CERTAIN Propositions By which the DOCTRIN OF THE H. Trinity Is so Explain'd according to the Ancient Fathers as to speak it not Contradictory to Natural Reason TOGETHER With a Defence of Them in Answer to the Objections of a Socinian Writer in His Newly Printed Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrin of the Trinity Occasioned by these Propositions among other Discourses In a Letter to that Author LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons in Cornhil 1694. CERTAIN Propositions c. 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 praesuppose 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 Acknowledge That these Two Persons are from God the Father This is affirmed in that Creed which is called the Nicene and in that which falsely 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 Contradictious 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 Absolutely 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 Iesus 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 Truly 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 Distinst 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
of the Unitarians For if the Father is Absolutely Perfect if the Son and Spirit are not Absolutely Perfect how shall we ever prevent this Consequence therefore onely the Father is God What is the Definition of God among all Divines and Philosophers Is it not this A Being Absolutely Perfect or a Being that hath all Perfections But if so than onely the Father having all Perfections or being Absolutely Perfect He must be the onely God to the certain Exclusion of the other Two Persons to the Exclusion of the Son and Spirit by Name because 't is affirmed here of them by Name that neither of them is absolutely Perfect or hath all Perfections But this Author will shew us in his following Propositions that for all this the Son is God and so also is the Holy Ghost That is he will puâ— out the Light of the Sun And Sir as you have now Represented our Author you cannot but be sensible upon second thoughts of over great Modestly in your not having Charged him with Natural Contradictions nay and of too great Partiality towards him in Acquitting him as you have done of such Contradictions He will instruct us say you next in his Premisses that there is but One Who is God and in the Progress and Conclusion or in the summing up the whole Reckoning he will make it appear that there are Three Beings each of which is singly and by Himself God Which is the Numerical Contradiction that I Charged at first on his Hypothesis And I say Sir if you have not too incautilously represented him in these Words he is as justly to be here Charged with a Natural as with a Numerical Contradiction except you will Affirm that 't is no Natural Contradiction to say That the Number One is as many as Three or the Number Three is no more than One But Sir I must crave leave to say that you have committed a great Oversight in Representing our Author as you have now done For his First Proposition is The Name of God is used in more Sences than one in H. Scripture The Second The most Absolutely Perfect Being is God in the Highest Sence The Third Self-Existence is a Perfection c. The Fourth God the Father alone is in reference to His manner of Existence an Absolutely Perfect Being because He alone is Self-Existent And from These with the Five following Propositions he infers in the Tenth That the Father alone is God in the Absolutely Highest Sence And in the Thirteenth That the God-head or God in this Highest Sence can be but one Numerically And therefore Sir you should not have made our Author say as you do that there is but One who is God without any Restriction when you now see he saith that there is but One who is God in the Absolutely Highest Sence And that God in the Absolutely Highest Sence can be but One Numerically And whereas you say That he will make it appear that there are Three Beings each of which is singly and by Himself God you should have said He will make it appear that there are Three Beings each of which is God but not in all the Self-same Respects And therefore I cannot as yet accuse him either of any One Natural or Numerical Contradiction if this be a Proper Distinction which I will not dispute What remaineth of your Reflexions is chiefly a Charge of Tritheism against this Explication of the Trinity 1. You say I acknowledge in these Propositions the Genuine Doctrin and very Language of the Fathers who wrote shortly after the Council of Nice till the Times of the School-men And the Author is assured that this Explication for Substance is a great deal Elder than that Council But he gives you his hearty Thanks for this free Concession of yours because you have saved him the Pains of proving his Last Proposition And I will therefore requite you for him in imitating your Brevity as you say you do his But methinks you should also acknowledge that the Authors Explication hath no inconsiderable Advantage on its side in that you allow it to be of so great Antiquity If the Socinians will not acknowledge this an Advantagious Circumstance in all disputable Points they are certainly the onely Learned Men who have no Regard for Antiquity 2. You add But the School-Divines or the Divines of the Middle Ages saw and almost all the Moderns that are well versed in these Questions confess it that this Explication is an inexcusable indefensible Tritheism And quickly after you say That the School-Divines and generally speaking the most Learned of the Moderns with the greatest Reason in the World abhor making the Three Divine Persons to be Persons in the Proper Sence of that Word Which is to say they are distinct intellectual Beings and have different Substances in Number tho' not in species or kind And you affirm that the forementioned Divines do with the greatest Reason in the World abhor this Because they perceive it destroys the True and Real Unity of God it taketh away his Proper and Natural and Numerical Unity and leaveth onely a Certain Political and Oeconomical Unity which is indeed onely an imaginary Unity Hereto I Answer 1. That a Wise Man will think never the worse of any thing merely for its having an Ugly Name given it As you would account it no real Dishonour to the Socinian Hypothesis should it be called Ditheism which sounds every whit as ill as Tritheism And you cannot deny it to be Ditheism in a certain sence because it asserts Two Gods one by Nature and the other by Office and that this God by Office is to be Honoured by all Men even as they Honour the Father according to his own Declaration though but a Mere Man by Nature And this grates every whit as much upon my Understanding as any thing in this Explication can on yours And is as contradictory to Natural Reason in the Opinion of all Trinitarians as any of their Explications are in the Opinion of Socinians who cannot but acknowledge that Honouring the Son even as the Father is Honoured is giving him that Honour which is truly and properly Divine let them restrain it as much as they can 2. Whereas you say that this Explication destroyeth the True and Real Unity of God and therefore to be abhorred I must grant if it does so it can not be too much abhorred but I would know from whence we are to learn wherein consists His True and Real Unity It must either be learned from Scripture or Reason or both But as to the H. Scripture this indeed abundantly declareth the Unity of God but it no where distinguisheth of Unity nor saith of what Nature that Unity is which it ascribes to God Were you never so well satisfied that that Text in St. Iohn's Epistles is genuine These Three are One you would say it proves nothing against the Socinians because it saith not in what Sence the Father Son and Holy Ghost are One
But I am sure our Author never spake a truer Word than what he saith in his Seventeenth Proposition concerning the real Distinction of the Three Persons in Scripture And surely those whose Notions are most agreeable to the Letter and most proper Sence of Scripture when there is no apparent necessity of departing from them as I think there is the greatest Necessity of keeping thereto in this case if they happen to be in an Error their Error is on the safer side And since those of your Opinion do so zealously contend for making the H. Scriptures the sole Rule of Faith and profess that you will take nothing for a Point of Religion but what is found in the Bible wherein you do like Protestants at least if you will acknowledge that to be there which is there by evident Consequence as well as in express Words since I say you do so you of all Men should not be over dogmatical in determining a Point which the H. Scripture is silent in And then for Reason such an Unity as our Author after the Fathers asserts is not contradictory or contrary to any plain and evident Dictate thereof This I adventure to Affirm with very great Assurance And Sir your self must needs be of the same Mind if you were in good earnest as I can't think otherwise in calling the Explication a possible Scheme and owning that it is not contradictory in any of its parts to Natural Reason But Sir to speak my Mind freely I will not of all Men go to School to the School Divines to learn what Reason saith on an Argument of this Nature and therefore neither to those Modern Divines who pin their Faith upon their sleeves If I could satisfie my self to be an Implicit Believer I would a thousand times rather take the Ancient Fathers and it may be Philosophers too for the Guides of my Reason than those Gentlemen who spent their time in the Weaving of Fine Cobwebs and particularly are so superfine upon the simplicity of the Divine Essence as to render GOD Almighty at least to such a dull Understanding as mine a no less unconceivable than incomprehensible Being and to simplifie Him rather into Nothing than into Simple Vnity 3. That this Explication leaveth onely a certain Political or Oeconomical Unity is only said by you but the Twenty Second Proposition tells you the contrary of which more anon 4. This Explication doth not take away the Numerical Unity of the God-head or of God in the Absolutely highest Sence and the First Original of All things For it expresly affirms the Necessity thereof Prop. 13th 5. It maketh the other Two Persons as much one with the First and with one another as they are without the most apparent Contradiction capable of being One in so High a Sence as that we want a Word by which to express their Unity And therefore that they are much more than Specifically One as Three Humane or Angelical Persons are Were I a Schoolman it should scape me hard but I would add another distinction of Unity between Specifical and Numerical to express this Unity by which I am sure would have more of a Fundamentum in re than many of their Distinctions have This Explication speaks as great a Unity between them as is between the Sun and its Splendor and the Light of both And a greater than is between the Vine and its Branches or than is between the Fountain and the Streams which flow from it Which are Similitudes of the Ancients I say this Explication speaks the Unity of the Divine Persons greater than the Unity of each of these because tho' they are most closely and intimately United yet are not inseparable And for the same reason it speaks a greater Unity between them than is between our Souls and Bodies as appears by the Twenty Second Proposition And where is he who will pretend to know how many Degrees or Kinds of Unity are possible or actually are 6. The inseparable Unity in Will and Nature between the Three Persons which that Proposition affirmeth not to have the least shadow of a Contradiction in it and therefore is taken into this Explication doth answer all the ends for which the Unity of the Deity was ever asserted And therefore the Distinction asserted between the Three Persons hath not the least Appearance of any one of the pernicious Consequents which follow upon a Plurality of Gods and consequently there is no reason in the World tho' you say there is the greatest why it should be abhorred by the School-Divines or the most Learned among the Moderns or by any Mortal learned or unlearned For they are outwardly and in reference to the Creation perfectly One and the Same God as concurring in all the same External Actions tho' in relation to One Another there is a real Distinction between them And it seems very wonderful that this should be denyed by any one who professeth himself a Trinitarian since there is no understanding what a Contradiction means if a Being that Begets and that which is begotten thereby and a Third which proceeds from both should not be really distinct from each other 7. A Plurality of Gods hath generally been so understood as to imply more than One independent and therefore likewise Self-existent Deity as the common Arguments against a Plurality of Gods do suppose but it was never otherwise understood than so as to import separate Deities And never were there more zealous Asserters of the Unity of the Deity against the Pagans than were divers of the Ancients to whom our Author is beholden for the Substance of this Explication One of these was Lactantius to pass by several others of the Three First Centuries and I find him thus discoursing in the 29 th Chap. of his Fourth Book De Vera Sapientia Fortasse quaerat aliquis c. Some one perhaps will ask how when we say we worship One God we can assert Two viz. God the Father and God the Son c. And to this Question the Father thus Answers Quum dicimas Deum Patrem c. When we say God the Father and God the Son we don't separate and part them asunder c. they have one Mind one Spirit one Substance And in the next Words he saith in what sence they are One Sed ille quasi exuberans Fons c. But the Father is as it were the overflowing Fountain the Son as a stream flowing from him He like to the Sun This like to a Sun-beam And this is the same Description of their Unity with one another that the Explication gives And I think there needs no more to be said in Defence thereof against the odious Charge of Tritheism to any ingenuous and Free-minded Person Nor doth there need to be given any farther Answer to what remains in your Paper that designs to prove this a to be abhorred Tritheistical Explication But I must Clear it from another great Mistake in the Account you next give
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. Left 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 Schoolmen 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 Chap. 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 A DEFENCE Of the Foregoing Propositions SIR THe Author of the Twenty Eight Propositions thanks you for the very Charitable Opinion you have expressed concerning him in the Entrance into your Reflexions upon them and hopes he shall always endeavour to deserve the Character of a Man so Honest as never to speak otherwise than he thinks and so true to his Understanding as always to make Reason one of his Guides in the Choyce of his Opinions He professing to believe that the Use of Reason is so far from being to be Condemned in Matters of Religion as no where else to be so well employed And that it is infinitely unworthy of Almighty God to conceive it possible for Him to Contradict his Internal by his External Revelations But so he must have done should such Writings be of His inspiring as are manifestly contradictory to the plain Dictates of Natural Reason which the Wise Man faith Is the Candle of the Lord. And Sir our Author takes no less Notice of your Candour in the Character you give in the Words following of his Explication of the Doctrin of the H. Trinity in those Propositions But after your Acknowledgment That he hath avoided a great many Contradictions which those of your Party do charge on this Doctrin as it is held by others and that his Explication is a Possible Scheme and that it is clear from any Contradictions to Natural Reason you Object that besides some insuperable Difficulties the Author hath not been able to avoid some Numerical Contradictions Now as to the insuperable Difficulties with which you charge his Explication since you acquit them from being Contradictions to Natural Reason you mean I suppose that it is fraught with several Contradictions to H. Scripture And I confess such Contradictions to be as insuperable Difficulties to us as we are Christians as those to Reason are as we are Men. If this be your Meaning the Author may well expect to have it shewn what Texts of Scripture are contradicted by this Explication but if you mean otherwise my Reply is That you are not so shallow a Thinker as not to be aware that there are also insuperable Difficulties in the Notion of One God both as His Nature is described by all Christians according to the Account given of Him in H. Scripture and as all Theists are compelled by Natural Light to conceive of Him Nay you will frankly own that there is not any one thing in the whole Universe which doth not suggest insuperable Difficulties to an Inquisitive Mind And whereas Sir you Charge our Author with not being able to avoid some Numerical Contradictions I confess I never before met with this distinction but I think I understand it by your Description of it You say that a Numerical Contradiction is an Error committed in the summing up of things But how is he guilty of such Contradictions If you mean that he hath made Contradictory Conclusions or such a Conclusion to several of his Premisses I cannot though you do excuse him from contradicting Natural Reason any more than from contradicting Himself And it appears from what follows that that is your Meaning for after you had given the Sum and Substance of the First Thirteen Propositions your Reflexion thereon is this One would think that such a Foundation being laid the Conclusion must be wholly in savour
of it You say that the Hypothesis expresly acknowledgeth in each of the Two Persons not onely whatsoever Properties can make them to be distinct intellectual Beings and Substances but also all the Attributes that are necessary to Essentiate a God that is to make Him a Perfect God onely it saith the Father hath this peculiar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Priviledge that He is First in order of Nature He hath no Essential or Real Perfection more than the other Two Persons onely He hath this Honour that their Original is from Him And hence you Conclude that it is not possible to say what are Three GODS if this be not an Account and Description of Three Gods But Sir doth our Author's Hypothesis give the FATHER no other Priviledge above the Son and H. Spirit than his being First in Order of Nature and their Original Doth not the Fourth Proposition expresly say that he is Self-Existent too And His being their Original is so far from being the same thing with Self-Existence that simply in it self considered it doth not so much as necessarily suppose His Self-Existence Doth he who faith that the Sun is the Original of the Illustrious Splendour in the Heavens and of the Light which pervades the World in so saying affirm that it is Self-Existent And I shall wonder if Self-Existence be but an Imaginary Perfection I should rather Conclude it the very greatest of all Real Perfections How then can you say That this Hypothesis gives the Father no other Priviledge above the other Persons but onely that He is First in Order of Nature Again Is not Absolute Independence a Real Perfection and Being the First Original of all things another But doth not the Sixth Proposition considered with the Fifth ascribe both these too to the Father onely And whereas you say farther That this Hypothesis gives the Second and Third Persons all the Attributes that are necessary to Assentiate a God What Earnings will you make of this since it saith not that those which are ascribed to them viz. infinite Goodness Wisdom and Power are all that are necessary to Essentiate a God in the Absolutely Highest Sence which the Name of God is ever to be understood in in Holy Scripture And now you can need no Answer to what you say in the last Words of this Paragraph viz. The Perfections of the Deity that are Real are Gods infinite Wisdom Power Goodness Duration and such like Therefore the Son and Spirit are Gods in the Highest Sence of that Word if they have all those aforesaid real and positive Perfections of the Divine Nature tho' it be granted at the same time that they are Originated from the Father You need I say no Answer hereto since you were now minded that Self-Existence Absolute Independence and Being the First Original of All things are Perfections peculiar to God the Father and that this is part of the Explication And upon this Account Athanasius S. Basil Gregory Nazianzen and St. Chrysostom with several of the Latin Fathers interpret those Words of our B. Saviour My Father is greater than I to have been spoken not of His Humanity but His Divinity as Dr. Cudworth hath shewed in his 599 th Page of his Intellectual System of the Universe Nor certainly did our Lord ever say so little a thing as that the Infinite MAIESTY of Heaven and Earth is greater than any Mortal Man And having this Occasion to Mention Dr. Cudworth the Honour I have for the Memory of that Excellent Person constraineth me to say That the Account he gives of the Fathers Judgment of the Trinity is not Represented as it ought to have been in the former Socinian Treatise of Considerations on the Explications thereof And I so word that most Learned Performance of the Doctor because he was therein an Historian rather than an Explicator Your next Paragraph begins with this Question A Father begets Two Sons that have all the Properties of the Humane Nature in as great Perfection as their Father shall we deny that they are Men in the Highest Sence of that Word because they are Originated from their Father And this say you is the very Case before us But Sir this is not with your Leave the very Case before us 'T is nothing like it because 't is the Perfection of no Man to be Self-Existent nor are a Humane Fathers Sons immediately dependent on him for the Continuation of their Being as the Two Persons are upon God the Father as Light is upon the Sun and as Streams on the Fountain But if a Humane Father could be supposed to be Self-Existent and that his Sons had the now mentioned kind of Dependence upon him the Consequence must be that their Nature is short of the Perfection of their Fathers Nature notwithstanding the many Properties they agree in and therefore that they are not Men in so high a Sence as he is a Man seeing the Humane Nature would be supposed capable of Perfections which they have not but their Father hath What follows of this Paragraph is only applying the Point in Controversie to this Case but I have said enough to shew that there is not the least Affinity between these Two Cases The Substance of what you farther Object against this Explication is a Remark upon the Twenty Second Proposition And you say In these few Words consist the strength and Hopes of this Explication The unconceivably Close Union in Will and Nature between the Three Gods makes them to be One God I see Sir you as odiously word it as you can but you would have lost nothing by it had you kept to our Author's Words and said Three Persons or if you had pleased Three distinct Proper Persons instead of Three Gods Well Sir the unconceivably Close Union in Will and Nature between the Divine Persons is that as you say in which the strength and hopes of this Explication do consist But you Object That this is as much as to say that they are One God by that very thing which most incontestably declares them to be Three Gods And this you make out by this Question what is the Union of Will and Nature between distinct intellectual Beings and different Substances is it any other but this in plain English that they always will the same things and their Natures and Substances are united in the same Properties Attributes or Perfections That is to say as you proceed these Three intellectual Substances or Beings are each of them Almighty Omniscient most Good and the rest Why this is the very thing that makes them to be Three Gods Next you give us a Proof of this but you might have saved your self that labour for 't is readily granted if this be all the Union that is between them But in Answer to your Question it must never be granted you that the inseparably Close Union between the Three Divine Persons both in Will and Nature is no more than their Union in the same Will
and Properties for it is also their immediate Union in their Substances their Spiritual Substances as the Union between our Souls and Bodies is in their Substances And if they were acknowledged to be separate Substances and United onely as you say you would have made our Author ashamed of his Explication But if Sir you think you may do it however by saying that the Substance and Properties of the Divine Nature are the self-same thing I will now content my self to say onely this then you might have used the Word Substances as well as Properties and Attributes and then it would have appeared at first sight that there is no force in your Objection But your self doth also expresly here distinguish them in saying that their Substances are united in the same Properties Attributes or Perfections If you ask me what Account can be given to the satisfaction of any Rational Person of such an Union between the Substances of the Three Persons I will Reply that when you give me an intelligible Account of the Union betwixt our Souls and Bodies I do promise to give you a no less intelligible Account of the Union betwixt the Substances of the Three Divine Persons Nay as the Twenty Second Proposition tells you the Union between our Souls and Bodies is more unaccountable to Reason than is this Union because that is an Union between Substances of Perfectly unlike and even contrary Natures In reciting that Proposition you say Contradictory instead of Contrary but I suppose this was the fault not of your Pen but of the Press But if you will say that the Substances of our Souls and Bodies are onely united in their Properties I say they are not at all united in these because their Properties are of as different and contrary a Nature as their Substances But if they could be united in these yet the Union of their Substances must be more than their being united in their Properties except my Soul is as much united with your Body as with mine own for the Essential Properties of all Souls and Bodies are the same And now Sir I hope you are sensible that you might have spared your Last Paragraph viz. How is it possible that this Author should overlook such an Obvious Reasoning or not be Satisfied with it And say I How is it possible that so Acute a Person as your Writings speak you to be should be guilty of so plain a Flaw in that Reasoning and take it to be so Obvious I shall give you no farther trouble than while I desire you to take notice That I have not troubled you with more words than needs must and much less with Finesses to use your Own Word nor with any Subtle Distinctions as much Enamoured as you perceive I am with the School-men nor with any thing you may be tempted to call Scholastical Cant or Metaphysical Gibberish nor so much as with the Father's great word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But my Answer is as plain as a Pyke staff yet as full as plain to all the Reflections you have made upon the Explication But whether it be to the purpose too I must leave it to the Judgment of the fair and impartial Reader But I can sincerely avow That I have said nothing to any of your Objections merely because for my Credits sake seeing I undertook to Reply to them I must say Something Nor hath a Line come from me which is not agreeable to the sense of my Mind nor which I think not to be pertinent As I also solemnly Profess that since such Perfections and Operations as are unquestionably Proper to the Deity are attributed in H. Scripture to the Son and H. Spirit and that I cannot be Satisfied by the extremely laboured Glosses and Criticisms of the Socinians to depart from the most Obvious and Natural Sence of the Multitude of Texts wherein they are so as doubting whether many Texts are to be found which might not have more than one sence put upon them by the same Labour and Art And since Divine Honour is most Expresly declared to be due to the Son Iohn 5.23 and He hath the Honour of such a Doxology Apocal. 1.6 as according to the Original as well as our Translation I remember not an Higher given to God the Father in all the New-Testament And since too the Son and Spirit are all along most plainly described as distinct Persons both from the Father and from One Another even as plainly as Words can do it and yet all this while the Unity of the Deity is fully Asserted I can not for my life Reconcile these things but by this Ancient Explication of the Trinity which your self ingenuously acknowledges to be a Possible Scheme and Hereby I thank GOD I can do it to my great Satisfaction That God Almighty would give us a Right Understanding in all the Points of our Christian Faith and particularly in the Great and Weighty One wherein you Differ from the Generality of Christians in all Ages and that we may be sincere and unbyassed and also Humble in our Searches after Truth not leaning over confidently to our own Understandings since those that most improve them are most sensible of their being infinitely too shallow to comprehend Truths of this Nature especially is the Humble and most Hearty Prayer of SIR Notwithstanding our being as I suppose perfect Strangers and our wide Difference in Opinion Your Sincere Friend to Serve You in all Christian Offices c. Some Books Printed for B. Aylmer FOrty Two Sermons and Discourses upon several Occasions most at Court in Four Volumes 8 vo The Rule of Faith Or An Answer to the Treatise of Mr. I. Sergeant c. 8 vo Six Sermons concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour Of the Sacrifice and Satisfaction of Christ and of the Unity of the Divine Nature and the B. Trinity c. against the Socinians 8 vo Six Sermons newly Printed one concerning Resolution and Stedfastness in Religion One of Family Religion Three of Education of Children and One of the Advantages of an Early Piety 8 vo A Perswasive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper 8 vo alone stitch't price 3 d. or in 12 o bound price 6 d. A Discourse against Transubstantiation 8 vo alone price 3 d. stitch't All Published by his Grace Iohn Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury The Exact Effigies of His Grace Iohn Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury on a Large Sheet of Paper Curiously Engraven by R. White price 12 d. The Great Wickedness and Mischievous Effects of Slandering A Sermon Preach'd at St. Giles Cripplegate on Psalm 101.5 A Sermon Preached before the Lord Mayor of London and Court of Aldermen in Easter-Week 1688. on Luk. 16.9 A Sermon Preached at the Meeting of the Sons of the Clergy in St. Mary-le-Bow Church the 6th of Dec. 1692. on Iohn 13.34 These Three by Edward Lord Bishop of Gloucester Dr. Cudworth and Dr. Bull. Octob. 19th 1694.