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
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
both which are Individual from himself But when we say God is Omnipotent we do not say he is Omnivolent He wills indeed All things that Are else they could not be but he doth not will all things Possible And the like of other Attributes If therefore we do but allow as great a Distinction between the Persons as between the Attributes and certainly it is not less but somewhat more there is no incongruity in ascribing the Incarnation to One of the Persons and not to the rest 'T is asked further How I can accommodate this to my former Similitude of a Cube and its Three Dimensions representing a Possibility of Three Persons in one Deity I say Very easily For it is very possible for one Face of a Cube suppose the Base by which I there represented the Second Person as Generated of the Father to admit a Foil or Dark Colour while the Rest of the Cube is Transparent without destroying the Figure of the Cube or the Distinction of its Three Dimensions which Colour is adventitious to the Cube For the Cube was perfect without it and is not destroyed by it Which may some way represent Christ's Humiliation Who being Equal with God was made Like unto Us and took upon him the Form of a Servant Phil. 2. 6 7. So that upon the whole Matter there is no Impossibility in the Doctrine of the Incarnation any more than in that of the Trinity And supposing them to be not Impossible it is not denied but that they are both of them sufficiently Revealed and therefore to be Believed if we believe the Scripture And of the other Articles in the Athanasian Creed there is as little reason to doubt There is therefore no just Exception as to the Declarative part of the Athanasian Creed And as to the Damnatory part we have before shewed that it is no more severe than other passages in Scripture to the same purpose and to be understood with the like Mitigations as those are And consequently that whole Creed as hitherto may justly be received 'T is true there be some Expressions in it which if I were now to Pen a Creed I should perhaps chuse to leave out But being in they are to be understood according to such sence as we may reasonably suppose to be intended and according to the Language of those times When they did use to Anathematize great Errors which they apprehended to be Destructive of the Christian Faith as things of themselves Damnable if not Repented of And I suppose no more is here intended nor of any other Errors than such as are Destructive of Fundamentals Oxford Octob. 28. 1690. Yours Iohn Wallis POSTSCRIPT November 15. 1690. WHen this Third Letter was Printed and ready to come abroad I stopped it a little for this Postscript occasioned by a small Treatise which came to my hands with this Title Dr. Wallis ' s Letter touching the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity answered by his Friend It seems I have more Friends abroad than I am aware of But Who this Friend is or whether he be a Friend I do not know It is to let me understand that a Neighbour of his reputed a Socinian is not convinced by it But names some Socinian Authors who endeavour to elude Scriptures alledged for the Trinity by putting some other sence upon them He might have named as many if he pleased who have to better purpose written against those Authors in vindication of the True sence And if he should Repeat what Those have said on the one side and I say over again what Those have said on the other side we should make a long work of it But he knows very well That was not the business of my Letter to discourse the whole Controversie at large either as to the Evidence or as to the Antiquity of the Doctrine For this I had set aside at first as done by others to whom I did refer and confined my Discourse to this single Point That there is no Impossibility which is the Socinians great Objection but that What in one consideration is Three may in another consideration be One. And if I have sufficiently evinced this as I think I have and I do not find that he denies it I have then done what I there undertook And in so doing have removed the great Objection which the Socinians would cast in our way and because of which they think themselves obliged to shuffle off other Arguments on this pretence Now whether he please to call this a Metaphysick or Mathematick Lecture certain it is that there are Three distinct Dimensions Length Breadth and Thickness in One Cube And if it be so in Corporeals there is no pretence of reason why in Spirituals 〈◊〉 should be thought Impossible that there be â—â—ree Somewhat 's which are but One God And these Somewhat 's till he can furnish us with a better name we are content to call Persons which is the Scripture word Heb. 1. 3. Which word we own to be but Metaphorical not signifying just the same here as when applied to men as also are the words Father Son Generate Begot c. when applied to God And more than this need not be said to justifie what there I undertook to defend Now 't is easie for him if he so please to burlesque this or turn it to ridicule as it is any the most Sacred things of God but not so safe Ludere cum Sacris The Sacred Trinity be it as it will should by us be used with more Reverence than to make Sport of it I might here end without saying more But because he is pleased to make some Excursions beside the Business which I undertook to prove and which he doth not deny I will follow him in some of them He finds fault with the Similitude I brought though very proper to prove what it was brought for as too high a Speculation for the poor Labourers in the Country and the Tankard-bearers in London And therefore having a mind to be pleasant he adviseth rather as a more familiar Parallel to put it thus I Mary take thee Peter James and John for my wedded Husband c. thinking this I suppose to be Witty And truly supposing Peter Iames and Iohn to be the same Man it is not much amiss But I could tell him with a little alteration if their Majesties will give me leave to make as bold with their Names as he doth with the Names of Christ's Mother and of his three Disciples which were with him in the Mount at his Transfiguration Matth. 17. 1. it were not absurd to say I Mary take thee Henry William Nassaw without making him to be three Men or three Husbands and without putting her upon any difficulty as is suggested How to dispose of her Conjugal Affection And when the Lords and Commons declared Him to be King of England France and Ireland they did not intend by alotting him three distinct Kingdoms to make him three Men. And
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