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
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
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
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
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