1. THE Name of God is used in more Sences than one in Holy Scripture.

2. The most Absolutely Perfect Be­ing, is God in the Highest Sence.

3. Self-Existence is a Perfection, and seems to be the Highest of all Perfections.

4. God the Father alone, is in reference to His Manner of Existence an Absolutely Perfect Being; because He alone is Self-Existent.

5. He alone, consequently, is Absolutely Perfect, in reference to those Perfections, which do praesup­pose Self-Existence.

6. Those Perfections are Absolute Independence, and Being the First Original of all other Beings: In which the Son and the Holy Ghost are comprehended.

7. All Trinitarians do Acknowledge, That these Two Persons are from God the Father. This is af­firmed in that Creed which is called the Nicene, and in that which falsely bears the Name of Athanasius: Tho' with this difference, that the Holy Ghost is as­serted in them, to be from the Son as well as from [Page 4] the Father. Wherein the Greek Church differs from the Latin.

8. It is therefore a flat Contradiction, to say that the Second and Third Persons are Self-Existent.

9. And therefore it is alike Contradictious, to Af­firm them to be Beings Absolutely Perfect in refe­rence to their Manner of Existence; and to say that they have the Perfections of Absolute Independence, and of being the First Originals of all things.

10. Since the Father alone is a Being of the most Absolute Perfection, He having those Perfections which the other Two Persons are uncapable of ha­ving. He alone is God in the Absolutely Highest Sence.

11. And therefore our Blessed Saviour calls Him, The onely True God, Joh. 17.3. This is Life Eter­nal to know Thee the onely True God, and Iesus Christ whom Thou hast sent. And it is most Absurd to think, That in these Words, and the following Prayer, He did address Himself to the Three Persons of the Tri­nity conjunctly, since throughout the Prayer He calls this Onely Truly God his Father; and calls Himself twice His Son, before these Words. Not to mention the Absurdity of making our Lord to pray to Him­self, or of distinguishing Himself from those Three, of which Himself was one. If such a Liberty as this, in interpreting Scripture, be allowable, what Work may be made with Scripture!

12. Our Lord calls the Father, The Onely True God, because He only is Originally, and of Himself God, and the First Original of all Beings whatsoever. As he calls him the Onely Good, saying, There is none Good [Page 5] but God, because He alone is Originally so, and the Spring of all that Good which is in other Beings.

13. The God head, or God in this Highest Sence, can be but One Numerically. Of which the best Phi­losophers were satisfied by their Reason; and there­fore the Oneness so frequently affirmed of Him in Scripture is a Numerical Oneness.

14. There seems to be neither Contradiction, nor Absurdity, in supposing the First Original of all things, to be productive of other Beings so Perfect, as to have all Perfections, but that of Self-Existence, and those which are necessarily therein implyed.

15. Supposing any such Beings to have immedi­ately issued forth from that infinite Fullness, and Foe­cundity of Being, which is in the Deity, each of them must have a Right to the Name of God, in a Sence next to that in which it is appropriated to the Fa­ther; since they have all the Perfections of the God­head, but those that must of Necessity be peculiar to Him.

16. It is evident from the Holy Scripture, That the Son and Holy Spirit are such Beings, viz. That they have all Divine Perfections but the foremen­tioned: Such as Unlimited Power, Wisdom, Good­ness, &c.

17. And they are always spoken of in Scripture, as Distinst Beings or Persons, according to the Pro­per Signification of this Word, both from the Fa­ther and from Each Other. Nor are so many Men or Angels more expresly distinguished as different Persons or Substances, by our Saviour or his Apo­stles, than the Father, Son and Holy Ghost still are.

[Page 6]18. It is a very presumptuous Conceit, That there can be no way but that of Creation, whereby any thing can be immediately and onely from God, which hath a distinct Existence of its own. Or, That no Beings can have Existence from Him, by way of Necessary Emanation: Of which we have a Clearer Idaea than of Voluntary Creation. It is the Word of the Ancients, both Fathers and Philosophers; nor can a better be found to express what is intended by it, viz. A more excellent way of existing, than that of Creation.

19. It is no less presumptuous to Affirm, That it is a Contradiction to suppose, That a Being can be from Eternity from God the Father, if 'tis possible it may be from Him, in a more Excellent Way than that of Creation. And we have an Illustration of both these Propositions, by something in Nature. For, according to our Vulgar Philosophy, Light doth exist by necessary Emanation from the Sun, and there­fore the Sun was not before the Light which pro­ceeds from thence, in Order of Time, tho' it be in Or­der of Nature before it. And the Distinction between these Two Priorities, is much Elder than Thomas Aquinas, or Peter Lombard, or any School-man of them all, or Christian-man either.

20. And if any thing can be from another thing by way of Necessary Emanation, it is so far from a Contradiction to suppose, that it must only be in order of nature before it; that 'tis most apparently a Contradiction to suppose the contrary.

21. Our 18th. and 19th. Propositions do speak our Explication of the H. Trinity, to be as con­trary [Page 7] to Arianism as to Socinianism; since the Arians assert that there was at least a moment of time, when the Son was not; and that He is a Crea­ture.

22. Altho' we cannot understand, how it should be no Contradiction to affirm, That the Three Per­sons are But One Numerical Being, or Substance; yet hath it not the least shadow of a Contradicti­on to suppose, That there is an unconceivably close and inseparable Union both in Will and Nature be­tween them. And such a Union may be much more easily conceived between them, than can that Union which is between our Souls and Bodies; since these are Substances which are of the most unlike and even Contrary Natures.

23. Since we cannot conceive the First Original of All things, to be more than One Numerically; and that we acknowledg the now mentioned Union be­tween the three Persons, according to the Scriptures, together with the intire dependence of the two latter upon the First Person, The Unity of the Deity is, to all intents and purposes, as fully asserted by us, as it is necessary or reasonable it should be.

24. And no part of this Explication, do we think Repugnant to any Text of Scripture; but it seems much the Easiest way of Reconciling those Texts, which according to the other Hypotheses are not Re­concilable, but by offering manifest violence to them.

25. The Socinians must needs Confess, that the Ho­nour of the Father, for which they express a very Zea­lous Concern, is as much as they can desire taken care of by this Explication. Nor can the Honour [Page 8] of the Son and Holy Spirit be more Consulted, than by ascribing to them all Perfections, but what they cannot have, without the most apparent Contra­diction, ascribed to them.

26. And we would think it impossible, that any Christian should not be easily perswaded, to think as honourably of his Redeemer and Sanctifier as he can, while he Robs not God the Father for their Sake; and offers no violence to the Sence and Mean­ing of Divine Revelations, nor to the Reason of his Mind.

27. There are many things in the notion of One God, which all Hearty Theists will acknowledg necessary to be conceived of Him, that are as much above the Reach and Comprehension of Humane Understandings, as is any Part of this Explication of the H. Trinity. Nay this may be affirmed, even of the Notion of Self Existence; but yet there can­not be an Atheist so silly as to Question it: Since it is not more Evident, that One and Two do make Three, than that there could never have been any thing, if there were not Something which was al­ways, and never began to be.

28. Left Novelty should be Objected against this Explication, and therefore such should be prejudiced against it, as have a Veneration for Antiquity, we add, that it well agrees with the Account which several of the Nicene Fathers, even Athanasius himself, and others of the Ancients who treat of this Subject, do in divers places of their Works give of the Trinity: Dr. Cudworth, and Dr. Bull. As is largely shewed by two very Learned Divines of our Church. And had it not been for the School­men, [Page 9] to whom Christianity is little beholden, as much as some Admire them, we have reason to believe that the World would not have been troubled since the Fall of Arianism, with such Controversies about this Great Point, as it hath been, and Continues to be.

This Explication of the B. Trinity perfectly agrees with the Nicene Creed, as it stands in our Liturgy, without offering the least Violence to any one Word in it. Which makes our Lord Jesus Christ to be from God the Father by way of Emanation; affirm­ing Him to be God of God, very God of very God, and Metaphorically expressing it by Light of Light; an­swerably to what the Author to the Hebrews saith of Him, Chap. 1.3. viz. That he is [...], The Effulgency of his Glory, and [...], The Character of his Substance: And so is as much Of one Substance with the Father, as the Beams of the Sun are with the Body of it.

And since there have been of late, so many Ex­plications or Accounts Published of this most Ado­rable Mystery, which have had little better Success than making Sport for the Socinians, I thought it very Seasonable now to Revive That, which I affirm with great Assurance to be the most Ancient one of all; much Elder than the Council of Nice; and to have much the fewest difficulties in it, and to be in­comparably most agreeable to H. Scripture.

THe Author of the Twenty Eight Propositions thanks you for the very Charitable Opinion you have expressed concerning him, in the Entrance in­to your Reflexions upon them; and hopes he shall always endeavour to deserve the Character of a Man so Honest, as never to speak otherwise than he thinks; and so true to his Understanding, as always to make Rea­son one of his Guides in the Choyce of his Opinions: He professing to believe, that the Use of Reason is so far from being to be Condemned in Matters of Religion, as no where else to be so well employed: And that it is infinitely unworthy of Almighty God, to conceive it possible for Him to Contradict his Internal by his Ex­ternal Revelations. But so he must have done, should such Writings be of His inspiring, as are manifestly contradictory to the plain Dictates of Natural Reason, [Page 12] which the Wise Man faith, Is the Candle of the Lord.

And Sir, our Author takes no less Notice of your Candour, in the Character you give, in the Words following, of his Explication of the Doctrin of the H. Trinity in those Propositions.

But after your Acknowledgment, That he hath a­voided a great many Contradictions, which those of your Party do charge on this Doctrin, as it is held by others; and that his Explication is a Possible Scheme; and that it is clear from any Contradictions to Natural Reason; you Object that, besides some insuperable Difficulties, the Author hath not been able to avoid some Numerical Contradictions. Now, as to the insuperable Difficulties with which you charge his Explication, since you acquit them from being Contradictions to Natural Reason, you mean, I suppose, that it is fraught with several Contradictions to H. Scripture: And I con­fess such Contradictions to be as insuperable Difficul­ties to us, as we are Christians, as those to Reason are, as we are Men. If this be your Meaning, the Au­thor may well expect to have it shewn, what Texts of Scripture are contradicted by this Explication; but if you mean otherwise, my Reply is, That you are not so shallow a Thinker as not to be aware, that there are also insuperable Difficulties in the No­tion of One God, both as His Nature is described by all Christians, according to the Account given of Him in H. Scripture; and as all Theists are compel­led by Natural Light to conceive of Him. Nay you will frankly own, that there is not any one thing in the whole Universe, which doth not suggest insupe­rable Difficulties to an Inquisitive Mind.

[Page 13]And whereas, Sir, you Charge our Author with not being able to avoid some Numerical Contradictions, I confess I never before met with this distinction, but I think I understand it by your Description of it. You say that a Numerical Contradiction is an Error commit­ted in the summing up of things. But how is he guilty of such Contradictions? If you mean that he hath made Contradictory Conclusions (or such a Conclu­sion) to several of his Premisses, I cannot (though you do) excuse him from contradicting Natural Rea­son, any more than from contradicting Himself: And it appears from what follows, that that is your Mean­ing; for, after you had given the Sum and Substance of the First Thirteen Propositions, your Reflexion thereon is this: One would think that such a Foun­dation being laid, the Conclusion must be wholly in sa­vour of the Unitarians. For if the Father is Absolutely Perfect; if the Son and Spirit are not Absolutely Perfect, how shall we ever prevent this Consequence, therefore onely the Father is God? What is the Definition of God among all Divines and Philosophers? Is it not this, A Being Absolutely Perfect; or, a Being that hath all Per­fections? But if so, than onely the Father having all Perfections, or being Absolutely Perfect, He must be the onely God, to the certain Exclusion of the other Two Per­sons; to the Exclusion of the Son and Spirit by Name, because 'tis affirmed here of them by Name, that nei­ther of them is absolutely Perfect, or hath all Perfections. But this Author will shew us in his following Propositi­ons, that, for all this, the Son is God, and so also is the Holy Ghost: That is, he will pu [...] out the Light of the Sun.

[Page 14]And, Sir, as you have now Represented our Author, you cannot but be sensible, upon second thoughts, of over great Modestly in your not having Charged him with Natural Contradictions; nay and of too great Partiality towards him in Acquitting him, as you have done, of such Contradictions. He will instruct us, say you next, in his Premisses, that there is but One Who is God, and in the Progress and Conclusion, or, in the summing up the whole Reckoning, he will make it appear, that there are Three Beings, each of which is (singly and by Himself) God: Which is the Numerical Con­tradiction that I Charged at first on his Hypothesis. And I say, Sir, if you have not too incautilously re­presented him in these Words, he is as justly to be here Charged with a Natural, as with a Numerical Contradiction; except you will Affirm, that 'tis no Natural Contradiction to say, That the Number One is as many as Three, or the Number Three is no more than One. But, Sir, I must crave leave to say, that you have committed a great Oversight in Representing our Author as you have now done. For his First Proposition is, The Name of God is used in more Sences than one in H. Scripture. The Second, The most Ab­solutely Perfect Being is God in the Highest Sence. The Third, Self-Existence is a Perfection, &c. The Fourth, God the Father alone is, in reference to His manner of Existence, an Absolutely Perfect Being, because He alone is Self-Existent. And from These, with the Five fol­lowing Propositions, he infers in the Tenth, That the Father alone is God in the Absolutely Highest Sence: And in the Thirteenth, That the God-head, or God in this Highest Sence, can be but one Numerically. And there­fore, [Page 15] Sir, you should not have made our Author say, (as you do) that there is but One who is God, with­out any Restriction, when you now see he saith, that there is but One who is God in the Absolutely Highest Sence: And that God in the Absolutely Highest Sence, can be but One Numerically. And whereas you say, That he will make it appear that there are Three Beings, each of which is singly and by Himself God, you should have said, He will make it appear that there are Three Beings, each of which is God, but not in all the Self-same Respects. And therefore I cannot as yet accuse him, either of any One Natural or Numerical Contradicti­on; if this be a Proper Distinction, which I will not dispute.

What remaineth of your Reflexions is chiefly a Charge of Tritheism against this Explication of the Trinity.

1. You say, I acknowledge in these Propositions the Genuine Doctrin, and very Language of the Fathers, who wrote shortly after the Council of Nice, till the Times of the School-men. And the Author is assu­red, that this Explication for Substance, is a great deal Elder than that Council. But he gives you his hearty Thanks for this free Concession of yours, be­cause you have saved him the Pains of proving his Last Proposition: And I will therefore requite you, for him, in imitating your Brevity, as you say, you do his: But methinks you should also acknowledge, that the Authors Explication hath no inconsiderable Advantage on its side, in that you allow it to be of so great Antiquity. If the Socinians will not acknow­ledge this an Advantagious Circumstance, in all dis­putable [Page 16] Points, they are certainly the onely Learn­ed Men who have no Regard for Antiquity.

2. You add, But the School-Divines, or the Divines of the Middle Ages, saw, and almost all the Moderns, that are well versed in these Questions, confess it, that this Explication is an inexcusable indefensible Tritheism. And quickly after you say, That the School-Divines, and, generally speaking, the most Learned of the Mo­derns, with the greatest Reason in the World, abhor making the Three Divine Persons, to be Persons in the Proper Sence of that Word: Which is to say, they are distinct intellectual Beings, and have different Substan­ces in Number, tho' not in species or kind. And you affirm, that the forementioned Divines do with the greatest Reason in the World abhor this, Because they perceive it destroys the True and Real Unity of God; it taketh away his Proper, and Natural, and Nu­merical Unity; and leaveth onely a Certain Political and Oeconomical Unity; which is indeed onely an ima­ginary Unity. Hereto I Answer,

1. That a Wise Man will think never the worse of any thing, merely for its having an Ugly Name given it: As you would account it no real Disho­nour to the Socinian Hypothesis, should it be called Ditheism, which sounds every whit as ill as Tritheism. And you cannot deny it to be Ditheism in a certain sence, because it asserts Two Gods; one by Nature, and the other by Office; and that this God by Of­fice, is to be Honoured by all Men, even as they Ho­nour the Father, (according to his own Declaration) though but a Mere Man by Nature. And this grates every whit as much upon my Understanding, as any [Page 17] thing in this Explication can on yours: And is as con­tradictory to Natural Reason in the Opinion of all Trinitarians, as any of their Explications are in the Opinion of Socinians; who cannot but acknowledge, that Honouring the Son even as the Father is Honoured, is giving him that Honour which is truly and pro­perly Divine, let them restrain it as much as they can.

2. Whereas you say, that this Explication destroy­eth the True and Real Unity of God, and therefore to be abhorred; I must grant, if it does so, it can not be too much abhorred; but I would know from whence we are to learn, wherein consists His True and Re­al Unity. It must either be learned from Scripture or Reason, or both. But as to the H. Scripture, this indeed abundantly declareth the Unity of God, but it no where distinguisheth of Unity, nor saith of what Nature that Unity is which it ascribes to God. Were you never so well satisfied that that Text in St. Iohn's Epistles is genuine— These Three are One; you would say it proves nothing against the Socini­ans, because it saith not in what Sence the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are One. But I am sure our Author never spake a truer Word, than what he saith in his Seventeenth Proposition, concerning the real Distinction of the Three Persons in Scripture. And surely those whose Notions are most agreeable to the Letter, and most proper Sence of Scripture, when there is no apparent necessity of departing from them (as I think there is the greatest Neces­sity of keeping thereto in this case) if they happen to be in an Error, their Error is on the safer side. [Page 18] And since those of your Opinion do so zealously con­tend for making the H. Scriptures the sole Rule of Faith, and profess that you will take nothing for a Point of Religion but what is found in the Bible, (wherein you do like Protestants, at least if you will acknowledge that to be there which is there by evi­dent Consequence, as well as in express Words); since, I say, you do so, you of all Men should not be over dogmatical in determining a Point, which the H. Scripture is silent in. And then for Reason, such an Unity as our Author (after the Fathers) as­serts, is not contradictory, or contrary, to any plain and evident Dictate thereof. This I adventure to Affirm with very great Assurance: And, Sir, your self must needs be of the same Mind, if you were in good earnest (as I can't think otherwise) in calling the Explication a possible Scheme, and owning that it is not contradictory in any of its parts to Natural Reason. But, Sir, (to speak my Mind freely) I will not, of all Men, go to School to the School Divines to learn what Reason saith on an Argument of this Nature; and therefore neither to those Modern Di­vines, who pin their Faith upon their sleeves. If I could satisfie my self to be an Implicit Believer, I would a thousand times rather take the Ancient Fa­thers (and, it may be, Philosophers too) for the Guides of my Reason, than those Gentlemen who spent their time in the Weaving of Fine Cobwebs; and particu­larly are so superfine upon the simplicity of the Divine Essence, as to render GOD Almighty (at least, to such a dull Understanding as mine) a no less uncon­ceivable than incomprehensible Being; and to simpli­fie [Page 19] Him rather into Nothing, than into Simple Vnity.

3. That this Explication leaveth onely a certain Political, or Oeconomical Unity is only said by you; but the Twenty Second Proposition tells you the con­trary, of which more anon.

4. This Explication doth not take away the Nu­merical Unity of the God-head, or of God in the Abso­lutely highest Sence, and the First Original of All things: For it expresly affirms the Necessity there­of, Prop. 13th.

5. It maketh the other Two Persons as much one with the First, and with one another, as they are, without the most apparent Contradiction, capable of being. One in so High a Sence, as that we want a Word, by which to express their Unity: And there­fore that they are much more than Specifically One, as Three Humane or Angelical Persons are. Were I a School­man it should scape me hard, but I would add ano­ther distinction of Unity, between Specifical and Nu­merical, to express this Unity by; which I am sure would have more of a Fundamentum in re, than many of their Distinctions have. This Explication speaks as great a Unity between them, as is between the Sun and its Splendor, and the Light of both: And a great­er than is between the Vine and its Branches; or than is between the Fountain and the Streams which flow from it: Which are Similitudes of the Ancients. I say, this Explication speaks the Unity of the Divine Persons greater than the Unity of each of these; be­cause, tho' they are most closely and intimately U­nited, yet are not inseparable. And for the same reason, it speaks a greater Unity between them, than [Page 20] is between our Souls and Bodies; as appears by the Twenty Second Proposition. And where is he who will pretend to know how many Degrees, or Kinds of Unity are possible, or actually are?

6. The inseparable Unity in Will and Nature be­tween the Three Persons, which that Proposition af­firmeth not to have the least shadow of a Contra­diction in it, and therefore is taken into this Expli­cation, doth answer all the ends for which the Uni­ty of the Deity was ever asserted. And therefore the Distinction asserted between the Three Persons, hath not the least Appearance of any one of the perni­cious Consequents, which follow upon a Plurality of Gods; and consequently there is no reason in the World, (tho' you say there is the greatest) why it should be abhorred by the School-Divines, or the most Learned among the Moderns; or by any Mortal, learn­ed or unlearned. For they are outwardly, and in re­ference to the Creation, perfectly One and the Same God, as concurring in all the same External Actions; tho' in relation to One Another, there is a real Di­stinction between them. And it seems very wonder­ful, that this should be denyed by any one who pro­fesseth himself a Trinitarian; since there is no un­derstanding what a Contradiction means, if a Being that Begets, and that which is begotten thereby, and a Third which proceeds from both, should not be really distinct from each other.

7. A Plurality of Gods hath generally been so un­derstood, as to imply more than One independent, and (therefore likewise) Self-existent Deity, as the common Arguments against a Plurality of Gods do [Page 21] suppose; but it was never otherwise understood, than so as to import separate Deities. And never were there more zealous Asserters of the Unity of the Deity against the Pagans, than were divers of the Ancients to whom our Author is beholden for the Substance of this Explication. One of these was Lactantius (to pass by several others of the Three First Centuries) and I find him thus discoursing in the 29 th. Chap. of his Fourth Book, De Vera Sapientia. For­tasse quaerat aliquis, &c. Some one perhaps will ask, how when we say we worship One God, we can assert Two, viz. God the Father, and God the Son, &c. And to this Question the Father thus Answers, Quum dicimas De­um Patrem, &c. When we say God the Father and God the Son, we don't separate and part them asunder, &c. they have one Mind, one Spirit, one Substance. And, in the next Words, he saith in what sence they are One: Sed ille quasi exuberans Fons, &c. But the Father, is as it were the overflowing Fountain, the Son as a stream flowing from him: He like to the Sun, This like to a Sun-beam. And this is the same Description of their Unity with one another, that the Explication gives. And I think there needs no more to be said in De­fence thereof, against the odious Charge of Tritheism to any ingenuous and Free-minded Person.

Nor doth there need to be given any farther An­swer to what remains in your Paper, that designs to prove this a to be abhorred Tritheistical Explication. But I must Clear it from another great Mistake in the Ac­count you next give of it. You say that the Hypothe­sis expresly acknowledgeth in each of the Two Persons, not onely whatsoever Properties can make them to be [Page 22] distinct intellectual Beings, and Substances; but also all the Attributes that are necessary to Essentiate a God, that is, to make Him a Perfect God; onely it saith the Father hath this peculiar [...] or Privi­ledge, that He is First in order of Nature. He hath no Essential or Real Perfection more than the other Two Persons; onely He hath this Honour, that their Original is from Him. And hence you Conclude, that it is not possible to say what are Three GODS, if this be not an Account and Description of Three Gods.

But, Sir, doth our Author's Hypothesis give the FATHER no other Priviledge above the Son and H. Spirit, than his being First in Order of Nature, and their Original? Doth not the Fourth Proposi­tion expresly say that he is Self-Existent too? And His being their Original, is so far from being the same thing with Self-Existence, that simply in it self considered, it doth not so much as necessarily suppose His Self-Existence. Doth he who faith, that the Sun is the Original of the Illustrious Splendour in the Heavens, and of the Light which pervades the World, in so saying affirm that it is Self-Ex­istent? And I shall wonder, if Self-Existence be but an Imaginary Perfection, I should rather Con­clude it the very greatest of all Real Perfections. How then can you say, That this Hypothesis gives the Father no other Priviledge above the other Per­sons, but onely that He is First in Order of Nature?

Again, Is not Absolute Independence a Real Per­fection, and Being the First Original of all things a­nother? But doth not the Sixth Proposition consi­dered [Page 23] with the Fifth, ascribe both these too to the Father onely?

And whereas you say farther, That this Hypothesis gives the Second and Third Persons all the Attributes that are necessary to Assentiate a God, What Earnings will you make of this? since it saith not that those which are ascribed to them (viz. infinite Goodness, Wisdom and Power,) are all that are necessary to Es­sentiate a God in the Absolutely Highest Sence, which the Name of God is ever to be understood in in Holy Scripture.

And now you can need no Answer to what you say in the last Words of this Paragraph, viz. The Perfections of the Deity that are Real, are Gods infinite Wisdom, Power, Goodness, Duration, and such like: Therefore the Son and Spirit are Gods in the Highest Sence of that Word, if they have all those aforesaid re­al and positive Perfections of the Divine Nature; tho' it be granted at the same time, that they are Originated from the Father. You need, I say, no Answer here­to, since you were now minded, that Self-Existence, Absolute Independence, and Being the First Original of All things, are Perfections peculiar to God the Father; and that this is part of the Explication. And upon this Account Athanasius, S. Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and St. Chrysostom, with several of the Latin Fathers, interpret those Words of our B. Saviour, My Father is greater than I, to have been spoken, not of His Humanity, but His Divinity; as Dr. Cudworth hath shewed in his 599 th. Page of his Intellectual System of the Universe. Nor certainly did our Lord ever say so little a thing, as that the Infinite MAIESTY [Page 24] of Heaven and Earth is greater than any Mortal Man.

And having this Occasion to Mention Dr. Cud­worth, the Honour I have for the Memory of that Excellent Person, constraineth me to say, That the Account he gives of the Fathers Judgment of the Trinity, is not Represented as it ought to have been, in the former Socinian Treatise of Considerations on the Explications thereof. And I so word that most Learned Performance of the Doctor, because he was therein an Historian, rather than an Explicator.

Your next Paragraph begins with this Question, A Father begets Two Sons that have all the Properties of the Humane Nature, in as great Perfection as their Father; shall we deny that they are Men in the Highest Sence of that Word, because they are Originated from their Father? And this, say you, is the very Case before us. But, Sir, this is not (with your Leave) the very Case before us: 'Tis nothing like it, because 'tis the Perfection of no Man, to be Self-Existent; nor are a Humane Fathers Sons immediately de­pendent on him for the Continuation of their Be­ing, as the Two Persons are upon God the Father, as Light is upon the Sun, and as Streams on the Foun­tain. But if a Humane Father could be supposed to be Self-Existent, and that his Sons had the now mentioned kind of Dependence upon him, the Con­sequence must be, that their Nature is short of the Perfection of their Fathers Nature, notwithstanding the many Properties they agree in; and therefore that they are not Men in so high a Sence, as he is a Man; seeing the Humane Nature would be supposed capable of Perfections which they have [Page 25] not, but their Father hath. What follows of this Paragraph, is only applying the Point in Controver­sie to this Case; but I have said enough to shew that there is not the least Affinity between these Two Cases.

The Substance of what you farther Object against this Explication, is a Remark upon the Twenty Second Proposition: And you say, In these few Words consist the strength and Hopes of this Explication. The unconceivably Close Union in Will and Nature between the Three Gods, makes them to be One God. I see, Sir, you as odious­ly word it as you can, but you would have lost no­thing by it, had you kept to our Author's Words, and said Three Persons; or, if you had pleased, Three distinct Proper Persons, instead of Three Gods.

Well, Sir, the unconceivably Close Union in Will and Nature between the Divine Persons is that (as you say) in which the strength and hopes of this Ex­plication do consist. But you Object, That this is as much as to say, that they are One God by that very thing, which most incontestably declares them to be Three Gods. And this you make out by this Question, what is the Union of Will and Nature between distinct intel­lectual Beings, and different Substances; is it any other but this, in plain English, that they always will the same things, and their Natures and Substances are united in the same Properties, Attributes, or Perfections? That is to say, as you proceed, these Three intellectual Sub­stances or Beings, are each of them Almighty, Omnisci­ent, most Good, and the rest; Why this is the very thing that makes them to be Three Gods. Next, you give us a Proof of this, but you might have saved your [Page 26] self that labour; for 'tis readily granted, if this be all the Union that is between them. But in Answer to your Question, it must never be granted you that the inseparably Close Union between the Three Divine Persons, both in Will and Nature, is no more than their Union in the same Will and Properties; for it is also their immediate Union in their Substan­ces, (their Spiritual Substances) as the Union be­tween our Souls and Bodies is in their Substan­ces. And if they were acknowledged to be separate Substances, and United onely as you say, you would have made our Author ashamed of his Explication. But if, Sir, you think you may do it however, by saying that the Substance and Properties of the Di­vine Nature are the self-same thing; I will now content my self to say onely this, then you might have used the Word Substances, as well as Properties and Attributes; and then it would have appeared at first sight, that there is no force in your Objection. But your self doth also expresly here distinguish them, in saying, that their Substances are united in the same Properties, Attributes or Perfections.

If you ask me what Account can be given to the satisfaction of any Rational Person, of such an Uni­on between the Substances of the Three Persons, I will Reply that when you give me an intelligible Account of the Union betwixt our Souls and Bodies, I do promise to give you a no less intelligible Account of the Union betwixt the Substances of the Three Di­vine Persons. Nay (as the Twenty Second Proposition tells you) the Union between our Souls and Bodies is more unaccountable to Reason, than is this Union; [Page 27] because that is an Union between Substances of Per­fectly unlike, and even contrary Natures. In reciting that Proposition, you say Contradictory instead of Con­trary; but I suppose this was the fault, not of your Pen, but of the Press.

But if you will say, that the Substances of our Souls and Bodies are onely united in their Properties; I say they are not at all united in these, because their Properties are of as different and contrary a Nature, as their Substances. But if they could be united in these, yet the Union of their Substances must be more than their being united in their Properties, except my Soul is as much united with your Body as with mine own; for the Essential Properties of all Souls and Bodies are the same.

And now, Sir, I hope you are sensible, that you might have spared your Last Paragraph, viz. How is it possible that this Author should overlook such an Obvious Reasoning, or not be Satisfied with it? And say I, How is it possible that so Acute a Person as your Writings speak you to be, should be guilty of so plain a Flaw in that Reasoning, and take it to be so Obvious? I shall give you no farther trouble, than while I de­sire you to take notice, That I have not troubled you with more words than needs must; and much less with Finesses, to use your Own Word; nor with any Subtle Distinctions, as much Enamoured, as you perceive I am, with the School-men; nor with any thing you may be tempted to call Scholastical Cant, or Metaphysical Gibberish; nor so much as with the Father's great word [...]. But my Answer is as plain as a Pyke staff, yet as full as plain, to all [Page 28] the Reflections you have made upon the Explication. But whether it be to the purpose too, I must leave it to the Judgment of the fair and impartial Reader. But I can sincerely avow, That I have said nothing to any of your Objections, merely because for my Credits sake, (seeing I undertook to Reply to them) I must say Something: Nor hath a Line come from me which is not agreeable to the sense of my Mind; nor which I think not to be pertinent. As I also so­lemnly Profess, that since such Perfections and Ope­rations, as are unquestionably Proper to the Deity, are attributed in H. Scripture to the Son and H. Spi­rit; and that I cannot be Satisfied by the extremely laboured Glosses and Criticisms of the Socinians, to depart from the most Obvious and Natural Sence of the Multitude of Texts wherein they are so; as doubting whether many Texts are to be found, which might not have more than one sence put upon them, by the same Labour and Art: And since Divine Ho­nour is most Expresly declared to be due to the Son, Iohn 5.23. and He hath the Honour of such a Dox­ology, Apocal. 1.6. as according to the Original, as well as our Translation, I remember not an Higher given to God the Father in all the New-Testament. And since too the Son and Spirit are all along most plainly described, as distinct Persons both from the Father, and from One Another, even as plainly as Words can do it; and yet all this while the Unity of the Deity is fully Asserted; I can not, for my life, Reconcile these things but by this Ancient Explication of the Trinity, which your self ingenuously acknow­ledges to be a Possible Scheme; and Hereby, I thank [Page 29] GOD, I can do it to my great Satisfaction.

That God Almighty would give us a Right Un­derstanding in all the Points of our Christian Faith, and particularly in the Great and Weighty One, wherein you Differ from the Generality of Christi­ans in all Ages; and that we may be sincere and unbyassed, and also Humble, in our Searches after Truth; not leaning over confidently to our own Under­standings, since those that most improve them are most sensible of their being infinitely too shallow to comprehend Truths of this Nature especially, is the Humble and most Hearty Prayer of,

SIR; Notwithstanding our being (as I suppose) perfect Strangers, Octob. 19th. 1694. and our wide Dif­ference in Opinion,