called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Rev. 1.8 as appears by ver 11 13 17 18. He saith farther that the above-cited Text in its full Emphasis is thus Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came that Being over all the ever blessed God Amen But first The word Amen makes Non-sense of this whole Criticism and Translation If the Doctor had translated this Text as Erasmus Curcellaeus and the Socinians do Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came God who is over all be blessed for ever it had been proper for the Apostle to conclude such a Doxology or Thanksgiving with Amen But 't is Non-sense to say Amen to these words Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came that Being over all the ever-blessed God Every one sees here is no occasion for Amen But this Criticism and Interpretation of the Doctor has another fault For if as the Doctor says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be that Being over all and answers to the Hebrew Jah and Jehovah and if Jesus Christ be that Being over all Jah and Jehovah the ever-blessed God he must be Father Son and Holy Spirit for according to the Trinitarians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jah Jehovah the Being over all the ever-blessed God is these Three Persons Father Son and Holy Spirit I say therefore the Doctor 's is not a good Translation because Jesus Christ is not Father Son and Holy Ghost He saith the Lord Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Rev. 1.8 I deny it And I give this reason because at ver 5. Christ is distinguished from and opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is mentioned at ver 4. He cannot be that Person or Thing from which he is distinguished and to which he is opposed for Distinction and Opposition suppose that Persons and Things are divers But the Doctor saith it appears by ver 11 13 17 18. that at ver 8. the Lord Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He doubted his Reader would not believe him if he recited the Words therefore he warily refers only to the Verses I deny that in any of these Verses the Lord Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And ver 18. one of the Verses quoted by him demonstrates that Jesus Christ is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Being over All the ever-blessed God For there it is said of him I am he that liveth and was dead Dorh it agree to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Unchangeable JAH to Immutable Jehovah that BEING over All the ever-blessed God that he liveth and was dead Lett. 1. pag. 2. He objected 1 John 5.7 There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One. I answered 1. They are one in their Testimony they witness the same thing not one God So Calvin Beza Erasmus Vatablus and the English-Geneva Notes interpret But the Doctor likes it not He saith Vnum sunt they are One and Vnum sumus at John 10.30 We are One must signify one thing one in Being one in Essence For so Adjectives of the Neuter Gender without a Substantive usually signify both in Greek and Latin Now I desire him to give me but one Instance in any Author Sacred or Profane where Vnum sunt they are one or Vnum sumus we are one do signify as he says one in Being one in Essence or one numerical Thing When our Saviour says John 10.30 I and the Father are One 't is certain from his own Explication elsewhere that he means not one numerical Thing one in Being one in Essence or one God He prays at John 17.22 That they the Disciples may be One as We the Father and I are One. This Passage tells us how we are to understand John 10.30 I and the Father are One. For the Disciples could be no otherways One but One in Design Interest and Affection But they were to be one as Christ and the Father are one therefore the Unity of God and Christ is an Oneness or Unity of Affection Design and Interest Even as St. Paul speaking of Himself and Apollos says 1 Cor. 3.8 He that planteth and he that watereth are one He meaneth one in Design in the design of planting and propagating the Gospel 2. I excepted against the Authority of this Text because 't is wanting in all the Ancient Translations and all Manuscripts of Note He makes light of this and says Whole Epistles are wanting in some Copies 'T is true that before Printing was in use 't was not very common to find the whole Bible in one Manuscript for People generally wrote out for their use only such parts of the Bible as they most esteemed Some had only the Four Gospels some added the Epistles of St. Paul some the Catholick Epistles But whoever wrote out an entire Book or Epistle never presumed to add any thing to the Text or to omit any thing But the objected Text was in no Copy of the Bible I mean in the Text of such Copy before St. Jerom brought it out of the Margin of some Copies It was at first a Marginal Note and by him made a part of the Sacred Text. It is never cited by any of the Fathers till after his time It is now indeed in St. Cyprian's Book De Vnitate Ecclesiae but the Criticks have all noted that no Credit is to be given to that Book as we now have it For in that little Tract of but Four Leaves they observe 288 Alterations and Additions Lastly The Doctor saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Text and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at John 10.30 agree so well that 't is a strong Presumption they are from the same Pen. But 1. I observe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not the Words of St. John at John 10.30 but of our Lord Christ and I have already accounted for them 2. If it be so strong a Presumption that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are one are indeed St. John's Words because we find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We are one in his Gospel 't is a much stronger Presumption that they are St. Paul's Words because he hath the very Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They are One 1 Cor. 3.8 Lett. 1. pag. 2. He saith The Form of Baptism Mat. 28.19 is in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit He adds Lett. 3. pag. 31. We are baptized to the joint Service and Worship of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and for ought appears in the same degree No the contrary appears because we know that the Son is but a Man and the Spirit either an Angel or the Power only and Inspiration of God But for this matter I refer the Reader and if he pleases the Doctor himself to the Brief History pag. 77 78 79. and to the Defence of that History pag. 37 38 39 40. I am not aware Sir that there is any thing more in the Doctor 's Letters necessary to be considered I conclude therefore with desiring you to give my Acknowledgments and Thanks to Dr. Wallis that he was willing to spend some part of his time which he knows how to expend so well in seeking to instruct and reduce the Vnitarians and particularly the Socinians That they are not convinced by what he hath said doth not they confess lessen their Obligations to him They desire it may not lessen his Charity to them since 't is not in Mens Power to believe as they will They profess he has written like a Man of Wit and Letters like a Gentleman and like a Christian Therefore they will always hear Dr. Wallis as a Father and if there be a necessity at any time to reply they will answer respectfully Sir I am Yours FINIS
Somewhats less than Nothings for Nothing has at least a Name It is plain Dr. Wallis spake after this manner only to avoid the Inexplicable Difficulties and Exceptions to which he saw former Explications of the Word Trinity were liable And if he had gone no farther in his Attempts upon this Subject the clamorous Socinians as he calls them would not have charged his Doctrine with Impossibility or Inconsistency But in his Third Letter he has so described these Somewhats or Persons without Notion or Name as to involve himself in Labyrinths out of which all the Metaphysicks of which he is Master will never lead him He saith Lett. 3. pag. 39. These Somewhats till my Answerer can furnish us with a better Name we are content to call Persons which is the Scripture Word at Heb. 1.3 But I deny that Persons is used of God either in that Text or elsewhere in Holy Scripture The Scripture-Word every where is Person In the Text by him alledged the Son is said to be the Image of God's Person therefore God is but One Person and therefore these pretended Somewhats must not be called Persons because this is not only not the Scripture-Word as the Doctor unwarily said but is contrary to Scripture He saith in the Letter and Page last quoted The Word Persons when applied to God is but Metaphorical not signifying just the same as when applied to Men. And again at Lett. 3. pag. 31. We mean thereby no more but somewhat analogous to Persons He repeats both these very often in his Letters Now this is to say that what we call Persons in God are not indeed Persons not truly or properly Persons but somewhat there is in God we know not what which in some regard answers to Persons It had been tolerable tho not intelligible if the Doctor had here held his Hand but in his Explication of the Athanasian Creed where it was necessary to be somewhat Orthodox he is in a contrary Story For he says Lett. 3. pag. 13. The Three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 truly Persons or properly Persons And at pag. 66. of the same Letter he approves of that as the better Reading and clearer Sense What a Task has he imposed upon us We must believe a Trinity of Somewbats For Peace sake we are content to be Fools and believe we know not what But will this do No you must believe these Somewhats are Persons But the Scripture is against it No no for this Distinction of Persons has neither true Notion nor true Name Upon this condition we are contented for if the Distinction has neither true Name nor true Notion we may affix a Notion and a Name by way of Explication which may agree to the Descriptions of God in Scripture especially with that in the First Commandment Is all done now There is one thing behind but 't is only this You must believe the Somewhats to be but Metaphorical Persons somewhat Analogous or like to Persons not truly and properly Persons and also that they are truly Persons and properly Persons The Doctor will not deny this is worse than Egyptian Slavery of making Brick without Straw for that was only hard not impossible And I cannot think the Doctor is so rigid but that upon this Remonstrance to him he will discharge us of believing his Explications which he must needs own to be contradictory and therefore impossible to be believed It is evident to me that Dr. Wallis has thought but very slightly tho it seems very long of the Trinity For afterwards he retracts this last that the Somewhats are truly and properly Persons and explains them to be Three such Persons as the Sabellians anciently and now the Socinians never opposed but are ready to admit Letter 3. pag. 4. He says Henry William Nassau is but one Man and one Husband James Duke Marquess and Earl of Ormond is not three Men or three Chancellors By these Comparisons the three Persons are but three Names or Titles of God as the Sabellians held and being rightly explained the Socinians do not deny But he goes on Tully says Sustineo unus tres personas i. e. I being but one Man do sustain three Persons that of my Self that of my Adversary and that of a Judge He did not become three Men by sustaining three Persons If among us one Man may sustain three Persons without being three Men why should it be thought incredible that the three Divine Persons may be one God as well as those three other Persons be but one Man Again at pag. 62. of the same Letter The same Man may be said to sustain divers Persons and these 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 be no more harsh to say the Three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost are but one God than to say God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier are He should have said is but one God It is much the same thing whether of these two Forms we use A King and an Husband tho they imply very different Notions different Capacities different Relations or different Personalities yet may both concur in the same Man So also a King and a Father a King and a Brother Again Lett. 4. pag. 25. We say God the Creator God the Redeemer and God the Sanctifier or in other Words the Father Son and Holy Ghost are this one God At pag. 33. of the same Letter he maketh a different Person to be only a different Consideration or Respect and in the next Page not a Thing but only a Mode Now how can he who believes such a Trinity of Somewhats or Persons as this is write against the Socinians They believe this Trinity as much as Dr. Wallis They allow there are in God three Somewhats and Persons meaning thereby as Dr. Wallis explains them three Names or Titles three Capacities or Respects three Relations three Considerations three Notions three Modes They believe there are in God these three Modes Notions Considerations Capacities Names or Titles God the Creator God the Redeemer God the Sanctifier If this be Dr. Wallis his Abiding Sentiment concerning the Trinity then if it be below his Character and Dignity to permit himself to be called a Sabellian or a Socinian the Socinians and Sabellians in honour of him are content to be called Wallisians And if you ask a Sabellian How God the Creator the Redeemer and the Sanctifier may be called God the Father Son and Holy Spirit He will answer Almighty God as Creator is called the Father or God the Father because by Creation he is Father of all things as the Redeemer he is called the Son or God the Son because he redeemed us by his Son the Lord Christ as the Sanctifier he is called God the Holy Spirit because he sanctifies us by his Afflatus or Inspiration The Socinians
Then come in Abstract Concrete Paternity Personality and an Infinity of other barbarous and insignificant Words only to hide clear Truth from Persons who can be shifted off with obscure and sensless Words Words which denote nothing that is really existent in Nature but only the Chimera's of the Metaphysician Show me that Trinitarian who dares dispute this Question about the Trinity in plain English by any sort of Arguments whether Arguments from Scripture from Reason or from Authority of first and pure Antiquity No no They never durst attempt this nor ever will for they know the Cause is lost if the People be permitted to understand it and the Reasons for and against it But the comfort is Those who are at all capable of judging these Gothish and Vandalic Terms are much more capable of discerning when they are detected and confuted Therefore to this Flourish of the Doctor I reply 'T is somewhat surprizing that a Mathematician should not be more considerate in giving an Instance belonging to his Profession He tells us we may say in the Concrete This long Thing is a Cube I deny it This long Thing is only a Line this long and broad Thing is only a Superficies or one side of a Cube 't is only this long broad and high Thing that is a Cube But if the Doctor meant This long Thing which is also broad and high is a Cube and were it not broad and high it were not a Cube but a Line or one side of a Cube then this is no Parallel to the matter in hand the Trinity For then this Proposition This long Thing is a Cube is but the same with this This long broad and high Thing is a Cube which will not at all help the Doctor Long broad and high of the Cube answer to Father Son and Spirit of the Godhead or God and the Cube it-self answers to God or the Godhead so far we are well But now say I thô we may say This long thing is a Cube meaning this thereby This long Thing which is also broad and high is a Cube and were it not broad and high it were not a Cube yet we cannot say the Father is God and mean thereby The Father who is also the Son and Holy Spirit is God and were He not withal the Son and Holy Spirit He were not God So we must speak to make out the Parallel but so to speak All know is Heresy for the Father is not the Son and Spirit nor are they the Father Therefore the Concrete way of speaking will no more favour the Doctor 's Parallel than the Abstract And he ought to have seen this when he was advised of it in a private Letter by W. I. without publishing to the World that even upon second Thoughts he understood not a Thing self-evident But supposing now That the Doctor 's Instances did enable us to conceive this particular Difficulty in the Doctrine of the Trinity does he not know that there are many more of which himself will not pretend that his Instances or Solutions are at all applicable to them I say this because his Letters bear this haughty Title The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and the Athanasian Creed Explained Do these Explications reach the tenth Part of the Contradictions charged on the Doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity and on the Athanasian Creed What are the Dimensions of a Cube or the Parts of a Shilling or of a Pound to the chief Absurdities in those Doctrines and that Creed I will mention but some of them They tell us of a Son receiving of his Father being Life and Godhead and yet as old as his Father And these two Father and Son loving one another their Mutual Love is a Third Person and Spirit equal to themselves This Spirit though but an effect is as early as its Causes and the same with them They tell us of an Infinite Person who is whole and all united without Lessening or Contraction of himself to a Finite Man They tell us of a Perfect God and a Perfect Man who are not Two but One Person though God they say is Three Persons and every Man all know is One Person because a reasonable Soul and an humane Body are a Person They tell us one while that two Intelligent Natures are but One Person another while on the contrary Three Persons are but one Numerical Nature They tell us each Person has the whole Divine Nature and cannot be separated from it They tell us farther All the Divine Persons are inseparably in the Divine Nature from whence we have this first Corollary that each Person is the other Two Persons and then this contrary to what the Doctor holds at pag. 33. of the third Letter that when the second Person was Incarnate so also must the First and Third They tell us of a Son begotten in the most perfect Manner from all Eternity yet is still in begetting for the action of Generation in God say they never ceases because that would suppose some Change in God and ever shall be so and the like of the Spirit They tell us their Trin-Unity is but One as it is but One God and is Three as it is Three such Persons that each of them is singly and by himself a God that is 't is Three in this regard that 't is Three Gods so that at length their Trin-unity is what Dr. Wallis all along abhors as both false and impossible Three in the same regard that it is but One. For the regard is God in both Propositions in the first it is One God in the other though not in the bare Sound yet in the Signification of the words it is Three Gods To add now no more whoever does not believe all these and many the like Inconsistences and that whether he can or no shall be damned They lay the greatest stress upon this Last because without this few would mind the other And this is the reason they have so constantly and absolutely refused to part with the Damnatory Clauses in the Athanasian Creed to part with them is to give away all the other Articles Of these or any of these I think Dr. Wallis will not say that his little Congruities or rather Vmbrages are Explications or Solutions He has offer'd but at very few of them However I will consider even the little he has said At pag. 34. of the third Letter he says Let one face of a Cube suppose the Base admit a foil or dark Colour while the rest of the Cube is Transparent this may someway represent Christ's Humiliation who being equal with God yet took on him the form of a Servant But can the Doctor tell me how I may shut up the Base of an Infinite Cube which Base himself supposes is Infinite in a Nut-shell For his Creed tells me a Thing much more marvellous that an Infinite Person is whole and all united to a Finite Man and that without lessening or contraction of
do think this is an harsh way of speaking yet for Peace sake they would admit this Explication The Doctor 's Explication of the Athanasian Creed consider'd IT was with great expectation that I began to read Dr. Wallis his third Letter because it bears this ambitious Front An Explication and Vindication of the Athanasian Creed I supposed He would attempt to assoil all the Difficulties and Contradictions objected to it at least those in the Brief Notes on that Creed But he meant no more by this Title but this An Explication of the Damnatory Clauses in the Athanasian Creed This was to me a wonderful Disappointment However I will be content to consider what Dr. Wallis thought worthy to offer He saith Lett. 3. pag. 4. Whosoever will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith Where saith the Doctor before all things is as much as Imprimis importing that it is mainly necessary or is a principal Requisite Was there ever a greater force put upon words 'T is before all things necessary saith the Creed that s saith the Gloss 'T is a principal Requisite I always thought there had been an immense difference between Necessary and Requisite and that abundance of Things had been mainly or principally requisite which yet were not indispensably or before all Things necessary But which of these Athanasius meant the next Clause puts out of question Which Faith saith the Creed except every one do keep whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly The Grammatical and obvious Sense of these words is this That Man or Woman shall perish everlastingly who doth not believe and profess this following Faith which is indeed the Catholic or Universal Faith without taking ought from it or adding ought to it No says Dr. Wallis the Greek word is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 totam or whole but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 salvam sanam sound or safe And says he farther As a Man may be said to be sound and safe notwithstanding a Wart or Wen or even a Wound or a Maim so long as the Vitals are not indangered So the Catholic Faith is sound and safe so long as there is nothing destructive of the main Substantials or Fundamentals This is a marvellous reasoning and such as the Doctor will very hardly persuade any to believe it Is a Man safe and sound when his Legs and Arms are shot off so long as the Vitals are not indangered but intire and safe God deliver me and Dr. Wallis too from such Soundness and Safeness And if the Catholic Faith is sound too as he says so long as the Substantials and Fundamentals remain it will follow that the Faith of the Church of Rome is sound For all Protestants but the Socinians grant that Church retains all the Substantials and Fundamentals yet her Faith they confess is unsound because of the erroneous Additions to the Substantials and Fundamentals The Doctor therefore shall do well to think again of this part of his Explication But whereas he would confirm these Perversions of the true intention of the damning Clauses in this Creed by criticizing on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I must plainly tell him he is grosly out in his Criticism 'T is not says he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 totam or whole but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 salvam sanam sound or safe Is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he pleases to consult his Lexicons he will find that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred integram perfectam whole or perfect so that the sense of this Article is That Faith must be kept perfect whole or entire nothing must be added to it nothing taken from it Lett. 3. pag. 8. And the Catholic Faith is this that is this is one main Part of the Catholic Faith I confess at this rate of expounding a very tolerable Sense may be made of this Creed and of the Alchoran If before all Things necessary is only mainly requisite if whole and undefiled may be true of a Faith which is neither whole nor undefiled but sound only in Fundamentals if the Catholic Faith is only part of the Catholic Faith what Creed or Book may not be expounded to a sound Sense Lett. 3. pag. 11. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither Made nor Begotten but Proceeding Here is no Anathematizing of the Greek Church 'T is said indeed he doth proceed and so say they but not that he doth proceed from the Father and the Son And it is said he is of the Father and of the Son but whether by Procession from both or if so whether in the same manner is not said but warily avoided And those who are better acquainted with the Doctrine and 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 To this I answer The Doctor had as much reason to deny that in this Article the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father as from the Son For the word Proceeding is so placed both in the Greek and English as to refer to both or to neither Besides Proceeding is he knows the very Characteristic of the Spirit so that if he is of or from the Father and the Son which the Doctor will not deny is expresly affirmed in this Article it must be by proceeding from them which since the Greeks deny 't is manifest their Doctrine is here condemned What he adds of the present Greek Churches is not true 't is certain they hold that their Doctrine is condemned in this Article and therefore in return to Athanasius his Complement that they shall perish everlastingly they pleasantly answer He was drunk when he made this Creed The Athanasian Creed has this Conclusion This is the Catholic Faith which except a Man keep faithfully he cannot be saved How can Dr. Wallis elude these plain words which are not annexed to any Generals as he though untruly says of the other Damnatory Clauses but are as it were the Label and Seal affixed to the whole Creed at the end or bottom of it But what cannot a Wit and a Learned Man do at least what will he not attempt He gives us a large Interpretation of this Clause at pag. 19. of his third Letter but the summ of it is this This is the Catholic Faith i. e. this is part of that Faith which all Christians do and ought to believe Which Faith except a Man keep faithfully he cannot be saved i. e. which Faith except a Man truly believe it as to the Substantials of it though possibly he may be ignorant of many particulars thereof he cannot be saved Which is as if the Doctor had said Whereas the Athanasian Creed concludes with these formidable and seemingly plain words This before related is the Catholic Faith which except a
c. is to be understood of Paul himself and every other regenerate Person or not Socinus denies they are spoken of Paul or other regenerate Person and adds that a Force how great soever is rather to be used to the words than to admit such a pernicious Opinion that is than admit that St. Paul or a regenerate Man is Carnal sold under Sin c. These words are indeed hyperbolical but considering the occasion capable of and intended in an honest sense as any candid Man will acknowledg Lett. 3. pag. 44. He saith Sandius that great Friend of the Socinians and Promoter of their Cause published a Thesis against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and was so answered by Wittichius that a Friend of Sandius and his Partner in maintaining that Thesis did after the Death of Sandius publish to the World that Sandius himself was satisfied and changed his Opinion This Matter is both unskilfully and unfairly related First Sandius was no Socinian but an Arian and not only often wrote against the Socinians but endeavours in that very Thesis mentioned by the Doctor to confute the Opinion of the Socinians about the Holy Ghost Secondly As Sandius denied the Divinity and believed the Personality of the Holy Spirit so it came into his Mind that perhaps by the Holy Spirit is meant the whole kind of Holy Angels or Spirits as by the Devil and Satan is often meant the whole Race of wicked apostate or fallen Spirits This Opinion he calls a Paradox Problema Paradoxum and propounds it to be disputed by Learned Men himself alledging the Arguments for it in the aforementioned Thesis Wittichius so replied that as Sandius his Associate reports Sandius was satisfied not of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit but that the Spirit is One Person as the Arians always held not more Persons or Spirits I said in my former Letter that a Respondent for his Degree at Oxford put for one of his Questions such a Thesis against the Socinians as Dr. Wallis objects to them viz. That they preferred Reason above Scripture and that his Learned Antagonist thô neither then nor since a Socinian made it appear that the Respondent had not read the Books of the Socinians but accused them by hearsay I added That if Dr. Wallis were urged to defend his Charge against the Socinians I doubted he could acquit himself no better than that Candidate for his Degree did The Doctor has increased my Suspicion by his third and fourth Letters for I cannot believe of him that he would knowingly and deliberately pervert the Words of Authors long since dead and who never did him wrong by Word or Deed. Therefore I suppose his Quotations were borrowed from S. Maresius or perhaps from S. Lubbertus who cared not what he said of any Adversary especially of a Remonstrant or a Socinian But were this whole Accusation of Socinus as true as 't is notoriously false the Vnitarians though they are by others called Socinians do not think themselves concerned in it for they do not profess to follow Socinus but the Scripture If Socinus has at any time spoken erroneously or unadvisedly or hyperbolically 't is not Socinus who is their Master but Christ As great Chillingworth somewhere says the Bible the Bible the Bible is our both Rule and Guide not Calvin not Luther nor Socinus but the Bible I am come now within sight of my Conclusion it only remains that I answer briefly to some exceptionable Passages and incompetent Answers to what I had objected in my first Letter I may be very brief because the Doctor as is the custom of eloquent Men and Orators has said but a little in a great deal First Whereas he has up and down in these Letters objected several Texts against the Socinian Heresy of but One God and in defence of the Catholic and Orthodox Doctrine of Three Gods as to those Texts which he has only cited without inlarging or criticizing upon them I refer my self to the Explications in the Brief History of the Socinians and to the Defence of that History He saith Lett. 3. pag. 42. that Dr. Sherlock has confuted that History I observe that the Orthodox Writers cry up one anothers Books as clear Victories though those Books are as contrary to one another as they are to the Socinians and if any one of them has confuted the Socinians he has at the same time confuted all his own Party and even Holy-mother Church her self If Dr. Sherlock has confuted the Brief History he must needs too have confuted Dr. Wallis his four Sabellian Letters If he has proved that there are Three Infinite Intelligent Beings Minds and Spirits then he has confuted those that say the Trinity is Three Somewhats without true Name or true Notion Three Capacities or Respects Three Names or Titles of God Three Modes or Relations to his Creatures namely Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier And if Dr. Wallis has proved this last in his celebrated Letter he has without doubt confuted Dr. Sherlock who asserts Three Infinite Spirits and Beings who are one God only as they are Mutually Conscious or know and feel one anothers Minds and Actions And both of them have confuted Mother Church who hath in several General Councils Anathematized the Doctrine of Sabellius whom Dr. Wallis follows and the Heresy of Philoponus and Abbat Joachim who are followed by Dr. Sherlock That a Sabellian should tell a Tritheist he has confuted the Socinians is such a Complement that if the Vindicator doth not take it for a Jeer he is without doubt so much a Gentleman as by way of requital to publish to the World in his Next that Dr. Wallis has eternally and irrefragably confuted the Neighbour and the Neighbour's Friend In the mean time I cannot but wonder that the Orthodox Writers being so badly agreed what their Trinity is that they have nothing left in common among them but only the word Trinity I wonder I say that they should so earnestly contend for a Word which themselves confess is neither found in Scripture nor was known to first and pure Antiquity The two great Reformers Luther and Calvin were not so much taken with this Word as we are now adays M. Luther Postil major Dominic says The word Trinity sounds odly and is an humane Invention It were better to call Almighty God God than Trinity J. Calvin Admon 1. ad Polonos says I like not this Prayer O Holy Blessed and Glorious Trinity It savours of Barbarity the word Trinity is barbarous insipid profane an humane Invention grounded on no Testimony of God's Word the Popish God unknown to the Prophets and Apostles I observed in my former Letter that our Saviour says John 17.1 3. Father this is Life eternal that they know Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Or Jesus Christ thy Messenger I alledged this Text to prove that only the Father is the true God The Doctor at Lett. 3. pag. 51. gives
three Answers And of these the first and third are contrary to and destructive of one another if the first is true the third must be false if the third be true the first is false For the first supposes that by Father here is meant only the Person of the Father or the first Person in the Trinity the other supposes that by Father is meant God in the most large sense so as to comprize the Father Son and Holy Spirit I will examine the three Answers severally 1. He saith I should have considered that it is not said Thee only to be the true God but Thee the only true God The restrictive Only is not annexed to Thee but to God His meaning in plainer terms is this I should have noted the vast difference between these two Forms Thee only the true God and Thee the only true God If the objected Text had been in the first of these Forms the Socinians had undoubtedly gained their Point but the latter which is the Form in the alledged Text does them no service This may be called a Fineness a Subtlety a Querk not an Accurate Reasoning or a real and true Distinction For first There is no difference in the Signification of these Propositions Thee only the true God and Thee the only true God the last is as exclusive of all other Persons besides the Father as the first As there is no difference between saying Thee only Leopold the true Emperour of Germany and saying Thee Leopold the only true Emperour of Germany Secondly If there were indeed a difference between these two Forms yet the latter is as hurtful to the Trinitarians as the former They will not have it to be here said the Father only is the true God no no that destroys the Trinity but the Father is the only true God I say now if this last does not destroy the Trinity it certainly confounds the Persons which in their Creed is no less Heresy than the other For seeing in the Trinitarian Hypothesis God or the One true God is Father Son and Holy Sprit these words Thee Father the only true God must be to say Thee Father the Father Son and Holy Spirit But this is Heresy it confounds the Persons it makes the Father to be Father Son and Holy Spirit Thus the Doctor 's first Answer has two Faults 't is founded not on a real but chimerical and imaginary Distinction and it implies Heresy 2. He answers The words may be thus expounded To know Thee Father to be the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Or thus to know Thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the only true God This Interpretation is generally rejected by the more Learned Trinitarians because it apparently destroys the Divinity of the Holy Spirit For if the Father and Son be the only true God it remains that the Spirit either is only a Creature as the Arians and Bidellians say or the Power and Inspiration of God as the Pholinians and Socinians affirm I believe the Doctor was aware of this unlucky Consequence and therefore advanced a third Interpretation which himself seems to approve because afterwards he repeats and urges it again 3. He says The Scope of the place may be this to set forth that there is but One true God though in this Godhead be Three Persons Father Son and Spirit and the Doctrine of Redemption by Jesus Christ whom God hath sent Which Things the Heathens knew not Now according to this Answer Father in this Text is God as comprizing the Three Persons Father Son and Spirit and Jesus Christ is the Man Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ as Man But I would know how it comes to pass that the particular Title and very Characteristic of the first Person is here given to the Son and Spirit At this rate of interpreting how shall we ever distinguish the Persons One while we are told Father is the perpetual and incommunicable Character or Description of the First Person another while Father is the Three Persons even Father Son and Holy Spirit But so it is They that maintain a false Opinion must answer according to the present Exigence sometimes this Thing sometimes the contrary only Truth is stable coherent consistent with it self always the same Farther That by Father here is meant only One Person not Three Persons is clear by this that otherways our Saviour should have said Fathers not Father For Three Persons who All have the relation of Paternity as this Answer supposes are as much Three Fathers as they are Three Persons Next I objected 1 Cor. 8.6 But to us there is but One God the Father of whom are all Things and we in Him and One Lord or Master i. e. Teacher Jesus Christ by whom are all Things and we by Him Or rather Jesus Christ for whom are all Things and we for Him For all Things were originally created for Him that is with Intention to subject them in the fulness of time to Him as their Principal and Head under God To this the Doctor answers as before It is manifest that One God is here put in opposition not to Plurality of Persons in one Deity but to the many Gods of the Heathen and our one Saviour against their many Saviours But I do not know that the Heathens distinguished between their Gods and their Saviours as the Doctor here and many other Interpreters suppose He should have said our one Master or Teacher to their many Teachers to the numerous Professors of different Philosophies among the Heathen But the One God is opposed not only to the Many Gods of the Heathen but to all other Persons but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father I ask as before How could St. Paul call Three Persons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father and how this Characteristic of the First Person can by him be given to the Son and the Proceeder is not this plainly to confound the Persons He that confounds the Characters necessarily confounds the Persons If the Apostle had known and believed the Divinity of our Times he must have said To us there is but one God the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and one Teacher Jesus Christ as Man Nay were that Doctrine true he had more reason so to speak to the Corinthians than we now have For they were Novice Christians to whom it was necessary to speak of so high a Point in the most explicit open and plain Terms We may therefore certainly infer that when he teaches them To us there is but One God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Father he meant to deny that there is any other Person but the Father who is or can be God Lett. 3. pag. 57. He objects Rom. 9.5 Of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen He observes hereupon that in the Greek 't is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which answers to JAH and Jehovah And that Christ is again