it to some other occasion that I be not prevented by the time in what I have to say further That there is a God the Creator a God the Redeemer and a God the Sanctifier and that these are the same God I think cannot reasonably be Denied I shall shew it of each As to God the Creator we are told Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God Created the Heaven and the Earth And to the same purpose in many other places And I think there is none doubts but that this Creator is the True God the Supreme God And in Jer. 10.11 God doth by this Character distinguish himself from all other pretended Gods The Gods that have not made the Heavens and the Earth they shall perish from the Earth and from under these Heavens As to God the Redeemer I know that my Redeemer liveth saith Job Ch. 19.25 By which Redeemer doubtless he meant the Living God a God who did then Live a God who was then in Being and not as the Socinians would have us think who was not to Be till Two Thousand years after And Isa. 44.6 Thus saith the Lord the Redeemer the Lord of Hosts I am the first and I am the last and beside Me there is no God Which Redeemeâ— must needs be the same God with God the Creator the Lord of Hosts As to God the Sanctifier Purge me with hyssop saith David and I shall be clean wash me and I shall be whiter than snow Create in me a clean heart O God and renew a right spirit within me Psal. 51.7 10. Which certainly are works of Sanctification and the God to whom David prayed is doubtless the Living God a God then in Being And when God promiseth â—o Israel I will give them a hearâ— to kâ—ow me and they shall return unto me with their whole heart Jer. 24.7 I will give them one heart and one way that they may fear me for ever I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me Jer. 32.39 40. I will give them one heart and put a new spirit within them I will take away the heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh Ezek. 11.19 and 36.26 I will put my Law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts Jer. 31.33 The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul that thou mayst live Deut. 30.6 All these are sanctifying works and that God who doth them is God the Sanctifier And it is the same God who doth thus Sanctifie that is the Creator and the Redeemer Now this God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier I take to be the same with what we otherwise call God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost And our Church doth so expound it in her Catechism First I learn to believe in God the Father who hath Made me and all the World Secondly In God the Son who hath Redeemed me and all Mankind Thirdly In God the Holy Ghost who Sanctifieth me and all the Elect people of God And it is no more absurd or inconsistent to say that God the Father God the Son and God the Holy-Ghost are the same God than to say that God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier are the same God As they stand related to us they are called God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier As to the different Oeconomy amongst themselves one is called the Father who is said to Beget another the Son who is said to be Begotten a third the Holy-Ghost who is said to Proceed or Come forth But are all the same God Objection IV. But then here I meet with another Objection on which the Socinians lay great weight If God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier or God the Father God the Son and God the Holy-Ghost be the same God they cannot then be Three Persons And if they be Three Persons they must be Three Gods For like as Three Persons amongst Men doth signifie Three Men so Three Persons who are God must be Three Gods Contrary to the First Commandment which allows us to have but One God To which I answer First This is only to cavil at a Word when they have nothing of moment against the Thing So that if inâ—â—ead of saying â—hese Three Persons are One God we say These Three are One God or give them another Name instead of Persons or say these Three Somewhats without giving them a Name this Objection is at an end 2. I say further 'T is very true that in our English Tongue by another Person we sometimes understand another Man because that other Person is very often another Man also But it is not always so nor is that the proper Signification of the Word but an Abusive sense put upon it And the reason of using the word Person in this abusive or improper sense is for want of an English word to answer the Latin word Homo or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which might indifferently relate to both Sexes For the word Man doth properly relate to the Male and Woman to the Female And if the word Man be sometimes so used as to imply the Woman also it is by a Synecdoche putting the Name of One Sex to signifie Both. And 't is for want of such a Word which might indifferently relate to both Sexes that we sometime make use of Person in a borrowed sense rather than to use a Circumlocution of Man and Woman by naming both Sexes And if we should use such Circumlocution of Man and Woman yet even this would not reach the whole Species For we do not use to call them Man and Woman till they be of a considerable Age before which time they are called Children and therefore to comprehend the whole Species we say Man Woman and Child We do indeed sometimes to that purpose make use of the word Mankind adding the word kind to that of Man to Ampliate the Signification of it But this relates only to Genus Humanum in a Collective sense not to Homines taken Distributively For we do not say a Mankind two Mankinds c as we say Homo Homines We are fain therefore for want of a proper English word to make use of Person in a borrowed sense to answer the Latin Homo But the Ancient Fathers who first applied the word Persona to the Sacred Trinity did not speak English And therefore we cannot from the present use of the word Person in our Language conclude in what sense they used the word Persona 3. Again the Schoolmen in later Ages have yet put another sense on the word Persona peculiar to themselves extending it indifferently to Men and Angels for want of a proper word of that Extent so as to signifie with them what they call Suppositum Rationale or what we call a Reasonable
God they did not understand him to speak in such a sense as when themselves were commonly wont so to speak as Joh. 8.41 We are not born of fornication we have one Father even God but in such a sense as they judged Blasphemous and had been so indeed had it not been true who therefore sought the more to kill him Joh. 5.18 because he said That God was his Father making himself Equal with God And the High Priest Matth. 26.65 rent his Cloths saying He speaketh Blasphemy when our Saviour affirmed before him That he was the Christ the Son of God 'T was manifest therefore that he so spake and they so understood him of such a Son-ship as argued a Divinity a being equal with God 2. His Humanity or Incarnation is pointed at in these words whom thou hast sent For by the Fathers sending him or his coming into the World is clearly meant his being Incarnate or made Man As Gal. 4.4 God sent his Son made of a Woman And Joh. 1.14 The Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us 3. His Mediatory Office is implyed as well in the Title Christ added to his Name Jesus as in that of his being sent by God Jesus the Christ or Jesus the Messiah whom thou hast sent For as his Name Jesus doth design the Person so the Title Christ that is Messiah that in Greek answering to this in Hebrew and both signifying the Anointed doth import the Office to which he was designed and for which he was sent For God did not send him to no purpose but sent him for this end for this Work To be the Mediator between God and Man To reconcile us to the Father To make an Atonement or Propitiation for us To take away the sins of the World To obtain Eternal Redemption To procure an Everlasting Inheritance a purchased Possession To make Intercession for us To save to the uttermost those that come unto God by him Or as Joh. 3.16 17. where all the three Particulars are likewise intimated God therefore sent his onely begotten Son into the World that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have Everlasting Life And now having gone through the whole Text we might if time would suffer look back upon it to take a new Survey thereof and collect from thence some of those particular deductions which might concern our practice For certainly the Knowledge which Christ here declares necessary to Eternal Life and the means conducing thereunto is not a bare Notional knowledge or a pure speculative Belief such as the Devils may have as well as we but an operative Knowledge a practical Faith a Faith fruitful in good Works without which those speculative notions will never bring us to Heaven And therefore without ingaging in the nice Disputes of Justification by Faith alone or Works concurring thereunto this is on all hands agreed without dispute That Faith without good Works will never justify us Whatever their influence be in Justification their Presence at least is necessary Without Doing we cannot in God's account be reputed either to Believe or Know. Those that obey him not are reckoned in God's account amongst those that Know not God at least amongst those who profess they know God but do in their works deny him Who shall be so far by such a Knowledge from obtaining Eternal Life that Christ shall come in flaming fire to take vengeance on them and to punish them with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his Power In particular If we know God to be the onely True God Then must we Love him Fear him Worship him and Obey him Nor doth the knowledge of Christ as Mediator abate any thing of this Duty For though he came to take away the Curse of the Law by being made a Curse for us yet not our Obligation thereunto He came not to destroy the Law or make it less obligatory to duty but to fulfill it I may add That those who will not acknowledge themselves under the Obligation of it have reason to fear they be yet under the Curse of it Again If we know Christ whom he hath sent It will be our duty then to Believe in him For 't is to those onely that Christ doth give eternal life And so to Believe in him as to Obey him For to those who obey not the Gospel of his Son it is that Christ shall render vengeance in flaming fire Furthermore If in this Christ we hope to have Eternal Life how should this excite our Rejoicing and Thankfulness for so great Salvation Not by Rioting and Drunkenness by Revelling and Debauchery which is the Abuse not the Celebration of this Solemnity in memory of Christ's Incarnation But by a pious Remembrance and Commemoration of that Redemption obtained for us such as may be to the Honour not the Reproach of him that came to Redeem us from our vain Conversation That denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live Godly Righteously and Soberly in this present World Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto himself a peculiar People zealous of good Works To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be Glory for evermore The End of the First Sermon A Second SERMON Concerning the TRINITY TO THE UNIVERSITY of Oxford April 26. 1691. JOH xvij 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is life eternal that they might know thee the onely true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent IT is now a great many years since in this Place if not to this Auditory I did discourse of these Words I shall repeat very little of that Discourse But think fit to add somewhat to what was then said Our Saviour in the three Chapters next foregoing the 14 th 15 th and 16 th Chapters of S. John's Gospel had made a large Discourse to his Disciples after his Institution of the Lord's Supper the night before he was to Die which in this 17 th Chapter he closeth with a Prayer to his Father in their behalf Wherein having made mention of Eternal Life ver 2. which he was to give to as many as the Father had given him that is to as many as should â—ffectually Believe in him he subjoins this Eâ—â—phonema And This is Life Eternal That they might know Thee the only True God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ. In which words we have Two things proposed to us The Christian's Happiness And The Mâ—ans wâ—ereby it is to be attained I. The Câ—ristian's Happiness is called Life as to its Excâ—â—â—ency and Eternal as to its Duration Wâ—ich is Begun here in the Kingdom of Graâ—â— and is to be Perfected and for ever Conâ—inued in that of Glory II. The Means to attain it is the Knowledge of God and
you from the Father even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father He shall testifie of Me. Where it is manifest that in what sense the Father and Son are to be reputed Persons the Comforter or Holy Ghost is in the same sense so to be reputed So that I think I have clearly Vindicated not only the Notion That these Three Somewhats may be One God But the Name also That these Somewhats may fitly be called Persons Objection VI. I shall name but one Objection more which when I have satisfied I shall conclude for this time That 6 th Objection and 't is but a weak one is this The Trinitarians do not all agree but differ among themselves in expressing their Notions in this Matter Very well And do not the Antitrinitarians differ much more Doth not the Arian and the Socinian differ as much from one another as either of them do from us and declare that they so do And do not the Arians among themselves and the Socinians amongst themselves differ more than do the Trinitarians Certainly they do It must be confessed that different Men as well in the same as in different Ages have very differently expressed themselves according to their different Sentiments of Personality and of the particular Distinctions of the three Persons among themselves But so it is in all the most obvious things in the world As in Time Place Space Motion and the like We are all apt to think that we all know well enough what we mean by those Words till we be asked But if we be put to it to express our selves concerning any of them What it is whether a Thing or Nothing or not a Thing or somewhat of a Thing and what that somewhat is it would be long enough before we should all agree to express our selves just in the same manner and so clearly as that no man who hath a mind to cavil could find occasion so to do I might say the like of Heat and Cold of Light Sight and Colour of Smells and Tâ—sts and the different Sorts of them Can we never be sâ—id to agree in this That the Fire doth Burn and Consume the Wooâ— till we be all agreed what is the Figure of those Fiery Atoms and what their Motion and from what Impulse which enter the Pores of â—he Wood and separate its parts and convert some of them to Smoak some to Flame and â—â—me to Ashes and which to which and in what manner all this is done What a folly then is it to require that in the things of God we should all so agree as to express our thoughts just in the same manner as is not possible to do in the most obvious things we meet with And in such a case as wherein to express our Notions we have no Words but Figurative it is not to be thought strange that one man should make use of one Metaphor and another of another according as their several Fansies serve But thus far I think the Orthodox are all agreed That between these Three which the Scripture calls The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost or the Father the Word and the Spirit there is a Dâ—stinction greater than that of what we call the Divine Attributes but not so as to be Three Gods And this Distinction they have thought fit to denote by the Word Hypostasis or Person They are also all agreed that one of these Persons namely the Son or the Word was Incarnate or Made Flesh and did take to himself our Humane Nature But as to the particular Modes or Manner How either how these two Natures are United or how these three Persons are Distinguished each from other we may be content to be Ignorant farther than God hath been pleased to Reveal to us We know that our Immortal Soul is joined with an Humane Body so as to make One Man without ceasing that to be a Spirit and this to be a Body But 't is hard for us to say How And accordingly we say that the Man Christ Jesus without ceasing to be Man and God manifested in the Flesh without ceasing to be God are One Christ But what kind of Union this is which we call Hypostatical we do not throughly understand We know also that the Father is said to Beget the Son to be Begotten the Holy Ghost to Proceed But neither do we fully understand the import of these Words nor is it needful that we should But so far as was said before we do all agree and we may safely rest there Now to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost three Persons but One God be Honour and Glory and Praise now and for ever The End of the Second Sermon A Third SERMON Concerning the TRINITY JOH xvij 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is life eternal that they might know thee the onely true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent I Have in a former Discourse from this Verse entered upon the Doctrine of the Trinity not so much as being contained in it as occasioned by it I have shewed that the word Onely is here restrictive not of the Subject Thee but of the Predicate True God Affirming the Father to be the Onely True God though not the Father Onely Nor is it exclusive of the Son who is also the same True God and is so expresly called by this same Writer 1 Joh. 5.20 where speaking of Jesus Christ he says This is the True God and Eternal Life as if it were spoken with a direct aspect to the words before us Now that Christ is often called God neither the Arians nor the Socinians do deny And it is so frequent and so evident as not to be denyed Not only in the place last cited but in many others Thy throne O God endureth for ever Heb. 1.8 The Word was with God and the Word was God Joh. 1.1 My Lord and my God Joh. 20.28 The Being over all God blessed for ever Amen Or the Supreme Being the ever blessed God Rom. 9.5 And elsewhere Objection VII But to this they Object That though he be sometime called God yet by God is not there meant the Supreme God But either a mere Titular God as the Socinians will have it as one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 8.5 one who is called God but indeed is not but a mere Man however highly dignified Or as the Arians will have it that he is God indeed but not the Supreme God not the same God with the Father but an Inferiour God Deus factus a made-God a Creature-God who was indeed before the World but not from Eternity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was a Time a Moment a Quando when he was not when he had not a Being In Answer to both which I shall endeavour to shew by the most signal Characters whereby the Supreme God the Onely true God is set forth to us in Scripture and by which he is therein Distinguished from
of Elias Now we all know whose fore-runner John Baptist was and before whom he was to go in the Power and Spirit of Elias And he before whom he was thus to go is the Lord God of Israel and therefore not only a Titular God or a Creature God but the True God the Supreme God the same God with that God who is the Lord God of Israel whom no man doubts to be the True God the Supreme God the Only God I might add many other Characters given to Christ proving him to be the True God as that Rev. 2.13 I am he which searcheth the Reins and Hearts and I will give unto every one according to his Works and to the same purpose Rev. 22.12 and elsewhere which God the True God claims as his peculiar Prerogative Jer. 17.9 10. The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked Who can know it I the LORD search the Heart I try the Reins to give to every man according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings And to the same purpose Jer. 11.20 Jer. 20.12 1 Chron. 28.9 Psal. 7.9 Psal. 139.1 and in many other places And that likewise of Isai 9.6 His Name shall be called Wonderful Councellor the Mighty God the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace c. with many other Characters of like nature which can never agree to any but the True God But it is not my business in this short Discourse to say All that might be said but what may be sufficient He therefore that is as hath been shewed God the True God the Mighty God the Everlasting Father the Eternal God the First and the Last before whom nothing was and after whom nothing shall be that Was and Is and shall Be the same yesterday and to day and for ever the Almighty by whom the World was made by whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made that was made who laid the foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of his hands who when the Heavens and the Earth shall fail his years endure for ever who searcheth the heart and the reins to give to every one according to his works who is Jehovah the Lord God of Israel the Supreme being which is over all God blessed for ever who is the Blessed and only Potentate the King of Kings and Lord of Lords who only hath immortality to whom be Honour and Power Everlasting Amen That God I say of whom all these great things are said is certainly not a mere Titular God who is called God but is not a Creature God or only a dignified Man For if these be not Characters of the True God by what Characters shall the True God be described I know the Socinians have imployed their Wits to find out some tricks to evade or elude some of these plain places which I shall not trouble my self or you to repeat or to give an answer to them For they are so weak and so forced that the plain words of Scripture read together with the forced senses they would put upon them are answer enough nor do they need or deserve any further answer OBJECTION VIII The last Objection which I shall now take notice of is this That the Doctrine of the Trinity was not known to the Jewish Church before Christ. To which I answer 1. If it were not made known to them it was not necessary for them to know For matters of pure Revelation are not necessary to be known before they are revealed nor farther than they are revealed But may be so to us to whom they are Revealed The whole Doctrine of our Redemption by Christ was doubtless unknown to Adam before his Fall And had he not fallen it would have been no fault in him not to have known it at all And when after his fall it was first made known to him in that first promise that the Seed of the Woman should break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 it was yet so dark that he could know very little as to the particulars of it of what is now known to us And as God by parcels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at sundry times and in divers manners declared more of it to Abraham to David and the Prophets so were they obliged to know and believe more of it and when in the last days he had declared the whole of it by his Son Heb. 1.1 2. it is now necessary for us to believe much more of which they might be safely ignorant And of the Trinity likewise if it were not then revealed 2. But Secondly There were many things which though not fully revealed so as to be clearly understood by All were yet so insinuated as to be in good measure understood by some and would more be so when the Veil should be taken off from Moses's face 2 Cor. 3.13 15 16. Thus the Death and Resurrection of Christ were not understood even by his own Disciples till after his Resurrection Yet we must not say that these things were not before intimated in the Scriptures though covertly for when their understandings were opened to understand the Scriptures and what had been written of him in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and in the Psalms they then perceived that it was so written and that it behooved Christ to Suffer and to Rise from the dead the Third day Yet this was therein so covertly contained that they seem no more to have understood it than that of the Trinity And St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews declares a great deal to have been covered under the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies which certainly most of the Jewish Church did not understand though in good measure it might be understood by some I might say the like of the Resurrection which was but darkly discovered till Immortality was brought to light through the Gospel 2 Tim. 1.10 We must not yet say it was wholly unknown to the Jewish Church of whom many no doubt did believe it Yet neither can we say it was generally received For we know the Pharisees and the Sadduces were divided upon that point Act. 23.6 7 8. And so little is said of it in the Old Testament that those who had a mind to be captious might have found much more specious pretence of cavilling against it then than our Adversaries now have against the Doctrine of the Trinity 3. I say Thirdly as of the Resurrection there were then divers intimations which are now better understood in a clearer light than at that time they were So I think there were also of the Doctrine of the Trinity I shall instance in some of them 1. That there was in the Unity of the God-head a Plurality of Somewhat which now we call Persons seems fairly to be insinuated even in that of Elohim-bara Gen. 1.1 In the beginning God created where Elohim God a Nominative Case Plural is joined with Bara a Verb Singular which is as if we should say in
that St. John did but Platonize and borrowed his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Plato's Trinity that I rather think that Plato borrowed his Trinity as he did many other things from the Jewish Doctrine though by him disguised And take it for a good Evidence that the Doctrine of the Trinity was then not unknown to them Aristotle in the last Chapter of his Book De Mundo which is de Dei Nominibus He tells us that God though he be but One hath many Names And amongst those many he reckons that of the Tres Parcae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as we call them the Three Destinies Atropas Clotho and Lachesis whom he doth accommodate to the three diversities of Time past present and future to be One of these Names Which though numbred as Three are but this One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And cites Plato to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that it seems both Plato and Aristotle were of opinion that Three Somewhats may be One God And this in likelihood they derived from the Jewish Learning I might say the like of their three Judges in another World Minos Radamanthus and Aeacus which thing though it be Fabulous yet it implies thus much That they had then a Notion not only of the Soul's Immortality but also of a Trinity of Persons in another World who should take Account of mens Actions in this World And both these Notions they had no doubt from the Jewish Learning from whence their most sublime Notions were derived To these I might add that of their three-shap'd Chimaera which their Poets feign to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as is to be seen in Homer one of their most Ancient Poets And that of Cerberus their three-headed Porter of the other World Which Poetical Fictions though invented perhaps to ridicule the Trinity do yet at last argue that they had then some notices of a Trinity of Three Somewhats which were yet but One. For if they had no notice of it they could not have ridiculed it Our Adversaries perhaps may please themselves with the Fansy that Chimaera and Cerberus are brought in to prove the Trinity But they mistake the point We are not now Proving the Trinity which is already settled on a firmer Foundation but inquiring whether this Doctrine were then known And as we think it a good argument to prove the Christian Religion to have been known in Lucian's time and known to him because Lucian doth Scoff at it which he could not have done if he had known nothing of it So is it a good Argument to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity to have been then known when it was ridiculed And it proves also that there might be then prophane Wits to ridicule it as there are now to Blaspheme the Trinity as a three-headed Monster and that this 〈◊〉 Wit of theirs is not their own but stollen from wittier Heathens But whether it were or were not known to the Jewish Church before Christ of which there be great Presumptions that it was so known as well as that of the Resurrection it is enough to us that we are taught it now And if any will yet be so obstinate as not to believe either the Resurrection or the Trinity upon pretence that neither of them was known to the Jewish Church or at least not so clearly but that they may be able to cavil at places from the Old Testament alledged to prove either we must leave them to the Wisdom and Judgment of God till he shall think fit to instruct them better Now to God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost Three Persons but One Eternal and Ever blessed God be Praise Honour and Glory Now and for Evermore Amen FINIS Advertisement BY reason of the Authors absence from the Press at so great a distance some mistakes have happened both in the Letters and Sermons and some things omitted which should have been inserted in their proper places but that they came so late to the Printers hands that it could not well be done without dâ—scomposing his Affairs Of both which it is thought fit thus to direct ERRATA LEt I. p. 12. l. 6. for Divisions read Dimensions p. 13. l 6. dele Three p 18. l. 7. for Meaning read Memory Let. II. p. â— l. 21. for that read shall Let. III. p. 30. l. 11. as a separate Existence p 32 l. 7. as to be p. 37. l. ult for Those read These p. 41. l. 18 known p. 57. l. 7. for sure read save Let. IV. p. 7. l. 20. for toil read talk p. 11. l. 2. as well as Let. V. p. 6. l. 22. dele of p. 7. l. 19. for any read my p. 11. l. 10. read 1 Joh. 5.20 p. 12. l. 18. for Israel read Jacob. p. 18. l. 13. doth not well p. 21. l. 14. said so much Let. VI. p. 4. l. 1. for Nor read Now. p. 9. l. 28. for then read tâ—ere p. 10. l. 28. for London read Leyden p. 11. l. 19. at least p. 13. l. 30. for This read Thus. p. 14. l. 33. for as read in l. 34. thee only the. p. 17. l. 6. for Railing read Ranting p. 18. l. 2. was not then l. 13. beside that in Let. VII p. 6. l 28. Possibility p. 7. l. 27. for fourtâ— read fault p. 10. l. pen. All-comprehensive p. 12. l. 20. Father p. 13. l. 5. afteâ— Notionâ— add further than they are revealed l. pen. Words p. 14. l. 13. Hands p. 17. l. 13. to Answer l. 23. for one read me Serm. p. 15. l. 14. exegerical p. 19 l. 7. God p. 22. l. 19. for for read or l. 21. for er read fer P. 61. l. 9. read Author P. 73. l. 3. read were framed ADDITIONS LET. I. p. 2. l. 1. after united add or intimately One. p. 12. l. 21. after Cube add there being no limits in nature greater than which a Cube cannot be Let. III. p. 16. l. 18. Add this Marginal Note The Saxon word Hel or Helle whence comes the English word Hell doth not properly or necessarily import the place of the Damned But may be indifferently taken for Hell hole or hollow place Which are all words of the same original Helan to hide or cover Hole cavitas Hol cavus hollow And when it is used in a restrained sense it is Metonymical or Synecdochical as when Hole or Pit is put for the Grave and the like p. 19. l. 2. Add So that I take the plain sense of the words to be this He was for some time in that Hell or Hades what ever by that word be meant wherein it is expresly said he was not left but was Raised from it p. 44. l. 16. Add Beside this Letter of thanks from his Partner in the Disputation there was another from Sandius himself not Printed but in Manuscript acknowledging a like conviction Of which Wittichius recites an Extract in his Causa Spiritus Sancti Victrix demonstrata à Christophoro