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
of the First Commandment as he doth and perhaps more He would have us shew if we can p. 9. where this Commandment is Abrogated I say No where It was never Abrogated Never Repealed It remains I grant still in its full force And therefore we own no other God but the Lord God of Israel And this Lord God of Israel we say is One Lord One God and no more Gods than One. We say indeed there is a Wise God a Powerful God an Almighty God an Eternal God a Just God a Merciful God God the Creator God the Redeemer God the Sanctifier a God who in the beginning created the heaven and the earth a God who in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of his hands a God of Abraham a God of Isaac a God of Jacob a God who brought the Children of Israel out of Egypt a God who brought them out of the North Country a God who is our Mighty Redeemer a God who is a Saviour of all that trust in him a God who doth create in us a clean heart and doth renew a right spirit within us a God who gives us a heart of Flesh a God who gives us a New Heart who putteth his Fear in our Hearts who writes his Law in our inward parts a God who searcheth the Heart and trieth the Reins a God who hath Visited and Redeemed his People and hath raised up a mighty Salvation for us But we say the Lord God of Israel is all this and in being all this he is but One God and that there is no other God but One. And we grant that whoever owns any other God as a true God or Worships a false God breaks this Commandment I do not know what he would have us Grant more upon this Commandment I wish He do not think we have Granted too much He says p. 3. We vitiate this Commandment by bringing in New persons by Adding several Persons to our One God No We Add no Persons to our God We say that God the Creator God the Redeemer God the Sanctifier or in other words the Father Son and Holy-Ghost ARE this One God not added to him Nor are they new Persons added to God but are God and ever were so He would have us think p. 17. that the Father only and not the Son or Holy-Ghost is the Only true God because of Joh. 17. 3. The words are these This is Life Eternal to know Thee not only Thee the only True God to be that God beside which there is no other true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent And we say the same that is here said The Father is the only True God the Lord God of Israel beside whom there is no other true God The Son is also not another God as the Arians say and this Answerer p. 17. but the same only true God the Lord God of Israel and he is expresly so called Luk. 1. 16 17. And the Holy-Ghost likewise for these Three are One 1 Joh. 5. 7. And the words without any force put upon them may be thus read To know Thee and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ to be the only True God For the word only is not a restrictive to Thee but to the True God And this is not only a new Querk or Criticism which is the only Answer he gives to this Defence but is the true sense of the place For the same Writer doth in another place say the very same thing of God the Son 1 Joh. 5. 20. We are in him that is True even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the True God and Eternal Life Now if Scripture must interpret Scripture as he tells us p. 16. certainly S. John in his Epistle 1 Joh. 5. 20. understood what himself said in his Gospel Joh. 17. 3. And that what he said of the Father's being the Only True God was not exclusive of the Son to whom himself gives the same Title This is the True God and this is Eternal Life And this I think is a full Answer to what he would urge from this place or from what he joins with it 1 Cor. 8. 4 5 6. To us there is but One God Which is no more express to his purpose than This is Nor doth he pretend that it is but puts them both together p. 17. There is one place more which comes under consideration which because he finds it pinch he would fain shake off p. 17. It is that of Joh. 1. 1 2 10 14. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The World was made by him All things were made by him And without him was not any thing made which was made And the Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us The former Answerer would fain shuffle off this place in his p. 9. upon one of these three Points for otherwise he grants it is for our purpose either that by the Word is not meant Christ or by God not the True God or else that S. John writes Non-sense Now the last of the Three I suppose our New Answerer will not say because he pretends a great Reverence for Scriptures The first he Quits and doth admit according to the Arian sense which he looks upon as more defensible than that of the Socinians that by the Word is here meant the Person of Christ who was afterward incarnate of the Virgin Mary and that he was pre-existent to his Incarnation as by whom the World was made at lest as by an Instrument And that he was with God the True God at least in the beginning of the World if not sooner and that he was God All the doubt is whether these Two Gods for so he calls them to wit the Father and the Word be One p. 17. Now if he be God he must be either a True God or a False God That he is a False God methinks they should not say And if he be a True God he must be the same God with the Father who is the ONLY True God Joh. 17. 3. That he is to be Worshipped with Religious Worship both the Arians and the Socinians do allow And if he be God as the Arians and this Answerer do affirm this Worship must be Divine Worship And he must be then the Lord God of Israel or else they break that Precept Thou shalt Worship the Lord Thy God the Lord God of Israel and Him ONLY shalt thou serve Mat. 4. 10. If he be the Lord God of Israel but not the same Lord God of Israel How doth this agree with that Deut. 6. 4. Hear O Israel the Lord Our God is One Lord And if he be another God whether True or False then do they break the Great and First Commandment Thou shalt have No Other God but me no other God True or False Great or Little Equal or Unequal but the Lord God of Israel On which Commandment this Answerer
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