Subsistence/Subsistences: Toward an Understanding of Some Difficult Language in the 1689 Confession

[This post was originally published to this blog on 6/13/19.]

"The 1689 Confession was the confessional statement of the church or association of every one of the 293 delegates who gathered in Augusta, Georgia, to organize the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845... The Abstract of Principles [which is a doctrinal standard] of two SBC seminaries is self-conscientiously an abstract or summary of this confession" [source: Founders Ministries]. The 1689 Confession is important to study due to this historical influence on the SBC [the largest Protestant denomination in the United States] as well as its continued influence in Reformed Baptist churches and associations.

Chapter 1 of the 1689 Confession focuses on Holy Scripture, because the Bible is "the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience." Chapter 2 focuses on "God and the Holy Trinity." The first statement about God declares: "The Lord our God is but one only living and true God, whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection." Later, the beginning of the third paragraph of Chapter 2 declares, "In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided."

It is interesting to see how these statements about God are different from statements made in the Westminster Confession (1646). In many places, the language of the 1689 Confession is identical to what is stated in the Westminster Confession, since the Baptists desired to show that they were of one mind with their Presbyterian brothers and sisters in key matters of faith. However, the beginning of Chapter 2 in the Westminster Confession ("Of God and the Holy Trinity") uses different language concerning God: "There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection." The beginning of the third paragraph of the Westminster Confession's Chapter 2 declares, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity."

This change in language raises some questions. A couple are:

1. Why is "subsistences" used in the 1689 Confession rather than retaining the term "persons" from the Westminster Confession?
2. Why does the 1689 Confession use the term "subsistence" in one way in the first paragraph of Chapter 2 and the term "subsistences" in another way in the third paragraph of the same chapter?

I believe that both of these questions can be answered, in part, by a recognition of the influence from the puritan, William Ames (1576-1633). In examining the origins of the 1689 Confession, Dr. James Renihan (the president of IRBS Theological Seminary) notes that the framers of the 1689 Confession "relied very heavily" on Ames' The Marrow of Theology. On the subject "What is God made up of? What is the being of God?" Ames wrote:

1. This subsistence, or manner of being of God is his one essence so far as it has personal properties.

2. The essence is common to the three subsistences. As far as essence is concerned, therefore, the single subsistences are rightly said to exist of themselves.

3. Nothing is attributed to the essence which cannot be attributed to each subsistence in the matter of essence.

4. But was is attributed partly to each subsistence in the matter of subsistence cannot be attributed to the essence

5. The subsistences are distinguished from the essence, because the mode of subsistence, though consolidated with the essence, are distinguished from it considered by itself.

6. They are distinguished from each other as things connected by certain relative properties, so that one cannot be another, although they are the same nature. Neither can one be said to be first or last, except in order of beginning and manner of subsistence.

7. These relative properties are, as it were, individual forces in one essence, spiritually and perfectly alive. Hence the subsistences are rightly called persons.

13. The relative property of the Son is to be begotten, that is, so to proceed from the Father as to be a participant of the same essence and perfectly carry on the Father’s nature. Hence is second in order. Hebrews 1:3, the brightness of His glory in the character of His person.

14. The property of the Holy Spirit is to be breathed, to be sent forth and to proceed from the Father and the Son John 15:26, He whom I will send forth you from the Father, that Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father: Romans 8:9, the Spirit of Christ; Galatians 4:6, the Spirit of the Son.

The framers of the 1689 Confession seem to have followed Ames in both his use of subsistence and in the slightly different way that Ames used "subsistence" in one place vs. "subsistences" in the near context. Ames first defined "subsistence" as "manner of being." The stress is first on God's being, which is just "his one essence." In that sense, the "subsistence" must be understood as one, as God's being/essence is one.  Ames goes on to focus on God's "manner of being... so far as it has personal properties." In that sense, we can speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit as "three subsistences" or three 'manners of being,' distinguished by "certain relative properties."

So, taking Ames' definition of "subsistence" as "manner of being," we could understand the 1689 Confessions "subsistence" as follows:

"The Lord our God is but one only living and true God, whose [manner of being] is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection... In this divine and infinite Being there are three [manners of being], the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided."

Ames' language was careful, and the reader who pays close attention to it would not be left with the impression that the use of subsistence(s) indicates God as impersonal force(s), nor does the use of subsistence(s) lead to modalism. The relative/personal properties are real and indicative of an eternal relationship within God. Ames pointed out: "the subsistences are rightly called persons." As Samuel Renihan notes, John Owen, whose writings were another major influence on the framers of the 1689 Confession, also used the term "subsistences" as interchangeable with "Persons."

Why, then, did the 1689 Confession use the term "subsistence(s)," when  the Westminster Confession did not use this terminology?

1. Again: the framers of the 1689 Confession were influenced by the theological work of William Ames, and his use of this terminology.
2. The term "subsistence" [defined by Ames, as I've noted,  as "manner of being"] is more clearly related to "being/essence" than "Person" is, and it is therefore a useful technical-theological category.
3. The term "subsistence" is useful in that it does not run the risk of people confusing characteristics of divine persons with what we know about human persons.

[Only point 1 above is from my own research, as a specific application of Dr. James Renihan's insight that the framers of the 1689 Confession were indebted to Ames; points 2-3 are from summaries from Samuel Renihan's article, linked above.]

This exploration of historical theology is important because Christians should follow the example of the framers of the 1689 Confession, drawing upon the theological insights of others, while carefully considering how the language we use can best help us think about the God we love.