Man keep faithfully he cannot be saved Athanasius meant nothing less than to damn all those who do not intirely believe his Creed No no that good Man intended only this This Catholic Faith is part of the Catholic Faith and if you would be saved you must believe this part of the Catholic Faith in part in the Substantials of it Which Substantials as I said before are only these two Generals that there is a Trinity in Vnity or three Somewhats in one God and that Christ was Incarnate This last may most easily be received by all Parties for all Souls are Incarnate and Partakers of Flesh and Blood by Incarnation or Incorporation I leave it with the Reader to judge whether the Doctor has interpreted or eluded this Creed I believe Dr. Wallis had a charitable Intention in the pains he has taken to find out a favourable Sense of the words of this Creed But on the other hand it looks not well that he should put as great a force on the words of Socinus to make him speak impiously and heretically as he has on the words of Athanasius to make him speak Orthodoxly or Charitably This is the next thing I will consider in his Letters The Opinions charged on Socinus and the Socinians IN his first third and fourth Letters He has charged the Socinians with Opinions which not only subvert the Authority and Belief of Holy Scripture but indanger all Religion and Piety towards God Lett. 4. pag. 3. He saith that He taketh his whole charge against the Socinians as granted He adds at pag. 5. of the same Letter that There is reason to suspect that the Socinians have some other odd Tenents which they think fit rather to conceal than to deny What those odd Tenents are he tells us at Lett. 1. pag. 16. that There is neither Angel nor Spirit that the Holy Scriptures are not the Word of God nor yet the Doctrines therein contained He there gives his reason why he suspects and would have others suspect them of these horrid Opinions Because they spare not to let us know that were this Doctrine of the Trinity delivered in Scripture in words as express as could be they would not believe it There can be nothing more false or disingenuous than this Charge I will examine it Part by Part and the perverted Quotations by which he would prove it to the Unlearned Reader Lett. 1. pag. 5. They the Socinians tell us How clear soever the Expressions of Scripture be or can be to this purpose i. e. to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity they will not believe it because inconsistent with natural Reason The Doctor very often in these Letters makes it a great and inexcuseable Crime in the Socinians that because the Trinity is inconsistent with Natural Reason therefore they will not believe it even though it were expressed in Scripture But what if the Trinitarians themselves are of this opinion that what is inconsistent with Natural Reason or with our common and congennit Notions is not to be believed though the words of Scripture be never so express Dr. Sherlock sure is now no Socinian but a Trinitarian yet at pag. 151. of his late Answer to the Brief History and Brief Notes he puts in his own Name this Question and answer to it Suppose that the natural Construction of the words of Scripture import such a sense as is contrary to some evident Principle of Reason Then I won't believe it How not believe Scripture No no I will believe no pretended Revelation which contradicts the plain Dictates of Reason The Professors of Franeker who are not Socinians as the Doctor mistakes Lett. 3. pag. 38. but Trinitarians of the most rigid Sect for they are Calvinists of the cut and die of the Dort Synod and otherways could not be in the Pension of the States of the Vnited Provinces those Professors I say by confession of Dr. Wallis published a Thesis to this effect If Reason dictates to us any thing otherwise than the Scripture does 't is an errour to say in such case we are rather to believe the Scripture 'T is no new thing that Writers who undertake to discuss Questions which they do not thorowly understand should frequently and very grosly contradict themselves Dr. Wallis himself is in this very oversight While he is warmly charging the Socinians with Sadducism and Impiety for affirming as he untruly says that they would not believe what is contained in Scripture if contrary to Reason while I say he is charging the Socinians with this Doctrine as an impious and unchristian Opinion he himself not only believes but professes it Lett. 1. pag. 8. In this case the Question of the Trinity the Revelation seems so clear to those who believe the Scripture that we have no reason to doubt of it unless the thing be found really impossible and inconsistent with Reason What is this but to say Though Revelation be most clear yet if the thing be impossible and inconsistent with Reason we have reason enough to doubt of it Would Dr. Wallis now be content that his Reader should infer from hence that he is a Sadducee believing neither Angel nor Spirit or an Atheist or at least a Deist not believing the Scripture or that the Doctrines thereof are the Word of God as he most rashly and most uncharitably has intimated concerning the Socinians In my former Answer to him I opposed to this charge of the Doctor the clear words of Socinus of Sclichtingius and of Smalcius The first of these says The way of Reason is too fallible in a Matter depending on Divine Revelation such as the Christian Religion is The second says If any thing appear to be contained in Scripture whatever Reason may say in contradiction to it Reason must of necessity be deceived The third says Religion and Holy Scripture have many things above Reason and therein they highly commend themselves but nothing which is contrary to Reason As a small Light to a great one so Reason is not contrary to Scripture Let Frantzius tell us of any one Sentence of Scripture which is contrary to Reason and then let Reason be silent in the Church Socinus de Author S. Scrip. p. 16. Sclichtingius adv Meisn de ss Trin. p. 68. Smalcius contr Frantz disp 4. p. 137. To these Citations Dr. Wallis answers He tells me of some Socinians who have so much respect for the Scriptures as to say Scripture contains nothing repugnant to Reason and what doth not agree with Reason hath no place in Divinity Since the Doctor is not pleased to observe what my Quotations prove I must desire our Reader to observe and to judge between us I think they clear the Socinians of the scandalous Imputation which the Doctor seeks to fasten on them Lett. 3. pag. 45. As to the suspicion I had of some of their Sentiments Socinus Epist 5. ad Volket doth absolutely deny that the Soul after Death doth subsist But let us hear the
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
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-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
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
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
the Infinite Spirit or Person In the same page of the same Letter he says God's Justice and Mercy are distinguishable thô in God they are not divided accordingly some Things are effects of his Justice others of his Mercy So the Power and Will of God are both Individual from himself but when we say God is Omnipotent we do not say he is Omnivolent If therefore we allow as great a Distinction between the Persons as between the Attributes as certainly it is not less but somewhat more there will be no Incongruity in ascribing the Incarnation to one of the Persons and not to the rest He argues here as if the Incarnation were an Action now allowing him that gross Mistake I say if this be any Explication of the proposed Difficulty he must allow that one Attribute may be Incarnate and not another I ask the Doctor therefore Can the Justice of God be Incarnate and not his Mercy or his Power and not his Will But I must tell him farther there is a closer Connexion between the Persons than the Attributes The first are according to him and his Party in one another the other not so Again at pag. 13. of the first Letter he argues thus 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 and to this Basis of length and breadth be given as a farther Procession from both an equal height E F and all this eternally Here is a fair resemblance of the Father as the Fountain or Original of the Son as generated from him from all Eternity and of the Holy Ghost as eternally proceeding from both And all this without any Inconsistence But not without some Non-sense He supposes the length of this Cube to be the first Dimension in Order not in Time 'T is Non-sense to say Length is first of the Dimensions not in Time but in Order For Priority of Order must be either the Priority of Time or of Dignity Priority of Time the Doctor himself disclaims because it would destroy his Parallel Priority of Dignity cannot be pretended between Dimensions which himself too supposes to be equally Infinite Thus the Foundation of his Parallel is absurd and false But I will not stand upon it I ask him whether length did of it-self beget breadth communicating to it its whole Nature did length and breadth of themselves without some external Agent generate heighth and communicate their Nature to it If not this is no Illustration how the Father did himself eternally beget the Son and the Father and Son generate the Spirit He cautions me that I would not ludere cum Sacris He sees I will not how great occasion soever be given The Thing which in my opinion and I believe in the Judgment of most Readers deserves best to be considered is at p. 26. of the third Letter Solomon as wise as he was doth yet acknowledg himself to be at a loss when he would search out the bottom of Natural Things and shall we then say of the Deep Things of God It is impossible because we cannot find it out I answer the Deep Things of God in the Text quoted by the Doctor are those hidden and secret Things which God hath prepared for them that love him see the alledged Text 1 Cor. 2.10 11. These Contradictions to Reason and Scripture are not the Deep Things of God but rather the Depths of Satan Rev. 2.24 by which he seeks to lead us into Polytheism and Idolatry But hitherto of the Doctor 's Design or Scope in these Letters and of the Instances and Similitudes by which he would confirm it Of his Somewhats and Persons ONE would expect that since they say the Trinity is the Doctrine of the Catholick or Universal Church and necessary to be believ'd in order to Salvation that at least they knew and were agreed what this Trinity is or what is thereby meant else we are required to believe no Body knows what in order to Salvation But so it is there is as much Confusion in declaring what this Catholic necessary Doctrine is as there was at the building of Babel where no one understood another As many Writers so many Explications of the Trinity neither does this happen only among the vulgar of their Learned Men but among their Learned of the first Class and Magnitude When any of them dares demand it I will give an ample Account of the Diversity and Divisions among their chief Doctors such Diversity that they have nothing left in which they agree but only the word Trinity but sure the Word without the Notion is not Necessary to Salvation because 't is confessedly Unscriptural Let us consider an Instance of this which has lately hapned First comes forth Dr. Sherlock the Churches well-known Champion against all Her Foes that is against all those who believe the Holy Scriptures without reserve and believe the Church only so far as they can see and judg that she agrees with Scripture and Reason a Fault not to be purged with Sacrifice nor Offering for ever this famous Combatant tells us The Trinity is Three Infinite Beings Minds or Spirits each of which is singly and by himself a God yet they are all but One God because Mutually Conscious that is because they perfectly and intimately know one anothers Thoughts and Actions He is so sure this is the very Doctrine of the Trinity that to say the contrary is he saith both Heresy and Non-sense This was spoken like a Vindicator for all that not two Persons of forty in his own Party do believe him They plainly see that if one Infinite and absolutely Perfect Being Mind or Spirit be one absolutely Perfect God as all both Philosophers and Divines confess he is then of necessity Three such Beings are Three Gods and Mutual Consciousness may make them a Cabal or Council of Gods but never numerically One God The Learned of his own Party know that this Opinion of Dr. Sherlock is the Errour or Heresy of Abbat Joachim condemned in the fourth General Council of Lateran Anno 1215. The next is Dr. Wallis who has been studying this Point above Forty and towards Fifty Years as himself saith Letter 4. pag. 18. After so long Consideration He is not pleased with former Explications but advances one that is equally New and Cautious The blessed Trinity is saith he Lett. 2. pag. 3. three Somewhats and these three Somewhats we commonly call Persons but the true Notion and true Name of that Distinction is unknown to us He again owns this to be the true Sense of his first Letter at pag. 8. of the Second and often in his following Letters We may call this Explication Dr. W 's Three New Nothings for three Somewhats that have neither true Notion nor true Name are to Us and to Him also but so many Nothings or rather
words of Socinus not as they are dockt by this Author but as they are in that Epistle Satis apparet me sentire non ITA vivere post hominis ipsius mortem animam ejus ut PER SE praemiorum poenarumve capax existat cum in ipso primo homine totius Immortalitatis rationem uni Gratiae Dei tribuam i. e. I hold that a Man's Soul after his Death doth not so live as that by it self or of its own Nature 't is capable of Reward or Punishment In the very first Man I attribute his Immortality to the alone Grace of God In a word the Opinion of Socinus was this That there is no Natural Immortality in Man but he hath it by the Grace and Gift of God Lett. 3. pag. 46. Socinus in his Tract de Eccl. says thus I am not to regard what other Men teach or think or have before now taught or thought whosoever or how many soever they be or have been And if saith Dr. Wallis Whosoever are not here to be extended to the Sacred Writers he tells us of them elsewhere It appears that the Doctor would have it thought that these Words are meant of the Writers of Holy Scripture as well as others at least that 't is doubtful whether they were not so intended Therefore here again we must hear Socinus himself Cumque res Divinas Humana ipsa per se ratio assequi nequeat ad Divinam patefactionem consugiendum est Nec attendendum quid Homines praesertim ques nec vitae Innocentia nec Divinum aliquod certum Testimonium commendat doceant sentiantve vel antehac docuerint aut senserint quicunque illi tandem aut quotcunque sint aut fuerint i. e. Since Human Reason cannot of it self attain the knowledg of things Divine we must have recourse to Divine Revelation and not mind what Men especially who are recommended to us neither by their own Probity nor by the Witness of God teach or think or have taught or thought whosoever or how many soever they be or have been I know not what could be said more truly or more like a Protestant Dr. W. Lett. 3. pag. 47. As for me saith Socinus de Servat pag. 3. c. 6. tho it were found written in the Sacred Monuments not once but many times I would not for all that believe it so to be And a little before having first told us that the thing was impossible He adds When it doth plainly appear or when he thinks so whatever all the World think beside that the thing cannot be tho 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 Sense than what they speak To this I say either Socinus was a gross Heretick or an Apostate from Christianity or those who have furnished Dr. Wallis with these Quotations are as gross Falsifiers for I cannot suspect that Dr. Wallis himself would forge such Calumnies to blacken another Man especially a Noble Person long since dead and who never did him any Injury The very words of Socinus are these Nonnulla in ipso nempe Christo reperta sunt quae ejusmodi satisfactionem penitus excludunt Quare nequeo satis mirari quid eis in mentem venerit qui nobis primi Islam Satisfactionem fabricârunt Cum ea quae fieri non posse apertè constat Divinis etiam oraculis ea facta fuisse in speciem disertè attestantibus nequaquam admittantur idcirco sacra verba in alium sensum quam ipsa sonant etiam per inusitatos tropos explicantur nedum tunc pro compertis plane veris affirmentur atque aliis obtrudantur cum ne verbum quidem in universis sacris literis de ipsis extet Nam si vel unus saltem locus inveniretur in quo Satisfactionis pro peccatis nostris Deo per Christum exhibitae mentio fieret excusandi fortasse viderentur Ego quidem etiamsi non semel sed saepe ID in sacris monumentis scriptum extaret non idcirco tament ita rem prorsus se habere crederem ut vos opinamini In English thus There are some things in our Lord Christ which plainly exclude such a Satisfaction Wherefore I cannot sufficiently wonder what was in their Minds who first devised that Satisfaction Those things of which 't is manifest that they cannot be are not admitted he means by Interpreters and Commentators though the Scriptures do as it were seem to affirm them expresly and therefore the sacred Words are even by unusual Tropes interpreted to another sense than what they sound much less are they affirmed for apparent and plain Truths or forced upon others when there is not a word about them in the whole Scripture For if even but one Text were found in which there were mention of Satisfaction made to God for our Sins by the Lord Christ they might perhaps be excused For my part though IT he means this word Satisfaction were extant in Scripture not only once but many times I would not for all that believe the Thing to be altogether so as ye hold it These last words are left out in the Doctor 's Latin Quotation and in his Translation and what Socinus plainly intended of the custom and manner of Interpreters or Commentators that the Doctor represents as Socinus his private Sentiment and the rule of interpreting by him only used and advised But any one who understands Latin and reads Socinus his own words at length which I have before repeated will see Socinus meant only thus much This word Satisfaction is no where extant in Holy Scripture and if it were yet we need not therefore believe the vulgar Doctrine about the Satisfaction both because there are in the Lord Christ himself several things which exclude such a Satisfaction and because all Interpreters have recourse to even unsual Tropes when the Scriptures seem to affirm things which would be manifestly false if we interpreted them by the mear sound of the Words I suppose Socinus might have in his Thoughts that Rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10.4 I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven if any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever or such like Texts in which it cannot be denied that the Tropes are harsh and unusual in the Western Languages though they were not so in the Eastern Lett. 3. pag. 4. They are Socinus his own words Epist ad Balcerovic Jan. 30. 1581. 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 At Lett. 4. pag. 2. and often elsewhere the Doctor repeats these words as if they were spoken of the Doctrine of the Trinity But the thing is not so The Question touched in that Letter is whether the Context of Rom. 7.14 c. I am Carnal sold under Sin