but do exist after a different manner their Natures or Essences must be of different kinds or sorts But if they exist after the same manner though they have different ways of coming by their Existence there can be no inequality or difference between them I asked Sect. 63. How the Father could be greater than the Son and Holy Spirit and be the only Good when they have the same that is unlimited Power and Goodness he answers they have unlimited Power but not the same which is since the Father's Power exceeds theirs to suppose that there is some Bounds and Limits of their Power and consequently theirs is an unlimited limited Power and Goodness He further adds That the Son's Power is not as great as the Father's ad intra because he could not beget the Father as the Father begat him But it being a Contradiction to suppose the Son could beget the Father and Contradictions being as he observes pag. 50. Objects of no Power cannot be Objects of Divine Power therefore it could be no diminution to the Son's Greatness that he could not beget the Father who always was in Being though upon supposition that the Son always was in Being it is equally a Contradiction to say That the Father gave him a Being But if it were an essential and necessary Perfection of the Father's Nature to beget or emane two Sons and the Son and Holy Spirit are not capable to emane Sons it shows there is a mighty Difference in their Natures or that they want some Perfections that is necessary and essential to the Nature of the Father nay which belongs as he observes pag. 13. to every Creature where he makes this remark That if there is not a Creature but can communicate his Nature what a Boldness is it to affirm That the infinite Creator cannot do the like He that hath planted the Ear shall he not hear and he that hath form'd the Eye shall he not see He that has given a Generative Power to the meanest of Creatures shall he not have the same Power himself c. So that by his Argument to deny to the Son and Spirit a Power to multiply their Species as the Father does is to deny to the infinite Creator since each is the infinite Creator a Perfection the meanest of Creatures have As to the Father's being called the only Good by our Saviour There is none good but God that Phrase says he signifies the Father's being the Original and Fountain of Goodness which he may be though not the only perfect Good He refers to Grotius but Grotius speaks of the Goodness of God as the Fountain of Goodness in Creatures But if the Streams be as perfectly good as the Fountain it would be very false to say the Fountain is the only Good I shall only apply to himself which he justly Prop. 11. says concerning the other Trinitarians If such a Liberty as this in Interpreting Scripture be allowable what Work may be made with Scripture Besides if the Son and Spirit are as he saith necessary and eternal they must be as much the Original and Fountain of Goodness as the Father himself who is so because he is the eternal and necessary Being The notion of Three necessary eternal Beings is in it self sufficiently absurd for the meaning of a necessary eternal Being is a Being which in the Nature of things and our conceptions concerning them could not but be or exist it was impossible it should be otherwise because it implies a contradiction that any Being or Person should now be if either it had not been from all Eternity or were not produced from that which was from Eternity for of nothing comes nothing but it was not necessary there should be more than one such Being because one such Being since he is all-sufficient is in all Reason sufficient for it self and all other Beings whatever and if one is sufficient two or more cannot be necessary for that implies this Contradiction That one is sufficient and not sufficient another is necessary where one is All-sufficient As the supposition of three necessary perfect Beings is in it self absurd so it is more absurd to say that two of these necessary perfect Beings want some Perfections because necessary perfect Beings cannot want any Perfections There was 't is true an eternal necessity that some Being should exist of it self or without a Cause and have all Perfections yet there could not be any necessity of another Being which should want any of those Perfections the first had for it is as much as to say that it was eternally necessary there should exist a Being in some respects imperfect that is an imperfect God nay not only imperfect but useless and superfluous And therefore it must be absurd to suppose it should be necessary and essential to the Divine Nature of the Father to have two Natures to emane from him which though they are supposed to be each Almighty and All-sufficient yet must be as needless to himself or to any Creation as he is All-sufficient for both and who can serve for no other end than to rob Him of that Honour Power Dominion Glory Praise Adoration Love c. which without those Emanations he would wholly enjoy to himself and which he can now only share with two others so that nothing can be a wilder Notion than of one God emaning two Gods If it be not contrary to Reason there should be more than one necessary Divine Nature I demand a Reason why the Heathens were blam'd for believing a Plurality of such since there can be no reason assign'd for above one which will not equally hold for as many or more than they worshipped all which but one they supposed were not self-existent but emaned Gods And if they were without excuse for worshipping more than one God it must be plain by the Light of Nature what that one God is otherwise the generality of Mankind could not distinguish between Theism and Polytheism And does not the Light of Nature demonstrate that one God is but one eternal necessary Being And can it be suppos'd that the Scripture should so severely condemn the Heathens as sinning against the clearest Light of Nature in adoring more than one and at the same time require the Christians upon pain of eternal Damnation to worship three eternal necessary Natures which is to make the Holy Scripture to contradict not only the Light of Nature but it self and let him if he can produce any one Argument against a plurality of Gods which will not equally hold against a plurality of Divine Natures There are none that have wrote against Heathenism but have thought the Impossibility of more than one necessary Nature a Demonstration against the Plurality of Gods and consequently they suppos'd it most evident that there can be no more but one such Nature because they use it as a Medium which ought always to be clearer than that which is prov'd by it to prove the Existence of
is God in the highest Sense to suppose him but a concurring God It is in a manner ungodding him since we cannot say then that we owe more than the third part of our Being Preservation and Happiness to him For to attribute them wholly to him would be robbing the other two who equally concur with him of what is their due and no Action can be wholly attributed to one which jointly belongs to Three But if it be injurious to each Divine Nature to ascribe to it but a Third of those Benefits we receive it must be injurious to say they concur'd in conferring them But if he says each wholly does all external Actions then he contradicts himself in supposing each concurs for he that wholly does an Action can never be said to concur in doing it And if the Father be the Original of Mankind there cannot be a second and third Original except Men can have as many Origins A second Original is as great nonsense as a Second First and a first Original is no more Sense than a First First But I refer the Desender to my Letter from Sect. 77 to 83. where I have handled this Point more fully By this time I believe it is evident to an impartial Reader that nothing our Author has affirmed of the Son and Holy Spirit does abate of their being Gods in the highest Sense or make them one and the same God with the Father and consequently there cannot be a more open and grosser Polytheism than his Hypothesis of three eternal and necessary Divine Natures But The Defender is not content with asserting three such Natures which one would think sufficiently absurd but he also runs into a Number of Inconsistences concerning the Manner of the Existence of two of these Natures in making them such and yet not self-existent or from none but that they had their eternal Beings from another Now as it is evident that whatsoever is self-existent is eternal because there is no Author or Cause of its being so it is as evident that whatsoever is not self-existent but has receiv'd its Being from another or has been caused to be cannot be from Eternity because to receive a Being or to be caused to be supposeth the Non-being to precede Being They must once not be otherwise they were not capable of being caused to be and consequently they could not always have been in being or from Eternity What can be a more manifest Contradiction than that that which had ever been should once be caused to be or that that which had been from all Eternity should from not-being be produced caused or emaned into Being Or must not that which is emaned into being sometime or other begin to be Or can that which has a Beginning be from Eternity which necessarily supposeth no Beginning For we have no Idea of any thing being from Eternity but that it had no Origin But our Author pag. 46. says That the Son and Spirit had an Origin And Prop. 6. The Father is the Original of all other Beings in which the Son and Holy Spirit are comprehended So that we must if we can believe that two necessary Natures had an eternal Origin or Beginning and that they have been caused to be tho they have always been It 's as great a Contradiction to say that that which has had an Origin has been from Eternity as that that which will have an End shall last to Eternity And if what has had an Origin can be from Eternity Creation which is but giving an Origin to things may be from Eternity And why might not God cause a thing to be voluntarily as well as necessarily from Eternity since in both Cases Being is equally bestow'd And every Being that is not without a Cause as God the Father alone is must have a Beginning for there is no Medium between having Being from none and from some one and what has Being from some one must once be without Being and so have a Beginning And if God be Eternal because he is Self-existent by parity of Reason what is not Self-existent cannot be from Eternity Eadem est ratio contrariorum is as undoubted a Maxim as any whatever so that nothing can be more evident than that To have an Origin or Cause or not to be self-existent and to be from Eternity are inconsistent And if they are inconsistent in themselves whatever Terms you express them in they will be still inconsistent Whence it favours to say no worse of great prejudice and fondness of an Hypothesis that when a thing is a Contradiction in some Terms to seek out others to hide the Contradiction But our Author is so unhappy in his Attempt that the very Terms he makes use of viz. To have Existence from God by way of necessary emanation contain in themselves a direct Contradiction for whatsoever substantial Being or Nature emaneth from another must before its Emanation exist some way or other in the Nature it emaneth from otherwise it is impossible to emane from it but it must emane from nothing which is the very same as Creation For every Nature must either emane from nothing or from the Nature in which it pre-existed But to suppose a Nature to exist by emaning is to suppose it did not exist before its Emanation and consequently could not emane from another Nature but from nothing Except it first emaned from the Nature and afterward existed which puts me in mind of a certain Poet who introduces Adam in great haste going to be created So that if the Son and H. Spirit did not exist before their Emanation it is impossible they should emane from God otherwise than that God by the voluntary exercise of his Divine Power emaned them from nothing and consequently they could not emane or issue forth as he Prop. 15. terms it from the Divine Nature But if the Son and Holy Spirit did exist before they emaned they did not exist by Emanation but were self-existent as the Nature of the Father Upon my asserting of which Sect. 58. he answers pag. 47. But I say with as great assurance that whatsoever Substance emanes from another must owe its existence to that other and the contrary is a manifest Contradiction but to whom I know not except to himself But I must beg leave to dissent and tell him that all Substances whatsoever owe their existence to God and not to the Substance they emane from and that all Generation Emanation or Procession in created Beings is only the different Forms and Figures which the various Coalitions of Matter according to the Laws of Motion do produce and consequently whatever Substance emanes from another however it may be modified by it does not owe its Existence to it but is as old as the Creation it self And by Parity of Reason whatsoever emanes from a self-existent Substance does not owe its Existence to the Substance it emanes from but is as self-existent as that Substance Though to exist by
having necessarily inherent in himself infinite Power Wisdom c. our Devotion terminates in each we give each the same Divine Honour To which he says p. 58. This is a very false Charge for we heartily acknowledg that all the Honour we pay to the Son and H. Spirit ought to be ultimately terminated in the Father and I am sure he cannot think otherwise of those he calls the real Trinitarians because their Hypothesis necessarily obliges them so to believe whatever the Hypothesis of the others does But the Holy Scripture is so express upon this Point that I should think no Christian should find it hard to believe it no tho there were no oother Text but this for it viz. That at the Name of Jesus every Knee should bow to the glory of God the Father Phil. 2. 9 10 11. We will now first set when it can be said that the Honour we give a Person is not for his own but for the sake of another on whom it ultimately terminates and then examine whether it be such an Honour which the Trinitarians give to the Son and Holy Spirit The Honour we give a Person does not ultimately terminate on him when it is not for any inherent Quality in himself but for the sake of some Power Trust or Office that is receiv'd from another and which he holds during the Will of that other Thus we pay Honour to a Vice-roy a Judg a Magistrate because they are the Image or some way represent that Person who endued them with Power Whatever Honour or Deference we pay such Persons it still terminates in the Supreme it is for his Sake and to his Honour And the Reason is because such Persons how much soever they may be advanced above their fellow-Subjects yet in respect of the Person that advanced them they have no Power at all but are meer Ministers and Servants So our Lord Christ tho he is highly advanced as a Reward of his perfect Obedience above all his fellow-Creatures yet in respect of God he is a meer Minister and Servant wholly impotent can as he saith do nothing of himself and the Reason why the Honour given him in Scripture is not for his own sake but for the Glory of God the Father is because it is a delegated Honour God has made him a Prince and Saviour giving him all Power after his Resurrection or because as this Text says God has highly exalted him and given him a Name above every Name And there is no instance in Scripture where any Honour Glory Power and Dignity is ascribed to Christ either by himself or any Man or Angel but is expresly given to him either as a Man or as the free gift of God to a Man And it 's more than probable that this is so done lest it should administer occasion to People to terminate their Worship on him as a Divine Nature with all Perfections necessarily and eternally inhering in him It would be absurd if he had such a Nature not to worship him for himself ultimately except an eternal and necessary Divine Nature is not to be worship'd for its own sake which would be to say that the Father is not to be worship'd ultimately for the sake of his Divine Nature The Honour that does not terminate on the Person is never given to the Creator but to the Creature and of this Nature is that Honour or Worship we give to those Gods or supreme Powers which are the Deputies or Representatives of the most high God which Worship does not ultimately terminate on them because what they have they have from God and hold it only during his Pleasure What then can be a stronger Argument that the Son is not God than this that the Honour we are oblig'd to pay him does not ultimately terminate in him but in another If any thing were strange from our Author this would be that he that is God is not to be worship'd for his own sake or that a supream Being must not have supream Honour But let us now see what sort of Worship it is which the Trinitarians pay to the Son They of whatsoever Denomination are so far from honouring the Son for the sake and to the Glory of God the Father that in their publick Prayers and Liturgies they give him equal Honour with God the Father and both Papist and Protestant Trinitarians in their damning Creed make them equal and declare that none is before nor after another none greater or less than another the Glory equal the Majesty coeternal Which equality is as much to the Glory of God the Father as it would be to the Glory of a King to have his Subjects set up two others with equal Power and Majesty Therefore I wonder with what assurance our Author can deny that the Trinitarians have 3 Objects of supream Worship and he himself in this Treatise is for giving Divine Worship to the Son and Holy Spirit and Divine Worship can be no other than Supream and consequently must terminate in the Person to whom it is given Nay he cannot terminate his Worship more in one than in another since all three are as he says one and the same God with respect to the Creatures All that our Author can say is that it is to the Honour of God the Father because they depend on him but the more dependent he supposes them the more absurd it is to pay the same Honour to a dependent as he does to the independent Being But their dependence since he makes them necessary Beings is Independence And because our Author is much taken with Similies I shall oblige him with one that is more parallel than that of the Sun and Rays Suppose for there has been such a thing in Nature one Man born with and growing out of the side of another who was a distinct Man though necessarily united to him which was manifest by their discoursing one with another Now in this instance we have one intelligent Substance emaning from another yet this did not make him owe his Being or continuance in Being to the other since they had the same cause of Being and continuance in Being on which cause both were equally dependent and not one upon the other nor did the Honour and Respect Men paid the side-man terminate in the other for in honouring the one they no way honour the other The Parallel is very easy and natural for as the two Men depended on the same Cause and therefore the emaned Man was no way obliged to the other so God's Nature having no Cause his supposed Emanations must be as much without a Cause for what is necessary to the Nature is as much without a Cause as the Nature it self therefore they could no more be obliged to God for their Divine Natures or their being Gods than God is beholden to himself for his own Nature since there was the same necessity of his emaning them as of existing himself and consequently they are as independent
to play with Expressions by chance ambiguous than to answer Arguments Upon my Remark to his 15 Prop. he asks Who are they that determine any Notion to be true while they cannot conceive it to be so Why Sir in general they are the Trinitarians but in particular and more especially his Ldp. he is the Man for does he not expresly determine in this very Prop. that there is an unconceivably close Union between them the supposed 3 Persons Therefore unless he can conceive an unconceivable Notion or doubt of that which he determines to be true he is notoriously guilty of determining that Notion to be true which he cannot conceive to be so I grant him there may be a stricter Union between God and Christ than we know of but here I am bold and fixt there can be no such Union between them as contradicts the Notions he has implanted in us According to him the 3 Persons are 3 distinct Beings and there can be no distinct Being without its distinct Nature so 3 distinct Beings are 3 distinct Natures and 3 distinct Natures continuing so can never become one single Nature what Union soever there is between them I wonder the Trinitarians should so constantly amuse their Readers with that unsutable Comparison of Soul and Body in Union for 't is plain that in their Union they are that one thing which neither of them can be in a State of Separation Prop. 16. Such an Union as this between them being acknowledg'd by us together with the fore-mentioned intire Dependence of the Son and H. Spirit upon the Father 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 The End for which the Unity of the Deity was ever asserted What does he mean by this very odd Phrase My Sense is that it 's asserted because it is true and that the Consequence of its being true is this the Service of our whole Hearts is therefore due to him alone and our lower Respects to other Objects according as his Word and our own Reason directs us but we cannot both to God and Christ pay the Service of our whole Hearts notwithstanding their Union in Will and like Natures For if we love one Master with our whole Hearts we have no Affections left for any other but as he shall direct us and he cannot direct us to love another equally with himself Unity of Nature or 3 Beings united in 1 Nature is no better nor worse than 3 Beings in 1 Being 3 Natures in 1 Nature 3 and not 3 in the same respect which is a Contradiction if any thing be so Upon his 17 Prop. I had told him he was an Ismaelite Trinitarian whose Hand is against all the Heads of Trinitarian Expositors To this he replies 'T is false But since he deals so bluntly with me I will 1. Set down some of his Contradictions not consequential but broad Contradictions 2. Not to be wanting in the least to the Vindication of my Censure I will plainly show that I said no worse of his Lordship upon the account of his Hypothesis than he himself had said before of himself The first of his 28 Prop. is this The Name of GOD is used in more Senses than one in H. Scripture but in his first Def. p. 23. speaking of Perfections necessary to essentiate a God in the absolutely highest Sense he has these words Which the Name of God is ever to be understood in in the H. Scripture In the same Def. p. 17. he affirms that H. Script saith not of what Nature that Unity is which it ascribes to God But Prop. 13. of the 28. he says The Oneness so frequently affirmed of him in Script is a numerical Oneness In his second Def. p. 13. he says The individual Nature of the Father is not a Divine Nature more truly than that of the Two other Persons But Prop. 15 he says Each of them has a Right to the Name of God in a Sense next to that in which it is appropriated to the Father This Contradiction he is in love with it often occurs P. 10. of 2d Def. distinguishing between Perfections which he makes to belong to the Father's Existence and Perfections which belong to his Divine Nature or Essence he contends that the Son and H. Spirit have all the Perfections of the Divine Nature as well as the Father But p. 23. of first Def. he observes that Athanasius S. Basil Greg. Nazianzen and S. Chrysostom with several of the Latin Fathers interpret those Words of Christ MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN I to have been spoken not of his Humanity but his Divinity and himself gives his Judgment to their Sentence Prop. 16. of the 28. he affirms it to be evident from H. Script that the Son and H. Spirit have unlimited Power c. which also he allows 2d Def. p. 10. to be an essential Perfection but 2d Def. p. 24. he acknowledges that the Power of Judging the World was a Power committed to Christ not as Man and not essentially in him Prop. 17. he determines that they the 3 Persons are always spoken of in Script as distinct Beings or Persons according to the proper Signification of this word both from the Father and from each other nor are so many Men or Angels more expresly distinguished as different Persons or Substances by our Saviour or his Apostles than the Father Son and H. Ghost are But 1st Def. p. 20. he says They are outwardly and in reference to the Creation perfectly One and THE SAME God as concurring in all the fame external Actions I hope the Reader will allow me at least that these Instances do sufficiently prove that his Lordship's Hand is against one of the Heads of the Trinitarians I mean himself That it is also against all the other he will excuse me the Labour of proving by a tedious Induction of Particulars for Prop. 17. of the 21. he affirms that his Explication is the best and easiest way of reconciling those Texts which according to the other Hypothesis are not reconcilable but by offering extream Violence to them Here he prefers his Hypothesis indefinitely to all other Hypotheses Here 's no Restriction no Exception Nay in the Conclusion he doubts not to pronounce that the many Explications of the adorable Mystery have had little better Success than to make Sport for the Socinians My Animadversion on his 18 Prop. I have a better Opinion of since I saw his Answer than when I first pen'd them However I shall examine a few Lines P. 37. l. 30. How can he say saith his Ldp. that Jesus Christ desir'd not Divine Honours to be paid to him except he mean it when he was on Earth I mean as a plain Reader would imagin that Christ desired not any Divine Honours to be paid him either in one State or other meaning by Divine Honours such as are due to him that is by Nature
emaning except from nothing be as hath been shown nothing less than a Contradiction yet our Author tells us pag. 18. it is a very presumptuous Conceit and in the second Defence pag. 25. an intolerable Presumption not to conclude it possible Though he further says we have a clearer Idea of it than voluntary Creation yet all the Idea he gives us of it is That it 's a more excellent way of existing than that of Creation But before I proceed in the Examination of his Hypothesis it will be necessary to obviate an exception he takes at my using words taken from material Substances in discoursing of Spiritual ones which is a most frivolous exception because it is impossible to be avoided since we have no Ideas and consequently no words to express them in but what we have from sensible or material Objects and the operations of our Minds about them as is fully demonstrated in Mr. Lock 's Essay of Human Understanding And it is sufficiently evident from Holy Scripture it self which that we may understand it represents God with Face Eyes Hands Bowels back parts Motion from Place to Place c. and so Spirits are describ'd as Standing Falling down c. and in a Word so are all other things relating to spiritual Beings But this exception is very strange from one whose Hypothesis is built chiefly upon Emanations which is a Word borrow'd from Matter and signifies those minute Parts or Effluvia's of Matter which flow from Bodies and his Hypothesis makes the whole or the one Divine Essence either to emane from it self or to be divisible and have parts emane from it or else what he says is wholly unintelligible The first Argument I made use of Sect. 57. to shew it impossible the Son and Spirit could emane from the Father was That they being both infinite Substances and as such being equal to suppose two Infinites to emane from one is to suppose twice as much to emane from a Being or Substance as the Being is To which he answers I change his Phrase Beings whose Perfections are unlimited and who have all they can have without a manifest Contradiction which Phrase by the way is not to be found in his Propositions But why might not I call them infinite Substances since twice in his Propositions by way of Explication he calls them Substances and every where talks of the Union of their Substances and pag. 56. of his third Defence defines Person by Substance And it is evident that if the Substances do not emane the Perfections that subsist in them cannot emane and if the Perfections are infinite or unlimited the Substances cannot be finite or limited and pag. 8. he expresly says The Son and Holy Ghost are all boundless and infinite But where is the Difference between Infinite and his own term unlimited Does not the one signify without Bounds as the other without End and the Argument will equally hold with the one Term or the other Therefore I have no Reason to change those Terms nor did I injure him in using them But that all Infinites are equal is as evident as that there is an inequality between Finite and Infinite for if one Infinite were less than another there must be some bound or end of that Infinite which would be to make it Finite wherefore for two Infinites to emane from one is to say twice as much emanes from a Being as the Being is Nay if the Son and Holy Spirit were both but one Infinite to suppose them to emane from but one other Infinite is to suppose the whole Infinite to emane from it self but if their Nature each of them is as truly Divine and Infinite as that of the Father they must each of them be equal to him and consequently cannot emane from him Can two Suns which is a more proper Simily for equal Natures than the Sun and the Rays emane from one Sun Would it not be to suppose twice as much to emane from the Sun as was in it The Defender upon better thoughts though I did not make use of his Phrases thus replies Be he pleased to take notice that there is nothing in this acute arguing except he means by infinite Substances Substances of an infinite bigness He might as well have said To be and not to be was a Contradiction only in Substances of infinite bigness for the Reason is the same of what Nature or sort soever the Substances be provided they were capable of emaning Because the Argument does not depend upon a Being having Bigness or Quantity but upon the equality of Beings that emane from one another For let an equal number which has neither Matter nor Bulk emane from an equal does not the whole Number emane from it self So substract an Hour from an Hour and see what becomes of the first Hour So that if the Nature of the Father emanes from it self an infinite and boundless Nature it must wholly exhaust the Nature of the Father which is but Boundless and Infinite But to suppose two such Natures to emane from him is to suppose twice as much to emane as the Father's Nature is It is as I observed Sect. 59. dividing one infinite Substance into three infinite Parts To which he replies How does our Author already run Taplash But I will not therefore forbear replying and I answer No doubt it is a horrid Contradiction so to affirm but how rank doth this smell of the gross thing called Body his Mind runs altogether upon material Substances which alone I say have Parts to be divided into Then he goes on to demonstrate that an infinite Spiritual Substance cannot be divided into infinite Spiritual Parts which is the absurdity or if he pleases the Taplash I am condemning as the immediate consequence of his Hypothesis For what difference can we perceive between one infinite Nature emaning out of it self two infinite Natures by which it so far parts with them as they become two distinct and diverse Natures from it as distinct and different as so many Men or Angels and one infinite Nature divided into three infinite Parts And by our Author's leave we not only attribute Parts to Matter but we are forc'd to do so to every thing whether Finite or Infinite we can in our Minds add to and abstract from which we cannot but conceive as Parts So we say that Numbers and Duration and Space though Infinite have Parts And the sober Enquirer in his View of the Considerations pag. 92. owns that conceptible parts in the Deity no Man can avoid And if neither the whole Divine Nature nor a part of it emaned from it self it is a Contradiction to our Idea's that any thing should emane from it What is a Contradiction in those Terms will be so in any other But to gratify our Author as much as possible we will express his Doctrine in the softest Terms we can viz. one self-existent eternal and necessary Nature which alone is first in Nature not
over his Works and rule them by his Providence what Place shall we assign to another God Not in this World for it belongs to another nor over the World for he that made it is above it And if he be not in the World nor over the World where can he be above the World or God Is it in another World If so then he is nothing to us that governs not our World nor can his Power be great being confin'd to a certain Place If therefore he is neither in nor over this World nor any other for there is no other seeing all Parts of the Universe make but one World whereof the entire extent is fill'd by its Maker therefore he is no where for there is no Place for him But supposing him somewhere pray to what purpose plainly to none at all c. It will be said perhaps to provide for us but certainly he cannot provide for those he has not made It follows therefore that if he created nothing nor provides nor can be confin'd to a Place there is no other God at all but one from Eternity the only Creator of the Universe FINIS A REPLY TO The Second Defence OF THE XXVIII PROPOSITIONS Said to be wrote in Answer to a Socinian Manuscript BY The AUTHOR of that MS. no Socinian but a Christian and Unitarian Nullius addictus jurare in verba Magistri LONDON Printed in the Year MDC XCV A REPLY to the SECOND DEFENCE of the XXVIII Propositions said to be wrote in Answer to a Socinian Manuscript SIR I NOW find by Notice in the Gazette that your Learned and Worthy Friend whose Name you concealed from me is the Lord Bishop of Glocester He has published an Answer which he calls A Second Defence of his Propositions to a private Manuscript which he calls Socinian Which MS. to excuse his not publishing it he tells his Reader he had returned to you and had it not by him nor a Copy of it He saith he collected the Substance of it I believe what he thought the Substance but how shall the Reader judg of that since as a great Master tells us The Context the Stile and the Phraseology of an Author must be well considered by one that means to understand him perfectly But it seems he was not willing to lose an Opportunity to expose a Heretick tho' he strain'd Civility in so doing In the mean time my MS. gave occasion to encrease the Number of his explanatory Propositions But after this farther Explanation of his Explanation he is as obscure as ever tho' that to deal ingenuously is rather his Misfortune than his Fault for there are some things which will never be explain'd while the World stands such as necessary and eternal Emanation Divine Fecundity the Difference between Order of Time and Order of Nature One thing before I begin my Reply let me acquaint you with I am advised to pass by whatever does not concern the Cause to bear the Imputation of affected Poedantry Ignorance and Arrogance Contemptuous Charges enough to exercise the Patience of a well-compos'd Man and urge one of my Make to take out Letters of Reprisal at least by way of Self-defence to say something like that of Tully Non video in hâc meâ mediocritate ingenii quid despicere possit Antonius But I will submit my Resentment to my Adviser as obedient Sons are wont their Faith to their Mother and that not only for the Reason aim'd at by my Friend but also out of Respect to my Adversary and therein I shall please you whom I believe to be as you character him one of the most deserving of his Order But yet I beg leave to tell you that I do not hold my self oblig'd by this Promise to forbear exposing the Weakness of an unconcluding Argument or setting two contrary Sayings to stare one another in the face but from all Revilings from foolish Words designed to lessen his Lordship's just Esteem I shall religiously forbear If I sprinkle Salt it shall not grieve his Person P. 1. of the Defence c. whereas I had affirmed that the Trinitarians had in vain tried their Strength against the Unitarians his Lordship answers There 's no doubt of it if their Adversaries may be Judges I now affirm it if the Trinitarians themselves be Judges for the Modalists will not allow the Hypothesis of the Realists and the Realists despise theirs and then again the Ignoramus or Mystery-trinitarians esteem the Methods taken by both these Parties not only vain and fruitless as to the refuting the Unitarians but also dangerous and likely to overthrow their own great Article while both these Parties join and with full consent condemn the Ignoramus-trinitarians who press the Belief of a Trinity in the Godhead but cannot say what is meant by it What the modern Unitarians have taught in their late Tracts concerning this controverted Article some or other of their Adversaries teach as well as they For example the Unitarians have taught that if by Persons are meant Relations Capacities or Respects of God to his Creatutes then there may be more Persons than 3 in the Godhead because God hath the Capacities Respects or Relations of a Judg of an Oeconomus or Provider c. They have taught that a Mode or a Posture cannot be a Person that a Mode cannot be in God because Modes are changeable and God is not They look upon it as an inconceivable Extravagancy to fancy that God in one Mode or Posture begat himself in another and breath'd forth his Self by the help of his begotten Self in a proceeding third-Self And as to all these things Dean Sh k Mr. H w and the Bp. of Gl. have the same Sense as the Unitarians The Unitarians have taught that there are not 3 Persons in the proper Sense of that word not 3 distinct Essences Natures Spirits Minds or intelligent Beings in the Unity of the Godhead but that it 's down-right Tritheism to say it and equally idolatrous with the Polytheism of the Heathens Dr. S th teaches so likewise Dr. Wallis is of the same Opinion and the famous Bps. of Worcester and Sarum who will not declare plainly their own Sense both declare against this The Unitarians have taught that that Article which is propos'd ro be believ'd as necessary to Salvation is capable of being explained and that it 's very unjust not to say ridiculous to require Men to believe words whereof no certain Signification can be given Now if Dean Sherlock with all the Realists and his Friend Dr. South with all the Modalists were not of the Mind of the Unitarians in this Point would they think you take such Pains to explain the Article each after his own particular Manner Whatsoever single Affirmation you arraign the Unitarians upon upon the same you arraign a Majority of Trinitarians For I think I may reckon that no one of the three chief Divisions is equal to the other two In short the Majority of