A Second Defence OF THE Propositions By which the DOCTRINE of the Holy Trinity Is so Explained according to the Ancient Fathers As to speak it not Contradictory to Natural Reason In ANSWER to A Socinian Manuscript In a LETTER to a Friend Together With a Third Defence of those Propositions in Answer to the Newly published Reflexions contained in a Pamphlet Entituled A Letter to the Reverend Clergy of Both Universities Both by the Author of those Propositions London Printed for B. Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons in Cornhil 1695 ERRATA PAge 16. Line 27. dele is P. 20. l. 23. for doth read do P. 32. l. 22. for that proceed from the Sun r. that proceeds without the Sun P. 33. l. 9. for Pooceed r. Proceed P. 37. l. 3. for Stages r. Stage l. 5. for Soul r. Souls P. 46. l. 17. for Incorporal r. Incorporeal P. 49. l. 1. for does r. do THE PREFACE THE Propositions relating to the Doctrin of the H. Trinity were but Twenty-one when the Manuscript mentioned in the Title-Page was writ against them But all the Twenty-eight which since came out are implyed in them And I acknowledge that those Written Papers occasioned my making them so many more to put the Explication more out of danger of Misconstruction There is likewise some difference in the Wording of those Twenty-one and the Title and two or three small Additions but the Sence of both is Exactly the same Those I drew up in Compliance with a Gentleman of as great Worth as Quality who requested me to give him in Writing the Sence he once heard me Affirm to be the most Ancient of this Grand Article of our Faith and in my Opinion incomparably Preferrable to the Later Hypotheses And falling into this Method of Expressing Clearing and Confirming the Fathers Notion of the Trinity by Propositions I delivered when I had finished them a fair Copy of them to that Gentleman and gave my foul one to a Friend who needed Satisfaction about this Great Point This Person some time after brought me from a Socinian Acquaintance of his an Answer to my Paper Concealing his Name from me and I sent him my Thoughts of his Performance as soon as my Occasions would permit me to Consider it which are contained in the next following Defence Only in what I now Publish I abridge a little in a few places of what I writ nor is there any other Considerable Alteration And as I Printed not more than an Hundred Copies of the Propositions till I Reply'd to the Answer to them a while since Publish'd by Another Hand So the now Coming Abroad of This Answer is Solely Occasion'd by the New Reflections But if it be thought no fair dealing with my Adversary that I do not Publish also his Papers I have this to Say I have them not to Publish but returned them at His desire who brought them to me not thinking it worth the while to take a Copy of them since I had not then a Thought of ever Printing my Reply But if I have played any Tricks in Transcribing what I Animadvert upon which is the Substance of the Whole both my Adversary and his Friend are able to let the World be Acquainted with them But I Abhor such Doings The Twenty Eight Propositions 1. THE Name of God is used in more Sences than one in Holy Scripture 2. The most Absolutely Perfect Being is God in the highest Sence 3. Self-Existence is a Perfection and seems to be the Highest of all Perfections 4. God the Father alone is in reference to His Manner of Existence an Absolutely Perfect Being because He alone is Self-existent 5. He alone consequently is absolutely Perfect in reference to those Perfections which do presuppose Self-Existence 6. Those Perfections are Absolute Independence and Being the First Original of all other Beings In which the Son and the Holy Ghost are comprehended 7. All Trinitarians do acknowledg That these Two Persons are from God the Father This is affirmed in that Creed which is called the Nicene and in that which falsly bears the Name of Athanasius tho' with this difference that the Holy Ghost is asserted in them to be from the Son as well as from the Father Wherein the Greek Church differs from the Latin 8. It is therefore a flat Contradiction to say that the Second and Third Persons are Self Existent 9. And therefore it is alike Contradictions to affirm them to be Beings Absolutely Perfect in reference to their Manner of Existence and to say that they have the Perfections of Absolute Independence and of being the First Originals of all things 10. Since the Father alone is a Being of the most Absolute Perfection He having those Perfections which the other Two Persons are uncapable of having He alone is God in the Absolute Highest Sence 11. And therefore our blessed Saviour calls Him The Onely True God Joh. 17. 3. This is Life Eternal to know Thee the onely True God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent And it is most Absurd to think That in these Words and the following Prayer He did address himself to the Three Persons of the Trinity conjunctly since throughout the Prayer He calls this Onely True God his Father and calls Himself twice His Son before these Words Not to mention the Absurdity of making our Lord to pray to Himself or of distinguishing Himself from those Three of which Himself was One. If such a Liberty as this in interpreting Scripture be allowable what Work may be made with Scripture 12. Our Lord calls the Father The Onely True God because He only is Originally and of Himself God and the First Original of all Beings whatsoever As he calls him the Onely Good saying There is none Good but God because He alone is Originally so and the Spring of all that Good which is in other Beings 13. The God head or God in this Highest Sence can be but One Numerically Of which the best Philosophers were satisfied by their Reason and therefore the Oneness so frequently affirmed of Him in Scripture is a Numerical Oneness 14. There seems to be neither Contradiction nor Absurdity in supposing the First Original of all things to be productive of other Beings so Perfect as to have all Perfections but that of Self-Existence and those which are necessarily therein implyed 15. Supposing any such Beings to have immediately issued forth from that infinite Fullness and Foecundity of Being which is in the Deity each of them must have a Right to the Name of God in a Sence next to that in which it is appropriated to the Father since they have all the Perfections of the Godhead but those that must of Necessity be peculiar to Him 16. It is evident from the Holy Scripture That the Son and Holy Spirit are such Beings viz. That they have all Divine Perfections but the forementioned Such as Unlimited Power Wisdom Goodness c. 17. And they are always spoken of in Scripture as Distinct
Beings or Persons according to the Proper Signification of this Word both from the Father and from Each Other Nor are so many Men or Angels more expresly distinguished as different Persons or Substances by our Saviour or his Apostles than the Father Son and Holy Ghost still are 18. It is a very presumptuous Conceit That there can be no way but that of Creation whereby any thing can be immediately and onely from God which hath a distinct Existence of its own Or That no Beings can have Existence from Him by way of Necessary Emanation Of which we have a Clearer Idaea than of Voluntary Creation It is the Word of the Ancients both Fathers and Philosophers nor can a better be found to express what is intended by it viz. A more excellent way of existing than that of Creation 19. It is no less presumptuous to Affirm That it is a Contradiction to suppose That a Being can be from Eternity from God the Father if 't is possible it may be from Him in a more Excellent Way than that of Creation And we have an Illustration of both these Propositions by something in Nature For according to our Vulgar Philosophy Light doth exist by necessary Emanation from the Sun and therefore the Sun was not before the Light which proceeds from thence in Order of Time tho' it be in Order of Nature before it And the Distinction between these Two Priorities is much Elder than Thomas Aquinas or Peter Lombard or any School-man of them all or Christian-man either 20. And if any thing can be from another thing by way of Necessary Emanation it is so far from a Contradiction to suppose that it must only be in order of nature before it that 't is most apparently a Contradiction to suppose the contrary 21. Our 18th and 19th Propositions do speak our Explication of the H. Trinity to be as contrary to Arianism as to Socinianism since the Arians assert That there was at least a moment of time when the Son was not and that He is a Creature 22. Altho' we cannot understand how it should be no Contradiction to affirm That the Three Persons are But One Numerical Being or Substance yet hath it not the least shadow of a Contradiction to suppose That there is an unconceivably close and inseparable Union both in Will and Nature between them And such a Union may be much more easily conceived between them than can that Union which is between our Souls and Bodies since these are Substances which are of the most unlike and even Contrary Natures 23. Since we cannot conceive the First Original of All things to be more than One Numerically and that we acknowledg the now mentioned Union between the three Persons according to the Scriptures together with the intire dependence of the two latter upon the First Person The Unity of the Deity is to all intents and purposes as fully asserted by us as it is necessary or reasonable it should be 24. And no part of this Explication do we think Repugnant to any Text of Scripture but it seems much the Easiest way of Reconciling those Texts which according to the other Hypotheses are not Reconcilable but by offering manifest violence to them 25. The Socinians must needs Confess that the Honour of the Father for which they express a very Zealous Concern is as much as they can desire taken care of by this Explication Nor can the Honour of the Son and Holy Spirit be more Consulted than by ascribing to them all Perfections but what they cannot have without the most apparent Contradiction ascribed to them 26. And we would think it impossible that any Christian should not be easily perswaded to think as honourably of his Redeemer and Sanctifier as he can while he Robs not God the Father for their Sake and offers no Violence to the Sence and Meaning of Divine Revelations nor to the Reason of his Mind 27. There are many things in the Notion of One God which all Hearty Theists will acknowledg necessary to be conceived of Him that are as much above the Reach and Comprehension of humane Understandings as is any part of this Explication of the H. Trinity Nay this may be affirmed even of the Notion of Self-Existence but yet there cannot be an Atheist so silly as to question it Since it is not more Evident that One and Two do make Three than that there could never have been any thing if there were not Something which was always and never began to be 28. Lest Novelty should be Objected against this Explication and therefore such should be prejudiced against it as have a Veneration for Antiquity we add that it well agrees with the Account which several of the Nicene Fathers even Athanasius himself and others of the Ancients who treat of this Subject do in divers places of their Works give of the Trinity as is largely shewed by two very Learned Divines of our Church And had it not been for the School-men to whom Christianity is little beholden as much as some Admire them we have reason to believe that the World would not have been troubled since the fall of Arianism with such Controversies about this great point as it hath been and continues to be This Explication of the B. Trinity perfectly agrees with the Nicene Creed as it stands in our Liturgy without offering the least Violence to any one Word in it Which makes our Lord Jesus Christ to be from God the Father by way of Emanation affirming Him to be God of God very God of very God and Metaphorically expressing it by Light of Light answerably to what the Author to the Hebrews saith of Him Ch. 1. 3. viz. That He is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Effulgency of his Glory and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Character of his Substance And so is as much Of one Substance with the Father as the Beams of the Sun are with the Body of it And since there have been of late so many Explications or Accounts Published of this most Adorable Mystery which have had little better Success than making Sport for the Socinians I thought it very Seasonable now to Revive That which I affirm with great Assurance to be the most Ancient one of all much Elder than the Council of Nice and to have much the fewest Difficulties in it and to be incomparably most agreeable to H. Scripture The Defence c. SIR I Have perused your Friends Answer to the Paper I put into your hand and here hope to give you a satisfactory Reply to it I shall dispatch his Preface in a few Words He saith that The Trinitarians have in Vain tryed their Strength against their Adversaries And there 's no doubt of it if their Adversaries may be Judges As to his saying that The Vanquished Victors are viz. among the Trinitarians for each buys his Victory with the loss of his own Explanatory Hypothesis I confess I have that soft place in my Head
to answer Gods Decrees are God Himself Sect. 61. He saith what I further add are direct Contradictions reciting several more things Conteined in my Propositions and this is the whole of this Section Here is not one word of Proof that any one of them is a Contradiction and therefore I have nothing to add here Sect. 62. He affirms 1. That Necessary Existence from Eternity is as great a Perfection as Self-Existence But not to tell him that whatsoever doth necessarily Exist must have bin from Eternity and therefore such an Existence is never attributed to a Creature I do absolutely deny that necessary Existence from Another is as great a Perfection as necessary Existence from Ones self Can our Author in his Cool thoughts imagine it is He saith 2. If the Father hath given Existence to any Being which he cannot take away He would Cease to be Almighty But I conceive that to suppose that the Father can make a Being to Cease which hath a Necessary Existence from Him would be a Contradictions supposal and that Contradictions being Objects of no Power cannot be Objects of Divine Power and that therefore the Almightiness thereof Consisteth in an Ability to do whatsoever Implyes not a Contradiction or that Power can do And so doth our Author conceive too He saith 3. That Self Existence Separate from those Powers which can only belong to a Self-Existent Being is no Perfection But I ask him how Self-Existence can be Separated from those Powers and if it cannot What does this saying Signifie And it is certain it cannot But if he means Abstracted by Separate as he used a very Improper word to express his thoughts by I deny that the Notion of Self-Existence abstracted from all other Considerations whatsoever Implyeth no Persection And I have as much Liberty to Contradict him without giving my Reason as he hath to Affirm this without giving his But indeed this denial of mine needs no Reason for that Self-Existence is as Such a Perfection is Self-Evident or I know not what is so But were it not that I find him in one of these Sections asserting Creation out of nothing this Passage would lead me to a very shrewd Suspicion that he is of Wolzogenius his Mind and some others of his Brethren That God is not the only Self-Existent Being but that the Rude Chaos was and therefore all Matter now is Self-Existent too And if they could demonstrate this to me I Confess I should do what lyes in me to think Self-Existence to be no Perfection at all in spight of its being Self-Evident that it is a great Perfection if not the greatest 4. He saith That if the Persons have the some Unlimited Perfections but their Manner of getting them was different that would not cause any Inequality betwen them But I say it would that is in reference to their Manner of Existence tho' not in reference to their mere Essence What follows is but dilating on the same thing and repeating what hath been already Considered Sect. 63. He asks 1. How the Father can be greater than the Son and H. Spirit and be the only Good when they have the same Unlimited Power and Goodness I Answer They have an Unlimited Power but not the Same Unlimited Power with the Father Ad Extrà or in relation to the Creation their Power is Unlimited but no body will say that ad Intrà it is the same with the Fathers Except he can believe that the Son could Beget the Father as the Father hath Begot the Son And as to the Fathers being called by our Saviour the Only Good in that he saith There is none Good but God I have said in my Propositions with Grotius and others that that Phrase must needs signifie the Only Original Good or the Only Fountain of Goodness which the Father may be and yet not the onely Perfectly Good And I think that the Perfection of Self-Existence belonging to the Father alone and therefore those Perfections too which do necessarily suppose Self-Existence the Father may most truly be said to be greater than the Son and H. Spirit although all the Perfections of these Persons are Unlimited 2. He asks What greater Absurdity there can be than that Beings which have Infinite Unlimited Perfections should want some Perfections I Answer that indeed there cannot be a greater Absurdity than to say that a Being which hath an Infinite Number of Unlimited Perfections can want some this would be an Ab'urdity with a Vengeance But I doubt I am not Capable of understanding where lyes the Absurdity of asserting That a Being which hath not the Perfection of Self-Existence and those that suppose it may notwithstanding have in as high a degree as can be those Perfections which they have 3. He saith That a Being cannot be partly Infinite and partly Finite And so he runs on upon Infinite Infinite which he all along does and the reason of it is obvious enough viz. because it is a rare Amusing Confounding Word for my Brains and the Brains of his Readers there is not such another to be met with for the purpose But Infinity is not a thing to be made so bold with or talk't of with such freedom and Confidence as he still does as if it were a very familiar matter But I say again it is no such Monstrous business to Imagine that a Being which hath not Every Perfection may have those it is possessed of in the Highest degree If I cared to talk things which I understand nothing of I could talk too of Infinity and say that there are several sorts of Infinity That there is Infinity of Substance And Infinity of Quantity And Infinity of Duration And Infinity of Space and God knows how many more Infinities And could shew that there is no Absurdity in saying that all these Infinities do not necessarily belong to every one of these and I should get great Reputation among Wise men for my pains should they Catch me thus Employing my Tongue or Pen. But now I think better of it I find I am not quite so Ignorant as I thought I was for I can tell this Gentleman that a Being Can be partly infinite and partly not since I have learned that Angels and Humane Souls are so That is with respect to the Infinity of Duration they are infinite à Parte Post tho' not à Parte antè And what a rare Notion is this Sect. 64. As to the little that is here said viz. Upon the Odious Topick of Tritheism I referr him to my Reply to the Considerator my much more Ingenuous Adversary which I presume he hath read tho' he takes no notice of it Sect. 65. Here is nothing to be spoken to without Repetitions and I want time to make them and he is not in such want of Sense as to need them Sect. 66. Here he Misrepresents me and argues upon his Misrepresentation See Prop. 13th Sect. 67. Considering what I have said to the Considerator and
and Heat that can neither see nor feel Yet I am a little mistaken if Heat and Light too cannot have some Operation on Bodies which have never a One of the Five Senses 3. He saith that every Common Systeme demonstrates that there are no such Perceptions as Light and Heat but in things that are Capable of seeing and feeling A goodly Demonstration But the Commonness of it may make it the less Observable But it is pretty much it should be demonstrated in Every Common Systeme and I should never Light on it in any one Systeme But 't is no matter since I am a little too Old to be a Child unless twice one and then to be a Metaphysician too for I am told to my Comfort 4. That this Notion is Obvious to all but Children and Metaphysicians Yet 't is Obvious to this Gentleman tho' a Metaphysician as I dare warrant him he is whether he knows it or no as 't is like he does not since he so despising them or he could never be so Notable at infinity and other most Sublime and Abstruse Matters 5. But in good Earnest I am so dull as to be utterly unable to imagine but that Light would be Light whatsoever is to be thought of Colours tho' there were no Eyes to Perceive it And such a Heretick in Philosophy whether I am in Divinity or no as to think that it is an Aggregation of a certain sort of Particles as much as Air is And therefore I am not like in haste to be shamed out of the Fathers Simile of Emanations of Light from the Sun Nor do I think that our Author himself will ever be able to demonstrate any Absurdity in conceiving that Heat differs onely gradually from Fire and Light from both And that Fire is a fluid Constituted of an Excessively small sort of Particles and therefore very Active Subtile and Piercing and that a Collection of these Minute bodys in such a quantity and so closely as to become an Object of Sight is that which we Express by the words Fire and Flame and a less close Collection is what we call Heat And that Flame differs from Fire as it is a more dispersed Collection of these Particles than Fire and Light from both as it is a thinner Collection of them than either of the other I say I do not think that our Author as Skilled as he is content to be thought to be in Physicks tho' not in Metaphysicks can demonstrate that these are Absurd Notions Sect. 70. There is nothing to be taken notice of in this very small Section But our being Charged with Terminating our Devotions in Each of the three Persons in our Praying to Each of them But I say this is a very false Charge for we as heartily acknowledg that all the Honour we pay to the Son and H. Spirit ought to be Ultimately terminated in God the Father tho' we believe they are not Creatures as those Socinians do who are for giving Divine Honour to the Son believing Him to be a Creature and a mere Man And I am sure he cannot think otherwise of those whom he calls the Real Trinitarians because their Hypothesis necessarily obligeth them so to believe what ever the Hypothesis of the Other does But the H. Scripture is so Express upon this point that I should think no Christian should find it hard to believe it No tho' there were no Other Text but this for it viz. That at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things on Earth and things under the Earth And that Every Tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father Having now done with my Adversarie's Reflexions upon the 28. Propositions I will make bold to Argue a while with himself and to give him a Sample of his Reasoning With as Infallible Assurance Sir as you Talk of Infinite Substances and Reason against the Possibility of the Sons and H. Spirits being Infinite Substances from the Nature of such Substances I never yet met with your Fellow if you will pretend to have a distinct and Explicite Idea of the thing call'd Substance but I know not what Epithet to give you if you can take the Liberty to tell me that you have any such Idea of Infinity as it relates immediately to a Substance You have indeed told us that an Infinite Substance is that which hath no Bounds or Limits but did you think you then gave us a Definition of an infinite Substance No you are a Wiser Man than so or than to hope that the Construing of a Word would pass with any but Children and Fools for a Definition of a thing But suppose Sir that I were so Easy as to accept of Boundlesness and Unlimitedness for a Definition or Description of Infinity yet I should Ten to One put this Question whether an Easy one or no What is the Infinity of a Substance You will not say this is an Easy Question because Answered already viz. That the Infinity of a Substance is the Boundlesness thereof for you know you must tell us what a Substance is before you can make us the Wiser by discoursing upon Infinite Substances Or the Infinity of a Substance If you will now be defining this Thing Called Substance by certain of its Properties I cannot for bear Proceeding to ask What is the Subject of these Properties Or What is Substance Considered abstractedly from all Accidents If you tell me it is something that doth Substare Accidentibus and needs no Support it self I must be Satisfied with this Answer since I know you will not Attempt to give a better But however I will not be discouraged from Asking on a while longer tho' you should give me the Proverb for my Pains And this Question next Occurrs viz. Since an Insinite Substance is something that hath no Bounds must it not reach to all the dimensions of Infinite Space which you were up with in your 68th Section One might be tempted to think that after you had said absolutely as you did Sect. 57. There can be no Bound or End of what is Infinite you will grant this for if it were Extended through the length and breadth of a Million of Worlds if there be so many this would not speak it to have no Bound or End since all these Worlds put together will not fill a Boundless Space But then I ask what is Space Or to speak a little Learnedly What is the Ratio formalis of Space And you have a ready Answer for me viz. 'T is Vacuity or Emptiness Then demand I What kind of thing is Emptiness And you have an Answer at hand to this too viz. 'T is an Imaginary thing And when I have asked What is a mere Imaginary thing I am much mistaken if a Man of your Head-Piece will in the least hesitate at Replying A mere Imaginary thing is a real Nothing And then Sir This is your Disinition of an
and 't is as Unreasonable that a Distinction should be Coyned viz. this between Intelligible and Comprehensible purely for the service of a particular Mystery and when that is done can be of no further use unless new Mysteries were to be Created And I Appeal to your self as much as you may be byassed by Affection to your Friend not only whether All he hath said about this Distinction be not unaccountably strange but likewise whether I have not given a more than sufficient Answer to the Request he makes me in these words Ignorant or Unthinking People may be Cheated with an Empty verbal distinction but since A. T. by which Letters he all along decyphereth me and I understand he means by them the Anonymous Trinitarian offers his Explanation to satisfie men that are Knowing as well as Religious Scholars as well as Christians I must beg him to assign the difference between these two words Intelligible and Comprehensible And he guesseth what Answer I will make in these words I am apt to think that he will tell me we can well understand that this Proposition is true Three are One but we cannot understand the Manner how Three should be One And then makes this Reply upon me Now he might as well say we comprehend the Truth of this Proposition but we do not understand the manner but then what becomes of his Distinction But he might have saved himself the pains of putting words into my Mouth and then Replying upon them For you have seen he is much out in his Guess what I would Answer and if he were not I should be content to be told that I have more than One soft place in my Head For what should ayl me to offer at an Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity agreeable with Natural Reason if I did Think what he would have me Say That 't is impossible to understand the Manner how Three should be One And now he saith He will take his leave of my Title with these two Propositions 1. Three are One is not true in a sence that is disagreeable to Reason and the sence of a Proposition that is not disagreeable to Reason is Intelligible and Comprehensible To which he must needs by this time expect this Reply It is Intelligible but 't is not therefore Comprehensible 2. He that understands the Truth of a Proposition understands the manner in which it is true and he which does not understand the manner in which a Proposition is true does not understand the Truth of a Proposition but takes it on Authority This Proposition of his is worded very oddly I cannot make better sence of it than by thus expressing it He who assents to the Truth of a Proposition understands the sence in which it is true but he that does not understand the sence does not assent to a Proposition but assents to it upon Authority Now the former part of this Proposition is sence but nothing to the present purpose but the latter is neither to the purpose nor sence as I need not inform you And now Sir your Friend is at length come to my Propositions As Prop. 1. God is a Being Absolutely Perfect To this he saith All Theists agree it Prop. 2. That Being which wants any one Perfection cannot be Absolutely Perfect That is in the strictest sence of that Phrase as I afterwards explained my self And he saith that this Proposition is self-evident as who sees not that so it is But his Consequence is so far from being so that it is a false one viz. Therefore our B. Saviour is not God but in a Metaphorical sence c. But had he had but a little Patience he might quickly have seen that notwithstanding Our Lord is not Self-Existent there is no necessity of his being God only in a Metaphorical Sence Prop. 3. Self-Existence is a Perfection and seems to be the Highest it being an Abatement of any other Perfections Greatness and Excellency tho' in it self Boundless not to be Originally in Him who hath it but derivatively To this he saith That Self-Existence does not only seem but is the Highest Perfection This he might perceive I could have told him as well as he me but 't is no fault to express our selves a little Modestly tho' he all along seems to be of another mind But whereas he here saith that Creatures Perfections are improperly so Called with respect to the Creatures as he afterwards found I by no means acknowledg either the Son or H. Ghost to be Creatures so we have only his word for it that the Perfections of Creatures are improperly so called with respect to them Prop. 4. God th Father alone strictly speaking is a Being Absolutely Perfect because he alone is Self Existent and all other Beings even the Son and Holy Ghost are from Him This All Trinitarians do acknowledg and is Asserted both in the Nicene Creed and that which bears the Name of Athanasius This Proposition too must needs down with your Friend but he likes not the Parenthesis Strictly Speaking and saith he is very suspicious of it not that he thinks A. T. inserted it to help a Cause off the Weakness whereof he was Jealous but yet to make his Scheme the more Accountable I thank the Gentleman for being so Modest in this Wipe but he could not wonder had he read to the end of my Propositions before he Entred on his Animadversions that I should here insert the foresaid Parenthesis For I do affirm the Son and H. Ghost to be Absolutely Perfectly Beings in reverence to the Perfections of their Nature that is that they are all Boundless and Infinite and that they have All perfections they Can have without a Contradiction and those are all but Self Existence and what necessarily follows upon it viz. Being the First Original of All things and I add too Absolute independence But more of this anon The Four next Propositions he hath no Controversy with me about But now Sir Comes a Proposition that makes your Friend tearingly Angry viz. Prop. 9. A Being which hath all the Divine Perfections that are Capable of being Communicated may be properly said to be Essentially God upon the account of those Perfections or to be indued with the Divine Nature This he calls a Gross Proposition because it Contradicts not only Common Sence and Reason but even all that A. T. hath Advanced This is Sir a Heavy Charge but we must wait a while before he makes it out that This Proposition is Contradictory to Common Sence and Reason for he thus goes on He had advanced that God is a Being Absolutely Perfect That a Being which wants any one Perfection can not be Absolutely Perfect That Self-Existence is the Highest Perfection That Jesus Christ and the H. Ghost are not Self Existent That they depend on God the Father That God the Father is the Original he should have said the First Original of all things And that He can be but one Numerically He
should have said that God in this Highest of Sences can be but one Numerically And now he saith that Point-blank against all this A. T. affirms that a Being which is not Absolutely Perfect which wants Self Existence which wants the Highest Perfection which derives it self from God which depends on God the Original of all things who is but one Numerically may be Properly said to be Essentially God upon the account of some Perfections for two it seems are not Communicated or to be induced with the Divine Nature Now Sir what a Multiplying of words is here Which wants Self-Existence Which wants the Highest Perfection Which derives it self from God as if these Three were more than One thing Tho I had no such Expression neither as derives it self from God And he is a little Injurious to me too in representing me as Saying that the Son and Holy Ghost have only some Perfections notwithstanding the following Parenthesis whereas he knows he ought to have represented me as saying That they have all that are Capable of being Communicated which are all but Self-Existence and what is necessarily therein Implyed And I say that this is not Capable of being Communicated because there is not a more Gross Contradiction than to say it is But how is this Proposition Point-blank Contrary to my foregoing ones This Question he Answers by Askking Questions For he next saith he must make bold to ask me these following Questions And I will answer them as well as I can as he asks them Quest. 1. Doth the Divine Nature Comprehend all Perfections or can it want one or two of the Chiefest and be still the same Divine Nature I Answer that the Divine Nature doth Comprehend all Perfections but Self Existence is a Perfection relating immediately to the Fathers Existence not to His Nature or Essence it speaking the most Excellent Manner of Existing peculiar to Himself Even as Adam's Coming into Being by Gods immediate Creation speaks not the Humane Nature in him a different Nature from that of his Posterity tho it spakes his Person to have an Excellency above all that have come into the World by Ordinary Generation And as the Humane Nature of our B. Saviour is not of a different kind from other Mens because he came by it in a Supernatural way so I say God the Father's Existence being without a Cause doth not make him to have another sort of Nature from that of the Son and H Ghost Which may be a Necessary Nature and Uncreated and be Constituted of all the Boundless Perfections of which the Nature of the Father Consists abstracted from the Consideration of the manner of His Existence notwithstanding whatsoever your Friend can Object against the Possibility thereof And notwithstanding any thing I have said in my first 8. Propositions this may be asserted without danger of being caught at Contradicting my self as I hope you 'l be Convinc't anon And now for his next Question Quest. 2. Can the Divine Nature be Communicated to a Being when less than all Perfections are Communicated to it I Answer that if you 'l read again what I have said to the Former Question you will find there needs no other Answer to this But I must blame the wording of this Question because it seems to suppose Prae Existent Beings to which the Divine Nature is Communicated Whereas the possibility of the Existence of other Beings from God the Father which have the Perfections of his own Nature is that which is to be understood by the Communicableness of those Perfections Quest. 3. Can a Being that depends on God be properly said to be Essentially that God on whom it depends I Answer that such a Being can be properly said to be Essentially that God in one sence but cannot in another i. e. It can have an Essence of the same kind tho' not the same Numerical one Quest. 4. Can a Being that distinguisheth it self from the Only True God be properly said to be Essentially that God who is the Onely True God and but one Numerically I Answer that because he loves needlesly to Multiply Questions I am not obliged so to Multiply Answers And this being the self-same with the other Question I have given my Answer to it And now I hope the Gentleman may be satisfied of the true reason of my Parenthesis in the 4th Proposition Namely because the Son and H. Ghost may be Absolutely Perfect as to their Nature abstracted as I said from the Consideration of the manner of their Existence wherein yet they may be said infinitely to Excel even Arch-Angels These Existing by voluntary Creation but those by Necessary Emanation Which is the Word of the Ancients and I cannot find a better to Express what is intended by it viz. a more Excellent manner of Existence than that of Creation Which Thousands of Persons no whit inferiour to the greatest Masters of Reason the Socinians can bost of both Ancient and Modern Divines and Philosophers have not thought deserves to be Scoffed at as Non-sence and a Contradiction to Natural Reason as much as it is above the Comprehension thereof and is every whit as intelligible as are many Notions relating to the DEITT in which all true Theists as well as Christians are agreed and also as are not a few relating to our own Souls their Powers and Faculties and their Union with and influence upon our Bodies and as are innumerable Notions too relating to Material things which an Experimental Philosopher cannot doubt the truth of In the next place Sir your Friend saith he despairs of hearing a wise Word answered to these Questions viz. the forementioned But I will not say where was his Wisdom then when he askt them because you will Reply they are however wise Questions if they serve to Expose the Trinitarian to whom they are put and to make his Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity down right Non-sence But I Reply let the Unbyassed Readers judge of this and Sir I heartily wish that your Self may be one of them And whereas he saith that he will do what he can to prevent troubling that is my troubling the Questions with Confused Empty Jargon My Answer is That I think I have not at all troubled the Questions whether I shall trouble him or no by my Answering them But I expect he will tell you that my Answers are Confused Empty Jargon and if he will please to tell me so I shall give him no Rougher Reply than this Sir This is a rare demonstration that your self is one of those Anti-Trinitarians whom you Extol in the beginning of your Answer to my Propositions as having Modestly as well as Learnedly and Piously and Strongly Impugned the Commonly received Doctrine of the Trinity But how does he Endeavour to prevent my troubling his Questions with Confused Empty Jargon He does it thus By Essence I suppose he means Nature I Answer I am willing to do so too And saith he in that
seem at least to Speak His Wisdom and Knowledg boundless or infinite And those words Rom. 9. 5. of whom as Concerning the Flesh Christ came who is God over All Blessed for Evermore do at least seem to Speak Him to have the Divine added to the Humane Nature And those words Coloss. 2. 9. In Him dwelleth all the Fulness of the God-Head bodily And Christ's giving Himself the Title that is Proper to God in his Saying I am Alpha and Omega the First and the Last doth likewise seem at least to assert the same thing And so doth God the Father's saying of His Son Let All the Angels of God worship Him Especially since it is said Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and Him onely shalt thou serve And the same thing seems at least to be implyed too in that Saying of Christ That all men should Honour the Son as they Honour the Father which is I think with Divine Honour and must at least seem to this man himself so to be And what think you of those words which begin St Johns Gospel In the Beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the word was God c. All things were made by Him c. Compared with V. 14. And the Word was made Flesh c. Do not these words at least seem to speak the same thing And Socinus his Exposition of them would at least seem to be no true one tho' there were no such gross Absurditys as the Arch Bishop among others hath shewn it to be guilty of since he himself does acknowledg that he was the First Inventer thereof and therefore not known till above Fifteen Hundred Years after the Coming of our Saviour And those words Isa. 9. 6 7. do seem at least to be a Prophecy of Christ viz. To us a Child is born to us a Son is given He shall be called Wonderfull Counsellour the Mighty God the Everlasting Father the Prince of Peace c. Nor is it so much as a Seeming Objection which the Socinians urge against these words being a Prophecy that the first do run in the Present Tense viz. To us a Child is born a Son is given since in that Unquestionable Prophecy of Christ Isa. 53. Several of the Praedictions run in both the Present and Praeterperfect Tense As He is despised and rejected of Men. He hath born our Griefs He was wounded for our Transgressions And the like almost in every Verse throughout the Chapter Nor is any thing more Common than this Enallage of Tenses in the Hebrew Language And their rendring the words next following so as to adapt them to K. Hezekiah instead of our Saviour is a wonderful instance of their offering violence to Texts of Scripture for thus they read them The Wonderful Counsellour the Mighty God the Everlasting Father shall name him viz. Hezekiah the Peaceable Prince And wheras it follows Of the Encrease of his Government and Peace there shall be no End they make this to be fulfilled in Hezekiah because he reigned no less than Nine and Twenty Years See this in the Brief History of the Unitarians so much magnified by them P. 20. of the 2d Edition I have Sir now given your Friend a Taste and a mere Tast of the plainest Texts to my purpose in Compliance with his Wish and notwithstanding my seems which he makes such a do with I am as Certain as I can be of any thing of this nature that these Sriptures and Abundance more do much more than seem to Confirm the truth of this Proposition And as to the H. Ghost I need give no other Proof of His having all the Perfections of the Divine Nature than what hath bin already said of His being the Sanctifier for since this speaks Him Infinitely Pure and Holy and I may add too Omnipresent he must needs have all the other according to your Friends Assertion viz. That they cannot be some in one and some in another but must be inseparate and go together And he now betakes himself to Cite Texts against Christs having Unlimited Perfections but he gives us only two one to prove His Power and the other His Wisdom to be Limited That for the Limitedness of His Power is that saying of our Lord to Peter when he was Apprehended in the Garden Mat. 26. 52. Put up again thy Sword c. Thinkest thou that I cannot now Pray unto my Father and He shall presently give me more than Twelve Legions of Angels But 1. There is no necessity that it should be implyed in these words that Christ had not power to deliver Himself without Praying to His Father for the Help of Angels or any other help since Unspeakably Greater Works are Recorded of Him without any mention of His Praying for Ability to do them And since he had twice before done this very work when he was as much as now in the hands of His Adversaries as may be seen Luke 4. 30. and John 10. 39. 2. Our Lord 's whole Power being Originally from the Father he we find took all opportunities of giving Him the Glory of whatsoever he did 3. He now thought fit to declare in the Ears of His Enemies how Dear He was to God as much as they Hated Him And therefore whereas One Legion of Angels could have delivered Him as well as Twelve nay one Angel as well as so many Legions yet He saith His Father would send Him Twelve Legions upon His Praying to Him i. e. supposing He could stand in need of them 4. Our Lord did Industriously Conceal the Highest sence in which He was the Son of God from those who were so far from being Capable of then receiving that Doctrine that He knew they would make Him so much the greater Blasphemer upon that account Nor would it have been so Congruous to His State of Humiliation for Himself then to have Proclaimed His Divinity but after His Glorious Ascension and sending the H. Ghost according to His Promise was the Season for the doing hereof by the Apostles As particularly St Chrysostom hath shewed in more than one of his Homelys Again Sir your Friend Attacques Christs Infinite Wisdom from its being said of the Child Jesus That He grew in Wisdom But does he think us to have so Soft a Place in our Heads as to believe the Humane Nature of Christ capable of all the Wisdom of the Divinity thereto United No he does not for foreseeing what Answer was ready for him he saith If it be Replyed that His Wisdom as God was Infinite the Scripture does not so much as seem to tell us any thing of Christ with distinguishing respect to a Supposed Divine Nature in opposition to an acknowledged Humane To pass over the Odd Phrase with distinguishing respect what if the Scripture saith nothing of Christs having a Divine Nature in Opposition to His Humane does it not therefore so much as seem to tell us any thing of His having a Divine Nature distinct from
not the cause of any Light But whereas I humbly Conceive after all that the Sun is the Cause of Light I owe this my Opinion neither to the History of the Bible nor to the Schools but to a certain thing called Eye-sight and for this Satisfaction he owes me thanks But Thirdly saith he The Sun is the Cause of Light He may as well say The Sun is the Cause of the Sun and the Light of Light or any thing whatsoever is the Cause of its own Nature But why so I beseech him Are the Sun and Light the self-same thing Then a Glow-worm hath the Sun in the Tayl of it And then the Light was not made 3. days before the Sun for all the Book of Genesis But if he please to give any Credit to his own Eyes he will be tempted to think that the Body of the Sun and the Light which comes in at his Windows are two things But at last we find him in a good humour for well then saith he be it granted him that the Sun and the Light which proceeds from it did begin to Co-Exist in the same moment of time but then they cannot be the cause of one another But I must be still a little Cross and say First That I will not have it granted me that they did begin to Co-Exist in the same moment for I am satisfied to have them begin only to Exist in the same moment Secondly Neither shall he grant it to me that therefore they are the Cause of One another for I was so reasonable as to be Content to have but one of them the Cause of the other But now he is Cross again and saith That thing which is the Cause of another must be in respect of Time before the other thing whereof it is the Cause In sober Sadness my Friend he might have spared all his other Wise talk and only have told me this and he had done his Business For 't is as much as if he had said Let the Sun be the Cause of Light with all my heart and let them begin to Exist together too yet notwithstanding I would have you know that whatsoever thing is the Cause of another thing must be in order of Time before it And for once take my word for it And now to my Comfort we are Come to the Conclusion of this Ammadversion viz. What A. T. means by Order of Nature I am not sure that I can guess for I am not much Versed in School-Jargon yet guessing at his meaning I tell him That I can no more Conceive the Sun without the Light which proceeds from it than the Light that proceeds from the Sun from whence it does proceed This Sentence is long Enough too to be taken to pieces 1. He saith he is not sure that he can guess and yet does guess But my School-learning tells me that if he is sure he does guess he is sure he can guess 2. He saith he is not much Versed in School-Jargon that is to say he is Verst in Jargon but not in School-Jargon And because we will part fairly I am willing he should know that I believe both these Propositions 3. He saith he is not sure that he can guess what A. T. means by Order of Nature As if Priority in order of Nature and in Order of Time were a Distinction of my Coyning like that of Intelligible and Incomprehensible I perceive he is as great a Philosopher as School-Divine if he never before met with that Distinction which is much more Ancient than the most Ancient of the School-men or than Christianity it self But if he hath Ever met with that Distinction before he might have Presumed that what I mean by it is but what other Folk have Ever meant 4. He saith I can no more Conceive the Sun without the Light that Pooceeds from it than this Light without the Sun No nor can I neither for I can Perfectly well Conceive them both I can Conceive the Sun abstractly from any other Light than what is in the Body of it and I can Conceive too Every jot as well of the Light in my House at Noon-day abstracted from the Sun And so can he too if his great Modesty would but let him think so But we must not forget the last words of this his Conclusion viz. Thus I reckon to have done Justice to A. T 's 13th Proposition not forgetting the Appendent Similitude And I reckon I have done no injustice to his Animadversions on this or any other of my Propositions and whether he be out in his Reckoning or 1 in mine let any man of his own Chusing be judg that has but Common-sense Prop. 14. Those two Propositions do Speak our Explication of the H. Trinity to be as Contrary to Arianism as to Socinianism since the Arians assert that there was at least a Moment of time when the Son was not and that He is a Creature On this he sayes nothing that I can be Concerned to reply too unless I delighted in Exposing him for Exposings sake Prop. 15. Tho' we cannot understand how it should be no Contradiction to affirm that the three Persons are but one numerical Being yet hath it no Appearance of a Contradiction to say That there is an Unconceivably Close and inseparable Union both in Will and Nature between them And here too is very little to draw a Reply from me Except I delighted in Repetitions as much as he does but two or three Passages I can't well let go He saith It is a very Stange Boldness for men to determine that such or such a Notion is true which they cannot Conceive is true But I. How comes Boldness all o th' suddain to be such a Crime with this Gentleman 2. How comes that Proposition by such a Remarque as this since it Speaks nothing of the Truth of any Notion but affirms one Notion to have no Appearance of a Contradiction in it Nor does he offer a word to shew that there is any Contradiction therein or any Appearance thereof which a Wise man would believe to be his onely Business could such a one undertake Confuting of this Proposition 3. Who are they that determine any Notion to be true while they cannot Conceive it to be so And another Saying he hath here which further demonstrates what a deadly Enemy he is to the Crime Boldness viz. A Close and inseparable Union between God and Christ there cannot be unless he means such a Union as is between different Natures but that will not content him yet 't is all that can be granted But I much doubt that this is much more than he will grant I fear he will not grant That God the Father and his Begotten Son are as Closely United as are his Soul and Body the Natures of which are as different as the Natures of any two Created things can be and their Union with Each other so Close tho' not inseparable that he is as unable to
give an account of this Union as of that which Trinitarians do believe to be between God the Father the Son and the H. Ghost But he saith The Nature of God the Father includes Perfections which are not in the Nature of Jesus Christ and from thence Concludes that such a Union as the forementioned cannot be between them To which I am loth to repeat what I have so often said That the Fathers Self-Existence with what is there in implyed is a Perfection immediately relating to His manner of Existence But however are there not many Perfections or Excellent Powers and Properties in Souls which are not in Bodys And yet the Union between them as was said is too Close for us to give an Account thereof Prop. 16. Such an Union as this between them being acknowleg'd by us together with the forementioned intire Dependance of the Son and H. Spirit upon the Faher the Unity of the Deity is as fully to all intents and purposes asserted by us as it is necessary or desirable it should be But to this Sir as he saith very little so not a line that I can reply a new word to nor a Syllable is here of Confutation Prop. 17. And no part of this Explication do we think Repugnant to any Text of Scripture but it seems to be the best and Easiest way of Reconciling those Texts which according to the other Hypotheses are not Reconcileable but by offering Extreme Violence to them Now to this he saith That he is infinitely certain that this Explication is in a great part Repugnant to many Texts of Scripture and to many Self-Evident Principles of Reason But not one of those many Texts of Scripture does he instance in and we have seen what work he makes with Self-Evident Principles Nor is here any Offer at a Confutation Except his calling me an Ishmalite Trinitarian be so whose hand is against all the Heads of the Trinitarian-Expositors and all their hands against me and a scareing Threat how Merciless would Expose me and that he would do it at another kind of rate than he hath done But I say should he Expose me at the Same rate he would be merciless to himself onely But since he saith that my hand is against all the Heads of Trinitarian Expositors 't is Enough to tell him that 't is false Prop. 18. The Socinians must Confess that the Honour of the Father is as much as they can desire taken Care of by this Explication nor can the Honour of the Son and H. Ghost be more Consulted in any Explication of the H. Trinity than it is in this It ascribing to them all Perfections but what they cannot have without the most Manifest Contradiction Now the first thing he here saith that I ought to take notice of is That he who gives more to an Excellent Person than of Right belongs to him may perhaps be in a great part Excused for the sake of his good intention but must nevertheless always be chid for the injury he offers to him because by giving too much to him he brings the just measures of his real Excellency into Question Now instead of an Answer I would ask him one Question more who has askt me so many viz. which is the Safer of the Two Extremes To think of the Son and H. Ghost more or less honourably than we ought Provided that God the Fathers Honour be not in the least intrenched upon Sure 't is impossible for any sincere Christian not to Chuse to Err on the Right-Hand if he must Err on One. On that Hand we chuse to Err in our Opinion of whomsoever we have a Respect and value for Now if the Honour of the Father be as much as can be taken care of in this our Explication and we believe it is since he is made the Original of all the Excellencies and Perfections that are in the other Persons and of their Existence And since there are so great a Number of Texts which have more than seemed to the Generality of Christians and to all but a small handful since Arianism went off the Stages to give the Perfections of the Divine Nature to these Persons surely the Love and Esteem which all good Soul must necessarily have for them must needs byass them towards the Understanding of Scripture in that sence which makes most for their Honour provided it be not Forced and too Artificial and Provided I say again the Father loseth no Honour thereby Again he saith That to his knowledge the Socinians are not willing to Confess that the Honour of the Father is as much taken care of in this Explicaiion as they do wish it were But he offers not at any reason why they are not willing to Confess this But sure they will not say that their own Hypothesis doth give more Honour to the Father than that which speaks him the Author of all that the other Persons either have or are Lastly he saith That the Scripture no where tells us that Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost desired to be accounted God That Jesus Christ did not command nor desire Divine Honours to be paid Him is plain in that when he taught His Disciples to Pray He did not propound Himself as the Object of Prayer but directed them to Address themselves to the Father To this I Reply First That suppose neither of these Persons is said in Scripture to desire to be accounted God are there there fore no Texts which speak of either of them as God I have I think sufficiently minded him of the Contrary Secondly How can he say that Jesus Christ desired not Divine Honours to be paid to Him Except he means that he desired none to be paid him while He was on Earth when He hath told us John 5. 23. that The Father hath Committed all Judgment to the Son That all Men should Honour the Son even as they Honour the Father And are not all the Glorious Angels Commanded by the Father to Worship His Son Heb. 1. 6. And is not Eternal Glory given to Him Apocal. 1. 5 6. Now to Him that loved us and washed us from our Sins in His own Blood and hath made us Kings and Priests unto God and His Father To Him be Glory and Dominion for ever and ever And will not all such Texts speak Him an Object of Divine Worship because that in the Days of His Humiliation He expressed no desire of being so but still gave all the Honour of whatsoever He did to His Father Thirdly I doubt from this Passage that your Friend is gone beyond his Master Socinus and denyeth the Adorability of the Son of God for which he was a Zealous Champion I am heartily Sorry for him if it be so this being to speak modestly to make a very large Step towards being no Christian. Prop. 19. And one would think it impossible that any Christian should not be easily perswaded to think as Honourably of his Redeemer and Sanctifier as ever
he is able while he Robs not God the Father for their Sake and doth not offer any violence either to the sence and meaning of Divine Revelations or to the Reason of his Mind To this he Replys I. That Saving the Honour of the Father Intire and Uninjured the Socinians think as Honourably of the Son as any Men whatsoever I Answer Surely the Arians Opinion of Him is far more Honourable than the Socinians who will not allow Him to be other than a mere Man nor to have had a Being before He was in the Womb of the Virgin whereas the Arians Doctrine is that He hath a Super-Angelical Nature and that He was before all Worlds and that the Father Created them by Him and yet they Consult the Honour of the Father as much as the Socinians can no they making all that belongs to the Son to be from Him II. He saith that some of the Socinians think as Honourably too of the H. Ghost tho' 't is to be Confessed that others do think the H. Ghost to be a Divine Energy or Virtue and not a Person whether of the two is not plainly revealed and my Antagonist does not tempt me to dispute the Question Not to Reflect upon your Friends wisely calling me his Antagonist who had nothing then to do with him don't those Socinians that believe the H. Ghost to be a Person make Him no better than an Angel how then do they think as Honourably of Him as those that believe Him to be God and yet Rob the Father of no Honour And whereas he saith It is not Plainly revealed whether the H. Ghost be a Person or no I say it is as plainly revealed as that the Father himself is a Person nor can any one be more plainly spoken of as a Person than the H. Ghost still is by our B. Lord. But some Men will dispute any thing and some too who little understand the Knack of disputing III. He saith That to think as Honourably as possibly we can of any Person besides God the Father Almighty is not our duty But I hope I need not tell him that Id Solùm Possumus quod Jure Possumus We can only do that which we can lawfully do And he knew I could mean no other by Possibly can than Lawfully can IV. He saith We are to think but just so Honourably of Jesus Christ as God directs us in the New Testament And I say what ever directions we have what to think of Him in the Old Testament too are also to govern our thoughts concerning Him And we are wholly led by the H. Scripture to think so much more Honourably both of Christ and the H. Ghost than he and his Friends do V. He saith That we must leave it to God who will be Honoured above all things He hath made and will not Communicate His Honour to Another to appoint what Honour shall be done to His Son And we say so too and therefore wholly take our direction in this Point from Divine Revelation And that saying of God Almighty's that He will not give His Glory to another or to any one of His Creatures Confirms us in our Belief that the Son of God is not a Creature since He will have us to Honour Him Even as we Honour Himself And whereas the Socinians say that God will have Him so Honoured as He is His Ambassador and Representative I Answer that so Angels have often been too and yet as I need not tell them it was ever Idolatry to pay Religious Honour to them upon any account An Angel that was sent on an Embassy to St John said to him upon his falling down before him See thou do it not for I am thy Fellow-Servant c. Worship God And thus have I replyed to every thing in this Animadversion too that I have not already spoken more than once to Prop. 20. There are many things in the Notion of One God which all hearty Theists will own are Necessary to be Conceived of Him that are every whit as much above the reach and Comprehension of Humane Understandings as is any part of this Explication of the Trinity Nay this may be affirmed Even of the Notion of Self-Existence But yet there is not an Atheist so silly as to call it in question since it is not more Evident that One and Two do make Three than that there could never have been any thing if there were not something in Being which was always and never began to be To this he only replys That there are many things directly contrary to Self-Evident Principles in this Explication and he trusts he hath Plainly proved it And Sir do you judge as much as he is your Friend how he has Proved it Prop. 21. Lest Novelty should be Objected against this Explication and so such as have a veneration for Antiquity as it becomes all to have should be prejudiced against it we can make it Evident that it very well agreeth with the Account which the Nicene Fathers even Athanasius himself and others of the Ancients who have treated of this Subject do in divers Places of their Works give of the Trinity And had it not bin sor the Subtil School-men to whom CHRISTIANITY is little beholden we have reason to believe that the World since the Fall of Arianism would never have been troubled with such Controversies about this great Point as it hath bin and Continues to be Now to this your Friend saith 1. Novelty is the least Objection I have against his Explication but 't is a good Exception which he will never be able to answer But this Proposition tells him I am prepared to shew that this Explication agreeth very well with the Account that the Ancients do give of the Trinity And therefore he might have had the Patience to have seen whether 't was a Vain Boast or no before he had so Confidently Pronounced me forever unable to answer the Objection of Novelty 2. He saith I can hardly think that his Hypothesis take it altogether will down with any Trinitarian But I Phansy that if he did not Mistrust it would down with many he would not be so Angry as he is with it And now 3. He gives me his Parting Blow and it is a Stunner viz. And as for Ancient Fathers how weak a thing is it to seek Credit to An Hypothesis upon the account of their Concurring But but now Novelty he acknowledg'd to be a good Exception tho' the least Objection of which Distinction between Objection and Exception himself must have the Honour and 't is as Wise a one as mine between Intelligible and Comprehensible is a Weak one but how is Novelty any Exception against an Hypothesis if the Concurrence of the Judgments of Ancient Fathers can give no Credit to it But whereas I called this Blow a Stunner I was in too good Earnest for these his last Words do as Perfectly Amaze me as my now mentioned Distinction did him And since
Stunned People are not good at Talking I have no more to say but that I know not whether there be more of Arrogance than Ignorance or of Ignorance than Arrogance in these words And now Sir if you shall think that I have Treated your Friend with too much Freedom and have given him too Course a Farewell the onely Apology I can make for it is That I find him such a sort of Adversary as would not Permit me to Treat him otherwise However the Liberty he hath taken with me hath not the least Influence upon my Spleen and I wish him as well as you know I do your self And particularly that he may learn to be more Modest and think it Possible that those Opinions which he takes for most Evident and most Necessary Truths may be as Gross and Dangerous Errors and that his Understanding is not so much above the Pitch os other fallible Mortals but that he may be mightily Mistaken when he is most Confident And I heartily Pray that you both may with all Sincerity and Impartiality Consider what is here offered to you and that God would give us all a right Understanding in all Divine Truths These things I say are heartily Prayed for by Your Affectionate Friend E. G. The Latter Defence THERE are other Trinitarians Concerned with me in this Gentlemans Book of Reflexions mentioned in the Title-Page His 7th Chapter Conteins those he hath made upon the 28. Propositions which consists of 15. Sections that begin with Numb 56. The First is no more than a Recital of 3. or 4. of my Propositions The Writer saith upon them Sect. 57. 1. That two Infinite Substances should Emane from one Infinite Substance is so gross a Notion that I wonder any Man of Sense should be guilty of it And my Reason is because all Infinites of what sort or nature soever are equal for if one Infinite be less than another there must be some Terminus Bound or End of it and Consequently it cannot be Infinite of which there can be no Bound or End or if one Infinite were any ways more than another there would be somewhat more than Infinite which is Evidently Absurd Therefore to suppose two Infinites to Emane from one is to suppose two to Emane from one when each is equal to the one from which it Emanes Here and in the remaining part of this Section is Demonstration with a Witness against the Ancient Fathers Hypothesis of the Sons and H. Spirits being from the Deity by Emanation and against my Hypothesis of the Possibility hereof I will take a little more Liberty with this Subtil Gentleman when I am better acquainted with him as I shall be quickly than I will at present For he may think it no good Breeding to tell him homely all my mind at our very first Meeting But now a Complement is more Civil as I thank him he begins with too great a one to me And my Complement is Sir I Commend your Wisdom in Changing all along my Phrases viz. Beings whose Perfections are unlimited and who have all they can have without a most manifest Contradiction for a Phrase I not once use in my Propositions viz. Infinite Substances because I understand it nothing so well as those Phrases And I say he did Wisely herein Since had he used my Phrases this Section would not have looked quite so scaringly But let the Reader still put one of my Phrases in the place of Infinite Substances and then Consider whether Contradictions would so Immediately and at first Sight seem to appear in this Hypothesis But I shall deliver my mind a little more freely to him relating to the matter of this Section when I come to his 63d But I have not so done with this but shall farther Consider what it sayes And be he pleased to take notice that there is nothing in this Acute Arguing except he means by Infinite Substances Substances of an Infinite Quantity or Bigness But I hope he will be so far from attributing Quantity or Bigness to the Substance of the Deity that he will not do it to the Substance of an Angel or Humane Soul 2. It next follows To suppose one Infinite Substance to Emane from another is to suppose the whole entire Substance to Emane from it self But this I deny and do Acknowledg that if I granted it I must without any farther troubling either him or any of his Brethren bid adieu to the Fathers Hypothesis they are so displeased with as a plainly Contradictions one Seeing it asserts a real Distinction of the Divine Substances tho' no Difference in them It follows 3. And what makes it stranger is that the two Infinite Substances Emaned from the Fathers single Substance yet there was no diminution in the Substance of the Father it is as Infinite as it was at first But how should this make the Hypothesis Stranger when it would be the Strangest thing in the World if the Divine Substance were Capable of the least Diminution since those that believe Spiritual Substances know that none of them are But anon a little more of this But it may be said saith he 4. Why may not one Infinite as well as one Finite proceed from another And then he thus answers himself But nothing can be more absurd than to suppose one Finite much more two to Proceed from one but of the same Bigness Yes I 'le tell him what is more Absurd viz. To suppose one or more Infinite Substances to Proceed from another Infinite Substance of the same Bigness This is more Absurd because there is one more Contradiction in this Supposition than in that viz. That Bigness belongs to a Spiritual Substance which kind of Substance I hope he will acknowledg to be alone Capable of Infinity But as notable Work as our Author makes at demonstrating the Absurdity of two infinite Substances Emaning from one I fancy I know those who may almost as much put him to it to defend the Non-Absurdity of a Sparks being kindled by or Emaning from a Spark both being of the same bigness as a Trinitarian shall need to be by his Arguments I will not be so rude as to Call them Cavils against the Possibility of the Other Emanation But to use his own Phrase infinite Substance 't is so far from being impossible that an infinite Substance should Emane from an infinite Substance or to use the Scripture-Phrase be begotten by it that if any Being can Emane or be begotten by an infinite Substance it must be infinite too For as Athanasius saith It is impossible that that which is begotten should be a different Essence from that which Begat The Reader may see what is farther said of Emanations in 2d Defence p. 26. I have abundantly too much business lying now upon my hands to find Leisure for so Close a Consideration of all that this Gentleman hath reflected on the 28. Propositions as possibly I might apply my self to had I time to Spare
But the Truth is I find his Arguing to be such as if well followed upon Other Arguments it might make those who are willing to be so down right Scepticks as to almost Every thing He needs not to be informed what doughty Dexterity a Sophister might shew in making it out that Creation is a Perfect Impossibility That Eternity in both the Notions thereof is a Monstrous Contradiction to the Reason of our Minds And that so is also the Notion of an Incorporal Substance And of Liberty nay even in God Himself And of the Divine Omnipresence And that both parts of a Contradiction may possibly be true And perhaps a thousand other things for which we have the highest Rational Evidence may be Exposed to Ridicule by a Man who loves to Chop Logick And likewise a many other things the Contrarys to which we have even Ocular and the most Sensible demonstrations of may one make such a shew of demonstrating as to Baffle most men As that there is no such thing as Motion That a Body can have no influence upon a Spirit nor a Spirit upon a Body and much less can they be vitally United That 't is impossible that Will and Thought should Stir a Finger That all Bodies are alike Big c. I say most if not all these Strange Propositions are Capable of being with as Plausible a shew of reason defended by a Subtile Sophister as the Emanation of the Son and Holy Ghost from the Father hath bin now Confuted by this Gentleman So that I cannot but apply those words of the Apostle to such Disputers They have turned aside unto vain jangling understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm But I have said Enough to this Section Each of the following I shall I think dispatch as Easily Sect. 58. He saith that whatsoever Emanes or any way proceeds from a Self-Existent Substance except it were Created and then joyned to it is as Self-Existent as that Substance But I say with as great assurance that whatsoever Substance Emanes from another must Owe its Existence to that other and the Contrary is a manifest Contradiction As to his Reason for thus asserting viz. Because before its Emanation it was a Part of the Self-Existent Substance it is taken from Material Substances which do Consist of Parts but this cannot be said of Spiritual ones because they are not divisible and therefore have no Parts And it is Observable too how well this Reason Suits to Eternal Emanations Sect. 59. This Section hath several very Surprizing things in it As 1. Our Author cannot see since the Son and Spirit are necessary Emanations how they owe their Origin more to the Father than the Father Owes His to them Which is as much as to say since the Tree necessarily issues forth from the Root and the Rays from the Sun therefore the Root owes its Origin no less to the Tree and the Sun to its Rays than the Tree to the Root and the Rays to the Sun 2. His Reason for that Assertion is that the Father Son and Spirit are all three of a Substance that is Self-Existent But I say onely the two latter are so for the First as he needs not to be told is the Self Existent Substance not of or from such a substance But if he asks me How they Emane from the Father I know not which of us would be the more Presumptuous he for Asking and for Endeavouring to Answer thatQuestion But on second thoughts I will undertake to Answer it when he shall be pleased to Answer me this How did your self come into Being Or What is the Modus how any thing comes to be what it is or to be at all 3. He adds Nor could the Father more than They be the cause of the Separation since They necessarily Separated from one another But can I need to mind him that our Hypothesis will not bear a Separation between the Divine Persons and only asserts a Distinction betwen them And sure I need not tell him that he is not over-fit to Write Books who knows not that Distinction and Separation and Difference too are Several things But 4. Whereas he saith that no one of these Persons can be the cause of their Separation because they Necessarily Separated doth he think that God can be the Necessary Cause of nothing Or that He is in His own nature Indifferent to every thing If he believes for Instance that the Perfection of His Nature doth not Necessarily determine Him to what is best or to do whatsoever He in His Infinite Wisdom knows fit to be done I hope there are not many of his mind He saith 5. That it is another Contradiction to Affirm that an Infinite Substance is divided into Three Infinite Parts How does our Author already run Taplash But I will not therefore forbear Replying and I Answer No doubt it is a Horrid Contradiction so to Affirm But how rank does this smell of the Gross thing called Body His mind runs altogether upon Material Substances which alone I say have Parts to be divided into And if a Spiritual Substance cannot be divided into spiritual Parts much less can an Insinite Spiritual Substance be divided into Infinite Spiritual Parts And he who thinks that a Spirit can be divided into parts had as good never take that word into his Mouth and much less can he Pretend to believe it a thing of an Immortal nature which whosoever does not whatever Theologers they may be I can't admire them for Philosophers 6. He makes it in what follows an Absurdity to deny that whatsoever proceeds from another thing must be in Order of Time after it These are his words Whatsoever Proceeds from a thing must first be in it Except it can be in it and Proceed from it at the same time But as we never thought of such a thing as the Two Persons so Proceeding as to be Separated from the First nor of any more than their having their Origin from Him so this they may have and yet still be in Him and might ever have been in Him Can our Author think not to trouble him too often with the Rays being from the Sun and yet as Old as it that all Thoughts must be Younger than Minds because they have their Original from them This can be denied by none that make Minds to be Thinking Beings I mean that do acknowledg Thinking to be Essential to Minds But this I have spoken to in the Preceding Defence p. 29 30 c. Sect. 60. He saith That it had bin Intolerable in the Pagans to believe those Rays that come from the Sun to be the Sun it self And I need say no more than that it is as Intolerable to believe the Son and Spirit who have their Existence from the Father to be the Father Himself But I desire him to think sedately with himself whether Gods Decrees could none of them be Eternal I Phansy he is not so much a School-man as
already to this Person relating to the matter of this Section I shall onely observe upon it 1. That I wonder how any man that hath a due Awe of the Infinite Majesty of God upon his Mind can give himself leave to use such an Expression as Tacking two Persons to God the Father I scrupled a while whether I might foul my Pen with Transcribing it 2. He tells us that Nothing can be more Absurd than to say that the 3. Persons are One God by Union and yet are distinct from One Another But is there no difference betwixt Union and Identity or self samenefs Is there not a real distinction between our Souls and Bodys tho' United so closely as that he cannot conceive how closely nor any Man else If he shall say that Union is but another word for Composition I shall say he is Extreamly out Composition being a blending or mixing of the Parts of distinct things The word is Commonly used onely of Heterogeneous things Spiritual Substances therefore having no parts are incapable of being Compounded And in my poor Opinion tho' a Man Consists of a Soul and Body he cannot be said to be Compounded of them because onely one of these hath parts Our Author 't is like will Cry Mystery Mystery to this Talk as he despiseth Trinitarians for calling the Union of the three Divine Persons a Mystery But if even to the Union of the two Created Beings himself Consists of he cannot Seriously Cry Mystery I know what I know of him I will not say Every Witty Man but I am sure Every Wise Man will cry Mystery to Every thing as ill as some can bear that word I confess no Man shall perswade me any more than him and his Friends to swallow a Palpable Contradiction by calling it a Mystery till he can perswade me too that God Almighty indued me with false Faculties and then do what I can I am like to believe but few things more than Cogito ergo Sum. But I am as certain as I can be of any thing but what I see or feel that it is not more difficult to understand this Union than Abundance of other things Relating to the Deity and innumerable things which our Author must believe in spight of Fate if he will be a Christian or a Theist or but a Man Sest 68. He here Banters the real Trinitarians as doing very Wisely in supposing their three infinite Substances to be as close together as can be lest there should not be room enough for them in but one infinite Space c. And then he Enquires if the Substance of the Father be Every where how the Substance of the Son can be every where too I shall be a little closer upon this Gentleman for the strange liberty he takes in talking of Infinite Substances as soon as I have done with his Sections than I have bin yet or will now be In the mean time I will be satisfied to Reply thus to this Section viz. Doth not this kind of Talk Suppose that he takes the three Divine Persons if he thinks two of them are any thing to be Corporeal Substances which is so gross a Conceit and speaks such beastly Stupidity that I would charge no Man therewith who doth not Expresly own it But hoping he doubts not of the Being of Spiritual substances nor of the Divine Omnipresence I ask him how the Substance of God the Father can be in those spaces which are filled with Bodies Or how can his Soul and Body or that part of his Body which his Soul possesseth if his Philosophy will permit him to think it doth not pervade the whole of his Body how can they be I say in the Self-same place or Ubi call it which he pleases Surely one would think that several Spirits may be together in the same individual space seeing the Penetrability of Spirits must be acknowledg'd by all that believe there are such Substances except they have no manner of Notion of what they believe as well as that a Spirit and an Impenetrable Body may be together in the same space As to his adding and after the same manner to at the same time this can be onely for a Blind But we may talk Endlesly upon this Subject and little understand one another or Our selves for this for certain is one of those things which our minds were never made for any thing like a clear perception of at least in these gross Bodies And much more then as he will be shewed anon is the infinity of the Divine Substance to be reckoned of that number And he is an intolerably Conceited Fop who will not Confess so much Ignorance as to have no other Idea of Gods Infinity than that He hath all Possible Perfections and that all His Perfections are Unlimited And we are at a perfect loss what to say or think further about the Divine Essence Nay we have now no Cognizance of more than the Modes and Properties of Bodily Substance we have none at all of its Naked Essence All we can say of Body as Body is that 't is Extended Penetrable Bulk Sect. 69. He saith 1. That the Trinitarians say the Persons are one God as the Soul and Body are one Man And then he Exposeth the folly of that Simile But he might have saved himself this little labour for as I never said so so neither know I of any other Trinitarian that hath The Creed indeed which is called the Athenasian saith That as the Soul and Body are one Man so God and Man are one Christ but what is this to his Purpose But what I have said is That the Union between the three Divine Persons is not more Unaccountable than is the Union between the Soul and Body and that in one respect it is less Unaccountable than this Union viz. because this is between Beings of perfectly Unlike Natures whereas that is between Persons of the same Nature And why distinct intelligent substances which is the onely definition I can give of Persons may not be as closely United because they are all intelligent as one intelligent Substance and a Body is above the little Philosophy that I can pretend to be Master of to understand 2. Upon the Simile of the Close Union of the Sun with its Light and Heat as he words it he saith There are no such Perceptions as those we call Light and Heat in any Beings but those that are Capable of seeing and feeling And that this every Common Systeme demonstrates And that this is Obvious to all but Children and Metaphysicians What a Wonderful Piece of Learning is here 1. Light and Heat Perceptions I have heard of Perceptions and Sensations of Light and Heat but that they are Perceptions and Sensations themselves I have hitherto bin to learn 2. But they are not tho' Perceptions in any Beings but such as have faculties Capable of Seeing and Feeling And 't would be some what Extraordinary if any thing could perceive Light