Letter Concerning the Trinity Number 3

AN EXPLICATION and VINDICATION OF THE Athanasian Creed.

IN pursuance of what I have said in a former Letter, concerning (what we commonly call) the Athanasian Creed; it may not be amiss to express it a little more distinctly.

We call it commonly the Athanasian Creed, not that we are certain it was penned (just in this form) by Athanasius himself; (for, of this, I find that learned men are doubtful,) but it was penned either by himself, or by some other about that time, according to the mind and doctrine of Athanasius. In like manner as what we call the Apostles Creed, we take to be penned (very anciently) according to what Doctrine the Apostles had taught them, though not perhaps in those very words.

But whoever was the Compiler (whether Athanasius himself, or some other) of the Athanasian Creed, I suppose, the Damnatory Sentences (as they are called) therein, were not by him intended to be understood with that Rigor that some would now insinuate, (who, because perhaps they do not like the main Doctrines of that Creed, are willing to disparage it, by representing it to the greatest disadvantage they can,) as if it were intended, That whoever doth not explicitly and distinctly know, and understand, and assent to, all and every clause and syllable therein, could not be saved. (Which, I suppose, neither the Author did intend, nor any other sober person would affirm.) But, that the Doctrine therein delivered (concerning God and Christ) is sound and true Doctrine in itself, and ought, as to the substance of it, to be believed as such, by all persons (of Age, and Capacity, and who have opportunity of being well informed in it,) who do expect salvation by Christ; at least so far as not to disbelieve the substance of it, when understood. There being no other ordinary way to be saved, (that we know of) than that by the Knowledge and Faith of God in Christ.

But what measures God will take in cases extraordinary, (as of Infancy, Incapacity, Invincible Ignorance, or the like,) is not the thing there intended to be declared; nor is it necessary for us to know; but to leave it rather to the Wisdom and Counsel of God, whose Iudgments are unsearchable, and his Ways past finding out, Rom. 11. 33.

Much less do I suppose, that he intended to extend the necessity of such explicit Knowledge, to the Ages before Christ. For many things may be requisite to be explicitly Known and Believed by us to whom the Gospel is revealed, which was not so to them, before the Veil was taken away from Moses face, and Immortality brought to light through the Gospel, 2 Cor. 3. 13, 14. 2 Tim. 1. 10.

Nor are we always to press words according to the utmost rigor that they are possibly capable of; but according to such equitable sense as we use to allow to other Homiletical Discourses, and which we have reason to believe to have been the true meaning of him whose words they are.

And I have the more reason to press for such equitable construction, because I observe those hard Clauses (as they are thought to be) annexed only to some Generals; and not to be extended (as I conceive) to every Particular, in the Explication of those Generals.

It begins thus;

Where, before all things, is as much as Imprimis; importing, that it is mainly necessary, or a principal requisite, to Believe aright; especially, concerning God, and Christ.

Which, as to persons of Years, and Discretion, and who have the opportunity of being duly Instructed, I think is generally allowed by all of us, to be necessary (as to the Substantials of Religion) in the ordinary way of salvation, without disputing, what God may do in extraordinary Cases, or how far God may be pleased, upon a general Repentance, as of Sins unknown, to pardon some culpable Misbelief.

It follows;

That is, (as I conceive) Unless a person (so qualified and so capacitated, as I before expressed) do keep it whole or sound, as to the Substantials of it (though possibly he may be ignorant of some Particulars of the true Faith;) and undefiled, or intemerate, (without adding thereunto, or putting such a sense upon such Substantials, as shall be destructive thereof,) shall (except he repent) perish everlastingly. Which, I think, is no more than that of Mar. 16. 16. He that Believeth not, shall be Damned. And what Limitations or Mitigations are there to be allowed, are (by the same equity) to be allowed in the present Clause before us. Which therefore may (in this true sense) be safely admitted.

And here I think fit to observe, That whereas there may be an ambiguity in the English word whole, which sometime signifies totus, and sometime sanus or salvus, it is here certainly to be understood in the latter sense, as answering to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 totam, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sanam or salvam. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to keep the Faith salvam & intemeratam, which is translated whole and undefiled, might (to the same sense) be rendered safe and sound. Now a man may well be said to be safe and sound, notwithstanding a Wart or a Wen, or even a Hurt or Maim, so long as the Vitals be not endangered. And so, of the Catholic Faith, or Christian Doctrine, so long as there is nothing destructive of the main Substantials or Fundamentals of it, though possibly there may be an Ignorance or Mistake, as to some particulars of lesser moment.

After this Preface (between it and the Conclusion, or Epilogue) there follows indeed a large Exposition of (what he declares to be) the Catholic Faith; (That is; to be some Part of it: For I take the whole Scripture to be the Catholic Faith; whereof this Collection is but a part.) beginning with, The Catholic Faith is this: And Ending with, This is the Catholic Faith.

But it is not said, That except a man Know and Believe every particular of that Explication, he shall perish eternally; but only, Except he keep the Catholic Faith (as to the Substantials of it) safe and sound.

For doubtless there may be many Particulars of Catholic Faith (contained in the Word of God) which a man may be ignorant of, and yet be saved. It is True, That the Name of our Savior's Mother was Mary; and the Name of the Judge who condemned him was Pontius Pilate: and both these are put into (what we call) the Apostles Creed; and are part of the Catholic Faith; and which (supposing that we know them to be declared in Scripture) we ought to Believe. But I see not why it should be thought (of itself) more necessary to salvation (if he do not know it to be declared in Scripture) for a man to know that her Name was Mary, than that the Name of Adam 's Wife was Eve, or Abraham 's Wife Sarah, or that one of Job 's Daughters was called Iemima; (for all these are declared in Scripture; and, supposing that we know them so to be, ought to be believed as part of the Catholic Faith.) Nor do I know, that it is (of itself) more necessary to know that the Name of the Judge who condemned our Savior was Pontius Pilate, than that the Name of the High Priest was Caiaphus. And though one of these, and not the other, be put into the Apostles Creed, whereby we are more likely to know that than the other: yet both of them being True, and declared in Scripture; they are, both of them, parts of the Catholic Faith, and to be believed: but neither of them (I think) with such necessity, as that, who knows them not, cannot be saved.

And what I say of this General Preface in the beginning, is in like manner to be understood of the General Conclusion in the end; which (Catholic Faith) except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Of which I shall say more anon.

After the General Preface, (concerning the necessity of holding the Catholic Faith,) he proceeds to two main Branches of it, (that of the Trinity, and that of the Incarnation, with the Consequents thereof;) which he declares likewise, as what ought to be believed.

That of the Trinity, he declares thus in General;

(that is, this is one main part of the Catholic Faith;) namely, and Trinity in Unity; Neither Confounding the Persons, nor Dividing the Substance. Which is what we commonly say, There be Three Persons, yet but One God. And this General (which, after some particular Explications, he doth resume) is what he declares ought to be believed. But he doth not lay such stress upon each Particular of that Explication, though True.

He thus explains himself;

(Which Persons therefore are not to be confounded.) That is, one Substance, one God. (Which is what he said of not Dividing the Substance, as if the Three Persons should be Three Substances, or Three God's.) According as Christ says of Himself and the Father, John 10. 30. I and the Father are One: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,) that is, one Thing, one Substance, one God, not one Person. And 1 John 5. 7. These Three are One; ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) Hi Ires sunt Unum, not Unus. These three Who's, are one What. They are one Thing, one Substance, one God, though Three Persons.

And as their Godhead, or Substance undivided, is all one; so it follows,

Such as the (as to the common Godhead) For all these are Attributes of the common Deity, which is the same of All. Not Three Eternal God's, (though Three Persons) but One Eternal God. nor three Uncreated; but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. One and the same Substance or Deity, uncreated and incomprehensible. ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the word by which the Greeks do express the Hebrew Name Jehovah, the proper incommunicable Name of God,) (Not three Jehovah's, but one Jehovah.) Which are so many particular Explications or Illustrations of what was before said in general of not Confounding the Persons, nor Dividing the Substance. Which Explications, though they be all true, (and necessary Consequents of what was before said in general;) yet to none of them is annexed such Sanction, as that whosoever doth not Believe or not Understand these Illustrations, cannot be saved. 'It is enough to Salvation, if they hold the true Faith, as to the substance of it, though in some other form of words, or though they had never heard the Athanasian Creed.

Nor is any such Sanction annexed to the Personal Properties, which next follow;

Where, by the way, here is no Anathematization of the Greek Church, (of which those who would, for other reasons, disparage this Creed, make so loud an out-cry.) 'It is said indeed He doth proceed, (and so say they,) but not that he doth proceed from the Father and the Son. And 'tis said, He is Of the Father and Of the Son ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) some way or other; (and even this, I suppose, they would not deny;) but whether by procession from both, or (if so) whether in the same manner, it is not said; but warily avoided. (Though indeed it seems to favor what I think to be the truth, and what in the Nicene Creed is said expressly, that he doth proceed from both; and, for ought we know, in the same manner; which yet we do not determine) Nor do I see any reason, why, on this account, we should be said to Anathematize the Greek Church, or they to Anathematize us, even though we should not exactly agree, in what sense he may be said to be Of the Father, and in what Of the Son. And those who are better acquainted with the Doctrine and the Languages, of the present Greek Churches, than most of us are, do assure us, that the differences between them and us are rather in some forms of expressions, than in the thing itself. However, those who would make so great a matter of this, should rather quarrel at the Nicene Creed, than the Athanasian: where it is expressly said of the Holy Ghost, that he proceedeth from the Father and from the Son. 'It is not therefore for the phrase Filioque, that they are so ready to quarrel at this Creed rather than the Nicene, but from some other reason, and, most likely, because the Doctrine of the Trinity is here more fully expressed than in that, at which the Socinian is most offended.

I observe also, That these Personal Properties are expressed just by the Scripture words, Beget, Begotten, Proceeding, without affixing any sense of our own upon them; but leaving them to be understood in such sense as in the Scripture they are to be understood. Agreeable to that modest Caution, which is proper in such Mysteries.

It follows;

(That is, not in Time, though in Order.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The three ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) are ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) truly persons, or properly persons, and co-eternal each with other, and co-equal.

Having thus finished these particular Explications, or Illustrations, concerning the Trinity, (without any condemning Clause of those who think otherwise, other than what is there included; namely, that if this be True, the contrary must be an Error:) He then resumes the General, (as after a long Parenthesis,)

And to this General, annexeth this Ratification, or, thus ought to think of the Trinity, or, Let him thus think of the Trinity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And to this, I suppose, we do all agree, who believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be true. For, if the thing be true, those who would be saved, ought to believe it.

He then proceeds to the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Which he declares in general as necessary to salvation.

Which is no more than that of John 3. 36. He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. And therefore we may safely say this also: There being no other Name under Heaven whereby we must be saved, neither is there Salvation in any other, Acts 4. 12.

After this (as before he had done of the Doctrine of the Trinity) he gives first a general Assertion of his being God and Man; and then a particular Illustration of his Incarnation.

What follows, is a further Explication of this General.

And thus far, as to the Description of Christ's Person and Natures. The Particulars of which I take to be all true; and therefore such as ought to be believed, when understood. But such (many of them) as persons of ordinary capacities, and not acquainted with School Terms, may not perhaps understand. Nor was it, I presume, the meaning of the Penman of this Creed, that it should be thought necessary to Salvation, that everyone should particularly understand all this: but, at most, that, when understood, it should not be disbelieved. That in the general, being most material, That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man: the rest being but Explicatory of this. Which Explications, though they be all true, are not attended with any such clause, as if, without the explicit knowledge of all these, a man could not be saved.

He then proceeds to what Christ hath done for our Salvation, and what he is to do further at the last Judgment, with the Consequents thereof.

That Clause of descending into Hell, or Hades, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,) which we meet with here, and in the Apostles Creed, as it is now read, is not in the Nicene Creed; nor was it anciently (as learned Men seem to be agreed) in what we call the Apostles Creed. When or how it first came in, I cannot well tell: Nor will I undertake here to determine the sense of it.

The Hebrew word Sheol, and the Greek Hades, which here we translate Hell, (by which word we now-a-days use to denote the Place of the Damned, ) was anciently used to signify, sometime the Grave, sometime, the Place, State, or Condition of the Dead, whether good or bad. And when Job prays ( Job 14. 13.) O that thou wouldst hide me in Sheol (as in the Hebrew;) or in Hades, (as in the Greek Septuagint;) certainly he did not desire to be in what we now call Hell; but rather (as we there translate it) in the Grave, or the condition of those that are Dead.

But what it should signify here, is not well agreed among learned Men. The Papists generally (because that is subservient to some of their beloved Tenants) would have it here to signify the Place of the Damned; and would have it thought, that the Soul of Christ, during the time his Body lay in the Grave, was amongst the Devils and Damned Souls in Hell. Others do, with more likelihood, take it for the Grave, or condition of the Dead: and take this of Christ's descending into Hades, to be the same with his being Buried, or lying in the Grave. The rather, because in the Nicene Creed, where is mention of his being Buried, there is no mention of his descent into Hell, or Hades: And here, in the Athanasian Creed, where mention is made of this, there is no mention of his being Buried; as if the same were meant by both phrases, which therefore need not be repeated. And though in the Apostles Creed there be now mention of both, yet anciently it was not so; that of his descent into Hell, being not to be sound in ancient Copies of the Apostles Creed. If it signify any thing more than his being Buried, it seems most likely to import his Continuance in the Grave, or the State and Condition of the Dead, for some time. And the words which follow, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , say nothing of his coming out of Hell, but only of his rising from the Dead.

But the words here stand undetermined to any particular sense; and so they do in the Apostles Creed; and are so also in the Articles of our Church. Where it is only said, (because in the Creed it stands so,) That we are to believe, That he descended into Hell, without affixing any particular sense to it.

The words, doubtless, have respect to that of Acts 2. 27. where, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell, (or Hades) nor suffer thine Holy One to see Corruption, is applied to Christ, (cited out of Psal. 16. 10. where the same had before been spoken of David. ) And his not being left in Hades, seems to suppose his having been (for some time) in Hades, whatever by Hades is there meant. And Verse 31. his being not so left, is expressly expounded of his Resurrection. And so again in Acts 13. 35. Now, as we have no reason to think, that David 's being in Hell, or Sheol, (though not to be left there) can signify, his being in Hell among the Devils and damned Spirits, but rather in the Grave, or the Condition of the Dead; so neither that Christ's being in Hell, or Hades, (which is the Greek word answering to the Hebrew Sheol ) should signify any other than His being in the Grave, or condition of the Dead; from whence, by his Resurrection, he was delivered. And to this purpose seems that whole Discourse of Peter, Acts 2. 24,—32. and of Paul, Acts 13. 30,—37.

But, without determining it to any particular sense, the Creed leaves the word Hell indefinitely here to be understood, in the same sense what ever it be, in which it is to be understood, Acts 2. 27, 31. and Psal. 16. 10. And so far we are safe.

It follows;

(Of all which, there is no doubt but that it ought to be believed.) Ending with, That is, this is true and sound Doctrine, and such as every true Christian ought to believe.

And, as he had begun all with a general Preface, so now he closeth all with a general Conclusion:

That is, the Doctrine here delivered is true, (and so I think it is in all the parts of it,) and is (part of) the Catholic Faith: (The whole of which Faith, is the whole Word of God.) That is, part of that Faith, which all true Christians do, and ought to Believe. Which Catholic Faith, (the whole of which is the whole Word of God) except a man (so qualified as I before expressed) do believe faithfully, (that is, except he truly believe it) as to the Substantials of it, (though possibly he may be ignorant of many particulars therein) he cannot (without such Repentance as God shall accept of) be saved. Which, so limited, (as it ought to be) I take to be sound Doctrine, and agreeable to that of John 3. 16. He that believeth not, is condemned already; because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God: And Ver. 36. He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him: That is, (according to the words of this Creed) he that believeth not aright (of God and Christ) cannot be saved.

Which words of Christ, we may safely interpret both with an aspect on the Doctrine of the Trinity (because of those words, the only Begotten Son of God; ) and to that of the Incarnation of Christ, and the Consequents thereof; (because of those words in the beginning of the Discourse, Ver. 16, 17, God so loved the World, that he Gave his only Begotten Son, &c. and God sent his Son into the world—that the world through him might be saved: ) Which are the two main Points insisted on in the Athanasian Creed. And he who doth not Believe on the Name of this only Begotton Son of God, and thus sent into the world, (the Text tells us) shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Which fully agrees with what is here said, Except a man believe the Catholic Faith, (of which the Doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation, are there intimated, and are here expressed, to be considerable Branches) he cannot be saved. And what Limitations or Mitigations are to be understood in the one place, are reasonably to be allowed as understood in the other. And, consequently, those Damnatory Clauses (as they are called) in the Athanasian Creed (rightly understood) are not so formidable (as some would pretend) as if, because of them, the whole Creed ought to be laid aside.

For, in brief, it is but thus; The Preface and the Epilogue tell us, That whoso would be saved, it is necessary, or ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) he ought to hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith, except he keep whole and undefiled, or ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) safe and inviolate, he shall perish everlastingly; or, which except he believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Which is no more severe, than that of our Savior, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not, shall be damned.

He then inserts a large Declaration of the Catholic Faith, especially as to two main Points of it; that of the Trinity, and that of the Incarnation. And if all he there declares be true, (as I think it is,) we have then no reason to quarrel with it upon that account. But he doth not say, That a man cannot be saved, who doth not Know or Understand every particular thereof.

Of the First, he says but this, He that would be saved, ought thus to think, or ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) let him thus think of the Trinity; namely, That the Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, ought to be Worshipped.

Of the Second, what he says is this, Furthermore it is necessary to Eternal Salvation, That he believe aright the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which is no more severe than that of our Savior, He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him; because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God, whom God hath sent into the world, that the world through him might be saved, John 3. 17, 18, 36.

Beside these, there are no Damnatory Clauses in the whole. All the rest are but Declaratory. And, if what he declares be true, we have no reason to find fault with such Declaration.

Now as to those two Points; that of the Trinity, and that of the Incarnation, (which are the only Points in question,) there is a double Inquiry, (as I have elsewhere shown,) Whether the things be Possible; and whether they be True. The Possibility may be argued from Principles of Reason: The Truth of them from Revelation only. And it is not much questioned, but that the Revelation, in both Points, is clear enough, if the things be not impossible.

As to that of the Trinity; I have already shown, (in a former Letter) That there is therein no Impossibility, but that what in one consideration are Three, (which we commonly call three Persons,) may yet (in another consideration) be One God.

I shall now proceed to show, That neither is there any Impossibility, as to the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now this consists of two Branches; That of his being born of a Virgin; and that of the Hypostatical Union (as it is commonly called) of the Human Nature with the Second Person of the Sacred Trinity.

As to the former of the two, there can be no pretence of Impossibility. For the same God who did at first make Adam of the Dust of the Earth, without either Father or Mother, and who made Eve of Adam 's Rib, (without a Mother at least, however Adam may be fancied as a Father,) and who shall at the last day recall the Dead out of the Dust, may doubtless, if he so please, cause a Woman, without the help of Man, to conceive a child. There is certainly no Impossibility in nature, why it may not, by an Omnipotent Agent, be brought to pass. And when the Scripture declares it so to be, there is no reason (if we believe the Scripture) to disbelieve the Thing.

It is no more than when Christ cured the blind man's eyes with day and spittle: Or when he said, Lazarus, come forth, and he did so. Or when God said, Let there be Light, and there was Light: And, of the whole Creation; He spake, and it was done, he commanded, and it stood fast. No more than when he made Aaron's Rod (a dry Stick) to bud and blossom, and yield Almonds: Or what is implied in that, Let not the Eunuch say, I am a dry tree. And not much more than when God gave Abraham a Son in his old age; and, notwithstanding the deadness of Sarah's womb.

I was about to say, (and it is not much amiss if I do) it is not much more than what (pretty often) (happens amongst men, when God gives both Sexes to the same person, (such there are, and have been; and I think there is one yet living, who was first as a Woman married to a Man, and is since as a Man married to a Woman;) and what hinders then, but that God, if he please, may mingle the Effects of both these Sexes in the Same Body? A little alteration in the structure of the Vessels would do it. For when there is in the same body, and so near, Semen virile & muliebre, what hinders but there might be a passage for them to mix? And Plants, we know, do propagate without a fellow, though it be otherwise in Animals. And whereas this is said to be by the Holy Ghost coming upon her, and the Power of the Highest over shadowing the Blessed Virgin; it is not much unlike that of the Spirit of God's Incubation, or moving upon the face of the Waters. So that, as to this Point, here is nothing Impossible, nothing Incredible.

The other Particular, as to the Hypostatical Union; How God and Man can be united in one Person, may seem more difficult for us to apprehend, because we understand so little of the Divine Essence, and consequently are less able to determine, what is, and what is not, consistent with it. And, when all is done, if we be never so certain, that there is such an Union, yet it will be hard to say How it is.

But we have no reason from thence to conclude the thing Impossible because we know not How it is done. Because there be many other things in nature, which we are sure to Be; of which we are almost at as great a loss as to the manner How they be, as in the present case.

Solomon, as wise as lie was, and how well so ever skilled in Natural Philosophy, doth yet acknowledge himself, in many things to be at a loss, when he would search out the bottom of Natural things, and even when he made it his Business so to do. When (says he) I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth: Then I beheld all the work of God; that a man cannot find out the work of God that is done under the sun: Because though a man labor to seek it out, yet he shall not find it. Yea further, though a wise man seek to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it, Eccles. 8. 16, 17. And shall we then say, of the deep things of God, The thing is impossible, because we cannot find it out? And if we consider how many puzzling Questions God puts to Job, in the 37, 38, 39, 40, 41. Chapters of Job, even in natural things, we may very well (as Job did) abhor ourselves in dust and ashes, and be ashamed of our ignorant curiosity; and confess (as he doth) I have uttered what I understood not; things too wonful for me which I know not: when he found he had talked like a fool, while he thought to be wise, and would measure the Power and Wisdom of God by the narrow limits of our understanding: And might come to Job 's Resolution (when he had well weighed the matter) I know that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee, Job 42. 2, 3, 6.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, (not where you please to appoint it,) thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth, (saith Christ to Nicodemus: ) But shall we therefore conclude, The Wind doth not blow, because we know not how or whence it bloweth? Or, that God cannot command the Winds, because we cannot? We should rather conclude, The Wind doth certainly Blow, (because we hear the sound of it, ) though we know neither How, nor Whence: And, though they do not obey us, yet the Wind and the Seas obey him. Now (as he there further argues) If, when he tells us of earthly things, we do not apprehend it, how much more if he tell us of Heavenly things? of the deep things of God?

But (to come a little nearer to the business) consider we a little the Union of our own Soul and Body. 'It is hardly accountable, nor perhaps conceivable by us, (who are mostly conversant with material things,) How a Spiritual Immaterial Being (such as our Souls are) and capable of a separate existence of its own, should inform, actuate, and manage a material substance, such as is that of our Body, and be so firmly United as to be One Person with it. By what handle can a Spirit Intangible take hold of a Tangible Material Body, and give Motion to it? Especially if we should admit Lucretius 's Notion;

(which he repeats almost as often as Homer doth his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) who doth thence repute it impossible for an Immaterial Being to move a Body. But we who believe the Soul to be a a Spirit, know it to be possible. Much more is it possible for God (though a Being infinitely Act. 17, 25, 27, 28. more pure) who giveth to all, Life and Breath and All things; and in whom we Live and Move and have our Being; and who is not far from everyone of us. It would be hard for us to give an intelligible account, either how God moves all things, or how our Soul moves the Body; yet we are sure it is so. That a Body may move a Body, seems not so strange to apprehend, (for we see one Engine move another;) But, by what Mechanism, shall a Spirit give Motion to a Body when at rest? or, Stop it when in Motion? or, Direct its Motions this way or that way? It would be thought strange, that a Thought of ours should Move a stone: And it is as hard to conceive (did we not see it daily) How a Thought should put our Body in Motion, and another Thought stop it again. Yet this we see done every day, though we know not How. And it is almost the same thing in other Animals. And more yet, when an Angel assumes a Body. There are none of these things we know, How; and yet we know, they are done.

I shall press this a little farther. Our Soul (we all believe) doth (after Death) continue to exist, in a separate condition from the Body. And, I think, we have reason to believe also, that it will continue to Act as an Intellectual Agent, (not to remain in a stupid senseless 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) Else I see not why Paul should desire to depart, or to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, which is far better; rather than to abide in Flesh. For while he abides in the Flesh, he hath some enjoyment of Christ, (as well as an opportunity of doing some Service) which is more desirable, if when he is departed, he have none at all. And, how can he then say, That to Dye is gain? Whether the Soul thus separated shall be said to have a Subsistence as well as an Existence; Or, whether it may be properly said then, to be an entire Person; (as the Soul and Body are, before Death, and after the Resurrection ) I will not Dispute, because, that were to contend about Words, and such Words so signify, as we please to define them, and bear such a Sence, as we please to put upon them. But it is (as the Angels are) an Intellectual, Spiritual Agent; and we use to say, Actiones sunt Suppositorum; and Suppositum Rationale, is either a Person, or so near a Person, that it would be so if men please to call it so. And the Spiritual Being, which doth now separately Exist, shall at the Resurrection, resume a Body into the same Personality with itself, and shall with it become one Person, as before Death it had been.

Now if a Spiritual Immaterial Intellectual Being, separately existent by itself, and separately acting as an Intellectual Agent, may, at the Resurrection, assume or reassume a Material Corporeal Being (Heterogeneous to itself) into the same Personality with itself, or so as to become one Person with it, while yet itself remains Spiritual as before: What should hinder (for it is but one step further) but that a Divine Person, may assume Humanity, into the same personality with itself, without ceasing to be a Divine Person as before it was? If it be said, That Person and Personality in the Sacred Trinity, are not just the same as what we so call in other cases: It is granted; and by these words (which are but Metaphorical) we mean no more, but somewhat analogous thereunto; and which, (because of such analogy) we so call, as knowing no better words to use instead thereof: According as we use the words, Father, Son, generate, beget, and the like, in a metaphorical sense, when applied to God. For no words, borrowed from Created Beings, can signify just the same when applied to God, as when they were applied to Men, but somewhat analogous thereunto. And if the Soul (though we know not How) may and do (at the Resurrection) assume a Body so as to become the same Person with itself (though neither the Body be thereby made a Soul, nor the Soul a Body; but remain as before, that a Body, and this a Soul, though now united into one Person:) Why may not a Divine Person assume Humanity, so to be what is analogous to what we call a Person; the Humanity remaining Humanity, and the Divinity remaining Divinity, though both united in One Christ; though we do not particularly know How?

We should be at a great loss, if (to answer an Atheist, or one who doth not believe the Scriptures) we were put to it, to tell him, How God made the World? Of what Matter? With what Tools or Engines? or, How a Pure Spirit could produce Matter where none was? He would tell us perhaps, Ex nihilo nihil, in nihilum nil posse reverti; Where nothing is, nothing can be made: and what once is, (though it may be changed) can never become Nothing: And will never believe the World was made, (but rather was from all Eternity) except we can tell him, How it was made. Now, if in this case, we may satisfy ourselves (though perhaps it will not satisfy him) by saying, God made it, but we know not How: The same must satisfy us here; That Christ was Incarnate, (God and Man) we are certain, (for so the Scripture doth assure us, as well as, That God made the World;) But, How God made the World; or, How the Son of God assumed Humanity, we cannot tell. Nor indeed is it fit for us to inquire, farther than God is pleased to make known to us. All further than this, are but the subtle Cob-webs of our Brain: Fine, but not Strong. Witty Conjectures, How it may be; rather than a clear Resolution, How it is.

Another Objection I have met with: to which the Objecters must be contented with the same Answer; We know it Is, but we know not How. It would be endless for us, and too great a Curiosity, to think ourselves able fully to explicate all the Hidden things of God. The Objection is this: Since the Three Persons cannot be Divided; How is it possible, that One of them can Assume Humanity, and not the other? And why the Second Person, and not the First or Third?

As to the Question, Why? I say, It is so, because so it pleased God; And he giveth not account of his Matters; He is not accountable to us, why he so willeth.

As to the Question, How is it Possible? I see no difficulty in that at all. The Persons are Distinguished, though not Divided. As in the Divine Attributes, God's Justice and Mercy are Distinguishable; though in God they cannot be Divided. And accordingly, some things are said to be Effects of his Justice, others of his Mercy. So the Power and Will of God (both which are Individual from himself:) But when we say God is Omnipotent, we do not say he is Omnivolent. He wills indeed All things that Are, (else they could not be) but he doth not will all things Possible. And the like of other Attributes.

If therefore we do but allow as great a Distinction between the Persons, as between the Attributes, (and certainly it is not less, but somewhat more,) there is no incongruity in ascribing the Incarnation to One of the Persons, and not to the rest.

'It is asked further, How I can accommodate this to my former Similitude, of a Cube and its Three Dimensions; representing a Possibility of Three Persons, in one Deity. I say, Very easily. For it is very possible, for one Face of a Cube, suppose the Base, (by which I there represented the Second Person, as Generated of the Father,) to admit a Foil, or Dark Colour, while the Rest of the Cube is Transparent; without destroying the Figure of the Cube, or the Distinction of its Three Dimensions, which Colour is adventitious to the Cube. For the Cube was perfect without it, and is not destroyed by it. Which may some way represent Christ's Humiliation. Who being Equal with God, was made Like unto Us, and took upon him the Form of a Servant, Phil. 2. 6, 7.

So that, upon the whole Matter, there is no Impossibility in the Doctrine of the Incarnation, anymore than in that of the Trinity. And, supposing them to be not Impossible; it is not denied but that they are, both of them, sufficiently Revealed; and therefore to be Believed, if we believe the Scripture. And of the other Articles in the Athanasian Creed, there is as little reason to doubt.

There is therefore no just Exception, as to the Declarative part of the Athanasian Creed. And, as to the Damnatory part; we have before shown, that it is no more severe, than other passages in Scripture to the same purpose; and to be understood with the like Mitigations as those are. And, consequently, that whole Creed, as hitherto, may justly be received.

'It is true, there be some Expressions in it, which, if I were now to Pen a Creed, I should perhaps choose to leave out: But, being in, they are to be understood according to such sense as we may reasonably suppose to be intended, and according to the Language of those times When they did use to Anathematize great Errors, which they apprehended to be Destructive of the Christian Faith, as things of themselves Damnable, if not Repented of. And, I suppose, no more is here intended; nor of any other Errors, than such as are Destructive of Fundamentals.

POSTSCRIPT. November 15. 1690.

WHen this Third Letter was Printed, and ready to come abroad, I stopped it a little for this Postscript; occasioned by a small Treatise which came to my hands, with this Title, Dr. Wallis' s Letter, touching the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, answered by his Friend. It seems, I have more Friends abroad than I am aware of. But, Who this Friend is, or whether he be a Friend, I do not know. It is to let me understand, that a Neighbor of his, reputed a Socinian, is not convinced by it: But names some Socinian Authors, who endeavor to elude Scriptures alleged for the Trinity, by putting some other sense upon them. He might have named as many, if he pleased, who have (to better purpose) written against those Authors, in vindication of the True sense. And if he should Repeat what Those have said on the one side; and I, say over again, what Those have said on the other side; we should make a long work of it.

But he knows very well, That was not the business of my Letter, to discourse the whole Controversy at large, (either as to the Evidence, or as to the Antiquity, of the Doctrine.) For this I had set aside at first, (as done by others, to whom I did refer:) and confined my Discourse to this single Point, That there is no Impossibility (which is the Socinians great Objection) but that What in one consideration is Three, may in another consideration be One. And if I have sufficiently evinced this, (as I think I have; and I do not find that he denies it;) I have then done what I there undertook. And, in so doing, have removed the great Objection, which the Socinians would cast in our way: and, because of which, they think themselves obliged to shuffle off other Arguments on this pretence. Now (whether he please to call this a Metaphysick, or Mathematick Lecture, ) certain it is, that there are Three distinct Dimensions (Length, Breadth, and Thickness) in One Cube. And, if it be so in Corporeals, there is no pretence of reason, why in Spirituals 〈◊〉 should be thought Impossible, that there be •• ree Somewhat's which are but One God. And these Somewhat's, till he can furnish us with a better name, we are content to call Persons, (which is the Scripture word, Heb. 1. 3.) Which word we own to be but Metaphorical, (not signifying just the same here, as when applied to men,) as also are the words, Father, Son, Generate, Begot, &c. when applied to God. And more than this need not be said, to justify what there I undertook to defend.

Now 'tis easy for him (if he so please) to burlesque this, or turn it to ridicule, (as it is, any the most Sacred things of God;) but not so safe, Ludere cum Sacris. The Sacred Trinity (be it as it will) should by us be used with more Reverence, than to make Sport of it.

I might here end, without saying more. But because he is pleased to make some Excursions, beside the Business which I undertook to prove, (and which he doth not deny;) I will follow him in some of them.

He finds fault with the Similitude I brought, (though very proper to prove what it was brought for,) as too high a Speculation for the poor Laborers in the Country, and the Tankard-bearers in London. And therefore (having a mind to be pleasant) he adviseth rather (as a more familiar Parallel ) to put it thus, I Mary, take thee Peter James and John for my wedded Husband, &c. (thinking this, I suppose, to be Witty.) And truly (supposing Peter, James, and John, to be the same Man,) it is not much amiss. But I could tell him, with a little alteration, (if their Majesty's will give me leave to make as bold with their Names, as he doth with the Names of Christ's Mother, and of his three Disciples which were with him in the Mount at his Transfiguration, Matth. 17. 1.) it were not absurd to say, I Mary, take thee Henry William Nassaw; without making him to be three Men, or three Husbands; and without putting her upon any difficulty (as is suggested) How to dispose of her Conjugal Affection. And, when the Lord's and Commons declared Him to be King of England, France, and Ireland; they did not intend, by alotting him three distinct Kingdoms, to make him three Men. And when, for our Chancellor, we made choice of James, Duke, Marquess and Earl of Ormond; though he had three distinct Dignities, he was not therefore three Men, nor three Chancellors. And when Tully says , Sustineo unus tres personas; meam, adversarii, judicis; which is in English, (that the Tankard-bearer may understand it,) I being one and the same Man, do sustain Three Persons; that of Myself, that of my Adversary, and that of the Judge: He did not become three Men, by sustaining three Persons. And (in this Answer to my Letter) the Friend and his Neighbor, may (for ought I know) be the same Man, though he sustain Two Persons. And, I hope, some of these Resemblances, may be so plain, and so familiar, as that He and his Tankard-bearer may apprehend them: and thence perceive, It is not Impossible that Three may be One. For if (among us) one Man may sustain three Persons, (without being three Men, ) Why should it be thought incredible, that three Divine Persons may be one God? (as well as those three other Persons be one Man?) Nor need he the less believe it for having (as this Answerer suggests) been taught it in his Catechism, or (as Timothy did the Scriptures) know it from a Child. But I would not have him then to tell me, the Father is a Duke, the Son a Marquess, the Holy Ghost an Earl, (according as he is pleased to prevaricate upon the Length, Breadth and Thickness of a Cube;) but thus rather, That, God the Creator, God the Redeemer, and God the Sanctifier, are the same God. That God the Creator is Omnipotent and All Sufficient; that God the Redeemer is so too; and God the Sanctifier likewise. That God the Creator is to be Loved with all our Heart; and so God the Redemer, and God the Sanctifier. And then there will be no Absurdity in all this.

As to what he says, that All people that have reason enough to understand Numbers, know the difference between One, and More than one; I might reply, That all people who can tell Money, know that Three Groats are but One Shilling, and Three Nobles are One Pound; and what in one consideration is Three, may in another consideration be but One. Which, if it look like a slight Answer, is yet sufficient to such an Argument.

He tells me somewhat of Dr. Sherlock, (wherein I am not concerned,) and somewhat of the Brief History of the Unitarians, (of which his Neighbor gives the Friend a Copy; ) But he doth not tell me, as he might, (and therefore I tell him) that Dr. Sherlock hath confuted that History. But Dr. Sherlock says nothing contrary to what I defend. For if there be such Distinction (between the three Persons) as he assigns, then at least, there is a Distinction (which is what I affirm, without saying how great it is;). Nor doth he anywhere deny them to be one God.

He tells me a story of somebody, who, in a public Disputation at Oxford, maintaining a Thesis against the Socinians, was baffled by his Opponent. Whom, or when, he means, I do not know; and so say nothing to it: But, that I may not be in his debt for a story, I shall tell him another, which will be at least as much to the purpose as his. It is, of their great friend, Christophorus Christophori Sandius, a diligent promoter of the Socinian Cause. He printed a Latin Thesis or Discourse against the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, which he calls Problema Paradoxum de Spiritu Sancto, with a general Challenge to this purpose, Ut siquis in toto Orbe eruditorum forte sit, qui doctrinâ magis polleat, quam quibuscum hactenus sit collocutus, ea legat quae à se publice sint edita argumenta, seque errare moneat, ac rectius sentire doceat. Hereupon, Wittichius accepts the Challenge, and writes against Sandius. To which Sandius answers, (taking in another as a partner with him in the Disputation.) And Wittichius replies. And that with so good success, that Sandius and his partner, acknowledged themselves to be convinced by it, and to change their Opinion. This happening but a little before Sandius his death; His Partner (surviving) published to the World an Account hereof, (and of Sandius declaring, before his death, that he was so convinced,) in a Letter of Thanks to Wittichius for it. What Sandius would have done further, if he had lived a little longer, we cannot tell. That of Wittichius bears this Title, Causa Spiritûs Sancti, Personae Divinae, ejusdem cum Patre & Filio essentiae, (contra C. C. S. Problema Paradoxum,) asserta & defensa, à Christophoro Wittichio. Lugduni Batavorum apud Arnoldum Doude, 1678. The Letter of Thanks bears this Title, Epistola ad D. Christophorum Gittichium Professorem Lugdunensem; Qua gratiae ei habentur pro eruditissimis ipsius in Problema de Spiritu Sancto Animadversionibus: Scripta à Socio Authoris Problematis Paradoxi: Per quas errores suos rejicere coactus est. Coloniae, apud Ioannem Nicolai.

He takes it unkindly, that I charge it upon some of the Socinians that though they do not think fit directly to reject the Scriptures, yet think themselves obliged to put such a forced sense upon them, as to make them signify somewhat else. And tells me of some Socinians, who have so great a respect for the Scriptures, as to say that the Scripture contains nothing that is repugnant to manifest Reason; and that what doth not agree with Reason, hath no place in Divinity, &c. But this is still in order to this Inference; That therefore what they think not agreeable to Reason, must not be thought to be the sense of Scripture: and therefore that they must put such a Force upon the Words, how great soever, as to make them comply with their sense. If he except against the words, how great a Force soever, as too hard an Expression of mine: They are Socinus 's own words, (in his Epistle to Balcerovius, of January 30. 1581.) Certe contraria sententia adeo mihi & absurda & perniciosa (pace Augustini, &c. dixerim) esse videtur, ut Quantacun{que} Vis potius Pauli verbis sit adhibenda, quam ea admittenda. That is, The contrary Opinion (with Augustine's leave, and others of his mind) seems to me so absurd and pernicious, that we must rather put a Force, how great soever, upon Paul's words, than admit it.

And, as to the suspicion I had of some of their Sentiments, as to Spiritual Subsistences, (that it may not appear to be groundless) He doth (in his Epist. 5. ad Volkelium ) absolutely deny, that the Soul after death doth subsist; and adds expressly, Ostendi me sentiresnon ita vivere post hominis ipsius mortem, ut per se praemiorum poenarumve capax sit: that is, that the Soul after death doth not subsist; nor is in a capacity of being, by itself, rewarded or punished. And how he can then think it an Intelligent Being, I do not see. St. Paul, it seems, was of another mind, when he had a desire to be dissolved (or depart hence) and to be with Christ, as being far better for him, than to abide in the flesh, Phil. 1. 23, 24. And willing rather to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord, 2 Cor. 5. 8. Now I do not understand the advantage of his being with Christ, or being present with the Lord; if he were then to be in a senseless condition, not capable of pain or pleasure, punishment or reward.

In Epist. 3. ad Dudithium, we have these words, Unusquis{que} sacrae Scripturae ex suo ipsius sensu Interpres: ea{que} quae sibi sic Arrident pro veris admittere de bet ac tenere, licet universus terrarum Orbis in alia omnia iret. That is, Everyone is to interpret Scripture accerding to his own sense: and what so seems Pleasing to him, he is to imbrance and maintain, though all the World be against it.

Socinus, in his Tract, de Ecclesia, pag. 344. says thus, Non attendendum quid homines doceant sentiantve, vel antehac docuerint aut senserint, quicun{que} illi tandem, aut quotcunque, sint aut fuerint. Which is pretty plain. I am not (says he) to regard what other men do teach or think, or have before now taught or thought, whosoever, or how many soever, they be or have been. And if his whosoever are not here to be extended to the Sacred Writers; he tells us of them elsewhere, Ego quidem, etiamsi non semel, sed saepe, id in sacris monimentis scriptum extaret, non idcirco tamen ita rem prorsus se habere crederem. Soc. de Jesu Christo servatore, Par. 3. cap. 6. Operum Tom. 2. p. 204. As for me (saith he) though it were to be found written in the Sacred Moniments, not once, but many times, I would not yet for all that believe it so to be. And a little before, in the same Chapter, (having before told us, that he thought the thing Impossible, ) he adds, Cum ea quae fieri non posse aperte constat, divinis etiam oraculis ea facta fuisse in speciem diserte attestantibus, nequaquam admittantur; & idcirco sacra verba, in alium sensum quam ipsa sonant, per inusitatos etiam tropos quando{que} explicantur. That is, When it doth plainly appear, (or when he thinks so, whatever all the World think beside) that the thing cannot be; then, though the Divine Oracles do seem expressly 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. Which Sayings are, I think, full as much as I had charged him with.

And if these Instances be not enough, I could give him more of like nature. But I shall conclude this with one of a later date: at a Public Disputation at Franeker, Octob. 8. 1686. where (amongst others) this Thesis was maintained; Scripturae divinitatem non aliunde quam ex Ration adstrui posse; Eos{que} Errare, qui asserere sustinent, Si Ratio aliud quid nobis dictaret quam Scriptura, huic potius esse credendum. And when Ulricus Huberus (because it was not publicly censured, as he thought it deserved to be) did oppose it in Word and Writing; the same was further asserted, in Public Disputations, and in Print, by two other Professors in Franeker, in Vindication of that former Thesis; that, If Reason do dictate to us anything otherwise than the Scripture doth; It is an Error to say, that, in such case, we are rather to believe the Scripture. An account of the whole is to be seen at large in a Treatise entitled, Ulrici Huberi, Supremae Frisiorum Curiae ex-senatoris, De concursu Rationis & Scripturae Liber. Franakerae apud Hen. Amama & Zachar. Taedama, 1687. And a Breviate of it in the Lipsick Transactions for the Month of August, 1687. And, after this, I hope this Answerer will not think me too severe in charging such Notions on some of the Socinians, while yet (I said) I was so charitable as to think divers of them were better minded.

But what should make him so angry at what I said of Guessing, I cannot imagine. That there is a Distinction between the Three, we are sure; (this I had said before, and the Answerer now says, It is so.) But not such as to make three God's; (this I had said also, and the Answerer says so too.) That the Father is said to Beget, the Son to be Begotten, and the Holy Ghost to Proceed, I had said also, (and I suppose he will not deny,) because thus the Scripture tells us. (And whatever else the Scripture tells us concerning it, I readily accept.) But if it be further asked, (beyond what the Scripture teacheth,) as, for instance, What this Begetting is, or, How the Father doth Beget his only begotten Son; This, I say, we do not know, (at least I do not) because this, I think, the Scripture doth not tell us; (and of this therefore I hope this Gentleman will give me leave to be ignorant: ) Certainly it is not so as when one Man begets another; but How it is, I cannot tell. And if I should set my thoughts awork, (as some others have done, and each according to his own imagination) to Guess or Conjecture, How perhaps it may be; I would not be Positive, That just so it is: Because I can but Guess or Conjecture, I cannot be sure of it. (For I think it is much the same as if a man born Blind, and who had never seen, should employ his Fancy to think, What kind of thing is Light or Colour: of which it would be hard for him to have a clear and certain Idea. ) And if this Gentleman please to look over it again, I suppose he will see, that he had no cause to be so angry, that I said, We can but Guess herein, at what the Scripture doth not teach us.

That the Socinians have set their Wits awork to find out other Subsidiary Arguments and Evasions against the Trinity, beside that of its Inconsistence with Reason, I do not deny: But That is the Foundation, and the rest are but Props. And if they admit, that there is in it no Inconsistence with Reason; they would easily answer all the other Arguments themselves.

I thought not to meddle with any of the Texts on either side, because it is beside the Scope which I proposed, when I confined my Discourse to that single Point, of its not being Impossible or Inconsistent with Reason: and did therefore set aside other Considerations, as having been sufficiently argued by others, for more than an Hundred Years last past. But having already followed him in some of his Excursions, I shall briefly consider the two signal places which he singles out as so mainly clear.

In the former of them, John 17. 3. This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent; he puts a Fallacy upon us: which perhaps he did not see himself, or at least hoped we would not see it. And therefore I desire him to consider, that it is not said Thee only to be the true God; but Thee, the only true God. And so in the Greek; it is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Restrictive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , only, is not annexed to Thee, but to God. To know Thee to be the only true God; that is, to be that God, beside which God, there is no other true God. And We say the like also, That the Father is that God, beside which there is no other true God: and say, the Son is also (not another God, but) the same only true God. And if those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; should be thus expounded, To know Thee to be the only true God; and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ, (to be the same only true God;) repeating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , those words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he would not like that interpretation; but both the Words and the Sence will very well bear it, (without such Force as they are fain to put upon many other places.) Or if, without such repetition, we take this to be the scope of the place; To set forth the two great Points of the Christian Religion, or Way to Eternal Life; That there is but one true God (though in that Godhead there be three Persons, as elsewhere appears,) in opposition to the many God's of the Heathen: and the Doctrine of Redemption, by Jesus Christ, whom God hath sent, (of which the Heathen were not aware:) the sense is very plain. And nothing in it so clear, as he would have us think, against the Trinity; but all very consistent with it.

And the same Answer serves to his other place, 1 Cor. 8. 6. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, (or for him:) and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. For here also One God may be referred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , both to the Father (if here taken as a distinct person) and to the Lord Jesus Christ: Or, without that, it is manifest, that One God is here put in opposition (not to the plurality of Persons, as we call them, in One Deity; but) to the many God's amongst the Heathen: and our one Savior, against their many Savior's. As is manifest, if we take the whole context together; We know that an Idol is nothing in the World: and that there is no other God but one. For though there be that are called God's, whether in Heaven or in Earth, (as there be God's many, and Lord's many:) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him, Ver. 4, 5, 6. Where it is evident, that the scope of the place is, not to show either how the Persons (as we call them) or how the Attributes of that One God are distinguished amongst themselves: But to set our One God (who is the Father or Maker of all things,) in opposition to the Many God's of the Idolatrous World: and our One Savior or Redeemer, against their Many Savior's. Indeed, if we should set up our Jesus Christ to be another God, the Text would be against us: but not when we own him for the same God. So that here is nothing clear in either place (as he pretends) against Christ's being the same God with the Father.

But in that other place of John 1. (which he labors to elude) the evidence for it doth so stare him in the face, that if he were not (as he speaks) Wilfully blind, (or did Wink very hard) he must needs see it. In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men, (Ver. 1, 2, 3, 4.) He was in the World; and the World was made by him; and the World knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But to as many as received him, he gave power (or right, or privilege,) to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his Name, (Ver. 10, 11, 12.) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father; full of grace and truth, (Ver. 14.) Why he should not think this very clear, is very strange, if he were not strangely prepossessed. Unless he think nothing clear, but such as no man can cavil against. But there can hardly be anything said so clearly, but that some or other (if they list to be contentious) may cavil at it, or put a forced sense upon it. For thus the whole Doctrine of Christ, when himself spake it, (and he spake as clearly, as he thought fit to speak,) was cavilled at. And himself tells us the reason of it, Matth. 13. 14, 15. and John. 12. 37, 38, 39, 40. and after him St. Paul, Acts 28. 26. and Rom. 11. 8. Not for want of clear Light, but because they shut their eyes. In John 12. it is thus, But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Isaiah the Prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake; Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again, He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Isaiah, when he saw his glory and spake of him. And thus in Matth 13. Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand, and seeing ye shall see and shall not perceive. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. So that 'tis no argument of a place or doctrine's not being clear, because prejudiced persons are able to pick cavils at it, or put a forced sense upon it.

But let us see what these cavils are. This I confess (saith he) were to the purpose, if by the term Word could be meant (he should rather have said, be meant) nothing else but a pre-existing person; and, by the term God, nothing but God Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth; and if taking those terms in those senses did not make St. John write Nonsence.

Now in reply to this, I first take exception to that phrase, if it could be meant of nothing else. For if his meaning be this▪ If no Caviller can start up another sense, right or wrong: this is no fair play. For hardly can anything be so plain, but that somebody may find a pretence to cavil at it. It is enough for us therefore, if it be thus meant, without saying, it is impossible to put a forced sense upon it. But this would have spoiled his design, in mustering up a great many forced senses; not that he thinks them to be true, (for surely they be not all true; and I think none of them are) nor telling us which he will stick to; but only that he may cast a mist; and then tell us (which is all that he concludes upon it) the place is abscure, he knows not what to make of it.

But when the Mist is blown off, and we look upon the Words themselves, they seem plain enough, as to all the Points he mentions. The Word which was with God, and was God, and by whom the World was made, and which was made flesh and dwelt amongst us, and we saw his glory, and of whom John bare witness; must needs be a Person; and can be no other than our Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary. And this Word, which was in the beginning, and by whom the World was made, must needs have been preexistent before he was so born. And this Word, which was with God (the true God) and was God, and by whom the World was made, and who is one with the Father, (Joh. 10. 30.) and who is over all, God blessed forever, (Rom. 9. 5.) is no other God than God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. ) And this plain sense the words bear, without any force put upon them: Without any Incoherence, Inconsistence, or Contradiction; s •• e that they do not agree with the Socinian Doctrine. And there is no other way to avoid it, but what Socinus adviseth in another case, Quantacunque Vis verbis adhibenda; putting a Force upon the words, no matter how great, to make them, not to signify, what they plainly do. Or else to say, (which is his last refuge) that St. John writes Nonsence.

But let him then consider, Whether this do savor of that respect which he would have us think they have for the Holy Scripture; and whether we have not reason to susp •• t the contrary of some of them. And, Whether we have not reason to complain of their putting a forced sense upon plain words, to make them comply with their Doctrine. And lastly, Whether it be not manifest, that the true Bottom of their aversion from the Trinity (whatever other subsidiary Reasons they may allege) is, because they think it Nonsence, or not agreeable with their Reason. (For, set this aside, and all the rest is plain enough; but, because of this, they scruple not to put the greatest force upon Scripture.) Nor is there any other pretence of Nonsence in the whole Discourse, save that he thinks the Doctrine of the Trinity to be Nonsence. So that the whole Controversy with him, turns upon this single Point, Whether there be such Impossibility or Inconsistence, as is pretended.

That of 1 John 5. 7. There be three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are One: is wanting, he says, in some Copies. And it is so; (and so are some whole Epistles wanting in some Copies.) But we will not for that quit the place. For we have great reason to think it genuine. If this difference of Copies happened at first by chance (upon an oversight in the Transcriber) in someone Copy, (and thereupon in all that were transcribed from thence;) it is much more likely for a Transcriber to leave out a line or two which is in his Copy, than to put in a line or two which is not. And if it were upon design, it is much more likely that the Arians should purposely leave it out, (in some of their Copies) than the Orthodox foist it in. Nor was there need of such falsification; since 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , concludes as strongly, as to a Plurality of persons, (and of the Son in particular, which was the chief controversy with the Arians; ) as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth as to all the Three. And, I think, it is cited by Cyprian, in his Book De unitate Ecclesiae, before the Arian Controversy was on foot. And therefore, if it were done designedly (and not by chance) it seems rather to be razed out by the Arians, than thrust in by the Orthodox. And the Language of this in the Epistle, suits so well with that of the same Author in his Gospel, that it is a strong presumption, that they are both from the same Pen. The Word, in 1 John 5. 7. agrees so well with the Word in John 1. (and is peculiar to St. John: ) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in 1 John 5. 7. with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in John 10. 30. ( these three are One, with I and the Father are One ) that I do not at all doubt its being genuine. And that Evasion of his, these three are one, that is, one in testimony, will have no pretence in the other place, where there is no discourse of Testimony at all: but I and the Father are One, (unum sumus ) must be One Thing, One in Being, One in Essence. For so Adjectives in the Neuter Gender, put without a Substantive, do usually signify both in Greek and Latin: and there must be some manifest reason to the contrary, that should induce us to put another sense upon them.

The other place, Matth. 28. 19. Baptizing them in (or into) the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; is not so slight an evidence as he would make it. For whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) be rendered in the Name, and taken to denote the joint Authority of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, admitting the person baptized into the Christian Church: Or, into the Name, (which this Answerer seems to like better) and taken to denote the Dedication of the person baptized to the joint Service or Worship of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; (Baptism itself being also a part of Divine Worship:) They are all conjoined; either, as in joint Authority; or as joint Objects of the same Religious Worship; and, for ought appears, in the same Degree. And Socinus himself doth allow, the Son to be Worshipped with Religious Worship; as Adoration, and Invocation; as Lawful at least, if not Necessary. Now when this Answerer tells us of the First Commandment, Thou shalt have no other God but me, (the God of Israel; ) He might as well have remembered that of Christ, Matth. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. And therefore since Socinus (and other of his followers) do allow Christ to be Worshipped, they must allow him to be God, even the God of Israel. And I am mistaken if he be not expressly called, the Lord God of Israel. Luke 1. 16. Many of the children of Israel shall he (John the Baptist) turn to the Lord their God; for he shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias, &c. Now he before whom John the Baptist was to go in the spirit and power of Elias, is agreed to be our Lord Jesus Christ; 'tis therefore He that is here called the Lord God of Israel. And we who own him so to be, Worship no other God in Worshipping him. It is those, who do not own him so to be, and do yet Worship him, that are to be charged with Worshipping another God. Now when here we find Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, all joined in the same Worship, we have reason to take them all for the same God; and, that these Three are One. And do say, (as willingly as he) Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One God. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are but One God: As God the Creator, God the Redeemer, and God the Sanctifier, are One God. And what in the Old Testament are said of God, indefinitely, without taking notice of this or that of the three Persons; are, in the New Testament, attributed some to one, some to another, of the three Persons.

That which makes these Expressions seem harsh to some of these men, is because they have used themselves to fancy that notion only of the word Person, according to which Three Men are accounted to be Three Persons, and these Three Persons to be Three Men. But he may consider, that there is another notion of the word Person, and in common use too, wherein the same Man may be said to sustain divers Persons, and those Persons to be the same Man, That is the same Man as sustaining divers Capacities. As was said but now of Tully, Tres Personas Unus sustineo. And then it will seem no more harsh to say, The three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God; than to say, God the Creator, God the Redeemer, and God the Sanctifier are one God; which, I suppose, even to this Answerer would not seem harsh, or be thought Nonsence. It is much the same thing, whether of the two Forms we use. And, all the Cavils he useth, may be equally applied to either. What answer therefore he would give to one who should thus object against the latter form, will serve us as well to what he objects against the former.

If therefore the Gentleman please to consider it calmly; he will find, that, even amongst men, though another person do many times denote another man, (and thereupon the words are sometimes used promiscuously,) yet not always; nor doth the word Person necessarily imply it. A King and a Husband (though they imply very different Notions, different Capacities, different Relations, or different Personalities,) yet may both concur in the same Man. (Or, in that sense wherein Person is put for Man, in the same Person.) So a King and a Father, a King and a Brother, and the like. And this Gentleman, though (in the Dialogue) he sustain two Persons; that of an Opponent, and that of an Answerer; or that of a Friend, and that of an Adversary; (that so, while one gives ill Language, the other may give up the Cause;) yet they do not act each their own part so covertly, but that sometime the vizard falls off, and discovers the Man to be the same. For though my Letter be answered by a Friend, pag. 1. yet 'tis the Neighbor that is weary of Writing, p. 13.

Now, if Person, in a Proper sense, when applied to Men, do not imply, that different Persons must needs be so many different Men: much less should it be thought Nonsence, when (in a Metaphorical sense) it is applied to God, that different Persons in the Deity, should not imply so many God's: Or, that three Somewhat's (which we call Persons ) may be One God. Which is what I undertook to prove.

And, having made this good, I need not trouble myself to name more Texts (though many more there be which give concurrent evidence to this truth) or discourse the whole Controversy at large, (which was not the design of my Letter.) For himself hath reduced it to this single Point; When St. John says, The Word was with God, and the Word was God; if by the Word, be meant Christ, and by God, the true God; Whether, in so saying, St. John do not speak Nonsence? And if I evince this not to be Nonsence, (as I think I have done) he grants the place is to the purpose. Which quite destroys the Foundation of the Socinian Doctrine. Without being obliged to prove, that these Persons are just such Persons, and so distinct, as what we sometime call Persons amongst Men, (but with such Distinction only as is agreeable to the Divine Nature, and not such as to make them Three God's.) Like as when God the Father is said to Beget the Son; not so as one man Begets another, (nor is the Son so a Son as what we call Son amongst Men:) but so as suits with the Divine Nature: which How it is, we do not perfectly comprehend.

I have now done with him. But I have one thing to note upon what I have before said, of the Athanasian Creed. I there read it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because I so find it in the Copy I used; which is that at the end of the Greek Testament in Octavo, Printed at London by John Bill, 1622; with Robert Stephan 's, Joseph Scaliger 's and Isaac Casaubon 's Annotations. But in Whitaker 's Greek Testament, reprinted by this Copy, 1633, I since find it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (Which Edition, I suppose, is followed by some others.) I take the former to be the better reading, (as giving a clearer sense;) and that the Correcter of the Press, had put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , intending thereby to mend the Greek Syntax, (because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 follows,) but doth (I think) impair the sense. But, as to the Doctrine, it is much one whether we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And what I have said of that whole Creed, is chiefly intended for those who do believe the Doctrine of the Trinity, and of Christ's Incarnation; that there is no reason (in my opinion) why they should not allow of that Creed. But such as do not believe those Points, cannot (I grant) approve the Creed. And it is these, I suppose, who would fain have others to dislike it also.