A Fourth LETTER Concerning the Sacred Trinity IN REPLY To what is Entituled An ANSWER TO D r WALLIS's Three Letters By JOHN WALLIS D. D. LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside 1691. A Fourth LETTER Concerning the Sacred Trinity SIR IN a former Answer from I know not whom to my First and Second Letter we had Two Persons a Friend and his Neighbour in One Man Of which I have given account in my Third Letter We have now an Answer to that also But whether from the Friend or the Neighbour or from a Third Person he doth not tell me Yet all the Three Persons may for ought I know be the same Man However whether it be or be not the same Man it is not amiss for him to act a Third Person as of an Adversary as being thereby not obliged to insist upon and maintain what was before said but may fairly decline it if he please The one may Grant what the other Denies and Deny what the other Grants And still as the Scene changes the Man may Act another Person And so I find it is As for instance The former Answerer takes it unkindly and would have it thought a Calumny that I charged it on some of the Socinians That How clear soever the Expressions of Scripture be for our purpose they will not believe it as being Inconsistent with natural Reason And though they do not think fit to give us a bare-faced Rejection of Scripture yet they do and must they tell us put such a Forced Sense on the words as to make them signify somewhat else Therefore to shew that this is not a Calumny but a clear Truth I cited their own Words and quoted the Places where they are to be found wherein themselves say the same things in as full Expressions as any that I had charged them with That every one is to interpret the Scripture according to his own sense and what so seems grateful to him he is to imbrace and maintain though the whole World be against it That he is not to heed what Men teach or think or have at any time taught or thought whoever they be or have been or how many soever That though even in the sacred Monuments it be found written not Once only but Many times he should not yet for all that believe it so to be That what plainly appears cannot be or as was before explained what He thinks so though all the World beside think otherwise is not to be admitted even though in the sacred Oracles it appear to be Expresly affirmed But those sacred Words are to be interpreted though it be by Unusual Ways or Tropes to some other Sense than what they speak That because it seems to him absurd he must with Augustine's good leave and of the rest who think as he doth put a Force how great soever upon Paul's words rather than to admit such Sense That if our Reason dictate to us ought otherwise than the Scripture doth it is an Errour to say That in such case we are rather to believe the Scripture Now our new Answerer though he would still have it to be a Calumny shuffles it off with this He is not concerned that Socinus or any other Author has dropt imprudent words and leaves it to the Socinian to answer pag. 10. for he is now to act the Arian pag. 11 12 14 16 17. This point therefore I look upon as yielded concerning the slight opinion which some of the Socinians have of Scripture in competition with Humane Reason Again when I had spoken of our Immortal Soul in its separate Existence after Death as of an Intellectual Being but with an IF at lest those who deny the Blessed Trinity will allow that there are such Beings To shew the suspicion intimated was not groundless I cited Socinus's own words where he expresly tells us that the Soul after death doth not subsist nor doth so Live as to be then in a capacity of being Rewarded or Punished that is in effect It is no more Alive than is the Dead Body not sensible of pain or pleasure Which I think is ground enough for such a suspicion without being uncharitable Nor doth this new Answerer clear Socinus or himself from this suspicion Onely tells us pag. 10. it is an Insinuation as if they believe not Angels Which is nothing to the purpose of the Soul 's separate Existence which is that I insisted on nor doth he so much as tell us that he doth believe Angels much less that he doth believe the Souls separate Existence so that the ground of suspicion still remains I had shewed him how different Socinus's Opinion is from that of St. Paul when he desired to be dissolved or to depart hence and to be with Christ as much better for him than to abide in the flesh Phil. 1. 23 24. And to be absent from the Body which must be after Death and before the Resurrection and to be present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5. 8. And this new Answerer though he takes notice of the charge doth not so much as tell us that he is not of Socinus's Opinion herein Which if it be so he might reasonably have told us upon this occasion I might have added that of Christ Mat. 10. 28. Fear not those who kill the Body but are not able to kill the Soul Whereas if the Soul after Death be as insensible as the Body That is as much killed as This. And that of Christ to the Converted Thief on the Cross Luk. 23. 43. This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise For surely by Paradise he did not mean Purgatory nor yet that he should be with him in Hell amongst the Devils and the Damned nor that his Soul should be in a condition as senseless as his Body For Paradise doth not sound like any of these I might have added also that of Lazarus and the Rich Glutton Luk. 16. 23 24 25 28. For though Parables are not strongly Argumentative as to all the Punctilio's of them yet as to the main scope of them they are else to what purpose are they used Now here we have that Glutton represented as Tormented in Hell and Lazarus at Rest in Abraham's Bosom and there Comforted while the other is Tormented And all this while yet he had Brethren upon Earth to whom he desires Lazarus might be sent All which is not agreeable to a condition not capable of reward or punishment And upon the whole we have reason to suspect that Socinians may have some other odd Tenents which they think fit rather to conceal than to Deny So that I look upon this point as gained also That Socinus uncontrouled by this Answerer doth deny the subsistence of the Soul after Death as then capable of Reward or Punishment Another point which I look upon as granted is concerning that place Joh. 1. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was
God and the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us Concerning this place we were come to this Issue with our former Answerer at his p. 9. If by Word be meant a Person pre-existent to Christs Incarnation by the Virgin Mary and by God be meant the True God or God Almighty then this place is to our purpose for else he tells us St. John writes Nonsense Now that St. John writes Non-sense I suppose he will not say whatever he thinks because he pretends a great Reverence for Scriptures and doth not take it kindly that I should suspect the contrary Whether of the other two points he would stick to he did not think fit to tell us For indeed his business was not to tell us what he would have but what he would not have and concludes nothing thereupon but that the place is obscure he knows not how to make it serve his turn and that it may so seem he indeavours to cast what dust he can into the Spring and then to say The Water is not clear I have given him my Reasons and I think they be cogent why I judge the place clear enough as to both points And should I admit as I think I may that by Word is meant somewhat else as he tells us in forty other places this is nothing to the purpose For we are not here enquiring what by the word Logos is meant in Aristotle or what in Plato or what in forty other places but what is meant by the Word in This place Nor what by Gods is meant in Psal. 82. 6 7. I have said ye are Gods but ye shall die like Men But what by God is here meant where it is said The Word was with God and the Word was God Nor is here any need of a Rhetorick Lecture to inquire by what Trope or Figure or with what Allusion Christ is here called The Word It is enough that 't is Christ who is here so called And after all his toil I do not find that himself hath the confidence to Deny though he doth not think fit to grant it but that here by the Word is meant Christ and that God here mentioned is God Almighty and consequently If St. John do not write Non-sense as he is pleased to phrase it the place is to our purpose Now our new Answerer seems to me to quit the first of these points and chooseth rather to act the Arian than the Socinian as taking that to be more defensible pag. 11 14 17. And doth admit that by the Word here is meant the Person of Christ and pre-existent to his Incarnation as by whom the World was made at least as by an Instrument and doth allow him to be God though not the same God but that the Father and the Word are Two Gods p. 17. and can allow him the Character of Being over all God blessed for ever and can so be as liberal of the Title of God to Christ as any Trinitarian whatever p. 16. So that now the dispute is reduced to this When it is said The Word meaning Christ was with God and the Word was God whether by God be meant the True God God Almighty Of which we are to say more anon Another grant we have pag. 3. where he doth admit that a thing may be Unum and Tres One and Three in several respects And that 'T is true indeed he cannot say that there is a Contradiction in holding that there may be Three Persons in God And in granting this he grants what I undertook to prove For he knows very well that the business which I undertook was not to discourse the whole Controversy at large but so stated the question as to confine it to this single Point Whether it be an Impossibility or Inconsistence with Reason that there may be Three somewhats which we call Persons which are but One God And when he grants me that there is in it no Contradiction or Inconsistence with Reason all the rest is beside the Question I know very well that both this and the former Answerer have made it their business to change the state of the Question And if what I bring to prove what I undertake do not prove the task they set me they glory as if they had the better But the Lawyers tell us that when Issue is once joined if we prove the thing in Issue we carry the Cause and what is more than so is over and above or to spare And a Mathematician if he prove what he proposeth concludes with quod erat demonstrandum he hath proved what he undertook to prove if he prove more than so 't is more than he was obliged to do And if a Logician prove propositionem negatam the Proposition which is incumbent on him to prove he hath done his work and if he prove more than so it is more than he need to do And accordingly when this Answerer doth acknowledge that I have proved what I undertake to prove that there is no Impossibility there is no Contradiction nor Inconsistence with Reason that Three somewhats may be One God he ought to acquiesce therein and acknowledge that I have done my Work For when the Controversy was divided into two Branches Whether the thing be True and whether it be Possible and it was the latter of the two that I undertook If I have shewed It is not impossible which this Answerer doth grant that I have done I have done the work that I undertook And if this be once agreed it goes a great way as to the other Branch That the thing is True For I find the last Result of our Adversaries when they are close pressed is commonly this It is Impossible It is Absurd It is Non-sense It is Inconsistent with Reason and therefore it cannot be True And that therefore a Force no matter how great must be put upon the Words which do how expresly soever affirm it to make them signify somewhat else than what they plainly do signify then to admit it And if I have as is now confessed destroyed this last Reserve let them press this point no more Or if they will retract this grant let the next Answerer keep to this point to prove it Impossible or Inconsistent with Reason and not ramble out into other discourses which are nothing to the purpose of what I proposed to prove Amongst his other Concessions I shall reckon that in pag. 14. where he argues from Joh. 16. 13. That there is between the Father Son and Holy Ghost a Distinction so great as that they may not unfitly be called Three Persons where I observe also that he owns the Personality of the Holy-Ghost as of the Father and of the Son 'T is true indeed he seems to make the Distinction between them Greater than I do But I thus far agree with him That there is in Truth a Distinction and that more than Imaginary or what depends only upon our Imagination and Greater than that of
are too mean too familiar He expected somewhat higher somewhat more distinct p. 5. I see it is as hard a matter to please my two Answerers as to serve two Masters The one complains my Simile's are not familiar enough the other that they are too familiar he expected somewhat more sublime These do not prove that a Trinity in Unity is necessary to the perfection of the Godhead p. 6. True These alone do not prove that there is a Trinity in Unity in the Godhead much less do they prove that a Trinity in Unity is necessary to the perfection of the Godhead Nor were they brought to prove it They were brought to prove There is no Inconsistence but that there may be a Trinity in the Unity of the Godhead And if they prove thus much he perhaps may have cause to be Ashamed but I see no reason why I should be Ashamed or any one for me Now that they prove thus much he hath already granted That a thing may be one and three in divers respects And that 't is no contradiction to hold that there May be Three Persons in God They have proved therefore what they were brought to prove But says he p. 5. Our Debate is not Whether there May be three Persons in God Yes our Debate is whether there May be Not whether there Be. And he knows the Question was so stated by me and so acknowledg'd by himself upon this single point whether there be any Impossibility in it And so owned by himself p. 1. not whether it be so for this I had before said was not to be argued upon the Topick of Reason alone but whether it be agreeable to the common notions of Humane Reason that it May be so And if this were the Question as he owns and this be proved as he owns also Then I have proved what I undertook to prove And have no reason to be Ashamed either of the Undertaking or of the Proof 'T is our new Answerer who doth wittingly and willingly mis-state the Question that is at cross purposes while he applies those Arguments to one point which he knows were brought to prove another which point himself grants to be proved He cannot say there is a Contradiction in it pag. 6. and then complains that they alone do not prove what they were never brought to prove Of like nature is that other point where he tells us that we do now venture to prove it to be agreeable to the common notions of humane Reason that is not Inconsistent with it And we do so But he would have it thought that it is but now of late that any have presumed to this confidence pag. 1 2. and would have us content modestly to acknowledge it a meer mystery and to rely upon the Authority of the Church and Tradition without pretending that it is agreeable to Reason Now that there is in it a Mystery we readily grant and so there is in the whole Doctrine of our Redemption God manifested in the Flesh c. 1 Tim. 3. 16. as that which without Revelation we could not have found out by meer Reason And that it is above Reason that is more than what Reason alone could have taught us But not that it is Against Reason or Inconsistent with it This is not the Doctrine of the Trinitarians nor ever was that I know of Nor is it Tradition only or the Church's Authority but the Authority of Scripture that we rely upon which is a True not a lying Revelation Nor is it as he pretends a new Doctrine not raised till several hundred years after Christ as if the Doctrine were to be dated from the time of penning the Athanasian Creed but as old at least as the New Testament and never contested that I know of till several hundred years after Christ when the Arians arose But here again my Answerers are not agreed So hard it is to please them both While one complains 't is but of late the other tells me 't is old-fashioned in his p. 9 Thus Dr. Wallis may see that his Notions concerning the Trinity are old-fashioned not of a new mode And truly I take him to be more in the right that 't is not a new quirk but old-fashioned Doctrine and I like it never the worse for being so As to what I have said of Joh. 17. 3. it is more than Forty years and well towards Fifty since I first Preached it in London on that Text as I have since done there and elsewhere more than once and I did not then take it to be New but what I had been always Taught And as to that of the three dimensions in a Cube it is Forty years or more since I first discoursed it at Oxford with Dr. Ward then Astronomy-Professor there and since Bishop of Salisbury And as to the Doctrine in general of Three Persons in One God it is no Newer than the New Testament But here again our Answerer forsakes the Question For the Question is not Whether it be a New or Old Adventure but whether it be Inconsistent with Reason that Three May be One or as he words it p. 3. that a Trinity in Unity is absurd Another piece of the same Art it is where my word of Personality is by him changed for Personation p. 5 6. For which I would not have quarrelled with him if by changing the Word he had not meant to change the Sense also For to personate a Man he tells us p. 6. is but to compose ones Actions in Likeness of him and that one cannot personate three together but one after another But my Personality he knows is more than this Personation It is not only Acting a Person but Being a Person A Man may successively Personate or Act the Person of a King and a Father without being either This or That But when the same Man IS both a King and a Father which he may be at the same time as well as successively this is more than only to Act them And if by Personation he mean no more than Acting a Person I wonder how he can tell us p. 5. That Personation is the greatest Perfection of Being and that he never could apprehend any other real Unity but Personation What No real Unity but acting a Person by imitation Sure there is The Bottom and Top and Middle of a Mountain are one Mountain Yet I do not take Mount Atlas to be a Person or to Act a person much less to become One Mountain by Personation or Acting a Person Of like nature is it where to do me a kindness he will state my Cube more to my purpose p. 5. meaning the contrary But how In a Marble Cube may be two Accidents Hardness and Coldness There may be so But what then Then he says here are Three Cubes more for me He would have it thought I suppose that I had before discoursed of Three Cubes whereas I spoke but of One Cube under three Dimensions and
he will now help me to another Three But he is out again For the Cold Cube the Hard Cube and the Marble Cube are but One Cube not Three Cubes 'T is the same Cube that is Cold and Hard and Marble It would have been much the same if instead of a Cube he had taken a Marble Bowl or Ball and then told me 'T is Cold and Hard and Round True And yet it is but One Bowl not Three Bowls One Ball not Three Balls And what is there in all this of Inconsistent Absurdity It seems to me very Consistent not Absurd and it suits my Notion very well But says he p. 5. not to suppose the simile altogether impertinent very well yet it is in our case Why in our case For our Debate he says is not whether there May not be three persons in God Yes That is our Debate And the true state of the Question All his other Excursions are beside the Question But the simile though not impertinent is yet he says most Absurd because not Adequate and it is a general rule with him p. 6. where he brings a simile to have it Adequate that it may really prove the matter designed Now that my Simile's are not Adequate so as to prove all that is to be said of God or the Blessed Trinity I had told him at first and more than once and that they were not intended so to be and I tell him now that I did purposely make choice of such as were a great way off that it might not seem as if I would have them thought to be Adequate as to all that is to be said of the Trinity And as to the Rule he goes by perhaps it may be his Method where much is to be proved to prove it all at once and take all Arguments to be Absurd which do not at once prove All. But we who are conversant in Cubes and Demonstrations as he phraseth it think fit sometimes to use another Method and where much is to be proved to proceed by steps We first propose one thing and prove that then another and prove that and so on And if what be brought to prove the first step do prove what it is brought to prove we do not say The Argument is Absurd because it doth not prove all at once But That it is a Good Argument so far And I think if he will here give me leave to use a Simile which is not Adequate it is a Method used by other Men as well as Mathematicians For if a Man be to mount a pair of Stairs we do not say The first step is Absurd because that alone doth not bring him to the Top or if to go a Journey That the first step is Absurd because it doth not bring him to his Journeys End But the first step brings him so Far and the second somewhat farther and so on till step by step he comes to the Top or to his Journeys End Now there being divers Points concerned in the Doctrine of the Trinity I stated my Question not so as to prove all at once but singled out this one Point That it is not Inconsistent with Reason or to use his own words it is agreeable to the common Notions of humane Reasoning That what in one consideration are Three May in another Consideration be One and that there May be three somewhat 's which are one God But whether indeed there be so is Another step and whether these somewhat 's may fitly be called Persons is yet Another Now if I have made good my first step my Argument or Simile is not only not altogether impertinent but neither is it most Absurd yea not Absurd at all because it proves what it was brought to prove And that so it doth himself allows and tells us plainly p. 3. He cannot say there is a Contradiction in holding that there May be Three Persons in God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I find he would fain be upon another Point p. 4. and draw me to it A Point not to be argued upon the Topick of Reason only for Reason alone can go no further than to prove it Possible or not Inconsistent but to be argued from Scripture and Divine Revelations whether indeed there are three somewhats which we call Persons that are but One God But this I have told him already is Beside the Question which I undertook And in this it is He that is the Aggressor not I and I only upon the Defence Yet because he is so desirous of it I am content to go somewhat out of my way to wait on him and to hear what he hath to say why we should think that Is not which he confesseth May be without any Contradiction to natural Reason And I shall take notice as I go along what it is wherein we Agree as well as wherein we Differ That so we may not quarrel about what is Agreed between us He begins with the First Commandment p. 1 2 3 4. And seems mightily to dread the Guilt of Idolatry in admitting more Gods than one our Case is we are afraid of Idolatry p. 9. contrary to this Commandment of having no other God And so I would have him be But we shall find this Fear will be over with him by and by What says he was that Commandment made for What! to prevent Polytheism Why how is that to be done By denying many Gods If it be not made to deny personal Gods 't is made to no purpose And soon after with some indignation What! is the Divinity of Christ implied in the New Testament 't is denied in the First Commandment And p. 9. Pray what Scripture shall we regard in competition with this Commandment written by the Finger of God and one of the only Precepts he himself immediately delivered Now I am so far from disliking his Zeal for the First Commandment that I do perfectly agree with what I find in that Commandment I am the Lord Thy God the Lord God of Israel Thou shalt have No other God but Me. And this I shall desire Him to remember by and by He may add that of Deut. 6 7. for in this I agree also Hear O Israel the Lord our God the Lord God of Israel is one Lord. And that of Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord Thy God the Lord God of Israel and Him only shalt thou serve And that of 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but One God And as many more places as he pleases to that purpose And from all these I do agree that we are to have but one God and no more not two Gods No other God than the Lord God of Israel That we are to Worship Him alone and none else not Sathan not the god of Ekron not any God or Man or Angel who is not the Lord God of Israel For all this I grant to be there fully Taught And I am willing to put as great weight upon this solemn set Precept
doth deservedly lay so great a stress as we heard before What was it made for if not to prevent Polytheism How shall it be done but by denying many Gods If not to deny Personal Gods it is made to no purpose How is it consistent with that First Commandment that solemn and set Precept of the First Commandment that was delivered by God himself written by the Finger of God and never Abrogated to bring in New Persons to Add Persons one or more to this Only God though particularly prohibited and not Break it What! Is the Divinity of Christ implied in the New Testament It is denied in the First Commandment if he be not the same God who is there meant And Pray what Scripture shall we regard in competition with this Commandment With more to the same purpose Whether he will make use of the Popish distinction of Latria and Doulia for his Two Gods not Co-equal I cannot tell But the Commandment says expresly Thou shalt have NO OTHER God but Me Equal or Unequal Nor doth this Error end here as he proceeds For our Adversaries are not always so lucky as to see Consequences For should some Revelation such as he says is not impossible deify more Men than ever the Heathen did here 's no fence left Here 's room enough to thrust in his Jupiter Bacchus Venus c. of which he tells us p. 8. And 't is in vain he tells us in such a case to pretend that the number would be of offence to us For if we consider aright there is no more reason for one number than another And he thinks that if there be more than one it is more honourable they should be Infinites because all between one and infinite is Imperfect With much more of like nature Of all which I know not what better to think than that he had forgot all this when afterwards at p. 17. he will have these two Gods as he calls them to wit the Father and the Word not to be One but Two and Separate Nor will it excuse the matter to say That this Other God is not Co-equal with the Father For at this rate the Polytheism or many Gods of the Heathen would be excused as out of the reach of this Commandment For they did not make All their Gods Co-equal to their great Jupiter nor perhaps any of them Equal to Our God But Jupiter was their God Paramount and the rest were either Middling Gods or Lesser Gods But yet this did not excuse them from Polytheism and Idolatry within the reach of the First Commandment For that Commandment that Unrepealed Law forbids All other Gods whether Equal or Unequal The Leeks and Onions in Egypt which are said to have been there Worshipped as well as the Calves at Dan and Bethel Nor is it less Idolatry nor less within the reach of this Commandment to Worship the god of Ekron because not Co-equal to the God of Israel We therefore chuse to say That Christ is indeed God as he is expresly called Joh. 1. 1. The Word was with God and the Word was God and Hebr. 1. 8. Thy Throne O God endureth for ever And in many other places and not only a Man extraordinarily Assisted by God as this Answerer grants also at p. 14. That he was in the Beginning and in the Beginning was with God Joh. 1. 1 2. and therefore was pre-existent before his Incarnation and did not then Begin to Be. That he was in the Beginning and All things were made by Him and without him was not any thing made that was made that the World was made by Him Joh. 1. 3. 10. and is therefore the same God who in the beginning Created the Heaven and the Earth Gen. 1. 1. That of Him it is said Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the Works of Thy hands Heb. 1. 8 10. cited out of Psal. 102. 25. and is therefore the same God to whom that long Prayer Psal. 102. was made and of whom so many great things are there said and which cannot belong to any but the Supreme God And no doubt but when this was there said by the Psalmist he meant it of that God who in the beginning created the Heaven and the Earth Gen. 1. 1. That he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Being above All things or the Supreme Being God Blessed for ever or the Ever-blessed God Rom. 9. 5. which are Titles too High for any lower than the Supreme God That what is said of God indefinitely as contra-distinguished from Christ in particular Rev. 1. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From him which Is and which Was and which is to Come or which Shall be and from Jesus Christ c. is particularly applied to Jesus Christ as his Character Ver. 8. I am Alpha and Omega the Beginning and the Ending saith the Lord he that Liveth and was Dead and Liveth for evermore Ver. 16. which Is and Was and is to Come the Almighty That he is the True God 1 Joh. 5. 20. and therefore the same God with the Father who is the Only True God Joh. 17. 3. and no other True God but what he is That He and the Father are one Joh. 10. 30. That the Father and the Word and the Spirit these Three are One 1 Joh. 5. 7. And Christ not another God but the same God manifested in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory 1. Tim. 3. 16. Now I know not well what could be said more at least what more need be said to make the Point clear Or what Character he can reasonably desire more by which to describe the Almighty Supreme God and the same God with the Father He is God the True God the Only true God for there can be but One God that is the Only true God One with the Father One with the Father and Holy-Ghost the Eternal God who Is and Was and Shall be who when the Heavens and the Earth shall wax-â—old as a Garment He is the same and his years shall not fail the Almighty the Mighty God the Eternal Father the God who in the beginning made the World who made All things and without whom not any thing was made that was made who in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the works of his hands who is the Son of God the Begotten of the Father the Only-begotten of the Father and therefore of the same Nature with the Father however not the same Person or not under that Consideration Nor can he say This is Impossible a Contradiction or Inconsistent with Reason and that therefore though the Words be Clear and Plain yet we must seek out some Other sence to be Forced upon them For this Point is already Gained and he doth Confess it p. 3. that there is no Contradiction in holding that there may
be Three Persons in God And if there be no Contradiction in it why should we be afraid to say what in Scripture is said so plainly Or why should we set up Two Gods where One will serve and when the Scripture says There is but One He 'll say perhaps God made the World by Christ. And we say so too But not as by a Tool or Instrument as he would have it p. 17. but rather as by his Power or Wisdom But the Power and Wisdom of God are not Things diverse from God himself but Are Himself Much less are they different Gods from God himself And even amongst us the Power and Wisdom of a Man are not Things distinct from the Man in that sense wherein the Words Thing and Mode are contra-distinguished much less are they distinct Men from the Man whose Power and Wisdom they are The Man and his Wisdom the Man and his Power are not distinguished ut res res as the Schools speak but ut res modus And Power and Wisdom in the same Man ut modus modus For though a Man may subsist without Wisdom but God cannot yet Wisdom cannot subsist without somewhat that is Wise nor This Man's Wisdom without the Man and therefore this Wisdom according to the School-distinction must be Modus and not Res. And the like of Power So that if we say that Christ is the Power of God or the Wisdom of God as he is called 1 Cor. 1. 24. and that God by his Power and Wisdom made the World it doth not follow that this Power or Wisdom of God is another God from God himself but God and his Wisdom or God and his Power are God himself Consonant to this it is where it is said Col. 2. 3. In him are hid all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge And perhaps it is this Divine Wisdom who tells us Prov. 8. 22 23 27. The Lord possessed Me in the Beginning of his ways I was from Everlasting from the beginning When he prepared the Heavens I was there and much more to the same purpose So the Holy Ghost is called the Power of God Luk. 1. 35. The Holy-Ghost shall come upon Thee and the Power of the Highest shall over-shadow Thee Now shall we say Because God is Wise in heart and Mighty in Strength Job 9. 4. or Because by his Wisdom and Power he made the World Therefore his Wisdom and his Power are distinct Gods from himself Or if we should say that God as the Fountain of Being may be called the Father and the same God as the Fountain of Wisdom be called the Son and as the Fountain of Power be called the Holy-Ghost There is nothing of this that is Inconsistent with Reason but very Agreeable with the common Notions of Humane Reasoning and yet all these however under divers Considerations are but One God But here I must caution again for I find people are willing to Mistake or mis-apply what I say That I do not set down this as the Adequate Distinction between the Three Persons for this I do not pretend throughly to Understand but only that it is not Inconsistent with Reason that it May be so And that there is no necessity upon this account to set up Another God Or we may say much to the same purpose that God by his Word and Spirit made the World and yet that his Word and his Spirit are not therefore Distinct Gods from Himself And we have them all mentioned in the story of the Creation God created the Heaven and the Earth Gen. 1. 1. The SPIRIT of God moved upon the face of the waters ver 2. And God SAID or spake the Word Let there be Light c. Ver. 3 6 9 11 14 20 24. And Ver. 26. Let US make Man And Psal. 33. 6 9. By the WORD of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the SPIRIT or BREATH of his Mouth He SPAKE and it was done He Commanded and it stood fast And to the like purpose Psal. 148. 5. Job 26. 13. Yet are they not Three Gods but rather Three somewhats which are but One God I have insisted the longer on this because I do not know but that through the Grace of God such a discourse as this may have a like effect on him or some of his Party as that of Wittichius had on his Friend Sandius And I have Argued it Calmly I have used no scurrillous Language nor given any Reproachful terms I do not oppress him with the Authority of Fathers or Councils but with Scripture only and Plain Reason And it seems to me so clear that if they cannot see it it is from some other reason than from want of Clearness As to what I have said for Explication of the Athanasian Creed though I cannot expect he should approve of that Creed while he retains his Opinion I do not find that he takes any great Exceptions to what I say of it He doth not like the Words Trinity in Unity as Foreign and Unscriptural p. 19. He may if that will please him better put it into plainer English and call it Three in One and then the Words are Scriptural These Three are One. The Possibility of Gods being Incarnate he doth not Deny Only he likes the Arian Incarnation better than Ours He seems well pleased p. 19 20. That I do not possitively Affirm This Creed to be written by Athanasius That I do not Anathematize the Greek Church That I do not Damn all Children Fools Madmen and all before Christ as he tells us some Rigid Irinitarians I know not who have done too often That I own the word Person to be but Metaphorical which at p. 7. he did not like which I will not disoblige him by Unsaying Where it is that I have blamed the Fathers I do not remember For I think the Fathers do concur in this That there is a Distinction between the Three which we call Persons greater than that between the Divine Attributes but not such as to make them Three Gods And that by calling them Persons they mean no more And I say the same I shall conclude with this Observation upon the whole He was at the Beginning of his Discourse a Direct Socinian Dreading the guilt of Idolatry in having more Gods than One as contrary to the First Commandment And therein I agree with him But Denied the Divinity of Christ as the Socinians do And thus he continues till toward the end of p. 10. But then begins silently to tack about and after a while doth with as much earnestness Affirm the Divinity of Christ as he had before Denied it that Christ was God from the Beginning before the World was that he was afterward Incarnate and became Man and as God and Man Redeemed us c. And here he is Orthodox again But then tells us that this God is not the same God or Co-equal with the Father but another God And at length tells us plainly that there are at least Two Gods to wit the Father and the Word for now the Fear of having more Gods than One is over with him and is by this time a perfect Arian And he who from a Socinian is thus turn'd Arian may at the next turn for ought I know turn Orthodox In order to which I would advise him to keep to the sound part of his first Opinion while he was a Socinian namely That we ought to acknowledge and Worship but One God And the sound part of his second Opinion when he was turned Arian namely That Christ the Word was God from the Beginning before the World was that he was afterward Incarnate and so became God and Man that as such he Suffered Died and wrought out our Redemption that the Merits of his Sufferings are founded on his Godhead which otherwise would not have been meritorious if he were only a Man however extraordinarily assisted by God And when he hath so joined these two together as to make them Consistent he will be therein Orthodox And if to these Two he add a Third which he owns also namely that there is no Contradiction in holding there may be Three Persons in God he will then be able to Answer all the Cavils which either the Arian or the Socinian shall bring against it FINIS