respect perhaps 3. Men who have the same Nature may be properly said to be Essentially one but not Essentially one Person I Answer this may be more than a Perhaps but he may perceive by my 15th Proposition now the 22. that I am far from thinking the 3. Persons in the H. Trinity to be in so low a sence one as 3. Men are But proceeds he The Nature of the Self-Existent God is above the Nature of all Beings which proceed from Him and it can not be Communicated I Answer that the individual Nature of the Father is not a Divine Nature more truly than that of the Two other Persons But how does he prove that His Nature cannot be Communicated Why saith he we have no other Notion of the word Communicate but to Impart or Give and what one Person does Impart or Give of any Essential and Singular thing that himself hath not but he hath it to whom it is given It may be some will say Thus it is among Finite Creatures but the Essence of God is not of the same Condition c. But as God said to Job Who is this that darkneth Councell by words without knowledge It may be replyed to this Man Who is he that multiplyeth words without knowledge For it is not thus as he positively asserts Even among Creatures For there is not a Creature that Generates another of the same kind but may be properly said to Communicate its own Nature and yet notwithstanding it foregoes not its own individual Nature nor any part thereof What a Boldness then is it to Affirm that the Infinite Creator Cannot do the like He that Planted the Ear shall He not hear And He that formed the Eye shall not he see He that hath gi-given a Generative Power to the Meanest of Creatures or Creatures that have the lowest degree of Life shall not He have the Same Power Himself I mean A Power of doing that which may be called Generating His own Essential Likeness in an inconceivably Infinitely more Excellent manner I wish Sir your Friend would well lay to heart that Old Maxim Temerè Affirmare vel Negare de Deo Periculosum est Which I will English to you who I doubt are no great Latinist 'T is a dangerous thing to affirm or deny any thing rashly of God As to the little that remains upon this Proposition it consists of a Repetition of what I have Answered and of what he repeats upon the next Proposition which I will Answer And indeed Sir your Friend is Excellently good next to Dareing Assertions at Repetitions and saying things that are nothing or very little to the purpose But you will find Every thing to have more or less spoken to it that is but one remove from what is nothing but mere Words And now to what he Animadverts on the 10th Proposition Prop. 10. There seems to be no Contradiction nor the least Absurdity in asserting that God is able to Communicate Every one of His Perfections Except those of Self-Existence and Being the First Original of all things By the way my meaning in these words appears plainly by other following Propositions to be this That there is no Contradiction or Absurdity in asserting That such Beings may have their Original from God the Father as have all Perfections but those two and which indeed as I have said do amount to but one Now what faith your Friend to this He tells us in the first place That for the same reason that these two are Incommunicable all the Other Divine Perfections are likewise so And whereas he assigns two Reasons why God cannot Communicate these two he saith for the same Reasons he cannot Communicate any of His other Perfections But how Egregiously Absurd is it to go about to give Reasons why God cannot Communicate His Self-Existence and His being the First Original of all things Since that He cannot Communicate these is a First and Self-Evident Principle And therefore is Uncapable as all such Principles are of being demonstrated as Every Body knows that understands What a First and Self-Evident Principle is which Every one must understand that can understand any thing Whatsoever is Capable of being proved must be less clear than is the Argument by which it is proved and whatsoever Proposition is so cannot possibly be a First or self-Evident Principle as no man in his Wits does need to be informed And therefore no such one will go about to prove this Proposition The same thing can be and not be in the same Moment And the foresaid Proposition is Every whit as self-Evident as this and the denial thereof as Manifest a Contradiction There cannot be a greater or clearer Contradiction than to say That God can Communicate Self-Existence it being to say in other words That God can be the cause of that which hath no cause Nor than to say That God can make a First Original of All things since this is to say that He can make a thing to be before Himself and to be the Original of Himself For what is not so cannot be the First Original of All things And therefore whereas his First Reason why God cannot Communicate these Perfections is Because it is a Contradiction so to do he might as well have said 'T is a Contradiction to say that God can do a Contradiction That He can Communicate them is Contradictio in Terminis and therefore 't is absurd to give it as a Reason why He cannot do it that 't is a Contradiction For you may as well ask why God cannot do a Contradiction And if a Reason can be given for this you may ask a Reason for that Reason and so in infinitum But if it were onely Contradictio in Adjecto I acknowledg that because such Contradictions are not manifest at first hearing at least to Every Body 't is proper to give Reasons to shew that there are Contradictions implyed in such Propositions But if any man should ask me a Reason why Two and two do not make Twenty I would bid him Go look instead of telling him that it is a Contradiction that they should since I had as good tell him he has a Nose in his Face and better too But that God can make a Self-Existent Thing or a First Original of All things are Every jot as Evident Contradictions as that Two and two do make Twenty But Sir your Friend saith that 'T is Equally Absurd and Contradictions to suppose more than one infinitely powerful wise and Good Being If he means by Equally Absurd and Contradictions as Evidently so sure he is the onely Man that will say so nor can he think so say he what he will But how does he prove this This is the argument by which he does it viz. infinite Power infnite Wisdom and infinite Goodness go together and may all of them as well as either of them be in all Beings whatsoever as well as in more Beings than one But what if I say That
this is as much needs to be proved as that which it is brought to prove His onely Answer is like to be you must take this upon the Authority of my Lord of Canterbury For he onely goes about to Confirm it by a passage in His Sermon on 1 Tim. 2. 5. p. 13. But I not having that Sermon by me and he making no Marks to distinguish between what is his Graces and what is his own it is Enough to give him that for an Answer His second Argument whereby he Endeavours to prove the forementioned Self-Evident Proposition is That Self-Existence is indivisible and Gods Self-Existence is necessary and therefore if he should Communicate His Self-Existence to Another He Himself should remain not self-Existent which is a gross Absurdity and a manifest Contradiction O Wonderful is it so indeed I marvel who told him so it may be he takes this too on the Authority of some Great Man since he troubles not himself to make it out But there is as great a necessity of proving this also as of proving that of which it is a Proof And he makes this brave Argument to prove too That Infinite power is as incommunicable as self-Existence and Infinite Wisdom and Goodness because these are also indivisible But the Trinitarian is not so knockt down by this Unmerciful Argument to use a phrase of his own but that he may soon rise again Nay as Goodluck would have it 't is so weak a Blow that he has not felt it And 't will be found weaker than a Puff of Breath by that time I have askt him this one Question viz. Is not also the individual Nature of Every living Creature indivisible But as was before said Even the lowest Sort of them can propagate their own Nature which is the same thing with Communicating it and therefore methinks it should not be so great a Contradiction to say that He who gave Being to those Creatures can do the like Or if you please thus 'T is therefore no Contradiction to say That God the Father may be the Original of a Being which hath power to do all things possible to be done and hath unlimited Wisdom and Goodness As to the rest of this Animadversion I will not spend one Minute so vainly as to take notice of it for half an Eye must see it to be nothing better than to give it his own word mere Jargon Prop. 11. It seems Evident from the H. Scriptures That the Son and H. Spirit have all Divine Perfections but those two such as Unlimited Power Wisdom and Goodness and Unspotted Purity As to Unspotted Purity he grants that the Scriptures do plainly assert it of our Saviour but faith that that is but the Perfection of a Man or Angel not an infinite Perfection of a God I Answer that this he onely with his usual Confidence saies but tells us not how he comes by this Confidence But suppole he could demonstrate this yet the Unspotted Purity of the H. Ghost one would think to be the Purity of a God since we are so assured from Scripture that He is the Author of all that Purity and Holiness which Is or Ever shall be found in Men. And he must have a large stock of Confidence who dares say that the Purity which Excells not that of a Man or Angel is sussicient to qualify a Person to be the Sanctisier of all that are or shall be Sanctified And if the Purity of the H. Ghost be the Purity of a God I hope the Son's Purity may be acknowledg'd so to be too Surely those Socinians who believe the H. Ghost to be a Person will not make him to Excell the Son in Holiness Next he Cavils at my saying that this 11th Proposition Seems Evident to me and saith that Seems and Evident are two words very ill put together because that which doth but seem Evident is not really so and that which is Evident doth more than seem so I see Sir I must not hope to Please this Friend of yours I verily thought he was about to Praise me for my it Seems Evident For he saith upon it That Seems is a word that Speaks the Modesty of an ingenuous Enquirer after truth and on the Contrary That Evident fills the mouth of a man of Confidence as by the way I must tell him he knows by Experience Yet for all this the good Man designed to Expose me for my it Seems Evident and those two Sentences are Fleering ones and were intended for Scoffs But I pray him to Mock on after I have told him that First He knows I did not say it but Seems Evident And that Secondly 'T is utterly false that that which is Evident doth more than seem so to all Persons There are many Evident Truths that to those who Shut their Eyes against the Light may not so much as seem so and there are those who being sensible of the weakness of their understandings may say of Very Evident Truths this or that seems or appears Evident to them But we shall not in haste Sir Catch your Friend at the Extreme of Modesty For whatsoever seems not agreeable with his Reason which we have found to be a Clear and Strong Reason indeed must be immediately Contrary to Natural Reason And he is onely puzled at Comprehending Gods ways not God Himself and his Glorious Attributes And he can Comprehend whatsoever he Understands And now follows Another of his Modest Sayings viz. That this Proposition we are now upon does not so much as seem Evident from Scripture And he wishes I had Cited some of the plainest Texts to my Purpose But he hath had Enough of those Cited by other Trinitarians many of which the Socinians so play the Criticks upon that should the same liberty be taken as to all other Texts which are Capable of having the same work made with them the Scriptures would be made a mere Nose of Wax But however methinks the Apostle's so Expresly applying those words of the Psalmist to the Son of God viz. Thou Lord in the Beginning hast laid the Foundations of the Earth and the Heavens are the work of Thine Hands c. doth at least seem to Speak Him infinitely Powerfull And thesame thing does seem at least to be affirmed in those words Coloss. 1. 16. c. By Him were all things Created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth c. For He is before all things and by Him all things Consist And St Peters Saying to Him Lord Thou that knowest all things knowest that I love Thee doth at least seem to Speak his believing him to be infinitely Wise and a Searcher of the very Hearts of men which is also Expresly affirmed of Him by St Paul Rom. 2. 16. and 1 Cor. 4. 5. And by our Saviour Himself too Rev. 2. 23. I am He which Searcheh the Reins and Hearts And the Apostles saying that in Christ are hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg doth sure
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
which in his great Modesty he saith our Education has given us that disables me to understand the Sence of that saying And am inclined to think that the inversion thereof would have been better Sence how true soever it would have been viz. The Victors vanquished are since it follows for each buys his Victory c. And whereas he saith That in their Unitarian Tracts they have thrown a stone of Contention among the Trinitarians and this stone has committed them among themselves To pass by the Conceitedness of this latter Phrase and the Paedantry of affecting to speak English in Latin Phrases sound they never so untowardly I may I hope without Offence tell him that neither are the Socinians at a perfect Agreement in their Notions As particularly in that Question relating to the H. Ghost viz. Whether He be a Person or no or a meer Divine Vis or Energy The Followers of Mr Biddle asserting Him to be a Person viz. an Angel Nor need I tell him what a Controversie hath been among them about the Adorability of our B. Saviour wherein they are not of a mind yet and I doubt never will be And many more disagreements in their Opinions may be instanced in if I cared to go on upon this Topick But what tho' the Trinitarians differ in some Particulars in their Explication of the Trinity so long as they agree in the main Substance I mean what if they differ in Certain Notions relating to this Doctrine wherein the H. Scriptures are Silent so long as they are agreed in what the Scriptures Expresly say of it or of any One of the Persons of which the Trinity consisteth And they All agree in giving Divine Perfections to each of them which the Scriptures most expresly do And in affirming them consequently to be each of them God which also they believe the Scriptures affirm them expresly to be And farther they agree in believing them to be one God tho' they are not all agreed in what sence they are one nor in the Notion of the Word Person as relating to them nor in their Opinion about using that Word But if any of them have such a Value for their own Explications as to be severe upon such as dissent from them in any of the less certain Parts of them I will not I cannot Apologize for this And now Sir I follow your Friend from his own Preface to my Papers Title which is this An Explication of the Doctrine of the Trinity in Certain Propositions which speak it to be Agreeable with Natural Reason and therefore intelligible tho' not Comprehensible by our shallow Capacities And here he is pleased to exclaim somewhat Tragically against my distinguishing between Intelligible and Comprehensible I am saith he perfectly Amazed at this his Distinction I will not say that I am Amazed at his Amazement but it seems somewhat strange to me that First He should call this my Distinction when I should think he hath heard and read it a thousand times Since there is no Distinction more common And therefore Secondly That he should be Amazed nay perfectly Amazed at it And Thirdly That he should be so for such a Reason as this that follows viz. That which makes a Doctrine unintelligible is its disagreeableness to Reason therefore if the Doctrine of the Trinity be not disagreeable to Reason neither is it unintelligible and if it be not unintelligible neither is it incomprehensible I Answer That I think the Obscure Expressing a Doctrine may also make it Unintelligible But this his Reason may be Expressed in these fewer words I am perfectly Amazed at this Mans distinction between Intelligible and Comprehensible because they ought not to be distinguished Or as he adds because they are Synonimous and signify one as much as the other But sure your Friend cannot think I should have such an Opinion of a Perfect Stranger as to be Satisfied with his bare Word for this He is Perfectly Amazed at my distinguishing betwixt Intelligible and Comprehensible I ask Why He Answers because they Ought not to be distinguished But I am so Impertinent as to ask again Why they ought not And he so Magisterial as to let me have no other Answer than I say they ought not But he needs not be told That tho' these two words are sometimes used in the same sence yet not always but have most frequently different Significations Comprehensible always implyes Intelligible but Intelligible is found Innumerable times not to imply Comprehensible And therefore Comprehensible is taken either in a Larger or a Stricter Sence And in my Distinction as he calls it 't is taken in the Stricter as for the most Part it is Even his Dictionary will tell him that Comprehendere signifies something that Intelligere doth not And according to the most Proper Acceptation of the word there is as much difference between these two as there is between Seeing a thing and looking through it or Understanding it and Compleatly Understanding it and having an Adoequate Preception of it And indeed if your Friend had Learnt Socrates his first Lesson he would acknowledg himself so short-fighted a Mortal as tho' he Understands many things not to be able to Comprehend the most Obvious ones He would acknowledg that in this State things are only to be Understood by their Properties and certain Modes and that the Naked Essence neither of a Spirit nor of a Body is known to us In short had I distinguished between Intelligible and Apprehensible your Friend might have had more Cause for Amazement Next he saith That the Incomprehensibility of God Himself implyes no more than what the Apostle Expresseth when he saith His ways are past finding out we cannot understand them that signifies as much as we cannot Comprehend them Now it is my turn to be Amazed at least this Sentence must be greatly Surprizing to more Heads than those that have like Trinitarians a soft place in them For First Who hath so hard or so large a Head as to find only the Ways of God incomprehensible to him As to be able to Comprehend Gods Nature and Glorious Attributes Second If Comprehending must needs be no more than Understanding there cannot be a Proposition less true than this That we cannot Comprehend Gods Ways for Mankind is Capable of Understanding them Or GOD Almighty would never have appealed to the Jews as He did about the Equity of His Ways And therefore when the Apostle saith His ways are past finding out his meaning must be they are not to be Comprehended by us in our sence of the word We cannot Grasp or Fathom them they are of too great a Depth for us to dive to the Bottom of them And now Sir I believe you are sufficiently Prepared to Wonder if not to be Amazed at this following Saying of your Friend viz. It were a very hard thing that a Law should be passed postnate to a Crime on purpose for the taking off one particular Offender
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