^ 
 
 Wi 
 
 K. 
 
 m 
 
 '■  i 
 
 M 
 
 <^-^7^.^±xMm 
 
 %:;/r 
 
 '?'  . 
 
 Sl3L- 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ii!^ 
 
 >". 
 
T;1BKARY 
 
 PRlI¥C'ETOIV,  W.  J. 
 
 UIINATION    OF 
 
 S  A  M  U  K  1.    A  a  N  K  W  ,      . 
 
 If     P  H  1  1.  X  II  E  L  P  H  I  A  .    V  \. 
 
 Letter 
 
 Ko. 
 
 COLLECTION  OF  PURITAN  AND 
 ENGLISH  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE 
 
 $ 
 
 LIBRARY  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 
 PRINCETON,  NEW  JERSEY 
 
CERTAIN 
 
 Propofitions^ 
 
 By  which  the 
 
 DOCTRIN 
 
 OF    THE 
 
 tl. 
 
 1  rinity 
 
 Is  fo  Explain  d,  according  to  the 
 
 Ancient  Fathers,  as  to  fpeak  it  not  Con- 
 tradidory  to  Natural  Reafon. 
 
 TOGETHER 
 
 With  a  Defence  of  Them,  in  Anfwer  to  the 
 
 Objed-ions  of  a  Socinian  Writer,  in  His  Newly 
 Printed  Confideratiom  on  the  Explications  of  the 
 Doflrin  of  the  Trinity  :  Occafioned  by  thefe 
 Proportions,  among  other  Difcourfes. 
 
 3ln  a  Letter  to  tljat  autfjo^ 
 
 LO  l<i  D  O  N, 
 
 Printed  for  Brahazon  Aylmer  at  the  Three  Pidgeons 
 
 in  Cornhil^   1694. 
 
en 
 
 If 
 
 \^  4^    «^'  ^</  V^^  ^J  ^J  ii^  "ii?  <^    «^    H(*   «^J    «!>'  ^-  >J(i    t^    v^^  i^gi"  *^  \p 
 
 CERTAIN 
 
 ^1^  "^1111  ft  ft  ft  011^     8^r 
 
 I  HE  Name  of  God  is  ufed  in  more  Sences 
 than  one  in  Holy  Scripture. 
 
 2.  The  mod  Abfolutely  Perfed  Be- 
 ing, is  God  in  the  Highefl  Sence. 
 
 3.  Self- Ext jience  is  a  Perfeflion,  and  feems  to  be 
 the  Higheft  of  all  Perfedions- 
 
 4.  God  the  Father  alone,  is  in  reference  to  His 
 Manner  of  ExiHence  an  Abfolutely  Perfe£l  Being  ; 
 becaufe  He  alone  is  Self-Exiftent. 
 
 5.  He  alone,  confequently,  is  Abfolutely  Perfedl, 
 in  reference  to  thole  Perfections,  which  do  prxfup- 
 pofe  Self-Exiftence. 
 
 6.  Thofe  Perfections  are  Ahfolnte  Independence,  and 
 Being  the  Fir  J}  Original  of  all  other  Beings :  In  which 
 the  Son  and  the  Holy  chofl  are  comprehended. 
 
 7.  All  Trinitarians  do  Acknowledge,  That  theie 
 Two  Perfons  are  from  God  the  Father.  This  is  af- 
 firmed in  that  Creed  which  is  called  the  Nicene^  and 
 in  that  which  falfely  bears  the  Name  of  Athanafim: 
 Tho'  with  this  difference,  that  the  Holy  Ghoft  is  al- 
 ferted  in  them,  to  be  from  the  Son  as  well  as  from 
 
 A  -L  the 
 
C43 
 
 the  Father,  Wherein  the  Greek  Church  differs  from 
 the  Latin. 
 
 8.  It  is  therefore  a  flat  Contradidion,  to  fay  that 
 the  Second  and  Third  Perfons  are  SeU^-Exiftent. 
 
 g.  And  therefore  it  is  alike  ContradiQious,  to  Af- 
 firm them  to  be  Beings  Abfolutely  Perfect  in  refe« 
 rence  to  their  Manner  cf  Exiftence  •  and  to  fay  that 
 they  have  the  Perfedlions  of  Ahjolnte  Independence., 
 and  of  being  the  Ftrft  Originals  cf  dl  things, 
 
 10.  Since  the  father  alone  is  a  Being  of  the  mofl 
 Abfolute  Perfection,  He  having  thole  Perfedions 
 v/hich  the  other  Two  Perfons  are  uncapable  of  ha- 
 ving, He  alone  is  God  in  the  Abfolutely  Highefl 
 Sence. 
 
 11.  And  therefore  our  Bleffed  Saviour  calls  Uim.^ 
 I'he  onely  True  Cod^  Joh.  17.  3.  This  is  Life  Eter- , 
 nd  to  know  ihee  the  ontly  True  God^  and  Jefus  ChrtH 
 vjhom  Thou  hafl  [ent.  And  it  is  moft  Abfurd  to  think, 
 That  in  thefe  Words,  and  the  following  Prayer,  He 
 did  addrefs  Himfel'f  to  the  Three  Perfons  of  the  Tri- 
 nity conjundly,  fince  throughout  the  Prayer  He  calls 
 this  Onely  Truly  God  his  Father  •  and  calls  Himfelf 
 twice  His  Son.^  before  thefe  Words.  Not  to  mention 
 the  Abfurdity  of  making  our  Lord  to  pray  to  Him- 
 felf, or  of  dirt inguilhing  Himfelf  from  thofe  Three, 
 of  which  Himfelf  was  one.  Iffuch  a  Liberty  as  this, 
 in  interpreting  Scripture,  be  allowable,  what  Work 
 may  be  made  with  Scripture  ! 
 
 II.  Our  Lord  calls  the  Father,  The  Onely  True  God.^ 
 becaufe  He  only  is  Originally ^zxs.^  oi  Himfelf  Gody2,nd 
 the  Firfl  Original  of  all  Beings  whatfoever.  As  he 
 calls  him  the  Onely  Goody  faying,  There  is  none  Good 
 
C  5  ] 
 
 but  God^  bec^ure  Ho  alone  is  Originally  fo,  and  the 
 Spring  of  ali  tliat  Good  which  is  in  other  Beings. 
 
 13.  The  God-head,' or  God  in  this  Higheft  Sence, 
 can  be  but  O/te  Numerically,  Of  which  the  beft.  Phi- 
 lofopiiers  were  fatisfied  by  their  Reafon,-  and  there- 
 fore the  Onentfs  io  frequently  affirmed  of  Him  in 
 Scripture  is  a  Numeric aX  Onenefs. 
 
 14.  There  feems  to  be  neiiher  Contradi£lion,  nor 
 Abiurdity,  in  fuppofing  the  Firfl:  Original  of  all  things, 
 to  be  productive  of  other  Beina,s  fo  Perfedl,  as  to  have 
 all  Perfections,  but  that  of  sdl-Exijieme^  and  thof^ 
 which  are  neceffarily  therein  implyed. 
 
 15.  Suppofing  any  fuch  Beings  to  have  immedi- 
 ately iffued  forth  from  that  infinite  Fullnefs,  and  Fee- 
 cundity  of  Being,  which  is  in  the  Deity,  each  of  them 
 muft  have  a  Right  to  the  Name  of  God^  in  a  Sencc 
 next  to  that  in  which  it  is  appropriated  to  the  Fa- 
 ther 'j  fince  they  have  all  the  PerfeClions  of  the  God- 
 Lead^  but  thole  that  muft  of  NecelTity  be  peculiar 
 to  Nim, 
 
 16.  It  is  evident  from  the  Holy  Scripture^  Thar 
 the  So^^  and  Holy  Spirit  are  fuch  Beings,  viz.  That 
 they  have  all  Divine  Perfe8:ions  but  the  foremen- 
 tioned  :  Such  as  Unlimited  Porver,  ivr/dom.  Good- 
 .ve/i,  &c. 
 
 17.  And  they  are  always  fpoken  of  in  Scripture, 
 as  ViftmH  Bei»gs  or  Perfons.,  according  to  the  Pro- 
 per Signification  of  this  Word,  both  from  the  Fa- 
 ther and  from  Each  Other,  Nor  are  fo  many  Men 
 or  Angels  more  exprefly  diftinguifhed  as  different 
 Perfons  or  Subftances ,  by  our  Saviour  or  his  Apo» 
 ftles,  than  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghoft  ftill  arc. 
 
 18,.  Ife 
 
[61 
 
 i8.  It  is  a  very  prefumptuous  Conceit,  That  there 
 can  be  no  way  but  that  oF  Creation^  whereby  any 
 thing  can  be  immediately  and  onely  from  God,  which 
 bath  a  diftinft  Exiftence  of  its  own.  Or,  That  no 
 B'^ings  can  have  Exiftence  from  Him,  by  way  of 
 Necejfarj  Ernanation  :  Of  which  we  have  a  Clearer 
 Idxa,  than  of  Voluntary  Creation.  It  is  the  Word  of 
 the  Ancients,  both  Fathers  and  Philofophers ;  nor 
 cj-n  a  better  be  found  to  exprefs  what  is  intended  by 
 it,  'VIZ,.  A  more  excellent  way  of  exifting,  than  that 
 of  Crtdticn, 
 
 19.  It  is  no  lefs  prefumptuous  to  AfRrm,  That  it 
 is  a  Contradidion  to  fuppofe,  That  a  Being  can  be 
 from  Eternity  from.  God  the  Father,  if  'tis  poffible  it 
 may  be  from  Him,  in  a  more  Excellent  Way  than 
 that  of  Creation.  And  we  have  an  Illuftration  of 
 both  thefe  Propofitions,  by  fomething  in  Nature. 
 For,  according  to  our  Vulgar  Philofophy,  Light  doth 
 exift  by  neceflary  Emanation  from  the  Sun^  and  there- 
 fore the  Sun  was  not  before  the  Light  vvhich  pro- 
 ceeds from  thence,  in  Order  of  Time,  tho'  it  be  in  Or- 
 der of  Nattirt  before  it.  And  the  Diilindicn  between 
 thefe  Two  Priorities,  is  much  Elder  than  Thomas 
 Afuinas,  or  Peter  Lombard^'  or  any  School-man  of  them 
 all,  or  Chriflian-man  either. 
 
 20.  And  if  any  thing  can  be  from  another  thing 
 by  way  of  NecefTary  Emanation,  it  is  fo  far  from 
 a  ContradiQion  to  fuppofe,  that  it  muft  only  be  in 
 order  of  nature  before  it ;  that  'tis  moft  apparently 
 a  Contradidion  to  fuppofe  the  contrary. 
 
 21.  Our    iSth.  and    19th,  Propofitions  do  fpeak 
 our  Explication  of  the  H.  Trinity,   to  be  as  con- 
 trary 
 
[7]  ;  ■ 
 
 trary  to  Arumfm  as  to  Socimanifm  '^  fmce  the  Arirtts 
 afTcit  that  there  was  at  leaft  a  moment  of  time, 
 when  the  Son  was  not ;  and  that  He  is  a  Crea- 
 ture. 
 
 22.  Akho'  we  cannot  underdand,  how  it  fhould 
 be  no  Con  tradition  to  affirm.  That  the  Three  Per- 
 Ibns  are  But  One  Numtricd  Being,  or  Subftance; 
 yet  hath  it  not  the  leaft  Ihadow  of  a  Contradidi- 
 on  to  fuppofe,  That  there  is  an  unconceivably  clofe 
 and  infeparable  Union  both  in  Will  and  Nature  be- 
 tween them.  And  fuch  a  Union  may  be  much  more 
 eafily  conceived  between  thtm^  than  can  that  Union 
 which  is  between  our  ^onls  a^d  Bodies;  fince  theje 
 are  Subflances  which  are  of  the  moil  unhke  and  even 
 Contrary  Natures. 
 
 z^.  Since  we  cannot  conceive  the  Firft  Original  of 
 All  things,  to  be  more  than  One  N^merical/j/j  and 
 that  we  acknowledg  the  now  mentioned  Union  be- 
 tween 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  ailerted  by  us,  as 
 it  is  neceflary  or  reafonable  it  fhould  be. 
 
 2,4.  And  no  part  of  this  Explication,  do  we  think 
 Repugnant  to  any  Text  of  Scripture;  but  it  ieems 
 much  the  Eafieft  way  of  Reconciling  thofe  Texts , 
 which  according  to  the  other  Hypothefes  are  not  Re- 
 concilable, but  by  offering  manifefl  violence  to  them. 
 
 2  ^.  The  Socinians  muft  needs  Confefs,  that  the  Ho^ 
 nour  of  the  Father,  for  which  they  exprefs  a  very  Zea- 
 lous Concern,  is  as  much  as  they  can  defire  taken 
 care  of  by  this  Explication.    Nor  can  the  Honour 
 
 of 
 
[8  ] 
 
 of  the  Son  and  Holy  spirit  be  more  Confulted,  than 
 by  afcribing  to  them  all  Perfedions,  but  what  they 
 cannot  have,  without  the  moll  apparent  Contra- 
 di6:ion,  afcribed  to  them. 
 
 2.6.  And  we  would  think  it  impodible,  that  any 
 Chriiiian  (liould  not  be  eafily  peri'waded,  to  think 
 as  honourably  of  his  Redeemer  and  Sandifier  as  he 
 can,  while  he  Robs  not  God  the  Father  for  their 
 Sake  ;  and  offers  no  violence  to  the  Sence  and  Mean- 
 ing of  Divine  Revelations,  nor  to  the  Reafon  of  his 
 Mind. 
 
 %-].  There  are  many  things  in  the  notion  of 
 0-/2e  God,  which  all  Hearty  Theifts  will  acknowledg 
 neceffary  to  be  conceived  of  Him,  that  are  as  much 
 above  the  Reach  and  Comprehenlion  of  Humane 
 Underftandings,  as  is  any  Part  of  this  Explication  of 
 the  H,  Trinity,  Nay  this  may  be  affirmed,  even 
 of  the  Notion  of  Self  Extftence  -^  but  yet  there  can- 
 not be  an  Aiheift  fo  filly  as  to  Queftion  it  :  Since 
 it  is  not  more  Evident,  that  One  and  Two  do  make 
 Three ,  than  that  there  could  never  have  been  any 
 things  if  there  were  not  Something  which  was  al- 
 1       ways,   and  never  began  to  be. 
 
 28.  Left  Novelty  Qiould  be  Objecfled  againft  this 
 Explication,  and  therefore  fuch  fliould  be  prejudiced 
 againfl  it,  as  have  a  Veneration  for  Antiquity,  we  add, 
 that  it  well  agrees  with  the  Account  which  feveral 
 of  the  Nicene  Fathers,  even  Athxnafas  himfelf,  and 
 others  of  the  Ancients  who  treat  of  this  Subjed",  do 
 in  divers  places  of  their  Works  give  of  the  Trinity: 
 T^x.Cuimnh,  ^5  \^  largely  fhewed  by  two  very  Learned  Divines 
 Dr.  %^  ■  ^^  ^^j.  Church.    And  had  it  not  been  for  the  School- 
 man 
 
men,  to  whom  Chriflianity  is  little  beholden,  as  much 
 as  fome  Admire  them,  we  have  reafon  to  believe  thac 
 the  World  would  not  have  been  troubled  fince  the 
 Fail  o^  Arianifm,  with  fuch  Controverfies  about  this 
 Great  Point,  as  it  hath  been,  and  Continues  to  be. 
 
 This  Explication  of  the  B.  Trinity  perfectly  agrees 
 with  the  Nicer.e  Creed^  as  it  ftands  in  our  Liturgy, 
 without  offering  the  lead  Violence  to  any  one  Word 
 in  it.  Which  makes  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  to  be 
 from  God  the  Father  by  way  of  EmmAthn ;  affirm- 
 ing Him  to  be  God  of  God^  very  God  of  very  God,  and 
 Metaphorically  exprefling  it  by  U^ht  of  Light ;  an- 
 fwerably  to  what  the  Author  to  the  Hehrews  faith 
 of  Him,  Chap.  1.3.  viz.  That  he  is  'AircLiyxcij.A  im  ^c^r,^ 
 The  Effulgency  of  his  Glory ^  and  :^tfftf;t7«?  th.-  Ciorda-ai  dv'l^\ 
 the  CharaBer  of  his  Suhftmce:  And  fo  is  as  much 
 Of  one  Subft.wce  mth  the  Father j  as  the  Beams  of  the 
 Sm  are  with  the  Body  of  it. 
 
 And  fince  there  have  been  of  late,  fo  many  Ex- 
 plications or  Accounts  Publifhed  of  this  moft  Ado- 
 rable Myftery,  which  have  had  little  better  Succefs 
 than  making  Sport  for  the  Socimans^  I  thought  it 
 very  Seafonable  now  to  Revise  Th^t,  which  I  aiErm 
 with  great  AlTurance  to  be  the  moft  Ancient  one  of 
 all;  much  Elder  than  the  Council  of  Nice-^  and  to 
 have  much  the  fewefl  difficulties  in  it,  and  to  be  in- 
 comparably moft  agreeable  to  H,  Scripture, 
 
 B  A 
 
C  "] 
 
 A 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 Of  the  Foregoing 
 
 THe  Author  of  the  Tmnty  Eight  Tropo[itiom  thanks 
 you  for  the  very  Charitable  Opinion  you  have 
 exprefTed  concerning  him,  in  ihe  Entrance  in- 
 to your  Reflexions  upon  them  ;  and  hopes  he  fhall 
 always  endeavour  to  deferve  the  Chara(^er  of  a  Man 
 fo  Honeji^  as  ntver  to  /peak  otherrvife  than  he  thinks  j 
 andy3  true  to  his  Under Handingy  as  always  to  make  Rea^ 
 fon  one  of  his  Guides  in  the  choyce  of  his  Opinions  :  He 
 profefling  to  beheve,  that  the  Ufe  of  Reafbn  is  {q  far 
 from  being  to  be  Condemned  in  Matters  of  Religion, 
 as  no  where  elfe  to  be  [o  well  employed :  And  that  it  is 
 infinitely  unworthy  of  Almighty  God,  to  conceive  it 
 poffible  for  Him  to  Contradid  his  Internal  by  his  Ex- 
 ternal Revelations.  But  fo  he  muft  have  done,  fhould 
 (uch  Writings  be  of  His  infpiring,  as  are  manifeftly 
 contradic!^ory  to  the  plain  Didates  of  Natural  Reafbn, 
 
 B  2  which 
 
which  the  Wife  Man  faith,  Is  the  Curdle  of  the  Lord, 
 
 And  Sir,  our  Author  takes  no  lels  Notice  of  your 
 Candour,  in  the  Charader  you  give,  in  the  Words 
 following,  of  his  Explication  of  the  Doclrin  of  the  H. 
 Trinity  in  thofe  Propofitions 
 
 But  after  your  Acknowledgment,  That  he  hath  a- 
 'voided  d  gre^t  mAny  ContradiEiions^  which  thofe  of  your 
 Party  do  charge  on  this  DoBriny  as  it  is  held  h)  others  ; 
 and  that  his  Exp'ication  is  a  Voffihle  Scheme  ;  and  that 
 it  is  clear  {}om  any .  Contradictions  to  Natural  Reafen^ 
 you   ObjeO;  that,  he  fides  fome  infuperable  Difficulties, 
 the  Author  hath  not  been  ab'e  fo  avoid  fome  Numerical 
 ContradiBiom.    Now,  as  to  the  in fupe ruble  Difficulties 
 with  which  you  charge  his  Explication,  fince  you 
 acquit  them  from  being  Contradidions  to  Natural 
 Reafon^  you  mean,  I  fuppofe,  that  it  is  fraught  with 
 feveral  Contradidions  to  H.  Serif  ture :     And  I  con- 
 fefs  fuch  Contradidions  to  be  as  infuperable  Difficul- 
 ties to  us,  as  we  are  Chriftians^  as  thofe  to  Reafon  are, 
 as  we  are  Aien,    if  this  be  your  Meaning,  the  Au- 
 thor may  well  exped  to  have  it  fbewn,  what  Texts 
 of  Scripture  are  contradided  by  this  Explication  • 
 but  if  you  mean  otherwife,  my  Reply  is.  That  you 
 are  not  fo  fhallow  a  Thinker  as  not  to  be  aware, 
 that  there  are  alfo  infuperable  Difficulties  in  the  No- 
 tion of  One  God,  both  as  His  Nature  is  defcribed  by 
 all  Chriftians,  according  to  the  Account  given  of 
 Him  in  H.  Scripture,-  and  as  all  Theifts  are  compel- 
 led by  Natural  Light  to  conceive  of  Him.   Nay  you 
 will  franki  y  own,  that  there  is  not  any  one  thing  in 
 the  whole  Univerle,  which  doth  not  fuggeft  infupe- 
 rable PifEculties  to  an  Inquifitive  Mind. 
 
 And 
 
C  ';  ] 
 
 And  whereas,  Sir,  you  Charge  our  Author  with 
 not  being  able  to  avoid  fome  Numerical  ContradiBionsy 
 Iconfefs  I  never  before  met  with  this  diftin£lion,  but 
 I  think  I  underftand  it  by  your  Defcription  of  it.  You 
 fay  that  a  Numerical  Contradi^ion  is  an  Error  commit- 
 ted in  the  fumm'ing  up  of  things.  But  hovv^  is  he  guilty 
 of  fuch  Contr adt^iions  ?     If  you  mean  that  he  hath 
 made  Contradidory  Conclufions  (or  fuch  a  Conclu- 
 fion)  to  kveral  of  his  PremifTes,  I  cannot  (though 
 you  GO )  excufe  him  from  contradiding  Natural  Rea- 
 /o/?,  any  more  than  from  contradidling  Himftlf :  And 
 it  appears  from  what  follows,  that  that  is  your  Mean- 
 ing ;  for,  after  you  had  given  the  Sum  and  Subftance 
 of  the  Firft  Thirteen  Propofitions,    your  Reflexion 
 thereon  is  this  :     One  would  think  that  fuch  a  Foun- 
 dation being  Uidy  the  Comlufwn  mufl  be  wholly  in  fa- 
 vour  of  the  Unitarians.  ¥or  if  the  Father  is  Absolutely 
 T  erf  eh  ;  if  the  Son  and  Sprit  are  not  Abfolutely  Ferfecf^ 
 how  [hill  we  ever  prevent  this  Confequence^  therefore 
 onely  the  Father  is  God?  What  is  the  Definition  of  God 
 among  all  Divines  and  Philofbphers  'f    Is  it  not  thiSj  A 
 Being  Abfolutely  Perfe^  ;   or,  a  Being  that  hath  all  Per- 
 fections ?    But  if  foy  than  onely  the  Father  havinr  all 
 PerfMions,  or  being  Abfolutely  Perfect^  He  musi  he  the 
 onely  God^  to  the  certain  Exclufion  of  the  other  Two  Per"" 
 fons'^  to  the  Exclufion  of  the  Son  4;?^  Spirit  by  Name, 
 becaufe  'tis  affirmed  here  of  them  by  Name,  that  nei" 
 ther  of  them  is  abfolutely  Perfect^  or  hath  all  Perfe^ions. 
 But  this  Author  will  fhew  us  in  his  following  Propofiti- 
 ons,  that^  for  all  this,  the  Son  is  Gody  and  fo  alfo  is 
 the  Holy  Ghoft :    That  isj  he  mil  put  out  the  Light 
 of  the  Sun, 
 
[  H  3 
 And,  Sir,  as  you  have  now  Reprefented  our  Author, 
 you  cannot  but  be  fenfible^upon  fecond  thoughts,  cf 
 over  great  Modefty  in  your  not  having  Charged  him 
 with  Natural  Con  traditions  ,•  nay  and  of  too  great 
 Tarttxlity  towards  him  in  Acquitting  him,  as  you  have 
 done,  of  fuch  Contradidions.  He  will  injlruci  tis,  fay 
 you  next,  in  Im  Premijfes,  that  there  is  but  One  Who 
 is  Cod^  and  m  the  Progrefs  and  Ccnclufion,  or^  in  the 
 (umming  «/>  the  whole  Reckonings  he  will  make  it  appear ^ 
 that  there  are  Three  Beings^  each  of  which  is  (  ftngly 
 and  by  Himfelf^  Cod :  which  is  the  Numerical  Ccn- 
 tradihion  that  I  Charged  at  firfi  on  his  Hypothtfis. 
 And  I  fay,  Sir,  if  you  have  not  too  incautiloufly  re- 
 prefented him  in  thefe  Words,  he  is  as  juflly  to  be 
 here  Charged  with  a  Natural^  as  with  a  Numerical 
 Contradid:ion ;  except  you  will  Affirm,  that  'tis  no 
 Natural  Contradiction  to  fay,  That  the  Number  One 
 is  as  many  as  Three,  or  the  Number  Three  is  no  more 
 than  One.  But,  Sir,  I  muft  crave  leave  to  fay,  that 
 you  have  committed  a  great  Overfight  in  Reprcfenting 
 our  Author  as  you  have  now  done.  For  his  Firft 
 Propofition  is,  The  Name  of  God  is  ufed  in  more  Sences 
 than  one  in  H,  Scripture,  The  second^  The  mo[t  Ab- 
 foUtely  VerfeB  Beirg  is  God  in  the  Highejl  Seme,  The 
 Thirds  Self-Exifience  is  a  Verfe^ton^  &c.  The  Fourth^ 
 God  the  Father  alone  tSj  in  reference  to  His  manner  of 
 Exifltnce^  an  Abfolutely  Perfe^i  Being,  hecaufe  He  alone 
 is  Self'Exiflent.  And  from  Thtfe^  with  the  Five  fol- 
 lowing Propofitions,  he  infers  in  the  Tenth^  That  the 
 Father  alone  is  God  in  the  Abfolutely  HigheH  Seme  :  And 
 in  the  Thirteenth^  'ihat  the  God-head^  or  God  in  this 
 Higheli  Sence^  can  he  but  one  Numerically,  And  there- 
 fore. 
 
■['53 
 
 fore,  Sir,  you  fliould  not  have  made  our  Author  fay, 
 (  as  you  do )  that  there  is  but  one  who  is  Cod,  with- 
 out any  Reftridtion,  when  you  now  fee  he  faith,  that 
 there  is  but  One  who  is  God  in  the  Abjolutely  Higheft 
 Sence  -'  And  that  God  in  the  Ahfoltitely  Higheji  Sence^ 
 can  be  but  One  Numerically.  And  whereas  you  fay. 
 That  he  will  make  it  afpe^r  that  there  are  Three  Beings^ 
 each  of  which  is  ftngly  and  by  Himfelf  God,  you  fliould 
 have  faid,  He  will  make  it  appear  that  there  are  Three 
 Beings^  each  of  which  is  God^  but  not  in  all  the  Self -fame 
 Refpt^s.  And  therefore  I  cannot  as  yet  accufe  him, 
 either  of  any  One  Natural  or  Numerical  Contradicti- 
 on ;  if  this  be  a  Proper  Diftindion,  which  I  will 
 not  difpute. 
 
 What  remaineth  of  your  Reflexions  is  chiefly  a 
 Charge  of  Tritheifm  againfl;  this  Explication  of  the 
 Trinity. 
 
 I.  You  (ay,  /  acknowledge  in  thefe  proportions  the 
 Genuine  Vocirin^  and  'very  Language  of  the  Father Sy 
 who  wrote  jljortly  after  the  Council  of  Nice,  till  the 
 Times  of  the  School -men.  And  the  Author  is  aflii- 
 red,  that  this  Explication  for  Subil:ance,  is  a  great 
 deal  Elder  than  that  Council.  But  he  gives  you  his 
 hearty  Thanks  for  this  free  Conceffion  of  yours,  be- 
 caufe  you  have  faved  him  the  Pains  of  proving  his 
 Lafl  Propofition :  And  I  will  therefore  requite  you, 
 for  him,  in  imitating  your  Brevity,  as  you  fay,  you 
 do  his.  But  methinks  you  fhould  alfo  acknowledge, 
 that  the  Authors  Explication  hath  no  inconfiderable 
 Advantage  on  its  fide,  in  that  you  allow  it  to  be  of 
 lb  great  Antiquity.  If  the  Socinians  will  not  acknow- 
 ledge thii  an  Advantagious  Circumftance,  in  all  dif 
 
 putable 
 
putable  Points,  they  are  certainly  the  onely  Learn- 
 ed Men  who  have  no  Regard  for  Antiquity, 
 
 2.  You  add,  B^^t  the  School-Dhmes,  or  the  Divines 
 of  the  Middle  Ages,  faw,  and  almoH  all  the  Moderns^ 
 that  are  well  verfed  in  theje  QjieHions^  confers  it^  that 
 this  Explication  is  cin  inexcufabk  indejenfihle  Tritheifm. 
 And  quickly  after  you  fay,  That  the  School-Divines, 
 and^  generally  [peaking^  the  -mofl  Learned  of  the  Mo^ 
 dernsy  with  the  greateft  Reafon  in  the  World ,  abhor 
 making  the  Three  Divine  Perfens^  to  be  Perfons  in  the 
 Proper  Sence  of  that  Word :  Which  is  to  fay,  they  are 
 diftinU  intelleBual  Beings^  and  have  different  Suhflan' 
 ces  in  N umber ^  thd  not  in  fpecies  or  kind.  And  you 
 affirm,  that  the  forementioned  Divi?ies  do  with  the 
 greateft  Reafon  in  the  World  abhor  this ,  Becarfe 
 they  perceive  it  delhoys  the  True  and  Real  Unit  J  of 
 Cod ;  it  taketh  away  his  Proper,  4^d  Natural^  and  Nu- 
 merical Unity ;  and  leaveth  onely  a  Certain  Political 
 and  Oeconomical  Unity ;  which  is  indeed  onely  an  ima- 
 ginary Unit  J.    Hereto  I  Anfwer, 
 
 I.  That  a  Wife  Man  will  think  never  the  worfe 
 of  any  thing,  merely  for  its  having  an  Ugly  Name 
 given  it :  As  you  would  account  it  no  real  Difho- 
 nour  to  the  Socinian  Hypothefis^  fhould  it  be  called 
 Ditheifm^  which  founds  every  whit  as  ill  as  Tritheifm, 
 And  you  cannot  deny  it  to  be  Dithdfm  in  a  certain 
 fence,  becaufe  it  afierts  Two  Gods ;  one  by  Nature, 
 and  the  other  by  Office  --,  and  that  this  God  by  Of- 
 fice, is  to  be  Honoured  by  all  Men,  even  a^  they  Ho- 
 nour  the  Father,  ^according  to  his  own  Declaration) 
 though  but  a  Mere  Man  by  Nature.  And  this  grates 
 every  whit  as  much  upon  my  Underjftanding,  as  any 
 
 thing 
 
C  «7  3 
 
 thing  in  this  Explication  can  on  youys :  And  is  as  con- 
 tradictory to  Natural  Realbn  in  the  Opinion  of  all 
 Trinitarians^  as  any  of  their  Explications  are  in  the 
 Opinion  oiSocimans-^  who  cannot  but  acknowledge, 
 that  Honouring  the  Son  even  as  the  Father  is  Honoured 
 is  giving  him  that  Honour  which  is  truly  and  pro- 
 perly Divine^  let  them  reflrain  it  as  much  as  they 
 can. 
 
 2.  Whereas  you  fay,  that  this  Explication  desiroj- 
 eth  the  Irue  and  Real  Unity  of  Cod,  and  therefore  to  be 
 abhorred-^  I  mull:  grant,  if  it  does  fo,  it  can  not  be 
 too  much  abhorred  ,•  but  I  would  know  from  whence 
 we  are  to  learn ,  wherein  confifts  His  True  and  Re- 
 al Unity,  it  muft  either  be  learned  from  Scripture 
 or  Realbn,  or  both.  But  as  to  the  H,  Scripture^ 
 this  indeed  abundantly  declareth  the  Unity  of  God, 
 but  it  no  where  diHingnifijeth  of  Unity,  nor  faith  of 
 what  Nature  that  Unity  is  which  it  afcribes  to  God. 
 Were  you  never  fo  well  latisfied  that  that  Text  in 
 
 St.  Johfi\  Epiftles  is  genuine Thefe  Three  are  One ; 
 
 you  would  fay  it  proves  nothing  againft  the  Socini- 
 ans^  becaufe  it  faith  not  in  what  Sence  the  Father, 
 Son,  and  Holy  Ghoft  are  One,  But  I  am  fure  our 
 Author  never  fpake  a  truer  Word ,  than  what  he 
 faith  in  his  Seventeenth  Proportion,  concerning  the 
 real  Dijiinciion  of  the  Three  Perfons  in  Scripture. 
 And  furely  thofe  whofe  Notions  are  moft  agreeable 
 to  the  Letter,  and  moft  proper  Sence  of  Scripture, 
 when  there  is  no  apparent  neceflity  of  departing 
 from  them  ( as  I  think  there  is  the  greateft  Necelr 
 fity  of  keeping  thereto  in  this  cafe  )  if  they  happen 
 to  be  in  an  Error,  their  Error  is  on  the  fafer  fide* 
 
 C  And 
 
L  '8] 
 And  fince  thole  of  your  Opinion  do  fo  zealoufly  con- 
 tend for  making  the  H.  Scriptures  the  fble  Rule  of 
 Faith,  and  profefs  that  you  will  take  nothing  for  a 
 Point  of  ReiigLon  but  what  is  found  in  the  Bible, 
 (  wherein  you  do  like  Iroteftmts^  at  leaft  if  you  will 
 acknowledge  that  to  be  there  which  is  thcrp  by  evi- 
 dent Confequence,   as  well  as  in  exprefs  Words)  ; 
 fince,  I  fay,  you  do  fo,  you  of  all  Men  fliou'.d  not 
 be  over  dogmatical  in  determining  a  Point,  which 
 the  H.  Scripture  is  filent  in.     And  then  for  Reajon^ 
 fuch  an  Unity  as  our  Author  (^ after  the  Fathers)  af- 
 ferts,  is  not  contradidory,  or  contrary,  to  any  plain 
 and  evident  Dictate  thereof.     This  I  adventure  to 
 Affirm  with  very  great  Afliirance  :    And,  Sir,  your 
 felf  muft  needs  be  of  the  fame  Mind,  if  you  were  in 
 good  earneft  (  as  I  can't  think  otherwKe  )  in  calling 
 the  Explication  a  folfihk  Schume^  and  owning  that  it 
 is  not  contradiQory  in  any  of  its  parts  to  Natural 
 Rcafon.    But,  Sir,  (to  fpeak  my  Mind  freely)  1  will 
 not,  of  all  Men,  go  to  School  to  the  School  Divides 
 to  learn  what  Reafbn  faith  on  an  Argument  of  this 
 Nature  ;    and  therefore  neither  to  thofe  Modern  Di- 
 vines^  who  pin  their  Faith  upon  their  jQeeves.     If  I 
 could  fatisfie  my  felf  to  be  an  Implicit  Believer,    I 
 would  a  thoufand  times  rather  take  the  Ancient  Fa* 
 thers  (  and,  it  may  be,  Thtlofophers  too)  for  the  Guides 
 of  my  Reafon,  than  thofe  Gentlemen  who  fptnt  their 
 time  in  the  Weaving  of  Fine  Cobwebs ;  and  particu- 
 larly are  fo  fuperfine  upon  the  fimplicity  of  the  Divine 
 Effence,  as  to  render  GOD  Almighty  (at  leaft,  to 
 fuch  a  dull  Underftanding  as  mine  )  a  no  left  tmcor2- 
 eeivahk  than  incomprehenlible  Being ;  and  to  fimpli- 
 
[  to  1 
 
 fie  Him  rather  into  Nothm^^  than  into  Simple  Vnity, 
 
 3.  That  this  Explication  leavcth  onely  a  certain 
 Toiickd^  or  Oeconomical  Unity  is  only  /^z/W  by  you  • 
 but  the  Twenty  Second  Fropofition  tells  you  the  con- 
 trary, of  Vi  hich  more  anon. 
 
 4.  This  Explica-ion  doth  nor  take  away  the  Nu- 
 mer/cal  Unity  of  the  Go<^- head,  ov  oi^  God  in  the  Abfo- 
 lutely  hightli  Sence,  and  the  Firfl:  Original  of  All 
 things :  For  it  exprefiy  affirms  the  NecelFity  there- 
 of, Prop.  13  rh. 
 
 5".  It  maketh  the  other  Two  Perfons  as  much  one 
 with  the  Firft,  and  with  one  another,  as  they  are, 
 without  the  moft  apparent  Contradi£lion,  capable  of 
 being.  One  in  fo  High  a  Sence,  as  that  we  want  a 
 Word,  by  wbich  to  exprels  their  Unity:  And  there- 
 fore that  they  are  much  more  than  specifically  One,  as 
 ThvQQHumane oxAngelicd  Perfons  are*  Were  I  a  School- 
 man it  fhould  fcape  me  hard,  but  I  would  add  ano- 
 ther dillinftion  of  Unity,  between  Specifical  and  Nu- 
 merical, to  exprefs  this  Unity  by  ;  which  I  am  fure 
 would  have  more  of  a  Fundament um  in  rcy  than  many 
 of  their  DiftinQions  have.     This  Explication  fpeaks 
 as  great  a  Unity  between  them,  as  is  between  the  Sun 
 and  its  Splendor^  and  the  Light  of  both :  And  a  great- 
 er than  is  between  the  Vine  and  its  Branches  ;  or  than 
 is  between  the  Fountain  and  the  Streams  which  flow 
 from  it :   Which  are  Similitudes  of  the  Ancients.    I 
 lay,  this  Explication  fpeaks  the  Unity  of  the  Divine 
 Perfons.  greater  than  the  Unity  of  each  of  thefe  ;  be- 
 caufe,  tho'  they  are  moft  clofely  and  intimately  U- 
 nited ,   yet  are  not  infeparable.     And  for  the  lame 
 reafon,  it  fpeaks  a  greater  Unity  between  them,  than 
 
 C  z  is 
 
is  between  our  Souls  and  Bodies ;  as  appears  by  the 
 Tvpenty  Second  Propofition.  And  wh.re  is  he  who 
 will  pretend  to  know  how  many  Degrees,  or  Kinds 
 of  Unity  are  poiiible,  or  ciBudly  are  ? 
 
 6.  The  inseparable  Unity  in  will  and  Nature  be- 
 tween the  Three  Perfons,  which  that  Propofition  af- 
 firmeth  not  to  have  the  leaft  fhadow  of  a  Contra- 
 di£lion  in  it,  and  therefore  is  taken  into  this  Expli- 
 cation, doth  anfwer  all  the  ends  for  which  the  Uni- 
 ty of  the  Deity  was  ever  afTertcd.  And  therefore  the 
 DiftinQ:ion  alTerted  between  the  Three  Perfbns,  hath 
 not  the  leaft  Appearance  of  any  one  of  the  perni- 
 cious.  Confequents ,    which  follow  upon  a  Plurality 
 of  Gods ;  and  confequently  there  is  f^o  reafcn  in  the 
 World^  ( tho'  you  fay  there  is  the  greatefi )   why  it 
 fhould  be  abhorred  by  the  School-Vivims^  or  the  moji 
 Learned  among  the  Moderns ;  or  by  any  Mortal,  learn- 
 ed or  unlearned.  For  they  are  outwardly,  and  in  re- 
 ference to  the  Creation,  perfectly  One  and  the  Same 
 God,  as  concurring  in  all  the  fame  External  Adions ; 
 tho'  in  relation  to  One  Another^   there  is  a  real  Di- 
 flindlion  between  them.  And  it  feems  very  wonder- 
 fulj  that  this  fhould  be  denyed  by  any  one  who  pro- 
 feffeth  himfelf  a  "Trinitarian ;  fmce  there  is  no  un- 
 derftanding  what  a  Contradidion  means,  if  a  Being 
 that  Beg€tSj  and  that  which  is  begotten  thereby,  and 
 a  Third  which  proceeds  from  both,  iliould  not  be 
 really  diftind  from  each  other. 
 
 7.  A  Plurality  of  Gods  hath  generally  been  fo  un* 
 derftood,  as  to  imply  more  than  One  independent, 
 and  ( therefore  likewiie  )  Self-exiftent  Deity,  as  the 
 (Common  ^guments  againfl  a  Plurality  of  Gods  do 
 
 fuppofe; 
 
 '^' 
 
C  11] 
 
 {uppofe;  but  it  was  never  otherwife  underftood^ 
 than  fb  as  to  import  feparatt  Deities.  And  never 
 were  there  more  Ztalous  Aflerters  of  the  Unity  of 
 the  Deity  againft  the  Pagans,  than  were  divers  of 
 the  Ancients  to  whom  our  Author  is  beholden  for 
 the  Subftance  of  this  Explication.  One  of  thefe  was 
 La^lanttm  (to  pals  by  feveral  others  of  the  Three  Firfl: 
 Centuries)  and  1  find  him  thm  difcourfing  in  the 
 2^th.Chap.  of  his  Fourth  Book,  De  rera  Sapkntia.  For- 
 tajfe  qudrat  aliqiiis,  &c.  Some  one  perhaps  will  ask^  how 
 tihen  we  fty  rve  worjbip  One  God^  we  can  ajfert  Two, 
 viz.  God  the  Father,  a^idCodthe  Sof2y  &c.  And  to  this 
 Queftion  the  Father  thifs  Anfwers,  Quum  dicim^ts  De- 
 urn  latrem.  Sec.  Whe-a  K>e  fay  God  the  Father  and  God 
 the  Son,  we  dorit  feparate  and  part  them  afunder,  dec. 
 they  have  one  Mind,  one  Spirit,  one  Subftance.  And, 
 in  the  next  Words,  he  faith  in  what  fence  they  are 
 One  :  Sed  ille  q/taft  exuherans  Fons,  &c.  B'lt  the  Father^ 
 fV  as  it  were  the  overfloiving  Fountain,  the  Son  as  a  flream 
 flowing  from  him  :  He  like  to  the  Sun,  This  like  to  a 
 Sun-beam.  And  this  is  the  fame  Delcription  of  their 
 Unity  with  one  another,  that  the  Explication  gives. 
 And  I  think  there  needs  no  more  to  be  faid  in  De- 
 fence thereof,  againft  the  odious  Charge  of  Tritheifm 
 to  any  ingenuous  and  Free=minded  Perfbn. 
 
 Nor  doth  there  need  to  be  given  any  farther  An* 
 fwer  to  what  remains  in  your  Paper,  that  defigns  to 
 prove  this  a  to  be  abhorred  Tritheiftical  Explication.  But 
 I  muft  Clear  it  from  another  great  Miftake  in  the  Ac- 
 count you  next  give  of  it.  You  fay  that  the  Hypothe- 
 fis  exp^efty  acknowledgeth  in  each  of  the  Two  Perfons^ 
 not  onely  ivhatfoever  Properties  can  make  them  to  he 
 
 diHin^ 
 
C  "  3 
 
 dijiinci  intelltUud  Beings^  and  SiibHdnces ;  but  alfb 
 all  the  Attributes  that  are  mcefjary  to  Ejfentiate  a 
 Cody  that  is,  to  make  Bim  a  Perfect  God ;  on?ly  it 
 faith  the  Father  hath  this  fecidiar  vvipoxh  or  Privi- 
 led'/e,  th.it  He  is  Firjl  in  order  of  Nature.  He  hath 
 no  Effentid  or  Real  PerfeBion  more  than  the  other 
 Two  Per  fans '^  onely  He  hath  this  Honour^  that  their 
 Original  is  from  Him.  And  hence  you  Conclude, 
 that  it  is  not  foffihle  to  faj  what  are  Three  GOD  5, 
 if  this  be  not  an  Account  and  Dejcription  of  Three 
 Cods. 
 
 But,   Sir,   doth  our  Author's  Hypothefis  give  the 
 FATHER  no  other  Priviledge  above  the  Son  and 
 H.  Spirit,  than  his  being  Firs'l  in  Order  of  Nature^ 
 and  their    Original?     Doth  not  the  Fourth  Propofi- 
 tion  exprefly  fay  that  he  is  SclfExijlent  too  ?    And 
 His  being  their  Original^  is  fb  far  from  being  the 
 fame  thing  with  ^eZ/'-Exiflence ,   that  fimply  in  it 
 felf  confidered,  it  doth  not  fo  much  as  necefllarily 
 fttppofe  His  6'e//-Exifl;ence.    Doth  he  who  faith,  that 
 the  Sm  is  the  Original  of  the  Illuftrious  Splendour 
 in  the  Heavens,  and  of  the  Light  which  pervades 
 the  World,  in  fo  faying  afHrm  that  it  is  SelfEx- 
 iftent  ?     And  I  fhall  wonder ,    if  Self-ExiJIence  be 
 but  an  Imaginary  Perfection,  I  fhould  rather  Con- 
 clude it  the  very  greateft  of  all  Rtal  Pcrfeflions. 
 How  then  can  you  fay.  That  this  Hypothefis  gives 
 the  Father  no  other  Priviledae  above  the  other  Per- 
 fons^  but  onely  that  He  is  Firfi  in  Order  of  Nature  .<* 
 Again,   Is  not  Ahfolnte  Independence  a  Real  Per- 
 fedion,  and  Edng  the  Fir  ft  Original  of  all  things  a- 
 nother  I    But  doth  not  the  Si>cth  Propcfttion  confi- 
 dered 
 
C  i?  ] 
 
 dered  with  the  Pifth ,  afcribe  both  thefe  too  to  the 
 Father  onely  ? 
 
 And  whereas  you  fay  farther,  That  this  Hjpothejts 
 gives  the  Second  and  Third  Per  fins  all  the  Attributes 
 that  are  neceffafy  to  Ajfenti^te  a  God,  What  Earnings 
 will  you  make  of  this  ?  fince  it  faiih  not  that  thole 
 which  are  afcribed  to  them  {viz.  infinite  Goodnefs^ 
 wifdom  and  Power ^ )  are  all  that  are  necefTary  to  Ef- 
 fentiate  a  God  in  the  Ahfolutely  Higheft  Stnce,  which 
 the  Name  olGod  is  ever  to  be  underilood  in  in  Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 And  now  you  can  need  no  Anfwer  to  what  you 
 fay  in  the  laft  Words  of  this  Paragraph,  viz,.  The 
 Perfe^ions  of  the  Deity  that  are  Real,  are  Gods  infinite 
 Wifdom,  Power,  Goodnefs,  Duration,  and  fiich  like : 
 Therefore  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  Gods  in  the  Highefl 
 Sence  of  that  H^ord,  if  they  have  all  thofe  aforefaid  re- 
 al and  pofitive  P erf  eii ions  of  the  Divine  Nature  ;  tho' 
 it  he  granted  at  the  fame  time^  thxt  they  are  Originated 
 from  the  Father.  You  need,  I  fay,  no  Anfwer  here- 
 to, fince  you  were  now  minded,  thu  Self-Exi/lence, 
 Ahfolute  Independence^  and  Being  the  FirH  Original  of 
 Ail  things,  are  PerfeQions  peculiar  to  God  the  Father; 
 and  that  this  is  part  of  the  Explication,  And  upon 
 this  Account  Athxnafm,  S.  Bafil,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
 and  St.  chryfoHom,  with  feveral  of  the  Latin  Fathers, 
 interpret  thofe  Words  of  our  B.  Saviour,  My  Father 
 is  greater  than  /,  to  have  been  fpoken,  not  of  His 
 Humanity^  but  His  Divinity-^  as  Dr.  Cudworth  hath 
 iliewed  in  his  '^9<^th.  Page  of  his  Intelle^nal  Syliem 
 of  the  Univerfe.  Nor  certainly  did  our  Lord  ever  fay 
 fo  little  a  thing,  as  that  the  Infnite  MAJESTT 
 
 4 
 
cf  Heaven  and  Edrth  i^  greater  than  any  Mortal  Man", 
 And  having  this  Occafion  to  Mention  Dr.  Cud- 
 worth,,  the  Honour  I  have  for  the  Memory  of  that 
 Excellent  Perfon,  conftraineth  me  to  fay,  That  the 
 Account  he  gives  of  the  Fathers  Judgment  of  the 
 Trinity^  is  not  Reprefented  as  it  ought  to  have  been, 
 An  the  former  Socinian  Treatife  ot  Considerations  on 
 the  Explications  thereof.  And  I  fo  vi^ord  that  mod 
 Learned  Performance  of  the  Doctor,  becaule  he  was 
 therein  an  Hiftorian^  rather  than  an  ExpUsator. 
 
 Your  next  Paragraph  begins  with  this  QueRion,  A 
 Father  begets  Two  Sons  that  have  all  the  Properties  cf  the 
 Humane  Nature y  in  a^s  great  Verfeciion  a^s  their  Father  ; 
 fhall  rve  deny  that  they  are  Men  in  the  Highejl  Seme 
 cf  that  Wordy  becaufe  they  are  Originated  from  their 
 Father  ?     And  this^  fay  you,  is  the  very  Cafe  before 
 m.     But,  Sir,  this  is  not  (with  your  Leave)  the 
 very  Cafe  before  us :    Tis  nothing  like  it,  becaufe 
 'tis  the  Perfection  of  no  Man,  to  be  5^//-Exillent ; 
 nor  are  a  Humane  Fathers   Sons  immediately  de^ 
 pendent  on  him  for  the  Continuation  of  their  Be- 
 ing, as  the  Two  Perfons  are  upon  God  the  Father^  as 
 Light  is  upon  the  Sun,  and  as  Sir  earns  on  the  Fouw 
 tain.    But  if  a  Humane  Father  could  be  fuppofed  to 
 be  Self-Exiftent,  and  that  his  Sons  had  the  now 
 mentioned  kind  of  Dependence  upon  him,  the  Con- 
 fequence  muft  be,  that  their  Nature  is  fhort  of  the 
 Perfection  of  their  Fathers  Nature,  notwithftanding 
 the  many  Properties  they  agree  in ;    and  therefore 
 that  they  are  not  Men  in  lb  high  a  Sence,  as  he 
 is  a  Man ;   feeing  the  Humane  Nature  would  be 
 fuppofed  capable  of  Perfedions  which  they  have 
 
Cm  3 
 
 noty  but  their  Father  hath.  What  follows  of  this 
 Paragraph,  is  only  applying  the  Point  in  Controver- 
 fie  to  this  Cafe  ;  but  f  have  faid  enough  to  fliew 
 that  there  is  not  the  kail  A/Tinity  between  thefe 
 Two  Cafes. 
 
 The  Subftance  of  what  you  farther  Obje6t  againfl 
 this  Exdicdtion,  is  a  Remark  upon  the  Twenty  Second 
 Pro^opion :  And  you  fay,  In  thtft  ferv  ivords  coriftjl  the 
 flnngth  and  Hopes  of  this  Explication.  The  unconcelvably 
 Cloje  Union  in  Will  and  Nature  between  the  Three  Gods^ 
 makes  them  to  be  One  God.  I  fee,  Sir^  you  as  odiouf- 
 ly  word  it  as  you  can,  but  you  would  have  lofl  no- 
 thing by  it,  had  you  kept  to  our  yJiaho/s  Words, 
 and  laid  Three  Perfons  ;  cr,  if  you  had  pleafed.  Three 
 djtinci  Proper  Perfons^  inftead  of  Three  Gods. 
 
 Well,  Sir,  the  unconceivably  Clofe  Union  in  Will 
 and  Nature  between  the  Divine  Perfons  is  that  (as 
 you  fay  )  tn  which  the  Jirength  and  hopes  of  this  Ex^ 
 plication  do  confif^.  But  you  Objed:,  That  this  is  as 
 much  as  to  fay,  that  they  are  One  God  by  that  very 
 things  which  mojl  incontefiahly  d.eclares  them  to  be  Three 
 Gods.  And  this  you  make  out  by  this  Qntftion^  what 
 is  the  Union  of  Will  and  Nature  between  dijiinii  intel- 
 lectual Beings.,  and  different  Suhsiances ;  is  it  any  other 
 hilt  this^  in  plain  EnoliJ]?^  that  they  always  will  the  fame 
 things ^  and  their  Natures  and  Suhsiances  are  united  in 
 the  fame  Properties^  Attributes.,  or  Perfe^ions  ?  That 
 is  to  fay^  as  you  [Tocced,  thefe  Three  intelltclual  Sub- 
 fiances  or  Beings,  are  each  of  them  Almighty ^  Omnifci- 
 tnt^  mofl  Good  and  the  rcfl  5  ythy  this  is  the  very  thin^r 
 that  makes  them  to  be  Three  Gods.  Next ,  you  give 
 US  a  Proof  of  this,  but  you  nnight  have  faved  your 
 
C  i6  3 
 
 felf  that  labour;  for  'tis  readily  granted,  if  this  be 
 all  the  Union  that  is  between  them.  Bur  in  Anfwer 
 to  your  Queftion,  it  muft  never  be  granted  you  that 
 the  infeparably  Clofe  Union  between  the  Three 
 Divine  Perfons,  both  in  Will  and  Nature,  is  no  more 
 than  their  Union  in  the  fame  fvHl  and  Froperties  ; 
 for  it  is  alio  their  immediate  Union  in  their  SubfiAn- 
 cesy  (their  Spiritual  Subftances)  as  the  Union  be- 
 tween our  Souls  and  Bodies  is  in  their  Subsian- 
 ces.  And  if  they  were  acknowledged  to  be  feparate 
 Subftances,  and  United  onely  as  you  fay,  you  would 
 have  made  our  Author  afhamed  of  his  Explication, 
 But  if,  Sir,  you  think  you  may  do  it  however^  by 
 laying  that  the  Subftance  and  Properties  of  the  Di- 
 vine Nature  are  the  ftlf-fume  thing  ;  I  will  now 
 content  my  felf  to  fay  onely  this^  then  you  might 
 have  ufed  the  Word  Subftances^  as  well  as  Properties 
 and  Attributes ;  and  then  it  would  have  appeared  at 
 firfl:  fig.ht,  that  there  is  no  force  in  your  Objedion. 
 But  your  felf  doth  alfo  exprefly  here  diftinguifh  them, 
 in  faying,  that  their  SubHances  are  united  in  the  fame 
 Froperties^  Attributes  or  Perfections, 
 
 If  you  ask  me  what  Account  can  be  given  to  the 
 fatisfadion  of  any  Rational  Perfon,  of  fuch  an  Uni- 
 on between  the  Subftances  of  the  Three  Perfons,  I 
 will  Reply  that  when  you  give  me  an  intelligible 
 Account  of  the  Union  betwixt  our  Souls  and  Bodies ^ 
 I  do  promife  to  give  you  a  no  lefs  intellia;ible  Account 
 of  the  Union  betwixt  the  Subftances  of  the  Three  Di^ 
 *vine  Perfons,  Nay  (^  as  the  Twenty  Second  Propofitio/t 
 tells  you  )  the  Union  between  our  Souls  and  Bodies  is 
 more  unaccountable  to  Reafon,  than  i%this  Union- 
 
 be- 
 
[  17  ] 
 
 bccaufe  that  is  an  Union  between  Subflances  of  Per- 
 fedly  unlike y  and  even  contrary  Natures.  In  reciting 
 that  Prcpofition,  you  (ay  Contradictory  inftead  of  Con- 
 trary  ;  but  I  fuppofe  this  was  the  fault,  not  of  your 
 Fer}^  but  of  the  l^refs. 
 
 But  if  you  will  fay ,  that  the  Subflnnces  of  our 
 Souls  and  Bodits  are  onely  united  in  their  Properties  • 
 I  fay  they  are  not  at  all  united  in  tbtfty  becaufe  their 
 Properties  are  of  as  different  and  contrary  a  Nature, 
 as  their  Snbftayicas.  But  if  they  could  be  united  in 
 tkjt^  yet  the  Union  of  their  Subftances  mull:  be  mort 
 than  rheir  being  united  in  their  ?  roper  ties  ^  except 
 my  Soul  is  as  much  united  \\\\\i  your  Body  as  with 
 m'ne  own;  for  the  EfTential  Properties  o[  all  Souls 
 and  Bodies  are  the  fame. 
 
 And  now,  Sir,  I  hope  you  are  fenfible,  that  you 
 might  have  (pared  your  Lafl  Paragraph,  viz.  How  is  it 
 pojfthle  that  this  Author  (Jjould  overlook  fuch  an  Obvious 
 Reajonina^  or  not  he  Satisfied  with  it  ?  And  fay  I,  How 
 is  it  poflible  that  fp  Acute  a  Perfon  as  your  Writings 
 fpeak  you  to  be,  fhould  be  guilty  of  fo  plain  a  JfiaiU 
 in  that  Reaioning,  and  take  it  to  be  fo  ©lJlJl0Uj9i  f  I 
 fhall  give  you  no  farther  trouble,  than  while  I  de- 
 fire  you  to  take  notice,   Ihat  1  have  not  troubled 
 you  with  more  words  than  needs  muft  ,•  and  much 
 iefs  with  f/nrjfesy    to  ufe  your  Own   Word ;    nor 
 with  any  Subtle  DilHnctions,  as  much  Enamoured, 
 as  you  perceive  I  am,  with  the  School-men  -^  nor  with 
 any  thing  you  may  be  tempted  to  call  SchoU-licrd 
 Cant,  or  Me-'iphyfical  Gibberijh  ;  nor  fo  much  as  with 
 the  Father's  great  word  ^^[j.-Ki^iyd^mq,  But  my  Anf  "vcr 
 is  as  plain  as  a  Pykefiaff^  yet  as  full  as  plain,  to  all 
 
 D  2  the 
 
C  "^8  3 
 
 the  Refledions  you  have  made  upon  the  Explication,' 
 But  whether  it  be  to  the  pnrpofi  too,  I  muft  leave^ 
 it  to  the  Judgment  of  the  fair  and  impartial  Reader. 
 But  I  can  fincerely  avow,  That  I  have  faid  nothing 
 to  any  of  your  ObjeQ:ions,  merely  becaufe  for  my 
 Credits  fake,  (feeing  I  undertook  to  Reply  to  themj 
 I  muft  fay  Something ;   Nor  hath  a  Line  come  from 
 me  which  is  not  agreeable  to  the  fenfe  of  my  Mind  ; 
 nor  which  I  think  not  to  be  pertinent.    As  I  alfo  (b- 
 lemnly  Profefs,  that  fmce  fuch  Perfedions  and  Ope- 
 rations, as  are  unqueftionably  Vroper  to  the  Deity, 
 are  attributed  in  H.  Scripture  to  the  Son  and  H,  Spi- 
 rit ;  and  that  I  cannot  be  Satisfied  by  the  extremely 
 laboured  Glofles  and  Criticifms  of  the  Socimans,  to 
 depart  from  the  moft  Obvious  and  Natural  Sence  of 
 the  Multitude  of  Texts  wherein  they  are  fo ;   as 
 doubting  whether  many  Texts  are  to  be  found,  which 
 might  not  have  more  than  one  fence  pur  upon  them, 
 by  the  fame  Labour  and  Art :  And  fmce  Divine  Ho- 
 nour is  moft  Exprefly  declared  to  be  due  to  the  Son^ 
 John  5.  23.  and  He  hath  the  Honour  of  fuch  a  Dox- 
 ology,  Appeal,  I.  6.  as  according  to  the  Original,  as 
 well  as  our  Tranflation,  1  remember  not  an  Higher 
 given  to  Cod  the  Father  in  all  the  New-Teftament. 
 And  fince  too  the  Son  and  Spirit  are  all  along  moft 
 plainly  defcribed,  as  diftin^  Perfons  both  from  the 
 jfatljetr,  and  from  C)ne  ^ItOtljet,  even  as  plainly  as 
 Words  can  do  it ;  and  yet  all  this  while  the  Unity  of 
 the  Deity  is  fully  AlTerted ;  I  can  not,  for  my  life, 
 Reconcile  thele  things  but  by  this  Ancient  Explication 
 of  the  Trinity,  which  your  felf  ingenuouily  acknow- 
 ledges to  be  a  Poffibk  Scheme ;  and  Hereb^^  I  thank 
 
 GOD, 
 
L  ^9] 
 GOD,   I  can  do  ic  to  my  great  SatlsFaflion.. 
 
 That  God  Almighty  would  give  us  a  Right  Un- 
 derflanding  in  all  the  Points  of  uur  Chriftian  Faith, 
 and  particularly  in  the  ^;ut  mXi  ItXti^U^  £)ne, 
 wherein  you  DiflPer  from  the  Generality  of  Chrifti- 
 ans  in  all  Ages ;  and  that  we  may  be  fmcere  and 
 unbyaded,  and  alfo  Humble,  in  our  Searches  after 
 Truth  ;  not  Iteming  over  confidently  to  our  o)vn  Under- 
 ftandings ,  fince  thofe  that  moft  improve  them  are 
 moll:  fenfible  of  their  being  infinitely  too  fhallow  to 
 comprehend  Truths  of  this  Nature  efpecially,  is  the 
 Humble  and  moft  Hearty  Prayer  of^ 
 
 s  I  %, 
 
 Notvvithftanding  our  being  (as  I  fiippofe) 
 o^ob.  19th.  perfect  Strangers,  and  our  wideDif- 
 
 *^94'  ference  in  Opinion, 
 
 To«r  Sincere  Friend  to  Serve  Yon  in  all 
 Chrijlicin  Offices^  &c. 
 
It 
 
•M»:   :Mi 
 
 "^■n^i 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■<I0$ 
 
 ^•^ssy^;* 
 
 •     .^-