A sixth letter, concerning the sacred Trinity in answer to a book entituled, Observations on the four letters, &c. / by John Wallis ... Wallis, John, 1616-1703. 1691 Approx. 38 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 11 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A67409 Wing W605 ESTC R17999 12211821 ocm 12211821 56320 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. A67409) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 56320) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 904:22) A sixth letter, concerning the sacred Trinity in answer to a book entituled, Observations on the four letters, &c. / by John Wallis ... Wallis, John, 1616-1703. [2], 18 p. Printed for Tho. Parkhurst ..., London : 1691. Reproduction of original in 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. -- Observations on the four letters. Trinity -- Early works to 1800. 2004-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2004-04 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2004-05 Mona Logarbo Sampled and proofread 2004-05 Mona Logarbo Text and markup reviewed and edited 2004-07 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A Sixth LETTER , Concerning the Sacred Trinity ; IN ANSWER To a Book Entituled , OBSERVATIONS ON THE Four Letters , &c. By IOHN WALLIS , D. D. Professor of Mathematicks in Oxford . LONDON : Printed for Tho. Parkhurst , at the Bible and Three Crowns , in Cheapside , 1691. A Sixth LETTER Concerning the Sacred Trinity . SIR , I Find from my Socinian Adversary , Observations ( as he calls it ) on my Four Letters ; ( He might have said Five , if he pleased . ) Which I saw not till Yesterday , Mar. 13. Nor do I see any great need of publishing a hasty Answer . There being so little in it that deserves an Answer , which had not been answered before it was written . And I may perhaps ere long meet with some such like Observations upon my Fifth ; and then I may at once Answer both . His first head he calls The Design of the Letters . That which I undertook to maintain , was clearly stated thus , That it is not Inconsistent with natural Reason , that there may be Three Somewhats which are but One God ; And that what in one regard are Three , may in another regard be One. To prove this ( and this only ) I brought those Arguments or Instances at which he cavils . This he now tells me ( p. 4. ) The Socinians will grant me this . ( That is , they grant what I undertook to prove . ) And of which , he says , no Man ever was so foolish as to doubt . And my Arian Adversary in like manner , ( in his Answer , p. 3. and his Vindication , p. 3 , 5. ) that none but a Madman would ever deny it . And that he cannot say , there is any Contradiction in saying , there may be three Persons in God. Thus far therefore we are agreed on all hands . But he now tells me , p. 4. That this is not the Question . Yes ; this is the Question that I undertook . 'T is true , there be other Questions between us and the Socinians . But the Question I undertook was that . And he knows it was so . Well ; but what says he , is the Question ? 'T is this he says ( p. 4. ) Whether there be Three Gods , or but One God. No : this is not the Question . For in this we are agreed also . The Socinians ( he says ) affirm There is but One God. And so do I. The Proposition , he says , which ( in favour of the Trinity ) I should have proved , ( that is , the task he sets me , not what I undertook ) was this , That what are in one regard Three , may in another regard be SO One , that all of them ( together ) are but One , and yet each of them ( singly , and by it self ) is that One. Now , I think , I had proved this ; This corpus longum , corpus latum , and corpus profundum , is One Cube . The corpus longum is a Cube ; the corpus latum is a Cube , and the corpus profundum is a Cube : and yet this Corpus longum , latum & profundum , is ( altogether ) but One Cube . But this is Latin : And his Challenge is , ( p. 5. ) Shew me that Trinitarian that dares dispute the Question in plain English. I 'll endeavour that too . David the Son of Iesse was a Man ; and David King of Israel was a Man ; and David the Father of Solomon was a Man : Yet David the Son of Iesse , the King of Israel , and Father of Solomon , was ( altogether ) but One Man. And this is plain English , without the words of Abstract , Concrete , Paternity , Personality , ( at which he there cavils , ) or other hard words than what his Tankard-bearer might understand . Well but ( says he ) We may indeed say , This long body is a Cube , meaning thereby , This long body , which is also broad and high , is a Cube ; and if it were not broad and high it were not a Cube : But we cannot say so here . I 'll try if I cannot hit this too . The All-wise God , is God All-sufficient ; the Almighty God , is God All-sufficient ; the Everlasting God , is God All-sufficient : meaning by the All-wise God , the God who is also Almighty and Everlasting ; and if he were not also Almighty and Everlasting , he were not All-sufficient . Yet this All-wise , Almighty , and Everlasting God , is ( altogether ) but One God All-sufficient . But supposing ( says he ) the Doctor 's Instances do satisfy this difficulty , ( as I think they do ; ) Does he not know there are many more , ( Yes , he doth know it ) to which these Instances are not applicable ? Very true . And therefore they were not brought to prove all points which concern the Trinity . They were brought to prove this point in particular , That it is not Inconsistent with Reason , that Three Somewhats may be One God. And if they prove this , it is what they were brought to prove . ( when I undertake other points , I may use other Arguments . ) And this hath been said so often , that ( if he have any thing else of moment to say ) it is strange , that repeating the same Objection ( without any further strength ) he should put me so often to give the same Answer . His next head is Of Somewhats and Persons . We are told , that Christ and the Father are one , Joh. 10. 30. And these Three are One , 1 Joh. 5. 7. without giving a name to these Three . Nor what shall we call them ? These three — what ? Not three Gods ; for that 's false : ( There is but One God. ) And three Persons he will not allow me to call them , because it is not a Scriptural Word . ( Person he grants is scriptural , Heb. 1. 3. but not Persons . ) I must not call them three Nothings . ( For certainly it was never meant to be thus understood , These three Nothings are One : And when Christ said I and the Father are One , he did not mean We two Nothings are One. ) And if they be not Nothing , they must be Somewhat ; and Three such , must be three Somewhats . And I could not think of a more Innocent word , to design them by . And therefore ( that we might not quarrel about words ) I was content to wave the name of Persons , and ( without fixing a new name on them ) design them by the word Somewhat . ( Presuming that those who do not take them to be Nothing , would allow them to be Somewhat . ) But neither will this word pass with him . Now this is a hard case . The Scripture says These Three , without giving them a Name . And then , We must not give them a Name ; because that Name will be unscriptural . And yet if we do not give them a Name ; he tells us , They be Three Somewhats , without Name or Notion : And that no two can agree , what this is , or what is thereby meant ; but as many Writers , so many Explications . p. 8. 16. To which I say ; As to the Notion , I think the Orthodox are all , thus far , agreed ; That they are Three such Somewhats in God , as differ from each other more than what we commonly call the Divine Attributes , but not so as to be Three Gods. And though ( within these limits ) divers men may diversly express themselves , yet in this Notion the Orthodox I think do all agree . And this I had before declared , ( Let. iv . p. 37. ) though he please totake no notice of it . ( So that we are not without a Notion of it . ) And if he will allow us to give a Name to it ; that Name ( whatever it be ) is so to be understood as to denote this Notion . And we think the word Person , a fit Name to denote this Notion by . But if we may not give it a Name ; we must then say , The Notion is such as was but now explained . But they will not allow us to give it a Name . And as to our Agreement or Disagreement , I think the Trinitarians do less disagree amongst themselves , than do the Anti-trinitarians . But he says , ( p. 9. ) I own the word Persons ( when applied to God ) to be but Metaphorical ; and not to signifie just the same as when applied to Men , but somewhat Analogous thereunto . True ; I do so . And I have given my Reasons why I do so , more than once . Because Two of them being represented to us in Scripture under the Names of Father , and Son , and this Son said to be begotten of that Father : ( which words are therefore not to be quarrelled with , because Scripture Language : ) No man thinks that the one is so a Father , or the other so a Son , or so Begotten , as these words signifie concerning Men ; but somewhat Analogous thereunto . And in what sense they are Father and Son , they are ( in a sense analogous thereunto ) Two Persons , and the Holy-Ghost a Third . For Father and Son in a proper sense amongst men , are such Relatives as the Latins did denote by the word Persona in the first and proper signification of that word : And consequently Father and Son in this Analogical sense , are ( in a continuation of the same Analogy ) Persons in a like Analogical sense . But he says further , that in the explication of the Athanasian Creed , ( Let. iii. p. 13. ) I interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by truly Persons , or properly Persons . I do so : Because I suppose it was intended to call them truly or properly such persons as are there meant , ( answering to the Greek Hypostases ; ) that is in such a sense as they are there called Father and Son , and that the word Person is a true and proper Continuation of the same Analogy . I have before declared , more than once , ( in the places by him cited , p. 9 , 10. ) that the true and proper sense of the Latin word Persona , is not to denote a Man simply ( for this with them was Homo , not Persona , ) but such quality , state , or condition of a man , whereby he is distinguished from , or stands related to , other men . As a King , a Father , a Iudge , and the like . And accordingly the same Man , may sustain divers Persons . ( He may be a King , and a Father . ) And according as such Condition varies , the Person also varies . 'T is true that in English , ( for want of a word that answers to Homo , ) we sometimes make use of the word Person , when we speak indifferently of Man , Woman , or Child ; as when a Man , or Woman , and an Infant are spoken of as three Persons : But these the Latins would not have called tres Personas , but tres Homines . ( But if consider'd as Father , Mother , and Child , they may , as thus related , be called tres Personae . ) And the Schoolmen sometimes ( and some others in imitation of them ) do in a like sense use the word Persona , for want of a Latin word which did indifferently respect Men and Angels . But these are new senses of the word Persona , quite different from what the word signified in the purity of the Latin Tongue ; and unknown ( I suppose ) to the Fathers , who first applied the word Personae to those of the Sacred Trinity : As I had before shewed at large . Let. v. p. 15. &c. But at this rate , he tells us , ( p. 10. ) The Socinians will allow , God the Creator , God the Redeemer , and God the Sanctifier , or God the Father , Son and Holy-Ghost , to be Three Persons . And I am not sorry to hear it . But then I would not have him say ( as here ) that I make them to be only Three Names , nor yet ( as p. 16. ) three Gods. They are more than three Names , but not Three Gods. For even amongst men , to be a Father , is more than a Name , or Title : And , in the Godhead , the Father , Son , and Holy-Ghost , differ more than so many Names . And , though I will not take upon me to determine precisely , how great the Distinction is , ( which is what at p. 8. he cites out of my Let. ii . p. 3. ) because I would not be positive where the Scripture is silent ▪ yet certainly 't is not so great as to make them Three Gods , but greater than merely three Names , or even that between what we commonly call the Divine Attributes . His next Head is about my Explication of the Athanaan Creed . Which he finds ( he says ) to be an Explication of the Damnatory Clauses therein . And he is not much amiss in that observation . He was told so in the first words of that Explication , and in the last words of the Postscript , That it was in pursuance of a clause in a former Letter to that purpose ; and that ( though other things are explained in it ) it was chiefly intended for the Satisfaction of those who do believe the Doctrine of it , ( but stumbled at those Clauses , ) to shew that they need not ( for these Clauses ) to reject that Creed . He tells us ( p. 11. ) there is a difference between Necessary and Requisite . Be it so . But the word there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , oportet ( not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) which I had rendred ( p. 4. 21. ) by these words , It is necessary , it is mainly necessary , 't is a principal requisite , he ought to believe it . And certainly , if he had not a great desire to cavil he would not have quarrelled at this exposition , as not full enough for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . I had said , this Creed was part of the Catholick Faith ; the whole of which I took to be the whole word of God : which a man is obliged to believe as to the Substantials of it ; but may be saved notwithstanding an Ignorance or Mistake as to some Particulars of lesser moment . Now he would have it to be understood , that this Creed is the whole , not only a Part of the Catholick Faith : that nothing must be added to it , nothing taken from it : And that every Man and Woman shall perish everlastingly who doth not believe and profess this , without taking ought from it , or adding ought to it . Why I think otherwise , I have shewed before , and need not repeat it . But leave it to the Reader to judge , whether this or that be likelier to be true . And , whether he take it to be the meaning of this writer , That all must needs be damned , who lived and died before this Creed was written ; or who possibly never saw it or heard of it , ( though they should believe all the Substantials of the Christian Faith , or Word of God , and held nothing destructive of it ; ) or , who do not believe just so much and no more . But if that be his opinion , he doth interpret it more severely against himself 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 upon Socinus and the Socinians . Concerning which , I do not think it needful to trouble the Reader with repeating what I had said of those Opinions , Let. iii. p. 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48. and Let. iv . p. 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6. or what he now brings in excuse of it . But shall leave it to the Reader , to judge ( upon what is said on both sides ) whether I have not thereby fully proved the charge ; of the slight Opinion they have of the Scripture ( in competition with Reason ) when it crosses any of their beloved Tenets . And yet , if that be not enough , himself directs , p. 16. to Maresius and Lubertus , where ( it seems ) is more to be found to the same purpose . But his Plea for himself , p. 16. I do admit . That if Socinus have spoken erroneously , or unadvisedly , or hyperbolically , he is not obliged to defend it ( nor do I know that he is obliged to be a Socinian . ) He may renounce of Socinus , what he pleases . Whether he who defended the Thesis at Franeker , were a Professed Socinian , or but covertly so , I tannot tell ( because I do not know the Man : ) But I do not think it more strange , to find a Socinian at Franeker ( notwithstanding the Synod of Dort ) than at London . And sometime ( p. 16. ) he will hardly allow himself a Socinian , nor any of his Party . But I hope he will not deny Socinus to have been a Socinian . Therefore so far , at least , I was right . But he would not have me blacken a man , long since dead , who never did me any injury . Very well : He had before challenged me to maintain my charge against the Socinians : And he now quarrels with me for so doing . He will now hardly allow any to be a Socinian but Socinus himself ; and yet I must not blacken Socinus . What am I then to do ? I will even leave it as it is , and let the Reader judge . And if he doubt , whether I , or my Adversary be more fair in our Quotations ; let him consult the places and judge accordingly . And particularly that of Epist. 5. ad Volkelium . I am at present not at home , nor have Books about me . But sure I am , that Socinus doth there ( a few lines before what this Observator repeats ) directly deny , that the Soul after death doth subsist ; according as I had affirmed ( though I cannot now recite the whole Sentence because I have not the Book at hand . ) But this the Repeater ( whether by Docking or Decapitation ) thinks fit to omit . And then I presume the Reader will then find , that per se is not meant so by it self , or of his own nature , as not by the gift and grace of God , ( for so it might as well be said of the Soul before death , ) but , so by it self as not in conjunction with the body ; and then the sense must be , that though the Soul with the Body be praemiorum & poenarum capax , yet the Soul of it self without the Body , is not so . But I leave this , and the rest , wholly to the Readers Judgment , to judge ( upon view ) as he shall see cause . Adding this also , that he will find it is not onely as to this Point of the Trinity , that Socinus discovers so slight an opinion of the Scriptures in competition with Reason ; but in other Points also where they do not favour his opinions . He had told us before , of some body at Oxford , who , maintaining a Thesis against the Socinians , was baffled by his Opponent . Who or when this was he had not told us ; nor what that Thesis was . He now tells us , p. 16. It was a Thesis against the Socinians , that they preferred Reason before Scripture . Perhaps , when he recollects himself , ( or consults his Informer , ) he may find ( if any such thing happened as he suggests ) it was on some other Thesis ; and not against the Socinians , but against the Arminians . But , be it as he says ; I know nothing of it , and shall not concern my self about it . But in requital of this story I told him another of Sandius , who having proposed a Challenge , upon his Problema Paradoxum ( contrary to the Divinity of the Holy-Ghost ) was so answered by Wittichius , that ( as appears by a Printed Letter published by his Friend and Partner in that Disputation ) they were so convinced , as to change their opinion . I now add , that it so appears , not only by his Friend 's Printed Letter : but by another of Sandius himself to Wittichius ; which I have not seen ( and I think it was never printed , ) but the Contents of it may be seen in another Treatise of Wittichius , with this Title , Causa Spiritus Sancti Victrix . Printed at London , 1682. But this matter ( he says ) is both Vnskilfully and Vnfairly related . Why unskilfully ? why unfairly ? He says , Sandius was an Arian ; ( Be it so : ) not a Socinian . Very well : Nor did I say that he was ; but a Friend of the Socinians . He was an Anti-trinitarian ; and did promote ( against the Trinitarians ) the common cause of Arians and Socinians , ( though these perhaps might quarrel amongst themselves . ) But this Observator thought ( it seems ) because I did not call him an Arian , that I did not know him so to be . And this ( I guess ) is what he calls unskilful . But I can give him a better reason why I should not call him so . I did not then know I should have an Arian Adversary to deal with , ( for my Arian Adversary did not yet appear : ) But my Socinian Adversary was already upon the stage , and with him I was now dealing . Yet I could not say that Sandius was a Socinian , but ( that the Socinian might be concern'd in the story ) I said , He was a Friend of theirs . And what Vnskilfulness appears in this ? Had I then known ( what since I do ) that I was to be attacqued by an Arian also ; I should rather have called him an Anti-trinitarian , which had been common to both : But , knowing then of none but a Socinian Adversary , I chose to call him a Friend of theirs . Which was neither Vnfair nor Vnskilful . Perhaps he thinks if not Vnskilful , 't was at best Vnfair to say that his Partner and He changed their opinion . But was it not so ? doth not his Associate expresly tell us ( in the very Title-page of his Letter of thanks for those Animadversions ) per quas ( animadversiones ) errores suos rejicere coactus est ? ( whereby he was constrained to relinquish his Errors ? ) Well , but did they change all their Opinions ? did they relinquish all their Errors ? I believe not : But , that opinion which was then in dispute ; his Problema Paradoxum , and the Errors therein . And , if he consult the Book , he 'll find it was so : And , that this Paradox was it which he did relinquish . And , what his Paradox was , he might there see it as well as I. Nor had he told me , who , and when , and upon what Question , his supposed Anti-Socinian was baffled by his Opponent ? or , how I might come to know it ? ( And even now , when he pretends to tell me the Question , I doubt he is mistaken therein . But what Vnfairness was there in all this ? when I had told him where he might find as much of it as I could tell him . But he tells us now , that Sandius was satisfied indeed ( as to the Point then in question , ) but not of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit . Nor did I say that he was . But I can tell him , That he was nearer , even to this , than our Observator was aware , or at least nearer than he thinks fit to own to us . If he consult Wittichius's latter Treatise , entituled Causa Spiritûs Sancti Victrix , he will there find an Extract of a Manuscript Letter of Sandius to him . In which , to the best of my remembrance ( for I have not here the Book at hand ) he tells Wittichius to this Purpose . 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 so well of that opinion , as before their Disputation : but was considering of two other opinions to be substituted instead thereof : That by the Holy-Ghost might be meant , not the whole number of good Angels , as before ; but either some select number of them , as being a superiour Order ; or else some One Angel as superiour to all the rest . ( Which two he suggests to Wittichius's further consideration . ) But , if neither of these should succeed ( as he doubted they would not ; ) he was then inclinable to say , with him : That the Holy-Ghost was , indeed , the same Eternal God with the Father and the Son. If in reciting this by memory , I have failed in any considerable Circumstance , I submit it to be rectified by the Book . But if our Observator have seen that Treatise , and knows it thus to be , I think we have more reason to complain of Vnfairness , in his representing it as he doth : As if he remained fixed in this Opinion , That the Holy-Ghost was so a Person as the Arians always held . I am sorry to detain the Reader by following our Observator in his so many long excursions which do so little concern the Business before us . For what ( almost ) of what hath been hitherto mentioned of his , doth tend to the confutation of what we affirm , That what we call Three Persons , are more than Three Names , but not Three Gods. In ( part of ) his two last leaves , he would seem to come somewhat nearer to the Business , but not much . He tells us , p. 17. that Luther and Calvin did not like the word Trinity . It may be so . ( I 'll take his word for it without seeking the places ; because I do not think it worth while . ) That they say 't is Barbarous and sounds odly ( I suppose he knows that by a Barbarous word , is commonly meant , a word not used by Classick Authors , or not agreeable to the usual forms of speech in Latin and Greek Writers . ) Be it so . ( And what if I had said so too ? ) Suppose a Hunter should say , a Trinity of Hares sounds odly , and another say the like of a Leash , and choose rather to say ( in plain English ) Three hares : the sense is still the same . And if Calvin ( who loved a smooth stile , and pure-Latin words , ) should say that Trinitas is a barbarous Word , ( as not extant in Classick Authors : ) what great matter is there in all this ? I will not trouble my self to enquire whether Trinitas be , in that sense used in Tully ; but sure I am that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a good Greek word . And words , though not so well contrived at first , yet when once received into common use , and the meaning thereof understood , we chuse to retain , rather than to make a needless change . This the common Phrases of , your Worship , your Honour , your Lordship , &c. for one Worshipful , Honourable , a Lord , &c. have been noted long since to be not Analogous to the more usual Forms of speech in Latin and Greek Writers : Yet Custom hath made them Allowable ; and therefore we do not scruple to use them . So Luther and Calvin , it seems , thought the word Tres to be a better Latin word , in this case , than Trinitas . And I had allowed our Adversary , ( Let. iv . p. 36. ) instead of Trinity in Vnity , to say ( if that will please him better ) Three in One. Yet Three and Trinity ( to my apprehension ) differ no more than Ten and a Decade ; or Twelve and a Dousain . But what 's all this to the matter in hand ? Doth Luther or Calvin any where say , that Father , Son , and Holy-Ghost , are but three Names ? or , that they be three Gods ? If they say neither of these ; they do not contradict what we affirm . 'T is but as if a Man should chuse to say Ten Commandments , rather than a Decade , or half a score ; or to say , there are , in the Apostles Creed , Twelve Articles rather than a Dousain . And if these be the great disagreements he there complains of , it comes to a very small matter . To his Argument , That only the Father is God , because of Ioh. 17. 3. to know thee the only true God ; he says , p : 17. I give three Answers . ( I do so . ) But , he says , the first and third are destructive of one another . Not so : they all agree very well . And any of them will destroy his Argument . 'T is not said , Thee only , but the only true God. He would have us think it all one to say , Thee only , to be the true God , and Thee to be the only true God , I think otherwise . The one gives some seeming colour for his objection : The other , not the least shadow . His Argument , The Father is the only true God , therefore not the Son or Holy-Ghost , is just in this Form , The God of Abraham is the only true God , therefore not the God of Isaac , nor the God of Iacob . Which , I presume he will not allow to be a good consequence . He would have it thought I grant , that if it were as this form , the only , thee true God , then the Socinians had undoubtedly gained the point . Not so . He hath not heard me say so yet ; nor is he like to do . If I should say , He that brought Israel out of Egypt , and he only , is the true God : my meaning would be but this , That God who brought Israel out of Egypt , and that God only , is the true God : And this must be understood to be said 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 Israel out of Egypt ; and would have been so , though they had never been ; or had never been so brought out . There may be vera praedicatio , which is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And , of all men living , the Socinians are obliged to say , that this title the true God , or only true God , belongs to him , not as Father , but as God. For if ( as they would have us think ) our Lord Iesus Christ 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 Reduplication ) as Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. For he was the only true God ( according to their Doctrine ) long before the Man Christ had a Father ; and would so have been , though this Man had never been . And though Christ speak to him as His Father , yet the title of the only true God , he ascribes to him as God. If Solomon should have said to David , Thou Father art King of Israel ; he was not therefore King of Israel as Father of Solomon ; for he was so , long before he was Solomon's Father . Which takes away all colour of our Observator's ( imaginary ) contradiction here pretended : and leaves not the least umbrage for it . As little force is there in his other cavil , p. 18. If the Father and Son be the onely true God , then not the Holy-Ghost . Yes ; the Holy-Ghost also . For though it be not here Affirmed ; yet neither is it here Denied . But these Objections of his have been so often brought , and so often answered , that 't is tedious to see the same things brought so often over and over again . The like I say of what he repeats from 1 Cor. 8. 6. which is answered sufficiently , Let. iii. p. 52. Nor is it at all strange , or uncommon , that the word Father should be sometime spoken of God personally considered , as Father of our Lord Iesus Christ , and sometime of God indefinitely ( according to his Essence ) without respect to this or that Person . Father of Spirits , Heb. 12. 9. Doubtless thou art our Father , Thou O Lord art our Father and our Redeemer , Isai. 63. 16. Thou shalt call me My Father , Jer. 3. 4 , 19. which the Socinians must not say to be meant as to his Personality , as Father of our Lord Iesus Christ , ( for such , they say , he then was not , ) but as to his Essence . The everlasting Father , Isai. 9. 6. spoken of Christ , not as to his Personality ( for so , he was Son ) but as to his Essence . As to what he objects , p. 19. to that of Rom. 9. 5. Christ ; who is over all , God blessed for ever , Amen . I refer to what is said , Let. iii. p. 57. ( too large to repeat here ▪ ) But how Amen ( which is a word of Asseveration ) should make it Nonsense , I do not understand . And what was said of God indefinitely , Rev. 1. 4. is said particularly of Christ , ver . 8. Who was dead and is alive , ver . 17 , 18. ( which description of Christ in particular , he had begun at ver . 5. and continues beyond this place . ) If he deny it , let the Reader judge . As to that of 1 Ioh. 5. 7. I refer to what hath been said already . I think there is not much more to be said thereof on either side than had been said long before either He or I began to write . And if after all he resolve to hold to his opinion ; he must give me leave to retain mine . And let the Reader judge as he sees cause . And so for that of Matt. 28. 19. As to all , in all those Leters to which he makes no Reply ; it stands as it did : And if the Reader please to read them over again , he will be able to judge , whether it be all so contemptible as to have nothing of Weight in it . I have said nothing to his Blustring and Contemptuous Language , his Canting ( or rather Railing ) against Schools , Metaphysicks , Mother Church , Alma Mater Academia , School-terms , Gothish and Vandelick terms , Abstract , Concrete , ( as if Long and Length were all one ; and all one to say David was Kingdom of Israel , and the Kingdom of Israel was Father to Solomon , as to say this of the King of Israel ) and other the like . ( To which he is wont to run out when he hath little else to say , but would seem to say somewhat to make a Noise . ) Because the Reader would know ( without my telling him ) that this is Raving rather than Arguing . And when he tells us , so often , of The Brief History of the Vnitarians ; why might not I as well tell him , that Doctor Sherlock had answered it ; and means ( I suppose ) to Vindicate that Answer , if he think there be need . So , when he runs Division upon Imperial Edicts , Confiscations , and Banishments , seizing and burning of Books , Capital punishments , Fire , and Fagot ; ( with many other things wherein I am not concern'd , ) What is all this to me ? I do not know that I ever did him any hurt ( unless by discovering his Errors ; ) I was only Arguing as a Disputant ; not making Laws . As little need be said of a many little things , as little to the purpose : As , whether my Third Letter were not rather a Book ? Whether the things which God hath prepared for them that love him , are the Onely deep things of God which we cannot comprehend ? or the Onely secret things which belong to God , while things Revealed belong to us ? Whether , what I knew forty years ago , I had been studying and considering forty years ( without thinking of ought else all the while ) ? which certainly I could not be , for I was then forty years old . Whether it be better English to say , God the Creator , God the Redeemer , and God the Sanctifier ARE , or IS but one God ? Whether Vnum ( in the Neuter Gender , put absolute without a Substantive ) do not usually signifie One Thing ? Whether the word Trinitas , be a pure Latin , or a Barbarous Word , ( not to be found in Tully , any more than Vnitarian ) ? Whether Tres or Trinitas be the better Latin-word ? Whether , what in his former Letter , p. 9. were but old-fashioned Notions , be now ( in this last ) New and Cautious ? with other the like . But ( besides in these and many others , he cavils without a cause ) what 's all this to the Business in hand ? Or how doth it contradict what I affirm ? viz. That , What in one Consideration are Three , may in another Consideration be but One. That , We may safely say ( without Absurdity , Contradiction , or Inconsistence with Reason , ) there may be in God , Three Somewhats ( which we commonly call Persons ) that are but One God. That , These Three , are more than three Names , but not three Gods. That , God the Creator , God the Redeemer , and God the Sanctifier , ( otherwise called God the Father , God the Son , and God the Holy-Ghost , ) are such Three . I see nothing of what he hath said , doth overthrow any of These . March 14. 1690 / 1. Yours , I. Wallis .