t*^ %^ ^•, ;.;•■■ -^nt 'fim^^^ "T-*0fl -•^\ .-i'. ^. ^^Kl'"''>-ft: ^'^: /^i.^ ■■-:.'»■ ^^■;V LIBRARY PRl.\€ETOX, K. J. DONATION OV S A M L" E 1. A a N K W , • ^ 11 K V H 1 I. \ 11 t 1. P H 1 \ . P A . L'^/ter No. i_ , ^a^ JjJc^^^f COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE $ LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY tl d vv a \ \ r Second Defence O F TH E By which the DOCTRINE of the Holy 1 rinit Is fo Explained, according to the Ancient Fathers^ As to rpeak it not ContradiBory to Natural Rcafon. In ANSWER to A Dcmian ^'h^/r w '^ In a LETTER to a Friend. Together, With a Third Defence of thofe Propo- ficions, in Anfwer to the Newly publifhed Reflexions^ contained in a Pamphlet, Entituled , A Letter to the Reverend Clergy of Both Zfniverflties. 'Botft bp tfte ^wWm of tfiofe p^oporttianss* Lo«^o«,Printed for B.Aylmer at the Three Pidgeons in Cornhil^ 1 6y 5 E R R AT J. PAge i6. Line 27. dele ii, P. 20. 1. 23. for doth read do. P. 32' I. 22. for tbdt proceed from the Sun r. that proceeds, without the Sun. P. 33. I, 9. for Pooeeed r. Proceed. P. 37. 1. 3. for Stages r. Stage ). 1. 5. for Soul ) r. Souls. p. 46. 1. 17. for Incorporal r. Incorporeal. P. 49. 1. 1« for rfcw r. do. THE PREFACE. TH^ ^ropofttions relating to the DoEirin of the H. Trinicy, were hut Twenty-one when the Manufcript mentioned in the Title- Page, wd^ writ ctgamfl them : !But all the Twenty eighty which Jince came out^ are implyed in them, ^nd I acknowledge that thofe Written Tapers occajloned my making themfo many 7nore^ to put the Explication more out of danger of MifconHt-uFtion. There is likewife fome difference in the Wording of thofe T'^entyone and the Title, and two or three fmall Additions^ hit the Sence of both is ExaBly the fame. Thofe I drew up in Compliance yi^ith a gentleman of m great Worth as Oualityj who requefled me to give him in Writing the Sen:e^ he once heard me Affirm to he the m-)ft Ancient^ of this Grand Article of our Faith \ and in my Opinion Incomparably Tref err able to the Later Hypothefes, Ani falling into this Method ^ of Expreffmg^ Clearings and Confirming the Fathers Notion of the Tri- nity, by Tropoftcions^ I delivered, when I had finip^ed thmy a fair Copy of them to that Gentleman, and gave my foul one to a Friend^ who needed SatisfaBion about this Great Toint, A I This The Preface. This ^er/otiy fome time after ^ hrought me from 4 Socinian Jcquaintance of his^ an Jnf'fi?er to my Papery Concealing his Name from me : and I fent him my Thoughts of his Performance ^ as foon as my Occafons Muld permit me to Conjider it ; which are contained in the next following Defence. Only in what I now TuMiJhy I abridge a little in a few places of "^hat I Ti^rit^ nor is there any other Con/tderahle Alteration, Jnd as I Printed not more than an Hundred Copies of ^k Piopofitions, till I (^eplydtotheAtiCvJcrtothem^ a while fince ^uhlifh'd by Another Sand ; So the mw Coming Abroad of 1 Wis Jnf^er J is Solely Occajtott'd by the I^ew Reflections. Sut. if it be thought no fair dealing wiih my Mver- Jary, that 1 Jo not fuhliji? alfo his TaperSy I have this to Say J I have them not to VuHtfhy but returned them at His dejire^ who brought them to me, not thinking it worth the "Vphile to take a Copy of them ^ fince 1 had not then a Thought ofeVer Printing my ^epfy. ^ut if I haVe played any Tricks in Vranfcribing what Unimaivert upon (which is theSubflanceoftheWl^ole) hcth my Adyerfary and his Friend ar^ able to let the World be Acquainted with them, !Btit I Abhor fuch 'doings. The The Twenty Eight ^ropojttions, I . ^' ^ ^HE Name of God is ufed in more Sences than one in I Holy Scripture. ■ 2. Tlie moft Abfolutely Perfed Being, is God JL in the higheft Sence. 3. Sclf-ExtJienceh2Pevk£tion, and Teems to be the Highefl of all Perfedlions. 4. God the Father alone, h in reference to His Marnier of ExL y?fwce an Abfolutely PerfcLlBeing jbecaufe He alone is Self~exiftent, 5. He alone, confequently, is abfolutely Perfecl, in reference to thofe Perfections, which do prefuppofe Self-Exillence. 6. Thofe Perfedtions are Jbjoliite Jndqcudoice^ and Beirg the Fp-fi Ori^i?.\z' of all other Beings : In which the Son and the //o/y Gho/t are comprehended- 7. All i'Vj'i>^rMA;jdoacknowledg,That thefeTwoPerfonsare from God the Father. This is affirmed in that Creed which is cal- led the Nicency and in that which falfly bears the Name of ^Itha-. nafius : tho* with this difference, that the ^oly Ghofi is afferted in them? to be from the S0/2 as well as from the Father, Wherein the Greek Church differs from the Latin. 8. It is therefore a flat Contradidlion, to fay that the Second and Third Perfons are Self Exiltent. 9. And therefore it is alike Contradictious, to affirm tliem to be Beings Abfolutely Perfect in reference to their Manner of Exificfice ; and to fay that they have the Perfedions oi Ahfolitte Independence ^2LXidi of being the Firfl Originals of all thvigs, 10. Since the Father alone is a Being of the moft Abfolute Perfedion, He having thofe Perfedions which the other Two Perfons are uncapable of having ; He alone is God in the Abfo^ lute Higheft Sence- 11. And therefore our bleffcd Saviour calls ///>^ TheOfiely True God^ Joh- 17. 3. J^ his is Life Eternal-, to know I hee the cnely True Gcd^ and Jeffis Chrifi, whom Than bafi fent. And it is molt Abfurd to think, That in thefe Wordsjand the following Prayer, He did addrefs himfelf to the Three Perfons of the Trinity conjundly, fince throughout the Prayer He calls this Oaely IrueGod his Father ; and calls Himfelf twice His 5-;^/, before thefe Words. Not to mention the Abfurdity of making our Lord to pray to Himfelf, or of diftinguifliing Himfelf from thofe Three, of which Himfelf was One. If fuch a Liberty as this, in interpreting Scripture, be allowable? what Work may be made with Scripture ! i a. Proportions^ &c. •12. Our Lord calls the Father, The Onely True God^ becaufc He only is Originally^ 2nd oi t/t»iftlf God, and the Firfl: Origi- nal of all Beings whatfoever- As he calls him the Onely Gcody faying, There is none Giod but G >d^ becaufe He alone is Ongu n-dly To, and the Spring of all that Good which is in other Beings. 13. The God head, or God in thisHigheft; Sence, can be but One Numtrically. Of which che bell Phi lofophers were facis-fied by their Keafon \ and th-erefore the Onenefs fo frequently affirm- ed ot Him in Scripture is a Nnmerical Onenefs. 14. Iherefeems to bs neither Contradiftion, nor Abfurdityj in fuppofing the Firft Original of all things, to be produftive of other Beings fo PerfecT;, as to have all Perfections, but that of Self-Exiftence, and thofe which are neceflarily therein implyed, 15. Suppofing any fuch Beings to have immediately iflued forth from that infinite FuUnefs, and Fcecundity of Being, which is in the Deity, each of them mult have a Right to the Name of G"!?^, in a Sence ^^eA-f to that in which it is appropriated to the father ; fince they have all the Perfedions of the God- hedd^ but thofe that muft of Neceflity be peculiar to Him. 16. It is evident from i\it Holy Scripture, That the Son and Boly Spirit ^xzf^tch Beings, I'iz.. That they have ail Divine Per fedl ions but the forementioned : Such as Vnhmited Power-, IVifdomy Goodnefs, &c. 17. And they are always fpoken of in Scripture, as Difiinll Beings or Perfons^ according to the Proper Signification of this Word, both from the F^tther and from Each Other. Nor are ib many Men or Angels more exprefly difl:ingui(hed as different Perfonsor Subftances, by our Saviour or his Apoftles, than the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft ftill are. 18. It is a very prefumptuous Conceit, That there can be no way but that oi Creation, whereby any thing can be immediately and onely from God, which hath a diftinft Exiftence of its own. Or, That no Beings can have Exigence from Him, by way of NcceJJ'ary Ema/^ation : Of which we have a Clearer Idaa than of Voluntary Crcution. It is the Word of the Ancients both Fathers and Philofophers ^ nor can a better be found to ex- prefs what is intended by it, 'viz.. A more excellent wayofex- ifting,, than that of Creation. 19. it is no lefs prefumptuous to Affirm, That it is a Con- tradidion to fuppofe. That a Being can be from Eternity from God the Father, it 'tis pofllble it may be from Him, in a more Excellent Way than that of Creation- And we have an llluftration of ?ropofitions\ &c. of both thefe Propofitions,by fomething in Nature. For, according toourVulgar Philorophy,Z./^k doth exiftby necefTaryEmanation from the S«;7,and therefore the Sun was not before the Light which proceeds from thence, in Order of 2^/>«e,tho' it be in Order of Na^ tftn before it. And the Diftindlion between thefe Two Priorities, is much Elder than Thomas Aquinas^ or Teter Lombard^ or any 5c/^oo/' ^77^/; of them all, or Chriftian-man txihtv. 20. And if any thing can be from another thing by way of Necelfary Emanation, it is fo far from a Contradiction to fiip- pofe, that it mufl: only be in order of nature before it ; that 'tismofl apparently a Contradiction to fuppofe the contrary. 21. Our i8th. and ipth- Propofitions do fpeak our Expli- cation of the H. Trinity, to be as contrary to AriAnifm as to Sociriiamfm •, fince the Ariansz^txi^ That there was at leafl: a mo- ment of time, when the Son was not •, and that He is a Creature. 22. Akho'we cannot underftand, liow it fhould be no Con- tradiflion to affirm, That the Three Perfons are But One Niimt- rical Being, or Subftance ; yet hath it not the leafl fliadow of a Contradiction to fuppofe, That there is an unconceivably clofe and infeparable Vmon both in Will and Nature between them. And fuch a Union may be much moreeafily conceived between them^ than can that Union which is between our Souls and Bodies ; fince thefe are Subftances which are of the mofl unlike and even Contrary Natures. 23. Since we cannot conceive the Firfl; Original of All things, to be more than One Nmiertcally ; and that we acknowledg the now mentioned Union between the three Perfons, according to the Scriptures, together with the intire dependence of the two latter upon the Firfl Perfon, The Unity of the Deity is, to all intents and purpofes, as fully alTerted by us, as it is neceflary or reafonable it fhould be. 24. And no part of this Explication, do we think Repugnant to any Text of Scripture •, but it feems much the Eaficfl way of Re- conciling thofe Texts which according to the other Hypothefes? are not Reconcilable, but by offering manifefl violence to them. 25. The Socinians mull needs Confefs, that the Honour of the Father, for which they exprefs a very Zealous Concern, is as much as they can defire taken care of by this Explication. Nor can the Honour of the Son and Holy Spirit be more Confulted, than by afcribing to them all Perfections, but what they cannot have, without the moft apparent Contradiction afcribed to them. 26. And PropofithnSj &c. iv 26. And wc would think in impoffible, that any Chridian Ihould not be eafily perfwaded , to think as honourably of his Redeemer and Sandtitier as he can? while he Robs not God the Father for their Sake ; and offers no Violence to the Sence and Meaning of Divine Kevelacions, nor to the Reafon of his Mind. 27. There are many things in the Notion of C>//e 6W, which all Hearty Ik/y?J will acknowledg neceflary to be conceived of Him, that are as much above the Reach and Comprehenlion of hu- mane UnderllandingSjas is any part of this Explication of the M Trinity. Nay, this may be affirmed, even of the Notion ofSrif- Exiftence \ but yet there cannot be an^thcifi Co lilly astoquerdon it: Since it is not more Evident, that One and Two do make fhyte, than that there could never have been afiy ^/?7>?^5if there werenoE Something which was always, and never began to be. 28. LtQ: Novelty fhould be Objeded againll this Explication, and therefore fuch fhould be prejudiced againfl' it,as have a Vene- ration for Antiquity, we add, that it well agrees with the Account which feveral of the Nicem Fathers,evcn AthanafMu himfelf,and others of the Ancients who treat of thisSubjedtjdo in divers places of their Works give of the Trinity : as is largely (liewed by two Dt.Cui- ^gj.y Learned Divines of our Church. And had it not been for the and Dr. ^'^'^^ool-me/i^to whom Chrillianity is little beholden,as much as fome 3ull. ' Admire them, we have reafon to believe that the U orld would not have been troubled fincethe fall o{ Jrtamfm^w'iih fuch Contro- verfies about this great point,as it hath been and continues to be. This Explication of the B Trinity perfedly agrees with th^Ni- cene Crecdy as it Hands in our Liturgy, without offering the leafl Violencetoany one Wordinit- Which makes our Lord Jefus Chrift to be from God the Father by way of Emanation ; affirming Him to be Cod of God^ vtry God of very God^^nd Metaphorically ex= preffing it by Light of Light •, anfwerably to what the Author to the/^t4reipj faith of Him,<^fc. I • 3. 'Z'*^. That He is 'A-Tmuj^iT/ou^: o^ ^6^n%^The Ejfiilge/icy of his Glory^zwd ya^-KTii^ 'V vsro?c?'crECo^ aufS, The CharaUer ef his S^thfii^nce : And fo is as much Of one Subjiance with the Fat her ^zs the Beams of the Sttn are wii h the Body of it. And fince there have been of late fo many Explications or Ac- counts PublilTied of this moft Adorable Myftery, which have had little better Succefs than making Sport for the Socinians^l thought it very Seafonable now to Revive Th^t^ which 1 affirm with great AHurance to be the moft Ancient one of all ; much Elder than the Council of Nice •, and to have much the feweft Difficulties in it, and to be incomparably raoft agreeable to /i/. Scripture, to The Defence, &c. Have perufed your Friends Anfwer to the Paper I put into your hand, and here hope to give you a (atisfac^ory Reply to it. I ihall difpatch his Preface in a ^q'W Words. He faith, that The Trinitarians have in Vain tryed their Strength againfl their Adverfaries. And there's no doubt of it, if their Adverfaries may be Judges. As to his faying, that The Fanquifhed Vigors are (viz. among the Trinitarians ) for each buys his yi^ory with the lofs of his own Explanatory Hypothefis ; I confe(s I have that foft place in my Head^ which in his great Modefty he faith our Education has given us, that difables me to underftand the Sence of that faying : And am incUned to think, that the inverfion thereof would have been Let- ter Sence, how true foever it would have been, viz. The Victors vanquifhed are ; fince it follows, for each buys his Vi^ory^ &c. And whereas he faith, That in their Vni- tartan Tra^s^ they have thrown a ft one of Contention among the Trinitarians y and this fi one has committed them among themf elves : To pa fs by the Conceitednefs of this latter Phrafe, and the Pasdantry of affeding to fpeak Englifh in Latin Phrafes, found they never fo untowardly, I may I hope without Offence tell him, that neither are the So- cinians at a perfedl Agreement in their Notions: As particularly in that Queftion relating to the H. Ghofl^ viz. Whether He be a Perfon or no; or a meer Divine Vis A or CO or Energy : The Followers of Mr Biddle aflertlng Him to be a Perfon, viz. an dngel. Nor need I tell him what a Controverfie hath been among them , about the Ado- - r ability of our B. Saviour; wherein they are not of a mind yet, and I doubt never will be. And many more difagreements in their Opinions, may be inftanced in, if I cared to go on upon this Topick. But what tho' the Trinitarians differ in fome Particulars, in their Explica- tion of the Trinity^ fo long as they agree in the main Suh- ftance > I mean, what if they differ in Certain Notions relating to this Dodrine, wherein the H. Scriptures are Silenty fo long as they are agreed in what the Scriptures Exprejlyfay of it, or of any One of the Perfons of which the Trinity confilteth ? And they AH agree in giving Di- vine Perfedions to each of them ; which the Scriptures moft exprefly do. And in affirming them confequent- ly to be each of them God, which alfo they believe the Scriptures affirm them exprefly to be. And farther they agree in believing them to be one God ; tho' they are not all agreed in what /d-Wi? they are on£; nor in the Notion of the Word Ferfon, as relating to them ; nor in their Opinion about ufing that Word. But if any of them have fuch a Value for their own Explications, as to h^ fever e upon fuch as diflcnt from them in any of the lejs certain Parts of them, I will not, I cannot, Apologize for this. And now, Sir, I follow your Friend from /?/j own preface, to my Tapers Title, which is this: An Expli-- cation of the Do&rine of the Trinity in Certain Fropofi^ tions-i which Jpeak it to he Agreeable with Natural Rea- fon, and therefore intelligible, tho not Qomprehenfihle hy mr Jhallow Capacities. And here he is plea fed to exclaim fome what Tragi- cally, againit my diftinguifhing between Intelligible, and Com* CO Comprehenfthie. 1 am, faith he, perfedly Amazed at this his DiHMton. I will not iay, that 1 arn A mailed at his Amazement, but it feems fome^hat jhange to mc, that F'tr^, He fliould call this my Didindtion, when I Ihould think he hath heard and read it a thoufand times ; Since there is no Diftindion more common. And therefore, Secondly, That he Ihould be Amazed, my per- fetlly Amazed at it. And Thirdly That he Ihould be To, iox foch a Reafon as this that follows, t'/z. Jhat which makes a Doflrine uyiintelligihle, is its difagreeahlenefs te Reafon ,- therefore if the Do^rine of the Trinity be not dif- agreeahle to Reafon, neither is it unintelligihle ; and if it he not unintelligihle, neither is it incor/iprehnifhle, I Anfvver, That I think the Ohfcure Exprejftng a Doc- trine may alfo make it Vnintelligihle : But this his Rea- fon may be Exprefled in thefe fewer words, 2 am perfe^- ly Amazed at this Mans dijiin^ion let we en Intelligihle and Comprehenfthie, hecaufe they ought not to he diflinguifhed : Or, as he adds, hecaufe they are Synonimous, and fignify cne as much as the other. But fure your Friend cannot think, I fhould have fuch an Opinion of a Perfed^ Stranger, as to be Satisfied wiih his hare Word for this. He is Perfectly Amazed at my diftinguifhing betwixt Intelligihle and Comprehenfthie : I ask Why ? He Anfwers, becaufe they Ought not to be diftinguilhed. But I am fo Impertinent as to ask again, Why they ought not? And he (o Magiflerial, as to let me have no other Anfwer than, I fay they ought not. But he needs not be told. That tho' thele two u ords 2lXQ fometimes ufed in the fame fence, yet not always; but have moft frequently different Significations. Com- prehenfihle always implyes Intelligihle ; but Intelligihle is found Innumerable times , not to imply Comprehenfi' hie. And therefore Comprehenfihle is taken either in a A X La- [4] Larger^ or a Strifier Sence: And in nty Dijiiniliony as he calls it, 'tis taken in the Strider^ as for the mofl Tart it is. Even his Di^ionary will tell him, that Com* prehendert fignifies fomething, that Intelligert doth not. And according to the woji Proper Acceptation of the word, there is as much difference between thefe two, as there is, between Seeing a thing and \o6\img through it* or Vnderflanding it , and Compk'atly Underftanding, it, and having an Adequate Preception of it. And indeed^ if your Friend had Learnt Socrates his firji Lejfon^ he would acknowledg himfelf fo fhort-jighted a Mortal, as, tho' he UnderHands many things, not to be able to Com- prehend the mofl Ohvtous ones. He would acknowledg that in this State, things are only to be Underftood by their Properties^ and certain Modes, and that the Naked Ejfence neither of a Spirit nor of a Body is known to us. In fhort, had I diftinguifhed between Intelligible and Apprehenfihle, your Friend might have had more Caufe for Amazement. Next he faith, That the Inc^mprehenfihility of God Him- f elf imply es no more, than what the Apoftle Exprejfeth^ when he faith. His ways are paft finding out • ive cannot under (land them, that fignifies as much as, we cannot Com- prehend them. Now it is my turn to be Amazed ; at leaft this Sentence muH: be greatly Surprizing to more Heads, than thofe that have ( like Trinitarians ) a foft place in them. For, Firfl, Who hath fb hard , or fo large a Head, as to find only the Ways of God incomprehenfible to him? As to be able to Comprehend Gods Nature and Glori- eus Attributes'^. Second, If Comprehending mud needs be no more than Vnderjlanding, there cannot be a Propofition lefs //-//^ than ibis^ That we cannot Comprehend Gods Ways'^ for Man- kind kind is Capable of Vnierjianding them, Or G O D Al- mighty would never have appealed to the Jews as He did, about the E(iuity of His Ways. And therefore when the Apoftle faith, Hh ways are pafl finding out , his mean- ing muft be, they are not to be Comprehended by us, in our fence of the word : We cannot Grafp, or Fathom them ,- they are of too great a Depth for us to dive to the Bot- tom of them. And now^ S\r^ I believe you are fufficiently Prepared to Wonder^ if not to be Amazed at this following Saying of your Friend, viz. It were a very hard thing, that a Law fhvuU he pajfedy pojlnate to a Crime., on purpofe for the taking off one particular Offender -^ and 'tis as Knreafonahle., that a Diflin^ion Jhould be Coyned Quiz, this between In- teiligihle and Comprehenfihle) purely for the fervice of a particular My fiery ; and when that is done, can he of no fur- ther ufe, unlefs new Myfteries were to he Created. And I Appeal to your felf as much as you may be byaHed by Affection to your Friend, not only whether All he hath faid about this Diftin(5lion, be not unaccountably flrange, butlikewife, whether I have not given a more thznjuf- ficient Anfwer to the Requeft he makes me in thefe words : Ignorant, or Vnthinking People, may he Cheated rvith an Empty verbal difiin^ioriy hut fince A. T. (by which Letters he all along decyphereth me, and I un- derftand he means by them the Anonymous Trinitarian) offers his Explanation to fatisfte men that are Knowing, as well as Religious, Scholars as well as Chriflians, J mufi heg him to affign the diffennce between thefe two words, Intel- ligible and Comprehenfihle. And he guefleth what Anf^ wer I will make, in thefe words ; / am apt to think that he will tell me, we can well undetfiand that this Frdpofition is trH% Three are One; but we cannot underfland the Manner how Three Jhould be One : And then makes this Reply CO Reply upon me, Mow he might as well [ay ^ we comprehend the truth of this Propofitiotij hut tve do not mderfland the manner-^ hut then what becomes of his Di/lin^ion> But he might have faved himfelf the pains of putting words into my Mouth, and then Replying upon them : For you have (een he is much out in his Guefs what I would Anfwer,- and if he were not, I fliould be content to be told that I have more than One Jo ft place in my Head. For what iliould ayl me to offer at an Explication of the Do^rine of the Trinity^ agreeable with Natural Reafon, if I did Think what he would have me Say, That 'tis impoiTible to underfland the Manner how Three fhould he One > And now he faith, He will take his leave of my Title^ with thefe two Propofitions. 1. Three are One , is not true in a fence that is dif agree' able to Reafon ; and the fence of a Propofition that is not d if agree able to Reafon is Intelligible and Comprehenfihle. To which he muft needs, by this time, expeA this Reply, It is Intelligible, but 'tis not therefore Compre- henfihle. 2. He that under/lands the Truth of a Propofition^ un- derflands the manner in which it is true ; and he ivhich does not underfland the manner in which a Propofition is true , does not underfland the Truth of a propofition^ hut takes it on Authority, This Propofition of his is word- ed very oddly y I cannot make better fence of it, than by thus expreiling it .- He who ajfents to the Truth of a Pro- pofition, underftands the fence in which it is true ; hut he that does not underfland the fence^ does not ajfent to a Pro- pofition^ hut ajfents to it upon Authority. Now the former part of this Propofition is fence, but nothing to the pre- fent purpofe ; but the latter is neither to the purpofe nor fence ; as I need not inform you. And now, Sir, your Friend [7] Friend is at length come to my Tropofuions. As Prop. I. Go^ is a Being Ahfolutdy Perfe^, To this he faith All Theifls agree it. Prop. 2. That Being which wants any one Per feci io»y can- not he Ahfolutely Perfel}. That is, in the jlriheft fence of that Phrafe, as I afterwards explained my felf. And he (aith, that this Propofition is felj-evident ; as who fees not that lo it is ? But his Confequence is fo far from being fOjthat it is a falfe one, viz. Therefore our B. Saviour is not God^ hut in a Metaphorical fence^ &c. But had he had but a httle Patience, he might quickly have fecn, that not- withltanding Our Lord is not Self-Exiflent ^ there is no neceflity of his being God only in a Metaphorical Sence. Prop. 5. Self-Exiflence is a PerfeBion, and feems to he the Highefl ; it heing an Ahatement of any other Per- feHions Great nefs and Excellency^ tho in it felf Bound- lefsf not to he Originally in Him who hath it, hut deri- vatively. To this he faith. That Self-Exijlence does not cnlyfeem, hut is the Highefi Perfe^ion. This he might perceive I could have told him, as well as he me ; but 'tis no fault to exprefs our felves a httle Modedly, tho' he all along feems to be of another mind. But whereas he here raith,that Creatures P erf eH ions are improperly fo Called, with refpe^ to the Creatures ; as he afterwards found, I by no means acknowledg, either the Son, or H. Ghofl to be Creatures, fo we have only his word tor ir, that the Perfe^ions of Creatures are improperly fo called with refpe^ to them. Prop. 4. God th Father alone {Jtrid,ly fpeaking ^ is a Being Ahfolutely Perfe^, btcaufe he alone is Self Exiftent ; and ail other Beings, even the Son and Holy Ghoft are from Him. This All Trinitarians do acknowledg , and is Afferted hoth in the Nicene Creed, and that which hears the Name of Athanafius. This [8] This Propofition too mufl needs Jown with your Friend, but he Ukes not the Parenthefis, Strt^ly Speak- ings and faith he is very fufpicious of if, not that he thinks A. T. inftrted it to help a Caufe off the Weaknejs, tvhereof he \vas Jealous, hut jet to make his Scheme the more Ac- count able, I thank the Gentleman for being fo Modefl in this Wipe ; but he could not wonder, had he read to the enci of my Proportions before he Entred on his Ani- madvcrfions, that I (hould here infert the forefaid Pa- renthefis. For I doaifirm the Son and H. Ghoft to be Abfolutely Perfedly Beings, in reverence to the Perfedi- ons of their Nature ; that is, that they are all BounMefs and Infinite-, and that they h^VQAll perfedions they C^« iiave, without a Contradidion ; and thofe are all but Self Exifienccy and what neceflarily follows upon it, wz. Being the Firji Original of All things ; and 1 add too Ai>' folute independence. But more of this anon. The Four next Propofitions, he hath no Controver/y with me about. But now, Sir, Comes a Propofition that makes your Friend tearingly Angry, viz. Prop. 9. A Being which hath all the Divine TerfeHi* ons, that are Capable of being Communicated, may he pro- perly faid to he Effentially God, upon the account of thofe Perfeliions ; or to he indued with the Divine Nature, This he calls a Grofs Propofition^ hecaufe it Contradi^s^ not only Common Sence and Reafon, hut even all that A .T. hath Advanced, This is, Sir, a Heavy Charge, but wc mud ivait a while before he makes it out, that This Propofition is Contradidtory tc Common Sence and Rea- fon-, for he thus goes on: He had advanced , that God is a Being Abfolutely Perfetl : That a Being which wants dny one PerfeBion^ can not be Abfolutely Perfeti : That Self^ Self- EsiHence is the Higheft Perfe&ion : That fefus Chriff and the H. Gho^t are not Self - Exiftent : That they depend on God the Father : That God the Father is the Original ( he ihould have faid the Firfi Original ) of all things : And that He can be but one Numerically, He ihould have faid, that God, in this Highefi of Sen- ces^ can be but one Numerically. And now he faith, that Point- blank againfi all thiSy A. T. affirms that a Be- ing which IS not Abfolutely Ferfed;^ which wants Self Ext- fience^ which wants the Highefi Perft^ton^ which derives it felf from God, which depends on God the Original of all things^ who is but one Numerically, may be Properly faid to be Eflenrially God, upon the account of fome Per- fe^ions {for two it feems are not Communicated ) or to be indued with the Divine Nature, Now, Sif what d Multiplying of words is here! Which wants SelfExiflence, Which wants the HigheH Perfe&ion, Which derives it felf from Gcd; as if thc/e three were more than One thing: Tho I had no fuch ExprelTion neither as, derives it felf from God. And he is a Jittle Injurious to me too, in repreienting me as Saying, that the Son and Holy Gholt have on\y fome Perfedions, not- withftanding the following Parenthefis; whereas he knows he ought to have reprefented me as faying, That they have all that are Capable of being Communicated ,- which are all but Self-ExiHence^ and what is neceffarily there- in Implyed. And I fay, that this'is not Capable of being Communicated, becaufe there is not a more Grols Contradiction, than to fay it is. But how is this Proportion Point-blank Contrary to my foregoing ones? This Queftion he Anfwers by Ask- king Queftions. For he next faith, he mufl nfake bold to ask me thefe following Queflions : And I will anfwer them, as well as I can, as he asks them. B Queft. Queft. I. Doth the Divine Nature Comprehend all Per- fe^ions ; or can it n^ant one or two of the Chief efl^ md beflill the fame Divine Nature > I Anfwer, that the Divine Nature doth Comprehend 4// Perfedions ; hut Self Exiftence is a Perfedion, rela- ting immediately to the Fathers Exigence; not to His Nature or Eflcnce; it fpeaking the molt Excellent Man- ner of Exifting peculiar to Himfclf. Even as ^dams Coming into Being by Gods immediate Creation, fpeaks not the Humane Nature in him, a different Nature from that of his Pojlerityy tho it fpakes his Perfon to have an Excellency above all that have come inro the World by Ordinary Generation: And as the Humane Nature of our B. Saviour is not of a different kind from other Mens, becaufe he came by it in a Supernatural way, fo, I fay, God the Fathers Exiftence being without a Caufe, doth not make him to have another fort of Nature, from that of the Son and H GhoH ; which may be a Necefia* ry Nature, and Uncreated, and be Conftituted of all th€ Boundlefs Perfeftions, of which the Nature of the Fa- ther Confifts ab(lraa:ed from the Confideration of the manner of His Exiftence, notwithftandmg whatsoever your Friend can Objed againft the Pollibility thereof: And notwithftanding any thing I have faid in my firft 8. Propofitions, this may be allerted, without danger of being caught at Contradi(!^ing my felf ; as I hopeyou'l be Convinc't Anon. And now for his next Queftion. X^ueft. 2,. Can the Divine Nature he Communicated f 9 a Beings when lefs than all P erf eSi ions are Commmicated to it > I Anfwer, that if you I read again what I have /aid to the Former Queftion, you will find there fiecds no ©ther Anlwer to this. But I muft bknac the wording of this this Queftion, becaufe it feems to fuppofe Prac Exidcnt Beings to which the Divine Nature is Communicated. Whereas the poiTibility of the Exigence of other Beings from God the Father, which have the Perfections of his own Nature, is that which is to be underllood by the ^mmunkahlenf^fs of thofe Perfediions. Quell. 3. Can a Being that depends on God^ he properly faid to he Ejfentially that God, on whom it depends i I Anfwer, that fuch a Being can be properly faid ta be Eflentially that God in one fence, but cannot in ano- ther, i. e. It can have an Eflence of the fame i/W, tho* not the fame Numerical one. Quell. 4. C^n a Being that diflinguijheth it felf from the Only True God, he properly faid to he Ejftntially that Gody who is the Onely True God^ and hut one Numerical' ly? I Anfwer, that becaufe he loves needlefly to Multiply Quedions, I am not obHged fo to Multiply Anlwers. And this being the felf- fame with the other Queflion, I have given my Anfwer to it. And now I hope the Gen- tleman may be fatisfied of the true reafon of my Pa- renthefis in the ^th. Propofition ; Namely, becaufe the Son and H. Ghofi may be Abfolutely f^erlcft as to their Nature^ abftra<5ted as I faid from the Confideration of ihe manner of their Exiftence; wherein yet they may be faid infinitely to Excel even Arch- Angels: Thefe Ex- ifting by voluntary Creation, but thole by NccefTary E- manation : Which is the Word of the Ancients, and I cannot find a hetter, to Exprefs what is intended by it, viz, a more Excellent manner of Exiftence , than that of Creation. Which Thoufands of Perfons, no whit in- feriour to the greateft Mailers of Reafon, the Socinians can boll of ( both Ancient and Modern, Divines and Phi- lofophcrs ) have not thought deferves to be Scoffed at, as B 2. NoH" C'*3 Mon-fence and a Contradi£lion to Natural Reafon, as much • as.it is above the Comprehenfion thereof; and is every whit as intelligible as are many Notions relating to the DEITT^ in which all true TheiHs as well as C^ri- ftians are agreed; and alfo as are not a few relating to our own Souls, their Powers and Faculties, and th^ U- nion with, and influence upon, our Bodies; and as are innumerable Notions too relating to Material x.\\ings^ which an Experimental Philofopher cannot doubt the truth of. In the next place, Sir, your Friend faith, he deffatrs^ of hearing a wife Word anfwered to thefe Queftions , viz. the forementioned. But I will not fay, where was his Wifdom then^ when he askt them ; becaufe you will Reply, they are. however wife Quejlions^ if they ferve to Expofe the Trinitarian to whom they are put, and to make his Explication of the Docftrine of the Trini- ty down right Non-fence. But I Reply, let the Vnhyaf" y^^ Readers judge o^this; and Sir I heartily wilh,.that your Self may be one of them. And whereas he faith, that he will do what he can, ta- prevent troubling (that is my troubling} the Que fi ions, with Confufed Empty "j argon: My Anfwer is, That I think I have not at all troubled the Quejlions, whether I iliall trouble him. or no, by my Anlwering them. But I ex- ped: he will tell you , that my Anfwers are Confufed Empty 'jargon, and if he will pleafe to tell me (b, I Ihall give him no Rougher Reply than this. Sir, This is a rare demonftration, that your (elf is one of thofe Anti^ Trinitarians^ whom you Extol in the beginning of your Anfwer to my Propofitions, as having Modeflly, as well as Learnedly and Pioufly, and Strongly Impugned, the Com' monly received DoHrine of the Trinity, Cm] But how does he Endeavour to prevent my troubl- ing his Queftions, with Confujed Empty 'jargon ? He does it thus : By Ejjence^ I fuppoje he means Nature, I Anfwer, I am willing to do fo too. And, faith he, in that rejpe^ perhaps 3. Men who have the fa?ne Nature, may he proper- ly [aid to he Bjfentially one^ hut not Ejfent tally one Per- fin. I Anfvver, this may be more than a Perhaps; but he may perceive by my I'^th. Proportion (now the ix.) that I am far from thinking the 3. Perfons in the H. Trinity to be in io low a fence one as 3. Men are. But, proceeds he The Nature of the Self- Ex i (lent God^ is ahove the Nature of all Beings which proceed from Him ^ and it can not he Communicated: I Anfwer, that the in- dividual Nature of the Father, is not a Divine Nature more truly than that of the I wo other Perfons: But how does he prove that His Nature cannot be Commu- nicated? Why, faith he, we have no other Notion of the word Communicate, hut to Impart or Give ; and what one Perfon does Impart or Give, of any Effential and Sin- gular thing, that himfelfhath not, hut he hath it to whom it is given . It may he fome will Jay , Thus it is among Finite Creatures, hut the Effence of God is not of the fame Condition, &c. But as God faid to joh. Who is this that darkneth Councell hy words without knowledge ? It may be reply ed to this Man, Who is he that multiplyeth words mthout knowledge ? For it is not thus , as he pofitively aflerts, Even among Creatures. For there is not a Crea- ture that Generates another of the fame kind, but may be properly faid to Communicate its own Nature, and yet notwithftanding it foregoes not its own mdividual Nature, nor any part thereot. What a Boldnefs then is it to Affirm, that the Infinite Creator Cannot do the like ! He that Planted the Ear fhall He not hear ? And He that formed the Eye fhall not he fee .-» He that hath gi- ven C'4l given a Generative Power to the Meaneft of Creatures, or Creatures that have the loweft degree of Life, fhall not He have the Same Power Himfelf? I mean A Pow- er of doing that which may be called Generating His own Eflential Likenefs, in an inconceivably Infinitely more Excellent manner. I wiili, Sir, your Friend would well lay to heart that Old Maxim, Temere Affirman^ vel Negare de Deo Terkulojum eB. Which I will Engliih to you, who I doubt are no great Latinm^ ^Tis a danger- ous thing to affirm or deny any thing rajhly of God^ As to the little that remains upon this Propofition, it confifts of a Repetition of what / have Anfwered, and of w^hat he repeats upon the next Propofition, which I will Anfwer. And indeed. Sir, your Friend is Excel- lently good , next to Dareing Aflertions , at Repe- titions^ and faying things, that are nothing, or very little, to the purpole. But you will find Every thing, to have more or lefs fpoken to it, that is but one remove from what is nothing, but mere Words. And now to what he Animadverts on the loth. Proportion. Prop. lO. There feems to he no Contradi^ion, nor the leafl Ahfurdity in ajferting, that God is able to Communh cate Every one of His Perfe^ions^ Except tkofe of Self- Extflence^ and Being the Firji Original of all things. By the way, my meaning in thefe words, appears plainly by other following Proportions, to be this. That there is no Contradidion or Abfurdity inaflerting, Thatfuch Beings may have their Original from God the Father, as have all Perfedions but thoje ttpo ; and which indeed (as I have faid) do amount to but one. Now what laith your Friend to this> He tells us in the firll place. That for the fame reafon that thefe two are Incommunicable^ all the Other Divine Perfellions are Irkeirife fo. And whereas he alligns two Reafons,^ why God C'5] God cannot Communicate thefetwo, he faith/^r thejame Reafonsy he cannot Communicate any of His other TerfeHi- CHS. But how Egregioufly Abfurd is it, to go about to give Rea^ons^ why God cannot Communicate His Self'Exiftence, and His king the Fir ft Original of all things > Since that He cannot Communicate the(e, is a Firjl and Self-Evident Principle ; And therefore is Un- capable, as all (uch Principles are, of being demonjlra- ted ; as Every Body knows that underflands, What a Fir^ and Self-Evident Principle is ; which Every one mull underftand, that can undcrftand any thing. What* foever is Capable of being proved, mull be lefs clear, than is the Argumeuc by which it is proved ,• and w^hat- foever Propolition is fo^ cannot poflibly be a Firji or felf Evident Principle ; as*' no man in his Wits does need to be informed. And therefore no fuch one will go a- bout to prove this Propofition, The fame thing can he, and not he^ in the fame Moment. And the forefaid Pro- portion is Every whit as felf-Evident as this ; and the denial thereof as iManifefl a Contradi£lion. There can- not be a greater, or clearer, Contradicftion than to fay, That God can Communicate SelfExifience-, it being to fay in other words, That God can be the caufe of that which hath no caufe. Nor than to fay. That God can make a Firii Original of All things ; fince this is to fay, that He can make a thing to be before Himfelf, and to be the Original of Himfelti For what is not (by cannot be the Firll Original of AH things. And therefore, whereas his /vr//, Rcafon, why God cannot Commu- nicate thele Ptrfetlions is, Becaufe it is a Contradict- 9n Jo to do; he might as well have fad, Tis a Conrra- dj£lion to And if a Rea- fon can be given for this, you may ask a Reafon for that Reafon; and fo in infuitum. But if it were one- ]y Contradihio in Adje^Oy I acknowledg, that becaufc fuch Contradidions are not manifefl: at ^rfi hearing, at lead to Every Body, 'tis proper to give Reafons to iliew that there are Contradidions impJyed in fuch Propofitions. But if, any man fhould ask me a Reafon, why Two and two do not make Twenty, I would bid him Go look, inftead of telhng him, that it is a Contradiction that they fhould ^ fince I had as good tell him, he has a l^ofe in his Face, and better too. But that God can make a Self-Exiflent Thing, or a Firji Original of All things, are Every jot as Evident Contradidlions, as that Two and two do make Twenty. But, Sir, your Friend faith, that, ^Tis Equally Ahfurd and Contradictious, tofuppoje more than one infinitely pow- erful, wife and Good Being. If he means by Equally Ab- furd and Contradictious as Evidently fo, fure he is the onely Man that will fay fo, nor can he think fo, fay he what he will. But how ^Qtsh& prove this? This is the Argument by which he does it, viz, infinite Tower, in- finite Wifdom and infinite Goodnefs go together, and may ■ill of them, as well as either of them, he in all Beings what- foever, as well as in more Beings than one. But what if I fay That this is as much needs to be proved, as that which it is brought to prove? His onely Anfwer is like to be, you muH take this upon the Authority of my Lord of Canterbury. For he onely goes about to Confirm it by a paflage in His Sermon on i Tim» 2. 5-. p. 13. But I not having that Sermon by me, and he making no Marks to diftinguilh between, what is his Graces and what [17] what IS his owtty it is Enough to give him that for an Anfwer. His fecend Argument, whereby he Endeavours to prove the forementioned Self-Evidenc Propofition, is. That SdfEjciflence is indivifihle^ and Gods Self-Exijlence is necejfary ; and thenfnre if he fhould Communicate His Self-ExiHence to Another, He Himfelf jhould remain not felf-ExiHent^ which is a grofs Ahftirdity^ and a manifefi Contradi^ion. O Wonderful ! is it fo indeed ? I marvel who told him fb ,- it may be he takes this too on the Authority of fome Great Man, fince he troubles not him- idi to make it out. But there is as great a neceffity of proving this alfo, as of proving that ot which it is a Proof. And he makes this brave Argument to prove too, That In^ finite power is as incommmicahle as [elf- Exigence, and Inji' nite Wifdom andGoodnefs, lecaufe thefe are alfo indivifihle. But the Trinitarian is not fo knockt down by this Vnmer- cifttl Argument (to ufe a phrafe of his own) but that he may foon rife again. Nay, as Good luck would have it, 'tis fo weak a Blow, that he has not felt it. And 'twill be found weaker than a PufF of Breath, by that time I have askt him this one Queftion, viz. Is not alfo the indivi- dual Nature of Every living Creature indivifible ? But, as was before faid. Even the lowed Sort of them can propagate their own Nature, which is the fame thing with Communicating it; and therefore methinks it fliould not be (o great a Contradidtion to fay, that He who gave Being to thofe Creatures can do the like. Or if you pleafe, thus : 'Tis therefore no Contradiction to lay, That God the Father may be the Original of a Being, w.hich hath power to do all things pofifiblc to be done, and hath unlimited Wifdom and Goodnefs. As to tlic refl of this Animadverfion, I will not fpend one Minute fb vainly as to take notice of it; for half an Eye mult fee C it it to be nothing better than Cto give it his own Word) were Jargon. Prop. 11. It feems Evident from the H. Scriptures, That the Son and H. Spirit have all Divine Perfedions hut thofe tvDO^ fuch as Vnlimited Power, Wifdom and Good- nej's\ and Vnfpotted Purity. As to linfpotted Purity he grants, that the Scriptures do plainly ajfert it of our Saviour, 'but faith, that that is hut the Perfetlion of a Man or Angel, not an infinite Per' feflion of a God. I Anlwer, that this he onely with hisu^iial Confidence faies, but tells us not how he conies by this Confidence. But fuppofe he could demonllrate this, yet the UnTpotted Purity of the /^. G/^^7? one would think to be the Purity of ^ God, fince we are fo allured iVom Scripture, that He is the Author of all that Purity and Holinefs, which Is or Ever llvall be found in Men. And he muft have a large ilock of Confidence, who dares fay that the Purity which Excells not that of a Man or Angel, is Jufffcient to qualify a Perfon to be the Sandifier, of all that are or ihall be Sanctified. And if tlie Purity of the H. Gho(l be the Purity of a God, ] hope the Son's Purity may be acknowledg'd fo to be too: Surely thoiti ^ocini an s u ho believe the H. Ghoft to be a Perfon^ will not make him toExcell th^Son in Holinefs. Next he Cavils at my faying, that this nth. Propofi- tion *v'^f^^ Evident to me, and faith that 6>fwj and £t;/- dent, are two ivords very ill put together'^ hecauje that which doth hut (eem Evident is not really fo ; and that which is Evident doth more than feemfo. I lee, Sir, I mud 'not hope to Pleaie this Friend of yours, 1 venly thought he was about to Prai(e me for my it Seems Evident : For he faith upon it, That \^Seer/Js2 is a word that Speaks the Modefiy of an ingenuous Enciuirer after truth ; and on the Contrary, That Evident fills the mouth of a man of Con- C>93 Confidence'^ as by the way I muft tell him he knows by Experience. Yet for all this, the good Man defigned to Expofe me for my it Seems Evident; and thole two Sentences are Fleering ones, and were intended for Scoffs, But I pray him to Mock on after I have rold him that, Firfl, He knows I did not fay, it hut Seems Evident, And that, Secondly, 'Tis utterly /j//^, that that which is Evident doth more than feem fo to all Per fens. There are many Evident Truths, that to thofe who Shut their Eyes againft the Light, may not fo much as jeem fo ; and there are thofe who being fenfible of the weaknefs of their underftandings, may fay of Very Evident Truths, this or that feems or appears Evident to them. But we lliall not in hade, Sir, Catch your Friend at the Extreme of Modedy. For whatfoever feems not agree- able with his Reafon (which we have found to be a Clear and Strong Reafon indeed) mufl be immediately Contrary to Natural Reafon. And he is onely puzled at Comprehend mg Gods ways., not God Himfelf^nd his Glorious Attributes. And he can Comprehend whatfo- ever he Vnderfiands, And now follows Another of his Mudeil Sayings, viz. That this Propofition we are now upon, does not fo much as feem Evident from Scripture. And he willies / had Cited fome of the plainefl Texts to my furpoje. But he hath had Enough of thofe Cited by other Trinitarians ; many of which the Socinians lo play the Criticks upon, that fhould the jame liberty be taken as to all other Texts, which are Capable of having the fame work made with them, the Scriptures would bj made a mere Nofe of Wax. But however, methinks, the Apoftle's fo Exprefly ap- plying thofe words of the Pfalmiff to the Son of Ood, viz. Thou Lord in the Beginning hafl laid the Found a ti- ons of the Earthy and the Heavens are the work of Thine C 1 Hand Si Hands, &CC. doth at leafl: Jeem to Speak Him infinitely Powerfull. And thefame thing does feem at leafl, to be affirmed in thofe words, ColofT i. i6. ^c. By Him were all things Created^ that are in Heaven and that are in E'jrth &c. For He is hefore all things, and hy Him all things Ccnfifi. And St Peters Saying to Him, Lord, Thou that knoweft all things^ hoivejl that I love Thee, doth at kaikfeem to Speak his believing him to be in- finitely Wife, and a Searcher of the 'very Hearts of men : which is alfo Exprefly affirmed of Him by St Taul^ Rom. z. 1 6. and i Cor. 4. 5. And by our Saviour Himfelf too, Rev. 2. 13. I am He which Searcheh the Reins and Hearts, And the Apoftles laying, thatinChrift are hid all the Treafures of Wifdom and Knowledge doth fure feem at lead to Speak His Wifdom and Knowledg boundlefs or infinite. And thofe words Rom. 9. 5:. of whom as Concerning the Flep Chrifl came, who is God over All Eleffed for Evermore, do at leaft feem to Speak Him to have the Divine added to the Humane Nature. And thofe words, Colofl^ i. 9. In Him dwelleth all the Ful- nefs of the God- Head bodily: And Chrift's giving Him- felf the Title that is Proper to God, in his Saying, lam Alpha and Omega, the Firft andtheLafl, doth like wife y^fw at leaft to allert the fame thing. And fo doth God the Fa- therms faying of His Son, Let All the Angels of God wor- ship Him ; Efpecially fince it is faid, Thou Jhalt ivorjhip the Lord thj God, and Him onely fhalt thou ferve. And the fame thing feems at leaft to be imply ed too, in that Saying of Chrift, That all men (hould Honour the Son, as they Honour the Father; which is, I think, with Di- 'vine Honour ; and muft at leaft feem to this man him- felf fo to be. And what think you of thofe words which begin St Johns Gofpel ? In the Beginning was the Wordy £Hd the word rvAs with God, and the tvord was God, &c. All AS things were made by Him, &c. Compared with V. 14.' And the Word was madt Flejhy &c. Do not thefe words at lead feem to fpeak the fame thing? And Socinus his Expofition of them, would at leaft feem to be no true one (tho' there were no fuch grofs Abfurditys as the ArchBiJhop, among others, hath fhewn it to be guilty of) fince he himfclf does acknowledg, that he was the Firfl Inventer thereof, and therefore not known till a- bove Fifteen Hundred Years after the Coming of our Sa- viour. And thofe words, Ifa. 9. 6, 7. do feem at leafl: to be a Prophecy of Chriff, viz. To us a Child is horn, to us a Son is given. He Jhall he called Wonderfully Coun - fellour, the Mighty God, the Everlafting Father, the Prince of peace, &:c. Nor is it fo much as a Seeming Objedi- on, which the Socinians urge againfl: thefe words being a Prophecy, that the frjl do run in the Prejent Tenfe, viz. To us a Child is born, a Son is given, fince in that Unqueflionable Prophecy of Chrid, Ifa. 53. Several of the Pra:di£lioHs run in both the Prefent and Praterf^er- fe^ Tenfe: As He is defpifed and rejeded of Men. He hath born our Griefs. He was wounded for our Tranf^ greffions: And the like almoft in every Verfe through- out the Chapter. Nor is any thing more Common than this Enallage of Tenfes in the Hebrew Language. And their rendringthe words next following, fo as to adapt them to K. Hezekiah inftead of our Saviour, is a wonder- ful inftance of their offering violence to Texts of Scrip- ture ; for thus they read them. The Wonderful CounfeU lour, the Mighty God, the Everlafting Father, fhall name him f viz. Hezekiah) the Peaceahle Prince. And wheras it follows. Of the Encreafe of his Government and Peace there fhall he ne End; they make this to be fulfilled in Hezekiah, becau(e he reigned no iefs than Nine znd Twen- ty Years. See this in the Brief Hifiory of the Vnitm- ans fo much magnified by them, P, 20. of the 2d. Edi- tion. I have, Sir, now given your Friend a Tafte, and a tuere Taft of the plained: Texts to my purpofe, in Com- pliance with his Wijh ; and notwithdanding my feems, which he makes fuch a do with, I am as Certain as I can be of any thing of this nature, that thefe Sriptures and Abundance more, do much more xhajix feem to Con- firm the truth of this Vropofition, And as to the H.GhoH^ I need give no other Proof, of His having all the Perfedions of the Divine l>fature, than what hath bin already faid of His being the San^ifier; for fince this fpeaks Him Infinitely Pure and Holy, and I may add too, Omniprefe^t, he mud needs have.all the other, according to your Friends Ailertion, viz. That they cannot he fome in one, and feme in another^ hut mull he inftparate, and go together. And he now betakes. himfelf to Cite Texts againsi Chrifls having Unlimited PerfeQ:ions, but he gives us only^H^o; one to prove His Pomer , and the other His Wifdom to be Limited. That for the Limitedneft of His Power, is that faying of our Lord to Pettr, when he was Appre- hended in the Garden, Aiat. 2.6. 5 2,. Put up again thy Swordy &c. Thinkefi thou that I cannot now Pray unto my Father, and He fhall prtfently give me more than Twelve Legions of Angels ? But i . There is no neceflity, that it fliould be implyed in thefe words, that Chrift had not power to deliver HimfelF without Praying to His Father for the Help of Angels, or any other help, fmce Unfpeak- ably Greater Works are Recorded of Him, without any mention of His Praying for Ability to do them : And hnce he had twice before done this very work, when he was as much as now in the hands of His Adverfaries ; as may may be feen Luke/\. 30. and John 10. 39. z. Our Lord's whole Power being Originally from the Father, he, we find, took all opportunities of giving Him the Glory of whatfoever he did. 3. He now thought fit to declare in the Ears of His Enemies, how Dear He was to 6W, as much as they Hated Him. And therefore, whereas One Legion o\ Angels could have delivered Him, as well diS Twelve; niv, one Aagel^ as well as fo many Legions; yet He fairh His Father would fend Him Twelve Legions^ upon His Praying to Him; /. e. fuppofing He could Hand in need of them. 4. Our Lord did Indullrioully Con- ceal the Higheft fence in which He was the Son of God, from thole who were fo far from being Capable of then receiving that Dodrine, that He knew they would make Him fo much the greater Blafphemer upon that account. Nor would it have been fo Congruous to His State of Humiliation, tor HimCelf then to have Pro- claimed His Divinity,- but after His Glorious AfcenH- on, and (Landing the H. Ghod, according to His Promife, was the Seafon for the doing hereof by the Apoftles : As particularly St Chtyfoftom hath Ihewed, in more than one of his Homtlys. Again, Sir, your Friend Attacques Chrifts Infinite Wtf- dom, from its being faid of the Child Jelus, That He grew in Wifdom. But does he think us to have fo Soft a Place in our Heads, as to believe the Humane Nature of Chrirt: capable of all the VVifdomofthe Divinity there- to United ? No he does not, for torefeeing what Anfwer was ready for him, he (aith, If it he Re ply ed that His Wifdom as God was Infinite^ the Scripture does not fo much as feem to tell us any thing of Chriff, with didinguifhing refpe^ to a Suppojed Divine Nature^ in oppofttion to an acknowledged Humane. To pals over the Qjd Phrale \_with diflinguijhing refpe^^ what if the Scripture faith nothing Ch3 nothing of Ghrlfls having a Divine Nature in Oppofiti- Oft to His Humane, does it not therefore fo much as /eem to tell us any thing of His having a Divine Nature Ji- ftM from His Humane? That Text, ^od ivas manifejl" ed in the Flejh^ doth feem fb to do, but I will defpair of underflanding much of Scripture, if feveral of the forecited Texts do not much more than feem to do it. But I have flipped one Paflage, which 'tis Conveni- ent to take fome notice of, viz. But it may be faid, that all Tower in Heaven and Earthy is Committed to Chrifi. And he anfwers, Tes^ to fit Him to he the Great Mimjier hy whom God will Judge the World. I will interrupt him but while T tell him, I wonder it ihould not feem to him and Every Man, not only ftrange but impoflible, that a mere Man (tho' in an Extraordinary manner Con- ceived) fhouldbe a fubjed Capable q{ Receiving all Tow- er in Heaven and Earthy and of Judging the World, both Men and Angels. But he thus Proceeds, But when that Great Day fhall he over ^ that Tower ^ that Fulnefs of Tower, jhall he given up to the Great God again. And I Anfwer, To what purpofe ihould a Power (or Authority ) be longer retained, than while there is any occafion for the Exercife thereof? The Authority rela- ting to Chrifts Mediatory Kingdom mufl: Ceafe, with the Ceafing of that Kingdom it felf I did not Cite that Text among thofe I inftanced in to prove the In- finite Power of the Son of God, and indufirioufly declin- ed it upon Confidering, That Chrift fpeaks in thofe words of a Power Committed to Him, and therefore not Ejjen- tially in Him ; and that by Power here is to be under- itood Authority, and a New Authority relating to a New Kingdom. And now what hath he to fay to my ii/j^. Propofition? Prop. 1 2. [253 prop. 1%. It Is intolerable prefumption to Concludej that there can be no way befides tliat of Creation, where* by any thing can be immediately and onely from God, which hath a diftinQ Exigence of its own : Or that no Beings can have their Exigence from Him, by way of Neceffary Emanation ; fince there is a Refemblance of f uch a thing in Nature, viz, The ifluing forth of Rays from the Sun. And now fee a Rare, and as Charitable a Re- marque upon the Jirft words, It is intolerable Prefumpti^ on. There isy faith he, the very Spirit of the Church in it. Well, what ii^eans he by the very Spirit of the Church > it follows, The Spirit of Degrading and Scourg' jng ; the Spirit of Jay ling a man, and Ruining his Bufinefs ; the Spirit of Fining him, and jlarving his wife and Chil- dren : the Spirit of Burning him. and {if anger could do it) Sending him to the Devil. And inittad of lending ???e to the Devil, lie makes a very Devil of me (which is the worfe Punilhment of the two} as mighty Good as he has thought me fometimes, when he and I have had the good luck to jump in our Notions. But why mud I be luch a Devilli'h Pcriecutor merely for Ofieword^ cannot shis ^^Intolerable'] bear a more merciful interpretation ? I was very unlucky in lighting upon this Epithet, if it can- not ; for time has bin, when I could have bin a Perfecu- tor but would not (and that is more than the Socinians can fay) nor have I fince Ever Changed my mind. But I am old Enough to be aflured from my own obfer- vation. That there is no being fecure of any party, that they will never perfecute till they have been Try- ..eJ. And there is no party (the Papifts themfelves not Excepted) but hath decryed Periecution, while it hath had no Power, to Perfecute. But, Sir, I will take leave to tell your Friend, that, as great an Enemy of Perfe- xmion as he.profefleth himfelf to be, he is himfelj a Per- D fecurorj fecutor, and a pretty Fierce one too. There are more ways of Perfecuting than One, and a man may Perfe- cute with his Tongue and Fen ; and whofoever can do fo with either of thefe^ I won't be bound for him, that he will not do it with his Hand too, when he hath an op- portunity. Now he Perfecutes with his Pen, who Employs it in heavily Cenfuring his Brother without juft caufe, but fo hath he Employed it now againft me. For I meant no more by intolerable, than a mort high Prefumption ; nor did you, Sir, I dare fay, underftand it otherwife ; I will notdelcant upon his very Spirit of the Church, I am fure it ihews his Spirit (uificiently. But, Sir, I thank your Friend for the Charity he next exprefleth tow<7rds his FerfecHtor. Let us try, fayes he,, whether we can re- ftore him to himfelf, and the Spirit of Meeknefs. But if lam r^y^t^A-f*/ to that Spirit, which he cannot fay I ever lojly it mud be by one, to whom I can't reply, Phyfi- cim heal thy Self. And do you judge, Sir, whether there is more Heat in my Propofitions, or his Animad- verfions. But how will he allay the Fury I have Expref^ fed m thofe words, or rather in that one word? He at- tempts It by Saying, That the Socinians know of no other- way hut that of Creation, whereby any thing can be imme- dtately and onelyfrom God. But I did not (ay, that 'tis in- tolerable i^refumption not to know any other way, but to Conclude there can be no other. And I ftill fay, 'tis a vvonderiul Boldnels (to wave intolerable becaufe 'tis fb intolerable to him) (o to Conclude, tho* no other way Ihould be known co us. As to the way ot neceffary Emanation, he faith // is the Suppofal of a things where of we have no Idea. ^q\\, fup- poie this, is it impoffible for a thing to be, of which \ve forry Mortals have no Idea > [s God Almighty bound to l^ive us Ideas of the way and manner how any thing can be [57] be Produced by him > Or how what we know does Ex- ift is Produced ? Or to give us Ideas of Every thing that he can Produce ? Or of Every thing that He bath Produ- ced ? Sure your Friend will not dare to anfwer j^j to the two /^^/^r of thefe Qaeftions, and much lefs (then) to the two former. And if he be not So daring., with what face could heobjed againft the poHTibility of a Neceffary Emanation from God, becaufe we have no Idea there- of ? But I tell him, we have Every whit as much an Idea of I^eceffary Emanation^ as of voluntary Creation, under- flanding thereby the making of Something out of Nothing, Which Aristotle and his Followers thought an impof/i- lilityy Ex Nihilo nihil fit ; or Nothing is made out^of No" thing, being a Maxim of theirs. And therefore they held both the Eternity and Self Exiftence of the Matter of the World. And the PlatoniHs thought the Idea of Neceffary Er/ianation, at leafl as Clear as that of Creation • and the Younger Platonifts for the moft part held Hu- mane Souls to be by Such an Emanation from the Deity, and therefore to be Eternal, tho' not Self-Exijlent, But he faith, lUoX fomething fhould come from God which wants fome Ferfe^ion that God has, is AT's (that is my) Pro* digious Suppofition, under the name of Neceffary Ema- nation, And / fayy it would be a Prodigious Suppofition /«- deed, that any thing Ihould come from God, that hath the Perfection of His manner of Exiflence ; or that any thing can have it's Exiflence from Cod, and be Self- Exiflent, And now, he will difplay, he faith, the Ahfurdityand impoffihility of this Neceffary EmanatioHy in two or three Queftions ; and, I thank him, in Confideration of mj Soft flace, he himfelf anfwers them for me. (^ i. IFas God ConfiioHS to the Emanation^ Yes faith he, Elfs His nn- D ^ derffandihw Ci8] dtrflanding is not infinite, Q^ 2. Was He fenfihle of the NeceJJity > Tes again, for the (ame reafon. And I anfwer yesy yes too, though he has Excufed me. But now, when I have moft need of his help, he leaves me to an- fwer for my Self, to a dabbing Confequence from thofe ConcefTions, viz. But then it follows^ that he was deter- mined to one things and fenfihle that He was fo. I will /r^r^ too adventure to give him /w^ moreTeffes. Then, pro- ceeds he, there is fome Power above Him^ orfuch a deter- mination is the Law of His Mature ; the former, he faith, cannot he^ hecaufe God is the Supreme Being. And he would have done like himfelf, had he given us a reafon, why nothing can be above the Supreme Being. Nor, faith he, can the latter, hecaufe neither Beafon, nor Scriptnre, defcrihes God by any fuch Law. But, being aware that this is too difficult for my Brains, he tells me, he*l make the matter Plain by a Queflion. I fee he's Excellent at Queflions^ and his Queftion is this, By what Evident Principle of Reafon, or what Test of Scrip- ture, does it appear to-be the Law of an Infinite Nature^ to heget Infinite Power, Wifdom, Goodnsfs ; and that in a Being that mufl want Self-Exifience, and being the Maker of all things ? I anfwer, That if he hath any Idea of the thing called Non-fenfe, and any true mark to find it by, he cannot mifs of it in this Qiieftion. But tvho E- ver talked of the Fathers Begetting infinite Power, Wif- dom and Goodnefs in any Being; or otherwife than of His Begetting an infinitely Powerful, Wife and Good Being ? And now comes a Third Queflicn, Does the Idea of an infinitely Perfetl Being, Evidently imply the t^eceffa- ry Emanation of another Being > This Que (lion, fure, he asked for askings fake -, For he knows 1 defired to have no more granted me, than that it is not impoffible, or there is no Ahfurdity in it, That Beings may have Ex- iilcnce flence from God by way of Necellary Emanation. And now for the i v Propofition. Prop. 13. It is no lefs Prefumption to Affirm, That it is a Contradidion to fay, that a B E I N G can be from all ETERNITY from God the Father, fuppo- fing it Polfible that it may be from Him, in an higher and more Excellent way, than that of Creation; fince the Sun, tho' it is the Caufe of Light, is onely in order of Nature before it. To this he fnith, /vri?, That for one Being to le from all Eternity from the Eternal Father^ is a Contradi^ion one degree more Ahfurd^ than barely two Eternals. Not to tell him, that /have hitherto thought, that all Contradidlions are alike Abfurd; how doas he Prove this to be in any degree an Abfurd Contradiction ? He faith, that it is fo, is the moH manifefl thing in the World. If I demand a Proof now hereof, I ihould affront him, had I not already Catcht him at proving ( after his man- ner) the mojl manifefl thing in the World. But I need not demand a proof hereof , for he prefently ftts about it. And the Argument whereby he proves this mofl manijeft thing in the World is this^ We neither have., nor can have^ any notion of Proceedings or Being from Another^ hut what imply es the Proceeder who derives his Beings to he in- jeriour Che fhould have faid Pofleriour^ to that other Be- ings in order of time. In truth, 'tis a pleafant thing to fee Men all of a Piece. This is perfeQ:ly like his Ar- guing; that is. Proving /^f mofl Manifefl thing, by what is lefs manifeft; nay, this is proving it by what is ve- ry falfe. He faitii, we have no Notion of fuch a thing, and I have already told him, that a thing may never- thelefs he^ for our having no Notion of it. But he alfb faith, we can liave none; here's Confidence too like his own, but let !iim fpeak for hir^felf and not fay We; for / both can aavc,and have fome Notion of iijch a thing, and and fo may any one that pleafeth; for fuch a thing is a daily Objed of our Sight} Of which anon, after I have Confidered 2. more of his Wife fayings. The Abfurdity and impoffthillty , faith he, of deriving Exifience from God, ly a more Excellent way than that of Great iony I have al- ready made manifefi. But if any Man of fenfe be found to be lierein of his mind, I will never trull my fenfe more, in the mod Manifefl: matters. And then he fayes, / therefore Conclude, that Eternal Generation cannot he proved hy it, unkfs it can he made to appear^ that a true Motion is a neceffary Confequence ofafalfe. But, Sir, Can you think it poiTible, that your Friend iliould do fuch mighty Feats as he makes bis Brags of, fince he cannot diftinguifh between, Denying a thing to he Contradi^ious and Impojfihle, and Afferting the truth of it. And if he knows not, that the Proof of fuch a thing as Eter- nal Generation, was now none ofw^ bufinefs; and much more, if he needs to be told, that I only affirmed that there is no Contradidtion therein to Natural Reafon, 'tis hard to fay, whether he was more weak in offering to Animadvert on my Propofitions, or / in troubling my lelf with taking any notice of his Animadverfions. And now we come to the Inftance I give in this Pro- fofition, of an EfFed every whit as Old as the Caufe of it; and your Friend being come to it too, asks me Hovo I know , that the Sun is the caufe of Light ? And adds, hj the Revelation of School- Divines perhaps, not hy the Htfiory of the Bible ; for, if the Account of the Crea- tUn tnQQneCis, he to he taken in a litteral fence, that mil Convince me of a Philofophicd Err our-, for there "^tisfaid^ that God made the Light the firfl day, the Sun not till the fmrth. But, Sir, did you ever meet with fuchTriflng? Firffy Hefaithj perhaps I have learnt that the Sun is the caufe of Lightj from thi RevektioH of School 'Divines. How How well was this Flurt bellowed on me, fince he knew what a Veneration I ExprcO: for thofe Divines, in my lad Propofition? Secondly, He faith, I could not have this rare Notion, from the Hiflory of the B'lhle ; hecaufe the Book of Genefis faith, that Light was made the firfl day, and the Sun the fourth. Admirable I profefs! Sure this Man hath himfelf been dabling with the School - men, he's fb Subtil. But what if I grant him, that that Light which was Created before the Sun, the Sun was not the caufe of ? Does it follow thence, that the Sun is the caufe of no Light ? My Candle is the caufe of the Light I now write by, therefore the San is not the caufe of any Light. But whereas I humbly Conceive ( after all ) that the Sun is the Caufe of Light, I owe this my Opinion neither to the Hiflory of the Bihle, nor to the Schools, but to a certain thmg called Eye- fight; and for this Satisfadion he owes me thanks. But Thirdly, faith he, The Sun is the Caufe of Light I Ht may as well fay. The Sun is the Caufe of the Sun ; and the Light of Light ; or any thing vohatfoever is the Caufe of its own Nature. But why lo I beleech him? Are the Sun and Light the felf-fame thing? Then a Glow-worm hath the Sun in the Tayl of it. And then, the Light was not made 7,. days before the Sun, for all the Book of Genefis, But if he pleafe to give any Credit to his own Eyes, he will be tempted to ihiiik, tliat the Body of the Sun, and the Light which comes in at his Windows zxq two things. But at laft ue find him m a ^ood humour ^ tor, well then, faith he, he it gran'^ed l.im, that the Sun and the Light which proceeds from it did heg^n to Co-Exijl in the fame moment of time, hut then they cannot he the caufe of one another. But / mult be 7?/// a little Crofs, and lay, First, Fhat I v.UI not have it granted me, that they did begin to C^Ex- ilt in the fame moment, for I am latisfied to have them begin begin only to Exlfl in the fame moment. Secondly^ Nei- ther (liall he grant it to me, that therefore tliey are the Caufe of One another ; for 1 was fo reafonable as to be Content to have but o^e of them the Caufe of the other. But now he is Crofs again, and faith, That thing which is the Caufe of another^ muft he in refpe^ of Time before the other thin^, whereof it is the Caufe. In lober Sadnefs, my Friend, " he might have fpared all his other Wife talk, and only have told me this and he had done his Bufincfs. For 'tis as much as if he had fa id, Let the Sun he the' Caufe of Lights with all my hearty and let them hegin to Extfi together too, yet notwithHan- ding I would have you knowy that whatfoever thing is the Caufe of another thing mufl he in order of Time before it : And for once take my word for it. i\nd now, to my Comtort, we are Come to the Con- dufton of this Animadverfion, viz. What A. T. means ly Order of Nature, I am not fure that I can guefs, for I am not much Verfed-in School- Jargon ; yet gueffing at his meaning, I tell him. That I can no more Conceive the Sun without the Light which proceeds from it, than the Light that proceeds from the Sun, from ivhence it does proceed. J his Sentence is long Enough too, to be taken to pieces. 1 . He faith, he is not fure that he can guefs, and yet does guefs. But my School - learning tells me, that if he is lure he does guefs, he is fure he can guefs. 2. He faith, he is not much Verfed in *Sc/^^^/- Jargon, that is to fay, he is Verft in Jargon, but not in School- Jargon. And, becaufe we will part fairly I am willing he Ihouid know, that I believe both thele Propofitions. J. He faith, he is not fure that he can guefs, ivhat A. T. means hy Order of Nature. As if Priority in order of Nature, and in Order of Time were a Diflindion ot my Coyning, hke that of Intelligible, and Incon^prehenfible. I f perceive he is as great a Philofopher, as SchooJ-Divine» if he never before met with that Diftindion, which is much more Ancient than the mo/l Ancient of the School- wen, or than chrlfllanity it felf. But I'i he hath Ever met with that Diftindion before, he might have Pre- fumed, that what / mean by it, is but what other Folk have Ever meant. 4. He faith, I can no more Conceive the Sun without the Light that Pooceeds from it^ than this Light without the Sun, No nor can / neither, for I can Ferfed:Iy well Conceive them loth. I can Conceive the Su» ab(lra£t«. ly from any other Light, than what is in the Body of it; and I can Conceive too Every jot as well of the Light in my Houfe at Noon-day, abllraded from the Sun: And fo can he too, if his great Modefty would but let him think fo. But we mult not forget the laB words of this his Conclulion, viz. Thus I reckon to have done JuBice to A. 1 's. 13/^ Fropofition, not forgetting the Ap- pendent Similitude. And / reckon I have done no in]uflice to his Ani- madverfions, on this or any other of my Propofitions ; and whether he be out in his Reckoning, or / in mine, let any man of his own Chufing be judg, that has but Common- finfe Prop. 14. Thofe two Propofitions do Speak our Ex- plication of the H. Trinity, to be as Contrary to Aria- nifm as to Socinianifm ; fince the Arians alTert, that there was at leaft a Moment of time, when the Son was not, and that He is a Creature. On this he fayes nothing, that I can be Concerned to reply too, unlefs I delighted in Expofing him, for Expofings fake. Prop. 1 5". Tho* we cannot underftand, how it fhould benoCoatradKtiion to affirm, that the three Perfons are £ but II?4] but one numerical Being, yet hath it no Appearance " of a Contradidion to fay, That there is an Unconcei- vably Clofe and infeparable Union, both in Will^nd Na- ture between them. And here too is very little to draw a Reply from me, Except I delighted in Repe* t'itions as much as he does ; but two or three Pailages I can't well let go. He faith, It is a very Stange Bold' nefs for men to determine^ that fuch or fuch a Notion is true, which they cannot Conceive is true. But i. How comes Boldnefs all oth' fiiddain to be fuch a Crime with this Gentleman ? 2. How comes that Propofition by fuch a Remarque as this ? fince it Speaks nothing of the Truth of any Notion, but affirms one Notion, to have no Appearance of a ContradiHion in it. Nor does he of- fer a word to Ihew that there is any Contradi£fcion there- in, or any Appearance thereof; which a Wife man would believe to be his onely Bufinefs, could fuch a one under- take Confuting of this Propofition. \. Who are they that determine any Notion to be true, while they cannot Conceive it to be (6 ? And another Saying he hath here, which further de- monflrates what a deadly Enemy he is to the Crime Bold- nefSi viz. A Clofe and infeparable Vnion between God and Chrifl, there cannot be ; unlefs he means fuch a Vnion as is between different Natures; but that will not content him, yet 'tis all that can be granted. But T much doubt, that this is much more than he will grant* I fear he will not grant, That God the Father and his Begotten Son, are as Clofely United as are his Soul and Body, the Natures of which are as different, as the Natures of a- ny two Created things can be ; and their Union with Each other fo Clofe (tho' not infeparable) that he is as unable to give an account of this Union as of that which Trinitarians do believe to be between God the Father^ the Son and the H, Ghoff. gut U5l But he faith, The Nature of God the Father includes Perfe^iom, which are not in the Nature offefus Chri(t - and from thence Concludes that fuch a Union as the forementioned cannot be between them. To which, I am loth to repeat what I have fo often fa id, That the Fathers Self Exidence, with what is there in imply- ed, is a Perfection immediately relating to His manner of Exifience But however, are there not many Perfedti- ons, or Excellent Powers and Properties in Souls, which are not in Bodp? And yet the Union between them (as was faid) is too Clofe for us to give an Ac- count thereof. Prop. 1 6. Such an Union as this between them, being acknowleg'd by us, together with the forementioned intire Dependance of the Soft and H. Spirit upon the Fa- her ; the Z/nity of the Deity is as fully, to all intents and purpofes, aiferted by us, as it is neceflary or defirable it Ihould be. But to this. Sir, as he faith very litt/e, fo not a line that I can reply a new word to ; nor a SylUhU is here of Confutation. Prop. 17. And no part of this Explication, do we think Repugnant to any Text of Scripture, but it feems to be the belt and Eajieft way of Reconciling thofe Texts, which according to the other Hypothefes, are notRecon- cileable, but by offering Extreme Violence to them. Now to this he faith, That he is infinitely certain^ that this Explication is in a great part Repugnant to ma- ny Texts of Scripture^ and to many Self-Evident Principles of Reafon. But not one of thofe many Texts of Scrip- ture, does he inftance in, and we h^wQfeen what work he makes with Self- Evident Principles. Nor is here a- ny Offer at a Confutation^ Except his calling me an Ifh • ntalite Trinitarian be fo, ivhofe hand is againfl all the Heads of the Trinitarian-Expofitorsy and all their hands againjt E 2 me t nte- and a fcayelng Threat, how Merdkfs wottUEx- pofe me, and that he would do it at another kind of rite than he hath done. But I fay, Ihould he Expofe me at the Same rate, he would be mercilefs to himfelf onely. But Tince he faith, that my handu againff all the Heads of Trinitarian E^pofitors, 'tis Enough to tell him that 'tis jalfe. n r> c r u i tt Prop. 1 8. The Socinians mult Contels, that the Ho- nour of the Father, is as much as they can defire taken Care ofby this Explication ; nor can the Honour of the 'Son and H.GboHbQ more Confulted in any Explicate on of the H. Trinity, than it is in this > It afcribing to them all Perfedions, but what they cannot have, with- out the moft Manifeft Contradiaion. Now the firfi thing he here faith, that I ought to take notice of, is, That he who gives more to an Excellent ? erf on, than of Right belongs to him, may perhaps be in a great part Excufedfor the fake of his good intention, hut muft never- thelefs always be chid for the injury he offers to him, he- caufe by giving too much to him, he brings the juji mea- fares of his red Excellency into QueHion, Now inftead of anAnJwer, I would ^sk him one Queftion more, who has askt me fo many, viz. which is the Safer of the Two Extremes, To think of the Son and H. Ghofi more oxlefs honourably than we ought. Provided that God the Fathers Honour be not in the leafl intrenched upon I Sure, 'tis impoflible for any fincereChriftian not to Chufe to Err on the Right- Hand, if, he muft Err on One. On that Hand we chufe to Err in our Opinion of whomfoever we have a Refpedl and value for. Now if the Honour of the Father be as much as can be taken care of in this our Explication^; and we believe it is, fince he is made the Original of 'all the Excellencies and Perfedions, that are in the other Perfons? and of their Exijlence, And fincc Cj7 3 fince there are fo great a Number of Texts, which have more than (ecmed to the GeneraHty of Chriiliaos ( and to all but zfmall handful fince Arianifm wentoffthe Stages to give the Perfections of the Divine Nature to theje Per- fons, iurely the Love and EH e em which all good Souf) mufl: necellarily have for them, muft needs byafs them towards the Underdanding of Scripture in that fence, which makes moll for their Honour, provided it be not Forced and too Artificial,- and Provided, I fay again, the Father lofeth no Honour thereby. Again he faith, That^ to his knowledge^ the Socinians are not willing to Confefs that the Honour of the Father is as much taken care of in this Explicaiiony as they do ivifh it were. But he offers not at any reafon, ivhy they are not wilhng to Confefs this. But fure they will not fay, that their own Hypothefis doth give more Honour to the Father, than that which fpeaks him the Author of all that the other Perfbns either have or are. Laftly, he faith, that the Scripture no where tells us^ that J ejus Chriff^ or the Holy Ghoft de fired to be accounted God: That Jefus Chrifl did not command nor deft re Divine Honours to be paid Him is plain^ in that when he taught His Difciples to Pray, He did not propound Himfelf as the Ohjeh of Prayer, hut direHed them to Addrefs them- fehes to the Father, To this I Reply, /»/?, That fuppofe neither of thefe Perfbns is (aid in Scripture to defire to be accounted God, are there there fore noTexts which fpeak of either of them as God > I have I think fufilciently minded him of the Contrary. Secondly, How can he fay that Jefus Chrift defired not Di- vineHonours to be paid to Him ? (Except he means,that he defired none to be paid him while He was on Earth) >hen He hath told us John 5. xj. that the Father hath Com- mitted all 'judgment to the Son • that all Men (hould Ho- nour Cj8j nour the Soft, even as they Honour the Father. And are not all the Glorious Angels Commanded by the Father to Worfhip His Son ? Heb. i. 6. And is not Eternal Glory given to Him, Jpocal. i. 5, <^' ^^^^ to Him that loved w, and wajhed us from our And will not all fuch Texts fpeak Him an Objed of Divine Wor- fhip, becaufe that in the Days of His Humiliation, He exprefled no defire of being fo; but (till gave all the Ho- nour of whatfoever He did to His Father ? Thirdly^ I doubt from this Paflage, that your Friend is gone beyond his Mailer Socinus , and denyeth the Ado- rahility of the Son of God, for which he was a Zealous Champion. I am heartily Sorry for him, if it be fo ; this being (to fpeak modeftly} to make a very large Step towards being no Chriftian. Prop. 19. And one would think it impoflible, that a- ny Chriftian fliould not be eafiiy perfwaded, to think as Honourably of his Redeemer and San£bifier, as ever he is able, while he Robs not God the F ather for their Sake ; and doth not offer any violence either to the fence and meaning of Divine Revelations, or to the Reafon of his Mind. To this he Reply s, I. That Saving the Honour of the Father Intire andZln- injured, the Socmians think as Honourably of the Son, as any Men whatfoever. I Anfwer, Surely the Arians O- pinion of Him is far more Honourable than the Sociniansy who will not allow Him to be other than a mere Man, nor to have had a Being before He was in the Womb of the Virgin ; whereas the Arians Dodtrine is, that He hath ^Siiper'Angelical Nature,and that He was before a/l Worlds. and that the Father Created them by Hhn; and yet thej Confult the Flonour of the Father, as much as the So ■cinians can no; they making a/J that belongs to tht Son '.to be from Him. II. ie ] i I I. He faith, ih^t fome of the Soclnlans think as Honour rally too of the H. Ghofi ; tho^ 'tis to he Confeffed^ that others do think the H, Ghojl to he a Divine Ener^ or Vir- tue^ and not a Perjou ; whether of the two is not plainly revealed^ and my Antagonifl does not tempt me to difpute the Quejiion. Not to Refle£t upon your Friends wifely calling me his Antagonifl^ who had nothing then to do with him, don't thofe Socinians that beHeve the H,GhoH to be a Perfon, make Him no better than an Angel, how then do they think as Honourably of Him, as thofe that believe Him to be God, and yet Rob the Father of no Ho- nour? And whereas he faith, // is not Plainly revealed whether the H.GhoH he a Perfon or no } I fay, it is as plain- ly revealed, as that the Father himfelf is a Perfon ; nor can any one be more plainly fpoken of as a Perfon, than the H, Ghoft ilill is by our B. Lord. But fome Men will difpute any thing ; ^ndfonie too, who little under/land the Knack of difputing. III. He faith, That to think as Honourahly as pojfflhly we can, of any Per/on, hefides Godihe Father Almighty, is not our duty. But I hope I need not tell him, that Id Solum Poffumus, quod Jure Pojfumus. We can only do that, which we can lawfully do. And he knew I could mean no other by Poffihly can, than Lawfully can. I V. He faith, We are to think hut juflfo Honourahly of Jefus Chrifij asGod direcls us in the New Teftament. And I fay, what ever directions we have what to think of Him in the Old Tejiament too, are alfo to govern our thoughts concerning Him. And we are wholly led by the H. Scrip- ture to think fo much more Honourably both of Chnjl and the H. GhoFf, than he and his Friends do. V. He faith, That we muji leave it to God^ who will he Ho- noured ahove all things He hath made, and ivill not Com- majficate His Honour to Another, to appoint what Honour {hall C4o3 fhaU he dom to His Son. And m fay fo too- and there- fore wholly take our diredion in this Point from Divine Revelation. And that faying of God Almighty's, that He will not give His Glory to another ; or to any one of His Creatures ^Qon^xms us in our Belief,that the Son of God is not a Creature ; fince He will have us to Honour Him^ Even AS we Honour Himfelf. And whereas the Socinians fay, that God will have Him fo Honoured, as He is His Ambaflador, and Reprefcntative, I Anfwer, that fo An- gels have often been too, and yet ( as I need not tell them) it was ever Idolatry to pay Religious Honour to them, upon any account. An Angel that was fent on an Em- bafly to Stjohn^ faid to him, upon his falling down be- fore him, See thou do it not, for lam thy Fellow- Servant ^ &c. Worjhip God, And thus have I replyed to every thing in this Ani- madverfion too, that I have not already fpoken , more than once, to. Prop, 20. There are many things in the Notion of O/ie Gody which all hearty Theifts will own are Nccef^ fary to be Conceived of Him , that are every whit as much above the reach and Comprehenfion of Humane Underflandings, as is any part of this Explication of the Trinity. Nay this may be aiErmed, Even of the No- tion of Self'Exiftence : But yet there is not an Atheifl fo filly as to call it in queflion ; fince it is not more E- vident that One and Two do make Three^ than that tliere could never have been any thing, if there were not (ome- thing in Being, which wa^ always^ and never began to be. To this he only replys, That there are many things di- re^ly contrary^ to Self- Evident Principles in this Expli' cation ; and he truHs he hath / lainly proved it. And, Sir, do you judge, as much as he is your friend, how he has Proved it. Trop. 21, C4t] Trop. XI. Left Ni»Ty(?//y fhould be Obje£^ed agalnH this Explication, and fo fuch as have a veneration for Anti- quity (as it becomes all to have) fliould be prejudiced againft it, we can make it Evident, that it very well a- greeth with the Account, which x.\\q Nkene Fathers (e- ven Athanaftus himfelf) and others of the Ancients who have treated of this Subjed, do in divers Places of their Works, give of the Trinity. And had it not bin for the Subtil School -men (to whom CHRIS TIANITY is lit- tle beholden ) we have reafon to believe, that the World, fince the Fall of Arianifm^ would never have been trou- bled with fuch Controvcrfies about this great Point, as it hath bin and Continues to be. Now to this your Friend faith, I . Novelty is the leafl Ohjetlion I have ^gainfl his Ex- plicatioHy hut ^tis a good Exception^ which he rvill never he abh to anjvoer. But this Propofition tells him, I am prepared to ihew, that this Explication agreetU very well with the Account that the Ancients do give of the Trinit). And therefore he might have had the Patience to have feen whether *twas a Vain Boaft or no, before he had fo Confidently Pronounced me forever unable to anfwer the Objedion of Novelty. 1. He laith, / canharMy think that his Hypo the [is, take it altogether^ will down with any Trinitarian. But I Phan- fy that if he did not Miftruft it would down with ma- ny, he would not be fo Angry, as he /;, with it. And now, 3. He ^ives me his Parting Blow, and it is a Stunner.^ viz. And as for Ancient Fathers^ how weak a thing is it, to feek Credit to An Hypothefisy upon the account of tl:eir Concurring ! f But, C4i] But, but now, Novelty he acknowledgM to be a good Exception, tho' the leafi Ohje&ion, of which DiftinQion bet^veen Ohje^ion and Exception^ himfelf muft have the Honour, and 'tis as Wife a one, as mine between Intel- ligihle and Comprehenfihle is a Weak one ; but how is No- "uelty any Exceptioft^g-^'m^i an Hypothefis, if the Concur- rence ot the Judgments of Ancitnt Fathers can give no Credit to it? But whereas I called this Blo^v a ^tunner^ I was in too good Earneil, ; for thefe his laft Words do as Perfectly Amaze w^, as my now mentioned Diftincti- on did him. And fince Stunned ^to^Xt are not good at Talking, I have no more to fay, but that I know nor, w hether there be more of Arrogance than Ignorance, or of Ignorance than Arrogance in theje words. And now, S?r, if you lliall think that I have Treated your Friend with too much Freedom, and have given bim too Courfe a Farewell, , the onely Apology I can make for it, is, That I find him fuch a fort of Adverfary, as would not Permit me to Treat him otherwife. However, the Liberty he hath taken with me^ hath not the Icaft Influence upon my Spleen,^ and I wifh him as well as you know I do your plf. And particularly, tiiat he may iearn to be more Modefl, and think it PofFible that thole Opinions which he takes for moft Evident and moft Ne- ceiiary Truths, may be as Grofs and Dangerous Errors; and that his Underfianding is not io much above the Pitch of other fallible Mortals, bur that he may ;be migh- tily Mifiaken when he is moil Confident. And I hear- tily Pray, that you both may with all Sincerity and im- partiality Confider what is here offered to you, and that God would give !is all a right Underitanding in all Divine Truths. Thefe things, I iay, are heartily Prayed for, by Tour /iffe^ionate Friend^ E G. [4i The Latter Defence. THERE are other trinitarians Concerned with me, in this Gentlemans Book of Reflexions mentioned in the Title-Page. His yth. Chap- ter Conreins thofe he hath made upon the 28. TropofitionSi which confifts of 1 5-. Sc^ions, that begin with NuwL 5-6. The F/rfi is no more than a Recital of 3. or 4. of my Propofitions. The Writer faith upon them, Se^. 57. I. That two Infinite Suh fiances /houU E- mane from one Infinite SuhBance, ^^ fig^oj^ ^ Notion^ that I wonder any Man of Senfe (hould he guilty of it : And my Reafon is^ btcaufe all Infinites^ of what fort or nature foe- 'ver, are equal ; for if one Infinite he lefs than another^ there mujl he fame Terminus Bound or End of it^ and Confequent- ly it cannot he Infinite^ of which there can be no Bound or End; or if one Infinite were any ways more than another^ there would he fomewhat more than Infinite; which is Evidently Ahfurd : Therefore to fuppofe two Infinites to Emane from onCy is to fnppofe two to Emane from one, when tach is e- qual to the one from which it Emanes. Here, and in the remaining part of this Section^ is De- monftration with a Witnefs againfl: the Ancient Fathers Hypothecs, of the Sons and H. Spirits heingfrom the De- ity hy Emanation ; and againft my Hypotliens, of the Fof- fihility hereof. I will take a little more Liberty with tliis Subtil Gentleman, when lam better acquainted with him (^ as I Ihall be quickly ) than I will at prefent. For he may think it no good Breeding to teH him homely all my mind, at our veryjfr/? Meeting. But now a Complement is more Fi CiVil [44] Civil, as 1 thank him, he begias with too great a one to ■we. And my Complement is, Sir, I. Commend your Wif- ■dom in Changing And then he thus anfwers himfelf, But nothing canhemore abfurd^ than to fuppofe one Finite Q much more two ) to Proceed from one hut of the fame Btgnefs. Yes, Tie tell him what is more Ah[urd, viz. To lijppofe one or more Infinite Subilan- ces, to Proceed from another/;//;///!? Subflanceof they<7Wi? Bign?fs. This is more Abfurd, becaufe there is one more Contradidion in this Suppofition than in that^ viz. That Bigneis belongs to a Spiritual Subliance,- which kind of Siibilance, I hope he will ackncwledg to be alone Capa- ble of hifinity. But as notable Work as our Author makes, at de- monflrating the Abfurdity of two infinite Subflances Emaning Irom one, I fancy I know thofe who may al- moil as much put him to it, to defend the Non-Ahfurdity of a Sparks being kindled by (or Emaning from ) a Spark (both being of the fame bignefs ) as a Trinitarian ihall need to be by his Arguments (I will not be i'o rude as to Call them Cavils) againft the Poffibiiity of the Other Emanation. But to ufe his o'.vn Phrafc infinite Siihshnce, 'tis fo far from being impoffible,. that an infinite Subflance, fliould Emane from an infinite Subftance, or (to ufe the 6'cr//>/«/-f-Phrafe) be hegotten by it, that if any Be- ing can Emane or be begotten by an infinite Sub- flance, it mufl be infinite too. For, as Athanafms faith, ont, 5. » // is impoffihle that that which is hegotten, fbould he a dif^ ferent '{ereiH Ejfertcefrom that which Begat. The Reader may fee "what is larther faid of Emanations, in rd Defence p. 26. I have abundantly too much bufinefs lying now upon my hands, to find Leifure for (bClofe a Conlideration of all ti^.at this Gentleman haih rtfleded on the 28. Proportions, as polfibly I might apply my felf to, had I time to Sparc. But the Truth is, I find his Arguing to be fuch, as if well followed upon Other Arguments, it might make tho(e, who are willing to be 16, down right Scepticks, as to almod Every thing. He needs not to be informed, what doughty Dexteri^ ty a Sophifter might fiiew in making it out, that Crea- tion is a Perfe^ Impojfihdity : That Eternity in both the Notions thereof, is a Monilrous Contradi^lion to the Reajon of our Minds. And that y^ is alfo the Notion of an hcor- poral Suhftance. And of Liberty, nay even in God Himfelf: And ot the Divine Omni prefence : hnd xh^t both parts of a Contraditlion may pofjihly he true. And per- haps a thoufand oihtx things, for which we have the high- eft Rational Evidence, may be Expofed to Ridicule, by a Man who foves to Chop Logick. And likewifeaw^;?)' o- ther things, the Contrarys to which, we have even 0- cular and the mod Senfible demonftrarions of, may one make fuch a iliew of demonftrating, as to Baffle moft men. As that there is no fuch thing as Motion : That a Body can have no influence upon a Spirit, nor a Spirit upon a Body : and much lefs can they be vitally V' nitedi That 'tis impoffible that Will and Thought fhould Stir a Finger : That all Bodies are alike Big, (5c. I fay moft, if not all, the(e Strange Propofitions, are Capa- ble of being with as Plaufible a ihew of reafbn defended by a Subtile ^ophifter, as the Emanation of the Son and Ho' ly GhoH from the Father hath bin now Confuted by this Gentleman. So that I cannot but apply thofe words of the C47] the Apoflle to fuch Dlfputers, they have turneA afiile un- to vain jangling, underjlanding neither what they fay\ nor whereof tlyey affirm. But I have (aid Enough to this Stfti- on : Each oi tlic following, I ihall (I think) difpatcli as Eafily. 6>/?. 58, He faith, that r^hatfoever Emanes^ or any way proceeds, from a Self-ExJflent Suhfiance {except it ivere Created and then joyned to it^ is as SelfExiHent as that Suhrtance. But I fay with as great aflurance, that whatloevcr Subftance Emanes from another, mull Owe its Exigence to that other ; and the Contrary is a mani» fed Contradiction. As to his Reafon for thus aflerting, viz. Becaufe htfore its Emanation^ it was a Tart of the ^elf- Exiflent SubUance^ it is taken from Material Subflances, which do Conrift of Parts ; but this cannot be (aid of Spiritual ones, becaufe they are not divifihle^ and there- fore have no Parts. And it is Obfervable too, how well this Reafon Suits to Eternal Emanations^. Sed. 59. This Sedion hath feveral very vSurprizlng things in it. As i. Our Author cannot fee .^ fince the Son and spirit are neceffary E/nanationSj how they owe their Origin more to the Father, than the Father Owes His to them. Which is as much as to fay, fincc the Tree ne- celTarily ilTiies forth from the Root, and tlie Rays from the Sun, therefore the Root owes its Origin no lefs to the Tree, and the Sun to its Rays, than the Tree to tiie Root, and the Rays to the Sun. %. His Reafon for that Ailerrion is, tl;:t the- Father Son and Spirit are all three of a Suhfiance, that is Self- Exijient. But /fay one- ly i\\^ two latter are ib, tor the b'irll (as he needs not to be told) is the Self Exifient SubRancc ; not of or from fuch 3 fubflance. But if he asks me How they Emane from the Father, I know net wljjchof us would be tliemore P?efiimptuowsj he for Asking, or J for Endeavouring to Anlwcr [48] Anfwer ihatQueflion. But (on fecond thoughts) I will un- ' dertake toAnfwer it, when he Ihall be pleafed to Anfwer me /bh. How did your fe If 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^ he the caufe of the Separation^ fince They nectjfarily Separated from one another* But can I need to mind him, that our Hy- pothefis will not bear a Separation between the Divine Perfbns, andonly aflertsa Dillindtionbetwenthem? And (ure I need not teil him, that he is not over- fit to Write Books, who knows not that Diilindion, and Separation, and Diflerence too, are Several things. But 4. Whereas he faith that, no one of thelb Perfons can be the caufe of their Separation, becaufe they Neceffarily Separated, doth he think that God can be the Mecejfary Caufe of nothing ? Or that He is in His own nature Indifferent to every thing > If he believes ( for InQance ) that the Perfection of His Nature doth not Neceflarily determine Him, to what is heH ; or to do whatfoever He in His Infinite Wifdom knows ft to be done, I hope there are not many of his mind. He faith, 5. That it is another ContradiB ion to Affirm y that an Infinite Stthfiance is divided into Three Infinite Parts. How does our Author already run TaplaJhJ But I will not therefore forbear Replying, and I Anfwer, No doubt it is a Horrid Contradidiion fo to Affirm. But how rank does this fmell of the Grofs thing called Body I His mind runs altogether upon Material Subllances, which alone I fay have Parts to be divided into. And if a Spiritual Subflance cannot be divided into fpiritual Parts, much lefs can an Infinite Spiritual Subflance be divided into In- finite Spiritual Parrs. And he who thinks that a Spirit can be divided into parts, had as good never take that word into his Mouth, and much lefs can he Pretend to believe it ^ thing of an Immortal nuure, which who/oever does [49] does not, whatever Theologers they may be, I can't ad- mire them for Philofophers. 6. He makes it in what follows an Abfurdity to deny that whatfbever proceeds from another thing , muft be in Order of Time after it. Thefe are his words, Whatfoever Proceeds from a tbin^ muft fir ft he in it^ Except it can he in it and Proceed from it^at the fame time. But as we never thought of fuch a thing, as the Two Perfons fo Proceeding, as to be Separated from the Firfl ; nor of any more than their having their Origin from Him, fo this they may have and yet (till be in Him, and might ever have been in Him. Can our Author think ( not to trouble him too often with the Ra'js being from the 5«^, and yet as Old as it ) that all Ihoftghts muft be Younger than Minds ^ becaufethey 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 Efftntial to Minds. But this I have fpoken to in the Preceding Defence, p. 29, p, &c. Se^. 60. He faith, That it had hin Intolerable in the Pagans, to helitve thofe Rays that come from the Sun^ to he the Sun it felf. And I need lay no more, than that it is as Intolerable to believe the Son and Spirit, who have their Exiftence from the Father, to be the Father Himfelf. But Idefire him to think fedately with himfelF, whether Gods Decrees could none of them be Eternal, I Phanfy he is not fo much a School-man as to anl'wer, Gods Decrees are God Himfelf. Se^, 61. He faith, ivhat J further add are direH: Con- traditions ^ reciting feveral more things Contcined in my Propofitions ; and this is the whole of this Sed^ion. Here is not one word of Proof, that any one of them is a Contradi^ion^ and therefore I have nothing to add here, G Sen. 61. Se^:62> He affirms, i. That Mecefary Exiffeftce from Eternity is as great a FtrfeBion^ as Self-Exifience. But nor to tell him, that whatfcever doth rteceJjArily Exift, muil have bin from Eternity, and therefore fuch an Exi- gence is never attributed to a Creature ,• T do abfolutely deny, that ncceflary Exigence from Another^ is as great a Perfeftion as neceflary Exigence from Ones felf. Can cur Author in his Cool thoughts imagine it is? He faith •L. If the Father hath given E^iflence to any Beings which he cannot take away, He voouldCeafe to he Almighty. But I conceive, that to fuppofe that the Father can make a Being to Ceafe, which hath a Neceffary Exiftence from Him, would beaContradidious fuppofal ; and that Con- trad iftions being Objeds of no Power, cannot be ObjeOls c^ Divine Power; and that tlicrefore the AJmightinefs thereof Gonfideth in an Ability to do whatfoever Implyes not a Contradidion, or that Power can do: And fodoth our Author conceive too. He faith, 3. That Self-Bxifleme Separate from thofe Towers, which can only belong to a Self- Exiftent Beingyis no perfti^ion. But I ask him, how Self- Exi- gence c^« be Separated from thofe Powers ? and if it can- not. What does this faying Signifie? And it is certain k cm not. But if he means Ahftraded by Separate, as iljeufed a very Improper word toexprefshis thoughts by, I deny that the Notion of Self ExiflencearK^/r^^e-^ from all other Confidcrations whatfoever. Imply eth no Perfed ion. A^ I have as much Liberty to Contradid him wit(hout gi- ving my Reafon, as he hath to Affirm this without giving his. But indeed tliis demal of mine needs -no Reafon, for that Self Exiflence is as Suzh a Perfe^ion is Self-E* 'vide-nt, or I know not what is fo. But wer-e it jnot that I find him in one of thefe Sections, ailerting Creation <&ut of nothing, this Paflnge would lead me to a very flipe-wd bufpicion, that he is- of Wolzogenius his Mind, and ^ovoq others [50 Others of his Brethren, That God is not the only Self- Ext- Jlent Beings but that the Rude chao^s was, and therefore all Matter now is, Self-Exiftent too. And if they could demonftrate this to me, I Confefs I fliould do what iyes in me, to think Self-Exiftence to be no Perfe£lion at all, in fpight of its being Self-Evident that it is a gnat Per- fediiion, if not the great efl. 4. He faith. That // the Per- fans have the fame Vnlim'tted Perfe^ions^ but their Man- ner of getting them ivas different, that would not caufe any Inequality betiven them. But \ fay it would; that is in reference to their Manner of Exirtenc", tho' not in re- ference to their mere EHcnce. What follows y is but dilating on the fame thing, and repeating what hath been already Confidered. Seti' 63. He asks, i. How the Father can he greater than the Son and H Spirit, and be the only Goody when they have the fame Vnlimited Power and Goodnefs ? I Anfwer, They have an Unlimited Power, but not the 54w/>^. 66. Here he Mifreprefents xn\ and argues up- on his Mifreprefenration. See Prop. 13th. St^» 67. Confidering what I have faid to the Confide- rator, and already to this Perlbn, relating to the matter of this Sedion, I Ihali onely obferve upon it, i. That I wonder how any man that hath a due Awe of the In- finite Majefty of God upon his Mind, can give himfelf leave to ufe fuch an Exprc/Tion, as Tacking two Perfons to God the Father. I fcruplcd a while, whetficr I might foul my Pen with Tranfcribing it. 2. He tejls us thac Nothing can he more Ahfnrd than to fay, that the 3. Per^ Jons are One God by Vnion, and ytt are dijiinfi from One Another. But is there no difference betwixt Vnion and Identity or felffamenefs} Is there not a real diftindion between our Souls and Bodys, tho' United i'o clofeiy as that he cannot conceive how clofely^, nor any Man elfe ^ U he Ihall lay,that Vnion is but another word i'orCom^ pofition, 1 Ihall fay he is Extreamly out. Compofition being a blending or mixing of the parts of diltincft things C54J things. The wdrd is Commonly lifed onely 6f Hetefo- geneous things: Spiritual Subftances therefore having no parts, are incapable of being Compounded. And, in my poor Opinion, tho'a Man Con (Ids of a Soul and Body, he cannot be faid to be Compounded of them, becaufd onely one of thefe hath parts. Our Author *ris like will Cry Myflery! Myftery ! to this Tall?; as hedefpi- feth Trimtandns for calling the" Union of the three Di- vine Perfons a Myftery : But if even to the Union of the tivo Created Beings himfelf Confifis of, he cannot SerU oujly Cry Myflery, 1 know what I know of him. I Will nor. fay Every Witty Man> but I am fure Every Wifi . Man will Cry Myflery ! to £x'er_y thing, zsWWsfomezd.n bear that word. I confefs no Man ihall perfwade me any more than him^x\6 his Friends, to fwallow a Pal- pable Contradi^ion by calling it a MyHery^ till he can perfwade me too that God Almighty indued me with falfe Faculties; and then^ do what I can, I am Hke to believe but few things more than Cogito ergo Sum. But 1 am as certain as I can be of any thing but whatl^^^ or feel , that it is not more difficult to underftand this Uni- on, than Abundance of other things Relating to the Deity, and innumerable things which our Author muft believe in fpight of Fate, if he will be a Chriftian, or a Theift, or but a Man. SeH> 68. He /^ere Banters the real Trinitarians, as^/?- ing very Wifely in fappofing their three infinite SubFtarjceSy to be as clofe together as can he^ left there fhould not he room enough for them^ in hut one infinite Space^ &c. And then he Enquires, if the Subftanceof the Father he Eve^ ry where, how the Suhflance of the Son can he every inhere foo^ I ihall be a little cloler upon this Gentleman for the Orange liberty he takes in Talking of Infinite Suh- fiances J as (bon as I have done with his Miions, than I [553 I have bin yet or will m\x> be. In the mean time, I will be fatisfied to Reply thus to this Sexton, viz. Doth not this kind of Talk Suppofe, that he takes the three Divine Perfons (if he thinks two of them are any thing) to be Cor- poreal Subftances ? which is fogro/s a Conceit, and (peaks fuch leaflly Stupidity, that I would charge mo Man there- with, who doth not Exprefly own it. But, hoping he doubts not of the Bewg of Spiritual fubftances, nor of the Divine Omniprefefice, I ask him how the Subftance of God the Father can be in thofe (paces which are filled with Bodies ? Or how can his Soul and Body, or that part of his Body which his Soul poflefleth (if his Phi- iofophy will permit him to think it doth not pervade the whole of his Bodyj how can they be, I fay, in the Self-fame placeor Vhi^ call it which he pleafes? Surely, one would think, that feveral Spirits may be together in the fame individual fpace, feeing the Tenetrahihty of Spirits muft be acknowledg'd by all that believe there are fuch Subftances (except they have no manner of Notion of what they believe) as well as that a Spirit and an Impenetrable Body may be together in the fame fpace. As to his adding \_ayid afttr the fame manner'] to [d/ the fame time'] this can be onely for a Blind. But we may talk Endlefly upon this Subject, and little under- fland one another or Our (elves ; for this, for certain^ is one of thofe things, which our minds were never made for any thing //i^-€ a clear perception of* atleaft in thefe grofs Bodies. And much more then (as he will be (hew- ed anon) is 'tlie infinity of the Divine Subdance to be Eeckoned of that number. And he is an intolerably Con- ceited Fop^ who will not Confefs fo much Ignorance, as to have no other Idea of Gods Infinity, than that He hath all Poflible Perfe6fions, and that all His Perfedi- ons .are Unlimited. And we are at a perfeQ lofs what to c to fay or think further about the Divine Eflence. Nayi we have now no Cognizance of more than the Modes and Properties of Bodily Subilance, we have none at ali of its N"<3W Eflence. All we can fay of Body as Body, is, that 'tis Extended Penetrable Bulk, Se^, 69. He faith, i. That the Trinitarians fay, the Ver- fins are one God, as the Soul and Body are one Alan: And then he Expofeththe folly of that •Simile. But he might have faved himfelf this little labour ; for as /ne- ver faid fo, fo neither know /of any other Trinitarian that hath. The Creed indeed which is called the Athe- napan, faith, That as the Soul and Body are one Man, fi God and Man are one Chrift ; but what is this to his Pur- pofe ? But what / have faid,is, That the Union between the three Divine Perfbns,is not moreUnaccountable,than is the Union between the Soul and Body ,• and that in one refpe£t it is lefs Unaccountable than this Union, viz. becaufe this is between Beings of perfectly Vnlike Na- tures ; whereas that is between Perfons of the fame Na- ture. And why diftindl intelligent fubflances , which is the onely definition I can give of Perfons, may not be as clofely United becaufe they are all intelligent, as one intelligent Subflance and a Body, is above the little Phi- lofophy that I can pretend to be Mader of, to under- fland. X. Upon the Simile, of the Clofe Vnion of the Sun with its Light and Heat, as he words it ; he faith. There art no fuch Perceptions as thofe we call Light and Heat, in any Beings, hut thofe that are Capable of feeing and feeling ^ And that this every Common Syjleme demon- fir ates : And that this is Obvious to all but Children and Metaphyficians, What a Wonderful Piece of Learning is herel 1. Light and Heat Perceptions I I have heard of Perceptions and Senlations of Light and Hear, but that they are Perceptions and Senfations themfehes, I have hither [57] hitherto bin to learn. 2. But they are not (the') Percep- tions in any beings, hut [uch as have faculties Capable of See- ing and Feeling. And 'twould be lome what hxtraor- dinary, it any thing could perceive Light and Hear, that can neither fee nor feel. Yet I am a little milkken, it Heat, and Light too, cannot have fome Operation on Bo- dies, which have never a One of the Five Senfes. 3. He faith, that every Common SyHeme demonlhates^ that there are no f uch Perceptions as Light and Heat^ hut in things that are Capable of feeing and feeling. A goodly Demon- flration ! But the Commonnefs oKit may mike it the leis Obfervable. But it is pretty much it ihould bedemon- ftrated in Every Common Syfteme, and I ihould never Light on it in any one Sylleme. But 'tis no matter, fince 1 am a little too Old to be a Child (unlefs twice one) and then to be a Metaphyjician too; for I am told to my Comfort, 4. That this potion is Obvious to all hut ChiU dren and Metaphyficians. Yet 'tis Obvious to this Gen- tleman, //;i^' a Metaphyfician ; as I dare warrant him he is (whether he knows it or no, as 'tis like he does not fmce he fo defpifing them) or he could never be fo Notable at infinity^ and other moft Sublime and Abftrufe Matters. 5. But in good Earned, I am lb dull as to be utterly un- able to imagine, but that Light would be Light (what- foever is to be thought of Colours^ tho' there were no Eyes to Perceive it : And fuch a Heretick in Philosophy (whether I am in Divinity or no) as to think, that it is an Aggregation of a certain fort of Particles, as much as Air is. And therefore I am not hke in hajle to be l"hamed out of the Fathers Simile, o: Emanations ot' Light from the Sun. Nor do I think that our Author himlelf, will ever be able to demonflrate any Abfurdity in conceiv- ing, that Heat differs onely gradually from Fire, and Light from both : And that Fire is a fluid Conlhtuted of H an C58] Jin ExcefTively fmall fort of Particles, and therefore v^xy \£Vive, Subtile and Piercing; and that a Colleaion of fhefe Minute bodys in fuch a quantity, and fo clofely as to become an Objed of Sight, is that which we Exprefs by the words Fire and Flame; and a lef's clofe Colledion is what we call Heat. And that Flame differs from Fire, as it isa moredifperfed Colleaion of thefe Particles, than Fire • and Light trom both, as it is a thinner Colledion of them than either of the other: I fay, I do not think that our Author, as Skilled as he is content to be thought to be in Phyficks (tho' not in Metaphyfuks^ can dcmonQrate that theje are Abfurd Notions. Se^. 70. There Is nothing to be taken notice of in this very fmall Section, But our being Charged with Terminating our Devotions in Each of the three Perfons in our Praying to Each of them. But ( fay, this is a very falle Charge; for we as heartily acknowledg that all the Honour we pay to the Son, and H. Spirit, ought to be Vltimttely terminated ^n God the Father, tho' we believe they are not Creatures, 2iS thofe Sociniam do who are for giv- ing Divine Honour to the Son, believing Him to be a Creature and a mere Man. And F am lure he cannot think otherwife, of thofe whom he calls the Real Trini- tarians, becaufe their Hypothecs neccffarily obligeth them fb to believe, what ever the Hypothefis of the 0- thcr does. But the H. Scripture is fo Expreft upon this point, that I Ihould think no Chrijlian fliouldfind it hard to believe it: No^ tho' there were no Other Text but this ^^,, j^^ yi2. That at the Name of Jtju$^ every knee f?ould I'vo, of things in Heaven, and things on E.arth\and. tbims under the Earth: And that Every Tongue fiould confejs^ ihat^e[us thrift is Lord, to the Glory of God the Fatj^er,. Ha vincT now d^ne with my Adverfarie's kefhxiofts a^a the C5;3 the i8. Fropofitions, I will make bold to Argue a while with hitnfelf; and to give hirn 2^ Sample of his Rcafoning. With as InfalUhk /^jfurance^ Sir^ as you Talk of hfimte SuhJtanceSj and Reafon agaittji the Pofihility of the 5uns and H. Spirits heing Infinite Suhjiances from the Nature of Jiich Suhjiances '^ I never yet met with your Fellow, if you will pretend to have a diliincl and Explicite fdei of the thing crf^'^/Subftance ; hut I know not what Epithet to give you, tf you can take the Liberty to tell me, that you have any fuch /- dea ^/InHnity, as it relates immediately to a SuhHance. Tou have indeed told us, that an Infinite Suhjlance is that which hath noBoundsf?r Limits; hut did you think you then gave us a Definition of an Infinite Suhflance ? No, you are a Wifer Man than 16,- or than to hope that the Conilruing of a Word, would pafs with any hut Children and Fools for a Definition of a thing. Butfappofe, Sir, tiMt Iwerefo Eafy^ as to accept o/Boundlefnefs dWUnlimirednefs/^r a Dejni- tion, or D'fcription of Infinity, yet I Jhould {Ten to One ) put this Quejl/on (^ whether an Ea!y one or no } What is the Infinity of a Subltance? 'iouwt/lnotjay^ this is an Eafy Que- flionhecauje Anfwered already, viz. That the Infinity of a Subflance, is the Boundieinefs thereof; for you know you muH tell us what a Suhsfance is, hefore you can make us the Wifer, hydifcour/inguponlntinkcSuh/hnceSy Oa- //7f Infini- ty of a Suhjlance. If you will now he defining this Thing Cal* /^^^ubrtan.e, hy certain of its "^rofitn'iQS, I cannot for hear Proceeding to ask. What is the Su bjed of thefe Properties ? Or, What is Suhflance Confidered 3.b(ira(^cdiy from all AC' cidents? \i you tell me^ it is fomething that doth Suhflare Accid^ntihus, and needs no Support it felf, / mufl he Satif- fied with this Anjwer, fince I know you will not Attempt to give a better. But however I will not he difcouraged, from Asking on a while longtr, tho you Jhould give me the t^roverb for my Fai»s : And tnis Queflion next OccurrSy viz. Since H X an i:<5o3 a» h finite Suhjlance is fomething that hath ttd Bounds ^ tauH it not reach to all the dimenfions But 1 forefe you xvill go near to Reply, My Notion thereof is far from beingTi' fcanty a one as you Imagine ; for I hold, that the Infinity of the Divine Subftance, Confifts in its Power to Extend irs Prefence thro' all the parts of New Worlds, as they are Created 5 which God Almighty can if he plea- fes fes Create to All Eternity. But then fay /, ivi/I you pre- tendy Sir, to have any the least Idea^ How the Divine Sub [lance can do this ? And is not thi Dilatation and far ^ ther Expanfion thereof ^ think you^ Capable of being made as Ridiculous and Contradi^ory a thing, byfuchaWitas yours, as you think you have made Emanaiions/A"(?w the 'ice to be ? / Know you cannot but be Aware, that it is certainly fo. And therefore let the Reader judg, what Prodigious MonHruous Prefumption it is, Excufe me if I am now a lits tie warm, to draw moft Confident Conclufions from Pre- mifes, which are Unfpeakably above the reach of Hu- mane Underftandingsj as the Gentleman I have now bm SocraticaUy talking with, muftConfefs the Premifes are, from which he hath Argued againft me. Nay, they mufl: be above the ComprehenTion of all Finite, as well as Hu- w.i^f UnderftandingSi Or Nothing is fo. For wy part, I dare not trufl my Shallowncfs with /«?(? Thoughts upon fuch a Subje(5t as this o^ Infnite Subftances, nor of an infinite Subffance neither. I have a dijiin^ Notion of a Be- ing Abfolutely Ferfecl, and Beings of Vnlimited Perfecli- onsy tho' infinitely Short of a Comprehenfive One, and therefore I chofe to ufeonely fuch Expreflions in my Pro- po/itions. And becaufe thefe are in fome meafure adap- ted to Humane Capacities, the Deity is Every where defcri'oed in H, Scripture, by its Glorious Perfections of VViJdom, power, Goodnefs, Mercy, Right eoufnefs and Pu- rity -, and by its moft VVonderful Exertions and DJpIay- ingsof them in the Creation: And by theje are the Son and PI. Spirit described there as well as God the Father. Wherefore I could not without mighty Regret Critizare Cum Critenf (taking the Phrase, for paying our Author in his own Coyn) as I now did, had 1 not io good a defign therein, as to Expofe the Folly and Madnefs of the Liber- ty which he and o/^^rj take, with the moii Profoundly Adorable Deity. Can t6i-\ Can fucli Perfons read thofe QueHIons of !Zophar^ Nvlthout Aflonilliment, which he put to Job, Ch. ii. 7, (S^c. Canji thou hy Starching find out God > Cartfi thou find cut The Almighty to Ferfetiton ? // is as High as Heaven^ what Canjl thou do ? Deeper than Hell^ what CanH thou know ? The Meafure thereof is longer than the Earthy and Broader than the SsJt, And now I have done with this Author^ as well as with his Reflexions ; who mud not take it unkindly, that I have been To plain w ith him ; there being not the leaii oiJll-WiU'm it, but thegreateft Good Will I am fure. And notwithllandingwe difler fo mightily in our Sentiments, I willi him as well ss I do my [elf. If any do expe£l that I will be Hill Replying faying it, fo neither is it one jot the more like to be true. Nor is iTovelty any Objedion to themy againft the Probabi- lity of any darling Opinion. How much rather would I be Modeft Socrates, than a ChriHian who/^ leans to his own (or his Parties) Vh* derjlanding.ln what I have now bin faying,! cannot forbear thinking, of more Denominations than One of Profeflbrs of Chriftianity. But yet I have bin far from RefledJing upon a/I of any Denomination. I am not Such a Cen/urer. God ^ive us All more Humility, THE END. %..p ^uJ'v,: V ^' #- i^::^-' :^^t^ V^^K;-"'-^-^i€>^ iHfe