An eighth letter concerning the Sacred Trinity occasioned by some letters to him on that subject / by John Wallis ... Wallis, John, 1616-1703. 1692 Approx. 51 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 11 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A67386 Wing W577 ESTC R28904 17356929 ocm 17356929 106447 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A67386) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 106447) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1107:2) An eighth letter concerning the Sacred Trinity occasioned by some letters to him on that subject / by John Wallis ... Wallis, John, 1616-1703. 21 p. s.n., [London : 1692] Caption title. Imprint suggested by Wing. Dated at end: Novemb. 23, 1691. Errors in paging: p. 2-3, 6-7 misprinted 16-13, 12-9. Reproduction of original in the Union Theological Seminary Library, New York. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Trinity. Theology, Doctrinal. 2004-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-05 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-06 Mona Logarbo Sampled and proofread 2004-06 Mona Logarbo Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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 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 .