A fourth letter concerning the sacred Trinity in reply to what is entituled An answer to Dr. Wallis's three letters / by John Wallis ... Wallis, John, 1616-1703. 1691 Approx. 63 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 21 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A67390 Wing W583 ESTC R34710 14574201 ocm 14574201 102625 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A67390) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 102625) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1079:9) A fourth letter concerning the sacred Trinity in reply to what is entituled An answer to Dr. Wallis's three letters / by John Wallis ... Wallis, John, 1616-1703. [2], 38 p. Printed for Tho. Parkhurst ..., London : 1691. Reply to Stephen Nye--NUC pre-1956 imprints. Imperfect: pages stained and with print show-through. Reproduction of original in the Huntington Library. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719. -- Answer to Dr. Wallis's three letters. Trinity. Theology, Doctrinal. 2004-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-04 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-11 Judith Siefring Sampled and proofread 2004-11 Judith Siefring Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-01 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A Fourth LETTER , Concerning the Sacred Trinity ; IN REPLY To what is Entituled , An ANSWER , TO D r WALLIS's Three Letters . By JOHN WALLIS , D. D. LONDON : Printed for Tho. Parkhurst , at the Bible and Three Crowns , in Cheapside , 1691. A Fourth LETTER , Concerning the Sacred Trinity . SIR , IN a former Answer ( from I know not whom ) to my First and Second Letter ; we had Two Persons ( a Friend and his Neighbour ) in One Man. Of which I have given account in my Third Letter . We have now an Answer to that also . But whether from the Friend , or the Neighbour , or from a Third Person , he doth not tell me . Yet all the Three Persons , may ( for ought I know ) be the same Man. However , whether it be , or be not , the same Man , it is not amiss for him to act a Third Person ( as of an Adversary ) , as being thereby not obliged to insist upon , and maintain what was before said ; but may fairly decline it if he please . The one may Grant what the other Denies , and Deny what the other Grants : And still , as the Scene changes , the Man may Act another Person . And so I find it is . As for instance : The former Answerer , takes it unkindly , and would have it thought a Calumny , that I charged it on some of the Socinians , That How clear soever the Expressions of Scripture be for our purpose , they will not believe it , as being Inconsistent with natural Reason : And though they do not think fit to give us a bare-faced Rejection of Scripture , yet they do ( and must , they tell us ) put such a Forced Sense on the words , as to make them signify somewhat else . Therefore , to shew 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 themselves say the same things , in as full Expressions as any that I had charged them with ; That every one is to interpret the Scripture according to his own sense ; and what so seems grateful to him , he is to imbrace and maintain , though the whole World be against it : That he is not to heed what Men teach or think , or have at any time taught or thought , whoever they be , or have been , or how many soever : That though , even in the sacred Monuments , it be found written , not Once only , but Many times ; he should not yet for all that believe it so to be : That what plainly appears cannot be ( or , as was before explained , what He thinks so , though all the World beside think otherwise , ) is not to be admitted ; even though in the sacred Oracles it appear to be Expresly affirmed : But those sacred Words are to be interpreted , ( though it be by Unusual Ways or Tropes , ) to some other Sense than what they speak : That ( because it seems to him absurd ) he must ( with Augustine's good leave , and of the rest who think as he doth ) put a Force ( how great soever ) upon Paul's words , rather than to admit such Sense . That , if our Reason dictate to us ought otherwise than the Scripture doth ; it is an Errour to say , That in such case we are rather to believe the Scripture . Now our new Answerer ( though he would still have it to be a Calumny ) shuffles it off with this , He is not concerned , that Socinus , or any other Author , has dropt imprudent words , and leaves it to the Socinian to answer , pag. 10. ( for he is now to act the Arian , pag. 11 , 12 , 14 , 16 , 17. ) This point therefore I look upon as yielded ; concerning the slight opinion which ( some of ) the Socinians have of Scripture , in competition with Humane Reason . Again ; when I had spoken of our Immortal Soul , in its separate Existence after Death , as of an Intellectual Being ; ( but , with an IF at lest those who deny the Blessed Trinity will allow that there are such Beings : ) To shew the suspicion intimated , was not groundless ; I cited Socinus's own words , where he expresly tells us , that the Soul after death doth not subsist ; nor doth so Live as to be then in a capacity of being Rewarded or Punished , ( that is , in effect , It is no more Alive , than is the Dead Body , not sensible of pain or pleasure . ) Which I think is ground enough for such a suspicion , without being uncharitable . Nor doth this new Answerer clear Socinus , or himself , from this suspicion . Onely tells us ( pag. 10. ) it is an Insinuation , as if they believe not Angels . Which is nothing to the purpose of the Soul 's separate Existence , ( which is that I insisted on ) nor doth he so much as tell us , that he doth believe Angels ( much less that he doth believe the Souls separate Existence , ) so that the ground of suspicion still remains . I had shewed him how different Socinus's Opinion is , from that of St. Paul ; when he desired to be dissolved , or to depart hence , and to be with Christ , as much better for him , than to abide in the flesh , Phil. 1. 23 , 24. And , to be absent from the Body ( which must be after Death , and before the Resurrection ) and to be present with the Lord , 2 Cor. 5. 8. And this new Answerer , though he takes notice of the charge , doth not so much as tell us , that he is not of Socinus's Opinion herein . Which ( if it be so ) he might reasonably have told us upon this occasion . I might have added that of Christ , Mat. 10. 28. Fear not those who kill the Body , but are not able to kill the Soul : Whereas , if the Soul after Death be as insensible as the Body , That is as much killed as This. And that of Christ to the Converted Thief on the Cross , Luk. 23. 43. This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise . For surely by Paradise he did not mean Purgatory ; nor yet , that he should be with him in Hell , amongst the Devils and the Damned ; nor that his Soul should be in a condition as senseless as his Body : For Paradise doth not sound like any of these . I might have added also that of Lazarus and the Rich Glutton , Luk. 16. 23 , 24 , 25 , 28. For though Parables are not strongly Argumentative , as to all the Punctilio's of them ; yet , as to the main scope of them , they are : ( else , to what purpose are they used . ) Now here we have that Glutton represented as Tormented in Hell , and Lazarus at Rest in Abraham's Bosom ; and there Comforted , while the other is Tormented : And all this , while yet he had Brethren upon Earth , to whom he desires Lazarus might be sent . All which is not agreeable to a condition not capable of reward or punishment . And upon the whole , we have reason to suspect , that Socinians may have some other odd Tenents , which they think fit rather to conceal , than to Deny . So that I look upon this point as gained also ; That Socinus ( uncontrouled by this Answerer ) doth deny the subsistence of the Soul after Death , as then capable of Reward or Punishment . Another point which I look upon as granted , is concerning that place , Joh. 1. In the beginning was the Word ; and the Word was with God ; and the Word was God ; and the Word was made flesh , and dwelt amongst us . Concerning this place , we were come to this Issue with our former Answerer , ( at his p. 9. ) If by Word be meant a Person , ( pre-existent to Christs Incarnation by the Virgin Mary ; ) and , by God , be meant the True God , or God Almighty ; then this place is to our purpose ; for else ( he tells us ) St. John writes Nonsense . Now , that St. John writes Non-sense , I suppose he will not say ( whatever he thinks ) because he pretends a great Reverence for Scriptures ( and doth not take it kindly that I should suspect the contrary . ) Whether of the other two points he would stick to , he did not think fit to tell us ; For indeed his business was not to tell us what he would have , but what he would not have ; and concludes nothing thereupon , but that the place is obscure ( he knows not how to make it serve his turn ; ) and ( that it may so seem ) he indeavours to cast what dust he can into the Spring , and then to say , The Water is not clear . I have given him my Reasons ( and I think they be cogent ) why I judge the place clear enough , as to both points . And should I admit ( as I think I may ) that , by Word , is meant somewhat else ( as he tells us ) in forty other places : this is nothing to the purpose . For we are not here enquiring , what by the word Logos is meant in Aristotle , or what in Plato , or what in forty other places ; but what is meant , by the Word , in This place : Nor what , by Gods , is meant in Psal. 82. 6 , 7. I have said ye are Gods , but ye shall die like Men ; But what by God is here meant , where it is said , The Word was with God , and the Word was God. Nor is here any need of a Rhetorick Lecture , to inquire , by what Trope , or Figure , or with what Allusion , Christ is here called The Word ; It is enough that 't is Christ who is here so called . And , after all his toil , I do not find , that himself hath the confidence to Deny ( though he doth not think fit to grant it ) but that here , by the Word , is meant Christ ; and that God here mentioned , is God Almighty ; and consequently , If St. John do not write Non-sense ( as he is pleased to phrase it ) the place is to our purpose . Now our new Answerer , seems to me , to quit the first of these points ; and chooseth rather to act the Arian , than the Socinian , as taking that to be more defensible , pag. 11 , 14 , 17. And doth admit that , by the Word here , is meant the Person of Christ ; and pre-existent to his Incarnation ; as by whom the World was made , at least as by an Instrument ; and doth allow him to be God , though not the same God ; but that the Father and the Word are Two Gods ; ( p. 17. ) and can allow him the Character of Being over all , God blessed for ever ; and can so be as liberal of the Title of God , to Christ , as any Trinitarian whatever ; p. 16. So that now the dispute is reduced to this ; When it is said , The Word ( meaning Christ ) was with God , and the Word was God ; whether by God , be meant the True God , God Almighty . Of which we are to say more anon . Another grant we have , pag. 3. where he doth admit , that a thing may be Unum and Tres ( One and Three ) in several respects : And that 'T is true indeed , he cannot say , that there is a Contradiction in holding , that there may be Three Persons in God. And , in granting this , he grants what I undertook to prove . For he knows very well , that the business which I undertook , was not , to discourse the whole Controversy at large ; but so stated the question , as to confine it to this single Point , Whether it be an Impossibility , or Inconsistence with Reason , that there may be Three somewhats ( which we call Persons ) which are but One God ? And when he grants me , that there is in it no Contradiction , or Inconsistence with Reason ; all the rest is beside the Question . I know very well , that both this and the former Answerer have made it their business to change the state of the Question : And if what I bring to prove what I undertake , do not prove the task they set me ; they glory as if they had the better . But the Lawyers tell us , that , when Issue is once joined ; if we prove the thing in Issue , we carry the Cause ; and what is more than so , is over and above , or to spare . And a Mathematician , if he prove what he proposeth , concludes with quod erat demonstrandum , ( he hath proved what he undertook to prove ; ) if he prove more than so ; 't is more than he was obliged to do . And if a Logician prove ( propositionem negatam ) the Proposition which is incumbent on him to prove , he hath done his work ; and if he prove more than so , it is more than he need to do . And accordingly , when this Answerer doth acknowledge that I have proved what I undertake to prove , ( that there is no Impossibility , there is no Contradiction , nor Inconsistence with Reason , that Three somewhats may be One God ) he ought to acquiesce therein , and acknowledge that I have done my Work. For when the Controversy was divided into two Branches , Whether the thing be True , and whether it be Possible ; and it was the latter of the two that I undertook : If I have shewed , It is not impossible , ( which this Answerer doth grant that I have done , ) I have done the work 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 I find the last Result of our Adversaries , ( when they are close pressed , ) is commonly this , It is Impossible , It is Absurd , It is Non-sense , It is Inconsistent with Reason , and therefore it cannot be True. And that therefore a Force , no matter how great , must be put upon the Words which do , how expresly soever , affirm it ( to make them signify somewhat else than what they plainly do signify ) then to admit it . And if I have ( as is now confessed ) destroyed this last Reserve , let them press this point no more . Or , if they will retract this grant , let the next Answerer keep to this point , to prove it Impossible , or Inconsistent with Reason , and not ramble out into other discourses , which are nothing to the purpose of what I proposed to prove . Amongst his other Concessions , I shall reckon that in pag. 14. where he argues from Joh. 16. 13. That there is between the Father , Son , and Holy Ghost , a Distinction so great , as that they may not unfitly be called Three Persons ( where I observe also , that he owns the Personality of the Holy-Ghost , as of the Father , and of the Son. 'T is true indeed , he seems to make the Distinction between them , Greater than I do . But I thus far agree with him , That there is , in Truth , a Distinction ; and that more than Imaginary , or what depends only upon our Imagination ; and Greater than that of what we call the Divine Attributes . And therefore we reckon the Persons to be but Three ; but the Attributes to be more . And we do admit , amongst the Persons , a certain Order or Oeconomy ; such as in the Scripture we find assigned to them . But do not own the Distinction so great as to make them Three Gods. And that also of p. 13 , 14. where he argues , that Christ is indeed God , ( not only a dignified Man : ) That God in Christ was tempted , suffered , and died ; not Man only . That the Merits thereof are founded on the Godhead . In plain terms , ( saith he ) if Christ were only a Man , extraordinarily assisted by God , and thereupon merited by his Sufferings and Death : 't was the Man redeemed us by His Blood , and not God. And p. 16. the like from Rom. 9. 5. Of whom , as concerning the Flesh , Christ came ; who Is over all ; God Blessed for ever . And asks , If I ever knew an Unitarian , especially an Arian , deny him that Character ? And from Heb. 1. 8. To the Son he saith , Thy Throne , O God , endureth for ever ; a Scepter of Righteousness is the Scepter of thy Kingdom , &c. He argues , That it is not the Humanity of Christ that is here spoken of . For what ! Is the Humanity of Christ called God ? Is the Humanity preferred before Angels ? Or did the Humanity frame the World ? Indeed ( he says ) they are apt to clog it with a Limitation , ( as not acknowledging him Co-equal with the Father . ) But under that restriction , they can be as liberal of the title of God to Christ as any Trinitarian whatever . Where I take what he grants : And , as to the Co-equality , shall discourse it afterwards . More of this kind I shall have occasion to mention afterward . Yet do not blame him for taking this advantage ( of shifting the Person ) where he sees cause to Grant what was before Denied . But our new Answerer hath yet another Art. When he seems to cite what I say ; he takes the liberty very often to vary therein ( according as he thinks fit ) both from my Words , and from my Sense . And therefore I desire the Reader not to take all as Mine , which seems to be cited as such ; but so much only as he finds to be truly cited . It would be too long to mention all the places where I am so used . I shall only give instance in some of them . He tells us , pag. 4. That I indeavour to illustrate the Trinity by an Example in a Cube , or Die : and so far he says true . But not so in what follows , where three sides , he says , make one Cube ; and which Cube , he says , is not to be made without all the three sides . But certainly he can no where find these to be my Words . I confess I am no great Gamester at that Sport : but I always thought ( till now ) that a Die had six sides , and not only three . I have said indeed , that in a Cube , or Die , there be three Dimensions , ( Length , Breadth , and Thickness ; ) But I never called these , the three sides of a Cube ; nor have I any where said , that a Cube hath but three sides . I am represented , pag. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8. as maintaining three personal Gods. But he knows very well this is not my Language ; but , that the three Persons are One God ; not three Gods , nor a Council of Gods , as he calls it . So , where he would ask the Doctor , p. 17. Whether these two Gods , to wit , the Father and the Word , be one . He knows my Answer must be , that these two , ( not , these two Gods , ) are one God. And that I do no where call them two Gods , but one and the same God ; according to that of Christ himself ; I and the Father are One. So , where he talks of adding several Persons to our one God , pag. 3 , 8. For he knows , that is not my Language , but these three Are God ; not that they are Added to God : much less that Bacchus and Venus &c. may be thrust into the number . And p. 8. one of your Gods : We have but One God. 'T is He and his Arian , that own two Gods , p. 17. Not we . Another there is which runs through most part of his whole Discourse ; wherein he willfully mistakes the state of the Question : And then , what is brought to prove one thing , he mis-applies as brought to prove another ; And then makes a great out-cry , that it doth not prove , what it was never brought to prove . And this he calls cross purposes . He knows very well , that the question was by me clearly stated ( not as to the whole Doctrine of the Trinity at large , but ) as to the Possibility . That ( whatever the Socinians pretend ) there is no Impossibility , Non-sense , or Inconsistence with Reason , that three somewhats ( which we call Persons ) may be One God. And this he owns to be the state of the Question , p. 1. to prove the same agreeable to the common notions of humane Reason . And it is done by shewing that , according to the common notions of humane Reason , nothing is more common than that what in one consideration are Three , or Many , is yet in another consideration but One. Thus in one Cube there be three Dimensions ; length , breadth , and thickness . So the Understanding , Will , and Memory , in one Soul. So the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a Power to Know , to Will , and to Doe , in the same Intelligent Agent ; and the like . 'T is therefore not Inconsistent with Reason ( and this Answerer doth allow it ) for one to be three ; nor is it Non-sense to say , these three are one ; or I and the Father are One ; or that three somewhats may be One God. The former Answerer complains of these Resemblances , as impossible to be apprehended by the common people ; and desires some more Familiar Parallel ( than that of a Cube , or Die ) that the Tankard-bearer may apprehend ( in his p. 8 , 9. ) Yet I believe his Tankard-bearer is not so dull of apprehension , as he would have us think . For if he have ever seen a Die ( as most of them have , ) or shall now be shewed one , he may be able to apprehend , ( without a Metaphysick , or Mathematick Lecture ) That in a Die , there is length , breadth , and thickness , ( and that it is as broad as it is long , and as thick as either ; ) and yet it is not three Dies , but one Die. However , to gratify his request , I have given him some other ; as that the same Man , may have three Dignities , or three Kingdoms , and sustain three Persons , or three Relations , without thereby becoming three Men ; with other like . With this , our new Answerer is not pleased . He is Ashamed , he doth Blush for me , &c. ( How much am I obliged for this his great Compassion ! ) But all this is but Banter , ( it is not Argument , ) and no sober Man will be more of his Opinion for this Language : And much less for that of St. John's writing Non-sense , of a lying Revelation , of a three-headed Monster , p. 3 , 5. and other such Indecent Language of God and the Scripture . But , why so displeased with these Simile's ? These are too mean , too familiar ; He expected somewhat higher , somewhat more distinct , p. 5. ( I see it is as hard a matter to please my two Answerers , as to serve two Masters . The one complains my Simile's are not familiar enough ; the other that they are too familiar ; he expected somewhat more sublime ▪ ) These do not prove , that a Trinity in Unity is necessary to the perfection of the Godhead , p. 6. True : These alone do not prove that there is a Trinity in Unity in the Godhead ; much less do they prove , that a Trinity in Unity is necessary to the perfection of the Godhead . Nor were they brought to prove it . They were brought to prove , There is no Inconsistence , but that there may be a Trinity in the Unity of the Godhead . And if they prove thus much , ( he perhaps may have cause to be Ashamed , but ) I see no reason why I should be Ashamed , ( 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 respects : And that 't is no contradiction , to hold , that there May be Three Persons in God. They have proved therefore , what they were brought to prove . But , says he , p. 5. Our Debate is not , Whether there May be three Persons in God. Yes ; our Debate is , whether there May be . Not , whether there Be. And he knows the Question was so stated by me ; and so acknowledg'd by himself ; upon this single point , whether there be any Impossibility in it . ( And so owned by himself , p. 1. ) not whether it be so ( for this , I had before said , was not to be argued upon the Topick of Reason alone ; ) but whether it be agreeable to the common notions of Humane Reason , that it May be so . And if this were the Question , ( as he owns ; ) and this be proved ( as he owns also ; ) Then I have proved , what I undertook to prove . And have no reason to be Ashamed , either of the Undertaking , or of the Proof . 'T is our new Answerer ( who doth wittingly and willingly mis-state the Question ) that is at cross purposes ; while he applies those Arguments to one point , which he knows were brought to prove another , ( which point himself grants to be proved ; He cannot say , there is a Contradiction 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 venture , to prove it to be agreeable to the common notions of humane Reason ; that is , not Inconsistent with it . And we do so . But he would have it thought , that it is but now of late that any have presumed to this confidence , pag. 1 , 2. and would have us content , modestly to acknowledge it a meer mystery ; and to rely upon the Authority of the Church , and Tradition ; without pretending , that it is agreeable to Reason . Now , that there is in it a Mystery , we readily grant , ( and so there is in the whole Doctrine of our Redemption ; God manifested in the Flesh , &c. 1 Tim. 3. 16. ) as that which , without Revelation , we could not have found out by meer Reason ; And , that it is above Reason , ( that is , more than what Reason alone could have taught us : ) But not that it is Against Reason , or Inconsistent with it . This is not the Doctrine of the Trinitarians ; nor ever was that I know of . Nor is it Tradition only , or the Church's Authority ; but the Authority of Scripture that we rely upon ▪ which is a True , not a lying Revelation . Nor is it ( as he pretends ) a new Doctrine ▪ not raised till several hundred years after Christ , ( as if the Doctrine were to be dated from the time of penning the Athanasian Creed ; ) but ( as old at least as the New Testament ; ) and never contested ( that I know of ) till several hundred years after Christ , when the Arians arose . But here again my Answerers are not agreed : ( So hard it is to please them both ; ) While one complains , 't is but of late ; the other tells me , 't is old-fashioned , ( in his p. 9 ▪ Thus Dr. Wallis may see , that his Notions concerning the Trinity are old-fashioned ; not of a new mode . ) And truly I take him to be more in the right ; that 't is not a new quirk , but old-fashioned Doctrine ▪ and I like it never the worse for being so . As to what I have said of Joh. 17. 3. it is more than Forty years , ( and well towards Fifty , ) since I first Preached it in London , on that Text , ( as I have since done , there and elsewhere , more than once ; ) and I did not then take it to be New , but what I had been always Taught . And as to that of the three dimensions in a Cube , it is Forty years or more , since I first discoursed it at Oxford , with Dr. Ward , then Astronomy-Professor there , and since Bishop of Salisbury ; And as to the Doctrine in general , ( of Three Persons in One God , ) it is no Newer , than the New Testament . But here again our Answerer forsakes the Question : For the Question is not , Whether it be a New , or Old , Adventure : but whether it be Inconsistent with Reason , that Three May be One : or ( as he words it , p. 3. ) that a Trinity in Unity is absurd . Another piece of the same Art it is , where my word of Personality is by him changed for Personation , p. 5 , 6. For which I would not have quarrelled with him , if by changing the Word , he had not meant to change the Sense also . For to personate a Man , ( he tells us , p. 6. ) is but to compose ones Actions in Likeness of him ; and that one cannot personate three together , but one after another . But my Personality ( he knows ) is more than this Personation . It is not only Acting a Person , but Being a Person . A Man may successively Personate , or Act the Person of , a King , and a Father ; without being either This or That : But when the same Man IS both a King and a Father ( which he may be at the same time , as well as successively , ) this is more than only to Act them . And if by Personation he mean no more than Acting a Person , I wonder how he can tell us , p. 5. That Personation is the greatest Perfection of Being ; and that he never could apprehend any other real Unity but Personation . What ? No real Unity but acting a Person by imitation ? Sure there is . The Bottom , and Top , and Middle of a Mountain , are one Mountain : Yet I do not take Mount Atlas to be a Person , or to Act a person ; much less to become One Mountain by Personation , or Acting a Person ▪ Of like nature is it , where ( to do me a kindness ) he will state my Cube more to my purpose ; p. 5. ( meaning the contrary . ) But how ? In a Marble Cube may be two Accidents , Hardness , and Coldness . There may be so . But what then ? Then , ( he says , ) here are Three Cubes more for me . He would have it thought , I suppose , that I had before discoursed of Three Cubes ( whereas I spoke but of One Cube , under three Dimensions ; ) and he will now help me to another Three . But he is out again . For the Cold Cube , the Hard Cube , and the Marble Cube , are but One Cube , not Three Cubes . 'T is the same Cube that is Cold , and Hard , and Marble . It would have been much the same , if , instead of a Cube , he had taken a Marble Bowl , or Ball ; and then told me , 'T is Cold , and Hard , and Round . True. And yet it is but One Bowl , not Three Bowls : One Ball , not Three Balls . And what is there in all this of Inconsistent Absurdity ? It seems to me very Consistent ; not Absurd : and it suits my Notion very well . But , says he , p. 5. not to suppose the simile altogether impertinent , ( very well ! ) yet it is in our case . Why in our case ? For our Debate ( he says ) is not , whether there May not be three persons in God. Yes : That is our Debate : And the true state of the Question . All his other Excursions are beside the Question . But the simile , though not impertinent , is yet ( he says ) most Absurd , because not Adequate ; and it is a general rule with him ( p. 6. ) where he brings a simile , to have it Adequate , that it may really prove the matter designed . Now that my Simile's are not Adequate ( so as to prove all that is to be said of God , or the Blessed Trinity ) I had told him at first , and more than once ; and that they were not intended so to be ; ( and I tell him now , that I did purposely make choice of such as were a great way off , that it might not seem as if I would have them thought to be Adequate , as to all that is to be said of the Trinity . ) And as to the Rule 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 Absurd , which do not at once prove All. ) But we who are conversant in Cubes and Demonstrations ( as he phraseth it ) think fit sometimes to use another Method : and , where much is to be proved , to proceed by steps . We first propose one thing , and prove that : then another , and prove that : and so on . And if what be brought to prove the first step , do prove what it is brought to prove ; we do not say , The Argument is Absurd , because it doth not prove all at once : But , That it is a Good Argument so far . And , I think , ( if he will here give me leave to use a Simile which is not Adequate , ) it is a Method used by other Men , as well as Mathematicians . For , if a Man be to mount a pair of Stairs ; we do not say , The first step is Absurd , because that alone doth not bring him to the Top : or , if to go a Journey , That the first step is Absurd , because it doth not bring him to his Journeys End : But the first step brings him so Far ; and the second , somewhat farther ; and so on , till ( step by step ) he comes to the Top , or to his Journeys End. Now , there being divers Points concerned in the Doctrine of the Trinity ; I stated my Question , not so as to prove all at once ; but singled out this one Point , That it is not Inconsistent with Reason ( or , to use his own words ; it is agreeable to the common Notions of humane Reasoning , ) That what in one consideration are Three , May in another Consideration be One ; and , that there May be three somewhat 's , which are one God. But , whether indeed there be so , is Another step ; and whether these somewhat 's may fitly be called Persons , is yet Another . Now , if I have made good my first step ; my Argument or Simile , is not only not altogether impertinent , but neither is it most Absurd , yea not Absurd at all ; because it proves what it was brought to prove . And , that so it doth , himself allows ; and tells us plainly , p. 3. He cannot say , there is a Contradiction , in holding , that there May be Three Persons in God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 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 Reason only , ( for , Reason alone , can go no further than to prove it Possible , or not Inconsistent ; ) but to be argued from Scripture , and Divine Revelations , whether indeed there are three somewhats ( which we call Persons ) that are but One God. But this , I have told him already , is Beside the Question which I undertook . And , in this , it is He that is the Aggressor , not I : and I only upon the Defence . Yet , because he is so desirous of it , I am content to go somewhat out of my way , to wait on him ; and to hear what he hath to say , why we should think that Is not , which he confesseth May be without any Contradiction to natural Reason . And I shall take notice as I go along , what it is wherein we Agree , as well as wherein we Differ : That so we may not quarrel about what is Agreed between us . He begins with the First Commandment , p. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4. And seems mightily to dread the Guilt of Idolatry , in admitting more Gods than one : ( our Case is , we are afraid of Idolatry , p. 9. ) contrary to this Commandment , of having no other God. ( And so I would have him be . But we shall find this Fear will be over with him by and by . ) What ( says he ) was that Commandment made for ? What! to prevent Polytheism . Why , how is that to be done ? By denying many Gods. If it be not made to deny personal Gods , 't is made to no purpose . And soon after ( with some indignation . ) What! is the Divinity of Christ implied in the New Testament ? 't is denied in the First Commandment . And , p. 9. Pray , what Scripture shall we regard , in competition with this Commandment , written by the Finger of God , and one of the only Precepts he himself immediately delivered ? Now I am so far from disliking his Zeal for the First Commandment ; that I do perfectly agree with what I find in that Commandment ; I am the Lord Thy God ( the Lord God of Israel ) Thou shalt have No other God but Me. ( And this I shall desire Him to remember by and by . ) He may add that of Deut. 6 , 7. ( for in this I agree also ) Hear , O Israel , the Lord our God ( the Lord God of Israel ) is one Lord. And that of Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord Thy God ( the Lord God of Israel , ) and Him only shalt thou serve . And that of 1 Cor. 8. 6. To us there is but One God. ( And as many more places , as he pleases , to that purpose . ) And from all these 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 Israel : That we are to Worship Him alone , and none else ; ( not Sathan , not the god of Ekron , not any God , or Man , or Angel , who is not the Lord God of Israel . ) For all this I grant to be there fully Taught . And I am willing to put as great weight upon this solemn set Precept of the First Commandment , as he doth , ( and perhaps more . ) He would have us shew ( if we can ) p. 9. where this Commandment is Abrogated . I say , No where . It was never Abrogated : Never Repealed : It remains ( I grant ) still in its full force . And therefore we own no other God , but the Lord God of Israel . And this Lord God of Israel , we say is One Lord , One God , and no more Gods than One. We say indeed , there is a Wise God , a Powerful God , an Almighty God , an Eternal God , a Just God , a Merciful God , God the Creator , God the Redeemer , God the Sanctifier ; a God who in the beginning created the heaven and the earth , a God who in the beginning laid the foundation of the Earth , and the Heavens are the work of his hands , a God of Abraham , a God of Isaac , a God of Jacob , a God who brought the Children of Israel out of Egypt , a God who brought them out of the North Country , a God who is our Mighty Redeemer , a God who is a Saviour of all that trust in him , a God who doth create in us a clean heart , and doth renew a right spirit within us , a God who gives us a heart of Flesh , a God who gives us a New Heart , who putteth his Fear in our Hearts , who writes his Law in our inward parts , a God who searcheth the Heart and trieth the Reins , a God who hath Visited and Redeemed his People , and hath raised up a mighty Salvation for us . But we say , the Lord God of Israel is all this ; and , in being all this , he is but One God ; and , that there is no other God but One. And we grant , that whoever owns any other God as a true God , or Worships a false God , breaks this Commandment . I do not know what he would have us Grant more upon this Commandment . I wish He do not think we have Granted too much . He says , p. 3. We vitiate this Commandment , by bringing in New persons , by Adding several Persons to our One God. No : We Add no Persons to our God ; We say , that God the Creator , God the Redeemer , God the Sanctifier , ( or , in other words , the Father , Son , and Holy-Ghost , ) ARE this One God ; not added to him . Nor are they new Persons added to God ; but , are God ; and ever were so . He would have us think , p. 17. that the Father only , ( and not the Son , or Holy-Ghost ) is the Only true God ; because of Joh. 17. 3. The words are these , This is Life Eternal , to know Thee ( not only Thee ) the only True God ( to be that God , beside which there is no other true God , ) and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent . And we say the same that is here said . The Father is the only True God ( the Lord God of Israel , beside whom there is no other true God ; ) The Son is also , not another God , ( as the Arians say , and this Answerer , p. 17. ) but the same only true God ( the Lord God of Israel ; and he is expresly so called , Luk. 1. 16 , 17. ) And the Holy-Ghost likewise , ( for these Three are One , 1 ▪ Joh. 5. 7. ) And the words ( without any force put upon them ) may be thus read , To know Thee ( and whom thou hast sent , Jesus Christ ) to be the only True God. For the word only is not a restrictive to Thee , but to the True God. And this is not only a new Querk or Criticism ( which is the only Answer he gives to this Defence , ) but is the true sense of the place . For the same Writer doth ▪ in another place , say the very same thing of God the Son , 1 Joh. 5. 20. We are in him that is True , even in his Son Jesus Christ ; This is the True God , and Eternal Life . Now if Scripture must interpret Scripture , ( as he tells us , p. 16. ) certainly S. John in his Epistle ( 1 ▪ Joh. 5. 20. ) understood what himself said in his Gospel ( Joh. 17. 3. ) And that , what he said of the Father's being the Only True God , was not exclusive of the Son ; to whom himself gives the same Title , This is the True God , and this is Eternal Life . And this I think is a full Answer to what he would urge from this place ; or from ( what he joins with it ) 1 Cor. 8. 4 , 5 , 6. To us there is but One God. Which is no more express to his purpose , than This is : Nor doth he pretend that it is ; but puts them both together , p. 17. There is one place more , which comes under consideration , which ( because he finds it pinch ) he would fain shake off , p. 17. It is that of Joh. 1. 1 , 2 , 10 , 14. In the beginning was the Word ; and the Word was with God , and the Word was God ; The World was made by him ; All things were made by him ; And without him was not any thing made which was made ; And the Word was made Flesh , and dwelt amongst us . The former Answerer would fain shuffle off this place ( in his p. 9. ) upon one of these three Points ; ( for , otherwise , he grants , it is for our purpose ; ) either that by the Word is not meant Christ ; or , by God , not the True God ; or else that S. John writes Non-sense . Now the last of the Three , I suppose our New Answerer will not say ; because he pretends a great Reverence for Scriptures . The first he Quits ; and doth admit ( according to the Arian sense , which he looks upon as more defensible than that of the Socinians ) that , by the Word , is here meant the Person of Christ ( who was afterward incarnate of the Virgin Mary ; ) and that he was pre-existent to his Incarnation ; as by whom the World was made , at lest as by an Instrument . And that he was with God ( the True God ) at least in the beginning of the World ( if not sooner ; ) and that he was God. All the doubt is , whether these Two Gods ( for so he calls them ) to wit the Father and the Word , be One , p. 17. Now , if he be God ; he must be either a True God , or a False God. That he is a False God , methinks they should not say . And , if he be a True God , he must be the same God with the Father ; who is the ONLY True God , Joh. 17. 3. That he is to be Worshipped with Religious Worship ; both the Arians and the Socinians do allow . And if he be God ( as the Arians and this Answerer do affirm , ) this Worship , must be Divine Worship . And he must be then the Lord God of Israel ; or else they break that Precept , Thou shalt Worship the Lord Thy God ( the Lord God of Israel and Him ONLY shalt thou serve , Mat. 4. 10. If he be the Lord God of Israel , but not the same Lord God of Israel : How doth this agree with that , Deut. 6. 4. Hear , O Israel ) the Lord Our God is One Lord ? And if he be another God ( whether True or False ) then do they break the Great and First Commandment , Thou shalt have No Other God but me ; ( no other God , True or False , Great or Little , Equal or Unequal ; but the Lord God of Israel . ) On which Commandment this Answerer doth ( deservedly ) lay so great a stress ; as we heard before . What was it made for , if not to prevent Polytheism ? How shall it be done , but by denying many Gods ? If not to deny Personal Gods ; it is made to no purpose . How is it consistent with that First Commandment , ( that solemn and set Precept of the First Commandment , that was delivered by God himself ; written by the Finger of God ; and never Abrogated ; ) to bring in New Persons ; to Add Persons ( one or more ) to this Only God , though particularly prohibited , and not Break it ? What! Is the Divinity of Christ implied in the New Testament ? It is denied in the First Commandment ( if he be not the same God who is there meant : ) And Pray , what Scripture shall we regard in competition with this Commandment ? With more to the same purpose . Whether he will make use of the Popish distinction of Latria and Doulia , ( for his Two Gods , not Co-equal ) I cannot tell . But the Commandment says expresly , Thou shalt have NO OTHER God , but Me , Equal or Unequal . Nor doth this Error end here ( as he proceeds : ) For our Adversaries are not always so lucky as to see Consequences . For should some Revelation ( such as , he says , is not impossible ) deify more Men than ever the Heathen did ; here 's no fence left . ( Here 's room enough to thrust in his Jupiter , Bacchus , Venus , &c. of which he tells us , p. 8. ) And 't is in vain ( he tells us ) in such a case , to pretend that the number would be of offence to us : For if we consider aright , there is no more reason for one number than another . And he thinks , that if there be more than one , it is more honourable they should be Infinites ; because all between one and infinite , is Imperfect . With much more of like nature . Of all which I know not what better to think , than that he had forgot all this , when afterwards ( at p. 17. ) he will have these two Gods ( as he calls them ) to wit , the Father and the Word , not to be One , but Two and Separate . Nor will it excuse the matter to say , That this Other God , is not Co-equal with the Father . For , at this rate , the Polytheism , or many Gods of the Heathen , would be excused , as out of the reach of this Commandment . 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 Paramount , and the rest were either Middling Gods , or Lesser Gods. But yet this did not excuse them from Polytheism and Idolatry , within the reach of the First Commandment . For that Commandment ( that Unrepealed Law ) forbids All other Gods , whether Equal or Unequal : The Leeks and Onions in Egypt ( which are said to have been there Worshipped ) as well as the Calves at Dan and Bethel . Nor is it less Idolatry , nor less within the reach of this Commandment , to Worship the god of Ekron , because not Co-equal to the God of Israel . We therefore chuse to say , That Christ is indeed God ( as he is expresly called , Joh. 1. 1. The Word was with God , and the Word was God ; and Hebr. 1. 8. Thy Throne , O God , endureth for ever : And in many other places : ) and not only a Man , extraordinarily Assisted by God , ( as this Answerer grants also , at p. 14. ) That he was in the Beginning , and in the Beginning was with God ; Joh. 1. 1 , 2. ( and therefore was pre-existent before his Incarnation ; and did not then Begin to Be. ) That he was in the Beginning , and All things were made by Him , and without him was not any thing made that was made ; that the World was made by Him ; Joh. 1. 3. 10. ( and is therefore the same God , who in the beginning Created the Heaven and the Earth , Gen. 1. 1. ) That of Him it is said , Thou , Lord , in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the Earth , and the Heavens are the Works of Thy hands , Heb. 1. 8 , 10. cited out of Psal. 102. 25. ( and is therefore the same God , to whom that long Prayer , Psal. 102. was made ; and of whom so many great things are there said ▪ and which cannot belong to any but the Supreme God : ) And no doubt but , when this was there said by the Psalmist , he meant it of that God , who in the beginning created the Heaven and the Earth , Gen. 1. 1. That he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Being above All things ( or the Supreme Being , ) God Blessed for ever ( or , the Ever-blessed God ) Rom. 9. 5. ( which are Titles too High for any lower than the Supreme God. ) That what is said of God indefinitely ( as contra-distinguished from Christ in particular ) Rev. 1. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , From him which Is , and which Was , and which is to Come ( or which Shall be ) and from Jesus Christ , &c. ; is particularly applied to Jesus Christ as his Character , Ver. 8. I am Alpha and Omega , the Beginning and the Ending , saith the Lord , ( he that Liveth , and was Dead , and Liveth for evermore , Ver. 16. ) which Is , and Was , and is to Come ; the Almighty . That he is the True God , 1 Joh. 5. 20. ( and therefore the same God with the Father ; who is the Only True God , Joh. 17. 3. and no other True God but what he is . ) That He and the Father are one , Joh. 10. 30. That the Father , and the Word , and the Spirit , these Three are One , 1 Joh. 5. 7. And Christ , not another God , but the same God , manifested in the Flesh , justified in the Spirit , seen of Angels , preached unto the Gentiles , believed on in the World , received up into Glory , 1. Tim. 3. 16. Now I know not well , what could be said more ( at least , what more need be said ) to make the Point clear : Or , what Character he can reasonably desire more , by which to describe the Almighty Supreme God ; and the same God with the Father . He is God ; the True God ; the Only true God , ( for there can be but One God , that is the Only true God ; ) One with the Father ; One with the Father and Holy-Ghost ; the Eternal God , ( who Is , and Was , and Shall be ; who , when the Heavens and the Earth shall wax-●old as a Garment , He is the same and his years shall not fail ; ) the Almighty ; the Mighty God ; 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 Earth , and the Heavens are the works of his hands ; who is the Son of God , the Begotten of the Father ; the Only-begotten of the Father , ( and therefore of the same Nature with the Father , however not the same Person , or not under that Consideration . ) Nor can he say , This is Impossible , a Contradiction , or Inconsistent with Reason , and that therefore , though the Words be Clear and Plain , yet we must seek out some Other sence to be Forced upon them : For this Point is already Gained ; and he doth Confess it , p. 3. that there is no Contradiction , in holding that there may be Three Persons in God. And , if there be no Contradiction in it , why should we be afraid to say , what in Scripture is said so plainly ? Or , why should we set up Two Gods where One will serve , and when the Scripture says , There is but One ? He 'll say perhaps , God made the World by Christ. And we say so too . But not as by a Tool or Instrument , ( as he would have it , p. 17. ) but rather as by his Power or Wisdom . But the Power and Wisdom of God , are not Things diverse from God himself ; but Are Himself . ( Much less are they different Gods from God himself . ) And , even amongst us , the Power and Wisdom of a Man , are not Things distinct from the Man ; ( in that sense wherein the Words Thing and Mode are contra-distinguished ; ) much less are they distinct Men from the Man whose Power and Wisdom they are . The Man and his Wisdom ; the Man and his Power ; are not distinguished ut res & res , ( as the Schools speak ) but ut res & modus . And Power and Wisdom ( in the same Man ) ut modus & modus . For though a Man may subsist without Wisdom ( but God cannot ; ) yet Wisdom cannot subsist without somewhat that is Wise ; nor This Man's Wisdom without the Man ; and therefore this Wisdom ( according to the School-distinction ) must be Modus ▪ and not Res. ( And the like of Power . ) So that if we say , that Christ is the Power of God ; or the Wisdom of God ( as he is called 1 Cor. 1. 24. ) and that God , by his Power and Wisdom , made the World ; it doth not follow , that this Power , or Wisdom of God , is another God from God himself : but God and his Wisdom , or God and his Power , are God himself . Consonant to this it is , where it is said , Col. 2. 3. In him are hid all the treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge . And perhaps it is this Divine Wisdom , who tells us , Prov. 8. 22 , 23 ▪ 27. The Lord possessed Me in the Beginning of his ways ; I was from Everlasting , from the beginning ; When he prepared the Heavens , I was there ; and much more to the same purpose . So the Holy Ghost is called the Power of God , Luk. 1. 35. The Holy-Ghost shall come upon Thee , and the Power of the Highest shall over-shadow Thee . Now shall we say , ▪ Because God is Wise in heart , and Mighty in Strength , Job 9. 4. or Because by his Wisdom and Power he made the World ; Therefore his Wisdom and his Power are distinct Gods from himself ? Or if we should say , that God as the Fountain of Being , may be called the Father ; and the same God , as the Fountain of Wisdom , be called the Son ; and , as the Fountain of Power , be called the Holy-Ghost : There is nothing of this that is Inconsistent with Reason , but very Agreeable with the common Notions of Humane Reasoning ; and yet all these ( however under divers Considerations ) are but One God. But here I must caution again ( for I find people are willing to Mistake , or mis-apply what I say . ) That I do not set down this as the Adequate Distinction between the Three Persons ( for this I do not pretend throughly to Understand ; ) but only that it is not Inconsistent with Reason , that it May be so : And that there is no necessity , upon this account , to set up Another God ▪ Or we may say ( much to the same purpose ) that God by his Word , and Spirit , made the World ; and yet that his Word , and his Spirit , are not therefore Distinct Gods from Himself . And we have them all mentioned in the story of the Creation . God created the Heaven and the Earth , Gen. 1. 1. The SPIRIT of God moved upon the face of the waters , ver . 2. And God SAID , ( or spake the Word ) Let there be Light , &c. Ver. 3 , 6 , 9 , 11 , 14 , 20 , 24. And Ver. 26. Let US make Man. And Psal. 33. 6 , 9. By the WORD of the Lord were the Heavens made ; and all the Host of them by the SPIRIT , or BREATH of his Mouth : He SPAKE and it was done , He Commanded and it stood fast . ( And to the like purpose , Psal. 148. 5. Job 26. 13. ) Yet are they not Three Gods ; but rather Three somewhats which are but One God. I have insisted the longer on this ; because I do not know , but that ( through the Grace of God ) such a discourse as this , may have a like effect on him ( or some of his Party ) as that of Wittichius had on his Friend Sandius . And I have Argued it Calmly . I have used no scurrillous Language ; nor given any Reproachful terms . I do not oppress him with the Authority of Fathers , or Councils ; but with Scripture only ▪ and Plain Reason . And it seems to me so clear , that if they cannot see it ; it is from some other reason than from want of Clearness . As to what I have said for Explication of the Athanasian Creed ( though I cannot expect he should approve of that Creed , while he retains his Opinion , ) I do not find that he takes any great Exceptions to what I say of it . He doth not like the Words Trinity in Unity , as Foreign and Unscriptural , p. 19. He may ▪ ( if that will please him better ) put it into plainer English , and call it Three in One : and then the Words are Scriptural ▪ These Three are One. The Possibility of Gods being Incarnate , he doth not Deny . Only he likes the Arian Incarnation better than Ours . He seems well pleased , p. 19 , 20. That I do not possitively Affirm , This Creed to be written by Athanasius : That I do not Anathematize the Greek Church : That I do not Damn all Children , Fools , Madmen , and all before Christ ; ( as , he tells us , some Rigid Irinitarians , I know not who , have done too often : ) That I own the word Person to be but Metaphorical , ( which at p. 7. he did not like : ) which , I will not disoblige him , by Unsaying . Where it is that I have blamed the Fathers , I do not remember . For I think the Fathers do concur in this ; That there is a Distinction between the Three ( which we call ) Persons ; greater than that between the Divine Attributes ; but not such as to make them Three Gods : And , that by calling them Persons , they mean no more . And I say the same . I shall conclude with this Observation upon the whole . He was at the Beginning of his Discourse , a Direct Socinian ; Dreading the guilt of Idolatry in having more Gods than One ; as contrary to the First Commandment : ( And therein I agree with him : ) But Denied the Divinity of Christ ; as the Socinians do . And thus he continues till toward the end of p. 10. But then begins ( silently ) to tack about ; and , after a while ▪ doth with as much earnestness Affirm the Divinity of Christ , as he had before Denied it ; that Christ was God from the Beginning , before the World was ; that he was afterward Incarnate and became Man ; and , as God and Man , Redeemed us , &c. ) And here he is Orthodox again . But then tells us , that this God is not the same God , or Co-equal with the Father , but another God. And at length tells us plainly , that there are , at least , Two Gods , to wit the Father and the Word : ( for now the Fear of having more Gods than One , is over with him : ) and is by this time a perfect Arian . And he who , from a Socinian , is thus turn'd Arian , may at the next turn ( for ought I know ) turn Orthodox . In order to which , I would advise him to keep to the sound part of his first Opinion , while he was a Socinian , namely , That we ought to acknowledge and Worship but One God : And the sound part of his second Opinion when he was turned Arian ; namely , That Christ ( the Word ) was God , from the Beginning , ( before the World was ; ) that he was afterward Incarnate , and so became God and Man ; that , as such , he Suffered , Died ▪ and wrought out our Redemption ▪ ; that the Merits of his Sufferings are founded on his Godhead ; which otherwise would not have been meritorious , if he were only a Man ▪ however extraordinarily assisted by God. And when he hath so joined these two together , as to make them Consistent : he will be therein Orthodox . And if , to these Two , he add a Third ( which he owns also ) namely , that there is no Contradiction , in holding , there may be Three Persons in God : he will then be able to Answer all the Cavils which either the Arian or the Socinian shall bring against it . FINIS .