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
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
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
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
manner of Existence or that any thing can have it's Existence from God and be Self-Existent And now he will display he saith the Absurdity and impossibility of this Necessary Emanation in two or three Questions and I thank him in Consideration of my Soft place he himself answers them for me Q. 1. Was God Conscious to the Emanation Yes saith he Else His understanding is not infinite Q 2. Was He sensible of the Necessity Yes again for the same reason And I answer yes yes too though he has Excused me But now when I have most need of his help he leaves me to answer for my Self to a stabbing Consequence from those Concessions viz. But then it follows that he was determined to one thing and sensible that He was so I will here too adventure to give him two more Yesses Then proceeds he there is some Power above Him or such a determination is the Law of His Nature the former he saith cannot be because God is the Supreme Being And he would have done like himself had he given us a reason why nothing can be above the Supreme Being Nor saith he can the latter because neither Reason nor Scripture describes God by any such Law But being aware that this is too difficult for my Brains he tells me he 'l make the matter Plain by a Question I see he 's Excellent at Questions and his Question is this By what Evident Principle of Reason or what Text of Scripture does it appear to be the Law of an Infinite Nature to beget Infinite Power Wisdom Goodness and that in a Being that must want Self-Existence and being the Maker of all things I answer That if he hath any Idea of the thing called Non-sense and any true mark to find it by he cannot miss of it in this Question But who Ever talked of the Fathers Begetting infinite Power Wisdom and Goodness in any Being or otherwise than of His Begetting an infinitely Powerful Wise and Good Being And now comes a Third Question Does the Idea of an infinitely Perfect Being Evidently imply the Necessary Emanation of another Being This Question sure he asked for askings sake For he knows I desired to have no more granted me than that it is not impossible or there is no Absurdity in it That Beings may have Exstence from God by way of Necessary Emanation And now for the 13. Proposition Prop. 13. It is no less Presumption to Affirm That it is a Contradiction to say that a BEING can be from all ETERNITY from God the Father supposing it Possible that it may be from Him in an higher and more Excellent way than that of Creation since the Sun tho' it is the Cause of Light is onely in order of Nature before it To this he saith First That for one Being to be from all Eternity from the Eternal Father is a Contradiction one degree more Absurd than barely two Eternals Not to tell him that I have hitherto thought that all Contradictions are alike Absurd how does he Prove this to be in any degree an Absurd Contradiction He saith that it is so is the most manifest thing in the World If I demand a Proof now hereof I should affront him had I not already Catcht him at proving after his manner the most manifest thing in the World But I need not demand a proof hereof for he presently sets about it And the Argument whereby he proves this most manifest thing in the World is this We neither have nor can have any notion of Proceeding or Being from Another but what implyes the Proceeder who derives his Being to be inferiour he should have said Posteriour to that other Being in order of Time In truth 't is a pleasant thing to see Men all of a Piece This is perfectly like his Arguing that is Proving the most Manifest thing by what is less manifest nay this is proving it by what is very false He saith we have no Notion of such a thing and I have already told him that a thing may nevertheless be for our having no Notion of it But he also saith we can have none here 's Confidence too like his own but let him speak for himself and not say We for I both can have and have some Notion of such a thing and so may any one that pleaseth for such a thing is a daily Object of our Sight Of which anon after I have Considered 2. more of his Wise sayings The Absurdity and impossibility saith he of deriving Existence from God by a more Excellent way than that of Creation I have already made manifest But if any Man of sense be found to be herein of his mind I will never trust my sense more in the most Manifest matters And then he sayes I therefore Conclude that Eternal Generation cannot be proved by it unless it can be made to appear that a true Notion is a necessary Consequence of a false But Sir Can you think it possible that your Friend should do such mighty Feats as he makes his Brags of since he cannot distinguish between Denying a thing to be Contradictions and Impossible and Asserting the truth of it And if he knows not that the Proof of such a thing as Eternal Generation was now none of my business and much more if he needs to be told that I only affirmed that there is no Contradiction therein to Natural Reason 't is hard to say whether he was more weak in offering to Animadvert on my Propositions or I in troubling my self with taking any notice of his Animadversions And now we come to the Instance I give in this Proposition of an Effect every whit as Old as the Cause of it and your Friend being come to it too asks me How I know that the Sun is the cause of Light And adds by the Revelation of School-Divines perhaps not by the History of the Bible for if the Account of the Creation in Genesis be to be taken in a litteral sence that will Convince me of a Philosophical Errour for there 't is said That God made the Light the first day the Sun not till the fourth But Sir did you ever meet with such Triflng First He saith perhaps I have learnt that the Sun is the cause of Light from the Revelation of School-Divines How well was this Flurt bestowed on me since he knew what a Veneration I Exprest for those Divines in my last Proposition Secondly He saith I could not have this rare Notion from the History of the Bible because the Book of Genesis saith that Light was made the first day and the Sun the fourth Admirable I profess Sure this Man hath himself been dabling with the School-men he 's so Subtil But what if I grant him that that Light which was Created before the Sun the Sun was not the cause of Does it follow thence that the Sun is the cause of no Light My Candle is the cause of the Light I now write by therefore the Sun is
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