who Write of Sphericks But when we meet with these words in Euclide we must there understand them as they are defin'd by Euclide and when in others so as they are defin'd by those others And so when we speak of Persons in the Deity we must be so understood as we there
define that is for somewhat Analogous but not just the same with what is meant by it when applyed to Men and particularly not so distinct as to be three Gods And for the same Reasons I am not willing to part with the Athanasian Creed lest those who would have us so do should then say We have parted with the Doctrine also They upon pretence that some expressions in it though True are not absolutely Fundamental would fain wheedle us out of all They might as well say that because some words might be spared in what we call the Apostolick Creed or Nicene Creed or some other words put in therefore those Creeds should be laid aside also And when they quarrel with the Preface of it Whoever would be saved ought to hold the Catholick Faith and the Catholick Faith is this as if it were intended thereby that every Syllable in it were so Fundamental as without knowing whereof a Man could not be saved which no Man can reasonably think to be so meant by the Penners of it since that Thousands were saved even in their opinion before that was Penned and others since that never heard of it is mere Cavilling For no more can reasonably be thought intended by it but that this is found Doctrine which for the Substance of it ought to be believed by those who would be saved Like as if I should say Who ever would be saved ought to believe the Word of God and this is the Word of God pointing to our Bible no Man who is not mad would think my meaning to be That no Man could be saved who did not know that one of Iob's Daughters was Named Iemimah or that Zeruiah was Mother not Father to those who are called the Sons of Zeruiah As to that Question which I meet with in some of the Letters Why just Three Persons and no more The Answer is short and easie Because the Scripture tells us of Three but of no more And had not the Scripture told it us we had not known of these Three We are Baptized into the Name of and therefore into the Faith of the Father Son and Holy Ghost as if this were the First Christian Creed We are told There are Three that bear record in Heaven and these Three are One not that there are more such than Three And to these Three somewhats we give the Name of Persons meaning by the Word Persons these Three And if by Persons in the Deity we mean but these Three then there are but Three in the Deity whom we call Persons or whom we mean by that Name There is another Ingenious Person a stranger to me who hath Written to me divers Letters on this occasion full of Gratulation Approbation and Applause but in one of them he moves a Question concerning a passage in one of mine where I say We have no Notions in our Mind other than what we derive Mediately or Immediately from Sensible Impressions of Finite Corporeal Beings And tells me That it seems to him that the Notion of ONE INFINITE ESSENCE should be excepted And that he hath formerly Vindicated Des Cartes against Mr. Hobs who had affirmed That there is no Conception in a Man's Mind which hath not at first totally or by parts been begotten upon the Organs of Sence and again That a Man can have no Thought representing any thing not subject to Sense But in a following Letter he declares himself fully satisfied and that my Sentiments do not really differ from his when I had sent him this Answer viz. As to what you say of my affirming that we have no Notions in our Mind other than what we derive mediately or immediately from sensible Impressions of Finite Corporeal Beings When you consider it again I believe you will be of my Mind If you can suppose a Man in such circumstances as never to have Seen or Heard or Felt any thing I doubt whether he would have any Thoughts of God more than an Embryo yet unborn who hath the same Soul that he will after have but hath I doubt as yet no Notions of a God Sure I am that we attain it by other Steps The Heavens declare the Glory of God But not without being Seen or at least Heard of or some way made known to us by Sensible Impressions The Invisible things of him even his Eternal Power and Godhead are clearly seen but it is by the Creation of the World being understood by the things that are made But if we neither See nor Hear of nor have any Notion of the things that are made how shall we thence derive the Notion of a God and there must be many Notions antecedent to that of One Infinite Essence which must be derived from sensible Impressions of Corporeal Beings We must have the Notion or Conception of Ens Esse Finis Finitum Non-finitum Vnum Non-nullum Non-multa before we can have the Notion of One Infinite Essence And those Antecedent Notions I think we do derive mediately or immediately from what we See Hear Feel or some way apprehend by the help of our Sences As to Des Cartes there must be a great many Notions or simple Apprehensions which he must presume before he can come to the Complex Notion of Deus Est. And a great many Illative Notions from Natural Logick before he can argue Cogito ergo sum He must at least have a Notion or simple Apprehension of what is meant by Cogito and of what is meant by Sum and of what by Ego And then a Complex Notion that what is not cannot Think And then this Illative Notion from Natural Logick But I Think Therefore I am And I doubt he cannot come at all this without some use of his Senses And even after all it seems to me that to Be is a Notion more simple and therefore antecedent than to Think and therefore soone to be apprehended by it self than by consequence from that But it is not now my business to Dispute against Des Cartes Onely to shew that Sensitive Notions are subservient to our Notions of a God and from These our Understandings do by steps ascend to These Upon this Answer he owns my Sentiments to be the same with his c. that in a Natural way the Humane Intellect hath no Operation but what is Occasioned or Suggested by Sensible Objects But he thinks I perceive and so do I that from these Notions occasioned or suggested by Sensible Objects our Intellect or Reason improved may ascend by steps to a Discovery of something concerning God which in Corporeal Objects it cannot find In which we both agree Now the best means we have for the forming of such Notions concerning God is chiefly by one of these two ways that of Eminency and that of Negation Whatever of Good or Excellency we find in the Creature we conclude that in God who is the fountain of all Excellency there is somewhat Analogous thereunto but much more Eminent And whatever of
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