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
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
Stunned People are not good at Talking I have no more to say but that I know not whether there be more of Arrogance than Ignorance or of Ignorance than Arrogance in these words And now Sir if you shall think that I have Treated your Friend with too much Freedom and have given him too Course a Farewell the onely Apology I can make for it is That I find him such a sort of Adversary as would not Permit me to Treat him otherwise However the Liberty he hath taken with me hath not the least Influence upon my Spleen and I wish him as well as you know I do your self And particularly that he may learn to be more Modest and think it Possible that those Opinions which he takes for most Evident and most Necessary Truths may be as Gross and Dangerous Errors and that his Understanding is not so much above the Pitch os other fallible Mortals but that he may be mightily Mistaken when he is most Confident And I heartily Pray that you both may with all Sincerity and Impartiality Consider what is here offered to you and that God would give us all a right Understanding in all Divine Truths These things I say are heartily Prayed for by Your Affectionate Friend E. G. The Latter Defence THERE are other Trinitarians Concerned with me in this Gentlemans Book of Reflexions mentioned in the Title-Page His 7th Chapter Conteins those he hath made upon the 28. Propositions which consists of 15. Sections that begin with Numb 56. The First is no more than a Recital of 3. or 4. of my Propositions The Writer saith upon them Sect. 57. 1. That two Infinite Substances should Emane from one Infinite Substance is so gross a Notion that I wonder any Man of Sense should be guilty of it And my Reason is because all Infinites of what sort or nature soever are equal for if one Infinite be less than another there must be some Terminus Bound or End of it and Consequently it cannot be Infinite of which there can be no Bound or End or if one Infinite were any ways more than another there would be somewhat more than Infinite which is Evidently Absurd Therefore to suppose two Infinites to Emane from one is to suppose two to Emane from one when each is equal to the one from which it Emanes Here and in the remaining part of this Section is Demonstration with a Witness against the Ancient Fathers Hypothesis of the Sons and H. Spirits being from the Deity by Emanation and against my Hypothesis of the Possibility hereof I will take a little more Liberty with this Subtil Gentleman when I am better acquainted with him as I shall be quickly than I will at present For he may think it no good Breeding to tell him homely all my mind at our very first Meeting But now a Complement is more Civil as I thank him he begins with too great a one to me And my Complement is Sir I Commend your Wisdom in Changing all along my Phrases viz. Beings whose Perfections are unlimited and who have all they can have without a most manifest Contradiction for a Phrase I not once use in my Propositions viz. Infinite Substances because I understand it nothing so well as those Phrases And I say he did Wisely herein Since had he used my Phrases this Section would not have looked quite so scaringly But let the Reader still put one of my Phrases in the place of Infinite Substances and then Consider whether Contradictions would so Immediately and at first Sight seem to appear in this Hypothesis But I shall deliver my mind a little more freely to him relating to the matter of this Section when I come to his 63d But I have not so done with this but shall farther Consider what it sayes And be he pleased to take notice that there is nothing in this Acute Arguing except he means by Infinite Substances Substances of an Infinite Quantity or Bigness But I hope he will be so far from attributing Quantity or Bigness to the Substance of the Deity that he will not do it to the Substance of an Angel or Humane Soul 2. It next follows To suppose one Infinite Substance to Emane from another is to suppose the whole entire Substance to Emane from it self But this I deny and do Acknowledg that if I granted it I must without any farther troubling either him or any of his Brethren bid adieu to the Fathers Hypothesis they are so displeased with as a plainly Contradictions one Seeing it asserts a real Distinction of the Divine Substances tho' no Difference in them It follows 3. And what makes it stranger is that the two Infinite Substances Emaned from the Fathers single Substance yet there was no diminution in the Substance of the Father it is as Infinite as it was at first But how should this make the Hypothesis Stranger when it would be the Strangest thing in the World if the Divine Substance were Capable of the least Diminution since those that believe Spiritual Substances know that none of them are But anon a little more of this But it may be said saith he 4. Why may not one Infinite as well as one Finite proceed from another And then he thus answers himself But nothing can be more absurd than to suppose one Finite much more two to Proceed from one but of the same Bigness Yes I 'le tell him what is more Absurd viz. To suppose one or more Infinite Substances to Proceed from another Infinite Substance of the same Bigness This is more Absurd because there is one more Contradiction in this Supposition than in that viz. That Bigness belongs to a Spiritual Substance which kind of Substance I hope he will acknowledg to be alone Capable of Infinity But as notable Work as our Author makes at demonstrating the Absurdity of two infinite Substances Emaning from one I fancy I know those who may almost as much put him to it to defend the Non-Absurdity of a Sparks being kindled by or Emaning from a Spark both being of the same bigness as a Trinitarian shall need to be by his Arguments I will not be so rude as to Call them Cavils against the Possibility of the Other Emanation But to use his own Phrase infinite Substance 't is so far from being impossible that an infinite Substance should Emane from an infinite Substance or to use the Scripture-Phrase be begotten by it that if any Being can Emane or be begotten by an infinite Substance it must be infinite too For as Athanasius saith It is impossible that that which is begotten should be a different Essence from that which Begat The Reader may see what is farther said of Emanations in 2d Defence p. 26. I have abundantly too much business lying now upon my hands to find Leisure for so Close a Consideration of all that this Gentleman hath reflected on the 28. Propositions as possibly I might apply my self to had I time to Spare
But the Truth is I find his Arguing to be such as if well followed upon Other Arguments it might make those who are willing to be so down right Scepticks as to almost Every thing He needs not to be informed what doughty Dexterity a Sophister might shew in making it out that Creation is a Perfect Impossibility That Eternity in both the Notions thereof is a Monstrous Contradiction to the Reason of our Minds And that so is also the Notion of an Incorporal Substance And of Liberty nay even in God Himself And of the Divine Omnipresence And that both parts of a Contradiction may possibly be true And perhaps a thousand other things for which we have the highest Rational Evidence may be Exposed to Ridicule by a Man who loves to Chop Logick And likewise a many other things the Contrarys to which we have even Ocular and the most Sensible demonstrations of may one make such a shew of demonstrating as to Baffle most men As that there is no such thing as Motion That a Body can have no influence upon a Spirit nor a Spirit upon a Body and much less can they be vitally United That 't is impossible that Will and Thought should Stir a Finger That all Bodies are alike Big c. I say most if not all these Strange Propositions are Capable of being with as Plausible a shew of reason defended by a Subtile Sophister as the Emanation of the Son and Holy Ghost from the Father hath bin now Confuted by this Gentleman So that I cannot but apply those words of the Apostle to such Disputers They have turned aside unto vain jangling understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm But I have said Enough to this Section Each of the following I shall I think dispatch as Easily Sect. 58. He saith that whatsoever Emanes or any way proceeds from a Self-Existent Substance except it were Created and then joyned to it is as Self-Existent as that Substance 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 As to his Reason for thus asserting viz. Because before its Emanation it was a Part of the Self-Existent Substance it is taken from Material Substances which do Consist of Parts but this cannot be said of Spiritual ones because they are not divisible and therefore have no Parts And it is Observable too how well this Reason Suits to Eternal Emanations Sect. 59. This Section hath several very Surprizing things in it As 1. Our Author cannot see since the Son and Spirit are necessary Emanations how they owe their Origin more to the Father than the Father Owes His to them Which is as much as to say since the Tree necessarily issues forth from the Root and the Rays from the Sun therefore the Root owes its Origin no less to the Tree and the Sun to its Rays than the Tree to the Root and the Rays to the Sun 2. His Reason for that Assertion is that the Father Son and Spirit are all three of a Substance that is Self-Existent But I say onely the two latter are so for the First as he needs not to be told is the Self Existent Substance not of or from such a substance But if he asks me How they Emane from the Father I know not which of us would be the more Presumptuous he for Asking and for Endeavouring to Answer thatQuestion But on second thoughts I will undertake to Answer it when he shall be pleased to Answer me this How did your self come into Being Or What is the Modus how any thing comes to be what it is or to be at all 3. He adds Nor could the Father more than They be the cause of the Separation since They necessarily Separated from one another But can I need to mind him that our Hypothesis will not bear a Separation between the Divine Persons and only asserts a Distinction betwen them And sure I need not tell him that he is not over-fit to Write Books who knows not that Distinction and Separation and Difference too are Several things But 4. Whereas he saith that no one of these Persons can be the cause of their Separation because they Necessarily Separated doth he think that God can be the Necessary Cause of nothing Or that He is in His own nature Indifferent to every thing If he believes for Instance that the Perfection of His Nature doth not Necessarily determine Him to what is best or to do whatsoever He in His Infinite Wisdom knows fit to be done I hope there are not many of his mind He saith 5. That it is another Contradiction to Affirm that an Infinite Substance is divided into Three Infinite Parts 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 does 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 And if a Spiritual Substance cannot be divided into spiritual Parts much less can an Insinite Spiritual Substance be divided into Infinite Spiritual Parts And he who thinks that a Spirit can be divided into parts had as good never take that word into his Mouth and much less can he Pretend to believe it a thing of an Immortal nature which whosoever does not whatever Theologers they may be I can't admire them for Philosophers 6. He makes it in what follows an Absurdity to deny that whatsoever proceeds from another thing must be in Order of Time after it These are his words Whatsoever Proceeds from a thing must first be in it Except it can be in it and Proceed from it at the same time But as we never thought of such a thing as the Two Persons so Proceeding as to be Separated from the First nor of any more than their having their Origin from Him so this they may have and yet still be in Him and might ever have been in Him Can our Author think not to trouble him too often with the Rays being from the Sun and yet as Old as it that all Thoughts must be Younger than Minds because they have their Original from them This can be denied by none that make Minds to be Thinking Beings I mean that do acknowledg Thinking to be Essential to Minds But this I have spoken to in the Preceding Defence p. 29 30 c. Sect. 60. He saith That it had bin Intolerable in the Pagans to believe those Rays that come from the Sun to be the Sun it self And I need say no more than that it is as Intolerable to believe the Son and Spirit who have their Existence from the Father to be the Father Himself But I desire him to think sedately with himself whether Gods Decrees could none of them be Eternal I Phansy he is not so much a School-man as
to answer Gods Decrees are God Himself Sect. 61. He saith what I further add are direct Contradictions reciting several more things Conteined in my Propositions and this is the whole of this Section Here is not one word of Proof that any one of them is a Contradiction and therefore I have nothing to add here Sect. 62. He affirms 1. That Necessary Existence from Eternity is as great a Perfection as Self-Existence But not to tell him that whatsoever doth necessarily Exist must have bin from Eternity and therefore such an Existence is never attributed to a Creature I do absolutely deny that necessary Existence from Another is as great a Perfection as necessary Existence from Ones self Can our Author in his Cool thoughts imagine it is He saith 2. If the Father hath given Existence to any Being which he cannot take away He would Cease to be Almighty But I conceive that to suppose that the Father can make a Being to Cease which hath a Necessary Existence from Him would be a Contradictions supposal and that Contradictions being Objects of no Power cannot be Objects of Divine Power and that therefore the Almightiness thereof Consisteth in an Ability to do whatsoever Implyes not a Contradiction or that Power can do And so doth our Author conceive too He saith 3. That Self Existence Separate from those Powers which can only belong to a Self-Existent Being is no Perfection But I ask him how Self-Existence can be Separated from those Powers and if it cannot What does this saying Signifie And it is certain it cannot But if he means Abstracted by Separate as he used a very Improper word to express his thoughts by I deny that the Notion of Self-Existence abstracted from all other Considerations whatsoever Implyeth no Persection And I have as much Liberty to Contradict him without giving my Reason as he hath to Affirm this without giving his But indeed this denial of mine needs no Reason for that Self-Existence is as Such a Perfection is Self-Evident or I know not what is so But were it not that I find him in one of these Sections asserting Creation out of nothing this Passage would lead me to a very shrewd Suspicion that he is of Wolzogenius his Mind and some others of his Brethren That God is not the only Self-Existent Being but that the Rude Chaos was and therefore all Matter now is Self-Existent too And if they could demonstrate this to me I Confess I should do what lyes in me to think Self-Existence to be no Perfection at all in spight of its being Self-Evident that it is a great Perfection if not the greatest 4. He saith That if the Persons have the some Unlimited Perfections but their Manner of getting them was different that would not cause any Inequality betwen them But I say it would that is in reference to their Manner of Existence tho' not in reference to their mere Essence What follows is but dilating on the same thing and repeating what hath been already Considered Sect. 63. He asks 1. How the Father can be greater than the Son and H. Spirit and be the only Good when they have the same Unlimited Power and Goodness I Answer They have an Unlimited Power but not the Same Unlimited Power with the Father Ad Extrà or in relation to the Creation their Power is Unlimited but no body will say that ad Intrà it is the same with the Fathers Except he can believe that the Son could Beget the Father as the Father hath Begot the Son And as to the Fathers being called by our Saviour the Only Good in that he saith There is none Good but God I have said in my Propositions with Grotius and others that that Phrase must needs signifie the Only Original Good or the Only Fountain of Goodness which the Father may be and yet not the onely Perfectly Good And I think that the Perfection of Self-Existence belonging to the Father alone and therefore those Perfections too which do necessarily suppose Self-Existence the Father may most truly be said to be greater than the Son and H. Spirit although all the Perfections of these Persons are Unlimited 2. He asks What greater Absurdity there can be than that Beings which have Infinite Unlimited Perfections should want some Perfections I Answer that indeed there cannot be a greater Absurdity than to say that a Being which hath an Infinite Number of Unlimited Perfections can want some this would be an Ab'urdity with a Vengeance But I doubt I am not Capable of understanding where lyes the Absurdity of asserting That a Being which hath not the Perfection of Self-Existence and those that suppose it may notwithstanding have in as high a degree as can be those Perfections which they have 3. He saith That a Being cannot be partly Infinite and partly Finite And so he runs on upon Infinite Infinite which he all along does and the reason of it is obvious enough viz. because it is a rare Amusing Confounding Word for my Brains and the Brains of his Readers there is not such another to be met with for the purpose But Infinity is not a thing to be made so bold with or talk't of with such freedom and Confidence as he still does as if it were a very familiar matter But I say again it is no such Monstrous business to Imagine that a Being which hath not Every Perfection may have those it is possessed of in the Highest degree If I cared to talk things which I understand nothing of I could talk too of Infinity and say that there are several sorts of Infinity That there is Infinity of Substance And Infinity of Quantity And Infinity of Duration And Infinity of Space and God knows how many more Infinities And could shew that there is no Absurdity in saying that all these Infinities do not necessarily belong to every one of these and I should get great Reputation among Wise men for my pains should they Catch me thus Employing my Tongue or Pen. But now I think better of it I find I am not quite so Ignorant as I thought I was for I can tell this Gentleman that a Being Can be partly infinite and partly not since I have learned that Angels and Humane Souls are so That is with respect to the Infinity of Duration they are infinite à Parte Post tho' not à Parte antè And what a rare Notion is this Sect. 64. As to the little that is here said viz. Upon the Odious Topick of Tritheism I referr him to my Reply to the Considerator my much more Ingenuous Adversary which I presume he hath read tho' he takes no notice of it Sect. 65. Here is nothing to be spoken to without Repetitions and I want time to make them and he is not in such want of Sense as to need them Sect. 66. Here he Misrepresents me and argues upon his Misrepresentation See Prop. 13th Sect. 67. Considering what I have said to the Considerator and
and Heat that can neither see nor feel Yet I am a little mistaken if Heat and Light too cannot have some Operation on Bodies which have never a One of the Five Senses 3. He saith that every Common Systeme demonstrates that there are no such Perceptions as Light and Heat but in things that are Capable of seeing and feeling A goodly Demonstration But the Commonness of it may make it the less Observable But it is pretty much it should be demonstrated in Every Common Systeme and I should never Light on it in any one Systeme But 't is no matter since I am a little too Old to be a Child unless twice one and then to be a Metaphysician too for I am told to my Comfort 4. That this Notion is Obvious to all but Children and Metaphysicians Yet 't is Obvious to this Gentleman tho' a Metaphysician as I dare warrant him he is whether he knows it or no as 't is like he does not since he so despising them or he could never be so Notable at infinity and other most Sublime and Abstruse Matters 5. But in good Earnest I am so dull as to be utterly unable to imagine but that Light would be Light whatsoever is to be thought of Colours tho' there were no Eyes to Perceive it And such a Heretick in Philosophy whether I am in Divinity or no as to think that it is an Aggregation of a certain sort of Particles as much as Air is And therefore I am not like in haste to be shamed out of the Fathers Simile of Emanations of Light from the Sun Nor do I think that our Author himself will ever be able to demonstrate any Absurdity in conceiving that Heat differs onely gradually from Fire and Light from both And that Fire is a fluid Constituted of an Excessively small sort of Particles and therefore very Active Subtile and Piercing and that a Collection of these Minute bodys in such a quantity and so closely as to become an Object of Sight is that which we Express by the words Fire and Flame and a less close Collection is what we call Heat And that Flame differs from Fire as it is a more dispersed Collection of these Particles than Fire and Light from both as it is a thinner Collection of them than either of the other I say I do not think that our Author as Skilled as he is content to be thought to be in Physicks tho' not in Metaphysicks can demonstrate that these are Absurd Notions Sect. 70. There is nothing to be taken notice of in this very small Section But our being Charged with Terminating our Devotions in Each of the three Persons in our Praying to Each of them But I say this is a very false Charge for we as heartily acknowledg that all the Honour we pay to the Son and H. Spirit ought to be Ultimately terminated in God the Father tho' we believe they are not Creatures as those Socinians do who are for giving Divine Honour to the Son believing Him to be a Creature and a mere Man And I am sure he cannot think otherwise of those whom he calls the Real Trinitarians because their Hypothesis necessarily obligeth them so to believe what ever the Hypothesis of the Other does But the H. 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 Other Text but this for it viz. That at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in Heaven and things on Earth and things under the Earth And that Every Tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father Having now done with my Adversarie's Reflexions upon the 28. Propositions I will make bold to Argue a while with himself and to give him a Sample of his Reasoning With as Infallible Assurance Sir as you Talk of Infinite Substances and Reason against the Possibility of the Sons and H. Spirits being Infinite Substances from the Nature of such Substances I never yet met with your Fellow if you will pretend to have a distinct and Explicite Idea of the thing call'd Substance but I know not what Epithet to give you if you can take the Liberty to tell me that you have any such Idea of Infinity as it relates immediately to a Substance You have indeed told us that an Infinite Substance is that which hath no Bounds or Limits but did you think you then gave us a Definition of an infinite Substance No you are a Wiser Man than so or than to hope that the Construing of a Word would pass with any but Children and Fools for a Definition of a thing But suppose Sir that I were so Easy as to accept of Boundlesness and Unlimitedness for a Definition or Description of Infinity yet I should Ten to One put this Question whether an Easy one or no What is the Infinity of a Substance You will not say this is an Easy Question because Answered already viz. That the Infinity of a Substance is the Boundlesness thereof for you know you must tell us what a Substance is before you can make us the Wiser by discoursing upon Infinite Substances Or the Infinity of a Substance If you will now be defining this Thing Called Substance by certain of its Properties I cannot for bear Proceeding to ask What is the Subject of these Properties Or What is Substance Considered abstractedly from all Accidents If you tell me it is something that doth Substare Accidentibus and needs no Support it self I must be Satisfied with this Answer since I know you will not Attempt to give a better But however I will not be discouraged from Asking on a while longer tho' you should give me the Proverb for my Pains And this Question next Occurrs viz. Since an Insinite Substance is something that hath no Bounds must it not reach to all the dimensions of Infinite Space which you were up with in your 68th Section One might be tempted to think that after you had said absolutely as you did Sect. 57. There can be no Bound or End of what is Infinite you will grant this for if it were Extended through the length and breadth of a Million of Worlds if there be so many this would not speak it to have no Bound or End since all these Worlds put together will not fill a Boundless Space But then I ask what is Space Or to speak a little Learnedly What is the Ratio formalis of Space And you have a ready Answer for me viz. 'T is Vacuity or Emptiness Then demand I What kind of thing is Emptiness And you have an Answer at hand to this too viz. 'T is an Imaginary thing And when I have asked What is a mere Imaginary thing I am much mistaken if a Man of your Head-Piece will in the least hesitate at Replying A mere Imaginary thing is a real Nothing And then Sir This is your Disinition of an