be declared in Scripture we ought to Believe But I see not why it should be thought of it self more necessary to salvation if he do not know it to be declared in Scripture for a man to know that her Name was Mary than that the Name of Adam's Wife was Eve or Abraham's Wife Sarah or that one of Iob's Daughters was called Iemima for all these are declared in Scripture and supposing that we know them so to be ought to be believed as part of the Catholick Faith Nor do I know that it is of it self more necessary to know that the Name of the Judge who condemned our Saviour was Pontius Pilate than that the Name of the High-Priest was Caiaphus And though one of these and not the other be put into the Apostles Creed whereby we are more likely to know that than the other yet both of them being True and declared in Scripture they are both of them parts of the Catholick Faith and to be believed but neither of them I think with such necessity as that who knows them not cannot be saved And what I say of this General Preface in the beginning is in like manner to be understood of the General Conclusion in the end which Catholick Faith except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Of which I shall say more anon After the General Preface concerning the necessity of holding the Catholick Faith he proceeds to two main Branches of it that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation with the Consequents thereof which he declares likewise as what ought to be believed That of the Trinity he declares thus in General And the Catholick Faith is this that is this is one main part of the Catholick Faith namely That we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity Neither Confounding the Persons nor Dividing the Substance Which is what we commonly say There be Three Persons yet but One God And this General which after some particular Explications he doth resume is what he declares ought to be believed But he doth not lay such stress upon each Particular of that Explication though True He thus explains himself For there is one Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost Which Persons therefore are not to be confounded But the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One. That is one Substance one God Which is what he said of not Dividing the Substance as if the Three Persons should be Three Substances or Three Gods According as Christ says of Himself and the Father Iohn 10. 30. I and the Father are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is one Thing one Substance one God not one Person And 1 Iohn 5. 7. These Three are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hi Ires sunt Unum not Unus These three Who 's are one What. They are one Thing one Substance one God though Three Persons And as their Godhead or Substance undivided is all one so it follows The Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal Such as the Father is as to the common Godhead such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost The Father uncreate the Son uncreate and the Holy Ghost uncreate The Father incomprehensible the Son incomprehensible and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible The Father eternal the Son eternal and the Holy Ghost eternal For all these are Attributes of the common Deity which is the same of All. And yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal Not Three Eternal Gods though Three Persons but One Eternal God As also there are not three Incomprehensibles nor three Uncreated but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible One and the same Substance or Deity uncreated and incomprehensible So likewise the Father is Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty and yet there are not Three Almighties but One Almighty So the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet there are not Three Gods but One God So likewise the Father is Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word by which the Greeks do express the Hebrew Name Iehovah the proper incommunicable Name of God the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord and yet not Three Lords but One Lord. Not three Iehovahs but one Iehovah For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord so are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say There be Three Gods or Three Lords Which are so many particular Explications or Illustrations of what was before said in general of not Confounding the Persons nor Dividing the Substance Which Explications though they be all true and necessary Consequents of what was before said in general yet to none of them is annexed such Sanction as that whosoever doth not Believe or not Understand these Illustrations cannot be saved 'T is enough to Salvation if they hold the true Faith as to the substance of it though in some other form of words or though they had never heard the Athanasian Creed Nor is any such Sanction annexed to the Personal Properties which next follow The Father is made of none neither Created nor Begotten The Son is of the Father alone not Made nor Created but Begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither Made nor Begotten but Proceeding Where by the way here is no Anathematization of the Greek Church of which those who would for other reasons disparage this Creed make so loud an out-cry 'T is said indeed He doth proceed and so say they but not that he doth proceed from the Father and the Son And 't is said He is Of the Father and Of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some way or other and even this I suppose they would not deny but whether by procession from both or if so whether in the same manner it is not said but warily avoided Though indeed it seems to favour what I think to be the truth and what in the Nicene Creed is said expressly that he doth proceed from both and for ought we know in the same manner which yet we do not determine Nor do I see any reason why on this account we should be said to Anathematize the Greek Church or they to Anathematize us even though we should not exactly agree in what sence he may be said to be Of the Father and in what Of the Son And those who are better acquainted with the Doctrine and the Languages of the present Greek Churches than most of us are do assure us that the differences between them and us are rather in some forms of expressions than in the thing it self However those who would make so great a matter of this should rather quarrel at the Nicene Creed than the Athanasian where it is expresly said of the Holy Ghost that he proceedeth from the Father and from the Son 'T is not therefore for
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
the Lord their God for he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias c. Now he before whom Iohn the Baptist was to go in the spirit and power of Elias is agreed to be our Lord Jesus Christ 't is therefore He that is here called the Lord God of Israel And we who own him so to be Worship no other God in Worshipping him It is those who do not own him so to be and do yet Worship him that are to be charged with Worshipping another God Now when here we find Father Son and Holy Ghost all joined in the same Worship we have reason to take them all for the same God and that these Three are One. And do say as willingly as he Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is One God Father Son and Holy Ghost are but One God As God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier are One God And what in the Old Testament are said of God indefinitely without taking notice of this or that of the three Persons are in the New Testament attributed some to one some to another of the three Persons That which makes these Expressions seem harsh to some of these men is because they have used themselves to fansie that notion only of the word Person according to which Three Men are accounted to be Three Persons and these Three Persons to be Three Men. But he may consider that there is another notion of the word Person and in common use too wherein the same Man may be said to sustain divers Persons and those Persons to be the same Man That is the same Man as sustaining divers Capacities As was said but now of Tully Tres Personas Unus sustineo And then it will seem no more harsh to say The three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are one God than to say God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier are one God which I suppose even to this Answerer would not seem harsh or be thought Nonsence It is much the same thing whether of the two Forms we use And all the Cavils he useth may be equally applied to either What answer therefore he would give to one who should thus object against the latter form will serve us as well to what he objects against the former If therefore the Gentleman please to consider it calmly he will find that even amongst men though another person do many times denote another man and thereupon the words are sometimes used promiscuously yet not always nor doth the word Person necessarily imply it A King and a Husband though they imply very different Notions different Capacities different Relations or different Personalities yet may both concur in the same Man Or in that sence wherein Person is put for Man in the same Person So a King and a Father a King and a Brother and the like And this Gentleman though in the Dialogue he sustain two Persons that of an Opponent and that of an Answerer or that of a Friend and that of an Adversary that so while one gives ill Language the other may give up the Cause yet they do not act each their own part so covertly but that sometime the vizard falls off and discovers the Man to be the same For though my Letter be answered by a Friend pag. 1. yet 't is the Neighbour that is weary of Writing p. 13. Now if Person in a Proper sence when applied to Men do not imply that different Persons must needs be so many different Men much less should it be thought Nonsence when in a Metaphorical sence it is applied to God that different Persons in the Deity should not imply so many Gods Or that three Somewhat 's which we call Persons may be One God Which is what I undertook to prove And having made this good I need not trouble my self to name more Texts though many more there be which give concurrent evidence to this truth or discourse the whole Controversie at large which was not the design of my Letter For himself hath reduced it to this single Point When St. Iohn says The Word was with God and the Word was God if by the Word be meant Christ and by God the true God Whether in so saying St. Iohn do not speak Nonsence And if I evince this not to be Nonsence as I think I have done he grants the place is to the purpose Which quite destroys the Foundation of the Socinian Doctrine Without being obliged to prove that these Persons are just such Persons and so distinct as what we sometime call Persons amongst Men but with such Distinction only as is agreeable to the Divine Nature and not such as to make them Three Gods Like as when God the Father is said to Beget the Son not so as one man Begets another nor is the Son so a Son as what we call Son amongst Men but so as suits with the Divine Nature which How it is we do not perfectly comprehend I have now done with him But I have one thing to note upon what I have before said of the Athanasian Creed I there read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because I so find it in the Copy I used which is that at the end of the Greek Testament in Octavo Printed at London by Iohn Bill 1622 with Robert Stephan's Ioseph Scaliger's and Isaac Casaubon's Annotations But in Whitaker's Greek Testament reprinted by this Copy 1633 I since find it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Edition I suppose is followed by some others I take the former to be the better reading as giving a clearer sence and that the Correcter of the Press had put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 intending thereby to mend the Greek Syntax because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows but doth I think impair the sence But as to the Doctrine it is much one whether we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what I have said of that whole Creed is chiefly intended for those who do believe the Doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ's Incarnation that there is no reason in my opinion why they should not allow of that Creed But such as do not believe those Points cannot I grant approve the Creed And it is these I suppose who would fain have others to dislike it also FINIS Joh. 9. 6. Joh. 11. 43. 44. Gen. 1. 3. Psal. 33. 9. Numb 17. 8. Isai. 56. 3. Gen. 18. 11 12. Rom. 4. 19. Luke 1. 35. Gen. 1. 2. 1 Cor. 2. 10 11. Rom. 1. 22. Joh. 3. 8 12. Mat. 8. 26 27. Phil. 1. 21 23 24. Job 33. 13. * 2 de Orat. * What we render who is in Rom. 9. 5. is in the Greek not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that Is which in Rev. 1. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and elsewhere is used as a peculiar Name or Title proper to God Almighty and answers to I AM Exod. 3. 14. I AM hath sent me unto you Of the same import with Iah and Iehovah And what is said of God indefinitely without respect to this or that Person in the Godhead at Rev. 1. 4. for Christ in particular is contradistinguished Ver. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from him that Is and was and is to come is at Ver. 8. applied in particular to Christ I am Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end saith the Lord which IS and was and is to come the Almighty Which closeth the description of Christ that begins at Ver. 5. And that by the Lord is here meant Christ is evident from the whole context Ver. 11 13 17 18 and the whole Second and Third Chapters And so the description of Christ Rom. 9. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in its full Emphasis is thus that BEING over all or the Supreme Being God blessed for ever or the ever blessed God Amen And there will be need of Socinus's Expedient quantacunque Vis Pauli verbis adhibenda to make it signifie any other God than God Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth
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
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
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
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
he had a desire to be dissolved or depart hence and to be with Christ as being far better for him than to abide in the flesh Phil. 1. 23 24. And willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5. 8. Now I do not understand the advantage of his being with Christ or being present with the Lord if he were then to be in a sensless condition not capable of pain or pleasure punishment or reward In Epist. 3. ad Dudithium we have these words Unusquisque sacrae Scripturae ex suo ipsius sensu Interpres eaque quae sibi sic Arrident pro veris admittere de bet ac tenere licet universus terrarum Orbis in alia omnia iret That is Every one is to interpret Scripture accerding to his own sence and what so seems Pleasing to him he is to imbrance and maintain though all the World be against it Socinus in his Tract de Ecclesia pag. 344. says thus Non attendendum quid homines doceant sentiantve vel antehac docuerint aut senserint quicunque illi tandem aut quotcunque sint aut fuerint Which is pretty plain I am not says he to regard what other men do teach or think or have before now taught or thought whosoever or how many soever they be or have been And if his whosoever are not here to be extended to the Sacred Writers he tells us of them elsewhere Ego quidem etiamsi non semel sed saepe id in sacris monimentis scriptum extaret non idcirco tamen ita rem prorsus se habere crederem Soc. de Jesu Christo servatore Par. 3. cap. 6. Operum Tom. 2. p. 204. As for me saith he though it were to be found written in the Sacred Moniments not once but many times I would not yet for all that believe it so to be And a little before in the same Chapter having before told us that he thought the thing Impossible he adds Cum ea quae fieri non posse aperte constat divinis etiam oraculis ea facta fuisse in speciem diserte attestantibus nequaquam admittantur idcirco sacra verba in alium sensum quam ipsa sonant per inusitatos etiam tropos quandoque explicantur That is When it doth plainly appear or when he thinks so whatever all the World think beside that the thing cannot be then though the Divine Oracles do seem expresly to attest it it must not be admitted and therefore the Sacred Words are even by unusual Tropes to be interpreted to another sence than what they speak Which Sayings are I think full as much as I had charged him with And if these Instances be not enough I could give him more of like nature But I shall conclude this with one of a later date at a Publick Disputation at Franeker Octob. 8. 1686. where amongst others this Thesis was maintained Scripturae divinitatem non aliunde quam ex Ratione adstrui posse Eosque Errare qui asserere sustinent Si Ratio aliud quid nobis dictaret quam Scriptura huic potius esse credendum And when Ulricus Huberus because it was not publickly censured as he thought it deserved to be did oppose it in Word and Writing the same was further asserted in Publick Disputations and in Print by two other Professors in Franeker in Vindication of that former Thesis that If Reason do dictate to us any thing otherwise than the Scripture doth It is an Error to say that in such case we are rather to believe the Scripture An account of the whole is to be seen at large in a Treatise entituled Ulrici Huberi Supremae Frisiorum Curiae ex-senatoris De concursu Rationis Scripturae Liber Franakerae apud Hen. Amama Zachar. Taedama 1687. And a Breviate of it in the Lipsick Transactions for the Month of August 1687. And after this I hope this Answerer will not think me too severe in charging such Notions on some of the Socinians while yet I said I was so charitable as to think divers of them were better minded But what should make him so angry at what I said of Guessing I cannot imagine That there is a Distinction between the Three we are sure this I had said before and the Answerer now says It is so But not such as to make three Gods this I had said also and the Answerer says so too That the Father is said to Beget the Son to be Begotten and the Holy Ghost to Proceed I had said also and I suppose he will not deny because thus the Scripture tells us And whatever else the Scripture tells us concerning it I readily accept But if it be further asked beyond what the Scripture teacheth as for instance What this Begetting is or How the Father doth Beget his only begotten Son This I say we do not know at least I do not because this I think the Scripture doth not tell us and of this therefore I hope this Gentleman will give me leave to be ignorant Certainly it is not so as when one Man begets another but How it is I cannot tell And if I should set my thoughts awork as some others have done and each according to his own imagination to Guess or Conjecture How perhaps it may be I would not be Positive That just so it is Because I can but Guess or Conjecture I cannot be sure of it For I think it is much the same as if a man born Blind and who had never seen should employ his Fancy to think What kind of thing is Light or Colour of which it would be hard for him to have a clear and certain Idea And if this Gentleman please to look over it again I suppose he will see that he had no cause to be so angry that I said We can but Guess herein at what the Scripture doth not teach us That the Socinians have set their Wits awork to find out other Subsidiary Arguments and Evasions against the Trinity beside that of its Inconsistence with Reason I do not deny But That is the Foundation and the rest are but Props And if they admit that there is in it no Inconsistence with Reason they would easily answer all the other Arguments themselves I thought not to meddle with any of the Texts on either side because it is beside the Scope which I proposed when I confined my Discourse to that single Point of it s not being Impossible or Inconsistent with Reason and did therefore set aside other Considerations as having been sufficiently argued by others for more than an Hundred Years last past But having already followed him in some of his Excursions I shall briefly consider the two signal places which he singles out as so mainly clear In the former of them Iohn 17. 3. This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent he puts a Fallacy upon us which perhaps he did not see
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