the phrase Filioque that they are so ready to quarrel at this Creed rather than the Nicene but from some other reason and most likely because the Doctrine of the Trinity is here more fully expressed than in that at which the Socinian is most offended I observe also That these Personal Properties are expressed just by the Scripture words Beget Begotten Proceeding without affixing any sence of our own upon them but leaving them to be understood in such sence as in the Scripture they are to be understood Agreeable to that modest Caution which is proper in such Mysteries It follows So there is One Father not three Fathers One Son not three Sons One Holy Ghost not three Holy Ghosts And in this Trinity none is afore or after other That is not in Time though in Order None is greater or less than another But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 truly persons or properly persons and co-eternal each with other and co-equal Having thus finished these particular Explications or Illustrations concerning the Trinity without any condemning Clause of those who think otherwise other than what is there included namely that if this be True the contrary must be an Errour He then resumes the General as after a long Parenthesis So that in all things as is aforesaid the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be Worshipped And to this General annexeth this Ratification He therefore that will he saved must thus think of the Trinity or thus ought to think of the Trinity or Let him thus think of the Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to this I suppose we do all agree who believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be true For if the thing be true those who would be saved ought to believe it He then proceeds to the Doctrine of the Incarnation Which he declares in general as necessary to salvation Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Iesus Christ. Which is no more than that of Iohn 3. 36. He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him And therefore we may safely say this also There being no other Name under Heaven whereby we must be saved neither is there Salvation in any other Acts 4. 12. After this as before he had done of the Doctrine of the Trinity he gives first a general Assertion of his being God and Man and then a particular Illustration of his Incarnation For the right Faith is that we believe and confess That our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man What follows is a further Explication of this General God of the substance of the Father begotten before the Worlds And Man of the substance of his Mother born in the World Perfect God and perfect Man of a reasonable Soul and humane Flesh subsisting Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and Inferiour to the Father as touching his Manhood Who although he be God and Man yet he is not Two but One Christ. One not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God One altogether not by Confusion of Substance but by Unity of Person For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one Man so God and Man is One Christ. And thus far as to the Description of Christ's Person and Natures The Particulars of which I take to be all true and therefore such as ought to be believed when understood But such many of them as persons of ordinary capacities and not acquainted with School Terms may not perhaps understand Nor was it I presume the meaning of the Pen-man of this Creed that it should be thought necessary to Salvation that every one should particularly understand all this but at most that when understood it should not be disbelieved That in the general being most material That Iesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man the rest being but Explicatory of this Which Explications though they be all true are not attended with any such clause as if without the explicite knowledge of all these a man could not be saved He then proceeds to what Christ hath done for our Salvation and what he is to do further at the last Judgment with the Consequents thereof Who Suffered for our Salvation Descended into Hell Rose again the third day from the Dead That Clause of descending into Hell or Hades 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we meet with here and in the Apostles Creed as it is now read is not in the Nicene Creed nor was it anciently as learned Men seem to be agreed in what we call the Apostles Creed When or how it first came in I cannot well tell Nor will I undertake here to determine the sence of it The Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek Hades which here we translate Hell by which word we now-a-days use to denote the Place of the Damned was anciently used to signifie sometime the Grave sometime the Place State or Condition of the Dead whether good or bad And when Iob prays Iob 14. 13. O that thou wouldst hide me in Sheol as in the Hebrew or in Hades as in the Greek Septuagint certainly he did not desire to be in what we now call Hell but rather as we there translate it in the Grave or the condition of those that are Dead But what it should signifie here is not well agreed among learned Men. The Papists generally because that is subservient to some of their beloved Tenents would have it here to signifie the Place of the Damned and would have it thought that the Soul of Christ during the time his Body lay in the Grave was amongst the Devils and Damned Souls in Hell Others do with more likelyhood take it for the Grave or condition of the Dead and take this of Christ's descending into Hades to be the same with his being Buried or lying in the Grave The rather because in the Nicene Creed where is mention of his being Buried there is no mention of his descent into Hell or Hades And here in the Athanasian Creed where mention is made of this there is no mention of his being Buried as if the same were meant by both phrases which therefore need not be repeated And though in the Apostles Creed there be now mention of both yet anciently it was not so that of his descent into Hell being not to be sound in ancient Copies of the Apostles Creed If it signifie any thing more than his being Buried it seems most likely to import his Continuance in the Grave or the State and Condition of the Dead for some time And the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say nothing of his coming out of Hell but only of his rising from the Dead But the words here stand undetermined to any particular sence
and so they do in the Apostles Creed and are so also in the Articles of our Church Where it is only said because in the Creed it stands so That we are to believe That he descended into Hell without affixing any particular sence to it The words doubtless have respect to that of Acts 2. 27. where Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell or Hades nor suffer thine Holy One to see Corruption is applied to Christ cited out of Psal. 16. 10. where the same had before been spoken of David And his not being left in Hades seems to suppose his having been for some time in Hades whatever by Hades is there meant And Verse 31. his being not so left is expresly expounded of his Resurrection And so again in Acts 13. 35. Now as we have no reason to think that David's being in Hell or Sheol though not to be left there can signifie his being in Hell among the Devils and damned Spirits but rather in the Grave or the Condition of the Dead so neither that Christ's being in Hell or Hades which is the Greek word answering to the Hebrew Sheol should signifie any other than His being in the Grave or condition of the Dead from whence by his Resurrection he was delivered And to this purpose seems that whole Discourse of Peter Acts 2. 24 32. and of Paul Acts 13. 30 37. But without determining it to any particular sence the Creed leaves the word Hell indefinitely here to be understood in the same sence what ever it be in which it is to be understood Acts 2. 27 31. and Psal. 16. 10. And so far we are safe It follows Hâ—â—scended into Heaven He sitteth on the right hand of the Father God Almighty From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead At whose coming all men shall rise again with their Bodies and shall give account for their own Works And they that have done Good shall go into Life everlasting and they that have done Evil into everlasting Fire Of all which there is no doubt but that it ought to be believed Ending with This is the Catholick Faith That is this is true and sound Doctrine and such as every true Christian ought to believe And as he had begun all with a general Preface so now he closeth all with a general Conclusion Which Catholick Faith except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved That is the Doctrine here delivered is true and so I think it is in all the parts of it and is part of the Catholick Faith The whole of which Faith is the whole Word of God That is part of that Faith which all true Christians do and ought to Believe Which Catholick Faith the whole of which is the whole Word of God except a man so qualified as I before expressed do believe faithfully that is except he truly believe it as to the Substantials of it though possibly he may be ignorant of many particulars therein he cannot without such Repentance as God shall accept of be saved Which so limitted as it ought to be I take to be sound Doctrine and agreeable to that of Iohn 3. 16. He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God And Ver. 36. He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him That is according to the words of this Creed he that believeth not aright of God and Christ cannot be saved Which words of Christ we may safely interpret both with an aspect on the Doctrine of the Trinity because of those words the only Begotten Son of God and to that of the Incarnation of Christ and the Consequents thereof because of those words in the beginning of the Discourse Ver. 16 17 God so loved the World that he Gave his only Begotten Son c. and God sent his Son into the world that the world through him might be saved Which are the two main Points insisted on in the Athanasian Creed And he who doth not Believe on the Name of this only Begotton Son of God and thus sent into the world the Text tells us shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Which fully agrees with what is here said Except a man believe the Catholick Faith of which the Doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation are there intimated and are here expressed to be considerable Branches he cannot be saved And what Limitations or Mitigations are to be understood in the one place are reasonably to be allowed as understood in the other And consequently those Damnatory Clauses as they are called in the Athanasian Creed rightly understood are not so formidable as some would pretend as if because of them the whole Creed ought to be laid aside For in brief it is but thus The Preface and the Epilogue tell us That whoso would be saved it is necessary or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ought to hold the Catholick Faith Which Faith except he keep whole and undefiled or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 safe and inviolate he shall perish everlastingly or which except he believe faithfully he cannot be saved Which is no more severe than that of our Saviour Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not shall be damned He then inserts a large Declaration of the Catholick Faith especially as to two main Points of it that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation And if all he there declares be true as I think it is we have then no reason to quarrel with it upon that account But he doth not say That a man cannot be saved who doth not Know or Understand every particular thereof Of the First he says but this He that would be saved ought thus to think or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him thus think of the Trinity namely That the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity ought to be Worshipped Of the Second what he says is this Furthermore it is necessary to Eternal Salvation That he believe aright the Incarnation of our Lord Iesus Christ Which is no more severe than that of our Saviour He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God whom God hath sent into the world that the world through him might be saved John 3. 17 18 36. Beside these there are no Damnatory Clauses in the whole All the rest are but Declaratory And if what he declares be true we have no reason to find fault with such Declaration Now as to those two Points that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation which are the only Points in question there is a double Inquiry as I have elsewhere shewed Whether the things be Possible and whether they be True The Possibility may be argued from Principles of Reason The Truth of them from Revelation only And it is not
AN Explication and Vindication OF THE Athanasian Creed IN A Third LETTER Pursuant of Two former Concerning the Sacred Trinity TOGETHER With a POSTSCRIPT in Answer to another LETTER By IOHN WALLIS D. D. LONDON Printed for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside 1691. AN EXPLICATION and VINDICATION OF THE Athanasian Creed SIR IN pursuance of what I have said in a former Letter concerning what we commonly call the Athanasian Creed it may not be amiss to express it a little more distinctly We call it commonly the Athanasian Creed not that we are certain it was penned just in this form by Athanasius himself for of this I find that learned men are doubtful but it was penned either by himself or by some other about that time according to the mind and doctrine of Athanasius In like manner as what we call the Apostles Creed we take to be penned very anciently according to what Doctrine the Apostles had taught them though not perhaps in those very words But whoever was the Compiler whether Athanasius himself or some other of the Athanasian Creed I suppose the Damnatory Sentences as they are called therein were not by him intended to be understood with that Rigor that some would now insinuate who because perhaps they do not like the main Doctrines of that Creed are willing to disparage it by representing it to the greatest disadvantage they can as if it were intended That whoever doth not explicitely and distinctly know and understand and assent to all and every clause and syllable therein could not be saved Which I suppose neither the Author did intend nor any other sober person would affirm But that the Doctrine therein delivered concerning God and Christ is sound and true Doctrine in it self and ought as to the substance of it to be believed as such by all persons of Age and Capacity and who have opportunity of being well informed in it who do expect salvation by Christ at least so far as not to disbelieve the substance of it when understood There being no other ordinary way to be saved that we know of than that by the Knowledge and Faith of God in Christ. But what measures God will take in cases extraordinary as of Infancy Incapacity Invincible Ignorance or the like is not the thing there intended to be declared nor is it necessary for us to know but to leave it rather to the Wisdom and Counsel of God whose Iudgments are unsearchable and his Ways past finding out Rom. 11. 33. Much less do I suppose that he intended to extend the necessity of such explicite Knowledge to the Ages before Christ. For many things may be requisite to be explicitely Known and Believed by us to whom the Gospel is revealed which was not so to them before the Veil was taken away from Moses face and Immortality brought to light through the Gospel 2 Cor. 3. 13 14. 2 Tim. 1. 10. Nor are we always to press words according to the utmost rigor that they are possibly capable of but according to such equitable sence as we use to allow to other Homiletical Discourses and which we have reason to believe to have been the true meaning of him whose words they are And I have the more reason to press for such equitable construction because I observe those hard Clauses as they are thought to be annexed only to some Generals and not to be extended as I conceive to every Particular in the Explication of those Generals It begins thus Whosoever will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith Where before all things is as much as Imprimis importing that it is mainly necessary or a principal requisite to Believe aright especially concerning God and Christ. Which as to persons of Years and Discretion and who have the opportunity of being duly Instructed I think is generally allowed by all of us to be necessary as to the Substantials of Religion in the ordinary way of salvation without disputing what God may do in extraordinary Cases or how far God may be pleased upon a general Repentance as of Sins unknown to pardon some culpable Misbelief It follows Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without doubt he shall perish everlastingly That is as I conceive Unless a person so qualified and so capacitated as I before expressed do keep it whole or sound as to the Substantials of it though possibly he may be ignorant of some Particulars of the true Faith and undefiled or intemerate without adding thereunto or putting such a sence upon such Substantials as shall be destructive thereof shall except he repent perish everlastingly Which I think is no more than that of Mar. 16. 16. He that Believeth not shall be Damned And what Limitations or Mitigations are there to be allowed are by the same equity to be allowed in the present Clause before us Which therefore may in this true sence be safely admitted And here I think fit to observe That whereas there may be an ambiguity in the English word whole which sometime signifies totus and sometime sanus or salvus it is here certainly to be understood in the latter sence as answering to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 totam but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanam or salvam And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to keep the Faith salvam intemeratam which is translated whole and undefiled might to the same sence be rendered safe and sound Now a man may well be said to be safe and sound notwithstanding a Wart or a Wen or even a Hurt or Maim so long as the Vitals be not endangered And so of the Catholick Faith or Christian Doctrine so long as there is nothing destructive of the main Substantials or Fundamentals of it though possibly there may be an Ignorance or Mistake as to some particulars of lesser moment After this Preface between it and the Conclusion or Epilogue there follows indeed a large Exposition of what he declares to be the Catholick Faith That is to be some Part of it For I take the whole Scripture to be the Catholick Faith whereof this Collection is but a part beginning with The Catholick Faith is this And Ending with This is the Catholick Faith But it is not said That except a man Know and Believe every particular of that Explication he shall perish eternally but only Except he keep the Catholick Faith as to the Substantials of it safe and sound For doubtless there may be many Particulars of Catholick Faith contained in the Word of God which a man may be ignorant of and yet be saved It is True That the Name of our Saviour's Mother was Mary and the Name of the Judge who condemned him was Pontius Pilate and both these are put into what we call the Apostles Creed and are part of the Catholick Faith and which supposing that we know them to
doth thence repute it impossible for an Immaterial Being to move a Body But we who believe the Soul to be a a Spirit know it to be possible Much more is it possible for God though a Being infinitely Act. 17 25 27 28. more pure who giveth to all Life and Breath and All things and in whom we Live and Move and have our Being and who is not far from every one of us It would be hard for us to give an intelligible account either how God moves all things or how our Soul moves the Body yet we are sure it is so That a Body may move a Body seems not so strange to apprehend for we see one Engine move another But by what Mechanism shall a Spirit give Motion to a Body when at rest or Stop it when in Motion or Direct its Motions this way or that way It would be thought strange that a Thought of ours should Move a stone And it is as hard to conceive did we not see it daily How a Thought should put our Body in Motion and another Thought stop it again Yet this we see done every day though we know not How And it is almost the same thing in other Animals And more yet when an Angel assumes a Body There are none of these things we know How and yet we know they are done I shall press this a little farther Our Soul we all believe doth after Death continue to exist in a separate condition from the Body And I think we have reason to believe also that it will continue to Act as an Intellectual Agent not to remain in a stupid sensless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Else I see not why Paul should desire to depart or to be dissolved and to be with Christ which is far better rather than to abide in Flesh. For while he abides in the Flesh he hath some enjoyment of Christ as well as an opportunity of doing some Service which is more desirable if when he is departed he have none at all And how can he then say That to Dye is gain Whether the Soul thus separated shall be said to have a Subsistence as well as an Existence Or whether it may be properly said then to be an intire Person as the Soul and Body are before Death and after the Resurrection I will not Dispute because that were to contend about Words and such Words so signify as we please to define them and bear such a Sence as we please to put upon them But it is as the Angels are an Intellectual Spiritual Agent and we use to say Actiones sunt Suppositorum and Suppositum Rationale is either a Person or so near a Person that it would be so if men please to call it so And the Spiritual Being which doth now separately Exist shall at the Resurrection resume a Body into the same Personality with it self and shall with it become one Person as before Death it had been Now if a Spiritual Immaterial Intellectual Being separately existent by it self and separately acting as an Intellectual Agent may at the Resurrection assume or reassume a Material Corporeal Being Heterogeneous to it self into the same Personality with it self or so as to become one Person with it while yet it self remains Spiritual as before What should hinder for it is but one step further but that a Divine Person may assume Humanity into the same personality with it self without ceasing to be a Divine Person as before it was If it be said That Person and Personality in the Sacred Trinity are not just the same as what we so call in other cases It is granted and by these words which are but Metaphorical we mean no more but somewhat analogous thereunto and which because of such analogy we so call as knowing no better words to use instead thereof According as we use the words Father Son generate beget and the like in a metaphorical sence when applied to God For no words borrowed from Created Beings can signifie just the same when applied to God as when they were applied to Men but somewhat analogous thereunto And if the Soul though we know not How may and do at the Resurrection assume a Body so as to become the same Person with it self though neither the Body be thereby made a Soul nor the Soul a Body but remain as before that a Body and this a Soul though now united into one Person Why may not a Divine Person assume Humanity so to be what is analogous to what we call a Person the Humanity remaining Humanity and the Divinity remaining Divinity though both united in One Christ though we do not particularly know How We should be at a great loss if to answer an Atheist or one who doth not believe the Scriptures we were put to it to tell him How God made the World Of what Matter With what Tools or Engines or How a Pure Spirit could produce Matter where none was He would tell us perhaps Ex nihilo nihil in nihilum nil posse reverti Where nothing is nothing can be made and what once is though it may be changed can never become Nothing And will never believe the World was made but rather was from all Eternity except we can tell him How it was made Now if in this case we may satisfie our selves though perhaps it will not satisfie him by saying God made it but we know not How The same must satisfie us here That Christ was Incarnate God and Man we are certain for so the Scripture doth assure us as well as That God made the World But How God made the World or How the Son of God assumed Humanity we cannot tell Nor indeed is it fit for us to enquire farther than God is pleased to make known to us All further than this are but the subtile Cob-webs of our Brain Fine but not Strong Witty Conjectures How it may be rather than a clear Resolution How it is Another Objection I have met with to which the Objecters must be contented with the same Answer We know it Is but we know not How It would be endless for us and too great a Curiosity to think our selves able fully to explicate all the Hidden things of God The Objection is this Since the Three Persons cannot be Divided How is it possible that One of them can Assume Humanity and not the other And why the Second Person and not the First or Third As to the Question Why I say It is so because so it pleased God And he giveth not account of his Matters He is not accountable to us why he so willeth As to the Question How is it Possible I see no difficulty in that at all The Persons are Distinguished though not Divided As in the Divine Attributes God's Justice and Mercy are Distinguishable though in God they cannot be Divided And accordingly some things are said to be Effects of his Justice others of his Mercy So the Power and Will of God
when for our Chancellor we made choice of Iames Duke Marquess and Earl of Ormond though he had three distinct Dignities he was not therefore three Men nor three Chancellors And when Tully says Sustineo unus tres personas meam adversarii judicis which is in English that the Tankard-bearer may understand it I being one and the same Man do sustain Three Persons that of Myself that of my Adversary and that of the Iudge He did not become three Men by sustaining three Persons And in this Answer to my Letter the Friend and his Neighbour may for ought I know be the same Man though he sustain Two Persons And I hope some of these Resemblances may be so plain and so familiar as that He and his Tankard-bearer may apprehend them and thence perceive It is not Impossible that Three may be One. For if among us one Man may sustain three Persons without being three Men Why should it be thought incredible that three Divine Persons may be one God as well as those three other Persons be one Man Nor need he the less believe it for having as this Answerer suggests been taught it in his Catechism or as Timothy did the Scriptures know it from a Child But I would not have him then to tell me the Father is a Duke the Son a Marquess the Holy Ghost an Earl according as he is pleased to prevaricate upon the Length Breadth and Thickness of a Cube but thus rather That God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier are the same God That God the Creator is Omnipotent and Allsufficient that God the Redeemer is so too and God the Sanctifier likewise That God the Creator is to be Loved with all our Heart and so God the Redemer and God the Sanctifier And then there will be no Absurdity in all this As to what he says that All people that have reason enough to understand Numbers know the difference between One and More than one I might reply That all people who can tell Mony know that Three Groats are but One Shilling and Three Nobles are One Pound and what in one consideration is Three may in another consideration be but One. Which if it look like a slight Answer is yet sufficient to such an Argument He tells me somewhat of Dr. Sherlock wherein I am not concerned and somewhat of the Brief History of the Unitarians of which his Neighbour gives the Friend a Copy But he doth not tell me as he might and therefore I tell him that Dr. Sherlock hath confuted that History But Dr. Sherlock says nothing contrary to what I defend For if there be such Distinction between the three Persons as he assigns then at least there is a Distinction which is what I affirm without saying how great it is Nor doth he any where deny them to be one God He tells me a story of somebody who in a publick Disputation at Oxford maintaining a Thesis against the Socinians was baffled by his Opponent Whom or when he means I do not know and so say nothing to it But that I may not be in his debt for a story I shall tell him another which will be at least as much to the purpose as his It is of their great friend Christophorus Christophori Sandius a diligent promoter of the Socinian Cause He printed a Latin Thesis or Discourse against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost which he calls Problema Paradoxum de Spiritu Sancto with a general Challenge to this purpose Ut siquis in toto Orbe eruditorum forte sit qui doctrinâ magis polleat quam quibuscum hactenus sit collocutus ea legat quae à se publice sint edita argumenta seque errare moneat ac rectius sentire doceat Hereupon Wittichius accepts the Challenge and writes against Sandius To which Sandius answers taking in another as a partner with him in the Disputation And Wittichius replies And that with so good success that Sandius and his partner acknowledged themselves to be convinced by it and to change their Opinion This happening but a little before Sandius his death His Partner surviving published to the World an Account hereof and of Sandius declaring before his death that he was so convinced in a Letter of Thanks to Wittichius for it What Sandius would have done further if he had lived a little longer we cannot tell That of Wittichius bears this Title Causa Spiritûs Sancti Personae Divinae ejusdem cum Patre Filio essentiae contra C. C. S. Problema Paradoxum asserta defensa à Christophoro Wittichio Lugduni Batavorum apud Arnoldum Doude 1678. The Letter of Thanks bears this Title Epistola ad D. Christophorum Gittichium Professorem Lugdunensem Qua gratiae ei habentur pro eruditissimis ipsius in Problema de Spiritu Sancto Animadversionibus Scripta à Socio Authoris Problematis Paradoxi Per quas errores suos rejicere coactus est Coloniae apud Ioannem Nicolai He takes it unkindly that I charge it upon some of the Socinians that though they do not think fit directly to reject the Scriptures yet think themselves obliged to put such a forced sence upon them as to make them signifie somewhat else And tells me of some Socinians who have so great a respect for the Scriptures as to say that the Scripture contains nothing that is repugnant to manifest Reason and that what doth not agree with Reason hath no place in Divinity c. But this is still in order to this Inference That therefore what they think not agreeable to Reason must not be thought to be the sence of Scripture and therefore that they must put such a Force upon the Words how great soever as to make them comply with their sence If he except against the words how great a Force soever as too hard an Expression of mine They are Socinus's own words in his Epistle to Balcerovius of Ianuary 30. 1581. Certe contraria sententia adeo mihi absurda perniciosa pace Augustini c. dixerim esse videtur ut Quantacunque Vis potius Pauli verbis sit adhibenda quam ea admittenda That is The contrary Opinion with Augustin's leave and others of his mind seems to me so absurd and pernicious that we must rather put a Force how great soever upon Paul's words than admit it And as to the suspicion I had of some of their Sentiments as to Spiritual Subsistences that it may not appear to be groundless He doth in his Epist. 5. ad Volkelium absolutely deny that the Soul after death doth subsist and adds expresly Ostendi me sentiresnon ita vivere post hominis ipsius mortem ut per se praemiorum poenarumve capax sit that is that the Soul after death doth not subsist nor is in a capacity of being by it self rewarded or punished And how he can then think it an Intelligent Being I do not see St. Paul it seems was of another mind when
himself or at least hoped we would not see it And therefore I desire him to consider that it is not said Thee only to be the true God but Thee the only true God And so in the Greek it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Restrictive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 only is not annexed to Thee but to God To know Thee to be the only true God that is to be that God beside which God there is no other true God And We say the like also That the Father is that God beside which there is no other true God and say the Son is also not another God but the same only true God And if those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be thus expounded To know Thee to be the only true God and whom thou hast sent Iesus Christ to be the same only true God repeating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would not like that interpretation but both the Words and the Sence will very well bear it without such Force as they are fain to put upon many other places Or if without such repetition we take this to be the scope of the place To set forth the two great Points of the Christian Religion or Way to Eternal Life That there is but one true God though in that Godhead there be three Persons as elsewhere appears in opposition to the many Gods of the Heathen and the Doctrine of Redemption by Iesus Christ whom God hath sent of which the Heathen were not aware the sence is very plain And nothing in it so clear as he would have us think against the Trinity but all very consistent with it And the same Answer serves to his other place 1 Cor. 8. 6. But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him or for him and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him For here also One God may be referred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both to the Father if here taken as a distinct person and to the Lord Iesus Christ Or without that it is manifest that One God is here put in opposition not to the plurality of Persons as we call them in One Deity but to the many Gods amongst the Heathen and our one Saviour against their many Saviours As is manifest if we take the whole context together We know that an Idol is nothing in the World and that there is no other God but one For though there be that are called Gods whether in Heaven or in Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many But to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him Ver. 4 5 6. Where it is evident that the scope of the place is not to shew either how the Persons as we call them or how the Attributes of that One God are distinguished amongst themselves But to set our One God who is the Father or Maker of all things in opposition to the Many Gods of the Idolatrous World and our One Saviour or Redeemer against their Many Saviours Indeed if we should set up our Jesus Christ to be another God the Text would be against us but not when we own him for the same God So that here is nothing clear in either place as he pretends against Christ's being the same God with the Father But in that other place of Iohn 1. which he labours to elude the evidence for it doth so stare him in the face that if he were not as he speaks Wilfully blind or did Wink very hard he must needs see it In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made that was made In him was life and the life was the light of men Ver. 1 2 3 4. He was in the World and the World was made by him and the World knew him not He came unto his own and his own received him not But to as many as received him he gave power or right or privilege to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his Name Ver. 10 11 12. 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 Ver. 14. Why he should not think this very clear is very strange if he were not strangely prepossessed Unless he think nothing clear but such as no man can cavil against But there can hardly be any thing said so clearly but that some or other if they list to be contentious may cavil at it or put a forced sence upon it For thus the whole Doctrine of Christ when himself spake it and he spake as clearly as he thought fit to speak was cavilled at And himself tells us the reason of it Matth. 13. 14 15. and Ioh. 12. 37 38 39 40. and after him St. Paul Acts 28. 26. and Rom. 11. 8. Not for want of clear Light but because they shut their eyes In Iohn 12. it is thus But though he had done so many miracles before them yet they believed not on him That the saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled which he spake Lord who hath believed our report and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed Therefore they could not believe because Esaias said again He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their heart and be converted and I should heal them These things said Esaias when he saw his glory and spake of him And thus in Matth 13. Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand and seeing ye shall see and shall not perceive For this peoples heart is waxed gross and their ears are dull of hearing and their eyes they have closed lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and should be converted and I should heal them So that 't is no argument of a place or doctrine's not being clear because prejudiced persons are able to pick cavils at it or put a forced sence upon it But let us see what these cavils are This I confess saith he were to the purpose if by the term Word could be meant he should rather have said be meant nothing else but a pre-existing person and by the term God nothing but God Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth and if taking those terms in those sences did not make St. John write Nonsence Now in reply to this I first take exception to that phrase if it could be meant of nothing else For if his meaning be this If no Caviller can start up another sence right
or wrong this is no fair play For hardly can any thing be so plain but that somebody may find a pretence to cavil at it It is enough for us therefore if it be thus meant without saying it is impossible to put a forced sence upon it But this would have spoiled his design in mustering up a great many forced sences not that he thinks them to be true for surely they be not all true and I think none of them are nor telling us which he will stick to but only that he may cast a mist and then tell us which is all that he concludes upon it the place is abscure he knows not what to make of it But when the Mist is blown off and we look upon the Words themselves they seem plain enough as to all the Points he mentions The Word which was with God and was God and by whom the World was made and which was made flesh and dwelt amongst us and we saw his glory and of whom Iohn bare witness must needs be a Person and can be no other than our Lord Iesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary And this Word which was in the beginning and by whom the World was made must needs have been pre-existent before he was so born And this Word which was with God the true God and was God and by whom the World was made and who is one with the Father Joh. 10. 30. and who is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. is no other God than God Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth And this plain sence the words bear without any force put upon them Without any Incoherence Inconsistence or Contradiction sâ—â—e that they do not agree with the Socinian Doctrine And there is no other way to avoid it but what Socinus adviseth in another case Quantacunque Vis verbis adhibenda putting a Force upon the words no matter how great to make them not to signifie what they plainly do Or else to say which is his last refuge that St. Iohn writes Nonsence But let him then consider Whether this do savour of that respect which he would have us think they have for the Holy Scripture and whether we have not reason to suspâ—â—t the contrary of some of them And Whether we have not reason to complain of their putting a forced sence upon plain words to make them comply with their Doctrine And lastly Whether it be not manifest that the true Bottom of their aversion from the Trinity whatever other subsidiary Reasons they may alledge is because they think it Nonsence or not agreeable with their Reason For set this aside and all the rest is plain enough but because of this they scruple not to put the greatest force upon Scripture Nor is there any other pretence of Nonsence in the whole Discourse save that he thinks the Doctrine of the Trinity to be Nonsence So that the whole Controversie with him turns upon this single Point Whether there be such Impossibility or Inconsistence as is pretended That of 1 Iohn 5. 7. There be three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One is wanting he says in some Copies And it is so and so are some whole Epistles wanting in some Copies But we will not for that quit the place For we have great reason to think it genuine If this difference of Copies happened at first by chance upon an oversight in the Transcriber in some one Copy and thereupon in all that were transcribed from thence it is much more likely for a Transcriber to leave out a line or two which is in his Copy than to put in a line or two which is not And if it were upon design it is much more likely that the Arians should purposely leave it out in some of their Copies than the Orthodox foist it in Nor was there need of such falsification since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concludes as strongly as to a Plurality of persons and of the Son in particular which was the chief controversie with the Arians as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth as to all the Three And I think it is cited by Cyprian in his Book De unitate Ecclesiae before the Arian Controversie was on foot And therefore if it were done designedly and not by chance it seems rather to be razed out by the Arians than thrust in by the Orthodox And the Language of this in the Epistle suits so well with that of the same Author in his Gospel that it is a strong presumption that they are both from the same Pen. The Word in 1 Iohn 5. 7. agrees so well with the Word in Iohn 1. and is peculiar to St. Iohn and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Iohn 5. 7. with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Iohn 10. 30. these three are One with I and the Father are One that I do not at all doubt its being genuine And that Evasion of his these three are one that is one in testimony will have no pretence in the other place where there is no discourse of Testimony at all but I and the Father are One unum sumus must be One Thing One in Being One in Essence For so Adjectives in the Neuter Gender put without a Substantive do usually signifie both in Greek and Latin and there must be some manifest reason to the contrary that should induce us to put another sence upon them The other place Matth. 28. 19. Baptizing them in or into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is not so slight an evidence as he would make it For whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendred in the Name and taken to denote the joint Authority of Father Son and Holy Ghost admitting the person baptized into the Christian Church Or into the Name which this Answerer seems to like better and taken to denote the Dedication of the person baptized to the joint Service or Worship of Father Son and Holy Ghost Baptism it self being also a part of Divine Worship They are all conjoined either as in joint Authority or as joint Objects of the same Religious Worship and for ought appears in the same Degree And Socinus himself doth allow the Son to be Worshipped with Religious Worship as Adoration and Invocation as Lawful at least if not Necessary Now when this Answerer tells us of the First Commandment Thou shalt have no other God but me the God of Israel He might as well have remembred that of Christ Matth. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And therefore since Socinus and other of his followers do allow Christ to be Worshipped they must allow him to be God even the God of Israel And I am mistaken if he be not expresly called the Lord God of Israel Luke 1. 16. Many of the children of Israel shall he John the Baptist turn to