Doctor Wallis's LETTER Touching the DOCTRINE OF THE Blessed Trinity Answer'd by his FRIEND Honoured SIR I Read your Letter touching the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity you were pleas'd to send me with a great deal of Attention and Satisfaction and thereupon went to visit a Neighbour of mine one that is reputed a modest Gentleman but one that is also reputed an Vnitarian or Socinian I shew'd him your Letter and made no question but it would Convince him as it had done me that they who denied the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Three distinct Persons to be each of them God in the most perfect Sense of that Term and yet but One God were in a very dangerous and palpable Errour But I found my self greatly mistaken for be presently told me that you had unfairly represented them charging them with an Opinion which they abhor to wit That how clear soever the Expressions of Scripture be or can be to this purpose they will not believe it as being inconsistent with Natural Reason And therefore though they do not think fit to give us a bare-fac'd Rejection of Scripture yet they do and must they tell us put such a forc'd Sense on the words of it be they never so plain as to make them signifie somewhat else He told me he did very much wonder and was sorry for your sake that a Man of such Reputation for Learning and Piety should be guilty of so much uncharitable rashness against a Party of Men which even some of their Adversaries being Judges are both Learned and Pious though Erroneous If it were not their hearty Zeal for one of the great and clear Attributes of God! the God and Father of our Lord Jesus his Unity What saith he to me with a most compassionate Concern should make them expose themselves to all manner of Obloquy Reproach and Detestation of almost all that go under the Name of Christians in these Parts to the utmost of Injuries and Perfections the loss of their Imployments Estates Liberties Countries and some of them of Life it self by the violent Death of Hereticks Neither do they this from an Enthusiastic Heat nor yet upon the account of some indifferent or next to indifferent things in the Worship and Discipline of the Church it 's no less than the Incommunicable Nature of the only Potentate King of Kings and Lord of Lords that they suffer for hoping for their Reward through the Faith of those Promises revealed by Christ our Lord and recorded only in the Holy Scriptures The Authority whereof none have maintained with stronger Reasonings nor are more diligent in searching out the true Sense of them nor are more ready to submit to their Dictates He said moreover That it was too common for even Learned Men to charge die Vnitarians under the Name of Socinians with such Sayings as their Adversaries charge them with by Consequences without reading their Books Nay it is well known at Oxford that one in an Act there disputing for his Degree in Divinity took a Thesis to maintain to the very same purpose with that which your Friend avers against the Socinians but his Learned Opponent having read their Books did so baffle him that it appeared the Respondent had not read them but took his Testimonies from their Adversaries I would fain think otherwise of Dr. Wallis but he gives me here too much cause to suspect him I will appeal to you saith he whether he does not Then he fetch'd me Socinus de Authoritate S. Script and read in pag. 16. Quod enim ad Rationes attinet haec nimis fallax via est in re quae ex Divina patefaction pendeat qualis est Christiana Religion For as to Reasons this is too fallible a way in a Matter which depends on Divine Revelations such as Christian Religion is Next he brought Sclichtingius another eminent Writer that followed Socinus He in his Book Adv. Meifn de SS Trin. p. 68. His Adversary had said That Holy Scripture only is the most perfect Rule of Faith and Life To which Sclichtingius answers That if de rebus clarissimis verbis in Scriptura consignatis c. it be touching Points exprest in Scripture in most clear words so that no Man of a sound Mind can doubt of the Sense of them then he grants it and that chiefly because it is most certain That the Scripture contains nothing that is repugnant to manifest Reason or that implies a real Contradiction But if it treat of obscure Matters every one sees that it cannot be determin'd without Reason which yet is not to be setch'd in as if it could be opposed to Scripture affirming or denying any thing but only to declare whether such a thing be contained in Scripture or not If it appear to be contain'd in it whatsoever Reason may still say in Contradiction it must of necessity be deceived This says my Gentleman is a clear Account of the Socinians Judgment in this Point and is a direct Confutation of what you have read me out of your Doctor 's Letter He added yet another of their great Men Smalcius contr Frant Disp 4. p. 137. Nulla enim est Christianae Religionis particular c. There is not the least part of Christian Religion which doth not accord with Reason and that Opinion which doth not agree with Reason can have no place in Divinity As a small Light to a great one so Reason is not contrary to Holy Scripture Let Frantzius or any body else tells us of any one Sentence of Holy Scripture that is repugnant to Reason and then let Reason be silent in the Church Religion and Holy Scripture hath many things above Reason and therein it highly commends it self but nothing which is contrary to Reason Of these two last Passages the learned and candid Dr. Tennison takes notice in his Book The Difference betwixt the Protestant and Socinian Methods in Abatement of his Charge against some Socinians for exalting Reason too much Perhaps saith he your Friend Dr. Wallis had read that Book but took no notice of the Quotations in the Margin And if he were put to 't to maintain his Charge viz. That they do and must they tell us put such a farced Sense on the words of it the Scripture be they never so plain as to make them signify somewhat else I am perswaded he would acquit himself no better than the Candidate in Divinity I told you of He was much concerned at the Injuriousness of this Imputation and said He thought there was no sort of Protestants of different Sentiments from the Publick that were so inhumanly dealt with as the Vnitarians for they are so far from denying there are Three Persons in One God and asserting only One in opposition to the plainest Scriptures that they are thorowly perswaded the whole Scripture wherever it is plain is on their side For does not every Text in the whole Bible that speaks clearly of the most High God speak of
Three first Centuries nor even in the Three next without much opposition 3. I think that Curcellaeus has proved as well as any thing can be proved out of Ancient Writings That the Doctrine of the Trinity about the Time of the Council of Nice was of a special Union of Three Persons in the Deity and not of a numerical as it is now taught and has been taught since the Chimerical Schoolmen were hearkned unto 4. I wonder how Dr. Wallis reckons the Christian Church since he knows there were divers Arian Councils and one of them that of Ariminum consisted of 550 Bishops the most numerous Assembly of Bishops perhaps as ever was except he accounts A ians for Trinitarians which if he do then he cannot chuse but reckon Mr. Biddle for one too for he Titles his Book The Apostolical and True Opinion concerning the Holy Trinity revived and asserted 5. According to what I have given my self leave to read in the Controvertists of these Times concerning that Matter I mean Curcellaeus and Maresius Sandius and Gardner and Bull Petavius Biddle Estwich and Le Clerk I reckon Curcellaeus Biddle and Le Clerk to be the more free and ingenuous Writers and therefore more likely to give a true Judgment concerning the Matters they enquire of But 6. I conclude my Judgment with that of the great Protestant Champion Chillingworth chap. 6. n. 56. By the Religion of Protestants I do not understand the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Melancthon nor the Confession of Augusta or Geneva nor the Catechism of Heidelburgh nor the Articles of the Church of England no nor the Harmony of Protestant Confessions but that wherein they all agree and which they all Subscribe with a greater Harmony as a perfect Rule of their Faith and Actions that is the BIBLE the BIBLE the BIBLE only is the Religion of Protestants whatsoever else they believe besides it and the plain irrefragable indubitable Consequences of it well may they hold it as a Matter of Opinion but as Matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own Grounds believe it themselves nor require the Belief of it of others without most high and most schismatical Presumption I for my part after a long and as I verily believe and hope impartial search of the true Way to Eternal Happiness do profess plainly that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my Foot but upon this Rock only I see plainly and with mine own Eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a Consent of Fathers of one Age against a Consent of Fathers of another Age the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. No Tradition but only of Scripture can derive it self from the Fountain In a word there is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering Man to build upon I would not have Dr. Wallis think to impose upon us in this Reign of a Protestant King and Queen the Doctrine of Tradition he had better have done it in the late King's Time then it would have been acceptable to the Court. Sir I hope proceeded my Neighbour you are by this time convinced how unjustly and unlike a Scholar the Doctor pardon I pray my Resentment has drawn so black an Indictment against the Socinians upon false Grounds taken for granted by him to be true I am ashamed to read his words Nor do the Anti-Trinitarians insist on any other Ground why they deny it the Trinity or Three Persons of One God save only That it seems to them absolutely impossible and therefore think themselves bound to put another sense on all places of Scripture how clear soever they be or can be which prove or favour it It 's the contradiction of that Doctrine to a Thousand clear places of Scripture which they insist upon as I have shew'd before But I will pursue it a little further Will the Doctor deny that the Person of the Father is God No his Opinion asserts it Will he then deny That he who is God is not All-sufficient or Almighty If that One Person be All-sufficient and he is not God if he be not then all other Persons besides him must of necessity be superfluous and the introducing them into the Godhead is plain Polytheism and a direct Contradiction to the first Commandment of the Decalogue and to all those Texts that assert God to be One and consequently to those Scriptures that speak of God as One Person which are without number No they first devis'd an Opinion which is contrary to the clearest Scriptures and the most evident Reasons and then they would perswade us it is a Mystery either which we cannot understand and therefore must be blind to the Contradictions that are in it or if we will not be so satisfied they call us Clamorous and Importune and persecute us with the most odious Imputations they can invent and then with Fire and Faggot But that they may seem to give some Answer to those plain Scriptures and Reasons that shine in their Eyes they soar aloft quite out of sight with Metaphysicks or so near out of sight that we can see nothing but a Cloud The Notion of One God and One Person that is that One God every Man and Woman can understand that is they know perfectly that One Person that is God cannot be Two Persons each of which is God and except they had been us'd from their Infancy to say like Parrots that Three Persons are One God and each One of them is that God they would easily see the Contradictions of it And indeed the Common People do worship God far more agreeable to his Will than the Learned for these are obliged by the Athanasian Creed in worshipping One God to mind him as Three Persons that is to have in their Mind the Idea of One Almighty and only wise Person who is One God by himself and in the same Act to Adore two other Persons each of which is as much God by himself as the former To worship Three that are equal one to another and at the same time and in the same Act to worship but One. But the Common People worship One only Almighty and most Merciful Father through the Son as Mediator except they confound them with express Mention of Two other Persons and then they worship expresly Three Gods as the Learned do always more subtilly God Almighty even the Father knows he has given us a Commandment That we should worship him as One the only Wise the only Good the only True the only Holy the only Potentate and none other as God besides him which Commandment is as easy to be known by all the People that have Reason enough to understand Numbers the difference between One and more than One as it is necessary to be observed but is impossible to be observed because impossible to be apprehended by the Common
taken the Doctrine of the Trinity for granted and began but now to inquire into it therefore could not readily reply to those things he had urged who I perceived was well vers'd in the Point but I would further consider it He thank'd me much for my Friendly Visit and Patience in hearing him and hop'd to see me again shortly upon this Occasion Now Sir give me leave to tell you that though I was much satisfied with your Letter taking it for granted you had given a true Representation of the Socinians yet finding by this Discourse it is far otherwise with them that they have as high a Veneration for the Holy Scripture as we that they use their Reason no more than reasonable Men ought to do viz. for the finding out the true Sense of Scripture that they reject the Doctrine of the Trinity not only because it 's contrary to Reason but more especially because it 's contrary to most plain and clear Scriptures as they conceive that they have no need of those nice Distinctions that we are forc'd to make use of that the Texts you alledge against them as most clear are notwithstanding very doubtful and obscure For these Reasons and others of this Kind I am more dissatisfied in this Matter than I was at first because I perceive by your Letter that nothing convincing can be urged against them even by them that are most Learned such as you are If you can and will please to take upon you the trouble of another Letter to answer these my Scruples and Doubts you will add thereby much more strength to the many Obligations wherein you have already bound SIR Your much obliged Postscript SIR I Had no sooner finish'd my Letter but you were pleased to send me another which is an Answer to a Letter you received from an unknown Gentleman proposing some Objections against your former Letter My Gentleman hearing of it came to give me a Visit and when he had read this your second Letter he made his Exceptions to two or three Passages in it 1. You say By Personality I mean that Distinction whatever it be whereby the Three are distinguished but what that is I do not pretend to determine And if I should guess for it will be but guessing c. Now saith he our Saviour in the Holy Scripture tells us plainly This is Life Eternal that they might know thee Father the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent John 17.3 Do not these Names and Characters distinguish the one from the other Does any thing distinguish Two Persons more fully than that the one is Father to the other and the other his Son The one prayeth the other is prayed unto The one is not only God but the only true God the other is he whom the Father the only true God hath sent and he that is sent by him is Jesus the Name of that Man who was the Son of the Virgin Mary and the Name Christ signifies that he was anointed with the Holy Ghost and Power for the performance of that Office of saving Men from their Sins whereunto he was sent by the only true God his Father I challenge the Learned Doctor and the Learnedest Doctor at Oxford if there be any more Learned than he to shew me a clearer or plainer Distinction between God and Moses So that Dr. Wallis's not pretending to determine the Distinction between God the Sender and Jesus Christ the Sent but calling that Determination Guessing is in effect to deny the Authority of Christ's Words and to call his clear and full determination of that which we are to know for obtaining the Eternal Life Guessing In his next Paragraph speaking of the same Matter he Complements some Body craving leave to be ignorant of what the Scripture doth not tell him Now if I did not consider the vast power Prejudice and long Prepossession have over Mens Minds I should determine the Doctor to be wilfully blind But it 's plain he bears false Witness against our Lord and the Holy Scripture whilst he says the Scripture doth not tell him what it plainly tells him and every Woman that can but read it The following Paragraph is Of the damnatory SENTENCES in the Athanasian Creed which seem say you to be annexed only to some Generals which the Author thought necessary as the Trinity and Incarnation of Christ To which he excepted thus This Creed being made as it seems to the Learned many hundreds of Years after the Apostles Creed which contains all General Articles of the Christian Faith and two or three hundred Years after the Nicene Creed which explains the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation more particularly the Author of it was very impertinent if he did not design all his Explication to be believed upon pain of Damnation But if that Argument were wanting who can read the Athanasian Creed and find Damnation in the beginning middle and conclusion and can then have the face to deny that the not believing of every Clause is damnable I am sorry to find so much Daubing in Dr. Wallis Then we came to your further explaining the parallel of the Cube where you say it may be said of it that This long Things is a Cube and so This which is broad or this which is high is a Cube But the saith he he that says This long Thing is a Cube doth in so saying say This long Thing is broad and high consequently in Parallel each Person is Three Persons This is all he took notice of at that time for he was in haste And I having considered what he had said before and finding so much Reason and Suitableness to Scripture in it could not tell how to defend these Passages and therefore remit them to you hoping you will honour with a Return SIR Your Whether Trinity or Unity more dangerous THE Trinitarians and Unitarians agree that there is but one God most High they both agree that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is that God most High They differ in this that Jesus before he was a Man and from Eternity and also the Holy Ghost as distinct Persons from God the Father were and are each of them as perfectly God most High as the Father so that each of them is Almighty Eternal All-knowing only Wise only Good Infinite c. equal to the Father The Trinitarians assert these things the Unitarians deny them The Question hereupon is Which of these Parties are in the most dangerous Error supposing them to be in Error now the one now the other If the Trinitarians err they worship two Persons in God equal to one that is undoubtedly God that is they worship three Almighty and only Wise Persons which are not distinguishable from three most High Gods If the Unitarians err they avoid that Error of worshipping three Persons which they cannot distinguish from three Gods but their Error lies in holding so strictly to the Oneness of God as well in Person as Essence that they do not acknowledg besides that One two more Persons to be equally God as well as that One whom both Parties agree to be so that is they err in not acknowledging two unnecessary Persons in God but holding that the God and Father of Christ is God alone only necessary and all-sufficient If the Trinitarians err they err against the common Reason of Mankind and most plain and express Scriptures which assert that God is One or that there is but one Supream God and always speak of him as one only Person If the Unitarians err they err against the doubtful Sense of some obscure Texts which more fairly admit of another Interpretation consistent with the Unity of the Person of God In short the Question is Whether the Term God includes only one Person or three Persons one Almighty Person or three distinct Almighty Persons And whether the former or the latter is the more dangerous Error which soever is found an Error FINIS