' '^. . . M / ^ — n^- ^ 'ipwpi'' rf- ^x i:^ ^ o^ s:^. ^£:i. 2:^ ^2- OF THK AT PRINCETON, N. J- SAMUEL AGNEAV, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. ^ en/i^ cyk^ c^c/>-;r K - r n •■^pi^l— IMil^W— J ■ ■ — ■■■■a— i^x CO THE DOCTRINE OF THE Bleffed Trinity ; Briefly Explained^ In a Letter to a Friend* SIR, TH E Doflrine of the Jrrtans^ Socinians^ or Jnti*TmttarianSy (call them as you pleafe , provided you call them not Orthodox Chrijlians) in oppofition to thofe who believe (according to the Word of God),Thac the Sacred Trinity y of Father, Son, and Holy >GhoJl , are Co dijlin^uifhed each from other, as that the Father is not the Son, or Holy-'Ghoft ; the ^on not the Father, or Holy^Ghoft-, the Holy-Ghoft not ihtFathcr, otSon; yetfoWm- A 2 ted, feJ,^ as that they are all 0«e ^o^ ; (which, in the Jthanafian Creedj is called J Wmt) m Unity ^ arid Unity in Tmityy or, in common fpeaking. Three ^erjons arid Oik.lj'ody ) is what you were lately dilcourfing 'with me , and of which I fhall give you , Jome of my prelent Thoughts. The Scripture tells us plainly/, There are^ Three that hear record in Heaven ; the Father ^ the Wordy and the Holy'GJToJt : and thefe Ihree are Oriey I Joh. j. 7* r And the Form of 'Baptifm (Matt. i8. up') iSy in the name of the Father^ and of the Son^ and of the Holy-Ghoft. Atid the Chriftian Church, from the time of Ghrift and his Apoftles downwards hitherto, as well before as fince the Council of Nice^ have ever held the Diyinity of thofe Three ^er- fons (as they are commonly called;) and that thele Ihree are but One God* And, that they have fo held, hath been, by divers^fufficiently proved from the mofl: ancient chriftian Writers, which are now extant. Which, therefore, I take for granted, as (ufficiently proved by o-^ thers, without spending time , at prefent, to prove it a-new* that C 5 I That thefe are l/?ree, diftingiiidied each fVom other, is manifeft : And, that this Di'';'n- <9:ion amongll them fe Ives, is wont to be cal- led ferjonaltty. By which word, we rnean, that Diftin6tion (what ever it be) whereby they are diftinguifhed each from other , and thence called I breeTerfons. If the word Terfoji do not pleale , we need not be fond of Words,fo the Thing be agreed : Yet is it a good Word, and warranted by Scri- pture, Hek 1.3. where the Son is called, the exprejs image of his Father's Terfon : (For (b we render the Word Hyj^oflafis, which is there u- fed ; and mean by it, what I think to be there meant.) And we have no reafon to wave the Word J fince we know no better to put in the. Place of it* If it be asked, what thele Terfonalities or CharaBeriJlicks are, whereby each Terfo7i is di- ftinguilTied from other j I think we have little more thereof in Scripture, than that the Father is faid to 'Beget ; the Son^ to be (Begotten i and- the Holy-'^^hojij to froceed. If it be further asked, what is the full im- port of thele Words (which are but Meta- pHorical)^ and what is the adequate leaning of [4] of them ) I think we need not trouble our felves about it : For, fince it is a matter purely of Revelation (not of natural Knowledge, ) and v^e know no more of it than what is revea- led in Scripture , where the Scripture is filent, we may be content to be ignorant. And we who know fo little of the Eflence df any thing, efpecially of Spiritual Beings; though finite, need not think it ftrange that we are not able to comprehend all the Pai ticularities ot what concerns that of God, and the ^lejfed Trinity. I know that the Fathers, and School-mea, and lome after them , have imployed their Wits to find out fon:ie faint Refemblances, from natural things, whereby to exprefs their im- perfect Conception&xxf the^S^^^^ Irinity : But they do not pretend to give an adequate Ac- count of it; but only fome conje6}ural HypO" thefes^t Sithex of what May be, than of what cer- tainly Is. Nor need we be concerned, to be curioufly inquifitive into it, beyond what God hath been pleafed to reveal concerning it. Thatthe Three 'Pe;yowx are diflinguifhed, is evident ; (though we do not perfedlv un- derftand what thofe Diftinftions are:) Thar to each of thefe, the Scripture afcribes Divinity, is [5] is abundantly fliewed by thofe who have written on this Subjeft : That there is but One God^ is agreed on all hands : That the Facher is faid to Beo^et j the Son, to be 'Begotten ; and the Holy-'GhoJl, to Proceed \ is agreed alio; though we do not perfedly underftand the full import of thefe Words. And here we might quietly acquiefce (without troubling our felves further, ) did not the clamorous Sociniam importunely fuggeft the Impof/ihility a.nd Inconfijknce of thefe things, infomuch as to tell us, That, how clear ib- ever the Expreflions of Scripture be, or can be, to this purpofe, they will not believe it, as being inconfiftent with natural Reafon. And therefore, though they do not yet think fit to give us a bare-lac'd Rejefiion of Scripture ; yet they do (and maft, they tell us, ) put luch a forced Sence on the words of it (be they never lb plain) as to make them fignify Ibrne- what elfe. There is, therefore, in this Dodrine of the Trinity, as in that of the ^furren:ion from the Dead, a double Inquiry : Firft, whether it be foffthle-, and then, whe:her it be Tr/ie. And thefe to be argued (in both Cafes) from a very different sacr: [6] different Topick : The one from Katural Reafon ; fhe other from Revelation. Yet lb, that this latter doch certainly conclude the former, if rightly underftood. And though we flhouldTiot be able to folve all Difficulties^ yet muft we believe the thing, if revealed ; unlefs we will deny the Authority of fuch Re- velation. Thus our Saviour , againfl: the Sadduceesy who denied the Refurredtion, Mattk 22.19. le erre ((aith he) not knowing the Scriptures y nor the Tower of Qod, The ¥ower of God, if right- ly underftood, was enough (from the Light of Reafon) to prove it not impofjihle : But, whether or rio it "ft^i// befo (which natural Rea- fon could not determine,) was to be argued from Scripture-Revelation. In like manner, St. IPaul before dgripfa, JB, 16' firft argues the To/fibility of it ,• Why Jhould it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God pQuld raife the Dead? ver. 8. For if Jgrif^ pa did believe the Creation of the World, (as many even of the Heathen did, from the light of Nature ) he could not think it Impofjibk for that God (who had at firft made all things of nothing) to recoUefl, out of its Duft or Allies, [7] Aflies, a Body which once had been. But whether or no he tj^ohU do fo, depended upon another Queftion, to be after asked, Ver, 27. KjngAgnpfdy helievejtjhou the Tropheti ^ For this was purely matter of Revelation, and could not otherwife be known : For, as to the Im* mortality of the Soul, and a future ftate hereafter, many of the Heathens went very far , by the Light of Nature ; but as to the 1(efw'reBm of the 'Bodjy I do not find they had any Senti- ments about it (or but very faint, if any : ) :And if they had, it may well befuppofed to be the remainder of Ibme ancient Tradition from the Jews, or their Predeceflbrs. Nor do I fee any foundation in Nature , which fhould make them think of it (before it was revealed) any more, than of the Redemption of Man- kind by Chrift, (which we fhould never have thought of, had not God himfelf contrived and , declared it to us.) But, when that of the Refur- re6tion was once fuggefted, there was no pre- tence of Realbn to think it a thing Impoffible, and therefore no reafbn to doubt the 'I ruth of it, when Declared, if we believe the Scri- ,p(;ures, wherein it is revealedi. «fpecially thofe jof the New Teftgm^.nf- vi*->o ol. :■ it is much th*e fame as to tlie t)oQ:nfii of the 'Irmky, It is a thing we Chould not have thought of, if ic had not been fuggefted by Divine Writers ; but, when fuggefted, there is nothing in natural Reafon (that welcnow of, or can know of) why it (liould be thought ImfoffibU } but whether or no it hefoy depends pnly upon Revelation. And in this cafe the Revelation feems (b clear (to thofe who believe the Scriptures) that we have no reafon to doubt of it, unlefs the thing be found to be really Impofjibky and inconfiftent with Reafon. Nor do the Jnd* Trinitarians infift on any other ground why they deny it, fave only, That it feenns to them abfolutely Imfoffihle 5 and therefore think them- felves bound to put another Sence on all Pla- ces of Scripture (how clear foevet they be, or can be) which prove or favour it. Sothatthe Controverfie isnow reduced to this (ingle Point, Whether it be ^offible ot not ^offibk: Wkether it beconfiftent orinconfi^ ftent with Natural Light or Reafon. (And to that point therefore I fhall confine my Dif- courfe.) For it feetns agreed on M liat^i (as to thoie who believe the Scriplure^J that,''^f it Z9l it be not inpoffible , it is fufficiently rcveii< ted. Now for us v^ho underftand fo lictle of God's infitiiteEflencc, and which it is impoffibie i(x us fully tocomprehetid, who are ourfelves bui finite, aiKl moftty converfant with mate- rial Objeds ; info much that we cannot pre- tend to underftand the EflTence of our own Souls 5 and, when we attempt to explain it, i|>uft do it tather by faying what it is pot, than what it is 5 (((> hard a. matter, is it far us to fi^ in our Mind or Fancy, a Notion, Idea, or Con- ception of a fpiritual Being, which falls not under our Senfes : ) 'Tis hard, I (ay, for us (who underftand fo little of a Spirit) to deter- mine (of what God is pleafed to reveal) that it is Impoffibie, or inconfiftent with his EflTence, which Effence we cannot underftaqd. vr But what is it that i&thus pretended to be Impoffibie ? 'Tis but this, That there he Three SomewhatSy which are hut One God: (and thefe Somewhat s we commonly call Terfo?is.) Now what Inconfiftence is there in all this ? That Father, Son, and Holy^Ghojl are Three, is mani- feft ; and are in Scripture-Language diftin- ^uiftsed. That; jhere is but One God is manifcn: B t ,j,.i<} alfo. C«o3 alfo, and all tfiofe Tl^ree are this God: That the name Terfon is no incongruous Word, is evident from Hek i. j. where it is ufed. If it be faid. It doth not agree to them exadly in the fame Sence in which it is commonly ufed amongft men ; we (ay fo too, nor doth ariy Word, whenapplyed to God, fignifie juft the fame as when applyed to men, but only fome- wbat analogous thereunto. ^- s What kind or degreei'of Diftinftion (accor^ dtng to our Metaphyficks) this is, we need not be very fbllicitoQs toenquire ; or, whether in our Metaphyficks (accommodated to our Notions of Finite Beings), there be any Name for it r-'Tis enough for us if thefe Three mzy truly befo diftinguifhed,as that one be not the other, and yet all but One God. Now, that there is no Jnconjtjlence or Impdfft" bilityy that, what in one regard are Three^ may in another regard be 0«?, is very manifeft from many Inftances that may be given even in Finite Beings,fuch as we converfe with 5 which, though they do not adequately agree with this of the Sacred Trinity , (nor is it tobe expected thatthey fhould i Finite, with what is Infinite;) yet there is enough ia them to (he w, there is no (mh Jncow fijience as is pretended I flialL [II] I flhall fpare to inftancein man-y Refemblan- ces which have been given long fince by Fa- thers and Schoolmen , or by later Writers. Which, thoLigb they are nor pretended to be adequately the fame with that of the Sacred Trinity f-^M neither will any thing elfe be that we can take from finite Beings i) yet are they (ufficient to fhew that there is no Incmfiftence in it. (Which is all that is here incumbent on us to prove.) I fhall only name a few. I will begin with what concerns the moft grofs of Finite Beings, that is. Material Bo- dies. Suppose we then a Cubical Body, (wSich what it is, every one knows, that knows a Dy.) \n th\s2LXC Three Dhmnfions^ (Length, Breadth, and Heighth) and yet but One Cube, ks Length ((uppofe be- tween Eaft and Weft) A. ©. Its Breadth ((uppofe between North and South) Q. T>. Its ^ Heighth (between Bottom and ^ ^ ^ Top) E.F. Here are 7T>ree Local Dimenfi- ons, truly Diftinguifhed each from other, (not only imaginarily :) The diftance between Eaft and Weft . (whether we think or think not of of it) is not that between North and South ; nor be ekher of thefe that between Top and gottom. The Length is not the Breadth, ot Heighth ; the Breadth is not the Length, or Heighch ; and the Heighth is not the Length, r^/'f^ ^- or^rqadsh: But the;y are T/yge Div i fcon^ ^ truly 4i&m^c2ichS^Qm othei : Yet are all thefe but Om Cube ; And if any one of the Ti^ree were ^s/anting it were not a Cube. There is no Inconfiftence trieretore > that what in one re- gard are Three (three Dimenfions) mayy in another regard, be fo united as to be but Om?, (one Cube. ) And if it may be (o in Corpore- a'$, much more in Spirituals. Suppofe we father, Each of thefe Dimea- fions infinitely continued •, the Length infi- nitely Eaftward and Weftward, the Breadth infinitely Northward and Southward , the |-Ieighch infinitely Upward and Downward: Here ^xg Three infinite Dimenfions, and but O/ie infinite Cube ; and theic Three Dimenfions (though diftinft) are equal each to other (die -it; were not a Cube ;) 2.nd though we fliouM allow, thata Cube cannot be infinite (becaufc a Body, and therefore a- finite Creature:) Yet a Spirit may } fucha&i&the Infinite GoxL And therefore [13] therefore no Inconfiftence j that there be 7hree Perfonalities (each infinite, and all equal^, and yet but Om Infinite God , effentially the fame with thoie Three Terfons, 1 add further , That inch Infinite Cube, can therefore be but One^ and thofe '^^ Di- menfions can be but Three, (not more nor few- er For, if Infinite as to its Length (Eaft ward and Weftward), and as to its Breadch (North-^ ward and Southward), and as to its Heightia (Upward and Downward) ; it will take up all i- maginary (pace poffible, and leave no room ei- ther for moreCubes or moreDimenfions : And if this infinite Cube were (and (hall be) Eter- nally fo, its Dimenfions alfo mud be Infinite and Co-eternal. I fay further, If in this (fuppofed) Cube, (we fuppofe in Order, not in Time) its firfl: Dimenfion, that of Length, as J. B., and to this Length be given an equal Breadth (which is the true generation of a Square) as C. 2)., which compleats the fquare Bafisofthis Cube; and to this Bafis (of Length pnd Breadth) be given (as by a further ProceflSon from Both) an equal Heighth E. R, which compleats the Cube; and all this eternally,. ^ (for A'.^^l (iof Cuch is the Cube fuppofecl to be, ) here is a fair Refemblance (if we tn2Ly panis comfonere ma^na) of the Father y (as the Fountain or Ori- • ginal;) of the So/?, (as generated of hina from all Eternity 5) and of the Holy^Ghofiy fas eter- nally Pjioceeding from Both : ) And all this without any Inconfiftence. This lon^umy latunty frcfundunij (Long, Broad, and Tall,) is but One Cube j of Three Dimenfions, and yet but Om !Body: And this Father, Son, znd tloly-'GhoJli Three TerfonSy and yet but Owe God, And as, there, the Dimenfions are not (in the Ab- fti:a(5t) predicated or affirmed each of other, or the Cube oi either, (the Length is not the Breadrh or Heighth, nor either of the(e aC ube;) but (in the Con ci ere) Cube is affirmed of all j this longum, latum, profunJ.m, is a Cube, and the fame Cube : So here, (in the Abftradl) the Perfonality of the Father \s not that of the So?i, (Oor either of thefe that of the Holy^Ghofty nor the Deity or Godhead any of thele ; but (in the Concrete) though the Perfonalities are not, yet the Perfons are, each of them ^od and the ^ame God, If it be obje<5i:ed, that tho(e Concretes are Affirmed or Predicated each of other 3 (chat lomum Ci5 3 ionium is alfo latum and profundunty (this Long is !B}oad2LnA2all;) but not fo here, the Father is not th6 Son ot Holj'-Ghofl^ : I anfwer. That, iF' the words be rightly confidered, the Ana- logy holds here alfo : For when we fay, this Long is "Broud and Tall (where Cube or 'Body is unde'rftood; the fuH nieaning is plainly thus,' This Body, which, as to one Dimenfion (that of Length)^ is faid to be a long Body, is the fame Body, which, as to another Dimenfion (that of Breath), is faid to tea' irW Body, and whi^h,; as to a third Dimehfioh (that of Heighthj, is (aid to be 3. tall Body. So here, That Go^, which (as to one Perfonality) is §od the Father^ is the ftme God, which (as to dnother Perfonality) is God the Son, and which (as to a third Perfonality) is Goi the Haly-Ghojl. So the Analogy holds every way, nor is there any Inconfiftence in either Cafe. I proceed to the Confideration of lome what more Spiritual, and lefs. Material than that of a Body locally extended. * Suppoft we then a Created Angel, or Hu- mane Soul r at lead if thole who deny the Bleffed Trinity will allow that there are fuch Be- ings j but if they be Sadducees, ' who do not C acknow- ^ I 16 I acknowledge ^ther Angel or Spirit, or that the Holy Scriptures are the word of G6d, which teftifie both, (which 1 doubt i$ the cafe of Ibnae of them) let thenn fpeak out, tliatlp- we may know whom we have to deal with; and not pretend to nibble only at the Jthamfi* an Creedy pr^ lbm9E?pre0ion.s therein, whilp, the quarrel is indeed at fbmewhat higher^' (though, ad amoUendam invidiam^ they think fit Co diffemWe it,), and that they do but faintly, believe (}! 2ft all )^th^t the Holy Scriptures are the Word of , God, <>r the.DoftriVes there- in contained to be (uch. And we have reafon to fulpeft jt, when they (pare not to let us know, thft, v\^ere thi^po(5rine of !he Trinity^ therein delivered in Words ^s exprels as could be, they would not believe it. But flippole we, (what they would (eem to grant, and what I am (b charitable as to think divers of them do believe) That there are Spiritual Bem^j, .fuch as Angels and the Souls of Men ; and that thele Spiritual iBein^s are endued with I\no'Si?led^e ( or Wifdom ) and Fo/xe (or an executive Power) to aft accor- ding to that i\nowled^e. That there is (bme fuch thing, at leaft in Man, (whether Body or [>7] or Soul) they cannot but acknowledge ; for themfelves ^f, SLtidknow, and^o. And chough we cannot fully comprehend, much leis ex- prefs in Words, how all this is fo ; (for we are here at a lots, as well as in higher chin-^s :) Yet, that it is ^ they cannot deny, though they do not know Hoi^. -i.-; ^.^ ' Kow, to©e, SLnd to Kjiow, and to Do, are certainly diftindeach from other, (thoug.h per- haps we are not all agreed, of what kind, or in what d&grec thjs Diftindion is :) To be is not the iame as^^ know^ for that may be were :his is not ^ andfo<^ois (fpr the lame realbn) (bme- what different from both thofe, for a Man may iSe and may tQioip what lie doth ijot Do ; yet 'tis one and the fame Soul (at leaft one and the fame Man) which /i, and K^ioivs^ and Does. There is therefore no Impoflibility or Inconfi- fiencein it, That what in one regard^are Ihree^ may in another regard be One, Thus in the Sacred Trinity y if we conceive of the Father as the Original or Firft Terforiy who begets the Son j the So» as the Wifdom of the Father , begotten of Hincij and the Uolj'GhoJl zs the Spirit of the f^ti^r and the Son, as pnceeJing from Both, and yet the fameGod with both 5 (or what otherDi- ......^ C 2 . ftinfiion [,8] ftinftion there may be of thefc Three ferfonfy who are but One Gody that we do not know ,•) there is no Inconfiftence in it, that the(e TJ?ree may be 0?ie j lljree in one regard, and' One in another. I might fliew the fame as to the Underjland^ jr\y ing, Willy and^^j^jg^ which are all the fame Soul : And the known Metaphyfical Terms of Unum^ Verum, ^onum, which are all but the (ame Em. And many other Inftances of like Nature. 'l^ But we hold (it will be faid) a greater Di^ ftinSion (than that of Unumy Ferpim, ^onuni) between the Tl^ree Terfom in the Sacred Trimty, Be it lb. (But what that greater Diftin<^ion is, we do not pretend to comprehend.} How- ever, it is from all thele Inftances evident, that there is no Impoffibility , or Inconfiftence with Reafcn, that what in one regard afe Tfo^e^ may in another Regard be One* Which is what we undertook to fhew. 'Tis true, that not any, nor all of thele In- ftances, nor any of thofe given by othet Lear- ned M en do adequately exprels the Diftin<5l^ioft and Unity ofthQ^erfms'in the Sdcred Trimty^ (for neither hath God diftin6tly declared itto us, nor X'il tior are W€ able fully to comprehend it, nor is it neceffary for us to know.) But becaufe we do not know ^How the hones ^row in the womb of her that is with child^ ' c u • j. fliall we therefore^ay they do not grow there ? Or, becaufe ^ We cannot hyfearchin^ fold out Gody becaufe we cannot find "* ^' out the Almighty to perfeBion, ihall we therefore lay, things cannot bey when God {ays they are^ only becaufe we know not How ? If God lay, "^ Thefe Three are One ? (hall we lay, . , ^^^ ^^ ^, they are not ? if God lay, '^ Tlje ' J^h. 1. 1, 14. Ti?ord was Gody and, The word was made Flejl?y fliall we lay. Not lb, only becaufe we cannot t^Bov I icisfafertofay It is, when God fays It is , though we know not (in particular) How it is. Elpecially when there be fo many Inftances in Nature, to ITiew it not to be Im- polfible or Inconfiftent with Realbn. The thing is liifficiently revealed to thofe who are willing to be taught, and ^ receive _ ^ the truth in the hye of it. (Nor is -^ ..- itdenyed, by thofe who gainlay it, but chat, if the thing be poffible, it is fufficiendy revea- led ; there being no other Exception made, as to the Revelation , but the Impoffibilicy of the [=0] U Cor. I r. 15. ^^^ thing.) ^ But if any man liji t^ Rom. 2. 8. ^g contentious^ and to ^ 4tt4rre/ 4Jo«t • 2 Tim. 5. 4. , . . 1^ .r- u . Tic. 9. 9. «?ow, It IS no wonder if " hear' Matth.'^i??i3. i^g f/'O' ^® ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ mierftani'y ' 2The(r.2. 10,11. and that God ^ ^ive tkw over ta ie* Rom. 1. 21, 23. j-^^^ ^ ^^^ ^J^Q Jq j^qj. i^y^ ^y ^^^^y^ I pw. 25- 9. But ^ t/;e humhk he will teach his way. And, while we be fo, webe fafe. Auguftii, 1^50.. YonrSy fobn Wall^. loa A SECOND LETTER Concerning the Holy Trinity. Purfuant to the former from the fame Hand 5 Occafioned by a LETTER ( There inferted ) from one unknown. By JOHN WALL IS. D. D. L N 7) Ny Printed for The. Tarkhurfi at the Bihle and Three Crowns in Ckeapjide near Affrc^rj- Chapel. 1691. [I] A SECOND LETTER Concerning the Sacred Trinity. SIR, IVnderftand by your Letter ( <>/"Sept. 20. ) that you have printed a Letter of mine concerning the Trinity ; and have fent me feme Copies of it to Oxford. But I am not there to receive them ; and fo have yet feen none of them : ( But your Letter thither was fent me thence by the Pofi. ) A 2 / have I 2 I / havCy fince yours ^ received ( hy the fame way ) a Letter dire^ed to we, fuhfcriled W. J. But I know not from whom' I ft^ppofe it isfomehody in London, to whom you have prefented a Book^ for which he re- turns me thanks. \;^hat[^herta,me was thus^ (with the Toflmark at London, SE. 2,5. from whence I fupply the Date, which in the Letter was wanting ) For the Reverend Dr. WalliSy Profeflbr of Geometry, 2XOxford, SIR, I Received the Honour of your Letter ; and re- turn you humble and hearty thanks for it. Tis writ in my Opinion, in a Modeft, Peaceable, and Chriftian Stile : And I wiih it may pleafe others as- well as it doth me. I am afraid however, tliat it will not give fatisfadion to the Scholaftiek Athanafian Trinitarian. For they are fo particular, and withal fo pofitive, in the explication of the great- eft ofMyfteries, as if they underftood it as well as any Article of their Chriftian Faith. Your Explication of Pei-fonality, gives no diftaft to me, when you fay i page :^, ) They are diflin- guijhed hy ^erfonality : And, hy TerfonaUty Imean^ that diflin^ion whereby they are difflinguijhed. Yet I'm afraid the High-flown School-Trinitarians will fay, This is Trifling, and idem per idem. Though tome it hath this good Senfe, That we know there is [3] is a DiftincJlion betwixt them, wliichwe call Pcrfo- nality 5 but we caa affix no Notion to this PerfonaJi- ty, which is common to it with other Perfonaii- ties, either Humane or Angelical,- and therefore we can only fay, It is that diftincSlion whereby the three Hypoftafes are diftinguiflied. But you dill ufe a greater Latitude, as to the No- tion of thefe Perfons, or Perfonalities, when you call them fomewhats ( page 9. ) That, you fay, which is pretended to be impofliblc by the Anti- Trinitarians, is only this, That there le three fome- whatSy which are hut one God; and thefe fomewhats we commonly call Perfons. This I take only to fignifie, that the true Notion,and the true Name of that diftin- dion is unknown to us, yet thediftindionis certain. But the Deep-learned School-Trinitarians, who decide all things to an Hairs breadth, will, I ima- gine, ridicule this Expreflion. A late Learned and Ingenious Author, you know, hath gone much further Dr. Sherlock. in his determinations about this point. He makes your three fomewhats ^ not only three Ter- fonSf but three Su6(lantial Bekgs, C/''^<5^ 47* ) ^"^ three Infinite Minds, ip^g'^ 65. ) And the contrary, he fays, is both Herefie and Non-fenfe. Three Infinite Minds, is the fame as three Infinite Spirits, And, by Infinite^ the Author underltands here, [4l here, not Infinite in Extenfion, but in Perfection. So that the three Hypoftafes are three Spirits^ whereof each is Infinite in Perfeflion. Then, faith the Anti-Trinitarian, they are three Gods. For what better Notion, or what better De- finition, have we of God, than that he is A Spirit Infinitely Terfe^, And, if there be three fuch, there are three Gods. In Uke manner, three Suh- Jiantial Beings really dijlind^ are three Suhjlances really diftindt. And if each of thefe Subftances be endued with Infinite Perfection, it will be hard to keep them from being three Gods. We do not well know what particular Explication ofthe Trinity thofe Perfons gave, whom the Anci- ents call Iritheites. But this we know, that the great offence which is taken at the Chriftian Do- ctrine ofthe Trinity, bythej^iyj and Mahometans^ is, from the appearance of Polytheifm in that Do- ctrine. Which appearance, methinks, is rather in- creafed than lefTened by this Explication : And, con- fequently, the fcandal which ( to them ) follows upon it. But the Learned Author hath an expedient to pre- vent Polytheifm, notwithftanding the real diflindi- on of his three Infinite Spirits. Which is, by mak- ing them mutually confciota of one anothers Thoughts and Actions : whereby, he fays, they would be fo united, as to make but one God. That, methinks, doth not follow. That upon this mutual confciouf- nefs they would be but One God. That which fol. loWs [ 5 ] lows is this, That they would be three Gods mutu- ally confcious. For there is no reafon why this mu- tual ccnfcioufnefs ihould make their Godhead ceafe, if without this they would be three diftindt Gods. No Union amounts to Identity, It came in my way to mind you of this more pun- (Sbual and demonftrative Explication of the Trinity, as it's faid to be, that you might not exped that every one fhould be of your Mind, nor approve of your Modefty as I do. Your Similitude and Comparifons^ are as jult as the Nature of the Subject will admit. The great defect: of the Firft, feems to be this ,• That it cannot be faid of any one Dimenfion, that it is a Cube, or a Body ; Whereas it is faid of every Perfon, that he is God. Your Second Comparifon interferes again with the Learned Author above-mentioned. For he fays, ipage'ji,') 'Tis a miftake to think that Knowledge and Power, even in Men, is not the fame thing ; whereas you fuppofe them diftin(9:, and, upon that, ground your Similitude. I cannot but be of your Mind in this particular alfo. For Power belongs to the *Win, and Knowledge to the Un- * I A^ould rather derftanding. And 'tis plain, that ^*^v^'r5r. we know many things that we can- ^^ ^ p^^^^. y- not do : And, on the contrary, we j)Ji„^, can do many things, and know not how [^1 how they are done* It may be the Ingenious Author would be hard put to it to tell us how he pronounces his own Name ; that is, what Organs of Speech are moved, and how ; by what Mufcies and Nerves 5 and what the whole Adion is that intervenes betwixt the inward Thought and the outward Sound ; or be- twixt the firft Caufe and the lad EfTecSt. Or, if he be fo good an Anatomifl and Philofopher as to un- derhand all this, at lead his little Son, or little Daughter, who can pronounce the fame as well as himfelf, know not in what manner, or by what means they do it. So, Fools and Children can move their Hands, Fingers, and all the Members of the Body, as well as Phslofophers : Though they do do not know, in what Method, or by what Me- chanifm, they are moved. Thefe things are the Ef- fects of Will, independently on Knowledge. And 'tis as plain, on the other hand, that we know how many things are to be done, which yet we cannot do, for want of Strength or Force. I can lift a Weight of two or three hundred pounds, but I can- not lift one of five or fix hundred ; though I under- fland as well how the one is moved as the other. And a brawny Porter fhall raife that of five or fix hundred, though he underfland Staticks lefs than I do. 1 can bend a Stick, but cannot bend a Bar of Iron ; Though I ufe jufl the fame Method, and un- derlland as much how the one is done as the other. And innumerable Inftances of like nature ihew^ Knowledge and Force to be different things. But this, Sir, I fay only in your defence. Your f7] Your Conclufion alfo agrees very well to my Senfe. And 1 tiiink thon exceedingly to blame jthat f refume to meafure tliefe Infinite Natures, and ail tlic'ir Properties, by our narrow Underftandings. The Anti Trinitarians generally are no great Philo- fophers, yet they take upon them as it they were the only Mailers of Reafon : And in the moft Sub- lime and Myfterious Points, will fcarce allow Re- velation to be ofgreater Authority than their Judg- ment. But however, on the other hand, ( though I ne- ver felt any Inclination or Temptation to Socinian Do£l"rines, yet) I cannot heartily join with you in the Damnatory Sentences ; neither would I have us Spin Creeds, like Cobwebs, out of our own Bowels. Ift the Name of God, let us be content with what is revealed to us in Scripture concerning thefe My- fteries ; and leave the reft to make part of our Hea- ven, and future Happinefs. To ftraia things to thefe heights, makes Itill more Divifions in the Church. We ^^ now have School-Trinitarians, ^ ^^ and Scripture-'frinitarians ; and either of them will have their Plea, and purfue their Incereft ,• till, by Zeal for Opinions which are difputable, we have de- ftroyed Chriftian Charity and Unity, which are wl- difpenfabie Vertues and Duties. I am. Sir, with Sincerity andRefped, Tour oUigedhumhle Servant, London^ Sept, Z2. 16^0. ^' J [8] If you know from whom it is, pray thank him from we for his Civ Hit ks therein. And you may pleafe to tell him, that he doth underftand me aright, and puts a true fen fe upon my words'. By Terfor.alit -^S^ -.^^ -• — -^ For doubtlefs there may be many Particulars of Catholick Faith (contained in the Word of God) which a man may be ignorant of, and yet be faved. It is Tr«e^ That the Name of. our Saviour's Mother wasAf^r^^^ and the Name, of the Judge who condemned him was jPe?ifi«f Wate: and both thefe are put ^4nto (what we call) the Apoftles Creed ; and are part of the. Catholick Faith; and which (f^ppofing , chat we know them to be declared in Scripcure);, we ought to Believe. But I lee not ,why it fliould bethought (of it felf) more neceffary to (al- vation (if he do not know it to be declared in Scripture) for a man to kpow char her Kame was C 7 ) ^Was Mary, than that the Name of Mms Wife was Eve, or Abraham's Wife Sarah, or that one of Job's Daughters was called Jemima ; ( for. all thefe are declared in Scripture j and, fiippofing that we know them fo to be, ought to be be- lieved as part of the Catholick Faith.) Nor do I know, thatit is (ofitfelf) more neceffary to know that the Name of the Judge who con- demned our Saviour \NS^sTontiusTilatey than that the Name of the High-Prieft was Caiafha^. And though one of thefe, and not the other, be put into the Apoftles Creed, whereby we are more likely to know that than the other : yet both of them being True, and declared in Scripture j they are, both of them, parts of the Catholick Faith, and to be believed : but neither of them (I think) with luch neceffity, as that, who knows them not, cannot be faved. And what I (ay of this General Preface in the beginning, is in like nunner to be underftood of the General Conclufion in the end ; which (Catholick Faith) except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be faVed, Of which I (hall fay more anon. After the General Preface, (concerning the neceffity of holding the Catholick Faith,) he proceeds to two main Branches of it, (that oi B the C 8 > jhe Trinity, and that of the Incarnation, with the Conlequents thereof j ) which he declares likewile, as what ought to ht believed. That of the Trinity, he declares thus in Ge- neral 5 " Jnd the Catholkk Faith is this ; (that is, this is one main part of the Catholick Faith 5 ) namely, '^ That we woyjhip One God tn Trinity^ and Trinity in Unity: Neither Confounding the ^er fans ^ mrViyiding the Subjiame, Which is what we commonly fay. There be Three Terfons^ yet but One God. And this General (which, after (bme par- ticular Explications, he doth refame) is what he declares ought to be belieyed. But he doth not lay (iKh ftrefe upon each Particular of that' Ex>: plication, though True. He thus explains him (elf 5 " For there is one " Terfon of the Father^ another ef the Son, and mof " ther of the Boly Gh&ft. (Which Per fons there- fore are not to be confounded.) ^'-©«f the God- *^' head of the Father y and of the Son^ and of the Holy " Ghojiy is all One. That is, one Subftance, one God. (Which is what he faid of not Dividing the Subftance, as if the Three Perfons (liould be Three Subftances, or Three Gods.) Acf^ cording as Chrift fays of Himfelf and the Father, John 10. 30. 1 and the Father ar€ One : Iv ea-fXiv, (not . ^ 9 ) (not «s) that is, one Thing, one Subftance, one God, not one Perfbn. And \ John ^.7. Thfe Three are One ; (aoo/ oi Tp«$, ly «^) f^i j y^^ fmt Unurriy not Ujius, Thefe three Wlxi's^ are one What. They are one Thing, one Subftance, one God, though Three Perfbns. And as their Godhead, or Subftance undivi- ded, is all one ; (b it follows, " The Glory equal^ the Majejiy co^etemal Such as the " Father is, (as to the comnnion Godhead) ^^fuch is the 5o/i, and ^^ fuch is the Holy Ghoft, The Father uncre ate ^ the *' ^on mcreatCy and the Holy Ghojl mcreate. The ^^ Father incomprehenfible , the Son incomfrehenfible^ ^^. and the Holy Ghoft incom[>rehenJible. The Father ^'^ nernal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghoft Her » " ml For all thefe are Attributes of the com- mon Deity, which is the lame of All. ^^ Jnd *' yet they are not Three Eternals, but One Eternal, Not Three Eternal Gods , (though Three Per- fbns) but One Eternal God. " As alfo there are not three Incomfrehenfthles, nor three Uncreated ; hut one Uncreated, and one Incomprehenfible. One and the fame Subftance or Deity, uncreated and in-' comprehenfible. *^ So likewife the Father is Al- " rntghtyy the Son Almighty, and the Holy ghoft Al ^' mighty ; and yet there are not Tl?ree AhpightieSy but " One Jlmighty, So the Father is God, the Son is B 1 ''Gol (lo) *^ Gody and the Holy Gbojl is God, j andyet there are ^^notjhree Godsy but One God,. So likewife the Far ^^ iheris Lordy (wjei^i the word by which the Greeks do cxprefs the Hebrew Name JehoVah^ the proper iacommunicable Name of God,) " the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghofl Lord ^ a/idyet ^^ not Three Lords y but One Lord, (Not three Ji?- hoVahsy hut otiQ Jehovah,) ^^ For like (U wc are com-i ^^ pelled.by the Chrifiian ferity to. acknowledge e'Very " ^erfon by himfelf to be God and Lordy [q are we ^^ forbidden by th Catholick ^ligiony to fay y Tloere be ^^ Three Gods y or Time Lords, Which are fo ma- ny particiilar Explications or Illuftracions of what was before (aid in general of laorCow/bttwrf/Vg theferfonsy nor Dividing the Stibjlance, MSihlch Ex- plications, though they be all true, (and necef^ liry Confequents of what was before faid in general 5 ) yet to, none of them is annexed iuch Sanation, as that whofoever doth not Believe or not Underftand thefe lUuftrations, cannot be fayed. 'Tis enough to Salvation^if they hold the true Faith, as to the iubftance of it, though in ibme other form of words , or though they had never heard the Mhanaftan Creed. Nor is any fuch Sandbion annexed to the Per- fonal Properties, which next follow j " The Fa^ ^' th^r is made of none j neither Created, nor ^egotun^ " The Cm) " Tl?e Sm is of the Father alone ^ not Ma(k, nor Crea* ** ted, hut 'Begotten, The Holy Ghoft Is of the Fa- " ther^ and of the Son ^ neither Made^ nor begotten, *^ but proceeding. Where, by the way, here is no Anathemati- zation of the Greek Church, (of which thofe who would, for other reafons, dlfparage this Creed, make fo loud an out-cry.) 'Tis faid in- deed He doth proceed, (and fo fay they,) but not that he doth proceed from the Father and the Son. And "tis faid, He is Of the Father and Of the Son (^ Ta-mlposj^ ^T« lya) lomc way or other ; (and even this,l fuppo(e,they would not deny ; ) but whether by procejpon from both, or (if fo) whether in the fame manner , it is not faid j but wa^ rily avoided. (Though indeed it (eems to fa- ' vour what I think to be the truth, and what in the Nicene Creed is laid exprefly, that he doth proceed from both ; and, for ought we know, in the fame m^m^^r; which yet we do not deter- mineO Nor do I lee any reafon, why, on this account, we fhould be laid to Anathematize the Greek Church, or they to Anathematize us^ even though we fliould not exa(niy agree, in what lence he may be (aid to be Of the Father^ and in what Of the Son, And thofe who are better acqwainted with xhe Dodrine and che Lan- Languages J of the pre fen t Greek Churches, than moft of us are, do aflure us, that the differerKes between them and us are rather in fome forms of expreflions, than in the thing it felf. How* ever, thofe who would make fo great a mat- ter of this, fliould rather quarrel at the Nicene Creed, than the Athanafm : where it is exprefly faid of the Holy Ghoft, that fee proceedeth from the Father and from the S^o?i^ 'Tis not therefore for the phraft Blioque, that they are fo ready to quarrel at this Creed rather than the Nicene^ but from Ibme other reafon, and, moft likely ,becau(e the Dodrine of the Trinity is here more fully expreffed than in that, at which the Sodnidn is moft offended. I obferve alio, That thefe Pcrfonal Proper- ties are exprefled juft by the Scripture word?, !Begety ^egottm^ 'Proe-^dm^,; without affixing any fence of our own upbn them ; but leaving them to be underftood in fuch fence as in the Scri- pture they are to be underftood. Agreeable to that modeft Caution, which is proper in fuch Myfteries. '■ ^- ^^^" /'■^■■^'^* It follows ; " So there is One Father^ not three ' ' Fathers 'j One Sony not three Sons j One Holy Ghoft, '' 7iot three Holy Qhojls, And in this Trinity^ none is " afore or after other, (That is, not in Time, though (15) though in Order.) " None is greater or lefs thm •^^'nnother : but the lehok three ^erfons are co*eterml ^^. iogi^ther'jCini CQ'equtxL Xwm oi rpas \:m^cfii, ^ ovv edhai €l(m>- fAu^cciSy -^ .T;.;^r . 'J^^ But what it fliould fignifie here, is not wdl agreed among learned Men. The Papifts ge« nerally (becaufe that is fubfervient to fome of their beloved Tenents) would havfi it here to fignifie the Place of the Damned ; and woald have it thought, that the Soul of Chriftj during the time his Body lay in the Grave, was amongft the Devils and Damned Souls in Hell. Others do, with more likelyhood^ take it for the Graven or C '7 ) or condition of the Dead: and take this of Chrift's defcenSng into Hades, to be the fame with .his kin^ 'Buried^ or lying in the Grave, The ra- tTier, becaufe in the Niccne Creed, where is mention of his being Suriedy there is no mention of his defcent into Hell, or Hades : And here, in the Jthanafian Creed, where mention is made bf this, there is no mention of his being 'Buried ; as if the iame were meant by both phra(es, which therefore need not be repeated. And though in the Apoftles Creed there be now mention of both, yet anciently it was not Co ; that of his defcent into Hell, being not to be found in ancient Copies of the Apoftles Creed. If it fignifie any thing more than his being Buried, it (eems moft likely to import his Continuartce in the Grave, oc the State and Condition of the Dead ^ for (ome time. Afidihe words which follow, avi^ U ve-^^Mu, lay nothing of his coming out of Hell, but only of his rifngfrom the Dead, But the words here ftand undetermined to any particular fence ; and fo they do in the Apoftles Creed j arid are fo alfo in the Articles of our Church. Where it is only f;iid> (becaule in the Creed it ftands fo,) That we are to be* lieve, That he defcended into Hell, without affi.\:ing any particular fence to it. C 1 The ( i8 ) The words, doubtlels, have refped to that of JSis 2. 27. where, Thou wilt not; leave my Soulin Hell, (or Hades) nor fuffer thine Holy One to fee Corruption , is applied to Chrift , (cited out of ^fal 16.10. where the fame had before been fpoken of DaVtd.) And his not being left in Hades^ ieems to fuppole his haying been (for fome time) in Hades ^ whatever by Hades is. there meant. And Feyfe ^ .1 . his being not fo lefty is expref* ly expounded of his ^furreBion. And (6 a- gain in ABs i j. ^ 5. Now, as we have no rea- fon to think, that DaVid's being in Hell, or Sheoly (though not to be left there) can fignifie, his being in Hell among the DeVtls and damned Spirits j but rather in the ^rave^ or the Condition of the Veadi fo neither that Chrift's being in Hell, or Hadesy (which is the Greek word anfwering to the Hebrew SW) flfiould fignifie any other than His being in the Gr^v^, or condition of the Dead 5 from whence, by his ^efurreBion^ he was delivered. And to this purpofe Ieems that whole Difcourfe of Pefer, ABs 2. 14,-^2, and oi/Pauly ^Bs \^. -^Oy — 37. But, without determining ic to any particular fence, the Creed leaves the word Hell indefinite- ly here tobe underftood, in the fame lence what ever it be, in which it is to be underftood, JBs (19) JBs 1. 27, 3 1 . and Tfal. \6. to. And fo far we are fafe. '. It follows i ^^ He afcendedmto Heaven \ He fit- *' mh on the right hand of the Father^ ^od Ahni'rhty, '' From "thence he pall come to judge the qtink and the '' dead. At whofe coming all menj}?all rije again with " their bodies ; and p7all give account for their own " M^orks, Aid they that have done yood. [hall <^o into ^' Life everlajling : and they that have done Evil, into '' everlajiing Fire, (Of all which, thei'e is no doubt but that it ought CO be believed ) Ending with, " This is the Catholick Faith. Thar i->y this is true and found Dodrine, and fiich as every true Chriftian ought to believe. And, as he had begun all with a general Pre- face, fo now he cloleth all with a general Con- clufipn : ^' Which- (Catholick Faith) except a mm " believe faithfully ^ he cannot hefaved. That is, the Do(5trine here delivered is true, (and fo I think it is in all the parts of it,) and is ( part of) the Catholick Faith: (The whole of which Faith, is the whole Word of God.) That is, part of that Faith, which all true Chriftians do, and ought to Believe. Which Catholick Faith, (the whole of which is the whole Word of God) except a man (lb qualified as I before ex prclTed) do be- lieve faithfully, (that is, except he truly believe it) ( ^^ ) It) as to the Subjtantials of it, (though poffibly he may be ignorant oi many particulars there* in) he cannot (without fuch Repentance as God fball accept of) be faved. Which/o limitted, (as it ought to be) i take to be (bund Doftrine, and agreeable to that ot John ;^, 16. He that helieyeth not J is condemned already ; becaufe he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of (jod : And Ver. -^ 6. He that believetb not the Son^ [hall not fee life; hat the wrath of God abideth on him : That is, (according to the words of this Creed) he that believeth not aright (of God and Chrift) cannot hejaved, -'' ■ i • : ^. . Which words of Chrift, we may fafely in- terpret both with an afped: on the Do6trine of the Trinity (becaufe of thofe words, the only 'Be» /rotten Son of God\ ) and to that of the Incarnation of Chrift y and the Gonfequents thereof ; (becraufe of thofe words in the beginning of the Difeourfe, Ver, 16, I7y God fo hved the World ^ that he Gave his only 'Begotten Son, See. and God fent his Son into the world—', that the -world through him might be fa- . yed:) Which are the two main Points infifted on in the Athanafian Creed. And he who doth not 'Belieye on the Name of th\sonly Begotton Son of God, and thus fent into the worlds (the Text tells us) flmll not fee life ^ hut the 0rath of C/od abideth on him* (21) h;m. Whick fully agrees with what is here faid, Except a mm MkVe the Catholkk Fakhj (of which the Dofirineof the Trinity^ and of tht hcarnatkny are there intimaced, and are here exprefled, to be confiderable Branches) he cannot he JaVed, And what Limitations or Mitigations are to be jnderftood in the one place, are reafonably to be allowed as underftood in the other. And, con- lequently, thofe Damnatory Clatifes (:!s they are called^ in ihe Jthanafian Creed (rightly iin = derftood) are not (o formidable (as fome would pretend) as if, becaufe of them, the whole Creed ought to be laid afide. For, in brief, it is but thus ; The Preface and the Epilogue tell us , That iphofo would he faved^ it k necejfitry^ or (.XP^) he ought to hold the Catholtck Faith, Which Faith ^except he keep whole and undefiiedy or (^(y^oLv % cl^Jff^'n'VJv) ijafe amli'nVtolate^ he jlmll pe- rt (h eVerlafimgly; ' OT J lUyich except he helieve faithful- /y, he cannot be fa'ved. '^hich is no more feyere, than that of our Saviour, Mark 56. 16. He that helieveth not' fl? all be damned. He then inlerts a large Declaration of the Ca- tholick Faith, efpecially as to two main Points of it ; that of the Trinity, and that of the [n- carnation. AncJ if all he there declares be true, (as -I 'think it is,) we have then no reafon to ' ' qnavrcl ( 22 ) quarrel with it upon that; account., But he doth not lay, That a man cannot be faved, . who - doth not Know or Underitand every particular thereof. of the Firft, he lays but this, He that would be favedj ought thm to th'mky or (P''^ (ppovel^i^') let him tkis think of the Trinity •, nannely. That the Unity in Trinity J and Trinity in Unity^ ought to be Worjhip* fed. , ji\ of the Second, what he fays is this, Further^: more it is necejjary to Eternal Salvation , That he be-, lieve aright the Incarnation of our Lord Jejus Chrifl\ Which is no more (evere than that of our S^r: viour, He that believeth not the Son, p:all not fee life^ but the ti^rath ofQod ahideth on him} becaufe he hath not believed on the "Hame of the only begotten Son of G.ody whom God hath fent into the worUy that the world through him might be jaVedy John j. 17, 1 8, ^6. Befide thefe, there are no Damnatory Claufo in the whole. All the reft are but Declaratory. And, if what he declares be true, we have no reafon to find fault with fuch Declaration. "Now as to thofe two Points; that of the Trinity, and that of the Incarnation, (which are the only Points in queftion , ) there is a double Inquiry , (as I have ellewhere ITicwcd,) Whether the things be Poffible 5 and whether they aS^py^ib.^Tj'"^' The Poffibility may be argued '^,/i;pm Principles of Reafon : The Truth of ..rhbm&om Revelation only. And it is not much queftioned , but that the Revelation, in both J Points, is clear enough, if the things be not im- , As to that pf the Trinity 5 I have already fhewed , ( in a former Letter ) That there is therein no Impoffibility, but that what in one confideration are Thne^ (which we commonly call three Perlbns,) may yet (in another coafi- deration) be 0?/^ God. » .,\ ]• fliall now proceed to (hew, That neither i^^ t^ere a.ny Impoffibility, as to the Incarnation of our Lord Jefas Chrift. \ Now this confifls of two Branches ; That of his being born of a. Virgin ; ^ and that of the Hy- pojlaUcdUnion (as it is commonjy called) of the Humane Nature with the Second Perfon of the Sacred Trinity. ., As to the former of the two, there can be no pretence of* Impoffibility. For the fame God who did at firft make Adam of the Duft of the JEaxth, without either Father or Mother, and who made Eye oi Adams Rib, (without a Mo- ther at leaft, however Adam may be fanfied as a iFather,) and who fliall at the laft day recall D the (H) the Dead out of the Duft, may doubtlefs, if he fo pleafe, caufe a Woman, wichout the help of Man to conceive a child. There is certainly no Impoffibilky in nature, why it riiay not, by an Omnipotent Agent, be brought topafs. And when the Scripture declares it fo to be, there is no reafon (if we believe the Scripture) to diC- believe the Thing. ■ i^ ; - It is no more than when Ghrift cared the joh. 9. 6. * Wi«i mans eyes ^ith day and fpktle : Or j made Aaron s %pd (a dry Stick) to bud '■■^ ' and bloffoniy and y'leldr Almonds : Or what ifei. $5. 3. jg implied in that. Let not the Eunuch? fay^ I am a dry tree. And not much Gen. 18. iiv' more than when God gave Abraham Rom. 4. i§. '^ a Son in his old a^t; and,notwithfl:and- ing the deadnefs of Sarah's momh '"■' ^- '- '' I was about to fay, (and it is not much araifs if I do) it is not rnuch more than what (pretty often) happens amoiigft men,- when God gives both Sexes to the 'Cart1e^pt?fr6n, (Tuch there are^ are, arid have been ; and' I think there is one yec living, who was firft as a Woman married to a Man, and is fince as a Man married to a Woman ;) 3,nd what hinders then, but that God, if he pleale, may inin^le the EffcBs of both the(e Sexes in the lame Body ? A little altera- tion in the flru(5ture of the Vcffcls would do it. For when there is in the (ame body, and lo near, Semen virile <^ muliehre ^ what hinders but there might be a paflage for them to mix ? And Plants, we know, do propagate without a fel- low, though it be otherwile in Animals. And whereas this is faid to be by the Holy Qhojt cetdng upon her^ and the Earner of tbsM^heJl overjhadawing the Blefled Virgin ; it is not much unlike that of the Spirit of ^oi's In- cubation , or m^^lng upon the face of theWaters; ^%&\\^k,t^zk to this Point, here is nothing^'clmpofiiMe., nothing Incre- diblebr'^'^''^''*^^^« fc'j( -i* ^*\\ "i^>« V\v The other Particular, as to the Fjf^po/iatical Union r HovJ God and, Man can be united in one Peribn, may feem more difficult for us to apprehend, becaufe we underftand fo little of the Divine Effence, and confeqiiently are lels able to determine, what is, and what is not, confident with it. And, when all is done, if we D 2 be C=6> be never fo certain, that there is fuch an Union,^ yet it will be hard to fay How it is. But we have no reafon ftona thence to .con- clude the thing Impoffible becauie^^we know not How it is done. Becaufe there be xmnp other things; in nature, which we are fure to Be.;^ of which we are almoft at as great a lofs as to. the manner How they be,^^ as in the preienti ca(e. - • '^■.^'' '^l' ■ 'Si\--\ i;-:v,'.v SolomoHy aswiieaschewisj and how well fo; ever skilled in NaturalPhilofophy, doth yet ac^ knowledge himfelf, in many things to be at a lofi, when he would fearch out th^ bottii^oC^ Natural things, - add even when he n^ad^ it hi^* Bnfinefsfo todo.. When (fays he) I fipflkdn^, heart to know rvifdontj and; to fee the bufmefs that is>^ done upon the earth: Then I hjih^ldi all thf work (f God 5 thai a man cannot finiaupM)i&)tk ofi^^d^at , fs done mder the funA'cSecattferthoiighldtnm khom tp^ feck it out, yet he (hall not find it. Yea further^ thUgh . ati^ife manfeek to know it, yet fhall he not bejd>le to find it., Ecoled 8. i6, 17. And::ftullr^e thei^ii I cor. 2: 10; ' :^y > of tthe: deep: things of God ,^, TEhe •f> ^[i3il cthing is impoffible, beoaufewic^n*. not find it but ? And if we confider how naany '.■ puzzling Queftions God puts cojo^, in the ;/, ?8^?9j 40, 4? Chapters of 7(?^i even jn; nar> tural (=7) tural things, we may very well (as Job did) ab" hor ourfelves m dufl and afhes^ and be afliamed of our ignorant curiofity ; and confefs (as he doth) I have uttered what I underftood not ; thm^s too Tpoh- ful for me which I know not ; when he found he had talked like a fooly while he thouoj:>t to he rpife^ and would nieafure the Power - and Wifdoni of God by the narrow limits of our underftanding : And might come to Jo^/s Relolution (when he had well weighed the matter) I know that thou canji do every thhig^andthat no thought can be ip'ithholden from thee, Job 42. 2, The wind bloweth where it lijleth, (not where you pleafe to appoint it,) thou hearcji the found thereof, but canll not tell whence it> coineth. , . „ . or whither it goethj (faith Chrift to N/« codemus : ) But ITiall we therefore conclude , The Wind doth not blow, becaufe we know not how or whence it bloweth ? Or, that God cannot command the Winds ^ becaufe we cannot? We iliould rather conclude. The Wmd doth cer^ tainly WoWy (becaufe 'ft'e hear the found of it,} though we know neither How, nor ^^q r. Whence : And, though they do noc obey us, yet the Wind and the Seas obey him. Now (as. he there further argues) 7/, when he tells us of earthly earthly things^ tire do not apprehend (>, horn much more if he tell m of Heavenly things i of the dee^th'mg^ of God! But (to come a little nearer to the bufinefe) confider we a little the Union of our own Soul and Body. 'Tis hardly accountable, nor per* haps conceivable by us, (who are moftly con* verfant with material things,) How a Spiritual Immaterial Being (fuch as our Souls are) and capable of a (eparate cxiftenceof its own,fhould inform, a we have reafon to believe alio, that it will continue to Ad' as an Intelledual Agent,, (not to remain in a ftupid fenflefs ■^j^o'^^^vvvx''^^' Elfe ( 5? ) Elfe I fee not why J^aul fliouW dtftre to depart, ^r pbii.i.2i,2s, ^^ ^^ dijfolyidy and to, he with Chrifl^ H' tohkh is far better :, xzihQXi\\2kV\ to abide In Fkp?. For while he abides in rhe flefb, he hath iome enjoynnient of CKrift, (as well asan^ opportunity of doing fome Service) which is more defirable, if when he is departed , he have none at ail. And, how can he then fay , That to Dye is gain ? Whether the Soul thus feparated lliall be faid to have a Suhjtjimce as well as ean Exiftcnce j Or , whether it may be properly faid then, to be an intire P^r/o?/ ; ( as the Soul and ^ody are, before Veath^ and af- ter the ^/urreBion) I will not Difpute, be- caule, that were to contend about Words, and fuch Words fo fignify, as we pleafe to define them, and bear fuch a Sence, as we pleale to put upon them. But it is (as the Angels are) an Intelledlual, Spiritual Agent; and weufetofay, ^Biones ftmt Suppofitorum ; and Suppojttum ^tio* nale, is either a Perfon, or fonear a Perlbn, that it w^ould be fo if men pleafe to call it (o. And the Spiricual Being, which doth now feparately Exift, fliall at the Refurredion, refume a Body into the fame Perfonality with it felf, and fhall with it become one Perfon, as before Death it had been. Now Now if a Spiritual Immaterial Intelledual Being, feparately exiftent by it felf, and fepa- rately a6ting as an Intelledual Agent, may, at the Re(urreS:ion, affume or reaflume a Mate- rial Corporeal Being (Heterogeneous to it felf) itito the lame Perlbnality with it felf, or fo as to become one Perfbn with it, while yet it felf re- mains Spiritual as before : What fhould hindei^ (for it is but one ftep further) but that a Divine Perfdn, may aflume Humanity, into the lame perlbnality with it (elf, without ceafing to be a Divine Perfon as before it was ? If it be fa id, That Perfon and Perlbnality in the Sacred Tri- nity,' aire not juft the lame as what we fo call in other cales : It is granted j and by thele words (which are but Metaphorical) we mean no more, butlbmewhat analogous thereunto ; and which, ( becaufe of fuch analogy) we lb call, ^s knowing no better words to ufe in (lead there- of : According as we ufe the words, Father^ Son, generate^ beget, and the like, in a metaphori- cal fence, when applied to God. For no words, borrowedifrom Created Beings, can fignifiejuft the fame whem applied to God, as when they were applied to Men,' but Ibmewhat analogou^^ thereunto. 'And if the Soul (though wc know rH:)tHow) may and do (at the Refurre^fbion) E alTume ( 30 affume a Body fo as to become the fame Peribn with ic felf (though neither the Body be there* by made a Soul, nor the Soul a Body ^ but re- main as before, that a Body, and this a Soul, though now united into one Perfon : ) Why may not a Divine Perfon affume Humanity, fb to be what is analogous to what we call a Per- ifmy ?he. Humanity remaining Humanity, and the Divinity remaining Divinity, though both united in One Cbrift 5 though we do not parti- cularly know How ? We (hould be at a great lols, if (to anfwer an Atheift, or one who doth not believe the Scriptures) we were put to it, to tell hm^ How ' God made the World ^ Of what Matter ? With what Tools or Engines ? or. How a Pure Spi- rit could produce Ma^tter wh^re none w^s I He would tell us perhaps, Ex nibilo nihil^ip nihilum'ml pojjereyerti-y Where nothing is, iiotjhingcan be made : and what once is, (though it rpay 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 cafe, we may (atisfie our felves (chough per** haps it will not fatisfie him) by faying, God made it, but we know not How : The lame muft ( 55 ) rmift fatisfie us here 5 That Chrift vvas Incar- ttaxG^ (God and Man) we are certain, (for fo the Scripture doth affiare us, as well as, That God made the World 5 ) But, How God made the World} or, How the Son of God aflumed Humanity , we cannot tell. >5or indeed is ic fit for us to enquire, farther than God is pleafed to in^ke ItnoWn tbus. ' All further than this, are But the fubtile Cob^webs of our Brain ; Fine, blit not Strong. Witty Conjedlures, How it jnay he j rather than a clear Refolution, How it is. Another Objection I have met with : to which the Obje6ters muft be contented with tfefaYne Anfwer ; 'XVe know it Jj,but we know not How. It would be endlefi for us, and too great'a Curiofity, to think our fclves able fully to explicate all the ^^idden things of God. The ClBje^ion is this : Since the Ttiree Pe;:fons part^ ' not be Divided ; How is it poffible, that jOiVe of them can Aflnme Humanity, and not the o- thei: ? And why the Second Perfon, and not the firil or third >-'^-* .. .^-^ / Asto^heQueftibrivWhf> ri3y, litis 13, bfe^ (iaiife fo it pleaftd God ; And he ^i- ^ , Veth not account of his Matters ; He is not accountable to us, why he fo willeth, As to the Queftion, How is it Poflxblc ? 1 iec E 2 no ( 34 ) no difficulty in that at all. The Perfons are Di- ftinguinied, though not Divided. As in the Di- vine Attributes, God's Juftice and Mercy are Diftinguifhable J though in God they cannot be Divided. And accordingly, fome things are faid to be Effe<5ts of his Juftice, others of his Mercy. So the Power and Will of God (both which are Individual from himlelf :) But whea we (ay God is Omnipotent^ we do not fay he is Omnhohu^ He wills indeed All things that Are, (el(e they could not be) but he doth not will all things Poflible. And the like of other Attri- butes. ., If therefore we do but allow as great a Di- fiinclion between the Perfons , as between, the Attributes, (and certainly it is not le(s,but fome- what more,) there is no incongruity in aforibing the Incarnation to One of the Perfons, and not to the reft. ^Mj^.-., ;: ;f)^b!/{lio 'Tis asked further, Howl can accomDnodate this to my former Similitude, of a Cube and its Three Dimenfions ; reprefonting a Poffibilit;y of Three Perfons, in one Deity. I lay. Very ea- fily. For it is very poflible, for one Face of a Cube, fuppoie the Baie, (by which I there re- prefented the Second Perfon, as Generated of the Father,) to admit a Foil, or Dark Colour, while (35) while the Reft of the Cube is Tranfparenc; without deftroying the Figure of the Cube, or jche Diftin(5lion of its Three Dimeqfions, which .tolour is adventitious to the Cube. Forche Cube wJs perfect without it, and is not de- ftroyed by it. Which may fonac way reprefent Ghnft's Humliation, Who btinQ, Equal yuh Gody was tnade Lih unto Us^ and took upon him thi Form of a Seryanty Phil. 2.6,7. .: So that^ upon the whole Matter, there is no Impoflibility in the Dodtrine of the Incarnation, any more th^n in that of th^ Trinity. And, lup^ pofing them to be not Impoffible 5 it is not de- nied but that they are, both of them, fufficiently Revealed ; and therefore to be Believed, if we believe the Scripture. And of the other Articles in the /ithana/tan Creed, there is as little reafon to doubt. There is therefore no juft Exception, as to the DecUrntiVe part of the Athanaftan Creed. And, as to the Damnatory part ; we have before flio^v- ed, that it is no more levere, than other paffages in Scripture to the fame purpofe ; and to be underftood with the like Mitigations as thofe are. And, coniequently, that whole Creed, as hitherto, may juftly be received. 'Tis ( 30 'Tis true> there be fomb Expreflions in it, which, if I were now CO Pen a Greedv . I fhouW perhaps chiife to leave-out t But, bcrri'^ in; they are to be underftood Sct'OVdingtb fuch (encd as we may reafonably fuppofe to be intended, and according to the X^anguage of chofe titiies When they did ufe to' Anathematize great Ei- rors, which they apprehended to be DeftruiSiTe of the Chriftian Faith, as things of themfelves Damnable, if not Repented of. And, I fuppofe, no more is here intended ; nor of any other Er* rors, than fuch as areDeftru^Hve of Et;nd;itiiien« tals. ^ ^ours, fobn milk jiOO i ij M V, i i . A..I --w—»-^>'»- Poftfcripti (37) igSTSCRIPT- ■ r' ^; ^l\ov'emher 1 5, 1690. ' Ti b'Ji: *r!C>:> br»£ W'Hen tliis Third Letter was Printed, and ready to come abroad, I ftoppcd it a little for this Poftfcript ; occafioncd by a Gnall Treatiie which came to my hands, with this Title, Dr, Wallis'^ Letter ^ toucJmig the Do- Elnm.of the (Blejfed Trinity^ anfwercd by his Friend, k fcemsl, I have more Fr/enJy abroad than I am aware of. . . But, Who this Friend is, or whether he be x Friend, I. do not know. It is to let me uiiderftand, that a Neighbour- of his, reputed a So- cman, is. not coifvinced^ by itii But names fome Socinian Authors, wlio endeavour to elud^- Scri- ptures alfedged for the Trinity, by puttinp, fome ocher lenceupon them. He might have named as many, if he pleafed, who have (co better pur- pole) written againft thofe Authors, in vindi- cation of the True fence. And if he fhould Re- peat what Thofe have faid on the one hJe ; and I, fay over again, what Th^fe have laid on the (38) the other fide ; we (liould make a long work of ic. But he knows very well, That was not the bufinels of my Letter/ todifeourle the'tj^hple Controverfie at large, (eith^ a^ to th©^ E^ir dence, or as to the Antiquity, of the Dodrine.) For this I had fet afide at firft, (as done by o- thers, to whom I did refer : ) and confined my Difcourfe to this fingle Point, That there is }i6 Impojpbility (which is the 'Socmimis great Obje- dtion) but that What in one conlideration is Three, may in another confideration be One. And if 1 have fufficiently evinced this , (as I think I have j and I do not find that he denies it ; ) 1 have then done-what \ there ua- dertook. And, in (b doing, have removed the great Objeftion, which the Sodntans \vo\Ai. caft in our way : and, becaufe of which, they think; themfelves obliged: to ihiiffle off > other Argu-. ments on this pretence. ■- Now (whether he pleafe to call this a -^et aphy fuk,' or 'JMathema- tkkLeHun^) certain. it: is, that there ate T-hree difltnH VimcnfionS' (Length, Breadth, and Thick- nefs) inO^j^Cwfe. And,ifit be fo in Corporeals, there is no pretence of reafon, why in Spirituals it fhould be thought Impoflible, that there be three Somewhat's which are but One God* And the(e (59) theie Some)ffjat*Sj till he can furnifh us with a better name, we are content to call Terfons, (which is the Scripture word, H^^.i.j,) Which word we own to be but Metaphorical^ (not fig- nifying juft the fame here, as when applied to men,) as alfo are the words, Father y Son^ Generate^ !Begot, dec. when applied to God. And morethan this need not be faidj to juftifie what there I un- dertook to defend. Now 'tis eafie for him (if he (b pleafe) to hurlefque this, or turn it to ridicule, (as it is, any the moft Sacred things of God ; ) but not fo fafe, Ludere cum Sacris* The Sacred Trinity (be it as it will) fhould by us be ufed with more Reve- rence, than to make Sport of it. I might here end, without laying more. But becaufe he is pleafed to make (ome Excurfions, befide the Bufinels which I undertook to prove, (and which he doth not deny ^ ) I will follow him in (bmeofthem. He finds fault with the Similitude I brought, ( though very proper to prove what it was brought for,) as too high a Speculation for rk poor Labourers in the Country, and the Tankard- hea- rers in London. And therefore (having a mind to be pleafant) he advifeth rather (as a more / wedded Htt^bandyScc^ (thinking this, 1 fuppofe, to be Witty.) And truly (H^ppofing ^eter^ James, and Johrty to be the fame Man,) it is not nauch amils. But I cotild teilbinii, with a little alteration, (if their Majefties will give me leave to make as bold with their Kames, as he doth with the Names of Chrift's Mother, and of his three Difciples which were with him in the Mount at his Transfiguration , y!Matth, 17. i .) it were not abfurd to fay^ JMary, take thee Henry William Naflaw ; without making him to be three Men, or three Husbands 5 and without putting her upon any difficulty (as is fuggefted) How to dilpofe of her Conjugal AffeSion. And, when the Lords and Commons declared Him to be King oi England, France, and Iretand^j they did not intend, by alotting him three diftindt Kingdoms, to make him three Men. And when, for out Chancellor, we made choice 6( Jajnes, T>{xke^ Marquefs and Earl o( Ormond; though he had three diftin6b Dignities, he was not therefore three Men, nor three Chancellors. And when * d o ^^^^^y ^^y^ ^' Suftmeo unus tres perforiits ; meanly adverfarti, judicis ; which is in Englifh, (that the 'I ankard' hearer may undet- ftand ic,) I being one and the fame cMaUy do fuftain Three (4J) Three ^erfons ; that of My/elf , thtof my Mvcrfa)y, and that of the Judge : He did not become three Meuj by fuftaining three ferfons. And (in this Anf^jver to my Letter) the Friend and his Neigh- hour, may (for ought I know) be the fame Man^ tHough he fuftain Two ferfons. And, 1 hope, fbmeoftheie ^femhlances, may befo/^toi, and {ofamllar, as thu Jie' and his Tankard'hearer rmy apprehend thent ; and thence perceive, It is not Impoffible cfiac Three may be One. For if (among us) one Manrnzy fuftain three ^erfons, (without being r/7m J^^;/,) Why fhould it be thought indredible, that three Divine Terfons may be one Qod ? (as well as thofe three other Per- fons be one Man ? ) Nor need he the lefi be** lieve it for having (as this Anfwerer fuggefts) bccntdughtkiii.hisCatechifmj or {^s Thjothy did the Scf ipturies) know it from a Child. But T would not have him then to tell me, the Father is a Duke, the Son a JMarcjuefs, the Holy Ghoft ait £^/, (according as he is pi eafed to prevaricate upon the Length, Breadth and Thickriers of a Cube J ) but thiis rAther, That, God the Crea- tor, God the Redeemer, and God the San(ffci'* fier, are the fame (jod. That God the Creator is . Omnipotent and Jllfufficient ; that God the Re- deemer is fo too; and God the Sanftifier like- F 2 wife. ( 43 > wife. That God the Creator is to be Loyedwith all our Heart 5 and fo God the Redemer,and God the San<5tifier. And then there will be no Abfur* dity in all this. As to what he fays, that Jit people that haye reafon enough to under fland NumberSy knoli^ the dif- ference between One^ and More than one ; I might reply, That all people who can tell Mony, know that Three groats are but One Shillings and Ihree Nobles OLte One Tound; and what in one con* fideration is Tferge, may in another confideration be but One. Which, if it look like a flight An- fwer, is yet fufficient to (iich an Argument. He tells me fomewhat of Dr. 5/?er/c«:A,(where« in I am not concerned, ) and fomewhat of the Srief Htjtory of the Unitarians , ( of which his Neighbour gives the Friend a Copy 5 ) But he doth not tell me, as he might, (and therefore I tell him) that Dr. Sherlock hath confuted that Hijlory, But Dr. Sherlock fays nothing contra- ry to what I defend. For if there be (uch Di- flind;ion (between the three Perfons) as he. afljgns , then at lead, there is a Diftin(5tion (which is what I affirm, without iaying how great it is ; ) Nor doth he any where deny them to be one (jod. He C 43 ) He tells me a ftory of fomebody, who, in a publick Diiputation ac Oxford^ maiq^aining a T^hefis againft che Sociniansyv/siS baffled by his Op- ponent. Whom, or when, he means, I do noc know ; and fo fay nothing to it : But, that I may not be in his debt for a ftory, I fliall tell him anocher, which will be at lead as much to the purpole as his. It is, of iheir great friend, Chnjiophon0 Chrijiophori Scind'ms^ a diligent pro- moter of the Socmw?2 Caule. He printed a La- tin Thefis or Difcourfe againfl the Divinity of the Holy Ghoft, which he calls frohkma Tara- dbxum de Spiritu Sanfio^ with a general Chal- lenge to this purpofe, Ut ft fits in totoOrbe erudito- rum forte fit ^ quidoBrinamagis polleaty quam quibuf cum haSlenus ft collocutus^ ea Icgat qua afe publice fmt edit a argument a, feque err are moneat, ac reclius fentire doceat. Hereupon, Wtttichius acceprs the Challenge, and writes againft Sandius, To which Sandius anfwers, (taking in another as a partner with him in the Di(putation.) And Wit- tichius replies. And that with fo gooddiccels, that Sandius and his partner , acknowledged themfelves to be convinced by it, and to change their Opinion. This happening but a little be- fore Sandius his death ; His Partner (fuiviving) publifiied to the World an Account hereof, (and of ,l44 5\ of S^^^Jiwi declaring, before his death, 'that he was fo convinced,} in a Letter of Thanks to Wittkhius for it. What S andius would hzvt^ done further, if he had lived a little longer, we cannot tell. That of Wittkhius bears this Title , Caufa Sfirkus Sancii, ferfona T'iyhjd^ ejiifdemcum Tatre O* filio ejfent Uy {contra C CJ S. ' ; Troblemd ' 'f^^r^i doximiy) ' afferta <^ defenfdj *a Chrtfid'^^horo WiitkhiCfl Lugdunl 'Satavormn apud' Artddtini Doudey 1 67 8. The Letter of Thanks bears mis Title, Epijlola ad P. Chnjiophorum Gktidnmn ^rofejform Lugdu- nmfcm'y Qua. gratice ei hahntur pro' &uljuiffimis if^ jxus in ^rohlenia de Spiritu SmBo Jhimachcrfiomhus *: Script a a Socio Juthoris ^robkmatis Taradoxi : Ter quas errcresfuos rejicere coaBus ejl, Colonidy apud Jo" annemNicoM.. ih..';aci h;.: . He takes it unkindly, that I charge it upoit fome of the Socinians that though they do rtdk think fit diredtly to reje(5t the Scriptures, yet think themfelves obliged to put fuch a forced fence upon thenci, as to make them fignifie fome- what elfe. , And tells me of fome Sociniansy who have (b great a refpecft for the Scriptures, as to (ay that the Scripture contains nothing that is repug- nant to manifcj} ^afon \ and that what doth not a^ gree with ^a[on\ hath m place in Divinity^ &£;: . But this is ftill in order to this Inference 5 That there- (45) therefore what they think not agreeable to Rea- fon, maft not be thought to be the ience ot Scripture : and therefore that they mud put fuch a Force upon the Words, how great ioever, as to make them comply with their fence. If he except againft the. '^jo\-ds^ horn great a Force foever^ ais too hard an Expreflion of mine : They are Socinus's own word:>, (in his Epiftle to 'Balccro- l^ks^ bf Jmuary ^ o. 1581.) Certe contraria fenten- tia adco mihi ^ abfurda C^ pernkiofa (pace Amufli" n'ty^c, d'txerhn) ejfe videtur^ ut Quantacunq; Vis potius Tauli Verbis Jit adh'tbanda, qtiam ea admittenda. That is , Jhe- contrary Opinion ( mtJ? ^ugujiins ledyCj and others of his mind) feems to mejoabfiirdand pernicious y that we mujl rather put a Force, holi> great foeVer, upon' ^aufs words , thatuidmit it. And, as to the fufpicion I had of (ome of their Sentiments, as to S/j/ntw^/ Sub/ijlences, (that it irwy -ntbt ia|!)f)enr fd be groundlefs) He doth (rnh\$ Epip,^. itdVolkdium) MolutAy deny.tUit the Sotd after death dothfubfiH ; and adds exprefly, OJieridi me [entire ^— non ita Vmre poft hominis ip» pusmhrtemj ^ pe'r^fe pMrniGYUm po^nartmVe capax fit: that is, that'f /;e So«/ after death doth n^n fnbfifi: y nor is k a capacity of hmg, by it fef rn^arded or pu* nijhed. And how he can then think it an Intel- ligent $eing, I do not fee. St: faul^ k fe-ms, was (4^) was of another mind, when he 7W a defire to he dijfobed (or depart hence) and to be with Chrijl^ as being /<«r better for him, than to abide m the flejh, Phil. 1 . 1 ^ , It 4. Jnd willing- rather to he abfentfrom the body J and prefent with the Lord ^ i Cor. 5. 8. Now I do not underftand the advantage of his being with Chrifty or being prefent wkh the Lord; if he were then to be in a fenflefs condition^ not capable of pain or pleafure, pynifhment or re- ward. In Epifi, T^.ad 'Dud'^hiuniy we have thele words, Unufquijq^ facrd Scripture ex fuo ipfius fenju Inter^ pres : eaq-, quajihijic Arrident pro yeris admitterede bet ac tenereficet univerfus terrarum Orhis in alia omnia tret. That is, Every one is to interpret Scripture ac- cerdin^r to his el^n fence : and what fo feems Plea- fing to him J he is to imbrace and maintain ^ tlTOUgh aU the World be againfl it, Socinns^ in his Tra&, de Ecclefiay p2Lg. i^^. fays thus, Non attendendum quid homines doc e ant fentiantrcy vel antehac docuerint autfenjerint, quicunq-y illi tandem^ aut quotcunque^ fint aut.fuerint. Which. is pretty plain. 1 am ?wr ((ayshe) to regct d whcrt other men do teach or thinks or have before now taught or thought^ tphofoeveryor how many foever^ they be or have been. And if his whofoeVer are not here to be extended to the Sacred Writers ; he tells us of (47) of them ellewhere, Ego quidemy etiamft non femely fed f^pCy id in lacris raonimentis fcriptum extarety non idcino tamen it a rem prorfus fe habere crederem* Soc. de Je(u Chrifto fervatore, Par. 5. cap. 6. Operum Tom. 2. p. 204. As for me (faich he) thugh itipere to be found written in the Sacred Moni- ments, not once^ but many times ^ I li^ould not yet for all that helieye itfo to he. And a little before, in the fame Chapter, (having before told us, that he thought the thing Impoffible,) he adds, Cum ea qU(Z fieri non pojfe aperte conjiat, diVtnis etiam ora- culis ea faBa fuifje in fpeciem diferte attejlantibus, fie* quaquam admittantur j O* idcirco facra verba, in all' mifenfum quam ipftfonant, per inufitatos etiam tropos quandoq-y explic4ntur> That is, When it doth plainly Appear^ (or when he thinks (b, whatever all the Wprld think befide) that the thing cannot be -,. then^ though the ViVme Oracles do feem exprefly to atteft it^ it mufl not be admitted : and therefore the Sacred Words are, eyen by unufual Tropes, to be interpreted to another fence than what they [peak. Which Say- ings are, I think, full as much as I had charged him with. And if the(e Inftances be not enough, I could give him more of like nature.Buc I fhall conclude this with one of a later dace : at a fuhlick Difpu- tationu Franeker ^ 0«51:ob. 8. 1686. where (a- G mongft (48) mongft others) this Tky?i was maintained ; Scriptw'd diVmitatem non aliunde qmm ex ^dtiom ad^ jirut pojje-y Eofqi Errare^ ml ajferere Juftinmt^ Si ^atto aliud quid nobis diflaret quam Script ur it, hutc potius ejse credendtm. Und when Ulrlcus Huberus (becaufe it was not publickly cenilired, as he thought it deferved to be) did oppo(e it in Word and Writing; the fame was further aJF- fertedj in Publick Dilputations, and in Print, by two other ProfeflTors in Franeker^ in Vindication of that former Thefis ; that, If %eafon do diHate to us any thing otherMfe than the Scripture doth ; It is an Error to J ay J that, in fuch cafe, we are rather to believe the Scripture, An account of the whole is to be (een at large in a Treatife etttituled, Ulrici JFJuberi, Supreme Friftorum Curiae ex-fenatoris , De concur fu Rations To Mm Thee to be the only tm tjod y and Iphom^^houkaft jent^jejus Chrtft ^(to be the fanie only true God •, ) repeating ^'^ >toiv?, thole words r /^voj^ctA/j^j/oV ©goV* he would not like th^t,Lii^ter{)retat]o^^; but; both the Words an / cihd ive in hhn ) and one Lord Jefus Chr'ifl^ by whom an allth'mgSy and we by hm^ Ver. 4, 5, 6. Where ic is evident, chat the kope of the place is, not to fhew either how the Perfons (as we call them) or how the Attributes of that One God are di- ftinguiflied amongft themfelves : But to ict our One Qod (who is the Father or Maker of all things,) in oppofition to the i^any Gods oi the Idolatrous World : and our One Saviour or Re- deemer, againft their Many SaVtours, Indeed, if we (hould (et up our Jefus Chrifl: to be another Qod, the Text would be againft us : but not ^7vhen we own him for the fame God. So that here is tlothing clear in either place (as he pre- tends) againft Chjrift's being the fame God with the Father. But in that bther place of 7o/;« i. (which he ftbours to elude) the evidence for it doth fo ftare himi in the face, that if he were not (as he fpeak's) Wilfully blind, (or did Wink very hard) he muft needs fee it. In the beginning ^Vds the Word ; and the Word wds with God ; and the Word iVa^ God. The fame was in the beginning with Qod. All things tpere made by him ; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him WiU life^ and the life was the light of men, (Ver. i, 2, j, 4.) He'^as in the World 5 and the World was made by him ; and the (54) the World knew him not. fie came unto his own/ and his own received him not, But to as many as received htmy hegaVe f Oliver ( or rights or privilege:, ) to he- come the fons of God, even to' them that believe on his Name, ( Ver. 10,11,11.) Jnd the Word wm ^ad? flejh, and dwelt among us 5 and ive beheld his glory , the glory as of the only begotten of the Father j full of grace and truth J (Ver, 14.); Why he fliould not think this very clear, is very ftrange, if he were not ftrangely prepoffefled. Unleis he think no- thing clear, but fuch as no man can cavil a- gainft. But there can hardly be any thing faid lb clearly, but that fbrn^ or other (if they lift to be contentious) may cavil at it, or put a. for- ced fence upon it. for thus the whole Doftrine of Chrift, when himielf fpakeit, (and he (pake as clearly, as he thought fit to (peak,) was ca« villed at. And himfelf tells us the reaibn of it, JMatth, I J. 14, 15^ and Jo/;. 12. 37, ,^8, 39,40. and after him St. "PW, Afts 28. 16. and %onu II. 8. Not for want of cfe^rLgk, butbecaule they fl7Ut their eyes* In Jolm 1 2. it is thus, But though he had done [0 many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the faying ofEfaiasthe Prophet might be fulfilled, '^hich he fpake ; Lord, who hath believed our report ^ and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed i Therefore they could not be- lieve, . ^ 55 ) iieye , hecaufe Efa'tas [aid again , He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart , that they fl^ould not fee with their eyes^ nor under fl and mith thetr hearty and he converted, and Ifhould heal them, Tl^efe things faid EfaiaSy when he fal? his glory and [pake of him. And thus in JMatch I ;. Hearing ye Jhalt hear and fhall not mderftandy and feeing ye fhall fee and (hall not perceive. For this peoples heart is waxed grof^^ and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have clofed'y lefl at any time they flmdd fee with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and underfland with their hearty andfhouldhe converted, and Ifhould heal them. So that 'tis no argument of a place or dodbrine's not being clear, becaufe prejudiced perlbns are able to pick cavils at it, or put a forced (ence upon it. But let us fee what the(e cavils are. TIjU 1 confefi (faith he) were to the purpofe, if by the term Word could be meant (he fhould rather have (aid, he meant) nothing elfe but a pre^exifling perfon ; and, by the term God, nothing but Qod Almighty the Crea- tor of .Heaven and Earth y and if taking thofe terms in thofe fences did not make St» John write Non=>' fence, Now in reply to this, I firft take exception to that phrafe, // it could be meant of nothing elfe. For if his meaning be this, ^no Caviller cmflart H np Up another [encty right or '^rong : this is no iair play. For hardly can any thing be fo plain, but that fomebody may find a pretence to cavil at it. It is enough for us therefore, if /> he thus me ant ^With- out faying, it is impoflible to put a forced kncQ upon it. But this would have fpoiled his defign, in muftering up a great many forced fences j not that he thinks them to be true, (for furely they be not all true ; and I think none of them are) nor telling us which he will ftick to ; but only that he may caft a mill ; and then tell us (which is all that he concludes upon it) the place is abfcure^ he knows not what to make of it. But when the Mift is blown off, and we look upon the Words themfelves, they feem plain enough, as to all the Points he mentions. The Word which was with God^ and Wi^ God^ and hy ffhom the World was made, and which was made flefh and dwelt amongflus^ and we faw his glory y iand of whom John hare witnefs ; muft needs be a Terfonj and can be no other than our Lord Jefus Chrifi^ who was born of the Virgin SMary. And this 'Wordy which was in the heginningySind by whom the World was made y muft needs have been pre- exijient before he was fo born. And this Wordy which was with Qod (the true God) and was Gody and by whom the World was made, and who is ( 57 ) is one with the Father y (Joh. lo. \q.) and ^tt?/;ow oyer all^ God blejfed for ever ^ {^onu 9. 5.) is no o« ther God than God Jlmi^hty, Creator of Heaven »nd Earth.) And this plain fence the words bear, without any force put upon.them : With- out any Incoherence, Inconfiftence, or Contrst* difiion ; -fejie that they do not agree with the Socintan Do£tnne, And there is no other way to avoid it, but what Socims advifeth in another cafe , Qmntacunque Vis verbis adhibenda ; putting a Force upon the words y no matter how great y to make 'I I I III I*. I I t i ■ ! ■ I I -f i« » ■ ■ X I ' — >■■• * What we render whois^iXxi Rom.^.$,) is in the Greek,not 2f er/, but S «V, (he that Is,) which in Rev. 1 . 4. («t3 ^ «v, 5cc.) and elfewhere, is ufed as a peculiar Name or Tide proper to God Almighty •, andanfwersto / uiM, Exod. 3. 14. I AM hath fen t me unto you. (Of the fame import with Jah and Je- hovah.) And what isfaid of God indefinitely, (without rc- fpe<5t to this or that Perfon in the.Godhead) at Rev. i . 4. (for Chrift in particular is contradiftinguiihed, yer. 5.) «^3 oili «f, j^ivivyi^i tfx^i^sr®-, (ffoi^ him that Is^ and waSj and u to come,) is at Tm 8. applied in particular to Chrift, lam Al- pha andOmega^ the beginning and the end^ faith the Lordy which /5, andwat^andis to comcy the Almighty, Which clofeth the defcription of Chrift, that begins at Ver. 5. And that, by the Lordy is here meant Chrift, is evident from the whole context, Ver. II, 13, 17, 18, and the whole Second and Third Chap- ters. And fo the defcription of Chri[t , Rom. r- 5- «" ^' r^rivTm Qih iMKoyydU «f 7i<<^/w*<, V"", i" its full Emphafis, is thus, that BEING over all, (or, the Supreme Being) God hleffed for ever, {jQt the ever bleQed God) Afncn. And there Will be need of 5od»/«'s Expedient, (qmntacunque Vn VauU verbis adhibenda) to make it fignifie any other God, than god Almighty, the Cremr of Heavm and Earth. Hi them, ( 58 ) them, not to fignifie, what they plainly do. Oe elfe to fay, (which is his laft refuge): that St* John mites Nonfence. .^td;^t^K W 3 n^rh LoD i^^rd r>i-.But lee him then confider, W4iether this 'do favour of that r^fpedt which he would have us think they have for the Holy Scripture , and whether we have not reafbn to fufp^^t the con- trary of fome of theni. And, ^hjqtheJf w^ have, not realbn to complain of thfeir puttiag a forced fence upon plain words, to make them conriplyj with their Dodrine. And laftly. Whether it be not manifeftj that the true Bottom of their averfion from the Trihity, (whatever dtfelu^ iidiary Reafons they may alledge) is, becaufe they think it Now/f?ice, or not agreeable with their Reafon. (For, fet this^fide, and all the reft is plain enough >' |?pti' bi^caufe qf this, theyf fcr^ple not lo 'put . tte'/gre^ Scri» pture.) Nor is there any other pretence of "Nonfence in the whole Difco^rfe, iave that he thinks the Do6trine of the Trinity tabe Non-- fence. So that the whole Cpntrove*^ He with him, turns upon this fingle Point, Wheciier there be fuch hn^offbility or hccfififtence ^ as i^ pre- tended. ;\' "That of I John '^: y, Thre he 'three that bear record inHeayenytU FatMy tHjfordyand the Holy Chofi\ (59) (jhoft ; and thefe 7hree are One : is wanting, he fays, in fome Copies. And ic is fo ; (and fo are fome whole Epiftles waminp, in fome Copies.) But we will not for that quit ciie place. For we have great reaibn to think it genuine, if this difference of Copies happened at firft by chance (upon an overfight in the Tranfcriber) in fome one Copy, (and thereupon in all chat were tranfcribed from thence ; ) it is much more likely for a Tranfcriber 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 defign, it is much more likely that the Ar'uxns fhould purpolely leave it out, (in fome of their Copies) than the Orthodox foifl it in. Nor was there need of fuch falfification ; fince '^^ ^o-ju^r, concludes as flrongly, as to a Plurality of per* fbns, (and of the Son in particular ; which was the chief controverfie with the Arlnns ; ) as ^^v «7i doth as to all the Three. And, I think, it is ci- ted hy 'Cypmn. in his Book Ve unit ate Ecclejlxy be- fore the Jrian Controverfie was on foot. And therefore, if it were done defignedly (and not by chance)it feems rather to be razed out by rkAi ians, than t/?rw/?m^jytkOrr/.W(9x.And the Language of this in the Epiftle, faits fo well with thatot the fame Author in his Gofpel, that it is a flrong pre- (6o) prefumption, that they are both from the fame Pen. The Wordy in i John 5. 7* agrees fo well with the Word in John i. (and is peculiar to St. John:) and^j'^'^j in i /ofcnj./. with eV lo-^Af v in John 10. ^o. {thefe three are One^ with / and the Father are One) that I do not at all doubt its be- ing genuine. And that Evafion of his, thefe three are one y that is> one in teftimony y will have no pretence in the other place, where there is no difcourfe of Teftimony at all : but I and the Fa^^ ther are Onej. ( mum fumus ) muft be One Thinly One in &i?g, One in Effence, For (b Adje6tives in the Neuter Gender, put without a Subftan- tive, do ufually fignifie both in Greek and La- tin : and there muft be fome manifeft reafon to the contrary, that fhould induce us to put a^* nother (ence upon them. The other place , Matth, 1 8. 19. !Bapti;^ng them in (or into) the JSlame of the Father ^ and of the Sony and of the Holy (jhofl \ is not ib flight an evidence as he would make it. For whether ^^^ovofj^y (not £''^ 'yBioVojitaTrc) be rendred iw the Name J and taken to denote the joint Authority of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, admitting the perfon baptized into the Chriftian Church : Or, into the Name, (which this Anfwerer (eems to like better^ ^nd taken to denote the Dedication of ( 6I ) of the perfofi baptized to the joint Service or VVorfliip of Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft ,• (Bap- tilmit felf being alfoapart of Divine Worfliip :) They are all conjoined ; either, as in joint Au- thority J or as joint Objei5ts of the fame Religi- ous Worfliip J and, for ought appears, in the fame Degree. And Sochrns himfelf doth allow, the Son to be Worihipped v^ith Religious Wor- fhip; as Adoratimy and Invocation 5 as Lawful at leaft, if not Keceflary. Now when this Anfwe- rer tells ys of the Pirfl: Commandment, T7;o« Jhak ha)^e no other §od hut me^ (the God oiljracl'^) He might as well have remembred that of Chrift, Matth* 4. i o. Thou fhalt "ii^orpnp the Lord thy God, and him only Jhak thouferve. And there- fore fince Socintis (and other of his followers) do allow Chrift to be Worfihipped , they muft allow him to be God, even the God of Ifrael And I am miftaken if he be not exprefly called. the Lord God of IfraeL Luke 1.16. Many of the children of Ifrael pall he (John the Baptift) turn to the Lord their God; for he fJiall go before Him in the/pirit and power of Bias, &c. Now he before whom Jo^n the 'Baptift was to go in t!ie ipirit and power of Elias, is agreed to be our Lord- Jefus Chrift ; 'tis therefore He that is here called the Lord God of IfraeL And we who own him ( 62 ) fo to be, Wordiip no Other God in Worfliip- ping him. It is thofe, who do not own him fo to be, and do yet Wordiip him, that are to be charged with Worfhipping another God. Now when here we find Father, Son,and Holy Ghoft, all joined in the fame Worfhip, we have reafon to take them all for the fame God j and, that thefe Ihree are One. And do fay, (as willingly as he) Hear^ Ifrael^ the Lord thy god is One God. Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, are but One God : As God the Creator, God the Redeemer, and God the Sanflifier, are One God. And what in the Old Teftament are faid of God, indefi- nitely, without taking notice of this or that of the three Perfons ; are, in the New Teftament, attributed fome to one, fome to another, of the three Perfons. That which makes thefe Expreflions feem harfii to fome of thefe men, is becaule they have ufed themfelves to fanfie that notion only of the word 'Per/o?i,according to which Three Men are accounted to be Three Perfons,and thefe Three Perfons to be Three Men. But he may cqpfi- der, that there is another notion of the word Perfon, and in common ufe too, wherein the fame Man may be faid tofiiftain divers Perfons, and chofe Perfons to be the lame Man,That is the fame C ^3 ) fame Man as fuftaining divers Capacities. As was fcid but now of Tully^ Tres Tirfon(t4 Unm fujlinco. And then it will feem no more harfli to fay, The three Perlons, Father, Son and Ho- ly Ghoft are one God ; than to lay, God the Creator, God the Redeemer, and God the San* £iifier are one God 5 which, I fuppofe, even to this Anfwerer would not feem harfli, or be thought Nonfetice, It is much the fame thing, whether of the two Forms we u(e. And, all the Cavils he u(eth, may be equally applied to ei- ther. What anfwer therefore he would give to on6 who fliould thus object againft the latter* form, will ferve us as well to what he obje^fls againft the former. If therefore the Gentleman pleale to confider it calmly j he will find , that, even amongft men, though another perfon do many times denote another mauy (and thereupon the words are fbme- times ufed promi(cuoufly,) yet not always ; nor doth the word J^erfon neceflarily imply it. A j^ng and a Husband (though they imply very different Notions, different Capacities, different Relations, or different Perlbnalities,) yet may both concur in the (ame Man. (Or, in that fence wherein Perfon is put for Man, in the fame Per- fon.) So a King and a Father, a King and a I Bro- Bvothevj and* the life.j;'-;Ahd[;tbi3'Geiitfeman^ thour^H (in the- Dialogue) he ftiftaih two IVr /o?25 ; chat pi an Opponent, and.that'of an An- iwerer ; or that of a Friend,: andxhat of an Ad- verfary 5 (that fo,whi!e one gives ili Language^ the other may give up the Cauie 5 ) yet they- do not a6t each their own part foxoyertly, but that fometime the vizard. falls ofif, and diico^ers the ^SMan to be the (ame. For though my Letter be mfwercdbyaFriend, pa^.'i. yet 'tis thG.Neigkbour that is mary of Writings p. i \. ' " : : > Now, liferfotiy in a Proper fence, when apr ' plied to Men, do. not imply, that different 'Per*- jons muft needs be fo many different Men : much lefs niould it be thought Nonfencey when (in a Metaphorical fence) it is applied to God, that Afferent ferfons in the Deity,, ftiould not imply fy majiy Gods : Or, that three Smneu^hats (which we call ferfons) may be One God.- Which is what i undertook to prove. And, having made this good, I need not trouble my felf to name more Texts (chough many more there be which give concurrent evi- dence to this truth) or difcourfe the whole Coa- troverfie at large, (which was hot the defign of my Letter.) For himfelf hath? reduced itto this fingle Point 5 When St. Johi fays^: 7h Word m^ with k %• )) l^kJ?'CQd, 'and theUford wM God'; if hy the Word^ be meint Cb}ifi:^s.n6. by God, the; true Godf ,• Whe-^ rher, in Cq.fkymgy §t. John, ^o not jf^^A Nmjence l\ And \iljty\€iteth\snot toheKonfmej (as I CAiokr, Lhave dpne>, he grants. d;e^/4ce if to the pwpojk' Which quite deftroys the Foundation of che So- cinian Doctrine. Without being obliged to prove, that thefe Perions are juft (uch Peribns, and fO; diflin6l, as what we lonaefitne .call. Perfons a* mongft Men, (but with Jiicji Diftin^^ion only. as> is agreeable to the Pivine Nature, and not. Inch as to make t{ierp jThree Gods.^ .t Like as. when God the Father, is fiid to ^e^c^ the Son 5, riptfp/asone ma^Qi^eg^ts" anQtherv (npr is the. Sonih a, Son as Wjliat. w^ call Son amongft. Men ;.) but Co as fiiits witH the pjyine Nature : which How it isy we do not perfecflty^ cprnpre- hend. I have now done with him. But I have one thing to note npon what I have before faid, of the Jthanaftan Creed. I there read it, ^^'^ ^i^ -rpeT^ in the Copy I ufed ; which is that at the end of rhe Greek Teftaraent in OBayo.Pnnt^d^t Loudon by JoJ?n %U, \6ii \ with ^'Mohert StepJ?ans, Jo- feph Scaligers^f%v\d -J/iwj^^^/jwWs '^i"^ notations. But in Whkakers Greek Tcftament, reprinted by this this Copy, i6^^y I fince find kis<^^ '^^p^'^- (Which Edition, Ifuppofe, is foUov^ed by feme others.) 1 take the former to be the better reading, (a^v giving a clearer fence; ) and that the Corredter of the Prefs, had put *^ for 0% intending thereby to mend the Greek Syntax, (becaufe -^o^^^a follows,) but doth (I think) impair the ience.^ But, as to the Do<5trine, it is mudierte whether we read ^t or ^V. And what I haVe fa^d of that whole Creed, is chiefly intended for thofe who do believe the Dodtrine of the Trinity, and of Chrift's Incarnation ; that there is no realbn (in my opinion) why they fhould not allow of that Creed. But fuch as do not beheve tho(e Points, cannot (I grant) approve the Creed. And it is thefe, I fuppofe, who would fain have others to diftikeitalfo. FINIS. A Fourth LETTER, Concerning the Sacred Trinity; REPLY To what is Entituled, An ANSWER, T O D' WA LLlS's Three Letters. By JOMH WALLIS, D. D. LONDON: Printed for Tho. Parkhurfi, at the BM and Thee Cromjs, mChcapfidey 1691. (i) Fourth LETTER, Concerning the Sacred Trinity. IN a former Anfwer (from I know not whom)to my Firft and Second Letter ; we had Two ferfons (a Friend sixid his Neighbour) in One JPHan. Of which I have given ac- count in my Third Letter. We have now an Anfwer to that alio. But whether from the Friendy or the Neighbour , or from a Third Ter/on^ he doth not tell me. Yet all the Three TerfonSj may (for ought I know) he the fame SMan. However , whether it be , or be not , the fame Many it is not amiG for him to a6t a Third ^erfon (as of an Jdverfary), as being thereby not obliged to infift upon, and maintain what was before (aid ; but may fairly decline it if he pleale. A 2 The (O The one may Grant wKat the other Denies, and Deny what the other Grants : And ftill, as the Scene changes, ih^^an may A61 another Terfon, And fo I find it is. As for inftance : The former Anfwerer, takes it mkindlyy and would have it thought a Calumny^ that Iciiarged it on fome of the Socimans^ That How clear foever the Expreffions of Scripture he for ourpurpofcy they wiU not helieye it^ as being Inconfijlent with natural J(ea^ fon: And though they do not think fit togiye us a hare» faced (^jcBion of Scripture , yet they do (and mufl^ they tell us) putfuch a Forced Senfe on the words^ as to make them fignify fomewhat elfe. Therefore , to fliew that this is not a Calumny , but a clear Truth^ I cited their own Words, and quoted the Places where they are to be found, wherein themfelves iay the fame things, in as full Expreffions as any that r had charged them with yHjat eyery one is to interpret the Scripture according to his own fenfe j and t>hatfofeems grateful to him, he is to imhraceand main- tain^ though the whole World be againfi; it : That k is not to heed what SVihi teach or think, or have at any time taught or thought , whoever they be, or have been, or how many foever : That though, eyeninthefacred. Monument s,it be found ivritten, not Once only, but ^any times ; he fhould not yet for all that believe it fo to be : That what plainly appears cannot be (or, as was be* fore. (3) - Jore explained, what He thinks fo^ chough all che World befide think other wife,) ii not to k admit- ted'^ eyen though in the facred Oracles it appear, to be Ex f re fly affirmed \ 'But thofe ficred Words are to he in- terpreted, ( though it he by Unufual Ways or Tropes j) to fome other Senfe than what they f peak : That {hecaufe it feems to him abfurd) he muft {with Auguftinc'^ ^oo^ leave, and of the reft Mho think a^ he doth) put a Force (how great foeyer) upon PauFi ipordsy rather than to admit -fuch Senfe. That, if our ^eafon diBate to m ought otherwife than the Scripture doth ^ it is an Errour to fay y That in fuch cafe we are rather to be- lieve the Scripture. Now our new Anfwerer (though he would ftill have it to be a Calumny) fhuffles it off with this , He is not concerned , that Socinus, or any other Author, hi^ dropt imprudent words, and leaves it to the Socinian to anfwer, pag^ lo. (for he is now to a£b the Arian^ pag. 1 1, 12, 14, 16, 17.) This point therefore 1 look upon as yielded 5 concerning the fl ght opinion which (lome of) the Socinians have of Script tire , in com- petition with Humane ^afon. Again; when -I had fpoken of our Immortal Soul^ inks feparate Exijlence Siitex Death,. asof an IntelleBual Seing ; (but, with an / F at left thofe who deny the 'Bleffed Trinity wdl allow that there are fuel? Seings :) To fliew the fufpicion intimated , was *^ aot not gvounJlefs i I cited Socirm's own words, where he e^vpreily tells us, that the Soul after death doth not fubfjfl j nor doth fo Live m to he then in a ca^ pacltyofbetngP^wardedor^unlJhed^ (that is, in ef- fect, k is no more Alive, than is the Dead Body, not fenfible of pain or pleafiire.) Which I think is ground enough for fuch a/«/p/ao», without be- ing uncharitable. Nor doth this new Anfwerer clear Socimis^ or himfelf^ from this fufpicion. One* ly tells us ipag, i o,) it is an Injinuation^ as if they helkye not Jngels. Which is nothing to the pur- pofe of the Souh feparate Exijlencey (which is that I infifted on) nor doth he Co much as tell us, that he doth believe Jngels (much le(s that he doth be- lieve the Souls feparate Exiftence,) fo that the ground of fufpicion ftill remains, i had (hewed him how different So^hm's Opinion is, from that ofSt. ^^w/j y^henhQ dejired to he dijfolved, otto depart hence^ and to he with Chrifi, 2ls much bet terCot him , than to abide in the flefh , Phil. 1.23, 24. And, to be abfent from the 'Body (which muft be after Death, and before theRefurre<5tion) and to le prejent with the Lord, 1 Cor. 5. 8. And this new Anfwerer, though he takes notice of the chargCjdoch not fo much as tell us, that he is not oiSoc'mu/s Opinion herein. Which (if it be fo) he might reafonably have told us upon thisocca- fion. (5) ., lion. I might have added that of Chiiil;^ ^Llt, 1 0. 2 8. Fear not thofe who kill the Sodyy but are not able to kill tin Soul : Whereas, if the Soul after Death be as infenfiWe as the Body , Ttiat is as much killed as This. And that of Chrift to the Converted Thief on the Crofs, LuL 2 ^ 4 V '37;^ dayjhalt thou be iVuh me in faradife. For ftirdy by Taradife he did not mean furgatory ; nor yet, that hefhould be with him in Hell, amongjl the De- Vtls and the Damned ', nor that his Soul Ihould be in a condition asfenfelefs as his Body : For Tara- dife doth not found like any of thefe. I might have added alfo that of La^arm and the ^ch Glutton, Luk. 16. 1?, ^4. ^5^ ^^- Fo^ though . 9. ) If by Word^ be meant a fperfon, (f re exi/?eHt to Chrifts Incarnation by the Virgin SMary -^ and, by God^ be meant the True God^ or God Almighty ; then this place is to our purpofe-y forelle (he tells us) St. Jol?n writes Non^ fenfel Now, that St, John writes Non-fenfe^ 1 fup- pofe he will not fay (whatever he thinks) be- caufe he pretends a great Reverence for Scri- ptures (and dotUnot take it kindly that I fliould iiifpefi the contrary.) Whether of the other two points he would flick to , he did not think fit to tell us ; For indeed his bufinefi was not to tell us what he would have, but w+.at he would not have ,• and concludes nothing thereupon, but that the place is oh/cure (he knows not how to •make it ferve his turn and (that k may fo feem) (7) feem) he indeavoars to caft what duft he can in- to the Spring , and then to fay, The Water is not clear. 1 have given him nay Keafons (and I think they be cogent) why 1 judge the place clear enough, as to both points. And (liould I admit (as 1 think I may) that, by Word^ is meant fomewhat elle (as he tells us) in forty other places : this is nothing to the purpofe. For we are not here enquiring, what by the word Logos is meant ig Jrijlotle, or what in flatOy or what in forty other places j but what is meant, by the Wordy in This place : Nor what, by (jods^ is meant in '^fal 82. 6, 7. I ha^e /aid ye are Gods^ hut ye fhall die like Men 5 But what by God is here meant, where it is (aid. The Word wm with Qody and the Word yi^as God, Nor is here any need of a ^etO' rick LeSlure^ to inquire, by what Tro/^e, or Figure^ or with what Allufion, Chrift is here called The Word y It is enough that 'tis Chriji who is here fo called. And, after all his ^$^ I do not find, A^ that himfelf hath the confidence to Deny (though he doth not think fit to grant it) but that here, by the Word, is meant CimH j and that God here mentioned, is (^od /ilmighty ; and conlcquently. If St. John do not write Kon-Jcnfe (as he is plealed to phrafe it) the place is to our purpofe. Now our new Anfwerer, feems to me, to quit the fii (I of thefe points 5 and choofeth rather to avl the.yf B run. (8) riaHj than the Socmianr, as taking that to be more defenfiblc, fa^* n, 14, * 7* And doth admit that, by the Word here, is meant the Perfon of Chr'tji'^znd pn-exijlent to hisIncarnatm.Sis by wiiom the World wMmade^ at leaft as by an Injirument 5 and doth allow him to be God^ though not the fame God i but that the Father and the Word are Two ^ods ; (f 1 7.) ^"^ ^^ allow him the Chara- cter of ©eiwg oyer ally God hlejfed for ever ; and can io he as liberal of the Title ofGody to Chjrijl^ as an^ Trinitarian whatever 5 p. 1 6. So that now the dif- pute is reduced to this ; When it is faid , The Word (meaning Chrifl) was with God^ and the Word y^as gody whether by God, be meant the True God , God Almighty. Of which we are to (ay more anon. Another grant we have, pag. 3. where he doth admit, that a thing may be Unum and Tres {One and Three) in federal re fpeBs : . And that Tw fr«e indeed^ he cannot fay^ that there is a ContradiBion in holdings that there may be 1 hree ferfons in God, And, in graating this, he grants what I undertook to prove. For he knows very well, that the bufi- ne(s which I undertook, was not, to dilcourfe the whole Controverfy at large j but fo ftated the queftion, as to confine it to this Jingle fointy Whether it be an Impoff/btlityy or Jnconfjlence with 9(€^/on,that there may be Three fomefifhats (which we. (9) we ciil ferfons) which are buc One God} And when he grants me, that there is in it no Contra- did^miy or Inconfjlence with ^afon ; all the reft is befide the Queftion. I know very well, that both this and the former Anfwerer have made it their bufinefs to change the ftate of theQueftion: And if what I bring to prove what I undertake, do not prove the task they fet me ; they glory as if they had the better. But the Lawyers tell us, that, when Iflue is once joined ^ if we prove the thing»in Iffue, wc carry the Caule ; and what is more than fb, is over and above, or to (pare. And a Mathematician, if he prove what he pro* pofeth, concludes with quod erat demonflrandumy {he hath proved y^hat he undertook to prove j) if he prove more than fo ; 'tis more than he was ob- liged CO do. And if a Logician prove (propofi- tmern negatam) the Propoficion which is incum* bent on him to prove , he hath done his work ; and if he prove more than fo, it is more than he need to do. And accordingly, when this An- fwerer doth acknowledge that I have proved what I undertake to prove , (chat there is no hn- pojpbdity^ there is no ContrndiBioHy nor InconJiJ}e?ice tM^eafoHy that Th-ee fomewhats may be One God) he ought to acquie(ce therein , and acknow- ledge that Ihave done my Work. For when the Contfovcrfy was divided into two Branches, B 1 W'he- (lo) whether che thing be True^ and whether it be Toffible ; and it was the latter of the two that 1 undertook : If I have fhewed, It is not impoffibk^ (which this Anfwerer doth grant that 1 have done,) I have done the w^ork that I undertook. And if this be once agreed , it goes a great way as to the other Branch, That the thing, is True. For 1 find the lad Refult of our Adverlaries^ (when they are clofe preffed,) is commonly this, It is Impojfihky It \s Jbfurdy It is Non-fenfcy It is Jnconjijient with ^afon^ andtherefore tt cannot be True. ^And that therefore a Force^ no matter horn great ^ muft be put upon the Words which do, how exprejly foevery affirm it (to make them fignify fomewhat elfe than what they plainly do fignfy) then to admit it. And if I have (as is now confeffed) deftroyed this laft Referve , let them prefs this point no more. Or, if they will re- traft this grant , let the next Anfwerer keep to this point , to prove it Impoffible^ or Inconfijient Ipith ^eafon , and not ramble out into other diP- courfes , which are nothing to the purpole of what 1 propofed to prove* Amongft his other Conceflions, I {liall reckon that in pag. 1 4. where he argues from Joh. 1 6. 1^. That there is between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofly a Diftinfiion fo great, as that they may not unfitly be called Three ferfons (where I observe. obferve aIfo,^ac^ he owns the ferfomlity of th© Boly^Ghofty ^%^o\tht Father, and of the So?/. 'Tis true indeed , he feenns to make the Diftinaion between them, Greater than I do. But I thus far agree with him, That there is, in Truth, a Vipi^ Bion y and that more than Imaginary, or what de^ pends only upon our Imagination; and Greater than chat of what we call the Divine Jttributes. And therefore we reckon the Terfons to be b\i'c Three ; but the Attributes to be more. And we do admit, a- mongft the ferfons , a certain Order or Oeconomy; inch as in the Scripture we find affigned to them* But do not own the Diftindion fo great as to make them Three Gods, And that alfo of/?. 1 1, 14. where he argues,thac Chrift is indeed God, (not only a dignified Man :) That Qod in Chrift iva^ tempted, fujfered] and died ; im Man only. That the Merits thereof are founded on the God^ head. In plain terms , (faith he^ if Chrift were only .^ Man, extraordinarily afpjkd hy God, and thereupon meri^ ted hy his Sufferings and Death : 'twas the Man redeemed v^ by Bis <5, 7, 8. as maintaining three per fond Gods, Buc he knows very well this is not my Language j but, that the three Terfons are One God ; not three Gods , nor a Council of Gods , as he calls it. So, where he would xtsk the Doctor ^ p. 1 7. Wl^tther thefe two Gods, to wit, the Father and the Word, be one. He knows my Anfwer muft be, chat thife tM, (not, thefe two Gods,) are one God, And that I do no where call them two Gods, but one and the fame God ; according to that of Chrift himfelf j I and the Father are One. So, where he talks of adding fey^eral Terfons to our one God, pag. 3, 8. For he knows, that is not my Language, but thefe three Are God •, not that they are Jdded to God : much left that 'Bacchus and Venus, y. That (whatever the Socinians pretend) there is no Impofjt' hility^ 2\on-feiijey or hconfiftence with ^aJoUy that three fomewhats (which we call Terfons) may be One GoJ. And this he owns to be the ftate of the Queftion, p. I . to prove the fame agreeable to the common notions of humane i{eafo?u And it is done by fhewing that, ac cording to the common notions of humane ^afon^ nothing is more common than that what in one confidera- tion are Three^ or Many, is yet in another confide- ration but One, Thus in one Cube there be three Vi- menfions ', length, breadth, and thicknefs. So the Un- derftandingy Willy and Memory^ in one Soul So the voepov^ b^^yyi^'nytSVy and '^wj/wTtJtpVj a Power to 1^10"^^ to Willy and to 2)oe, in the fame Intelligent Agent ; and the like. 'Tis therefore not Inconfflent mth^eafon (and this Anfwerer doth allow it) for one to be three ; nor is it Non-fenfc to (ay, thefe three are one ; or I and theVathcY are One ; or that three fomewhats may be One God, The former Anfwerer complains of thefe ^efemblancesj as impoffihle to he apprehended by the common people • and defires fome more Familiar TardM (than 'ihat of a Cube, or Die) that the Tankard hearer may apprehend (in his p. 8, 9.) Yet I believe his Tankard-bearer is not fo dull of apprehenfion, as he would have us think. For if he have ever feen a Die (as mod of them have,) or (hall now btJJ^ewed one, he may be able to apprehend, (without a Metaphyfick^ or S]4athematkk LeBure) That in a Vie , thete- i^ lengthy hreadthy and thicknefs , (and that it is cvs hruad iti it is longy and as thick as either 5) and yec It is not three Vies, but one Vie. However, to gratity hi>; re- queft, I have given him fome other j as that the lame Man, may have three Vignities, or three Kjng^ domsj and fuftain three Ter/ons , or three ^dations^ without thereby becoming three JMen ; with other like* With this, our new Anfwerer is not pleaied,^ He is Afliamd , he doth ^lujb for me, ^c, (How much am I obliged foi* this his great Compafjion !) But all this is but Santer, (it is not Argument,) and no fober Man will be more of his Opinion for this Lan- guage : And much lels for that of St. Johns writing Konfenfe, of a lying ^^^ elation, of a three -headed Mon- per, p. ^,5. and other fuch Indecent Language of God and the Scripture. But, why fo difpleafed with thele Simile's ? • Thefe are too mean, too fwiiliar ; He expedled fomewhat higher , fomewhat more di- fthiH, p. 5. (\^<^Q it is as hard a matter to pleafe my two Jnf^Mrers, as to fei ve ni'o Maftcrs. The one complains my Simile's are not familiar em ugh -, the other that they are Yoo familiar ; he expected fome,^ what more fublime)- Thefe do not prove, rh^ta Trinity in Unity ts neceffary to the perfeBion of the Godheac! p, 6. True : Thefe alone do noc prove that there is a Trinity in Unity in the Godhead 5 much lefs do they prove, that a Trinity in Unity is necejfary to the per- feBion of the Godhead. Nor were they brought to prove it. They were brought to prove. There is no hconfiftence^ but that there may be a Trinity in the Unity of the Godhead. And if they prove thus much, (he perhaps may have caufe to be Afliamed, but) I (eeno reafon why Ifhould be Afhamed, (or any one for me.) Now, that they prove thus much $ he hath already granted. That a thing may be one and three, in divers relpe(5ts : And that 'tis no contradiBi" m, to hold, that there May he Three Terfons in God. They have proved therefore, what they were brought to prove. But, fays he, p. ^.'Our Debate is not, Whe* ther there May be three Terfons in Qod. Yes ; our De- bate is, whether there May be. Not, whether there Se^. And he knows the Queftion was fo ftated by me; and fo acknowledged by himfelf ; upon this Jingle point, whether there be any Impofftbility in it. (And To owned by himfelf, p. i.) not whether it befo. (for this, rhad before faid, w^s noc to'be argued upon the Topick of Reafon alone ;) but whether it be agreeable to the common notions of Humane ^afon, that it May be fo. And if this were the Queftion, (as he owns j) and this be proved (as he owns alio 5) A hen I have proved, what I undertook to prove. And have no reafon to be Mamed. either of the Uu" ('7) dettakln^y or of the froof. 'Tis our new Anfwercr (who doth wittingly and willingly mif-ftate the Queftion) that is at crofs purpofes j while he applies thoie. Arguments to one point, which he knows were brought to prove another, (which point himfelf grants to be proved ; He cannot fay^ there is a Contra- . diBion in it, pag. 6.) and then complains , that they (alone) do not prove what they were never, brought to prove. Of like nature is that other point ; where he tells us, that we do now yenture^ to prove it to be a^ree- 4bie to tk i;ommon nofions of humane %eafon j that is, not hconfiftent with it. And we do fo. But he would have it thought , that it is hut w^ of late that any have mfumelto this confidence^ pag. 1,2. and would have us content, jmdeflly to acknowledge it a meer myjlery ; and to rely upon the Authority of the Church, and Tradition ; without pretending , that it is agreeable to ^afon. Now, that there is in it a Myjlery, we readily grant, (and fo there is in the whole Do6trine of our 5^^- chnption ; God jnanlfejled in the Flejh, Sec, i Tim. j,^ 16.) as that which, without ^velation, \\\. could not have found out by meer Reafon 5 And, that it is above Reafon, (th^t is, more than what Reafon alone could have taught us :) But not that it is Againfi ^^afon, or Inconfiftent with it. This is not the Do- ctrine of the Trinitarians ; nor ever was that I know of. Nor is it Tradition only, or the Church's Authority -, but the Juthority of Scripture that we rely C 1 upon: (i8) upon : which is a True, noc a lying ^y^datlon. Nor is ic (as he pretends) a new Do^rine , not ralfed till feveral hundred years after Chriji, (as if the Doctrine were to be dated from the time vof penning the Jtha- '7iajian Creed 5 ) but (as old at leaft as the New Te- flament ,) and never contefted (that 1 know of) tiW fever al hundred' years after Chrift^ when the Brians arofe. But here again my Anfwerers are not agreed : (So hard it is to pleafe them both 5) While one com- plains, 'tis but of late ; the other tells me, *tis old-fa^ fhionedy (in his p. ^. T^hm Dr. Wallis may fee^ that his Tiotions cmceining the Trinity are old'fajhioned i not of anew mode,) And truly 1 take him to be more in the right ; that' tis not a new quirky but old'-fajhioned DoEirine i and I like it never the worfe for being (b. As to what I have faid of Jo/?. 17.^. it is more than Forty years , (arid well towards Fifty ^) fince I firft Preached it in London , on that Text , (as I have fince done, there and elfewhere, more than once 5) and I did not then take it to be New, but what I had been always Taught. And as to that of the three dimenfions in a Cube^ it is Forty years or more, fince I firft difcourfed it at Oxford , with Dr. Ward^ then Jjlronomy-Trofeffor there , and fince BiDiop of Salisbury v And as to the Do6trine in general, (of Three ferfons in One God^) it is no Newer, than the New Teftamenc. But here again our Anfwerer for fakes the Queftion : For the Queftion is not, Whether it be a New, or Old, Myenture : but whe» ther iher ic be Inconfijlou with %eafon, that three May U One : or (as he words ic, /?. j.) that a Trinity in Unity is ah/urd. Another piece of. the fame Arc ic is, where my word oiferjonality IS by him changed [oxTerfonntion, p» 5, 6. For which 1 would not have quarrelled with him, if by changing the Word , he ha^d not meanc to change the Senfe alfo. • For to perfonate a JyHaHj (he tells us^f . 6.) is but to compofe ones AEiions in Likenefs of him j and that one cannot perfonate three together^ hut one after another. But my Terfofiality (he knows) is. more than this ^erfonation. It is not only Ming a Perfon, but Seing a Petfon. A N3an may fucceflively ferfonate^ or Ad the ferfon of, a IQut^ and a Father j without hei?ig either This or That : But when the fame Man 7 S both a King and a Fa- ther (which he may be at the fame time, as well as liicceffively,) this is more than only to JB them. And if by ^erfonation he mean no more than ABing a^ Ter/on, I wonder how he can tell us, /?. 5. That 'Per- fonation is the greatejl Terfe&ion of (Beijig ; and that he neyer could apprehend any other real Unity buffer fonation. What ? 2^0 real Unity but acting a Terfon by imitation ? Sure there is. The Bottom, and Top, and Mid- dle of a Mountain, are one fountain : Yet I do not take Mount Atlcts to be a Terfon^ or to JH: a per Ion 5 much lels to becolne One Mountain by Terfonation^ or JBing a Terfon. Of like nature is it, where (to do me a kindnefs) he (20) he will ftatemy Cube more to my pur^ofe ; p. 5. (mean- ing the contrary.) But how ? In a Marble Cube may be two Accidents, Hardnefsj and Coldnefs, There may be (b. But what then? T^heriy (he fays,} here are Ihree Cubes more for me. He would hare ic thought, I fuppofe, that I h*id before dilcourfed of Three Cubes ( whereas I fpoke but of One Cube^ under three Vimenfions -,) and he wall now help me to another Three. But he is out ugain. For the Cold Cube, the Hard Cubej and the Marble Cube, are but One Cube, not Three Cubes, 'Tis the fame Cube that is CoU, and Hard, and Marble. Ic would have been much the lame, if, inftead of a Cube, he had taken a .Marble Sow?/, or Ball 5 and then told me, 'Tis Cold, and Hard, and 5(o««c/. True.. And yet it is but One 'Bowl, not Time Bo^vls : One Ball,not Three Balls. And what is there in all this of hconfijknt Ab*' furdity ? It feems to me very Conjljlent ; not Jbfurd i and it fuits my Notion very well. But, lays he, 1^.^. not to fuppofe the ftmde altogether mpertlnent, (very well \ ) yet it is in our cafe. "^'Iiy in our cafe^jp For our Debate (he lays) is not, whether there May not be three perfons in (^od. Yes : That is our Debat€ : And the true ft^te of the Queftion. All his other Excurdons are befide the Queftion. But fk /fwjife, though not-iinpertinent, is yet (he fays) mojl Ahfurd, becaufe not Jdecfuate ; and it is a generalrnle with him (p. 6.) where he brings Otfmile, to haye it Jdequate, that it ?nay really proye the matter de- figned. (21) figned. Now that my Simile's are not Adequnte (fo as to prove all that is to be faid of God, or the Blef- fed Trinity) I bad told him at firft, and more than once^ and that they were not mtended fo to be,- (and I tell him now, that I did purpofely make choice of fuch as were a great way off, that it might not feem as if I would have them thought to be Jd- sqmte^ as to all that is to be faid of the Trinity .") And as to the ^le he goes by ; perhaps it may be his Method, where much is to be proved, to prove it all at once , (and take all Arguments to be Jb- jurdy which do not at once prove All.) But we who are converfant in Cubes and Demonjlrations (as he phra- feth it) think fit fometimes to ule another Method : and, where much is to be proved, to proceed by fteps. We firft propofe one thing, and prove that : then another, and prove that : and Co on. And if what be brought to prove the firft ftep, do prove what it is brought to prove ; we'do not fay, The Argument nAbfurd^ becaufe it doth not prove all at once : But, That it is a (^ood Argumentyi jar. And, I think, (if he will here give me leave to ule a Simile which is not Jde^^uatej) it is a Method uled by other Men, zs well SLS J/l/!athematicia7n. For, ifaManbe to mount a pair of Staiy:s ; we do not fay, The firft ftcp is Abfurdy becaufe that alone doth not bring him to theTop : or, if to go ^Journey, That the firft ftep is Jbfurd , becaufe it doth not bring him to his Journeys End: But the firft ftep brings him fo Far ; (32) and the fecond, fomewhat farther ^ and fo on, till ' (ftepby ftep) he comes to the Toj), or to his Jour- neys End, Now, ihere being divers Points concern- ed in the Doftrine of the Trinity y I ftated my Que- ftion, not fo as to prove all at once •, but fingle^ out this one Point, That it is not Inconftflent with ^afon (or, to ufe his own words ; it is agreeable to the com- mm Notions of humane ^afonlng^) That what in one con- ftderation are Ihrce^ May in another Conjlderation be One ; and, that there May he three fomewh({t s^ which are one God. But, whether indeed tkre he foy is Another ftep ; and whether thek fomewhat's may fitly be cal- led Terfons^ is yet Another. "Now, if I have made good my firft ftep *, my Argument or Simile^ is not only not^ltogether im^rtinenty but neither is it mojl Ah- jurdy yea not Ah fur d at all j becaufe it proves what it was brought to prove. And, that fo it doth, him- felf allows I and tells us plainly, p. ^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ A)'> tUre is a ContradiEtioHy in holding, that there May be Three ■ (perfons in God. 'O^gp e<^« ^^S<«. "But I find, he would fain be upon another Point, p, 4. and draw me to it. A Point not to be argued upon the Topick of %eaJon only, (for, Keafon alone, c^n go no further than to pr.ove it foj^ble, or not hconfiftent but to be argued fiotn Scripture, and DlVins Revelations , whether indeed there are three fomeiohats (which we call ferjons) that are but One God, But this. I have told him already, is 'defule the (=3) Quefiion which I undertook. And, in this, it is He that is the y^ggrejfor^ not 1 : and I only upon the De» fence. Yet, becaufe he is (b defirous of it, I am content to go fomewhatoutof tny way, to wait on him j and to hear what he hath to (ay , why we fliould think that Is not^ which he confeffeth May be without any ContradiBion to natural ^afon. And I fhall take notice as I go along, what it is wherein we Agree, as well as wherein we Differ ; That fo we may not quarrel about what is Agreed be- tween us. He begins with the Firji Commandment ^ p. 1,2, ^^4. And feems mightily to dread the Guilt of Idolatry y in admitting more Gods than one ; {our Cafe is, we are afraid of Idolatry ^1^.^,) contrary tothisGoramandmentjof having no other God. (And lb I would have him be. But we fhall find this Fe^r will be over with him by and by.) What ((ays he) was that Commandment made for f What ! to prevent Tolytheifm. Why^ how is that to he done ? Sy denying many Gods, If it he not made to deny ferfonal Gods , 'tis made to no purpofe. And (bon after (with Ibme indignation.) What ! is the Divinity of Chrifi implied in the New Tejlament ? 'tts denied in th Firfi Commandment, And, f. 9. Tray, what Scripture fliall we regard, in competition ivith this Commandmenty Ipritten by the Finger of God, and one oj the only Trecepts he himfelj immediately delivered ? Now I am lb far from difliking his Zeal for the Firft Commandment j that I do perfedly agree D with (h) with what I find in that Commandment 5 I am tk Lord Thy God (the Lord God of Ifrael) Thou fhalt have JS[o other God hut Me. (And this 1 fliall defire Him to remember by and byO He may add that of Veut. 65 7. (for in this I agree alio) Heary Jfrael, the Lord our God Cthe Lord God of Ifrael) is one Lord, And that of Mitt. 4. 10. Thoujhdt worjhlj^ the Lord Thy Qod (the Lord God oflfrael^) and Him only jhalt thou ferve* And that of 1 Cor. 8. 6. Tons there is hut One Qod, (And as many more places, as he pleales, to that purpofe.) And from all thele I do agree, that we are to have but one God and no more; (not two Gods,) No other God than the Lord God of Ifrael : That we are to WorQiip Him alone, and none elfe 5 (not Sa- than, not the god ofBkron^ not any God, or Man, or Angel, who is not the Lord God of Ifrael) For all this I grant to be there fully Taught. And I am willing to put as great weight upon this folemnfet Trecept of thePirJi Commandment, as he doth, (and perhaps more.) He would haye m fhew (if we can) p. 9. where this Commandment is Abrogated. I fay, No where. It was never Abrogated : Never Repealed : It remains (I grant) ftill in its full force. And therefore we own no other God, but the Lord God of Ifrael. And this Lord Godoflfraely we fay is One Lordy One God, and no more Gods than One. We fay indeed, there is a WifeGo^y zTowerful God, an Almighty God, an Eter- nal God, a Ji^ft God, a Merciful God, God the Crea- tor ^ God the ^deemer^ God the SanBifier 5 a God who (25) who in the heginntng created the heaven and the earthy a God who in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth, and the Heavens are the work of his hands y a God of Jhraham, a God of J/idc, 2i God o(Jacoby 2i God who brought the Children ofJfrad out o/Egypt, a God who brought them out of the North Country y a God who is our Mighty Redeemer y a God who is a SaVtour of all that trufi in him , a God who doth create in m a clean hearty and doth renew a right fpirit tpithinus, a God who gives us a heart of Flefh , a God vjho gives us a New Hearty who putteth his Fear in our HeartSy who writes hisLa-^ in our inward farts y a God vjho fear cbeth the Heart and trieth the ^insy a God who hath Vifited and Redeemed his feopky and hath raifed up a mighty Salvation for us. But we fay, the Lord God of Ifrael is all this ; and, in being all this, he is but One Qod-y and, that there is no other Qod but One. And we grant, that whoever owns any other God as a true Gody or Wor- ITiips 2ifalfe Gody breaks this Commandment. I do not know what he would have us Grant more upon this' Commandment. I widi He do not think we have Granted too much. He fays, p. ^. We vitiate this Commandment, by bring- ing in New perfonsy by Adding fever al Terfonsto our One God. No : We Add no ?erfons to our god ; We fay, thu God the Cre.tory Godthe {ow ii Scripture muft interpret Scripture , ( as he tells us, p. 1 6.) cer- tainly S. Jo^n in his Ff^/Jfe ( 1 Joh.5. 10.} underftood what himfelf faid in his Gofpel (Joh. 17. ;,.) And that, what he faid of the Father's being the Only True W, was not exc;lufive of the Son j to whom him- (=7) felf gives the fame Title, Ibis is the True God y and this is Eternal Life. And this I think is a full Anfwer to what he would urge from this place ; or from (what he joins with it) i. Cor. 8. 4, 5 ,6. To us there is but One ^OiL Which is no more exprefs to his pur- pofe, than This is : Mor doth he pretend that it is.; but puts them both together, p. 17. There is one place more, which comes under confideration, which (becaufe he finds it pinch) he would fain fhake off, p. 17* It is that of Jo/;. 1.1,2, 10, 14. In the beginning wct^ the Word; and the Word wa^ with God , and the Word was ^od i The World wa^ made by htm ; All things were made by him ; Jnd without him wO/S not any thing made which was made ; Jnd the Word was made Vlejliy and dwelt amongft us. The for- mer Anfwerer would fain fiiuffle off this place (in his p. 9.) upon one of thefe three Points ; (for, o- thervA^ife, he grants, it is. for our ptirpofe ^) either that by the Word is not meant Chrijl ; or, by God, not the. IrneGod', or elfe that S. John ivritesNon'-fenfe. Now the laft of the Three, I fuppofe our New Anfwereu will not fay j becaufe he pretends a great Rt v^-- rence for Scriptures. The firft he Quits ; and dotK admit (according to the Jrian fenfe, which he looks upon as more defenfible than that of the Socintam), that, by the Word, is here meant the Terfon of Chriji. (who was afcervA'ard incarnate of the Virgin Mary j) and that he was pre-exijient to his Incariiation 5 as. hyMom the World was made^ at left as by an hflrument. And (28) And that he was with God (the True God) at lead In the beprmhig of the World (if not Iboner j) and that he wds yod. All the doubt is, whether thefe Two Gods (for fo he calls them) to wit the Father and the Wordy be One^ p. 17' Now, if he he God j he muft be either a True God, or a Falfe God. That he is a Falfe Qod^ me- thinks they (liould not fay. And, if he be a True Gody he muft be the fame God with the Father ; who is the ONLY True God, Joh. 17« 3* That he is to be Worfhiffed with Religious Wor- fliip ; both the Arians and the Socinians do allow. And if he be God (as the Jrians and this Anfwerer do af- firm,) this Worjhipy mu& he DiVmeWorflfip. And he muft be then the Lord God of Ifrael ; or elfe they break that Precept , Thoujhalt Worjhip the Lord Thy god (the Lord God of Ifrael/W Him OKLt [halt thou ferve,]>Azt. J!^, lo. "^ If he be the Lord ^od of Jfrael ^ but not the fame Lord God oflfrael : How doth this agree with that, Deut. 6. 4. Hear Jo Ifrael) the Lord Our God is One Lord ^ ^ And if he be another God (vyhether True or Falfe) then do they break the Great and Firji Command- ment, Thou jlialt have No Other God but me 5 (no other God, True or Falfe, Great or Little, Equal or Un- equal, but the Lord God of Ifrael) On which Com- mandment this Anfwerer doth (defervedly) lay fo (^9) great a ftrefs j as we heard before. lVi?at wus it made fory if not to prevent folytheifm ? Holi^ (J?all it be done^ but by denying many Gods ? If not to deny Terfonal Gods ; it is made to no pur^ofe. How is it conjijient with that Firfi Commandment J {thatfolemn and fet Precept of the Firjl Com- mandment ^ that wds delivered by God hmfelfy written by the Finger of God 5 and never Abrogated ^) to bring in New Terfons ^ to Jdd Terfons (one or mote) to this Only God) though particularly prohibited, and not 'Break it ? What ! Js the Divinity of Chrijl implied in the Neli? Jejia- ment ? It is denied in the Firfl Commandment (if he be not the lame God who is there meant :) And Vray, what Scripture fhall we regard in competition with this Com- mandment } With more to the fame purpofe. Whether he will make u(e of the Popifh difiin- ftion of Latria and Vouliay (for his Ttipo Gods^ not Co-e(jual) I cannot tell. But die Commandment lays exprefly, Thou Jhalt have NO OTHE^ god, but Me, Equal or Unequal. Nor doth this Error end here (as he proceed^ : ) For our Jdverfaries are not ah^ays fo lucky as to fee Confeauen- ces. For [hould fome Revelation {fuch as, he fays, is not ifnpofpble) deify more Men than ever the Heathen did; here's no fence left. ( Here's room enough to thujl in his Jupiter, 'Bacchus, Venus ^ Sec. of which he tells us, p. 8.) Jnd 'tis in Vain (he tells us) in fuch n cafe , to pretend that the number would be of offence to us : For if "^e conflder aright , there is no more reafon for one number than another. And he thi?iks , that if there be tnore than '( 30 ) than onty it is more honour. Me they fl.ould he Infinites ; hec^Luk all between one and injinite J is h?iperfeFi, With much more of like nature. Of all which i know, not what better to think, than th^t ^ c hs^d forgot all this, >A/hen afterwards (at p. 17.) he will have thefe two Gods Cas he calls them) to wity the Father, and the Wordy not to be Oney but Two and Separate. Nor will it excufe the matter to lay , That this Other God, is not Coequal W'ith the Father. For, at this rate, the Toljtheifmy or many Gods of the Heathen, would be excufed, as out of the reach of this Com- mandment. For they did not make All their Gods Co-equal to their great Jupiter (nor perhaps any of them Equal to Our God.) But Jupiter was their God fParamounty and the reft were either Middling Gods, or Lejfer Gods. But yet this did not excufe them from folytheifm and Idolatry y within the reach of the Firjl Commandmentr For that Commandment (that M«» repealed Laip) forbids ^// orkr Gods, whether Equal or Unequal ; 1 he Leeks and Onions in Egypt (which ateXaid to have been there Worfhipped) as well as thQ Calves at Dan ^«^ Bethel. Nor is it lefs Idolatry y nor le(s wirhin there^ch o^this Commandment ytoW/or- fhip'^fce god of Ekron, becaule not Co- equal to the God o/Ifrael. We therefore chufeto fay, ThatChrift is indeed ^j}d (as he is exprefly called, Joh. 1 . i . Ihe Word was with God^ and the Wo d was yod , and Bebr. 1.8. Tl?y Throne, Qody cndureth for eyer i And in many other places;) (30 places ^^^ ^^^ o^^y ^ '^^^ > extraordmnly Affifiei by Gody (as this Anfwerer grants alfo, at p. 1 4.) That he was in the 'Beginnings and in the Beginning was with Gody Joh. I. «, I. (and therefore was pre-exijlent before his Incarnation ; and did not then Begin to Be.) That he "P^as in the Beginning , and JH things were made hy Him J and without him was not any thing made that was made ; that the World was made hy Him ; Joh. i . ^.10. (and is therefore the fame God, who in the beginning Created the Heaven and the Earthy Gen. i . i .) That of Him it is faidy ThoUy Lordy in the beginning hajl laid the foundation of the Earthy and the Heavens are the Works of Thy handsy Heb. 1. 8, la cited out offfaL 102. 25. (and is therefore the fame God, to whom that long Prayer, "Py^/. 102. was nnade j and of whom (b many great things are there iaid : and which can- not belong to any but the Supreme God :) And no doubt but, when this was there faid by the Plalmift, he meant it of that God, who in the beginning created the Heaven and the Earth, Gen. 1. 1. That he is OOP 'Gn 'im.v-mv^ the Being above All things (or the Su- preme Beings) God Bleffed for ever (or, the Ever* bleffed God) Rom. 9. 5. (which are Titles too High for any lower than the Supreme Gpd.) That what is laid of God indefinitely (fas concradi- ftinguiflied from Chrift in particular) (?^t"V. 1.4. ^ T-» owv, ^ L/jj j^ (i ep^fj^'jQ^, From him which Is, and which WaSy and "Sfhich is to Come (or which Shall 'be) and from Jefus Chnfiy 6cc. 5 is particularly applied :o Jcfus E Chrill (30 Chrlfl^shis Chara6fer,Fer.8. 1 am Alpha WOmega, the Be(rlnnmg and the Ending , faith the Lord , (he that Liveth^andwasDead^ andLmthforeyermore^ Ver. i6.) which Is, and Was^ and is to Come 5 the Almighty, Tbac ]\Q\s the True (^od, i Joh. 5. 10. (and therefore 't/;^ fame God with the Father -y who is the Only True Gody Joh, 17. 3 • and no other True God but what he is.) Thsit He and the Father are one y Joh. 10. ^o. That the Father y and the Wordy and the Spirit y thefe Three are One J I Joh. 5. 7. And Chrift, not another Coi^ but the fameGoi, manifejied in the Flejhy juftifiedin theSpi" rity feen of Angels y preached unto the gentiles y believed on intheWorldy received up intoghryy 1 Tim. ^.16. Now 1 know not well, what could be faid more (at leaftjWhat more need be faid) to make the Point elear : Or, what Character he can reafonably defire more, by which to defcribe the Almighty Supreme God ; and the fame God with the Father. He is god -y the True God ; the Only true Gody (for there can be but One God, that is the Only true God ;) One Mth the Father -, One with the Father and Boly-Ghofl j the £- ternal God, (who Isy and WaSj and Shall he-y whoy when the Heavens and the Earth jlmll wax old as a gar- ment He is the lame and his years fhaU not fail j) the Al- mi<^hty ; the Mighty God j the Eternal Father ; the God who in the beginning made the World ; who made All things ; and without whom not any thing was made that was made , who in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earthy and the Heavens are the works of his hands ; who (33) is the Son ofGod^ the 'Begotten of the Father ; the Only- begotten of the Father^ (and therefore of the fame Na- ture with the Father, however not the fame t^erjon, or not under that Confideration.) Nor can he fay, This is Impojphle y zContradiBioHy or hconftftent with '^afon, and that therefore, though the Words be Clear and flairij yet we muft feek out fome Other fence to be Forced upon them : For this Point is al- ready Gained ; and he doth Confefsit, p. j. that there is no ContradiElionj in holding that there may he Three Terfons in God. And, if there be no ContradiElion in it, why fliould we be afraid to fay, what in Scripture is faid fo plainly ? Or, why (hould we fet up Two Go^i where One will ferve, and when the Scripture lays, Tkre is but One ? He'll (ay perhaps,Go^ made the World by Chrijl. And we fay fo too. But not as by a Tool or hjlrument, (as he would have it, p. i /Obut rather as by his Tower or Wfdom. But the Power and Wifdom of God, are not Things diverfe from God himfelf ; but Jre Him/elf (Much lefs are they diferent gods fiom God himfelf) And, even amongfl: us , the Power and Wifdom of a Man, are nocBm^idiftind from the Man ; (in that fenfe wherein the Words T/v/i;/ and Mode are contra- diftinguifhed 5) much lefs are they diftinft Sl'en from the C^Un whofe foiVer and Vllfdom they are. The S^^an and his Wfiom \ the Man and his Tower-, are not diftinguifhed ut res nte againfl Jrians 06 well as Socinians : As having, till then, Ipoke for the Socinians only, not for the /Brians. And even in his tenth page, (toward the beginning of it) what had been faid of the Socinians by name, and of Socinus in particular, he takes to himfelf, as if one of that Party. Hefeems ((aith he of me) to injinmte an afperjton on U 5, that WE helie^^e not Angels. He tells us now, f. ^. He doth believe them; and I will (iippole alio, that he doth believe the Soul's Immortality. But, when he there lays, that I bring a World of Arguments to prove the hnmortality of the Soul ; he miftakes again. For thole Argu^ ments were brought againfl S(}r/?2«Aras our Sa- viour's Doflrine, Mat, 4. i o. And St. John ex- prefly calls him the True Qod, 1 Joh^. 20. (not a Middling God, between True and Falle) and therefore the fame God with the Father, the Only true God, To that Chara6}er of Cfcri^, Rev. i. 8, lu I am Alpha and Omega^ the beginning and the end^ {the Fir jl and the Lajl) faith the Lord , which IS and WAS and is TO COME y the Almighty. He fays, Thisflile is given him in oppoftion to Gods finipler one, I A M. But he (liould have obferved, that the fame tide is, atv^r.4. given to God, in Contradiftindicn to Chrift, ^-r^o^V, >$ow, >$ Q-^Ep^6fJievQ^, — ^ ^To Tft 'I>jo-» Xg^^j-S, &c. And if it were there a Chara(5ter of the Supreme God^ it is fo here. And if he think*the fimpier term 6"nv, I AM, to be more expreffive of the Su- preme God ; we have that alfo Emphatically given to Chrift, ^m. ^^ 5. ^^^h ^ mVrw;/, He whld: >r^> /which IS, ot the^Bein^^ oyer aU; theSupreme Being. \ To what further I had brought, p. ;o, ^ i , j 1, 3 J. to prove him to be the Supreme God^ the jame God Mtb the Father^ (not a MiddlirigyOt Titu- lar God,) he makes no Reply : which therefore ftands as it was ; nor need I repeat it, becaufe it may be read there. And it is fo full and clear, that I need add no more to it. To what 1 had laid of Joh. 17. j. To kno"^ Thee {t\ot Thee Onlyj ox Only Ihee^) the Only hue Qod. He iaith, He hath Jnfrered already. And I have already Replied ; nor need I repeat it. Their Argument from thence is juft m this form : The God of Abraham is the only true (jod; therefore, not the God of ifaac , or the God of Jacob. Tes, (ay l-r the God oi Ifaac , and the ^^*r?^God oPy^S^, is the fame God ,. but under ano- ther confideratioa. So here j God the Creator (ox God the Father) is the Only true Qod ; there* fore not God the ^edeemer^ nor God tht SanBi- fier. Yes ; God the Redeemer y and God the San- ciifiery is the fame God , the only true God, In like manner, jer, 1 6. 1 4, 1 5 . It p?all no more be fi'id^ The Lord Iheth that brought up the Children of Ifrael out of the land of 'Bgyft ; Bwt, The Lord li^ yethj thut brought up the Children of Ifrail out of the North (19) North Country, Now, (aith the Firft Coinniand- ment , 1 am the Lord thy God , which brought thee out of the land of Egypt ; Thou (halt haVe No Other god hut Me : Therefore not the God which brought them out of the North Country. Yes, (ay I, even this God alfo. Which is not another God 5 but the fame God ; though confidered as the Au- thor of another Benefit. There be many other things, both in his firft and (econd Paper (h\sJnffi>er and his Findic at iofi) which lie very open to be ^efleBed on, if it were ' worth the while : But 1 think, I have faid e- nougih already ; and, bethinks, too much, (that I have been too fliff , too W^ with him, /?. 8.) which things I fhall therefore omit, to fave my felf, and the Reader, the labour. But three tITings he calls me to account for omitting ; His Reproof of my falfe Idea of the Ter- fonality of Qody the JmpoffihHity and Blafphetny of his Incarnation, and of the Death of^od, p. ,8. Now when Ihad proved the things to he True, I >, thought that had been a fuflScient.Anfwer , to his calling them Falfe , Impofftble, and Blafphe- mous. For they are never the more fo, for his calling them fo. And I know not what further Anfwer he fhould expecSb, unlefs he would have me fay, 'Tis foul-mouthed Slafphemy in him, to call Ch) call it Slafphemy. But if I fhould anfwer him all along at this rate, according as his language deferves; we (liould, inftead of Difputing, fall CO right down fading ; which is the CharaEler he was afraid of, pag. i . ^ However (to gratify him once more,) That by the Word, Joh. i . is meant, Cbriji^ himfclf owns : and, T hat this Word wcis God from the be" ginning \ That he made the Worlds and all things ; and that without him was not any thing made which was made ; (and therefore, lay I, Himfelf was not made ; unlefs our Avian would have us think. He made Him/elf.) That this God, is the Supreme Qodj we have proved at large, (if he deny it to be proved, we muft leave it to the Reader to judge of the Arguments :) and this Word was madeFlejh. (I hope I need not tell him , that to be made Fle[]?y and to be Incarnate, is all one ; for every one underftands this who know that Caro carnis is Latin for Flejh.) Therefore this is no Sla- ffhemy. Again; That God in Chriji fujfered and died ^ and that ipe are ^deemed by the 'Blood of God, he had before told us, p, 13, 14. That this is the True God, we have proved at large (as was but now faid ;) Therefore the Death of God (that is, of him that was God as well as Mail;) is noBU'^ ffhemy. Yet ' (»5) Yet again ; I do not take his ^proof (as he calls it) to be a Troof^ that my Idea of Terfonality is Falfe. And therefore 1 did not think it delerved an Anfwer ; having proved the thing before. Yet I thought I had Anfvvered it (as much as it need to be anfwered) when (at my pa^. ^6.) I told him (nor doth he deny it) that he feemed Tt^ell pleafed at his p. 20. that I owned the ^ord fer* fon to be hut 'Metaphorical', though at his p.7. (which is the Reproof he means) he did not like it. For til! after pag, 7. he adted the Socinian^ and did not come to a6t the Arian^ till afterward ; and then he leemed, at/?, zo. to like it well enough. i {hall yet add (bmewhat more upon that point, which if it may not (atisfy him , (who ieems to intimate p. 8. that he will not be fatil- fied,) may give fome further fatisfadlion to the Reader. The word Perfbn (^perfona) is originally a Latin word ; and doth not properly fignify a Man ((b as that another perfon muft needs imply another Man^) for then the word Homo would have (erved, and they needed not have taken in the word Terfona • But rather, one/o Gram' Jiantiated. And the fame M^/i, if confidered in 6ther Qrcumflances (confiderably different, ) is re- puted another Terfon* And that this is the true C notion notion of the word Terfon^ appears by thofc no* ted Phrafes, per/onam induerCy perfonam depomrey perfunam agere, per/onam jufllnen^ juftineo mm tres perfoUiiSj and many the like in approved Latin Authors. Thus the fame Ma?i may at once fu- ftain the ferfon of a i(iwg and of a Father ; if he be invefled both with ^gal and Tatenial Author rity. Now becaufe the ^ngy and the Father^ are for the raoft part not only different Terfons but different Men alfo (and the like in other cafes) hence it comes to pafs, that another Ter^ fon is fometimes fuppofed to imply another Man : but not always, nor is that the proper fenfe of the word. It is Englidied in our Di<5tionaries, by the fiat e, quality ^ or conditiony whereby one Man differs from another : and fo, as the Condition alters, the Terfon alters, though the Man be the fame. Our School-men of later Ages , do fometimes apply the word Terfona to Jngels as well as Men ; but even that is \Sut Metaphorical ; nor dp I find that it ever was fo ufed, in approved Latin Authors, either for Angels, Geniiy or their Hea- then Gods y but for the different ftate ot condi^ iion of J/Men only. Now when the fame Man doth thus fuflain two ^erfonsy as that of a IQn^ , and that of a Father ; he may as to one thing adl as a iQngy X^7) by his %rt/ Authority ; as to another thing as a Father^ by his faternd Authority. And thefe Authorities , may be in fubordincttion one to the other, though the Af^w be the fame. And what is done in either capacity, may indifferently be laid to be done by the Man , or by the ^mg : (as that DaVtdy orthei(f«^, pardoned AhfolomO and in like manner , by the Miw, or by the Father. This being the true and proper notion of the word . 20. that the wordTerJon is the Hinge of the Controyerfy. The Hinge of the Controverfy, is that notion concerning thefe three fomewhats y which the Fathers (who firft ufed it) did intend to defign by the name Ter» [on. So that we are not from the word Ter/on to determine what was that Notion ; but, from that 2s[otion which they would exprefs, to determine C 2 in (i8) in what (enfe the word ^erfon is here ufed. And if the word ferfon do not well fit that fenfe ; all that can be thence inferred, is no more, but that they have made ufe of an Unfit ISIame to exprefs their Notion. It is no more but as if a Cruel Pope take the name of Qement ; or ^ wicked one the name of Tm ; or if a Man be named Wtllforiy whofe Father's name was Thomas* And in all fuch cafes, certitudo ^i tollit errorem Nominis. And if we know who is the Man de- figned by fuch a Name, 'tis a Ridiculous exce- ption, to fay, This is not the Man, becaufe that TSlame doch^well agree with his Nature. Now Two of thefe Three being reprefent- ed in Scripture, as Father and Son ; and this Fa" ther faid to 'Be^et the Son, and all thefe in a (en(e metaphorical; (not in fuch fenfe as thofe words do properly fignifie amongft Men;) they thought it not unfit (in continuation of the fame Metaphor) to call them ferfons. Becaufe as the word fer/on doth properly agree to the re- lations of Father and Son in a proper fenfe; (b doth the word ¥erfon in a metaphorical fenfe, to the Father and Son fo taken metaphorically; and the word 'Be^&t, by a like Metaphor. When therefore it is certain, that the Notion which the Ancient Fathers had concerning thefe Uil:s'J Threey (19) ThreCy which in a metaphorical fenft they cal- led Terfon, was this , That there is a DiJimBion between them , greater than that of the VU vine Jttributesy but not fo great as to make them Three Gods^ it is manifeft that they took the Metaphor , not from that abufive fenle of the word Terfon , when (amongft us) it is put for SHa7t; but from that proper fenfe of the word ^erfona, wherein it fignifies the State, Condition^ Office, or Relation of a Man, as varioufly cir^ cumjlantiated with reference to others ; whereof the Jame Man may fuftain more than One. As when 'DaVtd, was the Son of Jefje, the Vather of Solomon, and the IQng of Iftael. So if we (ay of any, that he is a ^erfon of Honour, a Terfon of Worth, and a ^erfon oi Interefl : That (ame Matt may be all this, without becoming Three Men, Now this our Jrian may call this (if he pleafe) a Quirk, a Critkifm, an undermining the "very Idea of the word Terfon, as he did in his, p, 7, > 5> 17- (or may negled it, if he pleafes : ) But the fober Reader (who underftands it better) will have better thoughts of it. And therefore I fhall not take his advice; p, 7, 8. to (ay that Ga^ is the name of an Office, that fo he might know how to attack tne^ (as he lays,) which while I talk fo Ti^^ri/y, he knows. not (20) not how to do. I (ay, God is the name of the Nature; but if he will haveGVi/? to be the name of an Office (the Mediatory Office J and the Com- forter 5 or even the Creator , the ^deemer , the SanBifier, to be names of Work or Office^ it will not be much ami(s. Now, when I had faid this Do6trine of ours is as old at leafl as the New Tefiamenty (becaufe I can prove it from thence;) he will have it (f. 5.) no older than the difputes of Alexander and Athanafius ; which the ^r'mltiye Church knew no- thing of But he barrs Quotations all along. And therefore I muft not prove it (to be known to the Church before that time,) but leave it to the Judgment of Readers verled in Church* Hiftory, whofe word mufl pafs in this cafe; his ot mine. To his Queftion, p. 6. Did the Jews ever hear of it before Chrijiianity ? I think they had (bmc Intimations of it , as they had of the Refurre- €tion : But not lb clearly (either of them) as to be generally underftood of all ; nor fo fully as in the New Teftament. And I think it was from thofe notices of it amongft the Jews, that not only Tlato derived much of his Thilofophy^ but other Heathens alfo much of their Mythology; though they did much difguile, and fometimes ^dicule ^dicuk' the notices they had thence, as our ^- rian now doth that of the Trinity. But this is not the bufinefs now before us. Toward the clofe, he is fo kind as not to de- fire Jrianlfm to be im^ofed on others y any more than Trinitarianifm on him, p. 8. But neither is this bufinefi before us ; who are but Vifj^utants, not LaU)^^ makers. But (b conftant he means to be to his caule, that he will be content- M be P^f'^aded out of his Name with his Ophiion^^yl^miS^nSie is reafbn why he fliould change his Opinion y but as to the changing of his i^ame , he j;nay life fiis.,difcre|i- o^) 3ut having laid-liiucb (tl^at % niigh^^t^t b^dchowght to defcic it ) he.Mn\s;sk4d)nfabkf^, drop the cdufe. Which he rtiiy, tf be pleale, in4i leave it to the Reader to judge of what is md. I conclude as he doth ; It is impoffble but of- fences will come-y but wo unto him through whom they come. Jt ipere better for htm that a Sf^ifi" ftone^ &c. Mr. 14. ^^^T- Yours, O'c, f. WaUis. f.t men, are filch Relatives as the Latins did deno-e by the w ord Per- fona in the firfl: and proper fignification of thatM'orH: And confequently Father and Son in this Anat)a;icai fenfe, are (in a continuation of tlie fame Analogy) Per^ fons in a like Analogical fenfe. But he fays further, that in the explication of tlic A- thanaftan Creed, (Let.iii. p.i ^) I interpret (mxi. -vk-.^o^f, by trnly Perfons, or properly Perfons. I do fb : Be- caufe I fuppofe it was intended to call them truly or pro- perly ///c/' perfons as are there meant, (anfwering to tJie Greek Hypoftafes ; ) that is in fuch a fenfe as they are there (6) there called Fatkr and So/^, and that the word Perfoft is a true and f roper Continuation of the fame Analogy. I have before declared, more than-oiice, (in the places by him cited, p. 9, 10.) that the true and proper fenfe of the Latin word Perfona, is not to denote di. Man fimply (for this with them was Homo^ not PtrfonA^ but fuch quality y fiate, or condition of a, man, whereby he is di- ifinguifhed from, or flands related to, otiier men. As a Kjng, 2L Father, ■ij^^dge, and the Uke. And accordingly tiie fame Man, may fuftain divers Perfons. (He may be 2iKjng, and a Father,) And according as fuch Condition varies, the Perfon alfo varies. "Pis true that in Englifhy (for want of a word that anfwers to Homo J we fome- times make ufeof the word Perfon, when we fpeak in* differently of Man, Woman, or Child \ as when a Man^ or Woman, and an Infant are fpoken of as three Per- fons : But thefe the Latins would not have called tres Perfonas^ but tres Homines, (But if confider'd as Father^ Mother, and Child, they may, as thus related, be called tres Perfon£.) And the Schoolmen fometimes (and fbme others in imitation of them) do in a like fenfe ufe the word Ptrfona, for want of a Latin word which did indif- ferently refpe£l Men and ^^ngels. But thele are new fenfes of the word Perfona, quite different from what the word fignified in the purity of the Latin Tongue ; and unknown (I fuppofe) to the Fathers, who fiift ap- plied jhe word Perfonte to thofe of the Sacred Trinity : As I had before fhewed at large. Let, v. p. 15;. &c. But at this rate, he tells us, (p. 10.^ The Socinta-ns will Allow, God the Creator j God the Redeemer, and God the San- Bifer, ov God the Father, Son and Holy-Ghofl, to be Three Perfons, And I am not forry to hear it. Bur then I would not liaveliim fay (as here) that I make them to be only Three Names^, noryet .(as/?. 16.) three Gods, They are more than three Names ^ but not Three Gods, For even (7) even amongft men, to be a Father, is more than a Name, or Tit/e: And, in the Godhead, the Father^ Son^ and Holy-Ghofi, differ more than fo many 'Names. And, though I will not take upon me to determine precifely, how great th^Diftin^ ion is, (which is what at />. 8. he cites out of my Let, ii./>. ^.) becaull I would not be pofi- tive where the Scripture is filent ; yet certainly 'tis not fb great as to make them Three Gods, but greater than merely three Names, or even that between what we conv- monly call the Divine Attributes. His next Head is about my Explication of the Athana- an Creed. Which he finds (he fays) to be an Explication of the Damnatory Claufes therein. And he is not much amifs in that oblervation.He was told fb in the firll: words of that Explication, and in the laft words of the Pofi- fcript. That it was inpurfuance of a claufe in a former Let- ter to that purpofe ; and that (though other things are explained in it) it was chiefly intended for the SatisfaBion of thofe who do believe the Doolrine of />, (but ftumbled at thofe Claufes,) to fhew that they need not (for thefe Claufes j to rejeQ: that Creed. He tells us (p. 1 1 .) there is a difference between Neceffary and Reqnifite. Be it fb. But the word there is x?^y ^^por- tet (not cLvocyytoAov) which I had rendred (/>. 4. 21.) by thefe words. It is neceffary, it is mainly necefjary, "'tis a principal requifite, he ought to believe it. And certainly, if he had not a great defire to cayil he would not have quarrelled at this expofition, as not full enough for the/ word 'xji'ii. I had faid, this Creed was/^^/of the Catholick Faith ; the whole of which I took to be the whok word of God : which a man is obliged to believe as to the Subjl^ntials of it ; but may be faved notwkhik2inding an Ignorance or Mi- flake as to fome P articttlars of lefjer moment. Now he would have it to be underflood, that this Creed\% the whole, not B only (8) only A PartoftheCatholiek Faith ; that nothing muft he added, U it^ nothing taken from it: And that every Man. and Wo- man jljail^ertjh everUflingly who doth not believe andprofefs this^ without taking ought from it , or adding O'ight to it. Why I think otherwife, I have (hewed before, and need not repeat it. But leave it to the Reader to judge, whe- ther this or that be iikeUer to be true. And, whether he take it to be the meaning of this writer, That all muft needs be damned , who lived and died before this Creed was written ; or who poffibly never faw it or heard of it, (though they fhould believe all the Subftantials of the Chriftian Faith, or Word of God, and held nothing de- ftruftive of it ;) or, who do not believe juft fb much and no more. But if that be- his opinion, he doth inter- pret it more feverely againft himfelf than I would have done ; or (I think) any Man who had not a mind to cavil. His next head is, about the Opinions charged upo^ Soci- ntt6 and the Socinians. Concerning which, I do not think it needful to trouble the Reader with repeating what I had faid of thofe Opinions, Let, iii. p* 44, 4«j, 46, 47, 48-. and Let. iv. p. 2,^, 4, 5, 6. or what he now brings in ex- cufe of it. But fhall leave it to the Reader, to judge (up- on what is faid' on both fides) whether I have not thereby fully proved the charge ; of the flight Opinion they have^ of the Scripture (in competition with ReafonJ when it croffes any of their beloved Tenets. And yet, if that be not enough, himlelf direQs , />. i<5. to Marefius and Lubtrtus , where ("it feems) is more to be found to the fame purpofe. But his Plea for himfelf, />. 16. I do admit. That if Socinus have fpoken erroneoujly, or unadvifedly^ or hyperbolic tally^ he is not obliged to defend it (nor do I know that he is obliged to be a Sosinian.) He may renounce of Sod- MMt^ what he pieties. Whether (9) Whether he who defended th^Thefu at Fnmker^ were a ProfefTed Socma^f, or but covertly fo, I tannot tell (be- caufe I do not know the Man :J But I do not think it more ftrange , to find a Sociman at Franeker (notwith- ftanding the Synod o^Dort) than at London, And fome- time (/>. 1 6.) he will hardly allow himfelf a SocinUn^ nor any of his Party. But I hope he will not deny Soci- ms to have been a Soeinian. Therefore fo far, at leaft, I was right. But he would not have me blacken a man, long fince dead^ who never did me any injury. Very well ; He had before challenged me to maintain my charge againll the Socim- ans : And he now quarrels with me for fo doing. He will now hardly allow any to be 2i Soeinian but Socinus himfelf; and yet I muft not blacken Socinus. What am I then to do ? I will even leave it as it is , ai^d let the Reader judge. And if he doubt, whether I, or my Ad- verfary be more fair in our Quotations ; let him confult the places and judge accordingly. And particularly that of Epift. 5. ad Volkelium, I am at prefent not at home,nor have Books about me. But fure I am, that Socinus doth there (a few lines before what this Obfervator repeats^ diredly deny , that the Soul after death doth fuhftB 3 ac- cording as I had affirmed (though I cannot now recite the whole Sentence becaufe I have not the Book at hand.> But this the Repeater ^whether by Docking or Decapita- tion) thinks fit to omit. And then I prefume the Reader will thejl^find, that per fe is not meant fo by it felf or of his own nature, as not by the gift and grace of God, (for fo it might as well be faid of the Soul before death J hut, fo by it felf as not in con'ymciion with the body f and tiien the fenfe muft be , that though die Soul with the Body be fr^miorum & pxnarum capax, yet the Soul oftt felf\^lth- out the Body, is not fo. But I leave this, and the reft, wholty to the Readers Judgment, to judge (upon view) B 2 as (10) as he fhairiee caufe. Adding thisalfo, that he will find it is not onely as to this Point of tliQ Trimtj>, that Socmm difcovers fb flight an opinion of the Scriptures in compe- tition with Reafon ; but in other Points alfo where they do not favour his opinions. He had told us before, of fome body at Oxford^ who, maintaining a Thesis againft the Socinians^ was baffled by his Opponent. Who or when this was he had not told us ; nor what that Thefa \v2iS. He now tells us, p, i6. It was a Thefts againfi the Socimam, that they preferred Reafon before Scripture. Perhaps, when herecolleQ:s him- felf, (or confults his Informer,) he may find (it any fuch thing happened as he fuggefls) it was on fome o- ther Thefts ; and not againfi the Socinhnsy but againft the Arminims. But, be it as he fays ; I know nothing of it, and fhall not concern my felf about it. But in requital of this (lory I told him another of Smdiusy who having propofed a Challenge, upon his Pro* hlema Paradoxttm (contrary to the Divinity of the Holy- Ghofi) M as fb anfwered by Wittichim^ that (as appears by a Printed Letter publiihed by his Friend and Partner in that Difputation) they were To convinced, as tochange their opinion. I now add, that it fo appears, not only by his Friend's Printed Letter : but by another of San" dim himfelf to Wittichius ; which I have not feen (and i think it was never printed,^ but the Contents of it may^ be feen in another Treatife of Wittichius^ v^ith this Ti*' tie, CAHJa Spiritus SmEii Vi^irix. .Printed at ^irfi^wfew!, 1682. ^ -''■"■■ '^ " But this matter (he fays)' is both Vnskilfully and Un- fairly related. Why unskilf^fHy? ■^'h.y unfairly? He fays, Sandius was an Arian ; (Be it fb \^ not a Socinian, Very well: Nor did I fay that he was j but a Friend of thes Socinians, He was an Anti-trinitarian ; and did promote (ag-ainft the Trinitarians) the common caufe of Arians - ' and ('O and SocinUnSy (though thefe perhaps might quarrel a- mongft themfelves.) But this Ohjervdtor thought (it feems) becaufe I did not call him an Jrian, that I did -•not kmw him fb to be. And this (I guefs) is what he calls unskilfuL But lean give him a better reafbn why I ftiould not call him fo. 1 did not then know I fhould have an Arian Adverfary to deal with, (for my AriAn Ad- verfary did not yet appear : ) But my Socimm Adv^erfa- ry was already upon the ftage, and with him I was now dealing. Yet I could not fay that Sandm was a Sociman^ but (that the Socinian might be concernM in the ftory) I laid, He was a Friend of theirs. And what VnskilfuL ^^e/Tappears in this? Had I then known (what fince I do) that I was to be attacqued by an ■^^rian alfb ; I fhould rather have called him an Anti-trinitaridn^ which had been common to both : But, kno\\'ing then of none but a Socinian Adverfary, I chofe to call him a Friend of theirs. Which was neither Vnfair nor VnskilfuL Perhaps he thinks if not Vnskilful,\\Nd.s 2ii^i^Vnfair to Id-cz^ lay that his Partner and He changedtheir opinion. But was it not fb ? doth not his AiTociate exprefly tell us (in the very Title-page of his Letter of thanks for thofe Animadver- sions) per quas (animadverjioms) errores fuos rejicere co- nBm eji? (whereby he was conftrained to relinquifli his Errors ? ) Well, but did they change all their Opinions ? did they relinquilh ^/Z their Errors ? I believe not : But, that opinion which was then in difpute ; his Problems Paradox/im, and the Errors therein. And, if he confult the Book, he'll find it was fo : And, that this Paradox was it which he did relinquifli- And, what his Paradox was, he might there fee it as well as I. Nop had he told me, rrho^^ and ivhen^ and f/pon what Q^cftion, his fup- pofed ^^nti-Socinian was baffled by his Opponent? or, how I might come to know it ? (And even now, when he pretends to tell me- the Qucllion, I doubt he ismiftar ken ken therein. But what V^iuirneJ! was tliere in all this ? wjien I had told him wacrc ;ie might find as much of it as I could tell him. X.f?^^ ^^sQ^cu- But he tells us now, it SaKdifts was faUsfied m^QQd (as to the Point then ii' , eftion,) but ?fot of the Divini- ty of the Holy Spirit, Nor did I fay that he was. But I can tell him, That he was nearer, even to this, than our Oblervator was aware, or at leafl: nearer than he thinks fit to own to us. If he confult JVittichius\ latter Treatife, entituled Caufa Spiritus SanmVi^riXj he will" there find an ExtraQ: of a Manufcript Letter of Sandtus to him. In which, to the heft of my remembrance (for I have not here the Book at hand) he tells Wittichius to this Purpofe. *' That whereas in his Problema Paradoxum " he had been of opinion that by the Holy Spirit might *' be meant the whole number of good Angels, he did not " now think fb well of that opinion, as before their Dif^ " putation : but was confidering of two other opinions " to be fubftituted inftead thereof : That by the Holy- " Ghofi might be meant, not the whole number of good ' V Angels , as before; but either fbme/e/e^ number of " them, as. being a fuperiour Order ; or elfe fbme One *' Angel as fuperiour to all the reft. (Which two he fug- '^gefts to Wittichius* % further confideration.) But, if " neither of thefe fhould fucceed (as he doubted they '' would not ; ) he was then inclinable to lay, with "him: That the Ho/>'-(3^. 56.) inftead of Trinity in Unity ^ to lay (ii that will pleale him better) Three in One, Yet Three and Trinity (to my apprehenfionj differ no more^ than Ten and a Decade ; or Twelve and a Doufain, But what's all this to the matter in hand ? Doth Luther or Cahin any where fay, that Father^ Son, and Holy-Ghofly are but three Names ? or, that they be three Gods? If they lay neither of thefe j they do not contradi6i: what we affirm. 'Tis but as if a Man fhould chufe to fay Ten Commandments^ rather than a Dec^^e, ox half a fcore -, or to fay, there are, in the Apoflles Creed, Twelve i^r tides rather than a Doufain, And if thefe be the great dif agree- ments he there complains of, it comes to a very Imall matter. To his Argument, That only the Father is Gody becaufe ofjoh.ij. J. to know thee the only true God', he fays,/*. 17. J give three Jnfwers, (I do fb.) But, he fays, thefirfi and third are definitive of one another. Not fb : they all agree very well. And any of them will deftroy his Argument. 'Tis not faid, Thee only, but the only true God, He would have us think it all one to fay , Thee only, to be the true God, and Thee to be the only true God, I think otherwife. The one gives fbme Teeming colour for his obje£i:ion : The other, not the leaft (badow. His Argument, The Father is the only true God , therefore not the Son or Holy^ Ghojl, is jull: in this Form, The God of Abraham is the only true God, therefore not the God of Ifaac, nor the God of Ja- cob, Which, I prefume he will not allow to be a good confequence. He would have it thought I grant, that if it were ijf 771 this form, the^pnly, the^ true God, then the Socinians had undoubtedly gained the point. Not fb. He hath not heard me (15) me fay fb yet ; nor is he like to do. If I fhould fay, He that brought Ifrael out of Egypt , and he only , is the true God : my meaning would be but this , That God who brought Ifrael out of Egypt ^ and that God only ^ is the true God : And this muft be underfl-ood to be laid of him, not as their deliverer out of Egypt , but as God, For he .was the true God (and the only true God) long before he brought Ifrael out of Egypt ; and would have been fo. though they had never been ; or had never been/o brought out. There may be vera pr^dicatio, which is not ^^^6m Tpcaroy, " And, of all men living , the Socinians are obliged to lay, that this title the true God, or only true God, belongs to him, not 2iS Father^ hut 2,s God, For if (as they would have us think) our Lord Jefus Chri/i had no Being before his being made Man of the Virgin Mary ; then neither had he a Father till that time : But he was the only true God from all Eternity ; and therefore not (^with this Re- duplication) as Father of our Lord Jtfus Chrifi, For he was the only true God (according to their Dodlrine) Jong before the Man Chrifi had a Father ; and would fb have been, though this Man had never been. And though Chrift ffeak to him as His Father , yet the title of the only trueGody he afcribes to him as God. l{ Solomon fhould have laid to David , Thou Father art King of Ifrael ; he was not therefore Kj»g of Ifrael di^ Father of Solomon ; for he was lb, long before he was Solomon's Father, Which takes away all colour of our Oblervator's (imaginary) contradidion here pretended : and leaves not the leaft umbrage foritl lAiA /, As little force is there in his other cavil, /». 1 8. If the Father and Son be the onely true God^then not the Holy -Ghofi. Yes ; -the Holy-Ghoft alfo. For though it be net here Affirmed ; yet neither is it here Denied. But thefe Obje6lionsof his have been fo often brought, C and ( i6) and fo often anfwered , that *tis tedious to fee the fame things brought fo often over and over again. The like I fay of what he repeats from i Cor, 8. 6, which is anfwered fufficiently, Let, iii. />. 'J2. Nor is it at all ftrange, or uncommon, that the word Father fhould be fometime. fpoken of God perfonally confidered, as Fa* thtr of our Lordjefets Chrift, and fometime of God indefi- nitely /according to his ElTence; without refpeft to this or that Perfon. Father of Spirits, Heb. 12. 9. Doubtlefs thou art our Father y Thou Lord art our Father and our Redeemer^ Ifai. 6^. 16. Thou jhalt call me My Father^ Jen 2. 4, 19. which the Socmians muft not fay to be meant as to his Perfonality , as Father of our Lord Jefus Chrifiy f'for fuch, they fay , he then was not J but as to his Ef fefjce. The ever lafiing Father, Ifai. 9. 6. fpoken of Chrift, not as to his Ferfonality f'for fb, he was Son) but as to his Ejfence. As to what he objeds, p. 19. to that of Rom, ^, ^, thrift ; who is over all, God blejfed for ever. Amen, I re- fer to what is faid, Let, iii. />. 57. ("too large to repeat here. j But how ^^men (^which is a word of JJJevera" tion) {hould make it Nonfenfe, I do not underfland. And what was (aid of God indefinitely, Rev, 1.4. is faid par- ticularly of Chrift, ver,S. JVho wa4 dead and is alivey ver. 17, 18. Twhich defcription of Chrift in particular, he had begun Sitver. <;. and continues beyond this place./ If he deny it, let the Reader judge. » ^^ ^ r •' • '' •'* • '^ As to that of I Joh. ^. 7. I refer to what hath bfccn faid already. I think there is not much more to be (aid thereof on either fide than had been faid long before ei-- ther He or I began to write. And if after all he refolve to hold to his opinion ; he muft give me^ leave to retain mine, And let the Reader judg^ as he fees caufe. And fo for thatof ikf^w. 28, 19. As to all, in all thofe Leters to which he makes no Re- pJy ; _ ('7) ■ ply ; it ftands as it did : And if the Reader pleafe to read them over again, he will be able to judge, whether it be all fo contemptible as to have nothing of Weight in it. I have faid nothing to his Bluftring and Contemptu- ^ ous Language, his CantiiTg (or rather ^feaferig^ againfi: R^nJx? Schools^ Metaphyficks, Mother Churchy Alma Mater Acade- x^ y Tftiay School-terms^ Gothijh and Vandelick terms^ AbJirA^ty Concrete, (as if Long and Length were all one ; and ail one to fay David was Kjngdom of Ifraely and the King- dom of ifrael was Father to Solomon, as to lay this of the Kjng of Ifrael) and other the like. (To which he is wont to run out when he hath little elfe to fay, but would feem to fay fbmewhat to make a Noife.) Becaufe the Reader would know (without my telling him) that this is Raving rather than Arguing. And when he tells us, fb often , of ^ he Brief Hiftory of the Unitarians ; why might not I as well tell him, that Docfor Sherlock had anfwered it ; and means ^I fuppofe) to Vindicate that Anfwer, if he think there be need. So, when he runs Divifion upon Imperial Edicts^ Con* ffcationSy and Banifbments^ feizing and burning of Books, Capital p/mijhments, Fire, andFagct', (with many other things wherein I am not concerned,) What is all this to me ? I do not know that I ever did him any hurt (unlefs by difcovering his Errors;) I was only Arguing as a Dif putant; not making Laws, As little need be faid of a many little things, as little to the purpofe : As, whether my Third Letter v ere not rather a Book ? Whether the things which God hath prepa- red for them that love him^ are the ©nclp deep things of God which we cannot comprehend? or the ^Dnelp fcret things which belong to God, while things Revealed belong to us ? Whether^ what I kntv^ forty years ago, I had been ftudyingand coi^M^ung forty years (without thinking of • (i8) of ought elfe all the while)? which certainly I could not be,, for I was^Jtnen forty years old. Whether it be better Efiglijh to fay, God the Creator ^ God the Redeemer, a»d Godthe San5iifier ARE, or IS but one God f Whe- ther i;««w (in the Neuter Gender, put abfblute without a Subftantive) do not ufually fignifie One Thing ? Whe- ther the word Trtmta^, be a fure Latin^ or a Barbarota Word, (not to be found in Tully, any more than Vnitari- an) ? Whether Tres or Irinitas be the better Latin- word ? Whether, what in his former Letter, p, 9. were but old fashioned Notions^ be now (in this laft) Nerv and Cau- tious ? with other the like. But (befides in thele and many others, he cavils with- out a caule) what's all this to the Bufinefs in hand ? Or how doth it contradiQ: what I affirm ? viz. That, W'hat in one Conpderation are Three y may in another Confederation be but One. That, We may fafely fay (without Abfurdity, Contra- diction, or Inconfifience with Reafbn,) there may be in Gody Three Somewhat s (which we commonly call Per- (bns) that are but One God. That, Thefe Three, are more than three Names, but not three Gods. That, God the Creator ^ God the Redeemer, and God the SanSiifer, (otherwiie called God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy- Ghoft,; are fuch Three. I fee nothing of what he hath faid, doth overthrow any of Thefe. March 14, ^^9h Yours, f. WaUh. A Seventh LETTER, Concerning the Sacred Trinity; Occafioned by a From IV. J. By JO HH WALLIS, D. D. ProfefTor of Geometry, in Oxford, LONDON: Printed for Tho. Parkhurft^ at the Bibk acd Three Crowm, m Cheap fide, 1691. ♦.Tf^ (•) A Seventh LETTER. Concerning the Sacred Trinity. il\J M lui) N a Poftfcript to my Sixth Letter (which fhould have been Printed with it ; but came, it feems, too late, after all the Sheets were Printed off,) I gave notice, That I had received from London the Night before (^March 27.) another Letter from IV. jf. of a like import with his former; but fomewhat fuller. That, what in it did diredly concern me, was but Ex- preiTions of Thanks, Refpefl;, and Approbation. For which I knew not how otherwife (than by fuch a way) to return him my acknowledgment : Becaufe lie did nei- ther fignifie who he is that writes ; nor do I know any in London, to who's Name the Letters JV. J. do be- long. That, there were Reflc£l:ions in it, on fome Exprefli- onsof a Learned Author: which Expreflions I do not fee tliat I am at all engaged to defend : And did there- fore wave them. That, to (ay, Tk three Divine Ferfons, arc Three In- A 2 ^ telligent telligefJt Beings (three fubfl ant ialBdngs, three Spirit s^) Re* alfy DiJiinS^j(thoHgh mittmlly con fcious/j is more, he thinks, than that Learned Author needed to have iaid ; (And I think fo too :) And that it is more Safe, to be lefs Pofi- tive and Particular , as to what the Scripture leaves in the dark. And his Anfwer (I think; would not have been iefs vaUd, ("againft thofe he undertakes to anfwer,^ though fuch ExpreiTions were omitted. That, I did forbear to publifli that Letter without his Order h becaufe I was loth to engage the Learned Wri- ter thereof in a Fuhlick Difpttte againft that Learned Au- thor, unlefs he pleafe. Since which time; confidering, that the Pofticript came too late to be Printed with that Letter of mine ; and, that the Letter of this Reverend Divine (for fuch I take him to be by the contents of it,; leems to be penned with that care and caution, a§ If he were willing to have it publick ; and without any intimation of Di- (like for my having publilhed his former Letter in like Circumftances : I have thought not amifs fnor unagree- able to his mind; to publiOi this alfo* Which Is u foi« ioweth ; ffuppiying the Dat§ from th© Pofl-mark at London^ denoting wlwt d&y %% wi§ glven-ln to the Foft* Office tbtrt ,; (J) For the Reverend Dr. ^T^&V, Profeffor of Geometry, at Oxford. Londm^ March 14. 169% SIR, YOftr Repeated Letters, give me ajuFi occafio/f of RepcAt- mg my hearty Thanks to you. And I hope you will give me leave to join both my good Wijhes and Endeavours to promote that Moderation which you feem to Aim at^ in (lating the Myfterious Truths concerning the Trinity. Me- thinks we might be eafily perfwaded to this ; by the Difficulties which all men find in conceiving thofe Myfteries : Efptci- aHy the Qonfec[uences which fome make from them ; and im- pofe upon us as Certain and Sacred Truths, Sir, Becaufe I would have you lofe as little of your Time as may be in reading my Letters ; / will enter immediately upon the Subje5l propofed ; and conjider, not fome lejfer Nice- ties, but the Two Main Points in the Do6lrine of the Tri- nity ; and the Difficulties which eur Vnderjtandings reprefent to us in the Conception of them, ^ The Two Main Points are thefe : The Unity of the God* head, notwithJianding the Diftindion of Three Perfbns : And the Equality of thofe Three Perfbns, notwithJianding their Derivation one from another. Concerning the Divine Perfbns ; The Hypothefis which we referred to formerly (and fljall Jlill follow) ajferts thefe Three Things, Firft, That they are Three Beings (or Three In- telligent Beings^ Really Dillind. Secondly, That they ure Three Subflantial Beings, Really Diftin'Sl. Thirdly, Thai (4) That they are Three Infinite Minds, or Three Holy Spi- rits, Really Diftind. And to theYe, I think, we may of courfe add a Fourth Chara^er, That they are Three Compleat Beings, really Dlftin^:. They are not Inadequate or Partial Beings. For a Spirit infinite in Perfeftion, ^ euh of theft is reprefented, can want nothing to compkat its Being or PerftBion, Let us notv, if you fleafe^ run over thefe Chara^ers ; and sbferve the most obvious Difficulties, that occurr to our Minds in the Conception of them. For the firfi. Three Beings really diftin£l. A$cordin2 to the plain Tra6f of humane Reafon, Every real Being hath its Ejjence ; (that is the Baps it ftands upon^ as diflinguiP?&l from Non-Entity y or a FiBitions Being), And every Difiin^ Being hath its Diftin^ Ejjence : I mean, Numerically du- . flinB, Andtherefore, according to this Principle, there ought to be Three diftindl: Effences in the Godhead, feeing there are Three Beings, there, really difiinB, Furthermore ; If you give one fwgle EJfence to Three Be- ings really diBincl, you muft either Divide it, or Multiply it. Either each of thefe Beings muft have a Piece of. this EJJence ; and then you Divide it : or each muft havt the Whole ; and then, being but one Whole, you cannot give it to Three without Multiplying of it. This is fill made more difficult to conceive, when the- Au- thor alloxvs thefe Three to he as Diftincl as Peter, JameSj.^W John. For if they he as DiHincl as Peter, James and John ; ihty are One but .u Peter, James and John. For every degree of DifiinBion takes away a degree of Vnity : As every degree of Heat^ takes arvay a degree of Cold. We proceed to the fecond Character, The Three Divine Perfons, are Three Subftantial Beings, Really diftind. That is, in plain Englijh , are Three Subftances Really di- ftinB. As a Spiritual Being is a Spirit ; a Corporeal Be- ing, a Body ; Jo a Subftantial Being is a Subftance ; (put- ting (?) tifig omly Two Words for One.) And the Author muft h/i- derjiand itfo ; hecAuft he makes themThree Spirits rftertvards ^ andjherefore they muft he Three Subftances. JBefideSy what are they^ ''pray y if not SubHances ? they ion- npt he Modes, or bare Relatiorts, I knowfome Platonift$ €j(il them Super-Subftances. Qryifyoa mil think them lower, and call them Semi-Subftances, (as. fome Vhilofophers do their Subftantial Forms :) All this is but playing with Words. For there is nothing reprefented to our Faculties , bu$ as Sub- fiances, Modes, or Relations ; except ifig tifhat is meerly Mo- tional. And the Learned Author muft not debar u^ the ufe of the Word Subftance, under pretence that it founds Corporeally. For two Creeds make ufe of it : and the Scripture it fe^fy upon afairinterpretationjllth. i. 5. 5 To proceed therefore. Htre are Three Subfiancej Really Diftin5i, whereof each is a God (pag. 4^.»L.iJ. p. 98.!. 23 J and yet there is but One God. This is 'very hard to conceive, as contrary to all our Ideals of Number and Nu- meration. *Tis true, we may conceive thefe Three Subliances, in ftri^ Vnion one with another y notwithftanding their real Diftin^ Slion. But Union // one thing, and Unity // another. For Vnity excludes all Plurality and Multiplicity ; which Vnion doth not, but rather fuppofes it. Vnity alfo, in ftmple Na- tures, excludes all Compofitions : which Vnion , on the con- trary, always Implies ^ in one kind or other. Accordingly \ Subslmces^ upon Vnion, are not Confounded or Identified, or brought to Vnity of Subftance : But, conti- nuing numerically diflin5i Sulftances , acquire fome Commu- nity or Communication of Operations : namely, offuch Acti- ons and Paffions as they are refve^ively capable of. Let us conpder Inftances of thefe things, in th^ chief uni^ ons that are known to us. Our Soul and Body are t'vo Sub' fiances really diftin^, and in clofe Vnion with one another : But, But^ notwithfianding ihis^ they contime difiinSt SubHanets under tfjAt Vnion, Inlikemamer, thtHumintSoulofChrift is in Vnion with the Logos, or fecond Verfon of thtTrinity^ which m call an Hypoftatical UniGn : But neither doth this Vnion make any Vnity of Subfimce y for the two fuhfiancesuf the Divine and Humane Natures] continue DifiinSi under that Vnion, Which mufi not be allowed in the Vnity of the Godhead y where there cam be no P lurnlity or Multiplicity of Sithftances^, .^-^^-^ '^^ ^^ 'i^^\^:^\i\^^'\ ^nVK\Vv.% i\ p-^s(s\ •iQi 'The Learned Author does acknowledge /p. ^j^gj.J thdf thefe three SubBances, if they were feparate^ would be three Gods : but being Inpparate and Infeparabky they make but One, "This-'is again uneafy U conceive^ that Suhftames Re- ally Difiin^, Jbould not be fep arable. For the notion of a Subftance^ is, of that which may fuhfift by it felf : And mat fnarkhdnk wl offeparability^but Real Difiin^ion ? Things that are^ only Modally or 'Not ion ally difiinB^ we allow cannot fuhfift feparate : Bui if they ^e Really diftin^^ as Subftanc&s^ why may they not be fepar at ed Really? When we have proved^ the Real DiftinUion of the Soul and the Body^ as two Sub* JtMcet^ we think we have fujficient ground to affert theSepa* rability of the Soul from the Body. And from the fame Rea* fony we affert the Farts of Matter to he Separable^ as being Really diftinB Subftances, let their Vnion be otherwife what ttwill. For, if our Faculties be true^ what things a e clearly conceive Really diHintI (\M res& resj may (poffbly) be fe- parated, pear and^iftincl Conception being to us the rule of But however I Supp^, if you pleafe, this Vnion Indiffolu- hie ; this does not change it into Vnity, If the Soul of Man^ was made to be in Perpetual Conjunction with Matter, asfome Platonifls affirm ; that doth not make Matter and the Souly^ One and the (amefubftame ; nor Matter ceafe to be Matter, or the ^oul a Spirit, So, ifyoufappofe thefe three Divine^ Sfibft antes io he under an Indij] oldie Vnion , that doth not make (7) make them ceafe to he three Subjimces ^ but, it makes them^ Three Subfiances in an Indifjoluble Union, What the learnedi^uthour fays concerning Matter and Ex- tenfton, may be returned upon him in reference to the God- head, (p. 80. I. 9, 1 o.) He fuppofes Extenfwn to confifi of Parts, if they be only Jffignabie parts, whether they can be divided or not : fo, fay we, (according to this opinion) The Godhead may confifl of fever al Suhftances, if they he only Af- fignable Subflances, whether they can be Divided or not : And you may as Diflin6ily Ajjigny by your Vnderfianding, Three Subflances in the Godhead, that of the Father , that of the Son^ and that of the Holy Ghoft ; as you may Ajfign Three Parts in a Phyftcal K^tome, by h,^, C. Laftly, There is no Sub fiance lojl or deflroyed in this or any other Union , Dijfoluhle , or Indijfoluble : Therefore, as to Subflances y they are the fame , whether in Conjun6fion or Separation. JVe come unto the Third Chara5hr, (pag. 50. 166. 258. fee alfo p. 95 J The Three Divine Perfons are Three Infi- nite Minds, or Three Holy Spirits : And yet but One God. This rifes (tiU higher than the former as to its Unconceivable^ nefs. It feems to fay and unfay the fame thing, with the fame hnath. An Infinite Spirit // cample atly a God, as to Effence and Attributes : Therefore three fuch are three Gods. Oni- nis mens infinite perfeQ:a eft Deus ; Tres funt mentes infinite perfedae ; Ergo Tres funt Dii. Where is the-fai^'Ufh^ of this Syllogifm ? This Character feems to ajjert Threelnfinites: Whereas the Athanafian Creed, nhichfiands at the highefl pitch of any, is yet very tender and cautious in giving the number 'I'hrce to any thing but the Perfons. It will not allow three Eternals, nor three ^ncomprehenfibles, ncr three Ahnighties; But^ three Infinites include allthefe. ^;; Infinite Spirit (as If aid before) is a God, (^Imean^ Infinite in Perfe^ion^ as our Authour doth,) And three Spi- B r/>/. (8) rils, "(vhereof tuh is hfmte in FerftWon, urt Three Gods ; As J three Creatures j whereof each is a RationAl Animal^ 4re three Men, Both thefe F r of o fit ions go upon the fame ground^ namely^ Thut the Definition, and the thing Defined, are re- ciprocal and of the fame extent. Nvtv as w€ have no better De^ fi nit ion of a Man , than that he is a Ratbnal Animal ; fo neither have we a letter Definition of a God ^than that he is a Spirit infinitely Perfed. And as fo many Animals Ratio- ml,fo many Men ; fo likewife, fo many Spirits infinitely per- feB, fo many Gods, I f peak this according to the ufe of our Faculties, For^ what the true and preci/e fixate of things is, in themfehesy when the cjueTlion is concerning Infinite Natures , / do not prefumt to determine. But thus much, I think, we may faftly determine. That irt fuch cafes where our Faculties are at a lofs^ the fafeli way «■ to keep clofe to Revelation and the words of Scripture, And thais the Conclufwn 1 drive at, Laftly, To put a plain quell ion, which will come into eve" fy ones mind : Here are Three Spirits infinitely Ferfedl ; ei- ther they are Gods, or they are Creatures ? They mufi be one of the Two. When we fpeak of a Spirit infinitely perfe£t, we defcribe an abfolute, compleat, entire Being, Which mulf he of fame Denomination, either a God, or a Creature \ for we know nothing of a middle nature betwixt thefe, Foffibly they will Anfwer this by a DiflinBion ; namely, that they are three Gods confidered Separately ; but confidered col- ie&ively and in Vnion, they are but One God: And feeing they cannot be really feparate, it would be improper to call them Three Gods. But, pray. Why not as properly three Gods, as three Infinite Spirits ? feeing thefe terms, A Spirit infinitely perfe£i, and A God, are terms equivalent or identical. What partiality >s it then to allow the one , and not the other f And if thefe Infinite Spirits be Infep arable, why do you grant the mmher Three tQ that name^ and not to the name of God- ? feeing (9) feeing they are both the fame Things and ec^dly Infepa- rahk. We ohfervei before, that thu Learned <^uthour U liber d i» his Threes ; three Intelligent Beings, three Infinite Mir^ds, three Holy Sprits y three Divine Glories ^ three Majejlies ; but HOt three KJngs. "^Tis the Name^ itfeemsy isfcrupkd, ra- ther than the Thing, Sir, I will add no more upon thefe Heads, But will confi- ^ der now the grand Principle which is Uejigned to take off aE thefe Difficulties ; And that is , mutual Confcioufnefs ; whereby all thefe Threes are made One j and reduced to a^ per- fect Numerical Unity, I need not fpend time in telling you what the Author means by mutual Confcioufnefs, nor how he applies it to the prefent cafe : Tou know them both fufficiently. But mtthinks this Unitive Principle is defectively expreffed^ by the word Con- fcioufnefs. For bare Confcioufnefs , without Qonfent, is np more than bare Omnifciency, As God is Qonfcious of all our Thoughts, good or bad ; and of all the Devils thoughts \ with- out Union, as without Confent. If a good and bad Angel were made mutually Confcious of one another s mind^they would not thereupon become One , being ft ill of different Wills and Inclinations. It may be the Author will fay^ Confcioufnefs involves Confent, as he fay Sy Knowledge //?Wi/e/ Power, or is the fame with it. But, be/ides, that I cannot well reconcile ths Author to himfelf in this point, (See p. 9. 1. ^, 4. compared with p. 72.^ I have given you Inflames in a former Letter to the contrary. To which you may add, if you pkafe , this further confideration : If KJtowledge be the fame thing with Power , then a5iual Conception is the fame thing with aliual Execution. And iffo, then Tou and I may fit quietly in our fiudies, and, with our Thought and Pen, build Palaces, and take Towns and Cities. For we know the Methods of both, and cm diftinclly conceive them and delineate them. And as thefe B 2 are (io) an not the fame thing in usy Jo neither can we conceive them^ in allreffe5fs, the fame in God. For, from all Eternity^ God had a clear Idea of the frame of the World, and of the manner of producing it : therefore, if Gad's Conception or Kj^owkdge had been the fame tvith his Poiver, the World had heen.pr^d^ eedfrom 'Eternity. : '*>-< W; But to proceed, Let us give this Principle its full fir ength, Confcioufhefs and Conlent : they would not together make aperfe^i Unity of Operations in the Deity , much lefs.of Subftance. We noted before, that Unity and Union are dif- ferent things. <^nd this is more apparent now, when Three Spirits are to be united into One. For how that can be done without fome fort ofCompofition, is an unconceivable My flery. Tou may indeed conceive thefe Three Spirits, fmgly and fepa- rately, as fimple Beings •• But if you conceive thefe three ftm- pie Beings united into One (without Annihilation of any one) that One mufi be a Compound Being, according tdour Con- ceptions, '"* '. )^\ 'awO !:>-tr.«\ «iih{\t y- .)»^ , Then, as to Unity or my fart J cannot hutlik$ Boerilius hi£ definition bef\ and think him f^ f-f^ -in the right., in that he makes the word Perfonao^/jf 4tppli€^hkto Man ; forfo doubtlefs it is in its trne and proper fignificatiotiy audit is applicable tt Spirits by a Metalepfis only and Tranfumption of the Word, ';':■ AND her^/he Fhjlofophers an too fhprt in their definitions of Per- fona, that while they dtfte fb-mnch upon thf word Subftance, they for- get that Accid€ms.are a mere iteceffary ingredient in its true definition. The word Per Cona in relatim to Man, doth no' only figTii fie Individua- , Ifty, and denote a particular or fingk man, but it doth imply thofe Qua- A 2 , Ittiet I C4l Uties 4lfo whereby one Man differ eth f rem another. By the word ^4^ lity here I do not wean the/ingle Predic ament fo called, but all the other Predicaments except that of Subflanee^ it being thofe whereby the Naturae Kmo^z\\sS\}hi!(3iVimu individuated. 'Tis Qtiantity that differs the Terfon of taller Stature from the lower. ^Tis Qmlity that differs the Learned from the Vnkarned Perfon. 'Tis Relation that differs the Fa- ther from the Son. 'Tts the Ubi or Locality that differs John of Nokc from John at Style. And fo of the other Predicaments. IwohU therefore propofe the adding a few words to Boethius his defi- nition, and then I think, i^ ^^^ be well enough. Let it then be th^, yiz. Perfona eft Natural rational is individua fubflantia taliter qualiter ab aliis differens. Thtu defined it relates to Man only, and fo to one Man M he Jttffereth from another by accidental Indtvidumon. For thoHgh^t be true that every Perfon is a fingle fubfiance, yet ^tis as true that they 4ire accidents that do determine the Perfonality. Andas the Specifickjdifferences do cunfi:itHte the Species, fo Predica- ment al Accidents do conftitme the Individual, Thus Rationality doth conftitute the Species of Man, and differs it from that of the Brnte' ^nd thm Wifdom, Fortitude, &C. do differ this particular Man from another, andmak^him to be this Perfon and not another. Nor can we have any certain notion ofnak^dfubftances, or otherwife conceive of them than as they art clothed with and variegated by accidents. To this purpofe alfo is the true fenfe and meaning of the Greekjword ^'ogamt, which ftriaiy Tranflated is in Latine Subfiftentia. Now SuhClhenth doth not only import theEife of the fubftance, but the Mq- dus ElTendi: And what is that doth modifie fub fiance but qualities and Accidents? The Fundamental miftake therefore in this great p$int hath been in making the wordfubftancefo more than neceffary in the definition of Per- fona, andconcluding from thence that there cannot be three Perfons but there muft be three feveral fhbftances, iVhereas in truth there may be itt the fame one particular Man, diver fiy qualified and circumft antic at ed, diverfe Perfonalities. Thtts in the Man Mekhifedeck. Melchife- deck King of^alem maybefaidto be one Perfon, /«;7^Melchife, ( nor have I any where denyed it: ) But, how mHch that more is, wc cannot telJ. Sure we are, mt fo as to be three Godf (or more Gods than one: ) And Ichoole to fay ( with i^t^'^ufiin.y.yhu t^efe^T-hrt£ 4r€, Qw Spirk { Mywe fay y they \ant. One, Qofl ^) nqp Thru Spirits. The Ism oftcienp import of the. Word Perfon ( when firft applied to the Trinity) implies no more than as I explained it : Which was a full Anfwer to the Anti-tri- nitarians Popular Argument ( from the modern grofs acceptation of the Word,j?4r/()%Jn',£»^/i/fe, ) as if three Divine Perfons^ muft needs be three Cods, becaufe three Perfons amongft Men doth fometimes { not always , nor did it anciently fo, ) imply three Men. And , when we fay, thefe three Perfons are but one God 5 'tis manifeft that we uf^ this Metaphor of rfr/b»j(whenapplyed to God,) as borrowed from that fenfe of the Word Perfon, wherein the fame Man may fuftain divers Perfons, or divers Perfons be the fame Man. I have feen, more than once, an Addrefs From Edward Earl of Claren- don, chancellor of the Vniverjtty of Oxford, To Edward Earl ofCla- rendon'Lord Bigh'X:rhaftcMrof'EngtaKd;l in "a Clafm ofTrivilege , to remove a Caufe from the Court of Chancery, to that of tiie V- niverfity,) Yet thefe two Chancellors were not two Men, nor tW9 Earls of Clarendon j but one and the fame, fuftaining two Perfons , ( one addrefiing to the other. ) And if this do fufficiently anfwer thati Popular Ca^il 5 *tis as muclnas 'twas brought for. If it do 0- ihcrwifc appear , that the diftin(Siion bexween thefe Three Divine Perfons Cii3 Perfons be more than fo •, ( but yet more God's than One;) that may well enough be , though this Metaphor do not neceflarily im- ply fo mucii. 'Tis certain , that three Perfim, neither according to the true import of the words, nor according to the intent of thofe who fo fpeaK,doth not imply tijree Cods : But Three Perfons which are One God , or One Cod in Three Perfons, I have alfo a Tbird Letter from W. j, much to the fame pur* pofe with what he had Written in his two former. ( And therefore I do not think it needful to infert it here 5 nor do I fee that he dc- fires it. ) /? *f , he tells me, to taki hi6 leave of me , as not mean- ing to give me any farther tronhle in this kind. 'Tis full of divers expreffions of Refped, Thanks,and Approbation 5 And he doth in- fift ( as in his two former he had done ) upon thefe two things ; Not to be too pofitive fin thefe matters ) beyond what the Scripture tells Hi 5 And , Not to lay the like firefs upon our J^rgumcntations from thence , as on what we find there. In both which ( as before I did J.I do fully agree with him. Becaufe, in matters of pureRe- velation , we know no more than what is Revealed : Aiid , be- caufe 'tis very fure , that ( even in Natural things ) Men do c^t Hiiftake in their Argumentations,from Principles wWch they think to be True and Clear s ( Elfe it could not be that divers Men, from the fame Principles, (hould infer contrary Conclufions : ) And becaufe wc find it difficult, fometimes , to reconcile fome things, which yet we cannot well deny to be true. And, if it be fo, even in Natural things ; much more may it be fo in things of an Infoiite Nature. So that herein ( I think } He and I do not difagree. Yet would I not infer from hence Cnor doth he ) that we mud therefore be Scepticks in AU things , becaufe it is poflible that in Some things we may mif'take. For it is one thing to be Infallible i another thing not to Err, A Man who is not Infallible , may yet Argue Truly 5 and where he doth [0, his Argument is Conclu- fiwe* And we may accordingly reft In it , and infift upon it, more or lefs , according to the degree of Evidence. For things equally True , are not always equally Evident ; nor equally Neceflary to be known. Where the Evidence is not clear ( and the matter not needful for us to know) we are not to be too Pofitive in our Deter* minations) (but rather be content to be ignoranic farther than God B 2 is js pleafed to reveal : J But where it is, C ^nd the things be of Mo- ment ) we nnuft hold fafi that which i^trne, and not fuffer our felves to be eafily wheedled out of it. Which, I fuppofe, is his Opinion as well as mine-- For he feems to interpofe this Caution ( particularly ) as to that Hy- pothefis ; to which ( as before he had donej he doth fuggeft fome new Difficulties : But, wherein! am not concerned. That God is THri-mus , he doth profefs. And the word Per/o« he doth n'ot dif- like. But thinks it fafe not to be tooPoficive in determining pre- cifely how great that Diflin(aioii of Perfons is. In all which , I do concur with him. ■'•i^owa? to the Word Vtrfon (though lam not fond of Words,- where the Senfe is agreed 5 ) I am not willing to quit it, becaufe I do not know a better to put in the Room of it : And becaufe, if we quit the word, which the Church hath with good reafoa made- afe of, for fo many Hundred years ( without any juft exception made to it ;) thofe ^«M'-m«/Mr/rf»j, who would have us quit the Word, will pretend, that, in fo doing, we quit the Do6trihe' 100. That we do not, by Per/on (whenapplyed to the Sacfed Trini^ ty ) underftand fnch a Perfbn, as when applyed to Men 5 and, that by Three l>/i///?^ -perfons, we do not mean Three Ca^;^ .• hath been- fo often kid •, and^'fo ful5y, by thofe'\^'ho hdiev^ tht^rmity ; thar thofe who cavil at it, cannot but know it : But hi Perfon in the Deity, we mean only what bears fome Analogy, with what amongft- Men is faid of feveral Pferfons ( even without being fo many fe- veral Men 5 which the trae fcnfe of the word Perfon doth not import, as- hath been often ihewed: ) as do the words, Be get , Be- ^tten^ SeKtdwg/ Proceeding or Going- forth, and many more 3 which' all are Metaphorical Exprellions , taken from what amongft Men is vv'ont to be faid of Perfons, ( For, of whom, but Perfons , are fiich- expreflions ufed? ) And they who ufe to cavil at it, may as well' do it when we talk of the f 00^ of a Stool , the y4rm of a Chair , or the Head of aStaffv And perfwade us, that when we fo fpeik, we do believe a Sto^^l^ 2l chair , a Sraf, to have Life and SsN[4y bscaufe aiFoot, an. Armj a Head (properly taken) have fo. [1.3] And they may as well cavil at Wi^ ivOrd Sacramem( which Is a Name thatvve have^iven to that of Baptifm and the Lord*s Sup- per;) Mtribmes, (which is a term we give to fome of the Divine Perfedions : ) Creed, (by which we mean an Abftract of fome Prin- cipal things that we Believe: ) And a great many fuch other words that we find occafion to make ufe ofi Whereof yet there is no danger, when it is defined- and determined what by fuch word, in fuch dif- courfe,w^ mean 5 even thOugh,iii fome Other difcourfes, fuch word may fignifie otherwife. 'Tis well known, that a Cone in Eudide doth not fignifie juft the fame as in Jpollonm ; nor a Triangle in Euclide, juft the fame as in Theodo/ius, znd others, who Write of Sphericks : But when we meet with thefe words in Euclide^ we muft there un- derhand thern as they are defin'd by Enclide 5 and when in otiiers; fo as they are defin d by thofe others. And fo when we fpeak of Perfons in th€ Deity, we muft be fo underftood as we there define: that is, for fomewhat Analogous , but not juft the fame, with what iS'Jiieant by it, when applyed to Men vand, particularly, not fo diftintSt as ro be three Oodsi, And, for the fame Reafons , I am not willing, to part with the jithanafiak Creed ^{tihho^t who would have us fodo, fliould then fay, We have parted- with the Do6^rine alfo. They, upon pretence, that fome exprelTions in it, though True, are not abfolutely Funda- mental 5 would fain = wheedle us out of all. They might as well fay, that, becaufe- fome words might be fpared in what we call the Apoftdlkki Creeds or Nkene Creed ; or fome other words put in ; therefore thbfe Creeds fhould be laid afide alfo- And when they quarrel with the Preface o^ it, ( Whoever would be faved, ought to hold tiie Catholick^ Faith ; and the Catholick Faith it this ^ ) as if it were intended thereby, that every Syllable in it were fo Funda- mental , as without knowing whereof , a Man could not be fa^ ved : ( which no Man can reafonably think t^ be fo meant by the Penners of it ; fince that Thoufends were faved (even in their opi* nion ) before that was Penned ; and others fince, that never heard of it ; ) is mere Cavilling. For no more can reafonably be thought intended by it, but that this is found Do6trine_^ which, /or the S^tb- fiance oi it , ought to be believed by thofe w ho would be' faved: Like as if I ftiould fay , Who lever wonld he faved , onght to believe, thi Word of Ced y and thk «• tin Word of God, ( pointing to oar Bibks; 1 14] Bible ; ) 00 Man (who is not mad ) would think my meaning to be , That no Man could be faved who did not know that one of Joy's Daughters was Named Jemimah 5 or that Zeruiah was Mo- ther ( not Father ) to thofe who are called the Sons of ZerH- As to that Queftion ( which I meet with in fome of the Letters) If/'hy jitfi Three Ferfons^andno more: The Anfweril (hort and eafie; Bccaufe the Scripture tells us of Three:, but of no more. ( And, had not the Scripture told it us , we had not known of thefe Three.; We are Baptiz^ed into the Name of ( and therefore into the Faith of) the Father, Son and HolyGhoft-y (zs if this were the Firfi Chri- fiian Creed. ) We are told, There are Three^t hat hear record in Hea- ven 5 and, thefe Three are One : ( not ; that there are more fuch than Three : ) And to thefe Three (fom whats) we give the Name pf Ferfons ^ meaning, by the Word Perj, u , thefe Th^ree. And if by Ferfons in the Deity we mean but thelt Three 5 then there are but Three in the Deity whom we call Ferfons 5 or, whom we meaa by that Name: There is another Ingenious Perfon ( a ftranger to me ) who hath Written to me divers Letters on this occafion , (fall of Gra- tulation, Approbation and ApplaufeiJ but in one of them he moves a Queftion concerning a paffage in one of mine 3 where I fay ) W« ^f*'^^ ^^ Notions in our Mind , other than what Vff derive , Mediately or Immediately, from Senfeble Imprejfions of Finite Corporeal beings : And tells me , That it feems to him , that the Notion of ONE INFINITE ESSEN C E Jimld he excepted. And that he hath formerly indicated Des Cartes a^ainfi M-.Hobs, who had affirmed > That there u no Conception in a Mans Mind , •nhich hath not at fir ft tetally , or by parts , been begotten upon tht Organs of Sence : and again , That a Man can have no, Thought re* frefenting any thing not fubjeih to Senfe. But, in a following Letter , he declares himfelf fnUy fatiffiedj ( and that tny Semiments do not really difer from his, ) when I had fent him this Anfwer,t;j«, " As to wliat you (ay of my affirming, that it>e have no Notions tn ^ihrMindy other than what ws derivg , mediately or immediately, I from ^^ from ftnjiyie Irf7\>Ye[ftofJs of Finite Corporeal Beings : Whdl yOU COfl- « fider it agnin, I believe you will be of my Mind. If you can *^ fuppofe a Man in fuch circumftances, as never to have Seen^ or " Heard , or Felt any thing ; I doubt whether he would have any " Thoughts of God, more than an Embryo yet unborn, ( who " hath the fame Soul, that he will after have •, but hath, I doubt , " as yet, no Notions of a God. ) Sure I am that we attain it by " other Steps. The Heavens declare the Glory of God: But not with- "out being 5ef;?, or at leail Heard of, orfome vvay made k^ow^ " to us by Senfble Impreffions, The Invifible things of him ( even hu " Eternal Power and Godhead ) are clearly feen ; but it is by the Crea- " tion of the li^orld ; being underfiood by the things that are made. But *' if we neither See , nor Hear of, nor have any Notion of the things ^^ that are made\ how iliall we thence derive the Notion oi 3, God? " and there rauft be many Notions , antecedent to that of One infJ- ^' nite Effence, ( which muft be derived from fenfible Impreffions of " Corporeal Beings. ) We muft have the Notion or Conception of *^ Ens , Ejje, Fini^ , Finitftm , Non-finitHm , Vnum , Non-nuHum , " Non-miJta.; before we can have the Notion o{ One Infinite E (fence, " And thofe Antecedent Notions, I think, we do derive ( mediately '' or immediately ) from what we See, Hear, Feel, or fome way •' apprehend by the help of our Sences. As to Des Cartes - "there muft be a great many Notions, or fimpU Apprehenf^ '^ons , which he muft prefnme, before he can come to the '^ Complex Notion of Dem Efi. And a great many lUative Notions " ( from Natural Logick ) before he can argue , Cogito, ergofum " He muft atleaft have a Notion,ov fimpk Apprchenfion, of what is " mef nt by Cogito,znd o£ what is meant by Sum, and of what by Ego . " And thp a Complex Notion, that what is tjpt, cannot Think: And " tfien.this Illative Notion ( from Natural Logick- ; But, / Think " Ther^fi^re Um^ Aod> I doubt, he cannot come at all this, with- '".out iome ufe of his^^^yij. And, even after all, it feems to mc " that./;o Be is a No;ibn mqre fimple ( and therefore antecedent ) "than to TFwk'y and therefore fooner to be apprehended by ic .'* lUf , than by confequence from tl\a,u But it is not now my bii- - . fiiiiefs to Dafpute.^ftainft P^^Vfiffi; Qn^Iy to tev , thit,Si;n/i^ 'i.r!r> .'from C i6 3 *^'from Thefe. our Underflaridings' do , by (laps, afcend to Upon this Anfvver, he owns /^j/ Sentiments to be'tioe fim with his , &C. that ( in a Natural way ) /fce Humam IntelleEt hath no 0- ferdtion , ^«f ir/j^f /if Of caponed , or Sn^gefied' by Senfible Objects^ But he thinks, I perceive , ( and fo do I , ) that from thefe No; tions occafioned or fuggefted by Senfible Objeds, our IntelledjOr Reafon improved, may afcend, by fteps, to a Difcoyery of fomi- thing concerning God, which^ in Corporeal Obje^S it cannot find j In which \ve both agree- Now the beft means we have for the forming of fuch Notions concerning God, is chiefly by one of thefe two ways ; that of .£- minency^ and that' of Negation. Whatever cfGood," or Excellea- cy, we find in the Creature, we conclude that in God ( who is *the fountain of all Excellency ) there is fomewhat Analogous thereunto, but much more Eminent- And whatever of Impef- fedion we find in the Creature , we conclude, that in God f who is Infinitely Perfect) there is nothing of this Imperfedion. And, from both , we conceive a Notion of fomewhat in God, which is more Great thzn IS polTible for us fully to comprehend : But, what that fomewhat is,, we cannot fully underftand- Now, thefe being the Steps, by which we /or»? thefe Notions ; we know no better way to expr(fs thefe Conceptions, than by Metaphors taken from fuch Objeds, from whence thefe Notions takfe their Rife, or fome fuch Figi^rati'veEK^veffLcmsr ( And it was with this Profped that Imention'd that Obfervation. ) And, in the fame way, God is pleafed ( in Scripture ) to exprefs himfelf to usj by fomewhat A- :ialogous ( not juft the feme / with ^ what we meet with in the Creature •, As when it fpeaks of God's Eyes,Earsy Hands, Feet, &c. of his Seeing^ Hearing, Striking , Going^ &C. So when the FAther is faid to Beget-, the Son to be Begotten j add both thefe to fendonty and the Holy Ghofi to Troceed, or Go forth from them. All which cxpreffions are fuch, as we commonly apply to what we call Pe?- fons. And in what fenfe thofe are to be underftood concerning God 5 in fuch fenfe they are fitly called three ferfo^s. And. thote who in fuch fenfe cavil atthe wprd Ferfon; would . no, dpubt (Jf there were not fomewhat clfeift the Wind) as well cavil at thofe other other words. But becaufe, Co to do, were diYe6t\y to affrcnt the Scripture ( whofe words they are ) they do not think fit lb co Ipeak out, whatever they think. When Chrift faith, ofhimfelfand the Father, John 16. 28. I Came forth from the Father, and am Come imo the World j again, I Leave the fVorld, and Go to the Father : Of Himfelf and the Holy Ghoft, ver. 7,8. JflGo not away, the Comforter jvill not Conje mtoyou ; bnt if I Depart^ I will Send Him unto you \ and when He is Come, He will Reprove the World, &c. Of himfelf and the other two, John 14. 26. and 15. 16. The Comforter which is the Holy Ghoft, whom the Father will Send in My Name, He fljafl Teach yon all things, and Bring all things to your Remembrance whatfoever I hare Said untoyOM. And again, Uhen the Comforter is Come, whom I will Send you From the Father, even the Spirit of Truth which Proceedeth from the Father, He jhall Tefiifie of Me: What could be faid, as of Three Ferfons, more diftindly ? And if the Scripture fpeak of them as Three Perfons 5 why ihould we fcruple to call them fo ? But thefe Three Perfons are but One God, ol Tfi7<; h eim.* Thefe Three are One ; Vnum ( not unus ) One Thing, I John^. 7. And John lo. 30. land the Father are One ^ h "ta^My, {unumjumits) we are One and tlie fame Thing 5 and therefore One God. And, that there is no other Cod but One, is known to be fo often faid that I need not re- peat it. But 'tis not fo much the word Verfon, as the Deity of Chrift, which thefe Men are offended at j and all their Cavils at the word Perfon, ( and the Athanafian Creed^ .) are but to undermine our Sa- viours Deity. Of this I have faid enough el fe where, and need not here repeat it. The LORD our God is One LORD, Deut.6. 4. That is, The Lord God oClfrael is One Lord ; or Jehovah the God of Jfraelis One Jehovah. There are not more Jehovah's than One: And this One Jehovah is the Lord God of Ifrael. And Ifa. 4T. 3 , 5 , I the LORD ( Jehovah ) am the God of Ifrael .- I am the LORD fje- hovah ) and there is none elfe. There is no God befide Me : ( No God befide the Lord God of Ifrael. ) So in 2 Kings rp. 1 5. and many other places to the fame purpofe. Now our Cbrifi, is this Lord Cfl^o/ Ifrael, Luke I. 16, 17, Aianyof the Children 0/ Ifrael fliall Ht r7o^« the Baptift j turn to the Lord THEIR God, (to the Lord God oC Ifrael', ) and he ( John Baptift ) fhall go before Him, (this Lord God of Jfrad ) m the Spirit and Power o/Elias. >«l0W no Man C doubts doubts but that it is our Chrift, whofe TorC'rHnner John B^pti/I was } and before whom he was to gQ in the Spirit and Power o/plias. Therefore our Chrijf is this Lord Cod of Ifrael ; This One JE- HOVAH. «*, 'Tis true that the Greek Septuagimh Tranflation or the Old Tef- tament dochnot retain that word, butdotli every where wave the word Jehovah, and puts o jw^fwi inftead of it. And accordingly,, the New Tedament ( which moilly follows the Language of that,i the only Greek Tranilation then in ufe ) doth fo too. But » >'-"'e^®' ( which they fubftitute for Jehovah ) is fo oft applied to Chrift ( even in thofe places cited out of the Old Teilament wherein Jeho- V ah is ufed ) that none can be ignorant of it. And though we have not there the word Jehovah^ yet we have as full a Periphrafis of it as can be defired. 'Tis well known ( and owned by all ) that the two Proper Names of God, J ah and Jeho- vah^ are derivatives from the Verb Hajah or Havah which iigni- fieth to Be, ( which whether we take for one and the fame Root, or Two Roots of one and the fame fignification, is not material j the Letter Jod and ^au in Hebrew being fo oft ufed promifcuoufly. or one changed for the other : ) And therefore the Noun Verbal muft needs import a Being. And it hath been further pbferved long iince by Hebricians, that the Name Jehovah hath moreover the peculiar Charaderifticks of the Three Times ^ ( paft, prefent, and future, ) Je the Chara(5leriftick of the F^tHre Tenfe \ Ho, of the Prefent Tenfe or Participle 3 and Fa of the Preter Tenfe, C which I did forbear to mention formerly, left they /bould throw it off as a Criticifm 5 till I had a frefh Voucher for it, fo good as Dr. Pococi^in his late Commentary on Joet, Chap. 1. 19.) And we have all this in that Character of God ( indefinitely ) Rev. 1.4. rt'TTD Ttf .0 «-jV Hj a \w K) q i^yoLxivQ-, from that' Being, vpho Is and Hath ken, tind Shall k for t he time to come. And i t is ][)articularly applied to Chrift at ver. 8. '-^"^"^ ^''''^' ''"'' ^ ^^ to Q, M'y^ l yJex'Q- '0 hhy '0 uv ;9 '0 w }y 'o:cr?tfV*j'^> 'o TrnvWeJ-'^?' I am Alpha and Omega, faith the Lord God ( Jehovah Elohim ) rvhich Is, -which Was, and which is to Come, the Almighty. Which is a full Accountof the Name Jehovah ( here Tranflated, as elfewhere, by '' '^^^ ) with a dif- cant upon it, importbng his ^«»^,with the three diverfities of Times, {paft, prefent, andfrnnre,) and his Omnipotence i\X^tV2^d6sd> That or'"' -^^^ t'9 2 JBeing which row //, which ever Was^ and which ever Shall he^ the Urd God, Almighty, (So Rev. ^. ^. and^mii.17.) And \n Rev, 1(5. T. '' ^' ^ '' ''" '^ '" ^^'f^^"®- ( fo Bez.a , and fo Dr. Pocock, reads ft, and fo ours Tranflate it- ) And much to the fame purpofe is that Rev. i. 11, 17, 18. Rev. 2. 8. (and elfevvhere J I am Alpha and Omega, the begi?Jmng and the et;d, the fir/} and the lajl 5 he that liveth and was dead, and behold I live for evermore. So Rev. 4.9, 11. Rev.'y, 12,13,14 Who liveth for ever and ever. Which fully anfvyers that Title, The livingGod, whereby the True Cod doth fooft diftingulHi himfelf from other Gods 5 as Jer. 10. 10. and elfewhere frequently. But I have faid Co much formerly to this point, that I fhall now add no more. I had almoft forgotten one piece , ( wherein I find my felf mentioned ) Intituled , A fuit for forbearance , &c. It aims chiefly at two things. One is againfl urging {on o- thers ) too jlriEl an Vnion, wherein Chrifiianity., as delivered by our Lord dnd his ^pofiles, hath left a Latitude and Simplicity : But herein I think, he hath no caufe to blame me ( nor do I fee that he doth.) He doth not find me to trouble him with cram\>ing Scho- laftick^Terms. I know not how I could fpeak more tenderly than to fay thefe Three are three Somewhats, ( not three Nothings 5 ) and if he pleafe to fport himfelf with that, he may. And, that 'tis convenient, to thefe Somewhats, to give a Name ^ and, that I know no better Name than ?erfons', And, therefore, that we may ftill fay ( as we were wont to do ) three? erfons and one God', even though by Pfr/ow, I do not require Men to fancy juft fwh a Perfon, as what we fo call amongft Men. Like as by Father, Son, Beget, &c. I do not underftand ( in God) jh(1 fuch as what thefe words figni- fie amongft Men. And I do not know how he could wifh me to fpeak more tenderly, or more agreeing to the chriHian SimpU- city, wherein it is delivered by oitr Lord and his Apoftles. The other is , He thinks it not Advifeable in things fHjfciemly fetled by juft Authority ( as is that of the Trinity ) to revive a Contra- 'verfie long fince deter rninedy and draw the Difpntatious Saw: Becaufe, to litigate about a Fundamental, is to turn it into a Controverfie. And herein, I am fo much of his Mind, that I would not have advifed to ftart the Controverfie, about what we have been in quiet pofefwn ofy for fo long a time. And I am ready to own, That it is an Art C 2 of -Do J of oQr Adverfaries tlie Papijls, to perfvvade the World that we have no better ground for the Dodrine of the Trimty^ than they have for Tranfubftammicn 5 [ for they care not ^vhac they over- thi-ow, if thereby they may advance their own ends:) And, That Atheiflkaland IrreligiGPU Men will be glad of any OpportUniX^.^JDp Ridicule Religion. , . , . , r r , n^\ But if others will make it their buhnels to run down Religtbn t, and profefsto the World, there is nothing but Authority to define it ( which theydeipKes ) and no Reafon .or Scripture for it, more th2in (or TranfuhBaniiaticn: I think v/e are not obliged to R^d (all of us) fo (ilenc, as if we had nothing to fay for it, or yield- ed up the caufe. There is a middle way ( for the promoting what he calls aTurerand more Scriptural Divinity) between a rigoroUS im^ciing all ihQ Scholalltcl^Cra^fing Terms'^ and, a giving up the Caufe. A modefl defence of what the Scripture teachethns, ( without Excurfions into a rigorous preiTingof Extravagant Nice- ties of our own Inventions) may be of good fubf^vieqcy, cp (hew, that the Dodrines of our Religionary not iftcpnfiftenc^vi'it}! right Reafon. , • ' ■ ]^ What he tells us of fome body who had been heretofore Maftj^ efthe Temple, that didexprefs himfelf to this purpofe, The Snbftanf^ jofGody mththis Property, To he of none j doth m^ke the Ttrfon qff^ . Father-^ The very fdf fanif Suhftance in number y^ with this. Properiji^ To he of the F^iher^ mah^ththe Per/on of the Son: The fame Suhfianc^ having added-tp it the Property of Proceeding from the other TwOy makr eth the Perfonof the Holy Ghoft. So that, in every Perfon, there is im- plyed', both theSubftance of God, which is One, and alfo that Property which caufeth the fame Perfon really and truely to differ from the Qthf Two, This, I fay, would pais with me well enough. And.^ he pleafe fo to exprefs himfelf, I/hould not quarel with it. Again •, If I fhould exprefs it thus i That God confidered as, the Oi-iginal or Fountain oi Being ( who himfelf /j and gives Seittg to all things elfe ) may be called God the Father^ ( or The Cod and Fea- ther of all : } And the fame God, as the Fountain of Wifdom Gt Knowledge-, be called God the Son, ( °'^°y^* the i^ord, Wifdam jOr Reafon 5 The true Light, that lighteth every Man that cometh into the World, ) GodsWifdom refulting from his Effence or Being : And the Came Ood, as the FountaiQ QxPowir^ Might or AUim 5 be called God God the Holy Ghofi 5 ( Gods power of y4SHng^ proceeding from his Efenceznd Wifdomd\(o : ) And this Eternal^ ^U-wife^ and Almighty God, is One God : Perhaps he would not much miflike this. Or, ifhefhould; I would not quarel with him on that account 5 or be Pofitive that it muft juft be fo. We know that Chri(t is called the ^Vtfdom of God \ the Son of God 5 the Son of the Higheft ; And the idcly GhoB is called the yomr of the Htgheji. And \^•e know ^hat, amongft our lelves, KmwledgeYQ(\i\ts from the Efjence of our Soul ; and '^^Bion proceeds from Both 'Tis faid alfo, that/>? Him we Lhe^ and MovCy and have our Being. ( From God we have our Beingy our Rational -^//e, znd our ^'^^otion : In \vhok hnage and Hkenefs we are Created. ) Yet would I not be politive ( much lefs would I require every one to be of that Opinion J that the Perfonalities in Ood muft needs be Thefe. I am content to reft here, That Thefe Tljreey Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft ( whatever Name you call them by ) differ in fomwhat ( more than what we com.monly call the Divine Attributes ) yet notfo as to be Three Gods ( or more Gods than One ; ) hut are One and the fame God. And fo far we be fafe. Nor is there any danger ( that I can fee ) in giving the Name oiPerfons to thefe ihree : Nor know I a fitter Name to give them- And this, I think, is as much as need b^ faid, as to all thofe Let- ters , which, on this Occafion, have come to my Hand , fince the Publidiing of thofe already Printed. There being nothing in all thefe which is contrary to what I therein undertook to defend. (Nor iliould I have faid thus much, if the Author of the Letter here inferted had not defired to have it PublifliedjAnd now I hope to trouble the Prefs no more upon this Occafion, Novemb, 23. 1691, Yours, Johi Wallis. FINIS. K'ii-if , j^ XUO ^'.' 4 .O zid^ no ■.>.kHi wy.. THREE SERMONS Concerning the urn ^xiniti^. By jOH^li WALLISy D. D. ProfefTor of Geometry, in the Univerfity of Oxford. LONDON: Printed for Tho. Pxrkhurft, at the Bibit and Three Crowns , in Cheappdey 1691. ■r ■',■•.'■.. TO THE READ THE firji of the three Sermons here foUoming^ k Printed according as it mas Preached in Oxiordy in the Tear 1664. (^accommodated to that time and f lace '^^ but it was^ for the Subjiance ofity Preached in London Twenty Tears ^ before that time. Which I mention to jhetp^ that the ConfiruBion which I give of the Words J is not a new forced Notion , jup now tah^n up to ferve a turn; or (as fomebody is f leafed to call it ) Equally New and Cautious : But^ what I did^ fo long ago, tah^ to be a then received Truth. And^- I fence find^ it is at leaji as old as St. Au- ftinV Epift. 1 74. The other Two are lately added ^ in purfnance of fome other A 2 Difcourfes. # To the Reader. Difcourfes lately made ^Hblic\^ concerning the Sacred Trinity. Wherein much of what was [aid before, fcatteringly^ (as thofe who wrote- againji it gave occafi- on;^ is now inlarged and pit into a little better Order. If what I have done may be ferviceable to the Truth, and to the Church of God : I have what I did defire, and pall not thin\ the Labour ill beftowed. A SERMON Preached to the U N I V E R s I T Y of Oxford. Decemk 27. i 6 6 4. J o H. X vi;. 5. ^nd this if life eternal^ that they might l^oia:> thee the onely true ^od^ and Jefus C^riji^ whom thou haji fent. I Need not apologize for the feafonableneG bf this Text; by telling you, that the Stibje^- Matter of it, fuitcs well with the great Solemnity, which at this cinme we celebrate; -*^J^ B and A Sermon Preached to the and the Pen man, with that of the day : Be- caufe a Difcourfe on fuch a Subjedl, can ne- ver be iinfeafonable to a Chriftian Auditory. Efpecially to fuch as, whole profeffion being to feek aher Knowledge , fhould not decline that of God and Chrift, the chief of all. ^ Nor will it be any Exception hereunto : That it is no news, but well known alrea- dy : Not only becauleThat there be many who pretend to know what they do not, or do in effect deny ; and I hat there be many things, which, though we know well, we have need enough to be mindtd ot: But even becaule I do not find that many perfons are wont to be dilpleaied with being often minded of thofe things wherein they think that either their Intereft or Excellency lies ; more than a good Wit when commended, or a fair Lady with being told (he is handfome ; even though fometimes (as we are wont to fay) they know it but too well already. And thefefore, fince to know God and Chrift is both our Intereft and our Commendation ; it will not, I hope, feem grievous to any to hear it difcourfedof; to the end that thoie who know it not may be incited to learn it, and thofe who know it, may take content in it. And Wniverjity of Oxford And I fliall as little apologize for a plain Dilcourfe on this Subjed : Since it is both my Profeffion and Pradlice, to Demonftrate or make things as plain as I can ; not to perplex or make them intricate; which may amufe the Auditors, or iometimes pleafe or tickle them ; but is not wont either to Teach, or Perfwade ; like too much of Ornament, which doth but difguifc the native Beauty ; or too much Trimming, which hides the Cloth. ■"^^ The words read, are our Saviour's Words ; addrefled to his Father in the behalf of his 'Difciples : And are a part of that Prayer with which he cloleth his large Exhortation, or Farewel'Sermon to his Di(ciples,the night be- fore he was to fuffer _; of which we have a large rehearfal in the three foregoing Chapters, the 1 4^/?, ! 5^/;, and i 6th ; which this i ^tJf. clo- ftth with a Prayer. He begins his Prayer, with a Petition con- cerning Eternal Lije^ which he was to beftow (according to the Power his Father had gran- ted himj to as many as He had given him; that is, to as many as fhould effectually be- lieve in him. To which Petition he fubjoins this Exegetical Epiphonemt, And this is life eter- nal, that they may know thee the only true Gody mid Jefus Chrifl whom thou haft fent. - B i We s A Sermon Vr cached to the We may confider the words either accord- ing CO a Synthetic or an Analytic method, as the Schools (peak : The former of which they commonly follow in Sciences Theoretical j the latter in TraBical If confidered Synthetically ; they prefcnt us with, Firft^ The Ca«ye, or Principle; The i^noli^ledge of God and Chrifi : ztid. Secondly^ The Ef^eHy or Confequent refulting from it ; Eter- nal Life. If Analytically', vjt have in them, Ftrfl^ A glorious End propofed ; Eternal Life : and, Se» cendly^ The Means proportionate thereunto j The ^no'fi^kd^e xf C/od and Chrifi. In the former way, the Relult of them is to this purpole ; That the excellent Knowledge of God and Qhrifi^ is attended wh this mofi glorious Confequenty Eternal Life. In the latter way, it amounts to thus much t That the "i^ay or means to Eternal Life^ is the K^iow- ledge of God and Chrifi. Nor is it much material, whether of the two ways we take them ; Synthetic ally ^ or AnH' lytically : whether we take them as a Theorem ^ affirming this Effed, of that Caufe : or as a frobtem ; directing to thefe Means for fuch an End. Yet Vniverjity of Oxford. c Yet I chu(e rather to take them in the lat- ter confideration , (though not exclufive of the former ; ) Becaufe, this Epiphonema taking its rife from the mention made of Eternal Life^ in the former verfe ; (not from a former men- tion of the I\riowled^e of Qod and Chr'tjl ; ) it feems to be rather intended as a VireBion how to attain Eternal Life j than, an account of the EjfeH of fuch a ^nollledge. But, in doing the one, it doth the other alfb. I (hall begin, firjl^ with that which lies firft in the order of the word ; The End pro- pofed ; or the EffeH , or Confequent of this Knowledge j the Happinefs which doth attend it ; which,for its Excellency, is called Li/e,and, for its Duration, Eternal, This is life eternal. The word Life I take to be here u(ed in a figurative fenfe j and to import Good or Hap' pinefs: like as, its contrary. Death, efpecially Death Eternal J to import Mifery, There is indeed, at leafl, a threefold Life commonly mentioned; and, in proportion thereunto, a threefold D^4^^ : Natural, Spiri- tual, and Eternal. Life Natural^ ( which is indeed the proper acceptation of the word Li/e, or the firfl fig- nification of it,) is more eafily apprehended, than A Sermon Trenched to the than expreffed. It imporrs that adive ftatc or condition which arileth from the Union of the Soul and 'Body, as well in Man, as in other Mrmds ; (not to mention that of Plants : ) the deftrudion or want of which, upon the Soul's departure, we call Death, 'Tis that, accord- ing to which, in common fpeech, a Man or Beaft is faid to be alive or dead. Now this Life^ is, of all natural Goods^ look- ed upon as the chiefefl: ; and conlequently Death the greateft of natural Evils : Becaule Life is that foundation or firft good, which makes us capable of what elie is lo : and with our Life, we lole all the reft. Hence that in Job 2.4. Skin for skin, and all that a man hath, will he friye for his life. And that of Solomon ; J li» ^yin2 Dog is better than a dead Lion, Ecclef 9. 4. For, when Life is gone, there iucceedsan inca- pacity, not only of Doing, but alfo of Enjoy* ing Good. From this confideration it is, that the other fignifications of the word have their Original. For Life being looked upon as the greateft na- tural Good, and Death as the greateft natural Evil; The one (by 2. Synechdochefpeciei) is (re* quently uied (both in (acred and profane Au- thours) to fignify Good indefinitely, efpecially the ZJniverfity (?/ Oxford. the greateji ^oodj and the other,in like manner, to fignifie Evtlj efpecially zhe^reatejl EViL The one IS put {ox Happ'mefs^ and the other for Mi/ery. And then, again, (by a Synechdocbe generis) this general notion of Good or Evil, Happi- nels or Mifery, implied in the words Life and Death, becomes applicable to this or that particular Good and Evil, as occafion ierves. Suppofe the Spiritual Life ofQracey or Death in Si?i : And the Eternal Life of Glory in Heaven, or the Eternal Death oiTorinent in Hell. Thus, Deut. ^ o. 1 9. 1 have fet before you ( (aith tAofes to Ifrael ) life and death , blefjlng and . cwfing : (where Life and Death, are made equivalent to Bleffing and Curfing ; ) therefore chufe life (faith he) that thou and thy feed may Live ; that is, that you may be Happy. So at ver, 15. of the fame Chapter J 1 have fet before you (faith he^ life and goody death and eviL Where Life and Good are put exegetical each of other, and Co Death and Evil. And in the fame (enle it is the Poet tells us, Non efi Fivere^ fed Valere^ vita. Thus God to Mam in Para- dife (for 'tis no newTrope, nor of yeflerday) In the day that thou eatefi thereof thou fhalt die the death r, thar is, thouihalt become miferable : For we know that jidam did not the iame day die S A Sermon Preached to the die a naturalDeath; but fome hundreds of years after : but he did that day begin to be in a ftate of Mifery,whereof his natural Death was but a part. So, ^om,6» 2 ; . The wages of fin is death ; where the comprehenfion of all the Evils orMi- iery which fin deferves, or God inflicleth for it, is called Death : like as on the contrary, all the Happineis, which the Saints enjoy, is, on the fan\e account, called Life ; The gift of God is eternal Life, through JefusChrifl our Lord. So here ; By Life we underftand Happinefs ; contrary to which is the Death of Mifery : and then (by a Metalepfis, or double Trope, ) that Happinefs in fpecial, which the Saints enjoy in Glory (though not exclufive of what they have be- fore;) and thu Mifery which in He// attends the wicked. 'Tis true indeed, that the condition of the Saints in Glory, after the Refurrection, may, even in a proper (enfc, be called Life ; be- caufe of that Union , which (hall then be, of Soul and Body j and the exercife of (at leaft the nioft noble) faculties of Life. Yet do not I take that to be the true import of the Word here. For though it be true, that the Saints in Glory, have not only an Union of Soul and So^ dy^ but likewife a knowledge oxfenfe of that eftatc wherein Vuiverfity of Oxford. wherein they arc, (which may import not only a Life, but even a Rational Lite :) yet as true it is, thar the Damned in Hell have fo too ; (for their Sojlsand Bodies fhall not belefi United; nor fhaii they be Infenfihle of their Woful con- dition :) yet is not that eftate of theirs called a Life (though naturally it be (b, and it is their mifcry that it is fo,) but Eternal Death ; becauie a Life of Wo and Mifery ^ not of Blifs and Happinefi : A LiVmg Mifery^ being,in this lenle, the trueft Death, Secondly y As it is called Life for itsExcellen* cy, fo, for its Duration, it is called Eternal It is very ulual in Scripture, in the ufe of Allegories, or Figurative expreffions, to add Ibme kind of Epithet to diftinguifh the word (b u(ed from the fame in its native fignification : And, when the word is uled (b as to exprefs figuratively fomewhat ?nore excellent than it felf, the Epithet hath fomewhat of additional exeU lency in it. Thus Chrift is (aid to be the Spi^ ritual rock J ? C:'\ 10.4. the Living Sread^ or Man- na that came down from Heayen^ Joh. 6. jo. to diftinguifh the words, (b metaphorically ufed, from the Rock and Manna literally Ipoken of, in the ftory of their travails in the Wiiderne(s. And the Church of Chrift, as Living ftones, be- C come lo A Sermon Preached to the come a Spiritual houfe, and a Holy priejlhoody to offer up Spirknal facrifices to God, i Tet. 2. 5. Where the Epithets ferve both for diftindtion from the material Stones and Temple, the Le- vitical Priefthood, and corporeal Sacrifices; and for the commendation or preheminence of thofe before thefe. So the new hea'Veiiy and the new earthy and the new Jerufalem^ Rev. 2 1. 1, 2. Jertifakm that is above. Gal. 4. 26. And Matth. 26. 2p. Jivlll drink no more (faith Chrift) of the fruit of the Vme^ till I drink it TSlew ivith you in my Father s kingdom : Not that Chrift did intend anew to drink of fuch wine in his Fa- ther's Kingdom ; but of a TSlew ifine^ another fort of wine than that commonly fo called ; to wit, thofe fpiritual Joys in his Father's Kingdom, which fhould more refrefh their Hearts and Souls, than this wine did their Bo- dies. So ; J am the true vine ^ and my Father is the husbandman y Joh. 15'. 1. I am the good jhep- herd, Joh. 10. 11. Not that Chrift was more truly a Vine, in propriety of fpeech, than that which we lb call; or indeed ^ShepherdyVvho took the care of Sheep : But that there was in Chrift fomcwhat of another kind much more emi- nent, than that of the Vine, which did yet in fbme meafure refemble it ; and, a much grea* ter Vniverfity of Oxford. 1 1 cer Care, but of another nature, of thole he calls his Flock , than a Skpherd hath of his Sheep. So here; This is life eternal: Not a natural Life, (fuch as is commonly meant by the word Life^) a life of the Body , which af- ter a fliorc time is to be exchanged for Death ; but a Life, a Happinels, of another nature; a far more excellent Good than what we call Life, which doth but very imperfeftly exprefs it ^ An Eternal Life. And this Eternity, as it (erves, in general, to diftinguifh this word Lffe from the ordinary acceptation ; and doth import, for the kind of it, fomewhat much more excellent : So it doth particularly point out that Everlaflin^ 'Du- ration of this fo great a Happinels. 'Tis that which, though indeed it have a Beginning, (hall never have an End. And upon this ac- count it is, that it is lb often called Eternal Life, and Life Everlajling ; that it were end 1 els to enumerate the places where it is (b called. ^n eternal inherit avce; A houfe eternal in the hea- ^^^'9i$' yens ; An inheritance incorruptible , and unJefiledj i Pec.'iV4.* which fadeth not away ; ^'i kingdom n^hich cannot be 2Cor!4.'f7* moyed\ jfn eternJ h'^.^hc of glory '^ When o^r'^*"-*^ mortal fl)all have ptit on tmmortahty, C 2 And 12 A Sermon Preached to the And this confideration of Eternity ^ added to that of Li/e ; this everlaiting Duration, to that unlpeakable, uninciaginable Happinefsi ren» ders this Eternal Life^ a perfeft f ehcity and eve- ry way compleat. For that Perfe^Sion of De- qrecy imported m the word Life, can admit of no addition, but that of Perfect Continuance^ which the word Eternal affures us of. Like as, on the other hand, that perfedipn of Mi/ery^ which attends the wicked, is capable of no greater Aggravation, than that of Perpetuity : (ealed up in that lad expreffion of a Living Mi- fery, Eternal Death. You have them both pa- ralleled in Matth, 1 5 . 46. Theje jhall go into e- yerlafling pmijhmenty hut the righteous into lifeeter^ nah I have now done with the firft part, the Happinefs here propofed 5 Eternal Life, Before I come to the fecond. The knowledge of God andChrift j it will be requifite to confi- der, a little, the connexion of thefe together, in the word /j 5 This is Life Eternal, Which is capable of a double acceptation. For it may be underftood either as a Formal , or as a Caufal predication. This is life eternal; that is, Herein tonjtfieth eternal life. Orelfe thus j This is life eternaly Vniverfity of Oxford. 15 eternal^ that is, This is is the Ti?ay or means y to at- tain eternal Life. The former of thele is very agreeable to the doctrine of the Schoolmen ; who general* ly place the Happinels of Heaven in the Seati- Jick Fijion; in the leeiiig or knowing of God. Grounded on fnch places as that o(j\fatth, j . 8. ^leffed are the pure in heart , for they jhall fee God, I Cor. i;.9, 10, 12. We know hut in part^ and we prophefie hut in part ; hut when that which is perfeB jhall come^ then that ivhich is in part fhall be done away : We now fee through aglafs darkely^ hut then face to face : 'Row I know in part, but then fhall I know even as alfo I am known, 2 Cor. ?. 18. We all with open face beholding as in a glafs the glory of the Lord^ are changed into the fame ima^re^ from glory to glory, 1 Joh. j. 2. BeloVed^ now are we the fons of God^ and it doth not yet appear what we fhall be : but we know, that when he f]?all appear , (or, wkn it fhall appear} it^e fhall be like him : for we fhall fee him as he is. With others of the like import. And certainly that Per- fection of Knowledge, (hall be at leaft a great part of that Happinefs, which we expeft in Heaven ; as from thefe and other the like pla- ces is well colle(5ted. So that it is not impro- perly faid, thai Eternal Life doth^at leaft in part, cQnfifl in fuch a knowledge. Nor A Sermon Preached to the Nor is ic any fufficienc Obje61ion hereunto, to lay, That, ic is noc by knowledge only, as an Adt of the llnderftanding , that \v€ enjoy God, wherein our Happinelsconfifts,- but by , an Ad of the Will aifo, chuiing and clofing with, and delighting in him. For though this be true j yet neither is the Knowledge here fpoken of, a bare Speadathe^ or Notional Knowledge, wherein the llnder- ftanding is alone concerned : But an JEire^ Operative Knowledge; fuch as brings the Will, Affeftions, and all the Faculties into a proportionate Conformity thereunto. And in fuch a Knowledge of God in the llnderftand- ing, attended with fuch a Conformity in the Will and other Faculties, ic is noc co be deny- ed that our Happinefs doth confift ; even chat of Eternal Life. Yec (without excluding this fen(e)Itake the words here to be rather a Cau/al Predication : affigning the way or Means whereby Eternal Life is attji^ned. this is life eternal, that is, this is the Way to attain Eternal Life ; To know thee the only true God, &c. The knowledge of God and Chrift, being the diredl way to attain E- ternal Life. Parallel to wh^ch, is that of our Saviout , Joh 11.50. tiis commandment is life eyerUjling. Vniverjity of Oxford. i c eveflajling. And very frequent elfewhere are fiich Metonymies o( the Effe^ for the Caufe. I am the refurreHwnj and the I'lfe^ faith Chrift, Job. 11.25. that is, The Authour of it. So Luk* 11. \y SiUns hfe confijleth not in the abundance of the things M'hich he pojjcjfeth ; that is , it doth not depend upon it j it is not fecured by it : or as Chrift elfev\^here, Matth. ^. ^, (out of Deut. S* 3«) Man hveth not by bread alone y Sec. And .7y\ofes^ fpcaking of their diligent obfer- ving the Commands of God, Deut, J2.47. This is your life y{f^\ih \\^) and through this thing you flnll prolongyour days : (where the latter Claufc is enegetical of the former : ) juft in the fame form with the words here, Ihis is life eternal'^ that is, hereby they flhall attain eternal Life. This therefore being the moft plain and fimple Interpretation of the Words : We are now to enquire particularly, what that is that Chrift here fays to be Eternal Life, or rather the Way thereunto. That they may know thee the only true Qod 5 andj whom thou haft fentj Jefins > • Chnfi, Which contains in brief the Do6lrine ofthe 90/fe/, or Chriflian (l{eligion : Diftinguiflied in- to two parts, The t\nowledge of Qod , and The l^owledge i'5 A Sermon Preached to the Knowledge ofjeft^ Qhr'ifl, Both which are^ne- ce(Tary to bring us to Eternal Life. I Oiall fpeak, firjiy to the former of thefe two; the KnovA? ledge of God; that is, of (^od the Creatour and Lord- of all ; as contradi- ftinguifhed to that of Chrift the ^deemer, \a, yvooaitoim (jg, r fJigvov ol^Avov ©goV, T^hut they might know thee the only true God. By Thee, or the Perfon here fpoken to, we are to underftand God^ the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift; ( For to him it is manifeft, that Chrift doth here dired his Prayer : ) \et not lb much in his ^erfonal as in his Effential confi- dcration. For it is not the Ter/onality^ but the Ejfence of the Father, that determines him to be the only true God, We have therefore, in the Objeft of this knowledge, at leaft, thefc Three Propofiti- ons: I. That there is a God. II. That there is but One (True) God. III. That God, the Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, is this God. I. The Firft of thele ftrikes at Atheifm^ or thofe that deny a God. And that we know thus much is neceflary from that of Heb, 1 1 . 6. He that cometh unto ^od, mujt helieye that God is. Vniverfity of Oxford ^^ ^, and that he is a rewavder of thfe that diligently feek him, Uier^cau J^« o'n 6jj. He muft believe, 7hat there is a (jod, Nay^ he mull believe al(o lomewhac of What he is: Not fanfie to himlelf fotr.ewhat under the name of God, which in- deed is not a God; or notions inconliftent with that of a Deity ; as thole, ^l^jal. 50. 23. Thou thoughtefi that I was altogether fuch a one as thy felf: or the like. For to believe fuch a falfe notion of God, is not to believe a God, but to believe an Idol. We are next 10 know, as that there is a God ; fo, That there is but One God. I mean 5 But One True God. For there are indeed, as the Apoftle tells us, i Cor. 8. 4, 5, 6. Gods many^ and Lords nwiy\ that \s^ there qlxq that are called Gods, (for fo he explains himlelf) hut to us there is hut One God; We hioiv^ ((aith he) that there is no other God hut One, And this indeed depends upon the former. For he that doth, according to a true noiion of God, know That there is a God 5 muft needs know alfo that there is hut One. For the true notion of God, including Infinite, Abloluce, Perfed-^ Oc. muft needs alfb include Unity ; for it is inconfiftent that there fhould be many fuch. So that, in a manner, Polytheifm includes A- D theilm. 1 8 A Sermon Treacled to the theifm. He that believes many Gods, doth, in effeft, not believe any: that is, not any luch Being as of which it is impoflible there fliould be more than One. We are, 'Thirdly^ to know, that This God, is that onely True God. I lay, This God ; whom we have varioufly defigned in Scrir pture, by feveral Chara<5ters. The God that made BecCvm ayid Earth : The liVing God : Jhe God of Jfrael: The God mhofe name is Jehovah: And (as here, and elfewhere frequently in the New Teftament) the Father of our Lord Jefm Chrift, By which and other the like Charaders, he is diftinguiflied from all falfe Gods, from all pretended Deities. This God we are to know to be the onely True God. But, when 1 fay. That the Father of our Lord Jefu^s Chrifl is this onely True God y I add, That this appertains not fo much to his terfonality as to his Bjfence, for though the three Perfons in the Sacred Trinity, be diftinguiflied each from other by their Personalities , ( the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, is-c.) yet they all communicate in the commoa EJfence^ whereby the Son as well as the Father, and the Holy Ghoft as ei her, is this Onely True God. The Perlbn of the Father is indeed True Gody.^ Vniverjity of Oxford: i^ Gody but not according to his Perfonality, but according to his Effence. And the Perfon of the Son is God alio , and the True God j yet not another, but the fame True God. And the Holy Ohojl \ikG\V\k, According to that of Job. lo. ^o. 1 and my Father are One : That is. One mod, though not One perfon. And i Job. 5. 7. 'There are Three that hear record in HeaVcn, the Father, the Word , and the Holy Qhojl ; and ihefe Three are One, Three, and yet One. Three Perions, yet but One God. They are all this One, this Onely True God; befide whom there is no God. 1 know there are Ibme who would be glad to take advantage of this pbce, to the Dero- gation of the Divinity of Chrilt, and of the Holy Ghoft. As if it were here affirmed, That the Father omly were True God : and therefore^ not the Son, nor the Holy Ghoft. But the Cavil is obviou-^ , and the Anfwer eafie. It is nor (aid that the Father Onely is True God i but that the Father is the onely True ^od ; he is that God befide whom there is no other True God : which may well enough be faid, though the Son alio (as indeed he is) be that fame True God; and the Holy Ghoft likewife. Indeed fhould we fay, Thac the ♦ ' D 2 Son 2 o -^ Sermon Preached to the Son were alfo True God , and another God ; the Father could not then be faid to be the Onelj True God,fincethat there would be ano- ther True God befide this, (.ind the like of the Holy Ghoft.) But to fay that the Son is the Same True God, is well conliftent with it. For though anocherPerfon than theFacher be True God, yet, becaufe not Another God, this One God remains ftill the Onely True God. And the original words are to this purpofe very clear i^'li'a. yvMo-'Kcacri ', (not after it) doth determine it to be a reftridtion of the Prsedicate, not of the Subject. 'Tis not «7B ^Vor, T ctA))6ij^oV 0goV, but Of, r [Jigvov ocAmO/voj/ GgaV«, Not Thee onely to be the True (jod ; but (as we truly render it) Thee to be the onely True Qod, * That isi To know Thee to be that God, be* fide which God there is no other True God ; though another beiide Thee be likewife this onely True God; vi:^. the fame God with Thee, though not the fame Perfon. It ex- cludes only a Plurality of Gods , not a Plura* lity of Perfons in the iame God-head* 'Tis true indeed, That this Divinity, is not, in this place, fo diredly Affiimed, either of the Son, or the Holy Ghoft : Butj neither is it Denyed ; And Vniverjity (?/ Oxford. 2 i And therefore ic is to receive its decifion from other places where it is affirmed clearly. And thus much concerning the firft branch of this Knowledge, the Knowledge of God. To know Thee^ the only True God. There is another piece of Knowledge ne- ceffary to the attainment of Eternal Life ; the Knowledge of Chrift. For fo it follows. And JeJH^ Chrljl whom thou hajlfent. 'Tis true, that had we continued in that Eftate wherein Man was at firft Created, there had been no neceffity of thisfecond branch of Knowledge. For, had there been ho Sin, there had been no need of a Saviour : and confequently, not of this knowledge of Jeiiis Chrift. A knowledge of God, the ontly True God, with an Obedience conformable there- unto, had then been enough to make us Hap- py. But Man, by his Fall, having contract- ed an Eftate of Milery ; there is now no Refti- tution to our loft Happineis, but by a Re- demption ; and ihete is no Redemption, but by Jelus Chrift. For as thre « hut One y^od \ fo, hut One Mediator iviipter? God and J^lany the Man Chnjl Jejiis., t Tim . i . ^ Neither is chere any other name ^il?en to meuy thereby we mufi be fnved^ hut that cfjejus Chrift ofNa;^areth 5 T^hom they 2i A Sermon T reached to the they Crucified^ and Cod raifed from the dead : {A&, 4. lo, I 2.) I'here is no Salvation in any other. It is necefiary therefore , to the attainment of Eternal Life, that we know Him, in thisCa- pacity. What we are to know concerning him, though we cannot expe(5l , in fo few words, toh ave clearly fet down, without a-Comment from other places to give light to them : Yet at leaft three things feem in theie words to be pointed at 5 His Divinity, His incarnation, and His Mediatory Office. - - > ■ I. His ViVmity 5 in that he is the Son of God. For he calls him Father , whom he fays we muft know to be the onely True God. hideed, were heoncly the Son of God in fuch a lenie as Mam is fo called, Luke j . j 8. or the Jn^ek thought to be , Job 1.6. that is, hy Creation 5 for as Saints are lo called (^m, 8. and el(e- where,) that>is, by Jdopticn ; it w'ould not in* epa^ Divinity, But to be (as Chfift' is) the Son oi God by Eternal yeneration^^rgiKs a Com- munication in the fame Nature, As the Apqftie infers, Heb. 1.5, For to which opthe Angels fatd k at any time , Ihou art my Son ^ -this day 'have I hgotten thee ^ This onely begotten of the Father ^ mufl: needs be zKo of ihe Jame nature with the {/^' Father J ZJniverJity of Oxford. 25 Father ; and therefore, God , as he is. And this Argument, (however now per- haps there are who endeavour to elude it) the. Jews, his Enemies, thought to be conclufive. For when they obferved him to call God his Fa- ther, or pretend himielf xo be the Son of God,; elpecially , the Chr'iji the Son of God j they did not underfland him to fpeak in fuch a (enfe as when them(elves were commonly wont (b to (peak (as Joh. 8. 41. We are nothornoffornka' tioWy l^e have one Fathery even God j). but in fuch afenfe as they judged Blafphemous, (and had been lo indeed , had it not been true j) who therefore fought the more to kill him, (Joh. j. 18.) becaufe hefaid, That God wets his Father 5. making himfelf Equal with God, And the Hgfc ^rlefl (Matth 26. 65.) rent his Cloths, hf^^gt He fpeaketh" Blafphemy , when our Saviour afr firmed before him, That he was the Chrift, the Son of God, 'Twas manifefl: therefore, that he (o fpake, and they lo underftood him, of fuch a Son'P?i[> as argued a 'Divinity, xhc\n§ equal with God, 1. Viis^ Humanity, ox Incarnation, is poiared at, in thefe words, whomthou.haji fent. For by the Fathers y^?2^/?ig him , or his commg into the World, is clearly meant his being Incarnate, or > made 34. A Sermon Preached to the made }4(xn> As Gal. 4* 4. Godfm his Son made of a Woman. And Joh.'iv 14. 7 he Word was made Fiefl)^ and dwelt ammgfl m, y His Mediatory Office^ is implyed as well in the Tide Chrifty added to his 'N2Ltx\tJefm ; as in that of his being fent by God, Jejus the Chrift, or Jefus the Mejpah , iphom thou haft fent. For as his "NameJ^yJ^ doth defign the Perion; fo the Title C^r//?, that is J^efpah, (that in Greek, anfwering to this in Hebrew, and both fignifying the Jfno'mted) doth import the Of- fice, to which he was defigned, and for which he was fent. For God did not fend him, to no purpofe; but (en t him for this end, for iTim.2.$.j.|^jg v^/ork, To he the SMediator between God and Col. 10. .yri . I . 20,21. }/[an 'y To reconcile m to the father \ lo make an 10, ii.'fy Jtonement or Propitiation for li^. To take away the t joh, 2.2. y^'^^ 0/ ^'^^ World ; To obtain Eternal Redemption ; Heb '*^?'T^<5 procure an Elerlafling Inheritance ; a purchajed « 5- ^QJfeffwn ; To make Interceffion for tps ; To faye to Heb.'7."2t. the uttermofl thofe that come unto God by him. Or, as Jok J. i6, ?7^ (where all the three Parti- (:ulars are likewife intimated) God therefore fent his one^y hey^otten Son into theWorld^ that whofoever believes in him [}:ould not perifhj hut have Everlaft- ing Life, And Vniverfity of Oxford. % 5 And now, having gone through the whole Text, we niighc, if tune would luffer, look back upon it to take a new Survey chcreof,and colle(5t from thence lome of thole particular ieduftions which might concern our pra- ctice. For certainly, the Knowledge which Chrift here declares necejfary to Hternal Life,3.ad the means conducing thereunto , is not a bare Tiottonal knowledge ^ or a pure Jpeculathe Beliefs (fuch as the Devils may have as well as we jaaj.2 ip. but an operative ^lowledge^ a fraHical Faith , a Faith fruitful in good Works ^ without which thoie fpeculative notions will never bring us to Heaven. And therefore, without ingaging in the nice Difputes , of Juftification by Faich alone, or Works concurring thereunto; this is on all hands agreed without dilpute, That Faith without good Works will never juftify us. Whatever their influence be, in Juftification; their Prefence at lead isneccffary. Without Doings we cannot, in God's account, be re- puted either to Believe or i\riow. Thoie that obey him not^ are reckoned, in God's account, amongft thofe that B\now not God : at lead a- ^TheCi.s. Itiongft thoie who profejs they knom (yoJ, hut doik. 1. 15. in their works deny htm. Who fhail be io far, by fuch a Knowledge , from obtaining £re'r- E nal 2$ A Sermon Tr cached to the nd Life^ that Chrijl (hall come in flaming fire to take yengeance on them , and to pumjh them with ever* kfl'mg dejlruBion^ from the pre fence of the Lordy and from the glory of his Tower. In particular : If^e know God, to he the one^ True (^od ; Then muft we Love hivciyFear him, Worfhlp him , and Obey him. Nor doth the knowledge of Chrift, as Mediator, abate any thing of this Duty. For though he came to Qi^'^'^^'take away the Curfe of the Law, by being made a Curfefor us ; yet not our Obligation thereunroJ Matth. 5. [^^ j-^^g j^Qf- iQ dejtf'oy the La^-, or make it Icli obligatory to duty, but to fulfill it, i may add ; That, thofe, who will not acknowledge them* felves under the Obligation of it, have reafon to fear, they be yet under the Curfe of it. Again, If ii?e kno^ Chrifi whom he hath fent ; It will be our duty then to 'Belieye in him ; (For joh. 17.2. 'tis, to thofe onely y that Chrifi doth give eternal life.) And, Co to 'Believe in him, as to Obey 2Thef.i.8.him ; For, to thofe who obey not the Qofpel of his Son, it is , that Chrifi fi?all render vengeance in fiamingfire. Furthermore : If in this Chrift we hope to have Eternal Life ; how fliould this excite our Rejoicing and Thankfulnefs for (o great Salvation I Not by Rioting and Drunkenneli ; by Re- velling Vniverfity of Oxford. 27 veiling , and Debauchery ; (which is the Abufe, not the Celebration, of this Solemni- ty, in naemory of Chrift's Incarnation j) Buc by a pious Ren:iembrance and Comraemora- tion of that Redemption obtained for us : fuch as may be to the Homur^ not the Reproach, of him that came to Redeem m from our vain » P"- '• Qonyerfation : That^ denying ungodlinefs and worldly Tic. 2. i», lujlsy wejhould live Godly, ^ghteoufly, and Soberly ^^' '** in this prefent World : Looking for that blejfed hope^ and the glorious appearing of the (jreat God, and our Saviour Jefus Chrijt ; 'who gave himfelffor us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himfelf, a peculiar People, ^alom of good Works, To whom with the Father and the Holy Ghoft, be Glory for evermore. 'The End of the Firft Sermon, E 2 ASe- J>"?olxO A Second SERMON Concerning the TRINITY: TO THE U N I V E R S I T Y of Oxford. f^pril 26. I 6 9 I. J OH. xvi;. 9. ^W this is life eternal jhat they might hfiG-w thee the onely true Qod^ and Jefus C^riji^ mhomthoH hafl fent. IT is now a great many years fincc, in this Plage (if not to this Auditory) I did dil^ courfe of theft Words. I (liall repeat very little of that Difcourfe: But think fit to add fonjewhat to what was then (aid. Out 29 5 o ^ Second Sermon Preached Our Saviour, in the three Chapters next foregoing ^ the 84//?, i^th, and i6fk Cha- ptefs of S; johfi's Goipel) had made a large Difcourfe to his Difciples (after his Inftitution of the Lord's Supper) the night before he was to Di| Tv which (in|this jjtk Chapter) he clo- leth witlfa Pf|yer| ta fiis F|thQi'^ Un their be- half ..;.... ^,^'; wherein having made mention of Eternal Ifjfi\{ypx» If) which he was to^iv^, to as ma- ny as the Father K^d given hiniy (that is, to as many as fliouldeffe(5tually Believe in him;) he Tub joins this Epiphonemay And this is Life E- ternaljl hat theymigkihiom 1 hee,the only True Qod ; and^ whom thou hafl fent^ Jefu^ Chifl, '/In which words, we have Two things pro- poled to us : The Chriftian's Happinefs; And, The Means whereby it is to be attained. ^.^ .|*,,The Qytftimi Bappinefs^ is called Life^ as to \V Excellency \ and Eternal, as to its Dwr^f/- "tii, Which is ©^^«>? here, in the Kingdom of Gr^re : and is to be TerfeBed^ and for ever Cotntmmd^ m that of Glory. '^^^r'li. The Means to attain' it^^ is the KjioMe^e or uod 2.\so {Jmjt. .,.. - ■ , II' yihttQ^ hy Knowledge ^ I do not underftand V^lmeer Noriow^/ or Sj^eculatiye Knowledge; to the Vniverfity of Oxford. 31 (For luch I prefume the Devils may have in as large a proportion as any of us, and yet ncr ver attain Eternal Life ;) But an A^m^ ^raBical Knowledge : Such a Knowledge as is attend- ed with Faith and with ¥raBke fuitable there- unto. As in that of j^. 5 j. 1 1. S3/ his l^now- ledge J (that is, by the Knowledge of Him) (hall my righteous Servant jujiifie many : ThatisjbyRj/V/? in him, attended with a fuicable TraBice to it. The ObjeB of this Knowledge is declared to be twofold. 1. The Knowledge of God ; and 2. The Knowledge of Chrift, 1 know Thee the onely True God; that's one part . Md {whom thou haft fent) Jefm Chrift ; that's the other. And each of thele contains leveral Particu- lars. The former of them contains at leaft the(e Three, i . That there is a ^od. i . That there is but One (True) §od, ^ . That the Father of our Lord Jefus Chriji, is this Onely True God. He is that God^ befides which God^ there is no other True God. And, though 'jefus Chrift be God alio ; yet not another God, but the fame True God. For He and the Father are One, Joh* lo. JO. jrr.-'.ri In the latter of them- (the Knowledge of Chrift) ajre Three things alfo. i . His Dm- nity^ 52 A Second Sermon V reached nity. 2. His Humanity, And }. His Media- tory Office. Which are here briefly infinua- ted ; and are elfe where more fully expreffed. 1 . His Dmnity^ in that he is the Son of the Father , who is the Onely True God: Not by Creation, as Jdam and the Jtigels are called the Sons of God : nor by Adoption , as are the Righteous, who truly believe in Chrift: But by Generation^ as the Onely Begotten of the Father^ (Joh. I. 14.) and therefore of the fame Nature with the Father. 2. Vl'is Humanity ; implyed in thefe words, Whom Thou haft fent. That is, So fent as to be made of a Woman : (o (ent as to be made Flefh. Gal. 4. 4. Joh. I. 14. ^. His Mediatory Office : implyed in the Ti- tle Lhrijlj added to the Narne Jefu^s^ {And, whom Jhou hafl fent, Jefus Chrifi.) He sN2Lsfo[ent, as to be the Chrifi, the Mejpas. So lent, as that the World through him might he Saved : So, as that whofoeVer (Believes in him flmuld not TeriJJ?, but have Eyerlafling Life. Joh. ;. 16, 17. Of all which Points I did then Di(courfe more largely; and therefore do now but name them. But I did then fwther obferve, from the Order of the Words, (ro obviate a Cavil of ,-Y\\ the to the Vniverfity o/^Oxford. iht Socmms^) chat cheWord Omly {t^vov) is here Reftri6live, not of (theSf^i?/^) Thee-, but of ,(the fredtcate) the Trv.e God. Of which 1 in- tend (with God's Affiftancej and your Pati» ence) to fpeak further at this time. Ohje&ion I. The firft and great Obj'iclm of the Soclnl^ ans, from this place , againft the Divinity of Chrijlj and the Dodrine o{ the Trinity^ is this ; If the Father be the oiuly true Cod', |hen the Son, or Holy-Ghoji, is not Godj or not the True God ; but the Father onely. To which I fhall give Three things in Anfwer. . . I . This Argument is a plain Fallacy^ which they put upon us, by a willful perverting the Order of the Words. For it is not faid Thee Onely to be the True Gody (as if not the Son al« fo, OY thQ FJoly-Ghofly wcve the True .§ody but the Father onely :) But, to I\now Thee (not Thee onely, or Ondy Ihee^) to be the Onely true Qod. Nor is it fo in our EngUp? Tranflation onely ; but in the Original Greek : '«'* 7cn ai, t6v (jip'ov ctA-/?G but to the Tredicate^ dhrj^tm ^eov. Juftas, inourEnglifh, the Article Tig, coming between Thee and Onely , doth con- fine the word Onely , not to Thee (that went before,) but to True Godj which follows. To know Thee (not onely Tke,) the onely true God* That is, to know Ti^ee to be that God^ befide fifhkh Qody there is no other true God. Which we readily Acknowledge, and Proiels. And then the Socinians Argument will ap- pear juft in this Form : T he Uod of Abraham is the Onely true Qod ; And therefore not the ^od ofJfaaCy nor the Cod of Jacob. Yes, (ay Ij the God odfaac is the fame God with the God of Abraham j And therefore theTrue God as he is.. And the God o( Jacob, likewile. And this one Anfwer doth fully fatisfy the Objedion, and there needs no more. Yet I fliall add Two other things (though they might here be Ipared) becaufe they may be ofufeelfewhere. 2. I fay further : If it had been faid (as it is not) Thee Onely j yet even this would not exclude any who is the fame with Him, And therefore, not che Son , nor the Holy-Ghojl ; fince they are Om and the fame ^od with Him. (/ and to the Vniverfity of Oxford. 55 and the Father are Owe, Joh. 10. j o. Thefe Three are One, 1 Joh. 5.7.) To which purpole, confider we what we have Jer, 16. 14, 15. and again Jer. 25. 7, 8. behold the days come, ja'ith the Lord, that it [hall no more be ja'tdj The Lord Hyeth that brought up the Children of Ifraelout of the land of Egypt ; Swf, The Lord liy^eth that brought up ihe Children of Ifrael from the land of the North, or out of the North Country, Now we are told by God himlelf^ Exod, 20. 2, ^. lam the Lord thy God , which brought thee out of the land of Egypt,-" Thou (halt have no other God but ME, Shall we therefore argue thus ; The God who brought Ifrael out of Egypt , is the onely true God; and we muft haye no other God but HIM. Therefore^ not hicn ivho brought Ifrael out of the North^Country ? Yes, lay I, Him alio. For the God who brought them out of the North- Country , is the fame God, with him ll/;o brought them out of Egypt, (not anotlrr God^ though defigned by another Chara* Fler,) and therefore, in having Him, we have not another God. So here -, To I\)mv thee onely (if it had been fo faid, as it is not;) it had implied no more but thus , Not any who is not the fame God with Thee, To Know Thee Onely (and not any other, who is not the lame God with F 2 V Thee) o 6 A Second Sermon Preached Thee) to be the true God. Which therefore would not exclude the Son nor Holy Ghojl ^v^ho are the fame Cod with the Father, But of this Anfwer, there is no need in this place, be* caufe it is not (aid Jhee Onely, or onely Thee, ^. I fay further ; If it had been faid (as it is not) Thee Onely^ (as the Socinians would have it to be underftood 5) I would then fay, This were an i^«f/^/ Predication, rather than a ^erfonal That is, That the Predicate True Oody is affirmed of him in regard of his Ef- fence y rather than of his ^erfonality. As belong* ing to the Effence^ which is common to the Three TerfonSy not as peculiar to the ^erjon of the Fatkr, Like as if it were faid, David the i\ing,of Ifraely or VaVid the Father of Solomoriy is a ^afonahle Creature , or endued with ^afon ; this being endued with ^afon^ doth not belong to him as Ki^Z ^f^f^'^^U "<^^ ^^ Father of Solomon ; but, as he is a Man (though denominated by thefe Relations.) and is equivalent to this, T\:e .!Man (who is Father of Solomon, and King oilfrael) \s endued with ^eafon. So if it be faid, that VaVtd IQng of IJrael y and He onely y was Father of Solomon : it is not intended, that he was (b as iQng oflfrael (much left , in that capacity Onelyy) but rather, as the Man who hegot to the Vniverfty of Oxford. 57 he^ot him ; though defigned by chat Chara- fter. So here; God the Creator is the Onely True God: and God the Redeemer likewife; {Thus faith the Lord thy MtMmtt the Holy One ofJfrael, the Lord of tJofls^ 1 am the Firji and I am the Lafly and he fide ME there is no Gody J fa, 41. 14. Jfa. 44. 6. applyed to Chrift, ^ev. i. 8, 17. 3^ev. 22. 15, 16.) Shall we therefore argue, That God the MtMmtt is the Onely True God, and hefde J^tUl there is no God, therefore not God the Qreator I No, we muft not fb ar- gue. For it is not rfi Redeemer , or as Qreator^ that he is the Onely True God, but a^ God, (Ic may be pr^dkatio k^'-S' ojuTOy but not >c<-/6' oa« Trpw- ^v,) For he was the Onely True God from all Eternity ; but it was in Time that he made the World, and was the ^deemer of Mankind. And this both the Jrian^ and the Socinian, mtift needs acknowledge as to the place be- fore us. For when Chrift faith, To know Thee {Father) the Oyiely True (/od-^ it cannot (accord- ing to their Principles) be faid of him as Fa- ther of our Lord Jefus Chriji, but as Qod, For if Chrift be onely a Titular God, or a Creature- God, { as they would have it,) there was a time, or moment, when he was not, {tIv oV^ bk m,) and therefore, when God was not his Fa^ rher^ -»8 A Second Sermon Preached ther. But he was the Onely True God from all Eternity^ and therefore muft be here fo called, not as Father of our Lord Jejus Chnjl^ but as * ^od. Not according to his fer/onahtyy but ac- cording to his EJfence j which, we lay, is com- mon to the Three Terfons : Who are the fame God, though under different Venommations. But theie two latter Anfwers, (though they be True and Solid,) are not neceffary to this place ; becaule it is not laid Thee Onely, \et I here name them, becaufe they may be of u(e to anfwer fome like Objection raifed from fome other place. The full import of the words, is this. That the Father of our Lord Jefus Chr'tfl, is that God^ be fide which Gody there is no other True God. Or, There is no other True God, befide that God, which is the Father of our. Lord Jefus Chrift. And this we do fully agree with, when we fay, That the Son and the floly-Ghoft, are not another God, but the fame Tjue God with the Father. ObjeBion II. It may perhaps be next Objeded, That though this place do not Venyi\\Q Son and Holy Ghoft to be the True God, (meaning thereby, the fame God with the Father : ) Yet neither doth it ^roye them fo to be. I an- to the Vniverfty of Oxford. og I anfwer. 'Tis true : This place alone, (without the concurrence of others) doth not ^ProVe the Trinity, (And it is much if it fhould, where there are but Two mentioned.) Nor is it brought by us to that purpofe. We only Anfwer the Objedions brought againft it by others, from this place : And leave the Proof ©f it to be fetched from other places in con» currence with this. I have obferved el(c where {Lett. ^,) that if we fhould read it thus. To know Thee to be the Onely True God; and him alfo whom thou haftfenty Jejm Chrijlj (as implying him alfo to be the fame True God : } Or thus. To know Thee, and (whom thou haji fent) Jefus Chrijl, the Only True God: The words will well bear it, without any force put upon them. Nor is this only a new Notion of my own. For I ( fince) find , that S. Aujlin had faid the iame long ago, in his Epijl. 1 74. ({peaking to ^afcentlusy an Arian^ concerning this place) De Tatre tantummodo yos yukis intelligi^ quod ait, Ut cognofcant Te unum "verum Deum^ eus Jefu^ Chrijlus^ qm diclumejl Tatri, Te unum Vertm Veum: prop* terea- mh fitDominus ^ater^ quia diBum eJi de Cf?riJloj Unus^'BmiHm^'- ^ Where - he takes^^ the meaning to be 'his, Tc* know Thee, and^ whom thou hajl fentj Jcjiis Chrifl^ the Onely True Qod; which he backs with tiiis Argwttient; Becaufe if -we fliould here on this^ccdimt exiUide the Son irom being the True God; we rhigrifr, for the fanne reafon, exclude the Father iio{x\ b^- ing'the'-ZLorJ, becaufe it is la^id (i Cor,J^* 6,^ O^^rd/jefusOjfiji.'^ ■ '^^ ^-^^ ^>^-^ '^^vrr 'AsS) -"' Yet %ved' this, though 1t might prove ic, as to the Son^ ic would not hence conclude it, as to the Holy Ghojl, But the concurrence of other places, will prove it more dearly as to both, i nhall fliew itof each.' As to the Son, we have it clearly affirmed, by the fame S. JqIm, (who beft underftood the import of his own words)that he is &\io the Trui ^od'y Ho that it was riot ini-ended here to ex- clude ^im;) - I Joh. ^.2 0. iVe are in htm that is Trtir n^en in his Son Jefus Chriji : This is the True God, (Und rhereicre not onely the Father,) And he had before told us (from ChritVs oven words) Joh, i o. "^o* J and Sy Father aye One, Nor is it'Tiere meant of Me in Teftimnyj as the to the Vniverfity of Oxford ^i the Socinians would have it underftood elfe- where , ( there being in the Context here no mention of Tejfimony at all : ) But it mufl: be meant of One Cod. And this is manifeft from the* Inference which th^Jews made from it. For they did thereupon take up /tones to (lone hlm^ as for (what they call) 'Blafphemy : 'Becaufe thou (lay they) bein^ a Man^ makeH thy felf God , ver. ^ i ^ J2,^ ^. For which Inference there had been no Pretence, if by 0/ie, they had not underftood One God. And the High Prieft: in like manner, Mattk 26. 6^,64,6}. I adjure thee ((aith he) by the Lhin^ God^ that thou tell us 'whether thou be the Chrijij the Son of Qod; To which when Chrift had anfwered, Thou haft faid, ( dicis quod res eft, ) fie rent his clothes^ f^/^^S^ ^^ hathfpohn blafphemy ^ What further need have we ofwknejfes}. For to fay that he was the Chrift^ the Son of (^od; or (as it is in Mark 14. 6i.) The Chrift^ the Son of the ^leffed ; was underftood by them to be the (ame, as to call himfelf (^od. Which had been 'Blafphemy, had it not been True. And what is laid of Chrift, Job, i o, ^ o. I and the Father are One -^ is faid of all Three j by the (ame St. John, ( % Job. 5. 7.) The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghojl *, thefe Three are One. G ObjeBi^ A 2 i y^ Second Sermon Treacbed Objection III. It is Objected, that thqfe words, laft cited, ' are faid to have been wanting in fome Tranfla- tions, or fbme ancient Copies. Jnfw. Be it fo. And io are (brae whole E- piftles wanting in fonae Tranflations, And confiderable parts of fonrie other Chapters. But we are not therefore to caft them away as not Genuine. The IW. and llld. Epiftles of St. Johty and that ofjude^ are laid to have been wanting in the Syriack and Arahkk Tranflations ; And the Story of the Woman taken in Adultery^ J oh. 8. wanting in the Gothkk Gofpels : And part of the laft Chapter of St. JMark's Gofpel, is faid to be wanting in fome Books : And the Doxo- logy in the dole of the Lord's Prayer : And the like in divers others. But we muft not thence conclude them not to be Genuine, and put, them out of our Bibles, becaufe they have chanced to be omitted in fome Books. And it is lb far from being ftrange, that (uch Omifiions fhould fometimes happen -j that it is very ftrange (if there were noc a areat Providence of God to prelerve the Scri- ptures pure and entire) that there (hould be no morefuch'Vniftakes than what are found. For (before to theVniverfity ^/Oxford. 45 (before the convenience of Printing was found out) when Copies were to be fingly tranfcri- bed one from another, and even thofe but in a few hands : 'Twas very poffible, (and hard- ly avoidable,) even for a diligent Tranfcriber, fometime to skip a line. E(pecially, (which is the cafe here) when (ome of the lame words do again recur after a line or two ; Men are very fubjeft, both in Writing and Printing, (as thole well know who are ver(ed in either,) to leap from one word, to the lame recurring foon after. Nor is (uch Omiflion (when it happens) readily dilcerned, if (as here) the (enfe be not manifeflly difturbed by it. Now when fuch variety of Copies happens (that words be found in fome, which are wanting in others,) this muft either happen by a Cafual mistake, (without any defign of Fraud or by a willful Falfification ; as to ferve a particular turn ; (which I take to be the cafe of the Papifts, Indices Exfurgatoril) And, as to the words in queftion ; If the difference of Copies happened at firft by a Cafual miftake, (as 1 am apt to think,) 'tis very eafy for a Tranfcriber (unawares) to ka^e out a Line which was in his Copy (efpecially where fuch omiflion doth not ma- ^^i G 1 nifeftly 44 -^ Second Sermon Preached nifeftly difturb the fenfe ;) but not to put in a line which was not there. And, in fueh cafe, the Fuller Copy is likelyeft to be True, and the OmiiSon to be a Fault. Which happen- ing (as it ieems it did) fome hundreds of years ago, in fome one Copy ; it might eafily pafi . (unobferved) into many others tranfcribed thence (and fo to others derived from thofe Tranfcripts.) But an Infcrtion (of what was not in their Copy) muft needs be willful, and not caliial. On the other fide ; If this variety of Co* pies were at firfl: from a mllful Faljijication ; Ic is much more likely to be a willful Omif/ion of the JrianSy in fome of their Copies , (which might be done filently, and unobferved j) than by a vjiWful Infer don of the Orthodox. For the Infertion of fuch a claule, if wholly New , and which had never before been Heard of ; would have been prefently dete- cted by the Jrians , as foon as ever it fhould be urged againft them. Nor was any advantage to be made of it by the Orthodox, fince the Diyinity of Chrifi (which was the Point then in queftion) might be a^ ftrongly urged from that in St, John ^ Gofpel, 1 and the Father are One^ as from this in to the Vniverfity of Oxford. 45 in his Epiftle, Theje Three are One. And there- fore it is not likely that the Orthodox fhould willfully njake any inch Falfification, from whence they eould promife themfelves no ad- vantage. Nov do 1 find, it was ever charged upon them by the ancient Brians in thole days: though Athanaftws and others urged it againft them. And in very ancient Copies, in which it had been left out, it is found fupplied in the Margin, as having been faultily omitted. And it is the more likely to be Genuine,be- caufe in this claufe {Tl?e Father^ theWord^ and the Holy-Qbofl) the Jecond Terfon is called Jim- plidter^ ° ao^©-, the Word'^ which is St. '^ohns Language, both here, and in his Golpel^/o/;. I . And is (I think) peculiar to him ; and' not fo u(ed by any other of the Holy Writers of the New Teftament. I do not deny but that this fecondTerfon tn^y be called the Word of God^ in-fSek 11. ^. By Faith T^e under ft and that the Worlds were framed by the Word of God, And x Pet. ^. 5,7. By the Word of God were the Heavens of old. and the Earthy Sec. and by the fame Word they are hpt tnftore. As he is by the lame St, 7o/;w, Rev. 19. i }. His name h called y the Word\^. God But to call him the Word abfolutely (without other addition) I think a£ a Sedond Sermon Treached think is peculiar to St. John. And therefore much more likely in this place, to have pro- ceeded from the fame Ten , and not to have been inferted by an Interpolatcr fome hun- dreds of years after. And that claufe The/e three are One^ in the Epiftle, agreeing fo well with I and the Father are one in the Golpel, is a further confirmation of their being both from the fame Pen. Add to this. That the Antithefts which we find in the ythzwi %thVerfes^ is fo very Na^' turai J that it is a great Prjefumption to be Ge- nuine. Ihere are Three that bear record in Hea- imi^ The Father^ the Word, and the Holy Ghojij and thefe Three are One : And there are Three that hear ivitnefs In Earthy Tl>e Spirit^ and the Watery and the 'Blood, and thefe Three agree in One. Which as it ftands, is very Natural ; but the latter . claufe would feem lame without the former :_ and the words m fi^rt^ wholly redundant in\ the latter, if not by Antithejls to anfwer to the • words in HeaVen, in the former Veife. And that it was anciently (b read, appears from St. Cyprian^ by whom it is twice cited (in his Book VeUnkate^Ecdefuy and in his Epiflle ad J«^^/^ww»i) . before the ^w« Controveriy ' . wasonfoot. "^ in.'-'. •.^\; v: ■ ':. . -.-^^ :' ' In to the Vniverjity ofOxfoid. 47 In the former place,(arguing for theChurch's Unity ^ not to be broken by Schi/ms) he /peaks thus. Dick T>ommmy Ego ivmky of Chrijl. To return, therefore, to the place which is before us j From what hath been (aid, it is manifeft enough, that St. Johriy in calling the Father, the Onely True God^ did not intend to exclude the Son^ from being the fame True God ,• whom himielf doth elfo where call the True God alioy I Joh. 5. ao. No more (Ifay) than what is laid, by name, of Go^ the (^deemer (l(a. 44. 6, 8.) is to be thought exclufive of God the Creator^ or God the Father 5 Ihm faith theLord, the.EEU' to the Vniverjity of Oxford. 5 1 E%y the Lord of Hojlsy 1 am thefirfl^ and! am the lajly and he fide JM E there is no Qod, Which is applied to Chrift in particular, 5(ev. 22. 1 5, 16. But is not exclufiveof the Father; be« caule God the Creator (or God the Father) is the fame Qod with God the ^deetner, and there- fore not another ^od befide him. And tliereforc both of them (or rather, the fame God under both Confederations) indifferently called (elpeci- ally in the Old Teftament) God indefinitely, the Lord of Hofts^ the Holy One of IfraeL Nor is that which is faid of Chrift, i Tim. 6. 14, I 5, 16. Our Lord Jefus Chrift, who Onely hath Immortality , intended to exclude the Fa- ther; as if the Father were not al(b Immortal^ or were not (f what is there (aid of Chrift) the hleffed and onely Potentate , the IQng of kings, and the Lord of lords. But only, that our Lord Jeftis Chrifly is that God, which (God) is the hleffed and onely Potent ate, theKjng of kings, and Lord of lords, and who only hath Immortality. And (as was before noted by S. Aufiin.) The Father is not excluded from being Lord, not- withftanding that of i Cor, 8. 6. To us there is biit One God , the father ; and One Lord Jefus Chrijl : or that of Eph. 4. y, 6. One Lord, one Faith, One Baftifm, me God and Father of all For Hi the c 2 A Second Sermon Preached the Father, and the Son, are the fame God, the lame Lord. The (ame of whom it is laid, Jfa. 45. 5 I am the Lord and there is none elfcy there is no ^od he fide me. And again, yer. 6. I am the Lord and there Is none elfe. Where note, that the Word Father, in that phra(e, ^od and Father of All ^ is different from the lenie of it, in the Faihar of our Lord Jeffus Chrljl : that relating to the common Nature j this to the Perfbn. And as in thefe places, what is faid of the Son, (that he onely hath Immortality ^ that he is the onely Potentate, that he is the One Lord, that be^* fide him, the Redeemer, there is no God,) are not to be underftood exclufive of the father'^ lb what is here (aid of the Father, (that he is the Onely True Qod) is not to be underftood exdu- fiye of the Son ; who is not another, but the fame True God. I thought here to have inferted (as in a pro* per place) a Difcourie of fome other Points relating to the Trinity 5 which 1 find it necef- lary here to omit (or to defer it to fome other occafion) that I be not prevented by the time in what 1 have to lay further. That there is a God the Creator, a God the ^{edeemer, and a God the SanBifier ; and that thefe are the fame God j I think cannot reafon* ably be Denied. I fhall fhew it of each. As t0 the Vniverjity (?^ Oxford. 55 As to God the Creator ^ we are told. Gen, 1. 1* In the beginning God Qreated the Heaven and the Earth. ( And, to the fame purpofe, in many other places. ) And, 1 think, there is none doubts, but that this Creator^ is the True God, the Si^pr erne C06. And in Jer. lo. ii. God doth by this Chara(5ter diftinguifli himfelffrom all other (pretended) Gods, Ihe Gods that have not made the HeaVens and the Earth , they Jhall pe- rtJ}}from the Earthy and from under thefe HeaVens. As to God the ^deemer ; 1 know that my (?^e- deemerliveth^ faith JoZ', C/;. 19. 25. By which ^edeetner doubtlels he meant the Living God, a God who did then Live 5 a God who was, then^ in Seing^ and not (as the Socinians would have us think) who was not to Be , till Two Thoufand years after. And Jfa, 4^. 6» Thus faith the Lord the Redeemer ^ the Lord ofHofis^ I am the firji and I am the laji^ and hefde Me there is m God, Which ^^deemer^ muft needs be the fame God^ wich God thtCreator^ the Lord of Hofis, As to God the SanBifie'r ; Turge me with hyf* fop (faith David) and J f}7aU he dean ; TSb^/7; ;«?, and I p?all he whiter than [now : Create in me a clean hearty God j and renew a right fpirit within me^ {TfaL 5 I. 7, 10.) Which certainly are works of SanHiJicatim ; and the God^ to whom VaVid prayedj j;^ A Second Sermon Preached prayed, is doubtlefs the LiVmggody a. God then m Being. And \s hen God promilech w IJraely 1 will o^ive them a heart to knoiv mCy and thy jlmll return unto me with their iphok hearty Jer. 24. 7. J will give them one hearty and one l^ay^ that they may fear me for. ever ; 1 will put my fear m their hearts^ that they fhall not depart from me ^ Jer. ^2. :^9, 40. 1 will give them one hearty and put a new fpirit within them; I will take away the heart of ft one and give them a heart of flejhy Ezek. 1 1 . 19, and J 6. 26. I will put 7ny Law in their inward parts J and write it in their hearts^ Jer. ^ i . ^3. The Lord thy Qod will circumcife thine heart , and the heart of thy feed^ to loVe the Lord thy ^od with all thine hearty and with all thy foul ^ that thou jjiayft live^ Deut.^c.6. All thefc^LxefanBifying works ; and that God who doth them, is Qod the San- Bifier, And it is the lame God, who doth thus SanSlifie, that is the Creator and the ^deemer. Kow this God the Creator^ God the Redeem- er y3.nd God the SanBifiery I take to be the lame with what we otherwile call, God the Father^ God the Son, and God the Holy Ghoft. And our Church doth (b expound it in her Cate- chiftn ; Fir ft ^ I learn to believe in God the Father, who hath Made me and all the World*. Secondly ^ In God the Son , who hath ^deemed me and all Man- kind ! to the Vniverfity of Oxford ^ 5 5 hind : Thirdly^ Jn God the Holy GhoH^ who Sari' Bifieth me and ali the Elefl people of God. And it is no more abfurd or inconiiftent, to lay, that God the Father^ God the Soiij and God the Holy* Ghojty are the fame God ; than to fay, that God the Creator^ Qod the ^I(edeemerj and God the SanBi- Jjer^ are the fame. God. As they ftand related to us, they are cal- led God the Creator^ God the Redeemer, and God the SanFtifier, As to the different Oeco* nomy, amongft themfelves, one is called the Father J who is faid to 'Be^et ; another the Sotiy who is faid to be 'Begotten i a third, the Holy- ^hojlj who is faid to Troceed or Come forth j But are all the fame God. ObjeBion iV. But then here I meet with another Obje- Sion, on which the Socimans lay great weight. If (^od the Creator^ God the ^deemer^ and Goi the SanHifier y or God the Father^ God the Sow, and God the Holy-Ghojij be the fame God^ they can- not then be Tl^ree Terfons : And if they be Three IPfrfons^ they muft be Ihree Gods. For like as Tf?ree Ter/ons^ amongft Men, doth fignifie Ihree Men ; lo Three ^erfonsy who are God^ muft be 1 hree Gods. Contrary to the Firft Comtnandment^ which allows us to have but One God. To 5 6 A Second Sermon T reached To which I anfwer ; Ftrfl^ This is only to cavil at a Word^ when they have nothing of moment againit the Ih'mg, So that if inftead of faying Ihefe Three Terfons are One God^ we (ay, Theje Three are One God^ or give them ano- ther Name inftead of Terfons, or fay thefe Three SomewhatSj without giving them a Name^ this Objection is at an end. 2. I lay further; 'Tis very true, that, in our Englifh Tongue^ by another Terfon^ we fome- times underftand another Man, ( becau(e that other Terfon is, very often, another Man alfo.) But it is not always fo ; nor is that the proper Signification of the Word ; but an Abufive lenfe put upon it. And the reafon of ufing the word Terfon in this abufive or improper (enle j is, for want of an EngUp? word to anfwer the Latin word Homo, or the ^reek a»'6pw7r(^j which might in- differently relate to both Sexes, For the word Man doth properly relate to the Male, and Woman to the Female. And if the word Man be fometimes fo u(ed as to imply the Woman d\{6', it is (by a Synecdoche) putting the Name of One Sex, to fignifie Both. And 'tis for want of fuch a Word (which might in* differently relate to both Sexes) that wefome- time to the Vniverjity ^/Oxford 5 7 time make ufe of 'Per/ow in a borrowed fenle, rather than to ufe a Circuniocutm of Man and Wbmanj by naming both Sexes. And if we fhould ufe fuch Circumlocution of S^an and Woman ; yet even this would not reach the whole Species. For we do not ufe to call them Man and Woman^ till they be of a confiderable Age ; before which time they are called Children j and therefore to compre* hend the whole Species, we (ay, Man, IVomany and Child, We do indeed, fometimes, to that purpofe, make ufeof the wordMt«AiW,(adding the word kind to that of Man^ to Ampliate the Signifi- cation of it.) But this relates only to Genus Humanum in a ColleHive fenfe ; not to Homines taken Dijlrihutively. For we do not (ay a Man- kind, two Mankinds, or at the (ame Time;) or divers Terfons to meet in the fame Man ; accord^ ing to the true and proper Notion of the word Perfon, A Man may, at the fame time, fiiftain the Per (on of a King^ and of a Father^ if in* vefted with ^gal and Maternal Authority ; (and the(e Authorities may be Subordinate one to another ; ) and he may accordingly Aft iomecime as a IQng^ and fometime as a Rj- tfcfr/ Thus Tully^ (who well underftood the Propriety of Latin words) Sujiineo Unm tres ^erfona^'^ ineam^ Adverfarii^JudiciSy (I being One and the (ame M?5n, fuflain Three Perfons 5 That of my Own, that of my Adverfary, and that of the Judge. ) And DaVtd was, a? the iame time, Son of Jeffe^ Father of Solomon^ and i^ing of Ifrael. And this takes away the very Foundation of their Objedion ; Which proceeds upon this Miftake, as '\i Three Terfons (in a proper fenfe) » rauft needs iniply Three Men. 6, Now to the Vniverfty of Oxford. 61 6. Now if Three Terfons ( in the proper fenfe of the word Perlbn) may be One Man; what hinders but that Three Divine Terfons (in a (enfe Metaphorical) nfiay be One God ? What hinders but that the fame God, conOdered as the Maker and Sovereign of all the World, may be God the Creator j or God the Father ; and the iame God confidered, as to his fpecial Care of Mankind, as the Ruthour of our Redempti- on, be God the 'Redeemer ^ or God the Son; and the fame God, as working effetftually on the Hearts of his Eled, be God the SanSiifiery or God the Holy-(^hofl ? And what hinders but that the fame God^ di- ftinguifhed according to thefe three Con f derati- ons, may fitly be (aid to be Three f^erjons ? Or (if the word ¥erJon do not pleafe) Jhree Some- fi?hats that are but One God^ And this feems to me a Full and Clear So* lution of that Objection, which they would have to be thought Infuperable. Obje&ion V, It may perhaps be Objefied further, VV hy muft we needs make ufe of the word ^erfon ; and call them Three TerfonSy if Three Some' whats will ferve as well ? Ian- 52 A Second Sermon Preached I anfwer, Firft, We have no fuch need of the word ^erfon , buc ch.ic we can Ipare it. .Jiypojlafts wili ferve our turn as well. And if they think the Latin word ferfonay be not a good Tranflation of the Greek Hyfojlafu\ Let them retain the Greek w^ord. (We mean the fame by both. ) And then perhaps they will find themfelves at a lo(s, to faften fome of their Objections upon the word HyfojlapSj which they would faften upon Terfona, 2. But, Secondly y If the T/;m^ be thus far agreed, That thefe Three Somewhats (thus con- fidered) may be One ^od : I fee not why they fliould contend with us about the NameTerfon, For this is only to quarrel about a Wordy or Name, when the Notion is agreed. 3. If it were admitted (which I fee no rea- (on for) that the w^ord Terfon doth not fitly exprefs that Notion which it is intended to de- fign ; the moft that can be inferred from it, is but, That we have not given it fo fit a Name : Andj to cavil at that, when the Notion in- tended by it is underftood ; were juft as if one iliould argue. There never was fuch a Man, as whom they called fope Tim ; becaufe the J^4M, who was fb called, was not a Tious Man. 4. Buc to the ZJniverfty (?/ Oxford. ^5 4. But I fee noc why the word ^erfon flioLild not be thought a very fie word for this purpofe. For Two of the(e Three are reprelented to us in Scripture under the Names of Fatkr and Son I and this Son as 'Begotten of the Father; (and therefore thefe Names are not to bcj quar- relled with : ) But all this in a Metaphorical fcnfe 5 (For no Man cin (iippoft, that this Fa^ ther doth fo iBe^^t this Son, as thefe w^ords do properly figalfie amongft Men). Now the Relations of Father and Son, in a proper fenfe, are fuch as are properly denoted by the word Terjona^ in its proper Accepta- tion. And confequently the Father and Son , in a Metaphorical fenle, may ( by a Continuation of the fame Metaphor) be fitly called ^erfons, ia that Metaphorical fenfe. And in what fenfe they be Father and Son^ in a like fenfe they be TerfonSy according to the Propriety of the Latin word Terfona, For fuch ^elatiyes the Latins called Terfonas, And if the Father and Son may fitly be Co called j no doubt but the Holy Ghoft may be fo called alfo, as One Proceeding or Coming forth (oKTivpevoi^d^) fi'om them. As in ph. 1 4, z6. ru A Second Sermon Preached The Comforter y which is the Holy Qhofl, whom the Father will fend in My name\ he "^ill teach you all things. And Joh. 15. 26. The Comforter ^ whom I will fend you from the Father , eyen the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father , HeJhaH teftifie of cMe. Where it is manifeft, that, in what fen(e the Father and Son are to be repu- ted Terfons'y the Comforter ot Holy Ghoji^ is, in the lame fenfe, fo to be reputed. So that (I think) I have clearly Vindicated, not only the Notion^ That theie Three Some- what s may be One God; But the Name alio. That thefe SomewhatSy may fitly be called l^erjons, ObjeBion VL I fliall name but one Objection more, which when I have fatisfied, I fhall conclude for this time. That 6th. Objection (and 'tis but a weak one) is thivS. The Trinitarians do not all agree, but differ among them(elves,in exprefling their Notions in this Matter. Very well. And do not the Antitrinitarians differ much more ? Doth not the Arian and the Socinian differ as much from one another, as ei- ther of them do from us 5 (and declare that they fo do ? ) And do not the Arms among them- felves, to the ZJniverfity of Oxford 5 5 felves, and the Socinians amongft themfelves, differ more than do the Jrinitarians f Certain- ly they do. It muft be confefled, that different Men, as well in the fame as in different Ages, have very differently expreffed tliemfelves, accor- ding to their different Sentiments of Terfo- nality ; and of the particular DiJiinBions of the three Perfbns among themfelves. But lb it is in all the mod obvious things in the world. As, in Time^ ^lace^ SpacCy Motion^ and the like. We are all apt to think , that we all know well enough, what we mean by tho(e Words, till we be asked. But if we be put to it, to exprels our ftlves concerning any of them , What it is^ whether a Things or Nothings or not aThing^ or fomelohat of a Thing , and H^hat that fome- what h ; it would be long enough before wc fhould all agree to exprels our felves juft in the fame manner; and, fo clearly ^ as that no man who hath a mind to cavil, could find occafion (b to do. I might fay the like of He^t and CoU ; oi Light •, Sight ^ and Colour; of Smells J and Tajls^ and the different Sorts of them. K Can 56 ^ Second Sermon^ &c. Can we never be faid to agree in this^ That the Fire doth 'Burn and Conjume the Wood ; till we be all agreed what is the Figure of thofe Fiery Atoms ( and what their Motiouy and from what Impulfe ) which enter the ^ores of the Woody and Jeparate its parts^ and convert ibme of them to bmoak, fome to Flmne^ and fome to Jjhes ; and which to which j and in what man" ner all this is done ? What a folly then is it to require that, in the things of God, we fliould all fo a? gree as to exprefs our thoughts jujt in the fame manner ; as is not poffible to do in the moft obvious things we meet with ? And, in fuch a caie as wherein to exprefs our Notions, we have no Words but Fi? guratiye^ it is not to be thought (Irange, that one man fhould make ufe of one Meta- phor ^ and another of another y according as their feveral Fanfies ierve. But thus far, 1 think, the Orthodox are all agreed ; That between thefe T/;/^e, which the Scripture calls The Father^ the Son, and the Holy Ghofl. or the Father ^ the Wordy and the Spirit y there is a Diftintiiony greater than that of (whai we call) the Vtvine Attributes; but; not fo as to be Three Gods, And this Di- ftinftion,. to the Vniverfity of Oxford 5 7 fftindtion, they have thought fit to denote by the Word Hy^ojlafisj or ferfon. They are alfo all agreed ; that one of the(e Per(bn3 ( namely the Son or the Word ) was Incarffatey or Made fkfh^ and did take to him- felf our Humane Islatun. But as to the particular Afoi?j,or Manner Hoi^ 5 either how thefe two Natures are United^ or how thefe three ferfons are Viftingutjhed each from other : we may be content to be Jg- noranty farther than God hath been pleafed to Reveal to us. We know that our Immortal Soul is join* ed with an Humane Sody^ fo as to make One Man ( without ceafing, that to be a Spi'^ rity and this to be a ^ody :) But 'tis hard for us to fay Ho"^. And accordingly we fay^ that the Man Chrift JefuSy ( without cea* fing to be Many) and God mantfefted in the Flejhy ( without ceafing to be God^ ) are One Chrijl : But what kind pf Union this is, which we csWFlypoJiatical, we do not through- ly underftand. We know alio that the Fa^ ther is laid to Se^ec, the Sow to be 'Be^ottcn^ the Holy Gho/l to Proceed : But neither do we fully underftand the import of thefe Words ; nor is it needful that we fhould. K 2 But 58 ^ Second Sermon^ &c. >^ But, fo far as was faid before, we do all agree y and we may fafely reft there. Nouf to God the Father, God the Sow, and God the Holy Ghojl ; three ferfons, b^t One God; be Bonour^ and Glory , and fraife^ now and for ever. TheEnd of the Second Sermono A 69 A Third SERMON Concerning the TRINITY. J OH. xvi;. 3. AcJtvi S^i eg'iv 1^ cuccvi®^ ^m^ \vct yivcomtoo- u4nd this is life eternal ^ that they might l^on> thee the onely true (jod^ and Jefm (^hriftj whom thou had fent. I Have , in a former Difcourfe from this Vcrfe, enter- ed upon the Doftrine of the Trinity ; not fb much, as being contained in it, as occafioned by it. I have fhewed that the word Onely is here refl:ri6live, not of the Su jjeft !r/;ee, but of mt Predicate True God. Affirming the Father to -be the Onely Trne (jod, though not the Father Ontly. Nor is it exclufive of the Son, who is alio the fame True God ; and is fo exprelly called, by this fame Writer, i Joh. <;. 20. where ffpeaking oi Je- fm 7^ A Third Sermon [tii Chrift) he fays. This is the True God , and Eternal Life ; as if it were fpoken with a direft afpe^t to the words before us. Now that Chrift is often called God^ neither the Ari- dns nor the Sociniarts do deny. And it is fb frequent, and fb evident, as not to be denyed. Not only in the place laft cited, but in many others. Thy throne, God endureth forever^ Heb. 1.8. TheWord was with God^ and the Word \v i Cor, 8. 5. one who is called God^ but indeed is not , but a mere Man however highly dignified.) Or ('as the Anans will have \t) that he is God indeed, but not the Supreme God, not the fame God with the Father, but ar^ Inftricur God, (Ji^ms faBus) a made-Go^^^ a Creature-God 5 who was in- deed htfore the World, but not from Eternity, w oii a'x.^i', there was (3. Time, a Moment, a Quando^) when he was not, when he had not a Being. In Anfwer to both which \ I fhali endeavour to fhew, (by the moft fignal Characters, whereby the Supreme God, the Onely true God , is fet forth to us in Scripture ; and by which he is therein DiftinguiOied from all falfe Gods, or other pretended Gods ; ) that Chrifi: is the True God, the Supreme God, th^fame God^sNith the Father, and not another God. CHA. concerning the Trinity. .7 1 CHARACTER I. The firft Character, which we meet with, of this^ God, is that o^ Gen. i. i. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. Which I think no man doubts, but to be meant of the True God, the Supreme God. And by virtue of this, he claims the Sovereignty thereof j The Earth is the Lord^s, atd the ftdmfs thereof^ Pfal. 24. i. Je-: hovab^ the Lord of all the Earthy JoQl. 5. 11, 15. The God nf the Heaven^ and the God of the Earthy Gen. 24. j. The Heaven is my Throne^ and the Earth is my FootHool^ lia. 66. I. Behold the Heaven^ and the Heaven of Hea-^ vtnsy is the Lord^Sy the Earth alfoy and all that is therein^ Deur. 10. 14. The fame Chara8:er is applied to God very often, Jfa. > 42. 5, 8. Thus faith God the Lord (^Jehovah) he that created the Heavens and ftretched them out\ he that fpread forth the Earth and that which cometh out of it ; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it^ ar/d fpirit to them that walk therein. I am the Lord ( Jeiiovah) that is my name^ and my Glory will J not give unto another. And I fa. 48. i ^. Mtne hand hath laid the foundation of the Earthy and my right hand . hath fpanned (^or fpread out) the Heavens. So Vfal. 8. ^. . Whtn I confidtr the Heavens ^ the work of Thy fingers ; the Moon and the Stars which thou hall ordained. Pfal. 146. 6, Which made Heaven and Earth, the Sta, and all that there- in is. And many other places, not only in the Old Te- ftamenc ; but in the NewTeftament likewiie ; asAc'fsj4^. I ^. That ye jhould turn from thefe vanities unto the Living God, who made Heaven and Earth, and the Sea and ail . things that are therein. And o/c/j 17. 24. God that made ^ the World, and dl things therein. So Revel. 4. 11. Thou hafi created all things. Chap. 14.7. Him that made Hea- ven and Earth, and the Sea, anoi the Fountains of Water. And it is the diliindive Charader, whereby he doth diftinguiflt A Third Sermon diftinguifh himfelf from all other pretended Gods, Jer, lo. Where he who at ver, lo. is called The Lord, the true. God, the living God, an everUJling Kjng , at rvho^s wrath the Earth fljdl tremble^ and the Nations ^all not abide his indignation ; doth at ver. ii. give this di nance to all other Gods, Thus (hallyt fay to them j The Gods which have not made the Heavens and the Earthy they {hall perifh from the Earthy and from under thefe Heavens, Now this Charader we find aicribed to Chrift. Not only, where it is fpcken as of God indefinitely, but to be under Itood of Chrift j (as are fome of the places al- ready mentioned:) But even where it is particularly applied to him. . I fhall begin with that of '^oh, i. i, 2. where we have a large Diieourfe of him, In the beginning was the Wordy and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Where, by the Word is meant Chrip:, as is evident from the further defcriptions of him in the following verfes ; 'Tis he of whom John the Baptifi came to bear witnefs, ver. 7,8. He who came into the Worlds but the World knew him not, ver, i o. Who came to his own^ but his own received him not ; but to as many as received him^ he gave power to become the Sons of God. ver, 11. 12. Who was made fle^jy and dwelt among ft m, and we beheld his glory ; the glory as of the onely begotten of the Father, ver, 1 4. He of whom John bare witnefs and cryedy faying^ This is he of whom I fpakey He that cometh after me is preferred before mey for he was before me ; (not as to his Humane Nature; for, fb, John the Baptift was older than he, by /jc months, Luk. i. 26.) and of his fulnefs (faith St. John) we have all recei- ved grace for grace ; For the Law wm given by Mofes^ but grace and truth came by Jefis Chrifly ver, 1 5, 16,17. 'Twas Jefus ChriH therefore that is here called the Word, Now of this fame Word, it is faid, The fame was in the beginning with God \ All things were made by him^ and with- out concerning the Trinity. 75 OHt him was not any thing made which was made^ ver. 2, j. He was in the fVorld, and the Worldwas made by him, ver. I o. Conlbnant to that ofMeh.ii. 5. The Worlds we refrmedby the Word of God: and 2 Per. ^ 5. By the WordofGodtht Heavens were of old, and the Earth Jia^ing in the Water and out of the Water ^ And by the fame Word, the heavens and earth are kept inflore^ or ^rtferved, ver. 7. And to the fame purpofe, CoL i. 16, 17. By him were all things created, that are in heaven^ and that are in earth. And he is before all things^ and by him all things confifi. And Heb. 1.2. By whom alfo he made the Worlds. In Vfal. 102. we have a long Prayer (^ to the Supreme Gc?^ doubtlefs) which bears this title, A Prayer of the Jffli- Bed, rvhen he is overwhelmed^ and foureth out his complaint before the Lord, ( the Lord Jehovah.) It begins thus. Hear my Prayer, Lord, ( Jehovah ) and let my cry come unto thee. . And at the fame rate he proceeds, addrefling himfelf to the fame God all along. And at ver. 24, 25, 26, 27. hefpeaks thus, my God, thy years are throughout all Generations ; Thou of old haft laid the Foundations of the Earth, and the Heavens are the nwrk of thy hapds ; ( who is the fame Gc»^ therefore of whom Mofes had before faid, In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earthy Gen. 1. 1.) They Jball periflf (as the Pfalmift proceeds) but thoufjjalt endure : Tea all of them jhallwax old as a Gar- ment, as a veftrtre (Jjalt thou change them and they (hall be changed : But thou art the fame, and thy years (ball have no end. And doubtlefs the Pfalmift, when he made this long Prayer, thought not of addreflTing himfelf to any other than the Supreme God. ( Not to a God v/ho had not, then, a Being, nor was to have till a Thoufand Tears after, as the Socinians would have us think of Chrift.) He prays to God as his Redeemer ; that is, to Chrift. And that Chrift is that God to whom he did thus ad- drefs , we are exprefly told, Heb.i, 8, 10, 11, 12. L But ^^ A Third Sermon But unto the Son he faith^" — Thou^ Lord, in the beginmng haft laid the foundation of the Earthy and the Heavens an the Works of thine hands ; They (hall periflj, but thou rem at n- eft : and they all jh all wax old as doth a Garment ^ and as a vejlure fh alt thou fold them up , and they fh all he changed ; but thou art th^fame^ and thy years fh all not fail. All which is plainly cited from that Pfalm. Chrift therefore is that God to whom that Prayer was made ; the fame Supreme God, who created the Heaven and the Earth : even Jefm Chrift, the fame yefter day and to day and for ever, Heb. 13.8. And it is very frequent in Scripture, that what in one place is fpoken of God Jndefinitly (without fpecification of this or that Perfon ) is elfewhere applied to one or 0- ther of the Perfbns in particular, as that of the Creation is here to Chrift, the Redeemer ; as being the fame God who is the Creator ahb. And that oi Redemption, to God the Creator (who is the Redeemer alfb) If at, 4^. i. Thus fatth the LORD ( Jehovah ) that Created thetj — Fear not, for I have Redeemed thee. So thditGod the Creator, and God the Redeemer, are the fame God, CHARACTER IL The nextCharafter I fballinfift upon, is that where- by Gt?^ denotes himfelf to A/(?/ej, Exod. 3. i^, 14, i<;. I Am that I AM ; and I AM hath fent me unto you. When God was fending Mofts to the Children ofjfrael, in order to their deliverance out of Egypt, Mofes puts this QueOion, When I come to the Children of Jfrael, a?7d /hall fay to them, The God of your Fathers hath fent me unto you 5 and thty fhall fay, What is his Name ? What /hall I fay to them ? 'Tis certainly, therefore the True God, that is here fpoken of: Let us fee what is the Chara<[ler that this God gives of himfelf. And God [aid unto Mofes, I AM THAT I AM: And he faid. Thus /bait thou. fay to the Children of I/rael, I AM hath fent me unto you. This therefore is a proper Ghara6\er of ^the True God,. concerning the Trinity. 75 God. lam that 1 4W,(Ehjeh afher Ehjeh,) or / am^rvho A M; or lantyHe who A M, f© the vulgar Latin ; ( Ego fum QV ] SVM;) and (Q U I EST) He that IS, hath [tnt me : As if, what God fays o^ himfcif (in the fidi: Perfbn) 1 that AM, were proper for M^/ei to lay of him (in the third perfon) He that I S, And fo the Scpmgint, '£><« &IJL1 6 'HN, / am. He thtt AM, or He that IS; and o^'aN (Hsthat IS) hath fent ms. VJhQVQfmpIy TO B £, is made a Diftindive Character of God, as he whofe Effence is To be ; and it is Impof/ibie for him Not to Be. Who IS of Hmfelf ( ov rather Himfelf IS J without deriving ought from any other; and from whom all other Beings, have their Being. Whogiveth to all, life and breath and all things ; In whom we live and move and have our Being, AQ". 17. 27, 28. Who hath jirft given to him ? that is, None hath : He receives no- thing (aliunde) from ought elfe ; but ofhim^ and through him, and to him are all things, Rom. 11. ^5, 36. who is therefore called V'Vlv. The fame notion the Heathens alfb had of the Su- preme God. Hence ^r//?^»- %, Where no man doubts but that by Et/Ao^rifos, is meant, the Supreme God. And when C^r//j is here call- ed, o'^O.v em moLvlcfiv ©eo5 cAj\oymi as tw oiwius, ( the Su' freme Being , the ever-Bleffed God ; ) with the Solemn note of Aifeveration, Jmen : It is certainly too Auguft a Title for any lefs than the Supreme God., thtOnly God, The fame Charadler we have of him again, Rf.v. i. 8. where we have not only the Title 'Clv^ importing his Being , but the additional intimation of his Ettrmty, through all the variety of continued Duration, pafl, pre^ fent, and to come. Where we are to obferve, that at ver. 4. we have this CharaQer of God Indefinitely, without reflridion to this or that Perfon in the Deity, ('as appears by its being con- tradiftiod to Chrift perfonally confidered, ver, ^.; Grace he unto you and peace, (drrro tS ' fly, j^ w, j^v ifiyo^j^ivi^, 3^ 2^70 tS 'Ijiaa Xg/ /?e^'. 2. S. The first and the hfi, which was dead and is alive. And again. Rev. 21. 6. and Rtv. 22. i:j. All relating to Ifai. 41. 4. Ilai,/\^.6. //^/. 48. i2. where the like had before been faid, as a CharaQ:er ("no doubt j of the True God. And llai, 4J. 10. Before me there was no.God formed, neither (hall there he after me. And what can this be other than the Infinite, the E- ternal, the Almtghty God. The fame yefierday, and to day, and for ever, as he is called, Heb. 1^.^. " The Blej'jed, and only Potentate,' the Kjng of Kjngs , and- Lord of Lords,. who only hath Immortality ^ 8cc. as he is defcribed, I Tim, 78 ^A ^hird Sermon iTim, 6. 14, 15, 16. And again, ThtKjngof KJngs, a»d Lord of Lords^ Rev. 17. 14. and Rev. 19. 16. X'/^e Great God^ and our Saviour ^ Tit. 2. 15. Where, 0/^ 6.^1;/- o//r,is fb contra-diftinguilliecl, not as another from ^/»e bVe^t; God, but as another Title of that fame Perlbn : He that IS oitr God and Swiotir ^ or God ottr Savioitr , as it is Tit, ^. 4. ( like as God and the Father, Ephef. 5. 2. and ao"ain, Col. 5. 17. Giving thanks to God, and the Father.) For 'tis manifeft that here QTit. 2. i^. ) it is rpoken of Chrift s coming to judgment ; which is here called, the Giorioi^ appearance of the Great Gody and our Saviour Jefus Chrift ; that is, the glorious appear- ance of Jefus Chrislf who is the Great God and our Saviour ; The title that Jeremy gives to God, j^er. ^2. 18. The ^reat and mighty God, the Lord of Hofts is his name, ChriH therefore, our Saviour^ is fxeyx^ 0€35, the Great God, And the Doxology there added, Rev. i. 6. To him he glory and dominion for ever and ever^ Amen \ is equi- valent to that of ©205 guAoQ/«7o$, Rom. 9. 5. God blef fed, for ever. And the like, i Tim. 6, 16, To vi>hom he Honour and 'Power everUfting, ^^men. And much more, that of Riv. 5. 1 2, I ^, 14. Worthy is the Lamb, that was JIain, to receive Power, and Riches^ and IV/fdom, and Strength, and Honour, and Glory, and Blejjing : (As High a Doxolo- gy as that in the clofe of the Lords-prayer ;) To which we have the Acclamation of every Creature ( which is in heaven , and on the earth, and under the earth, and fuch as art in the Sea, and all that are therein,) jaying, Bleffing, Honour, Glory, and Power, be unto him that fit- ttth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. And the four Beajls faid^ Amen ; And the four and twenty Elders fell down and worfbipped him that Itveth for ever and ever. Too great things to be faid of a mere Creature, or a Titular God ; but very agreeable to Chrift, being Tas he is j the fame God with the Father^ the only True God. I concerning the Trinity. 79 I might here add a like Remark, on that of Ifai, 48. 12. Hearken Ifrael^ I Am HE\ I a?^the Firfi, I am alfo the LaH. And in like manner, Ifai. 41. 4. Ifai, 43. 10,13,25. Deut. ^2. ^9. I, even I^ am HE f'Hu j and there is no other God with me, or beftde me, (And to the fame purpofe elfewhercj Ani Hn\ lam HE; fb we render it. I am HE ; What HE ? 'TiSo hjjn^s, n^re^o^v, Tis the H E Abfolutely takeh, and Emphatically applied to God, Which I take to be of like import with, '\Qr, I AM; / that AM, or That which IS. ^ The Greek ^ por 1 Septuagint ( in the places cited ) renders Ani Hu by f^ke the iyJ> €ifM: And the vulgar Latin ('indifferently j by J%^Pronowis //« and //?, C which vte commonly render by ^e, S'Ae, or If, according as the Gendtrva- ricb) to be Derivatives from the Verb Navab or Bajah which fignifies To Be. Not that I take //« to be a proper Name of God (as are Jafj, and Jehovah, from the fame Verbs ) But an Appellative vv rd, common to tiie Creatures alfo ; but here Emphatically applied to G«d, ("as are the words o'~Qj> and ri "Op, which are common to the Creatures alfo j for fliey alfo are, in their kind, ovta.') And the Latin Pronouns if, id, (that is, he or ?a) when Relatively taken, are to be expounded of rheir Antecedent to which tliey Relate : But when put Abfolutely without anAntecedent ; they are of alike import with to j:^/^^ taken Subibiuively : (0 r/j, or rl Ti_) according 10 which vvc ufe to ray(e''.n in our Mctzphy f.cks^Ens (f^ Mlicjuid convertuntnr, (He orltyffo taken are of the fame import,with <: i?e/n^,or WhatIs.)And the Learned Gatal^er (than whom I do not know that wc h.ave a better Critick s more Judicious or more Acute ; ) though ( in i lis Book l)e Stylo Novi Injiruwenti, contra Ffochenium,^ he do not take Nu to be a Projier Named God (but communicable to Creatures however here Emphatically applied to him : ) Yet doth allow, that in thefe places, and in many otliers (of which he gives divers jnflances) it is ufed for the Verb Subftarjive ( ium, or EJi.) Which is the fame with what I fay, that it Imports aBefn^, or to Be, ( and theretorc, when f/gnally applied to God, his A.bfolute, Infinire, Independent Felf-Being.) And fo, it feems, the Scptuaginrs did here underftand it, who render ^ni Nu, by iya, hui, I A Vi 3 (and the Vulgar Latin, by Ego Sum ■■, ) and in the New Telhmcr.t ( wl.ich ccramonly follows tlie Phrafe of the Septua- gints ) Chrifl fays i: of himfcif, Before Abraham Was (not / Was, but } / Am, CiyJ eiui, ^ importing thereby his Permanent and Injiccejfive Being ; cc-cxiflent to all th.e varieties of (Siicceffivc} Duration i P;ifi, Prefent, and tuturc : the fame Tefter day, and To-day, and for ever. The difference between « or ? ifiens ; The word Efi, fo taken, including both the Copula and the Predicate : Like as i^or quid Subftantively taken, is not Relative, but Abfolute, and the fame with Ens, Sum^ 8o A Third Sermon Samy Ego Tpfe^ Ego Sum Ipfe^ Ego Jpfs Sum : That is, / Jim He, ^ I AM, And Chrilt, of him(elf, ^c^. 8.58. TTfly 'A^^ccfji ')lii^l^^, ey^eHfM, Before Ahraham was^ I AM, And I ihc rnther take it {o to fignify (in the places cited) becaufe I thsre find it attended (exegetically)with an In- timation of his Eternity) He if. He is the F/Vf/ and he is the Lafi ; Before him mm ^.V>iSy and after him ^/one fljall Be : He Is, and ever V/a^, ar-d ever fliall Be. CHARACTER III. The next CharaQer that I fhall infiit upon, is that of the two Proper Names of God, 3^^/^ and JthiTjah; which I take to be Proper to God, and Incommunicable to any other, I put them both together, becaulc they be both of the fame import; and indeed, of the lame with E/jjeh^ (I AM^ before-mentioned. The chief difference is, that Ehjeh {t AMJ retains the form of tlie /^e/-^ ; but Ja/j and Jehovah are Nouns verbal, from Hnjah or Havdh which fignifie to Be : All denoting Gods abiolute Se/>^.- And AH peculiar to the 'oupreme God, and no where applied in Scripture f'that I know of; to any other. I know the Soc/ma^ts would perfvvade us that Jehovah is (bmetimc ^^iven to an A/ige/, vi^hich we do not deny ; but we fliy that Angel is not a Created Angel, but the Angel of the Covenant ^ who is God him (elf. The name ^ah comes often in the Old Teftament, but not fo often as Jehovah, Particularly in BfaL 68. «j. Sing unto God, ftng praijes to his Name^ extol him that Qvll Bi- r^^^^^^ ^T^ ^^^ heavens hy his Name J AH So we find it bieof ri'is i^^- our £ibles, aad It agrees with the Original. But in TMDiiiti- ourPfalters, (" by a continued miliakej infteadof7rf/^ mo'ngii '"^^ '^'^? ^s printed Tea ^. Mr. Sii'i:.. ? }3oaks in the Eidleyan Library ) appointed to be read in Churches (as we are told in the , u.'^ page) printed (' if i donot mif-remember the date) aboutthe Reign of King Ed(v.ndx:i\<: Sixth, or the end of King Henry the Eighth, I find the Name J A. But in all other (whether Pfalt«rs or Bibles, Old or New) of that Trapflacion ( that I have con- But concerning the Trinity. 8i fulced} ic is Tea. Of which ( I fuppofe ) the occallon at firft was this r The Hebrew Lee- C^,. ter, by different pcrfons, is differently called Jodznd Tod i and accordingly that Name co be * <•' written in Englifn Ja or Ta. Which being ( it leems ) in fome Books written or printed Ta., fome after-Printer thinking it to be mii-printcd for ;r/'e/r/ and the laft, irai.4 1 .4. Thu^ faith the LORD ( Jehovah ) before me there was no God, neither fhall there be after me.Ifa'i. 4^. 10. Thus fatth the LORD (Jehovah,) theKjngof I frael,andhis Redeemer, (Jehovah.) the LORD of Hofls, T am the firfl and I am the lajl ; and be fide Me there is no God, llai. 44. 6. which are the Characters applied to Chrift, Rev. i. 8, 9. & 2,^. &21.6. & 22, 15. as was fhewed before. Tis true, that in the Greek Septuagint of the Old Teftament, the name Jehovah is no where retained ; but Tvue^Q^ ( I think ) every where put for it. Whe- ther becaufe of a Jewifh Superftition, no where to pronounce that Name ; or becaufe it could not conve- niently be cxprefled in Greek Letters ; I will not de- termine. And for that reafbn (becaufe the Sep- tuagints did not ufe it) it is not ufed in the New Teiiament ( which doth moftly comply with the Lan^ guage of the Septuagints ; as being the Greek Trail- flation then in ule.) And therefore we are not to look for the Name Jehovah there applied to Chtift. But di* vers places are in the New Teftament applied to Chrift, wherein the name Jehovah was ufed in the Old Tefta- mem. And the name owje/iS^( the Lord) by which both concerning the Trinity. 8 5 both the Septuagints and the New Teftament do con- ftantly render the Hebrew Name Jehovah^ is fb frequent- ly apphed to Chrift in the New Teftament, as that C throughout the New Teftament ) it is alraoft his con- ftant Character, the Lord, the Lord Jefus Chrifty Src. One Lord 'Jefus Chrift^ i Cor. 8. 6. Our Lord '^efas Chrifi^ the Lord of Glory, Jam. 2. i. My Lord a»dmyGod, Joh. 20. 28. No mm can Jay that Jefus is the Lord, buuiy the HolyGhofij I Cor. 12. ^. And elfewhere fb often, that none can be ignorant of it. CHARACTER IV. The laft Character (which I fhall infift upon) of the True God, the Only God ; is that of the Lord God of Ifratl ; Hear Ifrael^ the Lord our God is one Lord. And thou fhalt love the Lord thy God with all thy hearty 8cc, Deut. 6. 4. And the Lord thy God, is almoft the condant Language of Mofes to the Children of Ifrael: And it is the Charafter which God direds him to ufe ; Thus (halt thou fay unto the Children of Ifraef The Lord God of your Fathers, the God of Abraham ^ the Godof Ifaac^ and the God of 'Jacob, hath fent me ; this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all Generations^ Exod. ^. i^.^nd the Lord God of the Hebrews^ ver. 18. And elfewhere very often throughout the Bible. And doubtleis, he that was the Lord God o^fratl, is the true God, the only God. 'Tis He wlio telis us, / am the Lord thy God — Thou fhalt have no other God but Me, Exod. 20. ^. And,'I?e- fides Me, there ts no other God^ Ilai. 44. 6. and fb often clflwhere, that it is needlefs to name the places. And this Character, as well as the reft^ is expreOy given to Chrifl alib, Luk, i. 16, 17. where we are eX' prefly told of John the Baptijl^ that many of the Children of Ifrael (ball he turn to tfj8 ILo^D CDctC ©00 (to the Lord God of Ifraiel'^ for ht (hall go before Hirn in the fprit and porver- 86 -^ Third Sermon power of EUas. Now we all know, whofe fore-rfw^er John Baptift was ; and kfore whom he was to go, in the Power and Spirit ofElias, And he before whom he was thus to go, is the Lord Godof Ifraei ; and therefore not only a Titular God, or a Cre4///re God, but the Tr«e God, the Supreme God, the fame God with'that God who is the Lord God ofl[rad\ whom no man doubts to be the True Gody the Supreme God, the 0;ify God. I might add many other Characters given to Chrift, proving him to be the True God * as that Rev. i, i^. I am he which fear cheth the Reins and Heart s., and I will give unto ei'try one according to his Works, ( and to the iame purpofe, Rev. 22. 12. and elfewhere : ) which God (tlie True God ) claims as his peculiar Prerogative, Jer. 17. 9, 10. The heart is deceitful above all things , and defptrate- ly wicked , Who can know it ? 1 the LORD fearch the Heart , / try the Reins', to give to every man accor- ding to his ways, and, according to the fruit of his doings. And to the fame purpole, 'jer. 11. 20. '[jer. 20. 12. I Chron. 28. 9. Pfal. 7. 9. Pfai. 159. i. and in many o- ther places. And thatlikewife of Ifai 9. 6. His Name jhall be called Wonderful Councellor, the Mighty God, the EverUJnng Father, the Prince of Peace , 8rc. with many other Characters of like nature, which can never a- gree to any but the True God. But it is not my bufinefs, in this fliort Difcourfe, to fay All that might befaid ; but what may be fufficient. He therefore that is ( as hath been fliewed ) Gody the True God ; the Mighty God ; the Everlafiing Father ; the Eternal God; the firft and the Lafl, (^before whom nothing was, and after whom nothing (hall be) that Was, and Is , and (hall Be ; the Jame yefierday^ and to day, jind for ever ; the ^^hniqhty ; by whom the World XV M made ; by whom all things were madcy and without whom nothing was made that was made ; who concerning the Tnnity. 8^ whoUfd the foundations of the Earthy And the Heavens are the work of his hands ; who , when the Heavens and the Earth jhall fail^ his years endure for ever ; who fearcheth the heart and the reins, to give to tvery one according to his works ;. who is 'Jehovah ; the Lord God oflfrael\ the ^S"*- freme being \ which is over all^ God bkfjedfor ever; who is the Bkjjed and only Potentate, the Kjng of Kjnos and Lord of Lords, who only hath immortality^ to whom be Ho- nour and Power Everlafiing^ Amen, That God (\ fay ) of whom allthefe great things are faid, is (certainly) not a mere TituUr God, (who is caUed God but is not^ ) a Creature God, or only a dignified Man, For, if thefe be not Charaders of the True God, by what Cha- raders fhall the True God be defcribed ? I know, the Sociniam have imployed their Wits to find out fome tricks to evade or elude fome of thefe plain places, which I fliallnot trouble my felf, or you to re- peat ; or to give an anfwer to them. For they are fb weak, and fo forced, that the plain words of Scripture, read together with the forced fenfes they woufd put upon them, are anfwer enough; nor do they need or defer ve any further anfwer. OBJECTION VIII. The lafl: Objedion which 1 fhall now take notice of, is this ; That the Do6lrine of the Trinity was not known to the Jewifli Church before Chrift. To which I anfwer, i. If it were not made known to them, it was not necellary for them to know. For mat- ter^ of pure Revelation, are not necefTary to be known, before they are revealed, ( nor farther than they are re- vealed :) But may be fb to us, to whom they are Re- vealed. The whole Do£lrine of our Redemption by Chrift, was (doubtlefs) unknown to Adam before his Fall; And, 88 A Third Sermon And, had he not fallen, it would have been no feult in him not to have known it at all. And when f after his fall) it was firft made knowa to him, (in that firft promile, that the Seed of the Wo- m/in jbould break the Serpents head. Gen. ^.15.) it was yet fo dnrk, that he could know very little ( as to the particulars of it) of what is now known to us. And as God by parcels ( ttoAuju^/dw^) at fundry times ^ and in di- vers manners J declared more of it to ^brnham^ to David, and the Prophets, lo were they obliged to know and be- lieve more of it : and when in the Uft days he had de- clared the whole of it by hi* Son ; Heb. i. 1,2. it is now necelTary for us to believe much more; of which they might be fafely ignorant. And, of the Trinity likewile, if it were not then revealed. 2. But Secondly, There were many things, which though not fully revealed, fb as to be clearly underflood by All ; were yet fo infinuated, as to be in good mea- fure underftood by fbme ; and would more be fb, when the Veil (hmld be taken off from Mof€s\ face^ 2 Cor. g. 1^1 M* ^^' Thus the Death and Refurrtciion of Chrift , were not underrtood,even by his own Difciples,ti\\ after his Refur- re(E):ion. Y et we muft not fay that thefe things were not before intimated in the Scriptures ( though covertly ; ) for when their imderjlandings were opened, to underfiand the Scriptures, and what had been written of him in the Law of Mofes, and in the Prophets^ and in the Pfalms \ they then perceived that it was fo written, and that it behooved Chrift to Suffer and to Rife from the dead the Third day. Yet this was therein fb covertly contained, that they feem no more to have underftood it, than that of the Trinity. And St. Paul'm the Epiftle to the Hebrews, declares a great deal to have been covered under the jewifi Rites and concerning the Trinity. 89 a»d Ceremonies ; which, certainly, moft of the Jevvifh Church did not underftand ; though, in good meafure, it might be underftood by Ibme. I might lay the hkeof the Refurreciion ; which was but darkly dilcovered till Immortality was hrgught to light through the Goff>el, 2 Tim. i. 10. We muft not yet lay, it was wholly unknown to thcjewi/lj Church, ( oF whom many, no doubt, did believe it:) Yet neither can we fay, 'it was generally received ; For we know the P ha- rtfees and the Sadduces were divided upon that point, Jci. 2 ^. 6, 7, 8. And fo Httle is faidof it in the Old Te- Ihment, that thofe who had a mind to be captious, might have found much more fpecious pretence of cavilling a- gainft it then, than our Adverfaries no'A> have againft the Do£lrine of the Trinity. ^. I fay Thirdly, as of the Refurreclion, there were then divers intimations, which are now better under- ftood, ( in a clearer light ) than at that time they were : So I think there were alfo of the Doarine of theTr/^/Vy. I fhall inftance in fome of them. I. That there was, in the Unity of the God-head, a Plurality of Somewhat (which now we call Perfons) feems fairly to be infinuated, even in that oi Elohim-hara, Gen. I.I. (In the beginning God created,) where Elohim ( God ) a Nominative Cafe Plural, is joined with Bara, a Verb Singular ; ( which is as if we fliould lay m Enghfh, JVe Am, or Thty Doth ; which would to us found odly, if fomewhat of Myftery be not intended in it. ) Nor is it here only, but very frequently, that God is called Elohim in the Plural Number, (and much oftner than in the Singular Number Eloah,) as if, though "^thovah be but One, yet Elohtm may be Three : Not Three Gods, but Three Somewhats m that One God. ( For though it hQ Elohim, yetitisii^r^ : It is 6'^ Three, asyettobeO/^e.) Nor is it Elohajim (in the Dual Number) as fpoken ot 90 A Third Sermon TtPOy or a Of^pie ; but Elohim (in the Plural Number ) as of f»ore thm Tm. This may perhaps be called a Critkifmj (^and it is fb.) But I am loth to fay, it is purely Cafud^ and not defigned. For many times little Circumftances, and unheeded Ex- prefTions ("as at firft they may feem to be,; may (^by the Divine Wifdom ; be fore-defigned to fbme confiderable purpofe. As, that of, Not n bom of it (hall he broketfy Exod. 12. 46. Numh. 9. 12. PfaL ^4. 20. And that of, they fierced my hands and my feet ^ Pial. 22. 16. And, they {hall look upon him whom they have pierced, Zach. 12. lo. And that, they part my garment among them^ and on my ve^ fiure they caji lots, Pfai. 22. 18. And, they gave me gall for my meat, and tn my thirft they gave me vinegar to drink ^ Pfal. 69. 2 1 . Which are moft of them, but Poetical Ex- preifions ; and feemingly cafual, and undefigned, as to their Literal Senie ; but were providentially ordered, as being hterally to be fulfilled ; as we find in ^oh, 19. 2j, 24, 28, 29, 36, ^7. and in the places parallel of the other Gofpcls. I might inftance in a great many fuch, which at firft might feem Cafual, but were Providentially defigned. I fhall content my felfat prelent with one more ; which is that of St. P^«/, r which perhaps may be thought to look as like a Criticifm as what I m.ention ) Gal. ^.16, Now to i^braham and his Seed were the prsmifes made. He faith not. And to Seeds, a^ of many ; but as of one^ And to thy Seed which isChrijL Now the promifes made to K^braham, to which he refers, are thofe Gf/7. 22. 16, 17, 18. (which, I think, is the only place,where, in pro- mifes made to ^^braham, fuch mention is made of his Seed.) Bymyfelfhavelfworn, faith the Lord; For be^ caufe, thou haft done this thing, and hafl not withheld thy Son, thine onely Son ; That in bleffing I wtU blefs thee, and mnlt if lying I mil multiply thy Seed, as the Jlars of the heaven, and concerning the Trinity. oi md, as the f and which is ufon the fea-jbour^ and thy Seedjhall fojfefsthegateofhisemmies; and in thy Seed {hall all the nations of the earth be bitted ; becaufe thou, hajl obeyed my voice. By Abrahams Seed, here, is manifeftly meant hts Chil- dren whom God promileth to multiply. And it might (eem to be very indifferent whether to fay, thy Seed, or thy Children. But St. Paul was (b nice a Critick,3.s to take advantage of his faying Seed (^in the Singular Number j and not Seeds or Children f'm the Plural^ as thereby fignally denoting ^as principally intended j thuOneSeed, which is Chrifi. Yet are not the re/ of the Seed to be quite excluded ^even in that laft Claufe of it^ In thy Seedjhall all the Nations of the earth be bkffedj as appears by J^. 3'^i' And ye (men of Ifrael, ver. 12.^^ are the Children of the Prophets ^ and of the Covenant which God wade with our Fathers, faying unto ^^braham. And in thy Seed (ball all the kindreds of the earth be blejfed. Whence 'tis evident, thatfeemingly unheeded Criticifmsare fbme- times Providentially defigned. And fuch I take this of Bara Elohim, to be. And it is taken notice of to this pur- pofe, both by Jervifl? and Chriftian writers. The like Plurality feems plainly intimated in the fame Chapter, Ge;?. 1.26. Let V S make man m OVR image and after OV R likenefs. Yet even this Plurality is no other than wliat in another coniideration, is 2.K\Vmty', tor fb it follows, ver. 27. So God created ma,n in HIS own image. Thefc Plural Somewhats, therefore, are but One God, And 'tisbutachildifb excufe to fay, Ft is the Stile of Princes to fpeak in the Plural, We and Vs inilead of / and Me. 'Tis indeed a piece of Courtfhip at this day, (and perhaps hath been forfbme Ages : ) But how long hath it been fb ? 'Tis not fo old as Mofes ; much leis io old as the Creation^ King Pharoah.and Senacharib, and N 2 Ah.fu- 2 A Third Sermon Jhdfuerus, were wont to fay /, Me, Mine, ( not We, Vs, Ours. ) And Nebuchadnezzjir, even in the Height of his Pride, Dan. 4. 30. Is not this great Babylon that I have built, by the might of MT Power, and for the honour of MX Majefty, Here's nothing oHVe and Our. This was not Stil^ Regim in thofe days. And if we fhould here ex- pound it by fuch an equivalence ; And God [aid. Let Me make man in My image ', it would fcarce found like good Senfe. ( For 'tis not ufual to fpeak Imperatively in the ¥irfl perfon Singular. ) It feems therefore to imply a Plurality, though not a Plurality of Gods. The like we have Gen. 3.22. Behold, the man is be- come like One of Vs. Is this alfo Stilo Regio, inftead of, The man is become like one of Me ? V- So, Ge». II. 6, 7. ^^nd the L R Z)-( Jehovah) faid , Let V S go down , and confound their Language, 2. And as thele places intimate a Plurality, fb I know not but that of Ge;?. 18. may intimate this Plurality to be a Trinity, That the appearance there of three Men to Abraham, was a Divine apparition (though Abraham did not at firft apprehend it fbtobe) is evident. For it is exprefly faid by Mofes,vtT i. The LORD (Jehovah) appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre ; and he lift up his eyes, and lo Three Men flood by him. So that this appear- ance of Three Men, was an appearance of the Lord "Je- hovah, And though we do not find that Abraham doth any where ufe the word Jehovah in that difcourfe, (but Adonai all along : ) Yet Mofes the Relater (where him- felf {peaks ) fays every where Jehovah-, though whea he recites Abraham's words , it is Adonai : But even Adonai is a word Plural ( as well as Elohim ) that is, my Lords ; ( the Singular is ^^doni, my Lord \ but feldom faid of God.J Whether it were, that the name JEHOVAH were not then known to K^hraham ( according to that of Exod^ concerning the Trinity. 93 Exod.6.-^.) or that Abrahamv/diS not at firft aware who it was with whom he was then difcourfing ; or for what other reafbn he did avoid ufing the n^iux^ jehovah ; I fhall not trouble my felf curioufly to enquire : Butfure we are that Mofes tells us, This Apparition of Three Men (as at firft they Teemed to be ) was an Apparition of the Lord 'Jehovah, We need not doubt therefore, but that God appeared there, in this Apparition of Three Men ; which is there- fore a fair, intimation of a Trinity of Perfons, It might perhaps be cavill'd at, if this were all : And fb migiit that o^ Jonah* sh^mg three days and three nights in the WhalC shelly^ when brought as an Argument to prove our Saviour ought fo long to lie in the Grave. But St. 'Paul tells us, \Qor. 15. ^,4. that Chrift died for our fins according to the Scriptures ; and that he role again the Third day^ according to the Scriptures, ( And Chrift in like manner, Luk. 24. 46.) Yet I know not any thing more clear to that purpofe in the Scriptures ( of the Old Te- ftament ) than either this of Jonah\ being fb long in the Whales belly (to which Chrift himfelf alludes, Mat, 12. 40. j or that of Hof, 6, 2. After two days he mil re- vive m^ and the third day he mllratfe us up. Which feems not to be more exprefs ( for the Refurredion of Chrift on the Third day ) than this of Jonah. But fuch covert Intimations there are in the Old Teftament ; of things afterward more clearly difcovered in the New. Nor was this unknown to the ancient Jewifh Doftors, as appears by what ^^infvorth (m his Notes on Gen.iJ cites from thence, (^out of K. Simeon, Ben Jochai in ZS'^'^'J Come fee the Myflery of the word Elohim : there are three Degrees, and every Degree by it felf Diflinci ', and yet not- rvithflanding they are all one, and joined together in One, and are not divided one from another, ( only, there he calls Degrees what we now call Perfons.) So that it was not . 94 A Third Sermon not unknown to the Jews of old, whatever theprefent Jews think of it. ^. What thefe r/'^ee are, (the Father, the Word, and the Spirit,') feems to be likewife intimated in the Story of the Creation, Ge«. i. where they feem to be diftind- ly named. //? the beginning ( Elohim ) God created the Heaven and the Earth, ver. i. where no man doubts but God the Father is impUed, though perhaps not He only. And ver, 2. The Spirit ofGodmovedupon the face of the Waters. Where Jinf worth tells us from the ancient Rab- bines whom he cites, they call him, The Sprit of Mercies from before the Lord : The Spirit ofVVifdom, called, the Spi- rit of the Living God : And, The Spirit of the Meffiof, Of the fame Spirit, ^q have eliewhere mention ; My Spi- rit [hall not always flrive with Man, Gen. 6. ^. Take not thine Holy Spirit from me, Pfal. 51. ii. The Spirit of the Lord ii upon me, Ifai. 6 1 . i . They vexed his Holy Spi- rit, Ifai. 65. 10. and eliewhere. And if it be (aid, that by the Spirit of God, is meant Godhimftlf: we lay fb too, for we do acknowledge, that the Holy Ghoji, is God himfelf. And, of the Word, there is a like intimation, ver. 5. Qod ©ai'D ( or fpake the Word) Let there be Light, and there wa^s Light. And in like manner, ver. 6, 9, 11. 14, 20. God ®atD, Let there be a Firmament^ Sfc. So Vfal. g^. 6, 7. By the QHo^l) of the Lord were the Hiavens made, &c. He Spake and it was donty He Commanded and it flood faf. And Vfal. 14^.^. He Spake the Word and they were made, He commanded and they were created, Con- fbnant to that ofHeb. 1 1. 5. By faith we undtrfiand that the Worlds were made by the (lIHo^D of God. And i Fet. ^. 5,7. By the CjKoiII of God the Heavens were of old, andthe Earth, he. And by the fame t^io^O they are keptinflore, or freferved. In which places, by the Word, (b often men- tioned, concerning the Tnmty. oe| tioned, and with fuch Emphafis put upon it; feemsto be meant, that Word mentioned, Joh, i. i,^, lo. In the beginning was the Word, ( o Ao^©-, J All things were made by Him : The World wot made by Him ; juft as in Heb, II. :?. the Worlds were made by the Word of God, Nor was this notion of the Word (Perfbnally taken) unknown to the Jewifh Doctors. For what we have Pfal. no. I . The Lord J aid unto my Lord^ ( Dixit Jehova Domino meo ) the Chaldee Paraphrafe, renders by Dixit Jehova, (Bemeimreh) inFerbo/uomQSimng, by His Word, ' the Melftas ; and of Whom our Saviour himfelf expounds kjMat. 22. 44. And it is frequent, in that Paraphrafe, by the Word to defign the MeJ^as ; * as S. Joh. doth, * So in 7/^. ^oh. I.I. In the beo^innin? was the Word, i^' '°' , •^ e> e> Pear not, T amvc'ith thee y andi-er. 13. Fearnot, I will help thee -.^ andi/er. 14. Fearnot^ 1 will help thee faith the Lord and thy Redeemer-^ and ver. 16. The Wind (ox Spirit, Ruach') JJjall carry them away, and tire V/hirl-wind jlmUfcatter them : Is in the Chaldee Paraphrafe (rendred into Latin) Ketimeas^quia inadjutoriumtuum erit Verbummeum. Ne time at, quiaVerbum meum erit in ad- juto/mmtuum. Ketimeatiiy Verbum meum eft in Mxilium veftrum, dicit doming ^ Re demptor vefter. Ventm (^fcuSpiritus} abripiet eos, of the hope And refur region of the dead he rvas called in cfueflionyj), that he didy2> worfhip the Ged of his Fathers^ believing all things which were written in the Law and the Prophets, andhadhop^ towards God (which they alfo allowed) that there fhoitld be a KefurreUion of the dead both of the Juft and Vnjufi ; and that it was apromife made of God to their Fathers y to which their twelve Tribes infiantly ferving God da^ and nighty hoped to come ; which were no other things than what Mofes and the Prophets hadfaidfhould come topafs ; and which to Kj^g Agrippa (^who if not a^erVjWas at leafl: well acquain- ted with their Doftrines J fhould notfeem jirangeyAcl. 2 1 S. ^^.24.14,15. J(^. 26.2,3,6, 7,8,22. And //e^. 1 1. 1 ^. that all thefe died in faith y not having received the promifes ; ^that is, they died in the belief of better things than what they had yet received :) But f aw them afar offhand were per- fwadtd ofthem^ and embraced them^ and confejjed, they wtrt but fir angers and Pilgrims upon Earth. And our Savi- our proves it out of the Old Teftament, ( Mat, 22. j 2.) by fuch an Argumenti as if one of us (liouldhave urged^ it would perhaps have been ridiculed : / am the God cf Abraham^ the God oflfadc^^nd the God of Jacob ; Now God is not the God of the dead, but of the livings AYid the Apoflle purfuesihe fame Argument, Heb.ti, 9,10, 14, 1$^, i^* O They 98 A. Third Sermon They foj our fied in the Land of fromife, as in a firange Land^ dwelling in Tabernacles ^movable from place to place ^ for thty looked for a City which hath foundations ( a fixed City, not flitting as were thofe Tabernacles,) whofe huil- der and maker is God : Declaring plainly that they didfeek a (ottntry : Notfuch as that from whence they came ; hut a het" ter Country ^that is ^ a Heavenly: wherefore God is not afham- ed to be called tX^tll ^Ot) ; for he hath prepared for them a City ; where hedireclly argues, that God's ProiBife,, to k their God, was a Promife of Heaven. -i • And no doubt but the Prophets, and Men of Gpd, had taught them all along, to put a Spiritual Senfe,; upon thole (feemingly^ Temporal Frpmifes, ( though thp 6W^ duces would not believe it, but cavilled 4t it ; ) in Ip much that not only the Fharifets and Dollars of the Law ; but even the Women embraced it (even/'gjft>reChrift's Refur-f reQion ;) i know faith Mar4h'a\(Qi her dead Brother £42^4- riii ) that he /ball Ri/e again in the Refurreclion, at the laji day^ Joh. 1 1. 24. And, of fuch Spiritual SenfeSy we have copious Inftances, in the Epiftle to the Hebrews ^ and elfe- where frequently. And as they did without any relu£l:ances, readily em- brace the Doftrine of the Refurre0ion,whenmorQ clearly declared by the Apoftles, (^ as a thing not wholly new to them 'J fo neither do we find in them any Reludance to that of the Trinity (^for which, in hkelihood, they had in like manner been before prepared :^but readily clofed with the Form of Baptifm,;>/^^e N ame( not Names')of theFather^ and of the Son, and of the Holy G^o/,Mat.2 8.1 9.^d that Solemn Benedi5lton, 2 Cor .1 ^.14. The grace of our Lord 'Jefus Chrifi^ and the love of God, and the Communion cf the Holy Ghofl be ivithyou all. Amen. Where we have all the Three Per Ions reckoned together ; as they are alfo in that cele- brated place,'! '[joh, 5: 7. The Father, the Word, and the Holy Qhofi j thefs Three are One, And as they had been before concerning the Trinity. 99 before by Chrift himftlf, Joh, 1 4. 26,, The Co^forte^-^ which is the Holy Ghojl^ wlmm the Father i-mll fend in My Name ^ He {ball teach you dl things., hw^^j oh, i 5. 26. The Comforter whom 1 wtll fend unto you from the Father^ eve)» the Spirit of truths which Proceedeth from the Father, He jhdl tefitfy of Me. :And;'i{to name no more places^ ikf^^.^. 16, 17. "Jefmy when he wns baptized^ went [irait- way out of the Water : And Lo, the heavms y^ere opened unto him, and he (JohnthQ Baptiftj fawthe Spirit of God de- fending like a Dove, ^nd lighting upon Him : And lo, a voice from heaven faying^, 1 hts is i4y beloved Son, in whom I amwellpleafed. A ! .\A^Ji^v.:: : loDio:: ■A •ii■v.^ 4. There is yet another Confideratipn which.doth con- firm this opinion, that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not unknown to the Jewiflj Church before Chrift : From thefootfteps thereofyetejtrant in Heathen Writers. 'Tis well known ^to thofe converfant in fuch Studies; that much of the Heathen Learning / their Philolbphy, Theology, and Mythology ) was borrowed from the Jews; though much Difguifed, and Tometimes Ridicu- led by them. Which things though they be Fabulous, as difguiled in a Romantick drefs : yet they are good Evidence that there was a Truth in Hlifiory^ which gave occafion to thoie Fable's. ,'•..'. None doubts hmOviis Fable of the C/^^^i (of which all things were made / took its rife from Mofts''^ Hiftory of the Creation : And. Deucalion's Flood, from that o^ Noah : and the Titans fighting againll: the Gods,from theBuilders of BdePs Tower : And that of Twq-faced Jan^y from Noahs looking backward 8c forward to the World before and fince the Flood. And many the like,of. which we may fee in Natalis Comes, in Bochartus, and others : And of which we have a laji-gc.Calledioa in TheophU^ Gale's Court of the Gentiles. And in Dr. Dupori^s Gnomolpgia Homerica ; wherein is a Colledion of Homer's Sayings, O 2 which lOo A third Sermon whichlooklike Allufionsto likePaffagesin Sacred Scri- pture h and leem to be borrowed (moft of them)irom thofe Books of it, which were written before Hower^s fime ; who yet is orie of the moft Ancient and moft Fam- ed of Heathen Writers. P/ato hath borrowed fb much of his Philofbphy,Hiftory, and Theology, from the Jemjh learning, as that he hath obtained the Title of ( Mooaris 'hrTx-M^m) Mofes difguifed in a Greek drefs. And, may feem, becaufe the name ofjeivs was odious, to cite them rather by the names of certain Barhariam, Syrians^ Fhcemciam^ Egypt tans. Sec From that Title of God in Exodm, I AM, o "Q.v^ (or from the Equivalent names of Jah and Jehovah ) he borrows his ( 'TO ovy &junr) ov, ovT«5 oV,) the Being, for that which Is^ the very Beings the true Being ; which are the Titles he gives to the Supreme God. For his Immortality of the Soul^ he reckons the beft Argument to be (Sa©* Koyi^) a Divim Revelation, which he had hy Tradition from cer- tain Ancients^ who lived (as hefpeaks) nearer to the Gods, l^as if he had borrowed even this Phrafe from Deut, 4. 7. What nation is fo great y who hath God Jo Nigh unto them ?) And much more, as hath been noted by others. And I am fo far from thinking (as ih^^cinianswoxild have us) that St. John did but PUtonize, and borrowed his A07©' from Platoh Trinity ; that I rather think, that Plato borrowed his Tri/^i/;' fas he did many other things; from thQ Jetvifb Do^rine, though by him dif- guifed : And take it for a good Evidence, that the Do- Srine of the Trinity, was then not unknown to them. Jriflotle, in the laft Chapter of his Book, De Mundo ; which is de Dei Nomtnibm : He tells us that God^ though he be but One; hath many Names : And amongft thofe many^ he reckons that of the Tres Parc£ ( Tp«5 cu MoIqsi^i) or as we call them, the Three Deftinies (Jtropas, Clotho, and Lachefis \ (whom he doth accommodate to the three di- ver fities concerning the Trinity. loi verfities of Time ; paft, prefent, and future^) to be 0/^eof thefe Nsmes. Which, though numbred as T/^^-ee, are but this 0»e Go<:/. TotvTct Si Trdvicb Iq'h «>c oi}><.6 m jr^onv o (BeU. ( And cites FUto to the fame purpofe ) ^^din^ >^ o yivvalos YlKdn^tiv -"<"'-"■. „ fmdd ha.ve been infcrtedin their proper places, but that they c.tme fi late to the Print e^i hands, that it cnuid vat well be dctie mthout difcompofini his A fairs. Of both which it U, thought fit \ thm to direEi . E k R AT J. LEc. T.f. 12. i. 6. for Dlvifions miafDimenfions. j». 13. / 6. deleThxct. p. 18./. 7. for I'lcaning read Memory. Let. 11. p.7. /. 21. fir that rc.rdihaW. Lee. III. p. 30. /. i I . as a feparace Exigence, f 52 /. 7. -as to be. p. -37'. /■ ult. for Thofe read Thcfe. ]?. 41./. 18 known P. $7. Li, for (nrc read Cive. , : * ';. Let. iV. j). 7, /. 20. /or toil ) :?.w talk. p. 1 1 . /. 2. as well as. Let. V. p. 6. I. 22. deteoi. y. 7. I. x^.for any'jerf^my. p. ii./.lo. read' i Joli. 5. ac. jf). 1 2. /. iS. fir Ifrael read Jacob, p. 1 8. /, 13. doth not vvell p. 21. /, 14. laid fo much. Let. VL^.4. /. i.fir Nor r^'ti Now. ;>. 9./. 28-/5i"then rcadt\i^tt. p. jo. /. 22. for London readLf^dtn. p.ii.L 1 9. at lead. p. 13./. 30 /or This re^i Thus. p. 14./. ii,fori% readin. I. 34. thee only, the. p. 1 7. /. 6. fir Railing read Ranting, p. 18. /. i. was ihot then. /. 13. be- iide that in. , . Let. VIL P.6.I2B. Pofllbility. /•.7./. 27. /5r fourth readhnk.p.io. /.jien.AlI-comprehen- five. p. 12.1. 20. Fatlier. ;». 13. /. 5. afte/ Houons, add further than they are revealed. i.pen. Words, p. 14. /. 13. Hands, p. 17. /. 13. to Anfwer. /. 23. /or one readme. Semi. p. 1 5. /. 14. excgerical. p. 19 l.j. God. p. 22. /. 19. fir for read or. /. 21. for ?r readkr. F. di.*/. 9. miflf Author. P. 73./. a.re^ri/were framed. . ig.J. 2. Add^ So that V take the plain fenfe of the wordVto be this : He roas ( for. fome time) in thAt Hell^ or Hadss (what ever by that word be meant ) \ whire'in (it is exprefly faid j ^he wm not lefi-^.biK was Raifed from it. 0. 44. A v6, Add^ BeddechisLetterof thanks from his Partner in the Difputation ^ there was another from Sandins hirofelf, (not Printed, but in Manufcript,) acknowledging a like convidtipn'. Of which Wittichim recites an feraft, in his Caufa Spiritm SanBi Ft^rix de'monjiratd^ a ChrifiophoroWpttichio, Lugduni Batavomm^ apitd Cornelium Bontejlein^ 1682. ' ' ^^•■'^'■''♦^'•' ■'*'•. \ ^ Let. IV. p. 36. /: ^5. ^/f^^Athanafius,^^^,('Tis the fameihinl^With me, whether it were written by Him or fome Other, as long as 1 fimiit agree- able to Scripture.^? the end of the fame line ^ Add (Wherein yet I would not be thought to encourage dangerous Errors : For the Errors are- equally Dangerous, and equally Fundamental ^ whether I do, or donot Anathe- matize them.) p>. ^^. at the End', Add ]irt. 13. 169';. Yoms,JabnlVallif. Let. VI, p. 9. /. 25. Add this Marginal Not^^. Socinui'^s Words aie thefe : Velim autemfcioi^ rne dnplici de canfd (pr'tter earn qttam ipfe commemorors) ab ifia quAJiione, De AnimA ImmortalitatCy abflinuiffe. Nam & mihi res erat cnm ho mine qui me calumniandi^ inq\ omnium invidiam vocandi^ omnem occa- fionem qnarehat. Necdum mihi, quid de qnaflione iflajiatHendum fit, plane ex- ploratum erat •, qiiemadmodum nee hodie quidem efi. Tamnm id mihi videtuT (latui poffe •, Po(l hanc vitam, animam fen animum hominis non ita per fefitbfi- flere ut pramia itlla pcenafve' jentiat^ vel etiam ifta Jemiendi fit capax. .QiitS me a Fir ma Optriio facile potefi ex Difputatione ijla colligi : Cum ex tnultls qu<& identtdem a me tbi dicitntur •, Turn ex ea ipfa, de qua pyacipHe agttur, ftuten- tia mea Namqnamvif, cum ipfo Fitcrio difpntans, {qui, m tmmorfaiitatem primi hominis ante ptccatum probaret, animi ipfim Jmmortalitatem mihi ob- jiciebat, ) o^endi, non propterea did pojfe hominem immortalem quia, anima ipfiHS non moriatur : T.amen fat is apparet tne fenfire, non ita vivere^ pojt hominis Additions. hominis ipfius m^rteth^ jtmmam 4JHSy ut per fe prAmiorum posftarnrnve ca- pax exiftat : Cum in ipfo prima hemtne^ totmi ImmO'tJilitatit rationem mi ffratia Divine tribfio \ nee in ipfa Creatione qmdqnam Immottalis Vita agnofco. Socini Epift. 5. ad Volkeliumj die 16, Novembris, Anno^ 1596. Let. VI. p. 11. I. 3. Add," this Margindl Note : Sandiuii Words are thefe^ ( cited by Wittichitts in his Caula Spirit tu San^ii Vid:rix^ pag. 4.) Jam finitii illis qH'i ad Librum timm regerenda duxi (prater ea qua fatis a Socio meo refponfum pnto^ ) Oro te ne graverii Hltertlis hoc argumentum'^^ profeejtii'^ quo tandem Veritoi^ ft fieri pojfu^ p ate flat -^ & velttt fcitt' tilla ex filice adChalyhem allifoprofiliat. Nam ingenue fateor^ mihi con- je^ttram meam longe veriftmiliorem vifam^ anteqnam Librnm tftum, qno me docere aggreJJtts'eSf legijfem. Non parum & contulit ad earn debi- litaxdam^ confideratio mea, Joh. i. 32, 33. & Mat. 4* ii» -^<«w pofi- qtiam in Baptifmo Spirititi SanElns fnper Chrifium defcendit^ & fuptr eum man/it^ eiimque in defertum duxit , w«i ah eo recejfit ^ ( cum non veri- fimtle ft Chrifium tcmationem Satan-e fine Spirit^ SanEii auxilio fupe- rajfe;) finita demnm tent at lone dicutitttr jingeli accejfjfe & minijtrajfe ei. Qnod fi itaqite comeElura mea confiftere non pojfit , Ht vix po^Ut ferpendendum erit^ an non Spirittts Santas pojfwt ejfe feptem Spiritns Frincipales ^ w/; multitudo Spiritnum longe fuhtilioritm ceteris Angelo- rum ordinihns , fortean natnra ipja : Et an per banc hypothefn falvari fojfmt omnes difficultates contra conjeBnram meam haSlenus prodnB K ^ X.2. rN, 9^ *>:* i . \ >: