Now , I say , if this would be pleasant , I might add ridiculous , in Dr. S. what is it in Dr. Wallis ? I declare I am neither the Socinian , nor his Friend that assisted in his first Book ; nay , I declare I never was a Socinian in my life , no more then the Doctor ; and why then all this upon me ?

Yes , the Doctor says , I do not say that I am not the Socinian , p. 1. very pleasant . I write my Book quite on another Hypothesis , I give it a Title as if it were to stand by its self , as a new Answer , and not to Vindicate the Socinian ; nay , I plainly in it leave the Socinian in what peculiarly belongs to him , to Vindicate himself ; and yet the Doctor for all this , for the Jests sake , must still fancy I am the Socinian in Masquerade . Good God! what will not some Men write , rather than not shew their Wit .

Nor is it less pleasant , to see what a world of mouldring Arguments he has raised totteringly , on this rotten Foundation forsooth , I am not willing to enquire into his Socinian Quotations : I say I am not concern'd if any Man has dropt imprudent words , p. 2 , 3. and the Doctor takes this for a Point granted : surely the Doctor has purchas'd an Estate in Utopia lately , and that 't is makes him so strong in his Imaginations , else how should he expect I should defend what he quotes from Socinus , more then what he writes himself .

An Arrian is as much a Trinitarian as a Socinian , and therefore I think I may justly refuse the Doctor that satisfaction , and yet not , I say , that the Doctor has the Point given him on Socinus neither , but 't is not my business to defend him ; and if that will not give the Doctor satisfaction , he must go look for it , for I declare I shall not trouble myself to see what Socinus has wrote upon the Matter , whether pro or con .

Just such another Point , p. 6. he triumphs in , That I do not vindicate Socinus from his denying the Immortality of the Soul , p. 4. Alass poor Doctor ! I never subscrib'd Articles to Socinus yet , and shall no more enquire what he says , then the Molinists do ; but whatever the Doctor triumphs in this matter , may be his old Socinian Adversary may at last take up the Cudgels against him , and shew him he does not deal so fairly with Socinus as he should neither : But whether he does or no , the Doctor shant gain that Point upon me , as to perswade me it concerns me .

But the Doctor says I mistake , and talk of his denying Angels , when he said only the Immortality of the Soul : Alass the Charge upon me I thought so trifling , that may be I might do so , but it seems the Doctor thinks it considerable ; and p. 5. brings a world of Arguments to prove the Immortality of the Soul . It seems I said , I thought the Reflection uncharitable , but did not say I did believe them ; and therefore the Doctor takes it for granted , he is to Convert me .

I thank him ; and to ease him for the future , I tell him , I did believe them , as he himself wittily Reflects , p. 37. I will not disoblige him by unsaying what was always in my heart to acknowledge ; however , that I might not be behind with him in Kindness , and because the Doctor seems hard of Faith , I have a good mind to prove the Existence of a Deity to him , for I have heard of some Men of Profession of the Church of England , that have almost been Atheist at the heart .

Well , but I must hasten on , the Doctor has caught another Point , I have granted him a thing may be one , and three in several respects , p. 8. and it seems I have yeilded the Point , for 't was Reason only he stood upon , and I am fled to Scripture ; and surely now the Doctor has reason to triumph as he does , p. 9. for his Argument was , Whether a Trinity be possible , not whether it is or not ; nay , if the Doctor has not hamper'd me now , 't is hard .

The Matter then is thus : The Doctor and I are upon square Reasoning , well , and I in my other Answer , p. 3. say , 't is true indeed I cannot say that there is a Contradiction in holding that there may be three Persons in God , because I have not the Definition of the word God so exact as to be assur'd it cannot admit many Persons in it ; but this I am sure , that when God has order'd me to acknowledge him but as One , and I know I cannot rationally make him more , but by many Persons , I vitiate the Commandment by an inconsistent Absurdity to bring in new Persons after in Coequality with him .

I say then , how can the Doctor charge me by this , to fly to Scripture Authority ? Alass he gallops over the intent and insinuation of my Argument , and then well may he say any thing ; but to prevent further Mistakes it is this ; the Doctor and I have joyn'd issue in , Whether there be a Contradiction in the Trinity or not ; at present then it being my Task to prove there is , I enter upon the Matter with my self thus :

I say then to myself , there are two sorts of Contradictions , the one express'd , the other implied , the first , or express'd , is thus , A Man is not a Man ; but this is what I cannot bring to our present Case , because it is a Contradiction in Terms ; therefore let us come to the other , the Contradiction implied , and let us see how that will fit us .

I say then , a Contradiction implied is when tho' the Terms are not the same , yet as to the matter in dispute they purport the same thing , thus , that S. Peter , S. Paul , and S. John are one Man , for if I have either Idea of Men or Numbers , they must be three , and if they are three , the Proposition implies a Contradiction .

Nor will it be enough to say in such case , that they are one in some respect or so , for by a Metaphor also you may evade the force of the most flat and express Contradiction whatever also ; for instance , should I say , A Man is not a Man ; that is , Mankind is degenerated from what it was ; I say it is as proper a way of speaking , as to say , Peter , James , and John are one , because Christians , and agreeing in Principles .

I say then , having stated this Idea of Contradictions with myself , which is true , if any be so : I proceeded to apply it to the Case in hand ; well then , because I would be the more ingenious with the Doctor , I tell him I cannot say ( that is directly and from myself ) there is a Contradiction in holding there may be three Persons in one God , because I have not the Definition of the word God so exact , &c. Well , but what then , must the Dispute end here , this does but grant I am without an express Definition of the word God , to raise an implied Contradiction , and for an express Contradiction , I do not pretend to it .

No , I say the Dispute shall not end here , for tho' I will not be presumptious to define the word God myself , without Scripture , nor will not let go my Reasoning to fly to their Authority ; yet I will make the D●ctor give me that priviledge , as to fetch in the first Commandment to define the word God , without the Doctor is so ingenuous as to keep the Argument upon our yea or no of it , for fear of a Decision .

Well then , 't is plain the Doctor has gained no Point here neither , but is flying the Field with as many Huzza's he can ; his Adversary is not charging him , whether the thing is , but whether 't is possible , and he meanly cries , that he flies to Scripture , only because he goes about to shew the Doctor how he has distorted the sence of the word God , which is the Hinge of the Dispute , and only to be decided by the Scriptures .

The next thing I have to speak to is , he says p. 10 , I make large Concessions about the Holy Ghost , and about the Personality : Alass poor Doctor ! just as much as becomes an Arrian , had the Doctor but known it ; and when he reads it next , and considers it better , he will say so too .

But p. 12. brings me to a most grievous Charge against me , he charges me heavily with Misciting , but alas when I come to see what 's the matter , 't is just trifling to the purpose . It seems I have call'd the three dimensions of his Cube three sides , and as a Faulkner is angry , if you say his Hawk shites and not mutes ; so the Doctor can't bear the least mis-wording to his Notions .

Another thing is , I charge him with talking of two Gods , three Gods , personal Gods . 't is true enough , poor Gentleman , I do so by inference , as I do that his Doctrine is contradictions , and when he proves the matter otherwise he shall not be abused so .

Thus likewise there are a world of other charges , but heavy only in imagination , that the Doctor lays upon me . He says , the Arririans make two Gods , p. 13. he forgets that he might have had twenty from them , and that the Scripture it self makes Satan a God , but if he means two Gods coequal , which he must do to make his reflection considerable , he writes without Book .

So he says I banter him , p. 15. when I write of blushing for his Similes ; whether I banter'd him or not , I am sure he has reason to blush still for his Similies : whatever he says upon the matter , they wont help him up one Rung upon the Ladder nor one Step towards his Journey : in short , all they can prove is , that a thing may be one and three in several respects , which no one but a mad Man as I know would ever deny him .

He tells me , he has a hard Task two please two Masters , p. 15. Right ; but who set him to meddle with the Socinians now ? in truth his n'own dear self : He tells me I reflect on God and the Scriptures , to talk of a three-headed Monster , p. 15. Methinks he might have staid this till he had prov'd God to be a Trinity , and his Notions of him to be agreeable to Scriptures ; but no , a few Colours are the substance of Dr. W.'s Rhetorick .

P. 18. The Doctor says his Doctrine is as old as the New Testament , and that it was never contested till Arrius did it . I answer , My Doctrine both is and was the truth till Alexander and Athanasius disputed it , and whose word must pass in this case , surely tho' I have no mean sence of either the truth or tradition of my own opinion , yet I think neither , I believe we are both fallen upon niceties that the Primitive Christians know nothing of ; you , I say , in vindicating an unjust Imposition , and I setting up a more rational Hypothesis to confute it .

P. 19. He is angry , that I should make his personating not to make several persons , when in another place , I say personation is the greatest perfection of Unity ; now this I say might be a reasonable objection enough , did Personation only signifie the abstract of personating , but I conceive the Doctor has no reason to be concern'd if I turn the Idea of the word to another sence , to signifie the being a person , and if so , what I have said concerning his personating in my other Answer , must be valid for all what the Doctor has alledg'd .

I shall say no more of his other Titles , which he tells me are at least a step in his way , but if I am not mistaken , they are very far from his purpose , and I hope for the future he will not insist on them ; I declare if he does , I must say as he does , there is something wanting more than clearness to convince him , p. 36.

But now I come to his great point of condescention , to answer me in Scripture , when I have deserted Reason , as he thinks ; and here I will join Issue with him , that if he has made it out , that one God personal must not make one God as well as one Man , that is , if the definition of God be not to be one or more by persons , I say if it be not so , I shall be content to be dragg'd in Chains after his Chariot for a Captive , and to honour his Victory by being a Bondslave .

P. 24. He says Satan and the God of Echron are forbidden by the first Commandment , and why not Christ as well as they ? No , he has a Dilemma for that , p. 28. Either he is a true God , or a false God , if a true God , the same with the Father ; nay , he tells us also , we worship the Son : But good God , what an Answer this is when one sees the bottom of it , and how formidable the Horns of his Dilemma are when one searches into them a little .

Shall the Scripture make a mean between the supreme God and the false ones , as it does near 20 times , and shall Dr. Wallis come and face us out of it ? does the Scripture say to Magistrates , Ye are Gods , to Moses , he is a God , and must these be one with the supreme God , because they are not false Gods ? I am sure , whatever I have done before , I may here justly blush for the Doctor without banter .

But no , he says , p. 25. these persons are this one God , not added to him . And , good God , what a quirk that is ! Are they , say you ; Pray how came they to be so ? Did the Commandment speak of them ; did the Jews ever hear of them before Christianity ? If not , Must not this be an addition of persons , and a sneaking begging of the Question , to say they are that one God , and not person added to him .

So we worship the Son , but how ? with an appointed honour , not the supreme worship with mediation , not adoration . If the Doctor thinks we owe him other or greater worship , he would do well to prove it , and not say , we allow it , for I declare we don't .

So as to my argument , that there cannot be many personal Gods , because all between one and Infinites imperfect , p. 30. How strangely he shuffles , says he ; you your self own two Gods , and why may not I then three ? Alas , I say there is but one supreme God , and another Creature God , and but honour'd with the Title ; and is that to have two Personal Gods ? I dare not , I say , think this to be but a perverse Wrangling , but , I say , does it not look like it ?

As to what he says of the Text , Joh . 17.3 . I have giv'n him a sufficient answer already , and it does not consist with my genius to delight in Tautology ; and as for his saying , p. 29. that Christ is called Alpha and Omega in the Revelations , he regards not that that stile is as it were in opposition to God's simpler one , I am , nay , and that St. John interprets it himself expresly to this sence , by the same Book , in calling him the faithful Amen , and the beginning of the Creation of God .

He tells us , p. 29. that we break the first Commandment , by having more Gods , whether equal or unequal , and that if we might have many Under-Gods , the Heathens were excusable , who set up Jupiter above all . Alas , he forgets that all Trinitarians call the Father fons Deitatis , and the Heathens thought Jupiter no more . He forgets that the very Scriptures themselves tells us of several that have titularly the name of God given them , and we do not think more of the Son , for we hold but one Supreme .

And yet not I say but that I think the Son much above any of the other Titular Gods or Angels whatever , for I am not willing that the Doctor 's Arguments should draw me to diminish his honour neither ; and therefore let the Doctor say but that he is a creature , and a dependant to God the Father , and let him make him as glorious after that as his imagination can conceive him .

I must add here , that there are some things in this last Treatise of Dr. Wallis that I have really reason to thank him for , as that he thinks I have respect for the Scriptures , as that he is not without hopes of my conversi●n , I say I am oblig'd to him for this , and I will add this withal too , he that is apt to have good and charitable thoughts of others , cannot be at the bottom an ill man himself , and therefore I hope what he has wrote before is through mistake .

And I might add to this also , that I could very well comply with him in the Scripture words , to say of the three Divine Persons , these three are one , I believe the Father , through the Son and by the Holy Ghost , in one method act all things in relation to the good of Mankind , and provided the abstract words of Trinity in Unity , implying a Substantial Union , be taken away , I am 〈…〉