“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.
[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.