THE DOCTRINE OF THE Blessed Trinity Briefly Explained In a Letter to a Friend SIR THE Doctrine of the Arrians Socinians or Anti-Trinitarians call them as you please provided you call them not Orthodox Christians in opposition to those who believe according to the Word of God That the Sacred Trinity of Father Son and Holy-Ghost are so distinguished each from other as that the Father is not the Son or Holy-Ghost the Son not the Father or Holy-Ghost the Holy-Ghost not the Father or Son yet so United as that they are all One God which in the Athanasian Creed is called Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity or in common speaking Three Persons and One God is what you were lately discoursing with me and of which I shall give you some of my present Thoughts The Scripture tells us plainly There are Three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy-Ghost and these Three are One 1 Joh. 5. 7. And the Form of Baptism Matt. 28. 19. is In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy-Ghost And the Christian Church from the time of Christ and his Apostles downwards hitherto as well before as since the Council of Nice have ever held the Divinity of those Three Persons as they are commonly called and that these Three are but One God And that they have so held hath been by divers sufficiently proved from the most ancient christian Writers which are now extant Which therefore I take for granted as sufficiently proved by others without spending time at present to prove it a-new That these are Three distinguished each from other is manifest And that this Distinction amongst themselves is wont to be called Personality By which word we mean that Distinction what ever it be whereby they are distinguished each from other and thence called Three Persons If the word Person do not please we need not be fond of Words so the Thing be agreed Yet is it a good Word and warranted by Scripture Heb. 1. 3. where the Son is called the express image of his Father's Person For so we render the Word Hypostasis which is there used and mean by it what I think to be there meant And we have no reason to wave the Word since we know no better to put in the Place of it If it be asked what these Personalities or Characteristicks are whereby each Person is distinguished from other I think we have little more thereof in Scripture than that the Father is said to Beget the Son to be Begotten and the Holy-Ghost to Proceed If it be further asked what is the full import of these Words which are but Metaphorical and what is the adequate Meaning of them I think we need not trouble our selves about it For since it is a matter purely of Revelation not of natural Knowledge and we know no more of it than what is revealed in Scripture where the Scripture is silent we may be content to be ignorant And we who know so little of the Essence of any thing especially of Spiritual Beings though finite need not think it strange that we are not able to comprehend all the Particularities of what concerns that of God and the Blessed Trinity I know that the Fathers and School-men and some after them have imployed their Wits to find out some faint Resemblances from natural things whereby to express their imperfect Conceptions of the Sacred Trinity But they do not pretend to give an adequate Account of it but only some conjectural Hypotheses rather of what May be than of what certainly Is. Nor need we be concerned to be curiously inquisitive into it beyond what God hath been pleased to reveal concerning it That the Three Persons are distinguished is evident though we do not perfectly understand what those Distinctions are That to each of these the Scripture ascribes Divinity is abundantly shewed by those who have written on this Subject That there is but One God is agreed on all hands That the Father is said to Beget the Son to be Begotten and the Holy-Ghost to Proceed is agreed also though we do not perfectly understand the full Import of these Words And here we might quietly acquiesce without troubling our selves further did not the clamorous Socinians importunely suggest the Impossibility and Inconsistence of these things insomuch as to tell us That how clear soever the Expressions of Scripture be or can be to this purpose they will not believe it as being inconsistent with natural Reason And therefore though they do not yet think fit to give us a bare-fac'd Rejection of Scripture yet they do and must they tell us put such a forced Sence on the words of it be they never so plain as to make them signify somewhat else There is therefore in this Doctrine of the Trinity as in that of the Resurrection from the Dead a double Inquiry First whether it be Possible and then whether it be True And these to be argued in both Cases from a very different Topick The one from Natural Reason the other from Revelation Yet so that this latter doth certainly conclude the former if rightly understood And though we should not be able to solve all Difficulties yet must we believe the thing if revealed unless we will deny the Authority of such Revelation Thus our Saviour against the Sadducees who denied the Resurrection Matth. 22. 29. Ye erre saith he not knowing the Scriptures nor the Power of God The Power of God if rightly understood was enough from the Light of Reason to prove it not impossible But whether or no it will be so which natural Reason could not determine was to be argued from Scripture-Revelation In like manner St. Paul before Agrippa Act. 26. first argues the Possibility of it Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the Dead ver 8. For if Agrippa did believe the Creation of the World as many even of the Heathen did from the light of Nature he could not think it Impossible for that God who had at first made all things of nothing to recollect out of its Dust or Ashes a Body which once had been But whether or no he would do so depended upon another Question to be after asked ver 27. King Agrippa believest thou the Prophets For this was purely matter of Revelation and could not otherwise be known For as to the Immortality of the Souâ— and a future state hereafter many of the Heathens went very far by the Light of Nature but as to the Resurrection of the Body I do not find they had any Sentiments about it or but very faint if any And if they had it may well be supposed to be the remainder of some ancient Tradition from the Jews or their Predecessors Nor do I see any foundation in Nature which should make them think of it before it was revealed any more than of the Redemption of Mankind by Christ which we should never have
thought of had not God himself contrived and declared it to us But when that of the Resurrection was once suggested there was no pretence of Reason to think it a thing Impossible and therefore no reason to doubt the Truth of it when Declared if we believe the Scriptures wherein it is revealed especially those of the New Testament It is much the same as to the Doctrine of the Trinity It is a thing we should not have thought of if it had not been suggested by Divine Writers but when suggested there is nothing in natural Reason that we know of or can know of why it should be thought Impossible but whether or no it be so depends only upon Revelation And in this case the Revelation seems so clear to those who believe the Scriptures that we have not reason to doubt of it unless the thing be found to be really Impossible and inconsistent with Reason Nor do the Anti-Trinitarians insist on any other ground why they deny it save only That it seems to them absolutely Impossible and therefore think themselves bound to put another Sence on all Places of Scripture how clear soever they be or can be which prove or favour it So that the Controversie is now reduced to this single Point Whether it be Possible or not Possible Whether it be consistent or inconsistent with Natural Light or Reason And to that point therefore I shall confine my Discourse For it seems agreed on all hands as to those who believe the Scriptures that if it be not Impossible it is sufficiently revealed Now for us who understand so little of God's infinite Essence and which it is impossible for us fully to comprehend who are our selves but finite and mostly conversant with material Objects in so much that we cannot pretend to understand the Essence of our own Souls and when we attempt to explain it must do it rather by saying what it is not than what it is so hard a matter is it for us to fix in our Mind or Fancy a Notion Idea or Conception of a spiritual Being which falls not under our Senses 'T is hard I say for us who understand so little of a Spirit to determine of what God is pleased to reveal that it is Impossible or inconsistent with his Essence which Essence we cannot understand But what is it that is thus pretended to be Impossible 'T is but this That there be Three Somewhats which are but One God and these Somewhats we commonly call Persons Now what Inconsistence is there in all this That Father Son and Holy-Ghost are Three is manifest and are in Scripture-Language distinguished That there is but One God is manifest also and all those Three are this God That the name Person is no incongruous Word is evident from Heb. 1. 3. where it is used If it be said It doth not agree to them exactly in the same Sence in which it is commonly used amongst men we say so too nor doth any Word when applyed to God signifie just the same as when applyed to men but only somewhat analogous thereunto What kind or degree of Distinction according to our Metaphysicks this is we need not be very sollicitous to enquire or whether in our Metaphysicks accommodated to our Notions of Finite Beings there be any Name for it 'T is enough for us if these Three may truly be so distinguished as that one be not the other and yet all but One God Now that there is no Inconsistence or Impossibility that what in one regard are Three may in another regard be One is very manifest from many Instances that may be given even in Finite Beings such as we converse with which though they do not adequately agree with this of the Sacred Trinity nor is it to be expected that they should Finite with what is Infinite yet there is enough in them to shew there is no such Inconsistence as is pretended I shall spare to instance in many Resemblances which have been given long since by Fathers and Schoolmen or by later Writers Which though they are not pretended to be adequately the same with that of the Sacred Trinity as neither will any thing else be that we can take from finite Beings yet are they sufficient to shew that there is no Inconsistence in it Which is all that is here incumbent on us to prove I shall only name a few I will begin with what concerns the most gross of Finite Beings that is Material Bodies Suppose we further Each of these Dimensions infinitely continued the Length infinitely Eastward and Westward the Breadth infinitely Northward and Southward the Heighth infinitely Upward and Downward Here are Three infinite Dimensions and but One infinite Cube and these Three Dimensions though distinct are equal each to other else it were not a Cube and though we should allow that a Cube cannot be infinite because a Body and therefore a finite Creature Yet a Spirit may such as is the Infinite God And therefore no Inconsistence that there be Three Personalities each infinite and all equal and yet but One Infinite God essentially the same with those Three Persons I add further That such Infinite Cube can therefore be but One and those Three Dimensions can be but Three not more nor fewer For if Infinite as to its Length Eastward and Westward and as to its Breadth Northward and Southward and as to its Heighth Upward and Downward it will take up all imaginary space possible and leave no room either for more Cubes or more Dimensions And if this infinite Cube were and shall be Eternally so its Dimensions also must be Infinite and Co-eternal I say further If in this supposed Cube we suppose in Order not in Time its first Dimension that of Length as A. B. and to this Length be given an equal Breadth which is the true generation of a Square as C. D. which compleats the square Basis of this Cube and to this Basis of Length and Breadth be given as by a further Procession from Both an equal Heighth E. F. which compleats the Cube and all this eternally for such is the Cube supposed to be here is a fair Resemblance if we may parvis componere magna of the Father as the Fountain or Original of the Son as generated of him from all Eternity and of the Holy-Ghost as eternally Proceeding from Both And all this without any Inconsistence This longum latum profundum Long Broad and Tall is but One Cube of Three Dimensions and yet but One Body And this Father Son and Holy-Ghost Three Persons and yet but One God And as there the Dimensions are not in the Abstract predicated or affirmed each of other or the Cube of either the Length is not the Breadth or Heighth nor either of these a Cube but in the Concrete Cube is affirmed of all this longum latum profundum is a Cube and the same Cube So here in the Abstract the Personality of the Father is not that
of the Son nor either of these that of the Holy-Ghost nor the Deity or Godhead any of these but in the Concrete though the Personalities are not yet the Persons are each of them God and the same God If it be objected that those Concretes are Affirmed or Predicated each of other that longum is also latum and profundum this Long is Broad and Tall but not so here the Father is not the Son or Holy-Ghost I answer That if the words be rightly considered the Analogy holds here also For when we say this Long is Broad and Tall where Cube or Body is understood the full meaning is plainly thus This Body which as to one Dimension that of Length is said to be a long Body is the same Body which as to another Dimension that of Breadth is said to be a broad Body and which as to a third Dimension that of Heighth is said to be a tall Body So here That God which as to one Personality is God the Father is the same God which as to another Personality is God the Son and which as to a third Personality is God the Holy-Ghost So the Analogy holds every way nor is there any Inconsistence in either Case I proceed to the Consideration of somewhat more Spiritual and less Material than that of a Body locally extended Suppose we then a Created Angel or Humane Soul at least if those who deny the Blessed Trinity will allow that there are such Beings but if they be Sadducees who do not acknowledge either Angel or Spirit or that the Holy Scriptures are the word of God which testifie both which I doubt is the case of some of them let them speak out that so we may know whom we have to deal with and not pretend to nibble only at the Athanasian Creed or some Expressions therein while the quarrel is indeed at somewhat higher though ad amoliendam invidiam they think fit to dissemble it and that they do but faintly believe if at all that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God or the Doctrines therein contained to be such And we have reason to suspect it when they spare not to let us know that were this Doctrine of the Trinity therein delivered in Words as express as could be they would not believe it But suppose we what they would seem to grant and what I am so charitable as to think divers of them do believe That there are Spiritual Beings such as Angels and the Souls of Men and that these Spiritual Beings are endued with Knowledge or Wisdom and Force or an executive Power to act according to that Knowledge That there is some such thing at least in Man whether Body or Soul they cannot but acknowledge for themselves be and know and do And though we cannot fully comprehend much less express in Words how all this is so for we are here at a loss as well as in higher things Yet that it is they cannot deny though they do not know How Now to Be and to Know and to Do are certainly distinct each from other though perhaps we are not all agreed of what kind or in what degree this Distinction is To be is not the same as to know for that may be were this is not and to do is for the same reason somewhat different from both those for a Man may Be and may Know what he doth not Do yet 't is one and the same Soul at least one and the same Man which Is and Knows and Does There is therefore no Impossibility or Inconsistence in it That what in one regard are Three may in another regard be One. Thus in the Sacred Trinity if we conceive of the Father as the Original or First Person who begets the Son the Son as the Wisdom of the Father begotten of Him and the Holy-Ghost as the Spirit of the Father and the Son as proceeding from Both and yet the same God with both or what other Distinction there may be of these Three Persons who are but One God that we do not know there is no Inconsistence in it that these Three may be One Three in one regard and One in another I might shew the same as to the Understanding Will and Meaning which are all the same Soul And the known Metaphysical Terms of Unum Verum Bonum which are all but the same Ens. And many other Instances of like Nature But we hold it will be said a greater Distinction than that of Unum Verum Bonum between the Three Persons in the Sacred Trinity Be it so But what that greater Distinction is we do not pretend to comprehend However it is from all these Instances evident that there is no Impossibility or Inconsistence with Reason that what in one regard are Three may in another Regard be One. Which is what we undertook to shew 'T is true that not any nor all of these Instances nor any of those given by other Learned Mendo adequately express the Distinction and Unity of the Persons in the Sacred Trinity for neither hath God distinctly declared it to us nor are we able fully to comprehend it nor is it necessary for us to know But because we do not know How the bones grow in the womb of her that is with child shall we therefore say they do not grow there Or because We cannot by searching find out God because we cannot find out the Almighty to perfection shall we therefore say things cannot be when God says they are only because we know not How If God say These Three are One shall we say they are not If God say The word was God and The word was made Flesh shall we say Not so only becaue we cannot tell How It is safer to say It is when God says It is though we know not in particular How it is Especially when there be so many Instances in Nature to shew it not to be Impossible or Inconsistent with Reason The thing is sufficiently revealed to those who are willing to be taught and receive the truth in the love of it Nor is it denyed by those who gainsay it but that if the thing be possible it is sufficiently revealed there being no other Exception made as to the Revelation but the Impossibility of the thing But if any man list to be contentious and to quarrel about words it is no wonder if hearing they do hear and not understand and that God give them over to believe a lye who do not love the truth But the humble he will teach his way And while we be so we be safe August 11. 1690. Yours Iohn Wallis a Eccles. 11 5. b Job 11. 7. c 1 Joh. 5. 7. d Joh. 1. 1 14. e 2 Thess. 2. 10. f 1 Cor. 11. 16. Rom. 2. 8. g 2 Tim. 6. 4. Tit. 3. 9. h Act. 28. 28. Matth. 13. 13. i 2 Thess. 2. 10 11. Rom. 1. 21 28. k Psal. 25. 9.