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.