Chapter XXIII: Part 23

4. As to what respects that fellowship or communion, which believers have with the Father, Son, and Spirit, this depends on the account we have, in scripture, of the distinct methods, in which their Personal glory is set forth therein: Thus we have access to God the Father, through the Mediation of the Son, by the powerful influence of the Holy Spirit, as the apostle says, in Eph. ii. 18. _Through him we have an access, by one Spirit unto the Father_; and our hope of blessedness proceeds this way, as it is the gift of the Father, who has prepared an inheritance for us, the purchase of the Son, on whose death it is founded, and the work of the Holy Ghost, as bringing us to and putting us into the possession of it.

5. This directs us as to the way of performing the great duty of self-dedication, to the Father, Son, and Spirit; to the Father, as our covenant God in Christ; to the Son, as the Mediator, Head, and Surety of this covenant; and to the Spirit, by whom we are made partakers of the blessings promised therein; in all these, and many other respects, we are to have a particular regard to the persons in the Godhead, in such a way, as their Personal glory is set forth in scripture.

6. Since the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one, though we distinguish them as Persons, yet we must consider them as having the same divine perfections, the same divine understanding and will, lest, while we give glory to each of the Persons in the Godhead, we should suppose that there are more Gods than one; therefore, though the Person of the Father is distinct from that of the Son and the Holy Ghost, we are not to suppose the power, wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness, or any other divine perfections, belong, in a more or less proper sense, to one Person than another.

7. This doctrine is of use to direct us how we are to address ourselves to God in prayer: thus, when therein we call him our Father, we are not to consider him in the same sense, as when he is represented as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we address ourselves to him, as the Author of our being, the God of all grace, and the Fountain of blessedness; in which respect, the Son and the Holy Ghost are not to be excluded, especially unless we consider him as our Father in Christ, and so express our faith with respect to his distinct Personality, from that of the Son and the Spirit. And though only one divine Person be particularly mentioned in prayer, the blessed Trinity is to be adored; or whatever Personal glory we ascribe to one, as subsisting distinctly from the other, we must, notwithstanding, consider the Father, Son, and Spirit, as the one only living and true God.

Thus we have gone through this great and important subject, and therein have taken occasion, particularly, to insist on the chief matters in controversy relating to the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, and consider the various methods taken to oppose it both by the Socinians and Arians, and endeavoured, not only to defend the Deity of our Saviour, and the Holy Ghost by enquiring into the sense of those many scriptures, in which our faith therein is founded, but to answer the most material objections that are brought against it; and our enlarging more on it, than we shall do on several following answers, cannot be reckoned a needless work, inasmuch as a great deal hath been written in opposition to it, whereby the faith of some has not only been shaken, but overthrown. I would never attempt to speak of this doctrine, or any of the divine perfections, without being sensible of the difficulty of the subject, it being such as is not to be comprehended by a finite mind. I hope nothing will appear to have been suggested inconsistent with the essential, or Personal glory of the Father, Son, or Spirit; and it may reasonably be expected that there should be allowances made for great defects, since it is but a little of God that can be known by us; therefore, when we pretend to speak concerning him, it will not be thought strange if we give occasion to any to say, that we have the greatest reason to acknowledge, that, in many instances, we cannot order our words, by reason of darkness.

Footnote 76:

“God is One: a most pure, most simple, and most perfect Being.

“The absolute unity and simplicity of this glorious Being is strictly
exclusive of any division of perfections. Yet, as human knowledge is
not intuitive but discursive, we find it necessary to form and
communicate our conceptions, by referring them to distinct and
infinite attributes. Such are independence, spirituality, eternity,
immutability, power, knowledge, rectitude, and benevolence.

“It is absurd to say, that either the abstract essence, or any of the
infinite perfections of God, in themselves, or in their exercise, can
be grasped, included, or comprehended (or whatever equivalent term be
used) by a limited intellect. ‘A _part_ of His ways, a _little
portion_ of Him,’ we know; for He has unveiled it. The knowledge of
the best and greatest finite mind can only be, to immortality, an
approximation; and therefore must for ever be infinitely small. God
alone is CAPABLE OF COMPREHENDING His own nature, mode of existence,
and perfections.

“The only questions, therefore, that we have to ask, are, Has Deity,
in fact, communicated to man _any_ information concerning HIMSELF? And
_what_ has He communicated? Whatever such revelation may be, it is
impossible that it should be self-contradictory, or any other than
most becoming to infinite wisdom and purity.

“This revelation authorizes us, by a variety of inductive proofs, to
conclude, that, with regard to the mode of existence of the ONE Divine
Essence, the Unity of the Godhead includes a Trinity of Persons (so
denominated for want of any better terms) who are scripturally styled
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: Distinct, not in essence or
in perfections, but only personally: One, not personally, but in the
common possession of the same identical nature and attributes.

“No contradiction or absurdity is involved in this doctrine, because
the unity refers to one respect, and the trinity to another. But we
make no difficulty in professing our incapacity to include in our
knowledge, or express by any possible terms, _the respect_ in which
the Trinity of persons subsists in the perfect Oneness of the Deity.
Such pretension would imply a contradiction.”

SMITH’S LETTERS TO BELSHAM.

Footnote 77:

“That which is taught in the scriptures concerning the
incomprehensible and spiritual essence of God ought to suffice, not
only to overthrow the foolish errors of the common people, but also to
confute the fine subtilties of profane philosophy. One of the old
writers seemed to have said very well, ‘That God is all that we do
see, and all that we do not see.’ But by this means he hath imagined
the Godhead to be diffused into all the parts of the world. Although
God, to the intent to keep men in sober mind, speak but sparingly of
his own essence, yet, by those two names of addition that I have
rehearsed, he doth both take away all gross imaginations, and also
repress the presumptuous boldness of man’s mind. For surely his
immeasurable greatness ought to make us afraid, that we attempt not to
measure him with our sense: and his spiritual nature forbiddeth us to
imagine any thing earthly or fleshly of him. For the same cause he
often assigneth his dwelling place to be in heaven. For though, as he
is incomprehensible, he filleth the earth also: yet because he seeth
our minds by reason of their dulness to lie still in the earth, for
good cause he lifteth us up above the world, to shake off our sloth
and sluggishness. And here falleth to ground the error of the
Manichees, which, in appointing two original beginnings, have made the
devil in a manner equal with God. Surely, this was as much as to break
the unity of God, and restrain his unmeasurableness. For where they
have presumed to abuse certain testimonies, that sheweth a foul
ignorance, as their error itself sheweth a detestable madness. And the
Anthropomorphites are also easily confuted, who have imagined God to
consist of a body, because oftentimes the scripture ascribeth unto him
a mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet. For what man, yea, though he be
slenderly witted, doth not understand that God doth so with us speak
as it were childishly, as nurses do with their babes? therefore such
manner of speeches do not so plainly express what God is, as they do
apply the understanding of him to our slender capacities. Which to do,
it behoved of necessity that he descended a great way beneath his own
height.

“2. But he also setteth out himself by another special mark, whereby
he may be more nearly known. For he so declareth himself to be but
one, that he yet giveth himself distinctly to be considered in three
persons: which, except we learn, a bare and empty name of God without
any true God fleeth in our brain. And that no man should think that he
is a threefold God, or that the one essence of God is divided in three
persons, we must here seek a short and easy definition, to deliver us
from all error. But because many do make much about this word Person,
as a thing invented by man, how justly they do so, it is best first to
see. The apostle naming the Son the engraved form of the hypostasis of
his Father, he undoubtedly meaneth, that the Father hath some being,
wherein he differeth from the Son. For to take it for essence (as some
expositors have done, as if Christ like a piece of wax printed with a
seal did represent the substance of the Father) were not only hard,
but also an absurdity. For since the essence of God is single or one,
and indivisible, he that in himself containeth it all, and not by
piece-meal, or by derivation, but in whole perfection, should very
improperly, yea, foolishly, be called the engraved form of him. But
because the Father, although he be in his own property distinct, hath
expressed himself wholly in his Son, it is for good cause said, that
he hath given his hypostasis to be seen in him. Wherewith aptly
agreeth that which by and by followeth, that he is the brightness of
his glory. Surely by the apostle’s words we gather, that there is a
certain proper hypostasis in the Father, that shineth in the Son:
whereby also again is easily perceived the hypostasis of the Son, that
distinguisheth him from the Father. The like order is in the holy
Ghost. For we shall by and by prove him to be God, and yet he must
needs be other than the Father. Yet this distinction is not of the
essence, which it is unlawful to make manifold. Therefore, if the
apostle’s testimony be credited, it followeth that there be in God
three hypostasis. This term seeing the Latins have expressed by the
name of Person, it were too much pride and frowardness to wangle about
so clear a matter. But if we list word for word to translate, we may
call it subsistance. Many in the same sense have called it substance.
And the name of Person hath not been in use among the Latins only, but
also the Grecians, perhaps to declare a consent, have taught that
there are three _Prosopa_, that is to say Persons, in God. But they,
whether they be Greeks or Latins that differ one from another in the
word, do very well agree in the sum of the matter.

“3. Now howsoever the hereticks cry out against the name of Person, or
some overmuch precise men do carp that they like not the word feigned
by the device of men; since they cannot get of us to say, that there
be three, whereof every one is wholly God, nor yet that there be many
gods: what unreasonableness is this, to dislike words, which express
none other thing but that which is testified and approved by the
scriptures? It were better (say they) to restrain not only our
meanings but also our words within the bounds of scripture, than to
devise strange terms, that may be the beginnings of disagreement and
brawling: so do we tire ourselves with strife about words: so the
truth is lost in contending: so charity is broken by odiously brawling
together. If they call that a strange word, which cannot be shewed in
scripture, as it is written in number of syllables; then they bind us
to a hard law, whereby is condemned all exposition that is not pieced
together, with bare laying together of texts of scripture. But if they
mean that to be strange, which, being curiously devised, is
superstitiously defended, which maketh more for contention than
edification, which is either improperly, or to no profit, used, which
withdraweth from the simplicity of the word of God, then with all my
heart I embrace their sober mind. For I judge that we ought with no
less devout reverence to talk of God than to think of him, for as much
as whatsoever we do of ourselves think of him is foolish, and
whatsoever we speak is unsavoury. But there is a certain measure to be
kept. We ought to learn out of the scriptures a rule both to think and
speak, whereby to examine all the thoughts of our mind, and words of
our mouth. But what hindereth us, but that such as in scripture are to
our capacity doubtful and entangled, we may in plainer words express
them, being yet such words as do reverently and faithfully serve the
truth of the scripture, and be used sparingly, modestly, and not
without occasion? Of which sort there are examples enough. And whereas
it shall by proof appear that the church of great necessity was forced
to use the names of Trinity, and Persons, if any shall then find fault
with the newness of words, shall he not be justly thought to be
grieved at the light of the truth, as he that blameth only this, that
the truth is made so plain and clear to discern?

“4. Such newness of words, if it be so called, cometh then chiefly in
use, when the truth is to be defended against wranglers that do mock
it out with cavils. Which thing we have at this day too much in
experience, who have great business in vanquishing the enemies of true
and sound doctrine. With such folding and crooked winding, these
slippery snakes do slide away, unless they be strongly gripped and
holden hard when they be taken. So the old fathers, being troubled
with contending against false doctrines, were compelled to shew their
meanings in exquisite plainness, lest they should leave any crooked
byeways to the wicked, to whom the doubtful constructions of words
were hiding-holes of errors. Arius confessed Christ to be God, and the
Son of God, because he could not gainsay the evident words of God,
and, as if he had been so sufficiently discharged, did feign a certain
consent with the rest. But in the meanwhile he ceased not to scatter
abroad that Christ was created, and had a beginning, as other
creatures. But to the end that they might draw forth his winding
subtilty out of his den, the ancient fathers went further, pronouncing
Christ to be the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with
the Father. Hereat wickedness began to boil, when the Arians began to
hate and detest the name _Omoousion_, consubstantial. But if in the
beginning they had sincerely and with plain meaning confessed Christ
to be God, they would not now have denied him to be consubstantial
with the Father. Who dare now blame these good men as brawlers and
contentious, because, for one little word’s sake, they were so keen in
disputation, and disturbed the peace of the church? But that little
word shewed the difference between the true believing Christians, and
the Arians, who were robbers of God. Afterwards rose up Sabellius, who
accounted in a manner for nothing the names of the Father, the Son,
and Holy Ghost, saying in disputation that they were not made to shew
any manner of distinction, but only were several additions of God, of
which sort there are many. If he came to disputation, he confessed
that he believed the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God. But
afterwards he would readily slip away with saying, that he had in no
otherwise spoken than as if he had named God, a powerful God, just
God, and wise God: and so he sung another song, that the Father is the
Son, and the Holy Ghost is the Father, without any order, without any
distinction. The good doctors who then had care of godliness, to
subdue his wickedness, cried out on the other side, that there ought
to be acknowledged in one God three properties: and to the end to
fence themselves against the crooked winding subtilties with plain and
simple truth, they affirmed, that there did truly subsist in one God,
or (which is the same thing) that there did subsist in the unity of
God, a Trinity of Persons.

“5. If then the names have not been without cause invented, we ought
to take heed, that in rejecting them we be not justly blamed of proud
presumptuousness. I would to God they were buried indeed, so that this
faith were agreed of all men, that the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, be one God: and yet that the Father is not the Son, nor
the Holy Ghost the Son, but distinctly, by certain property. Yet I am
not so precise, that I can find in my heart to strive for bare words.
For I observe, that the ancient fathers, who otherwise spake very
religiously of such matters, did not every where agree one with
another, nor every one with himself. For what forms of speech used by
the councils doth Hillary excuse? To how great liberty doth Augustine
sometimes break forth? How unlike are the Greeks to the Latins? But of
this disagreement one example shall suffice for this time. When the
Latins wanted to express the word _Omoousion_, they called it
_Consubstantial_, declaring the substance of the Father and the Son to
be one, thus using the word substance for essence. Whereupon Hierom to
Damasus saith, it is sacrilege to say, that there are three substances
in God: and yet above a hundred times you shall find in Hillary, that
there are three substances in God. In the word _hypostasis_, how is
Hierom difficulted? for he suspecteth that there lurketh poison in
naming three hypostasis in God. And if a man do use this word in a
godly sense, yet he plainly saith that it is an improper speech, if he
spake unfeignedly, and did not rather wittingly and willingly seek to
charge the bishops of the East, whom he sought to charge with an
unjust slander. Sure this one thing he speaketh not very truly, that
in all profane schools, _Ousia_, essence, is nothing else but
hypostasis, which is proved false by the common and accustomed use.
Augustine is more modest and gentle, who, although he says, _De trint.
li. 5. cap. 8, 9._ that the word hypostasis in that sense is strange
to Latin ears, yet so far is it off, that he taketh from the Greeks
their usual manner of speaking, that he also gently beareth with the
Latins who had followed the Greek phrase. And that which Socrates
writeth in the fifth book of the Tripartite history tendeth to this
end, as though he meant that he had by unskilful men been wrongfully
applied unto this matter. Yea, and the same Hillary himself layeth it
as a great fault to the heretics charge, _De trin. li. 2._ that by
their frowardness he is compelled to put those things in peril of the
speech of men, which ought to have been kept in religiousness of
minds, plainly confessing that this is to do things unlawful, to speak
what ought not to be spoken, to attempt things not licensed. A little
after, he excuseth himself with many words, for that he was so bold to
utter new names. For after he had used the natural names, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, he addeth, that whatsoever is sought further is beyond
the compass of speech, beyond the reach of sense, and beyond the
capacity of understanding. And in another place he saith, that happy
are the bishops of Gallia, who had not received, nor knew any other
confession but that old and simple one, which from the time of the
apostles was received in all churches. And much like is the excuse of
Augustine, that this word was wrung out of necessity, by reason of the
imperfection of men’s language in so great a matter: not to express
that which is, but that it should not be unspoken, how the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three. This modesty of the holy men ought
to warn us, that we do not forthwith so severely, like censors, brand
them with infamy, who refuse to subscribe and swear to such words as
we propound them: so that they do not of pride, or frowardness, or of
malicious craft. But let them again consider, by how great necessity
we are driven to speak so, that by little and little they may he
enured with that profitable manner of speech. Let them also learn to
beware, lest since we must meet on the one side with the Arians, on
the other side with the Sabellians, while they be offended that we cut
off occasion from them both to cavil, they bring themselves in
suspicion, that they be the disciples either of Arius or of Sabellius.
Arius saith that Christ is God, but he muttereth that he was created,
and had a beginning. He saith Christ is one with the Father, but
secretly he whispereth in the ears of his disciples, that he was made
one as the other faithful be, although by singular prerogative. Say
once that Christ is consubstantial with his Father, then pluck you off
his visor from the dissembler, and yet you add nothing to the
scripture. Sabellius saith, that the several names, Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, signify nothing in God severally distinct. Say that they
are three, and he will cry out that you name three gods. Say that
there is in one essence a Trinity of persons, then shall you in one
word both say what the scripture speaketh, and stop their vain
babbling. Now if any be holden with so curious superstition, that they
cannot abide these names, yet is there no man, though he would never
so fain, that can deny but that when we hear of one, we must
understand an unity of substance: when we hear of three in one
essence, that, it is meant of the persons of the Trinity. Which thing
being without fraud confessed, we stay no longer upon words. But I
have long ago found, and that often, that whosoever do obstinately
quarrel about words, do keep within them a secret poison: so that it
is better willingly to provoke them, than for their pleasure to speak
darkly.”

CALVIN.

Footnote 78:

“There are some doctrines in the gospel the understanding could not
discover; but when they are revealed, it hath a clear apprehension of
them upon a rational account, and sees the characters of truth visibly
stampt on their forehead: as the doctrine of satisfaction to divine
justice, that pardon might be dispensed to repenting sinners. For our
natural conception of God includes his infinite purity and justice;
and when the design of the gospel is made known, whereby he hath
provided abundantly for the honour of those attributes, so that He
doth the greatest good without encouraging the least evil, reason
acquiesces, and acknowledges. This I sought, but could not find. Now,
although the primary obligation to believe such doctrines ariseth from
revelation, yet being ratified by reason, they are embraced with more
clearness by the mind.

“2. There are some doctrines, which as reason by its light could not
discover; so when they are made known, it cannot comprehend; but they
are by a clear and necessary connexion joined with the other that
reason approves: as the mystery of the Trinity, and the Incarnation of
the Son of God, which are the foundations of the whole work of our
redemption. The nature of God is repugnant to plurality, there can be
but one essence; and the nature of satisfaction requires a distinction
of persons: For he that suffers as guilty, must be distinguished from
the person of the judge that exacts satisfaction; and no mere creature
is able by his obedient sufferings to repair the honour of God: So
that a divine person, assuming the nature of man, was alone capable to
make that satisfaction, which the gospel propounds, and reason
consents to. Now, according to the distinction of capacities in the
Trinity, the Father required an honourable reparation for the breach
of the divine law, and the Son bore the punishment in the sufferings
of the human nature; that is peculiarly his own. Besides, ’tis clear
that the doctrine of the Trinity, that is, of three glorious relations
in the Godhead, and of the Incarnation, are most firmly connected with
all the parts of the christian religion, left in the writings of the
apostles, which as they were confirmed by miracles, the divine
signatures of their certainty, so they contain such authentic marks of
their divinity, that right reason cannot reject them.

“3. Whereas there are three principles by which we apprehend things,
Sense, Reason and Faith; these lights have their different objects
that must not be confounded. Sense is confined to things material;
Reason considers things abstracted from matter; Faith regards the
mysteries revealed from heaven: and these must not transgress their
order. Sense is an incompetent judge of things about which reason is
only conversant. It can only make a report of those objects, which by
their natural characters are exposed to it. And reason can only
discourse of things, within its sphere: supernatural things which
derive from revelation, and are purely the objects of faith, are not
within its territories and jurisdiction. Those superlative mysteries
exceed all our intellectual abilities. ’Tis true, the understanding is
a rational faculty, and every act of it is really or in appearance
grounded on reason. But there is a wide difference between the proving
a doctrine by reason, and the giving a reason why we believe the truth
of it. For instance, we cannot prove the Trinity by natural reason;
and the subtilty of the schoolmen, who affect to give some reason of
all things, is here more prejudicial than advantageous to the truth:
For he that pretends to maintain a point by reason, and is
unsuccessful, doth weaken the credit which the authority of revelation
gives. And ’tis considerable, that the scripture, in delivering
supernatural truths, produces God’s authority as their only proof,
without using any other way of arguing: But although we cannot
demonstrate these mysteries by reason, yet we may give a rational
account why we believe them.

“Is it not the highest reason to believe the discovery that God hath
made of himself, and his decrees? For he perfectly knows his own
nature and will; and ’tis impossible he should deceive us: this
natural principle is the foundation of faith. When God speaks, it
becomes man to hear with silence and submission. His naked word is as
certain as a demonstration.

“And is it not most reasonable to believe that the Deity cannot be
fully understood by us? The sun may more easily be included in a spark
of fire, than the infinite perfections of God be comprehended by a
finite mind. The angels, who dwell so near the fountain of light,
_cover their faces_ in a holy confusion, not being able to comprehend
Him. How much less can man in this earthly state, distant from God,
and opprest with a burthen of flesh? Now from hence it follows;

“1. That ignorance of the manner how divine mysteries exist is no
sufficient plea for infidelity, when the scripture reveals that they
are. For reason that is limited and restrained cannot frame a
conception that is commensurate to the essence and power of God. This
will appear more clearly by considering the mysterious excellencies of
the divine nature, the certainty of which we believe, but the manner
we cannot understand: As that his essence and attributes are the same,
without the least shadow of composition; yet his wisdom and power are
to our apprehensions distinct, and his mercy and justice in some
manner opposite.[79] That his essence is intire in all places, yet not
terminated in any. That he is above the heavens, and beneath the
earth, yet hath no relation of high or low, distant or near. That he
penetrates all substances, but is mixed with none. That he
understands, yet receives no ideas within himself: That he wills, yet
hath no motion that carries him out of himself. That in him time hath
no succession; that which is past is not gone, and that which is
future is not to come. That he loves without passion, is angry without
disturbance, repents without change. These perfections are above the
capacity of reason fully to understand; Yet essential to the deity.
Here we must exalt faith, and abase reason. Thus in the mystery of the
incarnation, (_1 Tim._ iii. 16.) that two such distant natures should
compose one person, without the confusion of properties, reason cannot
reach unto; but it is clearly revealed in the word: (_John_ i. 14.)
Here therefore we must obey, not enquire.

“The obedience of faith is, to embrace an obscure truth with a firm
assent, upon the account of a divine testimony. If reason will not
assent to revelation, till it understands the manner how divine things
are, it doth not obey it at all. The understanding then sincerely
submits, when it is inclined by those motives, which demonstrate that
such a belief is due to the authority of the revealer, and to the
quality of the object. To believe only in proportion to our narrow
conceptions is to disparage the divine truth, and debase the divine
power. We can’t know what God can do; he is omnipotent, though we are
not omniscient: ’Tis just we should humble our ignorance to his
wisdom, _and that every lofty imagination, and high thing, that exalts
itself against the knowledge of God, should be cast down, and every
thought captivated into the obedience of Christ_; 2 Cor. x. 5. ’Tis
our wisdom to receive the great mysteries of the gospel in their
simplicity: for in attempting to give an exact and curious explication
of them, the understanding, as in an hedge of thorns, the more it
strives, the more ’tis wounded and entangled. _God’s ways are far
above ours, and his thoughts above ours as heaven is above the earth._
To reject what we can’t comprehend, is not only to sin against faith,
but against reason, which acknowledges itself finite, and unable _to
search out the Almighty to perfection_; Job xi. 7.

“2. We are obliged to believe those mysteries that are plainly
delivered in scripture, notwithstanding those seeming contradictions
wherewith they may be charged. In the objects of sense, the
contrariety of appearances doth not lessen the certainty of things.
The stars to our sight seem but glittering sparks, yet they are
immense bodies. And it is one thing to be assured of a truth, another
to answer to all the difficulties that encounter it: a mean
understanding is capable of the first; the second is so difficult,
that in clear things the profoundest philosophers may not be able to
untie all the intricate and knotty objections which may be urged
against them. ’Tis sufficient the belief of supernatural mysteries is
built on the veracity and power of God; this makes them prudently
credible: this resolves all doubts, and produces such a stability of
spirit, as nothing can shake. A sincere believer is assured, that all
opposition against revealed truths is fallacious, though he cannot
discover the fallacy. Now the transcendent mysteries of the Christian
religion, the Trinity of persons in the divine nature, the incarnation
of the Son of God, are clearly set down in the scripture. And although
subtile and obstinate opponents have used many guilty arts to dispirit
and enervate those texts by an inferior sense, and have rackt them
with violence to make them speak according to their prejudices, yet
all is vain, the evidence of truth is victorious. A heathen, who
considers not the gospel as a divine revelation, but merely as a
doctrine delivered in writings, and judges of its sense by natural
light, will acknowledge that those things are delivered in it: And
notwithstanding those who usurp a sovereign authority to themselves,
to judge of divine mysteries according to their own apprehensions,
deny them as mere contradictions, yet they can never conclude them
impossible: for no certain argument can be alledged against the being
of a thing without a clear knowledge of its nature: Now, although we
may understand the nature of man, we do not the nature of God, the
œconomy of the persons, and his power to unite himself to a nature
below him.

“It is true, no article of faith is really repugnant to reason; for
God is the author of natural, as well as of supernatural, light, and
he cannot contradict himself: They are emanations from him, and though
different, yet not destructive of each other. But we must distinguish
between those things that are above reason and incomprehensible, and
things that are against reason and utterly inconceivable: Some things
are above reason in regard of their transcendent excellency, or
distance from us; the divine essence, the eternal decrees, the
hypostatical union, are such high and glorious objects, that it is an
impossible enterprise to comprehend them: the intellectual eye is
dazzled with their overpowering light. We can have but an imperfect
knowledge of them; and there is no just cause of wonder that
supernatural revelation should speak incomprehensible things of God.
For he is a singular and admirable Being, infinitely above the
ordinary course of nature. The maxims of philosophy are not to be
extended to him. We must adore what we cannot fully understand. But
those things are against reason, and utterly inconceivable, that
involve a contradiction, and have a natural repugnancy to our
understandings, which cannot conceive any thing that is formally
impossible: and there is no such doctrine in the Christian religion.

“3. We must distinguish between reason corrupted, and right reason.
Since the fall, the clearness of the human understanding is lost, and
the light that remains is eclipsed by the interposition of sensual
lust. The carnal mind cannot, out of ignorance, and will not from
pride and other malignant habits, receive things spiritual. And from
hence arises many suspicions and doubts, (concerning supernatural
verities) the shadows of darkened reason, and of dying faith. If any
divine mystery seems incredible, it is from the corruption of our
reason, not from reason itself; from its darkness, not its light. And
as reason is obliged to correct the errors of sense, when it is
deceived either by some vicious quality in the organ, or by the
distance of the object, or by the falseness of the medium, that
corrupts the image in conveying of it. So it is the office of faith to
reform the judgment of reason, when either from its own weakness, or
the height of things spiritual, it is mistaken about them. For this
end supernatural revelation was given, not to extinguish reason, but
to redress it, and enrich it with the discovery of heavenly things.
Faith is called wisdom and knowledge: it doth not quench the vigour of
the faculty wherein it is seated, but elevates it, and gives it a
spiritual perception of those things that are most distant from its
commerce. It doth not lead us through a mist to the inheritance of the
saints in light.”

BATES.

Footnote 79:

Infinitus, immensus & soli sibi tantus, quantus est notus, nobis vero
ad intellectum pectus angustum est, & ideò sic cum dignè estimamus,
cùm inaestimabilem dicimus. _Min. Fel._

Footnote 80:

He who has marked the differences between truth and error, good and
evil, made them discoverable, and formed human minds susceptible of
their impressions, thereby discovers his will that we should attend to
them, and has made it our duty to do so. With this sentiment sacred
revelation is expressly accordant; “prove all things, hold fast that
which is good.” The Gospel requires not faith without evidence, it
demands no more assent than is proportioned to the weight of
probability, and charges as a crime only our refusing to attend to the
evidence, or our coming to it with hearts prejudiced against, and
therefore insensible to, its evidence. The exercise of reason is
essential to faith, for how sudden soever our convictions, still it is
the judgment which is convinced.

Yet reason has her due province; she may and ought to ascertain the
genuineness, authenticity, and divine authority of the scriptures.
When this is done, she cannot correctly delay her assent, because she
may not fully comprehend the promises or works of God, for this would
require wisdom no less than Divine. But suppose she should presume to
try them, by what balances shall she weigh them? To what shall she
compare them? To the reasons and fitness of things? what are these but
circumstances and relations springing from the works of God? His
creation originated from his wisdom and power, and is ever dependent
on them. This is therefore to circumscribe infinite wisdom by what has
been already discovered of it; it is to limit infinite power from
effecting any thing which it has not hitherto accomplished. Such
judgment is not the work of reason, it is irrational. Reason can only
make an induction, where there exists premises from which a conclusion
can be drawn; but here her limits are exceeded, she has no standard by
which she can measure infinity. By reasoning we justly infer from the
works of God, many of his glorious moral, as well as natural,
perfections; we gather that he is holy, just, true, and good, and we
may fairly say that he will never depart from such rectitude, but that
all his works will be conformed to such principles. We can go no
farther than unto generals, we have no right to question any word or
act of his, and say it is not conformed to such perfections, because
this would suppose that we possess infinite wisdom. He may have ways
of solving our difficulties and objections, with which we are not
acquainted. Such judgment is not only irrational, but arrogant, as it
is an extension of the claims of reason beyond her just limits. Our
duty in such case is exemplified in the father of the faithful. At
God’s command we must, like him, sacrifice our Isaacs, and leave to
him both to accomplish his promises and to justify the action. It is
evident that the doctrine of the Trinity is but partially revealed to
man, but sufficiently to let him into a competent knowledge of the
plan of redemption.

Footnote 81:

_Vid. Epist. 2. ad Dionys._

Footnote 82:

_Vid. Euseb. Præp. Evang. Lib. XIII. cap. 12._

Footnote 83:

_Vid. Huet. Concord. Ration. & Fid. Lib. II. cap. 3._

Footnote 84:

_See Dr. Berriman’s Historical account, &c. page 94._

Footnote 85:

“Philo uses not the name for his derivative Being in the Godhead,
which we see the other Jews of the time using in the Gospels. He
speaks not of him, by his natural appellation of the Son of God. No!
He takes up another title for him, which indeed was known equally to
other Jews, or Philo could not possibly have adopted it; which was
known equally to the Gentiles, as I shall show hereafter; but which
was known only to the scholars of either. He calls him ‘the LOGOS of
God.’ This is a name, that can be borrowed, together with the idea
annexed to it, only from the Jews, or from the common ancestors of
them and of the Gentiles; that answers exactly to the _Dabar_ of
Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures, and to the _Memra_ of Jehovah in the
Chaldee paraphrasts upon them; and signifies merely ‘the WORD of God.’
This name has been since introduced into our religion, by one of the
inspired teachers of it. And notwithstanding the ductility of the
Greek language in this instance, which would allow it to be rendered
either the _Word_ or the _Reason_ of God; yet the English Bible, with
a strict adherence to propriety, and in full conformity to the ancient
Christians and ancient Jews, has rejected the accidental
signification, and embraced only the immediate and the genuine. Yet,
even now, the name is confined in its use to the more improved
intellects among us. And it must therefore have peculiarly been, in
the days of Philo, the _philosophical_ denomination of Him, who was
_popularly_ called the Son of God.

“The use of the name of Logos, or Word, by Philo and by St. John in
concurrence, sufficiently marks the knowledge of the name among the
Jews. But the total silence concerning it, by the Jewish writers of
the three first Gospels; the equal silence of the introduced Jews
concerning it, in all the four; and the _acknowledged_ use of it
through all the Jewish records of our religion, merely by St. John
himself; prove it to have been familiar to a few only. It is indeed
too mysterious in its allusion, and too reducible into metaphor in its
import, to have ever been the common and ordinary appellation for the
Son of God. Originating from the _spiritual_ principle of connexion,
betwixt the first and the second Being in the Godhead; marking this,
by a _spiritual_ idea of connexion; and considering it to be as close
and as necessary as the _Word_ is to the energetick _Mind_ of God,
which cannot bury its intellectual energies in silence, but must put
them forth in speech; it is too _spiritual_ in itself, to be addressed
to the faith of the multitude. If with so full a reference to our
_bodily_ ideas, and so positive a _filiation_ of the Second Being to
the First, we have seen the grossness of Arian criticism endeavouring
to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust of a figure; how much more
ready would it have been to do so, if we had only such a _spiritual_
denomination as this, for the second? This would certainly have been
considered by it, as too unsubstantial for distinct personality, and
therefore too evanescent for equal divinity.

“St. John indeed adopted this philosophical title, for the
denomination of the Son of God; only in one solemn and prefatory
passage of his Gospel, in two slight and incidental passages of his
Epistles, and in one of his Book of revelations. Even there, the use
of the popular instead of the philosophical name, in the three Gospels
antecedent to his, precluded all probability of misconstruction. Yet,
not content with this, he formed an additional barrier. At the same
instant in which he speaks of the Logos, he asserts him to be distinct
from God the Father, and yet to be equally God with him. ‘In the
beginning,’ he says, ‘was THE WORD; and THE WORD was _with_ God; and
THE WORD was GOD.’ Having thus secured the two grand points relating
to the Logos, he can have nothing more to say upon the subject, than
to repeat what he has stated, for impressing the deeper conviction. He
accordingly repeats it. His personality he impresses again, thus; ‘THE
SAME was in the beginning _with_ God.’ His divinity also he again
inculcates, thus: ‘ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM, and WITHOUT HIM WAS
NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE.’ Here the very repetition itself, of
enforcing his claim to divinity, by ascribing the creation to him; is
plainly an union of two clauses, each announcing him as the Creator of
the universe, and one doubling over the other. And the uncreated
nature of his own existence is the more strongly enforced upon the
mind, by being contrasted with the created nature of all other
existences. These were MADE, but he himself WAS; _made_ by Him, who
_was_ with God, and _was_ God. Nor would all this precaution suffice,
in the opinion of St. John. He must place still stronger fences
against the dangerous spirit of error. He therefore goes on to say, in
confirmation of his personality and divinity, and in application of
all to our Saviour: ‘HE was in the world, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY
HIM, and the world knew him not; HE came unto HIS OWN [PROPER
DOMAINS,] and HIS OWN [PROPER DOMESTICKS] received him not.’ And he
closes all, with judiciously drawing the several parts of his
assertions before into one full point; and with additionally
explaining his philosophical term, by a direct reference of it to that
popular one which he uses ever afterwards: ‘and THE WORD was made
flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, full of grace and truth.’

“Yet, when such guards were requisite, what induced St. John to use
this philosophical title at all? The reason was assuredly this. The
title was in high repute, and in familiar use, among the refined
spirits of the age; and his Gospel was peculiarly calculated for the
service of _such_. The almost perpetual recurrence of the appellation
in Philo’s works shows evidently the use and the repute in which it
was, among the more spiritualized of the Jews. St. John therefore
adopted it himself, for the more easy access to _their_ conviction. It
was also congenial, probably, of itself to the spiritualized state of
St. John’s mind. He, who has dwelt so much more than the other
Evangelists upon the _doctrines_ of our Saviour; and who has drawn out
so many of them, in all their spiritual refinement of ideas; would
naturally prefer the _spiritual_ term of relationship for God the Son
and God the Father, before the _bodily_, whenever the intellect was
raised enough to receive it, and whenever the use of it was
sufficiently guarded from danger. These were two reasons, I suppose,
that induced St. John to use it a _few_ times. And these were equally
(I suppose) the reasons, that induced him, with all his guards, to use
it only a few.

“Nor let us be told, in the rashness of Arian absurdity, that we
misunderstand St. John in this interpretation of his words. If reason
is capable of explaining words, and if St. John was capable of
conveying his meaning in words to the ear of reason; then we may
boldly appeal to the common sense of mankind, and insist upon the
truth of our interpretation. Common sense indeed hath _already_
determined the point, in an impartial person, in an enemy, in a
Heathen. I allude to that extraordinary approbation, which was given
by a Heathen of the third century to this passage of St. John. ‘Of
modern philosophers,’ says Eusebius, ‘_Amelius_ is an eminent one,
being himself, if ever there was one, a zealot for the philosophy of
Plato; and he called the Divine of the Hebrews _a Barbarian_, as if he
would not condescend to make mention of the Evangelist John by name.’
Such is Eusebius’s account of our referee. But what are the terms of
his award? They are these. ‘And such indeed was the Logos,’ he says,
‘by whom, a perpetual existence, the things created were created, as
also Heraclitus has said; and who by Jupiter, _the Barbarian_ says,
being constituted in the rank and dignity of a Principle, is with God
and is God, by whom all things absolutely were created; in whom the
created living thing, and life, and existence, had a birth, and fell
into a body, and putting on flesh appeared a man; and, after showing
the greatness of his nature, and being wholly dissolved, is again
deified and is God, such as he was before he was brought down into the
body and the flesh and a man. These things, if translated out of _the
Barbarian’s_ theology, not as shaded over there, but on the contrary
as placed in full view, would be plain.’ In this very singular and
very valuable comment upon St. John’s Gospel in general, and upon his
preface in particular, we may see, through the harsh and obscure
language of the whole, some circumstances of great moment. The bold
air of arrogance in the blinded Heathen over the illuminated Divine
must strike at once upon every eye. But the Logos appears, from him,
to have been known to the _philosophers_ of antiquity _later_ than the
Gospel; and known too as a perpetual Existence, and the Maker of the
world. St. John also is witnessed by a Heathen, and by one who put him
down for a Barbarian, to have represented the Logos as THE MAKER OF
ALL THINGS, as WITH GOD, and as GOD; as one likewise, ‘_in whom_ the
created living Thing,’ or the human soul of our Saviour, ‘and’ even
‘Life and Existence’ themselves, those primogenial principles of
Deity, ‘had _a birth_, and _fell into a body_, and _putting on flesh
appeared a man_,’ who was therefore man and God in one; who
accordingly ‘showed the greatness of his nature’ by his miracles, was
‘wholly dissolved,’ and then ‘was _again_ DEIFIED, and IS GOD,’ even
‘SUCH AS HE WAS, before he was _brought down into the body_ and _the
flesh_ and _a man_.’ And St. John is attested to have declared this,
‘not even as _shaded over_,’ but ‘on the contrary as _placed in full
view_.’ We have thus a testimony to _the plain meaning_ of St. John,
and to the _evident Godhead_ of his Logos, a _Godhead_ equally
_before_ and _after_ his death; most unquestionable in its nature,
very early in its age, and peculiarly forcible in its import. St.
John, we see, is referred to in a language, that shows him to have
been well known to the Grecian cotemporaries of Amelius, as a writer,
as a foreigner, and as a marked assertor of _Divinity_ for his Logos.”

WHITAKER.

Footnote 86:

_Vid. Forbes. Instruct. Hist. Theol. Lib. I. cap. 2 §. 8._

Footnote 87:

_Vid. Curcell in Quattern. Dissert. de Voc. Trinit. personæ ge._

Footnote 88:

_Vid. Calv. Institut. Lib. I. cap. 13. §. 5._

Footnote 89:

“The doctrine of a plurality appears in the very first words of
inspiration. God would not record the history of _creation_, without
informing the Church that the character of Creator was by no means to
be confined to one person. It has often been observed, that this is
taught in the words rendered _God created_, where we have a noun in
the plural joined with a verb in the singular number, plainly
expressing a plurality in unity. That this is the genuine sense of the
passage appears from the work ascribed, in the next verse, to the
Spirit of God, who is said to have ‘moved on the face of the waters.’
By modern Jews, whom some Christians have followed, this expression
has been rendered, ‘a wind of God,’ or ‘a mighty wind.’ But the
firmament, or expanse, was not created till the second day. This
includes the atmosphere which surrounds our earth: for the fowl is
said to ‘fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.’ Now, it
cannot reasonably be supposed that there could be a mighty wind, or
any wind at all, before the existence of an atmosphere.

“If we turn to the gospel-history, we find a third person mentioned as
engaged in the work of creation. ‘All things were made by’ that Word,
who ‘in the beginning existed with God.’