THE THIRD LETTER From W. J. To the REVEREND Doctor Wallis, Professor of Geometry in Oxford, Upon the Subject of two former LETTERS to him, concerning the Sacred TRINITY.   printer's or publisher's device 
London, Printed in the Year MDCXCIII.   

THE Third Letter.  
To the Reverend Dr. WALLIS.  
SIR,  
THIS is to take Leave of you, and to give you assurance (with my humble Service) that you shall receive no more Trouble from me in this kind; neither had I given you thus much, if I had not thought, as I still do, that we aimed both at the same honest Design, namely, Moderation and Scripture-proof for all that we assert and impose in the Doctrine of the Trinity. But I am sensible, Sir, when we speak of Scripture-proof, there is a ready and plausible Answer to be made, which, with most Men, will make our Persuasive to Moderation of no effect, and lead them to the same Excesses, though a little about, and in a Scholastic Way, which they were carried to before, in a shorter way, by external Authority.  
The Answer which I mean is this; That Scripture-proof is not to be confined to the express and plain Words of Scripture, but must reach as far as our Reason carries them, by such Consequences as have no Flaw or Incoherence, according to the best of our Judgement. This I confess is generally true, but not universally; some Regard must be had to the Subject-matter whereof Scripture speaks or treats: Accordingly I should allow, that in Things Moral, Natural, Civil or Ecclesiastical, there is great room left for our Reason: But in Subjects of an infinite Nature, and placed above the reach of our Faculties, I think the Case is very different; and that it is not safe, in such things, to depend upon our Deductions and Consequences, though they seem to us very clear.  
And whether we have good Reason to assert this or no, I will leave to your Judgement, after I have proposed to you several Instances of the Uncertainty and Fallibility of our Deductions, and of what ill Consequence it would be in many Cases, if we should depend upon them. 'Tis the Opinion, you know, of many, that there are absolute Decrees, antecedent and independent upon our Actions, or any Foresight of them: But if we go to make Consequences from this Doctrine, with respect to God's Goodness and Justice, and to our Liberty or Necessity, we are entangled in such Difficulties as the Wit of Man can never extricate. But 'tis true, this Doctrine of Absolute Decrees is not universal; let us rather instance in Divine Prescience, which, according to our Reason, upon an impartial Examination, turns to the same Account: For infallible Prescience makes the Event as immutable, as an absolute Decree; and an immutable Event is the same thing as a necessary Event. What things God foresees, he foresees either in his Decrees, or in their Causes; and either way the Event is fixed and unchangeable. We say all things are present to God, (whether by his Decree, or by his Prescience) though future to us: and what is present, is so far necessary, and cannot be otherwise than as it is present.  
I will not say any thing of those Inferences that are made by our Reason, from either of these Doctrines, in prejudice to the Divine Goodness and Justice: But that they destroy humane Liberty, seems evident to our Understanding: For, say we, if in every Case given, of two or more Issues possible or assignable, one only answers to the Divine Decree or Prescience, and that Decree or Prescience cannot be frustrated, than that single Issue that answers to it, must infallibly come to pass, and no other: So that in every Case I am certainly limited to one Event, though I am not sensible of that Limitation. I say, though I am not sensible, yet my Reason tells me, by clear Consequences from Scripture-truths, that there is such a Limitation in all my Actions, and that I cannot go contrary to it. For Instance; If three Ways lie before me, suppose A. B. C. to walk in which I please; but an infallible Being foresees and determines C. to be the Path I shall walk in, this puts a Limitation upon the Effect, and makes it as certain and determinate, as if it was under the Conduct of merely natural and necessary Causes.  
Thus our Reason would betray our Liberty, and cast us, without Mercy, upon the Rock of Fatality, by drawing its Consequences and Conclusions from acknowledged Truths. And by the same Means and in the same Method, it would also destroy the Use of Prayer; for if we go to reason and argue upon Prayer, we shall find ourselves at a loss to conceive or explain, how it can have any Effect, or be of any use to us: For can we change the Purposes of God by our Prayers or Importunity? or hath he no Purposes or Foresight, previous to our Will or Actions? You will not, I suppose, admit of either of these Answers, but rather say, that when God determines the End, he also determines the the Means, whereof Prayer is one. Be it so; but however not knowing, as to particular Cases, when the End and the Means are determined, when not; we cannot tell when our Prayers will be pertinent, when impertinent. Besides, we think it a foolish Part to deliberate about a thing that is past, or to pray a Man not to do that which we know he hath already done. Now an Event that is immutably fixed and irrevocably, (whether by Decree or Prescience) is tantamount to a thing already come to pass; I mean tantamount in this respect, that the one as well as the other, cannot admit of any Change or Alteration. All our Prayers then, says Reason, are as much in vain, as if we prayed that things should not come to pass that are already come to pass. Our Prayers indeed may have some Effect upon ourselves, but how they should either affect God, or the Nature of things, so as to work a Change in either, is unconceivable.  
These Difficulties Reason suggests concerning the manner how our Prayers do or can take Effect, and grounds its Suggestions upon true Principles; the Unchangeableness of God and of his Counsels. Yet we do not think it reasonable upon such Arguments, how clear soever they may seem to be, to neglect our Duty of Prayer, but impute these Defects or Misconceptions to the Weakness of our Understandings, that cannot comprehend the manner of the Divine Thoughts and Actions: Why should we then think it more safe to depend upon Consequences made by our own Understandings in the Doctrine of the Trinity, which is, I believe, the greatest Mystery that ever was revealed to Mankind. Deum unum esse aliquo modo Triunum, must be allowed by all Christians; but if you will determine, by your own Wit, what this Modus is, farther than Scripture hath determined it, you do it without Authority, and venture upon Uncertainties. And if you impose these Determinations upon others, as Divine Truths, or as Articles of Divine Authority; and that also upon Penalties, temporal or eternal: neither Christian Religion, nor humane Wisdom, so far as I can judge, will justify such Proceed.  
These Considerations we have taken from the Doctrine of Decrees and Prescience, which, according to the Deductions of our Reason, destroy our Liberty of Will, and Use of Prayer: And seeing we must allow our Ratiocinations to be false or defective in these Points, methinks it should make us tender and fearful how we trust to them in other Points of an infinite Nature; and that we should not dare to add or superstruct, upon such Divine Mysteries, a Set of humane Thoughts and Consequences, much less to give them the same Authority with the primary Revelation.  
Neither is it only in Divine Truths that we find our Consequences uncertain and fallacious, but also in Natural Truths, that lie more within the Compass of our Understanding; and even in that Order and Kind of natural Truths, that are thought, of all others, to be most evident and demonstrable, I mean in Geometry and Mechanics. How many have found the Perpetual Motion, and the Quadrature of the Circle, if their Consequences be true; for they generally begin from true Principles, and pursue them with all the Care and Exactness they are able, and conclude with a great Assurance that they have committed no Error, that all their Deductions are clear and distinct, and consequently their Conclusion is as infallible as humane Wit can make it: Yet the World is satisfied, that neither the Circle is squared, nor the Perpetual Motion found out; and consequently that humane Ratiocinations, though from true Principles, are very subject to Error. In like manner, in that noted Problem about the Divisibility of a Body, we are assured that our Faculties deceive us, when they present us unanswerable Demonstrations on either side. And if Revelation had declared whether Part was true, we should notwithstanding draw the same Absurdities from either side of the Conclusion.  
These are plain and known Instances of the Uncertainty of our Faculties in things difficult and abstruse, whether Divine or Natural, and may show us the Danger of stretching Mysteries (upon their Authority) further than they are revealed; and imposing upon others our own Productions and Subtleties for the Word of God. It may be very proper also to consider in what manner God Almighty is pleased to treat us, that we may learn how to treat one another, in Matters of Speculation, and such things as concern the Divine Nature, I mean to consider the general Style of Scripture, and that Condescension it uses when it speaks to us concerning God and Things Divine, which is commonly in a Style that suits rather to our Apprehensions than to the absolute Nature of the things themselves. Scripture speaks of God as of a Being that hath Passions like a Man, and with Members and Motions, as if he had a Body such as ours. We cannot understand the true manner, how God (an immutable Being) is sometimes pleased, sometimes displeased; and therefore, in condescension to our Weakness, he is represented with Passions and contrary Affections, as Men have. We cannot understand the true way of the Divine Activity, or how God acts upon things without him; and therefore he is represented to us with Hands, and Instruments in his Hands, and Motion from Place to Place. In like manner, God is represented to us with Organs of Seeing and Hearing, because we cannot apprehend the true way of God's knowing and perceiving things without him. But this is all in condescension to our Infirmities, that these practical Notions of God might be suited to our Capacity, and so have a greater Influence upon us.  
Thus God deals with us; but we seem to deal with one another in a quite different way. We seem to affect Difficulties, and to take Pleasure in setting Man's Understanding upon the rack, and making it confess more than it knows. We refine upon the Mysteries revealed to us in Scripture; and what is summarily and generally expressed there, we beat out into a Multitude of Particularities, and then stamp them into Articles of Faith. God seems to make things accommodate to our Understanding, as much as may be, that so they may make some Impression upon us: We, on the contrary, make them unaccommodate and inconceivable, and so they make no Impression upon us. And I'm afraid most Men, when they repeat certain Passages of the Athanasian Creed, feel no more Sense under the Words they pronounce, than a Child does when it repeats things got by rote, and apprehends only the Sound, or now and then a Word, without Connection of Sense. The Holy Ghost, in Scripture, seems to consider Practice and Usefulness more than Notion and Speculation, and depresses things below their true State, many times, to make them more suitable to our Capacities. Whereas we, in a contrary Method, strain the greatest Mysteries, without any Relation to Practice or Usefulness, and force those Doctrines higher than Scripture hath set them, by nice Inferences of our own making: And not content with this in our private Thoughts, (which are allowed to every Man) we make them Laws to others, and Rules of our Christian Faith.  
I might ask these Scholastic Heads, what Benefit is it to the People to be taught these Subtleties about the Trinity? of what Use or Edification? Does it make them more virtuous, more honest in their Callings, more dead to the World? Does it impress more of the Fear of God upon their Minds, or more of Charity to their Neighbours? What piece of Christian Morality does it promote? Opinions do not work like Charms, without any Connection betwixt the Cause and the Effect: and what is unperceived by the Understanding, hath no Effect upon the Will. Neither is it conceivable that God should make it a necessary Condition of our Happiness, to believe a Mystery or incomprehensible thing, further than he hath plainly revealed it. We must be able to give a Reason of our Faith, and we must not resolve our Faith into humane Authority.  
But to add no more, in the last Place, I desire those Persons that are so disputacious about the Holy Trinity, to consider the Greatness and Glory of those Natures, about which they venture to argue and dispute with so much Freedom. If it was a common Subject, any part of the natural World, or any created Being, we might make bold with our Fellow-Creatures, to canvas and examine all the Secrets of their Natures: But there is greater Caution and Reverence to be used as to the Divine Nature: And especially as to the Trinity, which is the very Secret of the Divine Nature, and therefore should not be pried into further than it hath pleased God to reveal it. We should rather silently admire and humbly submit to that Mystery, as it is delivered in the Words of Scripture, than add to it by our own Invention. The Jews had so great a Reverence for the Name of God, I mean the Tetragrammaton, that they did not dare to pronounce it, nor take it into their Mouths, that being permitted only to the High Priest, and but once a Year, when he entered into the Sanctum Sanctorum: This Name, which to them was so sacred, was thought to express the absolute simple Nature of God, as he is in himself, without Respect, or antecedently, to the whole Creation. This they justly accounted very holy and sacred, and placed it, as it were, in an inaccessible Light. Now the Notion of the Trinity does not only contain this, but exhibits also to us the great Arcanum of the Godhead, if I may so say: A most mysterious Triunity in the Divine Nature, which was never before revealed to Mankind, nor ever was, or will be comprehended by any Mortal. Ought we not then to place this in the Sanctum Sanctorum, in the Adytum of the Temple, and cover it with the Wings of Cherubims, as a Glory too great for our Eyes to bear? At least we ought to be reserved, modest and tender in this Point, more than in any other Part of Theology, of adding or innovating any thing, beyond the plain Words and plain Sense of Scripture.   

SIR,  
THese Instances and Considerations I have proposed, to persuade us, as I said at first, to Moderation and Scripture-proof, in all things that we assert and impose in the Doctrine of the Trinity. But now it will be asked me, what is good Scripture-proof? seeing we do not allow (in this case) of Deductions and Consequences: Or, to be short, what Creed may we with Safety propose concerning the ever-blessed Trinity, according to the plain Words and plain Sense of Scripture? 'Tis not for private Persons to prescribe or pretend to Authority, against established Orders. But if you will give me leave to put the Case in a newfound World, or in a Nation newly converted, and to be farther instructed in the Christian Faith; to such a People I would not propose the Athanasian Creed, but something more plain and simple, as also more scriptural, that should be manifestly grounded upon Divine Authority, in all the Parts of it. As suppose you should take so much of the Apostles Creed, as relates to the Trinity and Incarnation, and add to it some Articles more explicit and distinct, to express our Belief in some such plain Form as this:  
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified by the Jews, risen from the Dead, ascended into Heaven, from whence he will come in Glory to judge the World. I believe the Holy Trinity, as it is revealed to us in Scripture: Accordingly I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as my Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier: Three, after a mysterious and incomprehensible manner, but one Eternal ever blessed Lord God; by whose Mercy, Power and Faithfulness, I hope for a Resurrection from the Dead, and eternal Life.  
Thus much, I think, is unquestionably scriptural; and I have left out the Word Person, not that I should scruple it myself in that large Sense wherein we understand it, but because I thought it would raise Scruples and Difficulties in the Minds of others, or of these new Converts whereof we are speaking: They would be apt to reason with themselves, Can three Persons be one thing? Or can our God, who is one only God, be three distinct Persons? Are not three distinct Persons, each being infinitely perfect, plainly three Gods? These and such like Doubts would naturally rise in their Minds; and from these, as from Seeds, would grow up many more, which by degrees, would corrupt the Simplicity of their Religion, and turn it into Opinions and Disputes.  
But this plain Scripture-form, as it would prevent Disputes and Controversies, so it would render all Dissenters from it, if there could be any, inexcusable: I mean all Christian Dissenters; for as to Jews and Mahometans, I do not suppose that it would satisfy them; yet I think it would very much lessen that Offence which they take at the Christian Trinity, as it is represented by Schoolmen and Polemical Divines; and as it is dressed up in one of our Creeds, with all the Pomp and Affectation of Contrarieties and seeming Contradictions.  
Neither, I think, is this Form defective, though short and plain: For distinguishing Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as our Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, it thereby displays and casts a Light upon the whole Christian Oeconomy, and is a Support to our Faith and Prayer: Whereas those Metaphysical Subtleties that are superadded to this Scripture-Creed, have no Influence, that I know, either upon a good Life, or any Christian Duty. In Religion all Superfluities are noxious; and what does not good, does hurt there, amuses the Mind to no purpose, and turns off our Thoughts from their principal Objects and Concerns, whether in matter of Belief, or in matter of Practice.  
But why do I continue so long in this Digression; I did not intent at first to propose or mention any thing, but such Arguments as might incline us to Moderation in the Doctrine of the Trinity, and proportionably in all other mystical Doctrines; and in general, not to lay much Stress upon Opinions, in comparison of a good Life, and the truly Christian Dispositions of Mind. Those who least use their Understandings, can the easiest comply with any Opinions their Superiors impose upon them; but those who use Reflection and Meditation, find it impossible to believe what they list, or what is dictated to them by humane Authority, without Reasons to convince them. Now this Use of our Understanding, which is the Candle of the Lord, cannot be Matter of Demerit and Condemnation to us, provided it be sincere, and accompanied with Piety and Probity; and therefore this ought not to be made a Snare, or of penal Consequence to those that in all other Respects are good Christians. Who can look upon the State of Christendom without Grief and Trouble, when he observes, which is too obvious, that a certain Zeal for Opinions and Ceremonies hath eat out the Heart of our Religion, I mean the vital and practical Part of it, a good Life, and a good temper of Mind? whereas it is this only that will stick to us after Death, and conduct us to Heaven and Bliss; when all our Opinions and external Righteousness will fall off, like rotten Rags. To conclude, let us be content to prove well from Scripture the Divinity of our Saviour, and of the Holy Ghost; and to leave the Modalities of those Doctrines to another State and Dispensation.  
Neither can this Advice seem unreasonable, if we consider what Differences there are about the Explication of the Trinity, and how difficult it is to make any one Explication unexceptionable. All Parties agree in this solemn Maxim, That there is but one God. And not only Christians of all sorts, but also Jews and Mahometans join with us in this, as the common Barriere betwixt us and Paganism or Polytheism. Now this being a Conclusion agreed on and consented to, by all Parties concerned in the Controversy: If we say, this one God is three, than we are bound, say the Antitrinitarians, to prove it, and to make it intelligible: For he that affirms more than others will grant, must first make his Proposition intelligible, and then bring Reasons to prove the Truth of it. The Orthodox say, This one God is three: Three what? say the other: Three Gods? No. Three Creatures? No. Three Substances? No. Three Accidents? neither: Three Names only? more than that: Three Attributes or Powers? more than that also. What manner, or what sort of Three are they then? Three Persons, say you: but this gives no Satisfaction; for the Question returns still, Whether are these three Persons three Gods, or three Creatures? three Substances or Accidents, etc. For a Person is a complete particular Being, and must fall under some more simple and general Order of Being's or Notions, such as we have mentioned: To which of those Heads therefore do those three Persons belong?  
'Tis not easy, you see, to make one Step forwards, when we once recede from the Unity of the Godhead. Yet I think we may, without fully deciding this Point, advance a little farther by common Consent. All Parties will acknowledge that there is in the Godhead, 

First, Infinite Power and Being.  
Secondly, Infinite Wisdom and Knowledge.  
Thirdly, Infinite Love and Bounty.    
And these three things are the Ground and Materials, if I may so say, of what in one Word we call the Trinity. The Son we say, is the Essential Wisdom of the Father; and the Holy Ghost Essential Love. But the Question is concerning the Name that is to be given to these three things, and about the Mode of their Unity and Diversity. As to the Name, some will have them called three Substances; others three Persons; and others three Properties. And herein consist the three great Differences concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Platonists say, They are three Substances: The Orthodox make them three Persons: The Unitarians three Properties only. But, methinks, however, it should not be matter of Salvation and Damnation, to hit right or be mistaken in the Name or precise Notion of these three things, whatsoever it is: For every ingenuous and unbiass'd Person must acknowledge, that there are great Difficulties in every one of the three Ways mentioned. That Hypothesis which hath been proposed to us of late, for the Explication of the Trinity, suits best with the Platonical Triad: for the Platonists suppose their three Divine Substances to be in such a relation to one another, of Influence and Dependence, of mutual Activity and Sympathy, that they still retain a Character of Unity, and may be called one God, or one Godhead. This, I say, seems to be very well illustrated by the late Hypothesis, which first allows three Divine Substances, three infinite Minds, three holy Spirits, and then unites them by mutual Consciousness, which is the greatest Character of Union that we know. Yet, notwithstanding this Union, it preserves a Distinction by a particular Self-Consciousness in every one of the three Spirits. So that you see at once, by this Representation, the Ground of their being One, and of their being Three.  
Upon the whole Matter, I am of Opinion, but with all Submission to better Judgements, that the Doctrine of the Trinity cannot be made out in a rational way, according to the present Light of our Faculties. I do not doubt but it is the highest Reason to those Being's that are capable of it; but to us, in this present State, 'tis Matter of Faith, and we take it upon the Authority of a Revelation, and must acquiesce in that, without Additions of our own, if we would be secure from Error and Mistake: And when I say, this Doctrine does not fall under our Comprehension, in this present State, I mean chief as to these three Degrees or Parts of it.  
1. To reconcile the Distinction of the Persons to the Unity of the Godhead, according to all the Characters given of that Unity and Simplicity that is in God, and of that Multiplicity and Distinction that is given to the Persons.  
2. To conceive the Equality of the three Persons, notwithstanding their Derivation from one another.  
3. To give a Reason why there are three Persons and no more; or why those Divine Emanations or Productions, or whatsoever they are to be called, are limited to three.  
I have in a former Letter spoken something to the two first Particulars; and as to the last, I will only make one short Remark upon a Principle laid down by this learned Author: He says, (p. 103. §. 2, 3, 4, 5.) That the Thought of the Father, or reflex Knowledge of himself, begets the Son, or is the Son: Now the Holy Ghost is also a thinking Being, and hath a reflex Knowledge of himself; and if he be equal to the Father, his Thought or his reflex Knowledge of himself, is of equal Perfection, and equally substantial with the Father's, and consequently must make a fourth Divine subsisting Person; and that fourth, by the same Reason, a fifth, and so forwards, so long as they continue in Equality.  
But I must break off abruptly, for I see this Letter is too long already. I do sincerely and hearty believe the Doctrine of the Trinity, as to the Matter of it; and as to the Form and Modus of it, I think it is not revealed to us in Scripture, nor attainable by the Light of Nature. So much as is revealed, and no more, is the Rule of Faith. Pardon this Trouble, Sir, from a Stranger, who will always remain,  
SIR, Your Obliged Humble Servant, W. J.   
FINIS.