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
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
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