REPLY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 VINDICATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 UPON 
 
 Mr. LESLIES Firft Dialogue 
 
 On the 
 
 S O C I N I A N Controverfy. 
 
 By the AVTHER of the D I ALOGVES. 
 
 LONDON, Printed for Geo. Strahan over againft the Rojul- 
 Exchange, Cornhill. 170S, 
 
(3) 
 
 REPLY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Vindication of the %fmarkjy <3cc 
 
 S iRy 
 
 Y 
 
 (i.) If ^Our Complements 
 to me of Poor^ 
 weak ArgHmsmsy 
 Foolj^)^ Ah fur d^ Ri- 
 dkulouSy Sec wou'd have made me 
 believe you had been very Angry 
 with me, but that at the Clole 
 of your Letter you AJJure nie^ 
 that you are A^ed herein by no 
 Vajfion. 
 
 (2.) Yet you feem Mov'd at 
 what I fay of Mr. Biddle, who 
 Reviv'd the Old Exploded He- 
 rejy of the Amhro^omorfhits^ who 
 held God to have a Body^ and 
 of the Sha^e of a Afan^ for 
 fo they underftood our being 
 made after the Image of Godf 
 to be meant of the Sha^e of 
 His Body. Was your Concern 
 
 A 
 
 for Mr, Biddle becaufe he waf; 
 likewife a Socinian^ and one of 
 your Principal Writers ? But this 
 looks the more Sufpicious and 
 lefs to your Advantage, becaufe 
 of what you fay, p. 5. / may 
 doubt whether God be a pure Spirit, 
 or be only a grofs Body. 
 
 Cb.) But now. Sir, as to your 
 Vindication^ I might give this 
 Short Reply^ That it is one 
 General Mifiake of my Anfwer 
 from Top to Bottom. You be- 
 gin p. I. with Suppofmg, That 
 
 1 admit there are Irreconcilable 
 ContradiElions in my Scheme of 
 Fauhj and therefore^ in order to 
 Support my Notions, I endeavour 
 to Support the Credit of plain 
 ContradiElions \ intimating. That we 
 conceive of God no otherwife than 
 as a Blind Man of Sight, i. e. 
 
 2 with 
 
(4) 
 
 rt>ith a mind full of Contra^ions. 
 And you go on with this Ko- 
 tion, and Repeat it often e- 
 very Page, That 1 Movo of Con- 
 tradiEhions in the H. Trinity., and 
 Defend them. 
 
 (4.) If you had faid I had 
 fail'd in Refcuing our Dodrin 
 of the H. Trinity from thofe 
 ContradiBions Charg'd upon it 
 by the Socinians, you had only 
 found fault with my Perfor- 
 mance. But to fay, That I 
 ^Ilorv of thefe ContradiBions, 
 and Defend them, when I ex- 
 prefly Oppofe them, and you can- 
 not but know v/as the very 
 Purpofe and Intent of my Un- 
 dertaking, has fomething in it 
 for which I want a Proper 
 Name. All I ftiall fay, is. That 
 if this A'fi flake was not Wilful, 
 I have no Dangerous Adver- 
 fary. 
 
 (5.) But how came you to 
 S'lppofe that a Blind Man thinks^ 
 Sight to be a Cofnradiclionl It 
 he Ihought fo, he cou'd not 
 Believe ther was or cou'd be 
 any fuch thing. Tlier is no 
 Blind Man' but Believs ther is 
 fuch a thing as Sight, becaufe 
 others tell him fo who have it. 
 But he knows not what it is, 
 nor can we Explain it to him. 
 • For we can Explahi it no o- 
 ther wife than by Allufion to 
 forae of thofe Senfes which he 
 has. And the Senfes are fo Dif- 
 ferent from Each other, that 
 
 the TercepHon of one cannot 
 be Apprehended by the Percep- 
 tion of any of the others. And 
 if we Apply the One StriElly 
 to the other, we fhall fall in- 
 to ContradiBions, like that 1 
 mention'd of Explaining the 
 Progrefs of Sight by that of 
 Leggs. Which is a ContradiBion 
 to a Man Born Blind, whfle he 
 Conceives of Sight after the 
 Manner of the Motion of Leggs. 
 And it wou'd be the fame 
 ContradiBion for the Eyes, as for 
 the Leggs, to Move two Yards 
 as foon as one. Therefore the 
 Blind Man do's not Suppofe 
 that the Eyes move as the Leggs 
 do, for then Sight wou'd be a 
 downright ContradiBion to him, 
 and he cou'd not Believe it. 
 But he knows this is made uf§ 
 of only as an Allufion to him. 
 And he fuppofes that the Per- 
 ceftion of Sight is quite of a Dif- 
 ferent NatH'i^ from the Motion 
 of Leggs^ and that ther is no 
 ContradiBion m ix., tho' heknows 
 not what it is. 
 
 (5.J) And thus it is that we 
 conceive of the H. Trinity. We 
 know it is of a quite Different 
 Nature from Three Men, or a- 
 ny Three upon Earth. Yet we 
 mull fpeak of it after the Man- 
 ner of Men, for we can talk no 
 otherwifc. But if we will there- 
 fore Apply StriBly every thing 
 of Three Men to the Three 
 Perfons in the Deity, we fhall 
 fall into Manifold ContradiBions^ 
 
 like 
 
(5) 
 
 like the Blitid man who wou'd 
 Meafure Sight by the Motion of 
 Leggs. But then, as the Blind 
 Man Believes Sights and that 
 ther is no Comradiftion in it, 
 and is Senfible that the Teem- 
 ing ContradiBion arifes only from 
 Purfuing the Parallel of Leggs 
 and Eyes too Strictly : So we 
 Believe that ther is no Con- 
 tradiEiion at all in the H. Tri- 
 nity of God^ but that the Seem- 
 ing Comradihion^x'i^ts only from 
 our Applying too Striflly what 
 is Spoke of God, after the Man- 
 ner of Me'r7. For we have no 
 Words^ whereby we can Speak 
 Properly of God. As we have ivloae 
 whereby to fpeak of Sight or Co- 
 lours to a Bli'fid Man. 
 
 (-].) I once Dilcours'd with a 
 man Born Blind., and having Ex- 
 plain'd Sight to him as well as 
 I cou'd, I at laft Ask'd him 
 what he thought it was Like ? 
 And after Confidering a little 
 he iiiid he thought it was like 
 
 a Wheel. A Wheel! Said I, 
 
 wiiy 
 
 a Wheel ? Becaufe, faid he, You 
 tell me that Stght Perceives fe- 
 veral things at once, and things 
 Dijia?it as foon as things nearer 
 hand. Kow when a Wheel turns 
 fvvift round, I feel all the Parts 
 of it almofl at the fame time, 
 and the fartheft Part of the Rimm 
 is prefentiy next to me. I pro- 
 fefs I cou'd not Mend his No- 
 tion, nor find any Word where- 
 by to Exprefs Sight more to his 
 Appreheniion. Kow then fup- 
 pofe the Word Wheel were 
 
 pitch'd upon to Exprefs SJght 
 to Men Born Blind. Yet they 
 wou'd not think Sight to be a 
 Wheel. Nor think ther were 
 thofe ContrndiBions in Siq'ht 
 which might Evidently be In- 
 fer'd from its being a Wheel. 
 Becaufe they wou'd know at 
 the fam.c time. That it was 
 but a Borrow 'd Word., by way 
 of Allufion^ and not StriUly and 
 Properly belonging to Sight, nor 
 fully Expreflive of ir. 
 
 (8.) And may we not make 
 the like Allowance as to the 
 word Perfon sN\\t\\ Apply'd to 
 God ? We have not a Word 
 more ProprT AikI yet if we 
 Apply it to God, v;ith all 
 the Properties and Qualifications 
 belonging to Men., what Mfiakes 
 and even ContradiSlions may we 
 fall into? Which yet will not 
 Imply any Contradiction in God, 
 But what fo feems arifes only 
 from our Conceiving of God 
 after the Manner of Men. 
 
 (9-) If you then ask me, why 
 we make ufe of fuch Words} 
 I anfwer, becaufe we have no 
 Better, And fas you fay p. 7. 
 of God's being faid to Repent., 
 Grieve., &C.j / flwiid not dare 
 to -ufe them of God., if the Scrip- 
 ture had 7J0t done it. If the 
 Scripture had not told Us of 
 Three in Heaven., we had Never 
 Spoke of a Trinity. But when 
 thefe things ar.^ ReveaPd to Us, 
 we are oblig'd to Receive them. 
 And 
 
(<5) 
 
 And not to be' Pert in Charge- 
 ing Contradictions upon them j 
 which after all arifes only from 
 the Weaknefs and over-weening of 
 our own Vnderftanding^ and our 
 Mlftahs in Meafuring the Na- 
 ture of God proportionable to 
 our own. 
 
 (lo.) Now, Sir, I hope you 
 ■will find Reafon to Alter the 
 State of the Quefiion^ as you 
 put it upon me, p. 2. where 
 you fay to me, you are not to 
 jhew that a Seeming Contradiftio?t 
 may be none (^for who knows not 
 that ? ) but that a real Contradifli- 
 on may^ in fame CMfe^^ be nont. 
 Sir, I utterly Exxept againft this 
 State of the Queftion. It is none 
 of Mine. I never undertook to 
 Prove that a Contradiction is not 
 a Contradict ion. That wou'd 
 make me as Ridiculous as you 
 have caird me. And you might 
 Triumph over me as you Pleas'd, 
 if you cou'd Fix this upon me; 
 Did I ever fay. That three Per- 
 fons in God was a Contradiction} 
 Have 1 not taken pains to Ihew 
 that ther is no ContardiCtion in 
 it ? And that the Seeming Con- 
 tradiction arifes only from our 
 Explaining it after the Man- 
 ner of three Verfens among Men\ 
 And have I not given Reafons 
 againft thus Explaining it ? Whe- 
 ther my Reafcns are Good or 
 Bad is not now the Queftion. 
 But this is Su'5cient to Clear 
 me from your Charge of Main- 
 taininj^, "That 4 real Contradiction 
 
 tnay-, in fome Cafes^ he none, Ther 
 is no Cafe wherein a Contradicti- 
 on is not a Contradiction. But 
 ther may be a real Contradiction 
 in one Caft^ which in another 
 Cafe may be but a Scemi.vg Con- 
 tradiction. And I hope thele 
 ought to be Diftinguifh'd. 
 
 (it.) I endeavour'd to lUuftrat 
 this by the Inftance of the Blind 
 Man. Which you thus Retort 
 upon me, p. 2. where you Re- 
 peat thefe words as mine, " 'TV> 
 " impojfible to Explain to him what 
 " Sight is^ fo as to Reconcile it 
 " from being a Contradiction to 
 *' him. I anfwer (fay you) that 
 " a True and Juft Explication of 
 " it will not Contain any real 
 " Contradiction, 'tis from his 
 " Miftake alone. 
 
 Now pray. Sir, how is this an 
 Anfwer to me ? Have not I faid 
 the fame ? 'Tis from his Miftake 
 alone. That's true. But whence 
 came this Miftake ? Was it not 
 from the Explication was given: 
 him of Sight ? But you fay. That 
 a Trite and Jitft Explication of it 
 will not contain a?iy real Contradicti- 
 on. I have try'd my hand, and 
 I confefs I cannot give a Trne 
 and Jift Explication of Sight tO 
 a Man Born Blind. Neither have 
 yjou. Which you ought to have 
 d^one, when you found Fault 
 with I\line. But it is not yet 
 too late, pray. Sir, do it. And 
 give fuch a Tme and Jujt Ex- 
 plication of Sights as will not 
 Contain 
 
(7) 
 
 Contain any red Cmrkdi^ion to 
 the Blind Man. I mean a Co«- 
 tradi^ton in your Explanation^ 
 not in the Nature of the r/?/;^^. 
 For the ^//W Man himfelf do's 
 not think Sight to be a Contra' 
 diBion^ for he Wifhes for it, and 
 Bemones the Want of it. But 
 he will find real Contradictions m 
 whatever Explanation of it (I 
 dare fay) you can give by Allu- 
 fion to any of his four Senfes. 
 Yet he will not think the Fifth 
 Senfe which he wants to be any 
 Contradiftion-, only that it can- 
 not be Explain d to him; And 
 he Belie-ves what he do's not Vn- 
 derftand. Yet the 5oc/>;/<««j make 
 this Abfitrd and Ridiculous when. 
 we Apply it to the like Hum- 
 bling of our Vnderfianding as to 
 the Incomprehenfible Nature of 
 Cod ! The Blind Man Beli-jes 
 what he Knows not, nor can 
 Vnderfiand^ from the Teflimony 
 of other Me?j^ who tell him 
 they have Sight ^ which yet they 
 Cannot Explain to him without 
 Manifold ComradiEhions as to him. 
 All which Hinders not his Be^ 
 lief oi It. For he Confidershis 
 own DefcH. But we will not 
 Receive the Tefiimony of God^ 
 in the Revelations He has given 
 Us of His Holy Trinity^ bccaufe 
 we Vnderfiand it not; nor can 
 Explain it fo as to be Free from 
 all Difficulty according to our ^/j- 
 prehenpon of things ! We will 
 Confider Nothing of our own 
 JDefg^lsy in Seeking to Ccmpr?- 
 
 hend what We own to be In- 
 comprehenjihle ! 
 
 If you fay, That the Doftrin 
 of the Trinity is not ReveaVd 
 in the H. Scriptures^ and that 
 this is the Difpute. Then let 
 it be the Difpute. That is the 
 Subjed I have Undertaken in 
 thefe Dialogues. And that the 
 H. Scriptures were fo Under- 
 Itood in the Firll and Pureft 
 Ages. But as to your Ohjem- 
 ons about ContradiCion^ I hope 
 I have given Sufficient Satis- 
 fadion. And that it is made 
 yet Plainer^ by thefe Repeated 
 ObjeCions of yours. 
 
 If I have us'd too many 
 words, it; is from that Difficul- 
 ty you put upon your own Vn- 
 derflanding to Mi flake my Mean- 
 ing^ for I believe it was Vlain 
 enough to others before. But 
 I Grudge not my Pains to 
 
 rov, 
 
 (i2.) Was it from this WiU 
 lingnefs to Miftah that you 
 Charge me, p. 3. with faying. 
 That a Contradiiiion is fometimes 
 no CcntradiElion^ which is what 
 
 you faid^ fay you to me. Now 
 I dare fay I never Said it, be- 
 caufe I never Thought it. Nor 
 can any one Think it. Why 
 did you not Qiiote where I faid 
 So ? Or elfe tell how you did 
 Infer it. Tho' your Inferring^ 
 and my Saying are two things. 
 Is this the v/ay you take to make 
 me RidiciiloHs'^ 
 
 03.)!' In 
 
C8) 
 
 ( i;^.) In the fame p. 3- yo^ 
 Expoftulat, " why God fhou'd 
 «' Impofe upon a Generation 
 " of Men born BUnd^ a long 
 " Creed, of the Nature of Light 
 " and RefraBions, and Colours, 
 ''and a 5;;/f/w of Optlcks, 
 " &c. 
 
 I fuppofe, Sir, you do not 
 Mean this for an Argument, 
 And as to the Reflexion upon 
 our Creed, you will find more 
 Spte than Se;?)? in it. The Do- 
 ftrin of the Trinity was Kecef- 
 cefary towards that of the Sa- 
 tisfa^ion^ which is the Heart of 
 ChriJHanity as I have Ihew'd in 
 the Sixth Dialogue, p. 3, &c. 
 And it is Reveai'd Short and 
 P/^/>;, as a Great Myfiery, not 
 to be too A'/rc/y Inquir'd into. 
 And it had Rcmain'd in the 
 Plain Native Scripture Terms to 
 this Day, but for the Arians and 
 other Hereticks, who Invented 
 New Dijlinlliofis to Evade this 
 Article of Faith, and forc'd the 
 Church to follow them herein, in 
 Order to Confute them, and Pre- 
 ferve the Faith. Yet thefe now 
 Charge thofe Terms and Dijlin^i- 
 ons upon the Church ! 
 
 (14.) You fay to me, p. 4. 
 " You need not pretend to 
 *■*■ wonder, How I cm deny, that 
 ^' what IS a Contradi^ion in one 
 " Nature, may yet he None in 
 " anotkr. 1 " fhou'd Wonder 
 " more.,, i{ 1 did not Deny fuch 
 '' an Abfardity. 
 
 Arid yet in the fame Page 
 you fay to me, " You know 
 " they fthe Vnitarians) don't 
 " Deny that fome things may 
 " be Contradi^ions, if Affirm'd 
 " of Men, which are None 
 " when faid of Cod. 
 
 Is not this the vcvy Ahfurdity 
 you Wonder you fhou'd not De- 
 ny'^. Yet don't you Confefs it? 
 That what is a Contradi^ion in 
 one Nature, may be None in ano- 
 ther. This is Abfurd in me/ 
 But when you fay it, it is 
 Eafie} 
 
 (15.) I had faid, That it was 
 a Contradiftion to A^en that 
 Pafi or Future fhou'd be Pre- 
 fent, but that it was not fo with 
 God, to whom all things are 
 Prefent. To which you Reply 
 p, 4. 
 
 " That it is no Contradiction 
 " for a Pafi thing to be Obje- 
 " Bivcly Perfent in the Idea— — 
 " And that fo it is with God, 
 ^^ who do's not Behold the Chaos 
 *' as now Exifting void of Form, 
 " nor do's he Judge Adam and 
 " Eve to be now in their firfl 
 " Innocency. I doubt fome are 
 " fond of making abundance of 
 " Needlefs Contradidions, on 
 " purpofe to keep fome Dar- 
 " ling Abfurdities of their own 
 " in Countenance. 
 
 Sir, This was Entring upon 
 your Triumph too foon. For you 
 are not yet Quite Efcap'd from 
 me. You by this make no more of 
 all things being Prefent with Cod, 
 than 
 
(9) 
 
 than that he has a good Memc- 
 mory^ and Forgets Nothing. But 
 is tb.ere no more in the Cafe? 
 Is his Duration then by Succejfion 
 of Time^ like Ours ? Is Part of 
 His' Duration Loft, and Irreco- 
 verably gone, like our Tefierday ? 
 And do's it now Remain only 
 OhjeBively frcfcnt ii\ His Aiemo- 
 ry ? Do's He now only Reme7n- 
 her what he was many Tears ^^o ? 
 If He can Remember or has a Ms- 
 moyy^ then fome of His ,Tj!>«(? is 
 Vafi. We fay Eternity is -but one 
 Inftant. But how it Comprehends 
 "fime within it we cannot tell. 
 For we can fpeakof it no other- 
 wife than in words of T/;»f. But 
 it will be the fame when Time 
 fhall be no more, as it was be- 
 fore Time had a Being. Ther is 
 no Vafi or Future with God^ and 
 thingb are Prefent to Him other- 
 wife than by way of Memory, 
 And if we fay the fame of Men^ 
 it will be CcmraditHon upon Con- 
 tradition, And fo it will be if 
 we Meafare His Eternity by our 
 Time. And as Daring is it to 
 Meafure His Nature by omx Na- 
 ture^ or His Perfovs by ourPer- 
 fons. And to fay thiscr that muft 
 be ContradiElo/y in Hirn^ becaufe 
 it is fo with Vs ! When v/e know, 
 That the Words by which we Sx- 
 prefs Him are Prober only tot^j, 
 and Apply'd to Him but by way 
 of Attufwn, And as Improper as 
 when wc fpeak of His Eternity m 
 our Words oi Time, 
 
 (i5.) Your 5th Page is taken 
 up with Arguments fhewing, 
 That tho' we know not the Na- 
 tirre of God perfcdly, 'yet we 
 know fbniuch of it, atleaft N- 
 gatimly, that we may Difcover 
 Cont/adiB-ions to it in feverai Par- 
 ticulars, which wou'd argue //w- 
 perfeBIon or Mmahility in God^ as 
 as that He ihou'd Lie^ or Ceafe 
 to Ee^ &c. All which I readily 
 Grant. But then" you iiiUfl: that 
 this makes againft my Pofition^ 
 That we are not "to Ohj^diCon- 
 tradiBions in a Nature v/e do not 
 Vnderfland. That is, wherein we 
 do not Vnder^dnd it, as in a 
 Blind- Man' % Judging of Colours^ 
 by which I explain'd ""it. I grant 
 ther are General ContradiBons 
 may be faid of any thing, as that 
 the fame thing fhould Be and not 
 Be, at the fame time, &c. But 
 thefe are not ComradiUions that 
 Refpect any particular Nature 
 more than another. And my 
 SuhjeB was concerning a Con- 
 traaiSiion in a Particular Nature^ 
 and this Infer'd from a Seeming 
 Parallel Inftancein another A/i?- 
 ture. In which Cafe I fay wc 
 muft Vnderftahd both Natures^ 
 elfe we cannot draw an Inference 
 from the one to the other^ as 
 a Blind man cannot Argue from 
 Leggs to Eyes^ nor infer Contra" 
 ditlions from the one to the o- 
 ther, becaufe he Underftands 
 not the Nature of Sights and 
 therefore cannot Judge. Far lefs 
 can we Judge ot the Perfonalities 
 B of 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 of God by the Terfonallties oiMen^ And 
 becaufe of the Infinitely Greater 
 Diftance and Diverfity of their 
 Natures. 
 
 To this you fay Qhid) That 
 tho' we cannot Argue from the 
 RefemhUnce of the one to the 
 other, yet thus much we may 
 Conclude in the General, That 
 three Perfons cannot be but one 
 Perfon. Which I never DenyM 
 
 '' Efpecially (fay you to me) 
 " when your felt had Granted 
 *' to the Sociniany That it is a 
 '' Cot^tradiHion to fay^ Three Per- 
 *' foj^s (in God^ are but one Per* 
 *'y^«^ which I reprefented to you 
 " was what the SociniansOnSir^^. 
 " your Scheme with .• And therc- 
 S fore you were bound (but 
 " wou'd not Attempt it) to 
 " ihew, that this Contradifti- 
 " on is not Chargeable upon 
 " you. 
 
 But, Sir, how coii'd you lay 
 I did not Attempt it ? when at 
 the fame time you Infiit that I 
 Granted it to be a Contradicti- 
 on, that Three Perfons (in God) 
 are but one Terfen. Then furely 
 I did not fay, that three Per- 
 fons were but One Perfon^ nor 
 thought our Scheme Chargeable 
 with this. In the firfi Dialogue p. 
 6. you will find the Contents on 
 the Margin to be, That ther is 
 n» Ccntradi^ion in thofe Terms by 
 Tohich we exprefs the H. Tri- 
 nity. Did 1 not then Attempt 
 to fhew, That this Contradict- 
 «n ii not Chargeable vpon us ? 
 
 your Socinian do^s very 
 little Underftand the Chriftian 
 Scheme^ when he Charges it with 
 holding Three Perfons to be but 
 One Perfon. How he will Infer 
 it from that Scheme is one thing, 
 but to Charge the Scheme with 
 it is Ridiculous, when the Scheme 
 do's exprefly Deny it. 
 
 And pray Coniider whether 
 all thofe JlrgHmems by which 
 you wou'd Pnfer this from our 
 Scheme^ do not proceed from 
 the Refemblance you make be- 
 twixt the Perfonalities of Men 
 and of God ? Which you have 
 Granted me ought not be done. 
 You argue from Peter^ James^ 
 and John^ to Father^ Son-y and 
 Holy Ghofi. And here it is I 
 ihew you the Difparity^ and that 
 no true Arguing can lie, if we 
 will Carry on the Comparlfon in 
 all its- Parts, and that Strictly 
 and Properly. For thofe Words 
 that are Proper to Peter^ James, 
 and John, are not fo to Father^ 
 Son, and Holy Ghojl ^ and yet we 
 can ufe none other. But then 
 we mull not Argue StriEHy from 
 the one to the other, knowing 
 that thofe Words which are Pro* 
 per to the one, arc to be Un- 
 derltood but by way oi Allnfion 
 (and that at an Infinit Diltance) 
 when Apply'd to the Other. 
 
 You fay ibid. Cp. 5.) / dor^t 
 in this Cafe, ObjeC a CoHtradicii-- 
 on in God, from a Siippofition that 
 His Nature is Refembled by Aline. 
 
 Now I will undertake to Ihew, 
 
 That 
 
(H) 
 
 That all the ContradiEl;lons you 
 Objed as to the H. Trinity^ do 
 every one of them Proceed from 
 this very Su^pfition. And if fo, 
 then you have Determin'd the 
 Caufe againll your felf. You 
 fay, That Father^ Son, and Holy 
 Ghofi cannot be one Cod. Why 
 fo? Becaufe Teter, James, and 
 Jo/hn cannot be one Man. Is not 
 this Arguing from the Suppofii- 
 cn. That the Nature of God is 
 RefemhUd by Ours ? And "fo it is 
 of all the Refc of your OhjeBi- 
 ens, ther is Kone of them but 
 what is Built upon this Snppo- 
 ption virhich you Difclaim. 
 
 Now, Sir, keep from thefe 
 ContradiBlons you Objed meerly 
 from the Refemhlance you fup- 
 pofe betwixt the Nature of God, 
 and our Nature ; and you and I 
 will not Differ as to other Con- 
 traditions may be faid of Ged, 
 as, that he ihou'd Be and not 
 Be at the fame time ; That He 
 fhou'd not be Infinity Eternal, &c. 
 For thefe Comradiilions are not 
 Infer'd from any Refemhlance be- 
 twixt His Nattire and Qm'>' 
 
 (17.) This vviTi Anfwer the 
 jihfuy^ities you wou'd Infer from ^ 
 our JDodrin, p. 6. As that it 
 wou'd bring Men to Scepticifm, 
 when the mofi jihfurd things that 
 can he [aid of God are not to he 
 Confuted, hecaufe not knowing His 
 Nature, we mnjl not fay any thing is 
 in ContradiEiion to it — For you 
 carh tell -whether a Denyal of a 
 Trinity he not Confident with a Tri- 
 
 nityy according to you, becaufe if 
 is ahont the Nature of God, and 
 not Vnderftanding that, we mufl 
 not OhjeSh Contradi^ions here. 
 
 I repeat this, only to fhew 
 how^ Wildly you run Riot. For 
 it is Anfwer'd above. Becaufe 
 I wou'd not have you Infer 
 Contradirtions m God from the 
 RefembU'fKe you Svppofe (and yet 
 Deny it) betwixt His Nature 
 and Ours ; Therefore you think 
 Nothing whatfoever can be Con- 
 tradiUory to God! That is, you 
 will have no God at all, Un- 
 lefs you can have fuch a one 
 as is in all Refpeds like unto 
 Men, and whofe Nature mult 
 be Meafur'd by their Nature! 
 You fay to me, (ihid*) 
 
 (18.)" Nay iince you fay 
 " we know not the Nature of 
 '' A-fan ('perhaps he may be three 
 " Perfons and one Man) nor of 
 '^ Trees, or a Pile of Grafs* ""^"^ 
 " cannot then urge Contradidi- 
 " oiiS about them, and fo can- 
 ^' not Argue about the Nature 
 
 " of any thing And fo yfc 
 
 " can Prove or be Certain of^ 
 *' Nothing. , ,( 
 
 " Kay, we cannot confute* 
 '^ Trans-Subdantiation, for wc 
 " know not the Nature of Bread 
 " and Fief] (for Senfe . cannot 
 " Reach that) and, fo may; 
 " not Objed Coiitradi^ions in 
 " the Cafe. ; 
 
 Thus you, Sir. And you are 
 
 are the firft Man ever I heard 
 
 Talk at this Rate. It looks 
 
 R 2 like 
 
dO 
 
 like fome Dlfcomfofitre--''^Bnt 
 I will Turn it all upon your 
 Self. Therefore tell me, Do you 
 Pretend to Know the Nature 
 and Efeme ofthefe'things, which 
 you fay Senfe cannot Reach ? 
 If not, (as 1 prefume you will 
 fay, but am not Sure, congder- 
 ing the Flights you have taken 
 . already) then. Sir, it lies upon 
 you to A^froer all thefe Extra- 
 'vagancies you have put to me. 
 For I am not Anfwerahh for them 
 more than Tour-Sdf. As to your 
 Objedion oi' TransSubftantiation^ 
 I refer you to what I have 
 faid of it in the firfi Dialogue^ 
 p. 24. &c. And for all the 
 Reft, Look you to it. 
 
 Cip.) You next Objed the 
 Terms in the Creed. Which is 
 Anfwer'd before SeB. 13. But 
 you Add, Why you fmid be Op- 
 trejfed or Anathematiz^^d for yonr 
 J)lffe»t from thefe Terms, when 
 ymi AfTcnt to the Text whence 
 tiiey are Infer d i 
 
 This is the Plea of all Here* 
 tkh. But it Returns upon them- 
 felves. They firft Invent Wick- 
 ed and Heterodox Clofes upon 
 fuch Texts^ which cannot be De- 
 tcded by their faying they Af- 
 fent to the Texts^ for that is 
 ftill in their own Senfe, and 
 they Delude many. This G- 
 bliges the Chvrch to make Ufe 
 of Terms to Obviat thefe falfe 
 Glejfes^ and to Preferve the Faith. 
 The Devil Qiiuted Texts to our 
 Bl. Saviour J but with Wicked 
 
 Intent. It is the Memlng and 
 not the Letters is the Faith. 
 The Quahrs can Repeat the 
 whole O-ef^, and yet not Mean 
 one Word of it in the Chri-. 
 ftian Senfe ^ But all that is faid 
 of Cody and of Chrifi, His Birth^. 
 Tafficn, Deaths RefitrreBiony A' 
 fcention^ and Coming to Judge* 
 me-nty they Turn to what they 
 call their Light Within. There- 
 fore, when we Deal with thefe. 
 Men, v/e muft add New Terms 
 even to* the Creed, to Obviate 
 their Lurking Herefie. Inftead 
 of Chrif; we muft fay the Out* 
 -ward Chrifi, bccaufe they hold 
 none but what is Inward, that 
 is, their Light within thcmfelves*. 
 And fo in many other Cafes. 
 Therefore it is not the Chjtrch^ 
 but the Hereticks are to be 
 Charged with this. 
 
 (10.) Your Third Objection 
 p. 6. is where you fa,y. to. 
 nie, ,, ; ,^-;. ,. 
 
 " You cou'd not Conliite the 
 " Pagan Notions of the Divine 
 '* Nature your way : Suppofing 
 " they held many Gods, or that 
 '^ ther is but one Divine Na- 
 '^ ture, and all the Thoufands 
 " of particular Gods but a Mui- 
 " titude of Terfons i\\ that one 
 " Nature Cas you fuppofe many 
 " Men in but one Human Na- 
 " ture) you cou'd not Confute 
 '^ th^.m, by the Light of Rea- 
 '' fon at leaft, becaufe you al- 
 ". low nut Contradidions to be 
 " an Argument here. 
 
 This 
 
(I 
 
 This is ftill Running upon 
 your Old Mikake, for 1 do al- 
 low ContradiSiiom to be an Ar- 
 gument here. And fay, That 
 you can find None flich in the 
 Dodrin of the H. Trinity. The 
 Pagans added Daily to the Num- 
 ber of their Gods^ and Deiffd a 
 Man to Day, who was no God 
 Yefterday. And therefore -they 
 Cou'd not. think that the Thou- 
 fands of their Particular Gods 
 were J»er/<7»j. Inherent and Ef- 
 fential in th6 Divine Nature. 
 for then they muft have been 
 jilways So.. And I cou'd Con- 
 fute them by. the Light of Reafon^ 
 if they thought that any. thing^ 
 coMhe Made-GOD-, in the Pro- 
 per Senfe. For that God can.- 
 not be Made. L w'ou'd Confute 
 them by the fame Argument I 
 do the Sociniajis in the. like Cafe, 
 who fay, That Chrifi; was Made 
 GOD, \as I have Ihew'd in my 
 Pref^f? to the I>ialogues.,j). xxxv. 
 So- that the Socinians and the 
 Tagans comQ in here upon the 
 Hke ■;p'oot. Nay, the Pagans 
 have the Advantage in Reafon. 
 For' they did not" think thofe 
 whom tli.ey made Gods to be 
 l\\Q SvfrerM God. But they had 
 feVeral Ranh and Claffes of In- 
 ferior Gods ^ who had Particular 
 Provinces affign'd them, Under 
 the One and .Supreme God. But 
 the Sccinians will have ChriJ} to 
 be the One and Sv^reme God^ and 
 - that He was Alade So. As the 
 Racovian! " Catechifm ,iays, Vnurn 
 W.nnAentQk't :Secum $ffecif* That 
 
 3) 
 
 God made Him One. and the Self 
 fame with Himfelf • On which. 
 Account they pay Divine War- 
 pip to Chrifi, the fame as to 
 God Himfelf. Eo paUo quo ipp 
 Deo. . ' . - 
 
 Now I wou'd Defire the Fin- 
 dicatior to tell me, How a So^ 
 cinian cou'd Confute a Pagan ? 
 For the Pagan might fay to 
 him, if One can be Made a 
 God, why not Another, and A- 
 nother to the End of the Chap- 
 ter? And he might Charge the 
 Socinian with downright Poly- 
 theifm, for if one b-e made God.^ 
 He mull be Different from Him 
 that Afade Him. And fo ther 
 are Two Gods. If you fay Hq 
 is 'the Same. Then it will fol- 
 low that the Same God was 
 Made and not Made ; was Be" 
 fore Himfelf, and A<fade Himfelf^ 
 was Orice not God, yet Always- 
 was God! And many moreluch 
 like ?3\]^ab\Q Contradi^iens. 
 
 By this time. Sir, you will 
 be Senfible what Advantage 
 you have Gain'd by •bringing 
 in this Argument from the P^- 
 gans.: ; . 
 
 (ir.) You come to your Ph'ilo^ 
 fofhy at the End of p. 6. which 
 is very Extraordinary. You will 
 not let the Vnderfiariding and 
 the Memory be twO Faculties ^ 
 becaufe of the Parallel for v/hich 
 I brought it. Ifaid that the 
 Vnderflandlng was Converlaut 
 about what was Prefent to it. 
 You Jnfwer, That things Pafi 
 ttiay 
 
mrf be made Trefent to it, as 
 when one is told of things Pafi 
 v/hich he did not Know before. 
 But then this is the iirft time 
 they were Prefint to the Vnder^ 
 ftanding. I fee no Oppofitiou 
 
 ( ^4 ) 
 
 Eye-Sight. Know tlien the Mean- 
 ing is, That Meii don't ufe to 
 Think Contradidions. Therefore 
 whatever becomes of your Dif- 
 pute and mine about the three 
 Faculties of the Soul^ yet if it be 
 a Common Ofmiony (which you 
 
 you give to me in this 
 
 I ask'd you if the Vnderftand- 
 itig is faid to Forget ? You Anfwer 
 here. As much as the Memory. 
 But this is a Language of your 
 own. The World fays other- 
 wife. If a Man Forgets a thing, 
 it is Common to fay, my Memo- 
 ry fails me. By which is not 
 meant that he is a Fool^ and has 
 no Vnderfianding. On the Con- 
 trary, as I told you, it is a Com- 
 mon faying, That the Greateft 
 Wits have the Worft Memories. 
 
 And we fee in old men their 
 
 Memory fail, yet their Vnder- 
 ftanding as Good as ever. 
 
 But you fall unmerciflilly upon 
 
 me, (beginning of p. 7.) and fay 
 
 £0 me, 
 
 *' "Nay, you are fo Tenacious, 
 
 " that whether there be really 
 
 *' three faculties in the Soul or 
 
 " not, you fay it does as well 
 
 " for you if it be but Thought fo. 
 
 *' Right or Wrong 'tis all one 
 
 " to you. Yau will hold to the 
 
 *■'• Conclufiou, let what willbe- 
 
 '*^ come of the Premifes. This is 
 
 ** true Courage ! 
 
 Kot fo very Stout neither / For 
 
 1 fee no Danger in't. But is it 
 
 Really fo. That you cannot find and Recciv'd Ofinion^ 
 
 out the Reafon of this? Is it for tain'd by Great and 
 
 V*ant of Memory or Vaderjiand- lofovhers 
 'f ' - 
 
 will not Deny) it will follow that 
 it is no Contradi^ion^ whether 
 it htTrue or Falfe. Unlefs you 
 think it is Common to Men to be- 
 lieve ContradiElions ! And then 
 Gbjeding it as to the Tri-mty will 
 be no Great Matter / It will be 
 no more than what men do ev6- 
 ry day in Twenty other things / 
 I gave you another lafiance^ 
 of which you take no Notice. 
 Therefore to Refrefh your Vn- 
 derflandi-ng (\ mean your Memo- 
 ryy for you know 'tis all one) I 
 will fend you to it again. You 
 will find it p. 8. of the /r/ Di- 
 alogue f which I fuppofe you have 
 Read^ becaufe you made Remarks 
 upon it, tho' that do's not always 
 follow) there you fee an old fay" 
 ingy before you or I were Born, 
 That the Soul is All in All^ and 
 All in every Tart of the Body. 
 I fuppofe you have Heard of 
 Tota in Toto^ ct Tota in qHalibet 
 Parte. Now, as to my prefent 
 Purpofc, I am not Concern'd 
 whether this or the more Mo- 
 dern Hypothe/is takes Place. But 
 this is not Charg'd with Con- 
 tradition^ it was the Common 
 
 }ng I But I will Try to clear your 
 
 and Main- 
 Wife Phi- 
 lofophers. And it wou'd be a 
 fiat ContradiBion to fay the fame 
 
 of 
 
C'5) 
 
 of Bo^y-, that it cou'd be in fe- 
 veral Places at Once. Therefore 
 that may be a ComradiStion in 
 one Nature which is none in 
 Another. This is the Ufe I had 
 to make of it. 
 
 I luppofe, Sir, you think that 
 the SohI do's not Confift of 
 FartSy nor can be Cut or Slk'^d 
 in Fieces like a Body, And that 
 it wou'd be a Contradi^ion to 
 Affirm this of the Soul. Which 
 yet is very Eafie as to Body. 
 And therefore you will Grant 
 that a ContradiBion cannot be 
 Infer'd from the One to the 
 Other, becaufe of the Diffe- 
 rence of their Natures. Far lefs, 
 fay I, can a ComradiHion, be In- 
 fer'd in Cody from the Nature 
 of Man. 
 
 Now, Sir, is this Vlain to 
 you ? Have I Beat it into your 
 Head at laft? I wou'd not have 
 Us'd fo many Words to ano- 
 ther. Was it your Memory or 
 Vnderfianding that Forgot it ? 
 
 But pray. Sir, tell me, whe- 
 ther wou'd you- rather be 
 thought a Man of a weak Me- 
 mory^ or of a Shallow Vnder- 
 jlanding ? It will be in vain 
 for you to fay they are the 
 fame. For the World makes 
 a Difference. And if you will 
 not Chu[ey they will Chufe for 
 you. 
 
 Therefore be not Tenacious 
 (as yoa Advife me) for if it 
 be hut Thought foy your Work 
 is done. And fhew not your 
 Courage in Dcfpifmg this as an 
 
 hcof2jtderable Argument. 1 have 
 all the World againft you, and 
 they will Difiinguijh betwixt your 
 Memory and Vnderflanding, And 
 if you will not let the One 
 be a little Trejtcherous, they 
 will Thiptk the other. very Sim- 
 ple. 
 
 (22.) Of which you have given 
 a Snffic.ion in what you fay here. 
 That Three Faculties in one Sotil 
 will be no Parallel for what .1 
 brought it, Nor will it Refemhle 
 (fay you to me) what the Vnita-- 
 rians objeB toyou^ how three Perfons 
 can he but one Perfon \ Vnlefs in.- 
 fiead of three Faculties making hnt 
 one Souly you had Shewn that thre^ 
 Faculties make hut one Faculty. % 
 ^rf this is ftrange Forgetfulnefi 
 in you (for 1 accufe not your Vn^ 
 derftanding) When in my An* 
 fwer to your Remarks^ and the ve- 
 ry place you are now upon, 51?^, 
 10. p. 5. I fay. That three Facul-^ 
 ties can no more he one Faculty^than' 
 three Perfons can he one Perfon, 
 And you have Quoted me here, 
 p. 5. faying. That it is a Contra- 
 din-ion to fay y three Perfons (in God) 
 are hut one Perfon. Yet all this 
 you Forget y and here, p. 6. you 
 Objed to us Chrifiiansy That we 
 hold three Perfons to he but one 
 Perfon. And immediately after 
 in the Beginning of p. 7. you 
 lay,— It do^s not anfwer. the Pa- 
 rallel in that Point (of three being 
 hut one in the fame Senfe)for which 
 J bring it. Strange Memory ^^zm! 
 
 Did 1 ever bring a Parallel to 
 Prove 
 
(i6) 
 
 ,Prov^, or did J ever fay, That 
 'Three can' be bat Otte^ in the fame 
 Senfe? Have I not been Csreful 
 to Explain my i*elf in this, That 
 God is not .7?:'ref^and.O;7e, inth? 
 [dm Refpeti^'l Which. I grant 
 wou'd." ,be a, "ContradiEiion. And 
 this very (^9fitradlEliof7 1 have fair- 
 ly Fixt upon one fet of Your 
 Vnkarians^ in the Preface to the 
 Dialogues^ p. xxi. x.^ii. L^t this 
 f^wdicater.. Ridr'thera of ;j:" if he 
 can, ,' Let him^" BsCad, p. 6. , of the 
 frfi Dialofue^ upon whjch he^f- 
 marks^ and fee whether I' have not 
 fully Exprefs'd my felf as to this 
 of the Same Setife or the fatne Re- 
 fveSil But he- will not Remember 
 It 1 :And will go on to Charge 
 Contradichionsy by putting thofe 
 Terms upon us, which we Dif- 
 own^ and Utterly Condemn ! 
 
 (23.) In the fame p. 7. he is 
 Qiiarrelling.with the Word Per- 
 fon, and fays, ■ . • 
 ,' " If you afTign to the Sacred 
 <■' Three all the Various Parts and 
 " Diftinclions of Perfofn m a. Pro- 
 ^*-,per Senfc, and for that Reafon 
 " do, give 'era thqfe Charaders i 
 *' How can •' ' Confidcring men 
 " .think, you.don't delign by it, 
 *' to give 'em 'an Idea of three 
 " Proper Per fons in one Eternal 
 " Be. • . 
 
 Sir, You liave Foxm .again ! 
 Vou Ciid, p.- -S- ^ ^^"^ (^b0 a 
 ContradiUion i^ God^ from a Sup- 
 tofoion that' His JSfat-ure' Is Refem- 
 hPd by Mine. And here youO^- 
 jen It from nothing. Elfe but 
 
 irom-- t^iat : Syppofiiim. \\ hat.eUc 
 -do you mean by putting the tvord 
 Proper to Perfoni Is it not inten- 
 ded to denote an Hnman Fer- 
 fofl, ;that is,, whatever is Pro- 
 per to it? And is not this the 
 Meaning! of thofe Parp and; Di- 
 ■flinBions of P-erfins you fpeak of i* 
 That ther fliou'd . be the fame 
 P^rf. f and Dlftiniilons in the Per- 
 fons of Gj)d^ as in the Perfons of 
 Men. Wou'd ^ you then- have 
 Parts in God., becaufe it is fo 
 with Men ? Why Elfe do you 
 put in that Word ? I doubt not 
 as thp Vnity of the Nature of 
 God is Infinitly more Perfecl than 
 the Vnity of Many fo that the 
 DiftinBion of the Perfons of the 
 JDelty is likewife more PerfeH 
 than the Diftin^ions of the Per- 
 fons of Men. But in a Manner 
 Pnejfable Incomprehenfible to us, and 
 not to be Meafur'd by the Vari- 
 ous Parts and D if in ^ ions of 
 our Perfons. JFrom which Me- 
 thod of Argument tho' you Dif- 
 own it, yet you Cannot Refrain. 
 You may as well infer Sexes in 
 God J whom you call an eternal 
 He. Then not a She. Do you . 
 mean this by the Farious Parts 
 and DiflinEhions in Human Per- 
 fonsl And for that Reafon do 
 you give thcfc CharaElers to God ? 
 Or is it becaufc you cannot Ex- 
 prefs Him otherwife ? Then you 
 luuft. not flick tooClofe to your 
 Proper Senfe^ that God fhou'd be 
 like OUT Perfons in a Proper Senfcy 
 with all our FarisHs Parts^ &c. 
 This 
 
This comes too near your 
 Friefld Mr. Biddle. See Secli. 
 en ii. 
 
 (24.J Butif thcfe Expreflions 
 of God are not Proper^ then 
 you Infer they niuft be Fi^m-a- 
 the. And you Quote me lay- 
 ing, That the Texts which fpeak 
 of the H. Trinity are not i-V- 
 gurative. Dial. I. p. 25. where 
 1 v/as fpeaking of the Compa- 
 rilon the Socinians make betwixt 
 the Trinity and Trans-Subfianti- 
 ation^ and wou'd Infer the like 
 Ahfurdities from the One as the 
 Other. Upon which I fliew'd fe- 
 veral Figures in the Words of 
 Jufiitution of the Holy Sacrame-rity 
 as where the Cwp is put for the 
 Wine in it, Conti'nens pro Contento^ 
 and feveral others. But I faid 
 ther was no Figures in the 
 Texts which Reveal the Holy 
 Trinity. What Figure is ther 
 in Saying Baptiz^e in the Name 
 of the Father^ and of the 5w, 
 and of the Holy Ghofi} And 
 that thefe Three are One ? And 
 that the Word was Co-j/ ? I delire 
 you to Name the Figure. Pray 
 did you mean any Figure when 
 you call God a Hel And what 
 Figure was it? But I find by 
 this Argument that you wou'd 
 have it taken Stri^ly and Pro- 
 perly^ as you Speak. And by 
 the Various Farts you wou'd 
 have in God^ and Properly too, 
 and by giving Us leave, p. 5. 
 at leall to Doubt whether Cod be 
 
 ill) ; 
 
 a pure Spirit , or he only ngrofs 
 Body} I cannot help Deiibtina 
 whether you are not an An- 
 thropomorphit ? I will not put it 
 upon you. . But your Expreffions. 
 favour it. And if I Guefs Wrongs 
 yet this you will fee by it. That 
 . vvhen we Speak of G'(?^ in Words 
 Relating to Afan (for we have 
 none other) We mull beware? 
 of taking thofe Words in a StriSi 
 and Proper Senfe, cKq we may 
 be Betray'd into Grof; and Fatal 
 Errors. Ther are Words that 
 are not Proper ('for want of Bet- 
 ter ) as in the Prefent Cafe, and 
 yet are not Fipratiz<e. What 
 Figure is it tO Sy that Eternity 
 is an Inftaml Yet we are fare 
 the Exprejfion is not Proper ^ 
 Nor can we Mend it, becaufe 
 we have no Word that is Proper 
 whereby to Exprefs Eternity ^ or 
 a Perpetual Duration without 
 Succeffion oiTime. 
 
 (25.) But you 5umm up the 
 Matter in the next Paragraph 
 and fay, " So that the Difficul- 
 " ty is no other, than how a 
 " Derivd Dependent Being catt 
 *' be Godt \S/hic\it\iQ Unitarians 
 " Infilt on much. 
 
 To which I anfwer, Firll, 
 That if the Unitarians Inlilt on 
 this, they mult Qiiite Difcard 
 the Socinians^ and Renounce the 
 Racovian Catechifm^ which hither- 
 to has been their Text. This 
 is lliewM SeH:. 20. And yet 
 you, Sir, JuHify the Socinians 
 C and 
 
(•8) 
 
 and VnitarUnsm Common, and 
 ufe thefe Words Promifcuoufly, 
 as meaning the iame thing. I 
 defire therefore that you wouM 
 Difiinguijh thefe, and let Us 
 know what Side you are of? 
 Let not the World be Con- 
 founded with Two Stich that 
 fay they are 0«e, and yet are 
 Direft Oppojits^ and in flat Con- 
 tradition to each other. The 
 Secinians fay that the Vnitarians 
 are no Chriftians. And the 
 Vnitarians think the Socinians 
 to be Rank Idolaters. As I have 
 Shew'd in the Preface to the 
 Dialogue}^ Sed. iii. Num. iii. 
 p. xxxi. &c. 
 
 C25.) But now, Secondly^ as to 
 your Dificiihy it fcif, I muft 
 Refer you back again to my 
 Firji Dialogue on which you have 
 made Remarks. There SeB. iii. 
 is a Dired Anfwer to your Dlf^ 
 ficiilty^ which you have over- 
 looks. I told you p. 12. That 
 if it were Ejfential to a Man 
 to be a Father fas we lay it 
 is in God) the Sen muft be as 
 Old as the Father^ and yetDe- 
 rivative from him. Of this you 
 take no Kotice. 
 
 But I gave another Illuftra- 
 tion, that of Light and Heat in 
 the SiWy 'which proceed from 
 the 5«», and yet are as Old as 
 it. To which you fay in your 
 Remarls^ p. 7. That the Light 
 is indeed the very Sun it fel/y fa 
 may well be as Old, To which 
 
 I laid in my Anfwer^ p. 6, That 
 ther muft be a Difference, be- 
 caufe the Light can break 
 through a little Cranny^ which 
 the Svn cannot. To this you 
 Reply in your Vindication^ p. 
 7. That the Light is not the 
 rohole Sun, only a Part of it, 
 and that this Part may Creep 
 through a Cranny due. And you 
 make your felf very Merry vj'ith 
 me upon this Occolion, and tell 
 me, / have derided yon to my 
 Cofi! But Sir, I muft have a 
 little of your Help ftill. For 
 if a Part be taken from a Body^ 
 it is Lefs than it was. And 
 confidering what vaft Parts of 
 the Svn (if Light be a Part) 
 have been taken from it by its 
 Continual Shiniftg ever Since it 
 was made, it muft Needs be 
 much Lefs than it was. One 
 wou'd think it ftiou'd have been 
 Worn out by this time ! And the 
 Parts it has Loff by all the Light 
 that ever has been in the World., 
 muft be much Greater, and many 
 More than what Remains ! Be- 
 fides all the Heat too that has 
 
 come from the Sun For I 
 
 Supofe you will Allow the 
 Heat to be a Part of the Sun 
 as well as the Light. And then 
 here has been Confumpion e- 
 nough to have Wafied a Hun- 
 dred Snns'l And the Sun had 
 Sweated himfelf tO Death long 
 before this by all thefe Effluvia 
 you Speak of! You fay, the 
 Streams of Light are a Part of 
 
 that 
 
(■ IP ) 
 
 that Hugt Luminous Mafs. But 
 if it had been ten times 
 
 as 
 
 ten Thoufand Candles ySLhi^ yet is 
 never the Lejfer^ but Juft the 
 Huge^ thofe Streams (if Parts of fame Candle it was. before / 
 it) had Run it Dry-, for they Sir, fuppofe I Light you 
 
 are much more than the Foun- 
 tain ! And the River is Bigger 
 than the Ocean it Runs into / 
 
 Then again, if a Man takes 
 the Dimenfions of any Body^ do's 
 he Viot Meafnre all the Parts of 
 it f Elfe it is not a true Survey, 
 Now if the Light be a Part 
 of the San, what a vaft Body 
 will this make? Even as fer as 
 the Light of the Sun Extends/ 
 And by this, the Sun will be 
 as Bigg as the Firmament in 
 which it Moves, and Contains 
 not only the 'Sun^ but the 
 Moon^ and Innumerable Stars 
 which all Receive their Light 
 from the Sun , befides the 
 whole Earthy and all the Air, 
 And they fay ther are fome 
 Stars Bigger than the S-un it 
 
 it felf But that muft be 
 
 only Bigger than that Small 
 Part of it we fee in the Fir- 
 mament ! And it muft be much 
 the fmalleft Part^ in Compari- 
 fon of thofe other Pans of it 
 which Fill the whple Firma- 
 ment ! 
 
 And will not the lame Rea- 
 fon make the Light of a Can- 
 dle a Part of the Candle ? And 
 then when a Candle is Light- 
 ed^ it Encreafes Wonderfully, 
 and can Fill a Great Hall ! And 
 when it is put out, it Loofes 
 more Parts than wou'd make 
 
 down Stairs with a Candle in 
 my Hand, is Part of that Can" 
 die in your Hand, becaufe you 
 have a Handfull of the Light of 
 it ? 
 
 And will you rather Strug- 
 gle with all this, than Admit 
 of any Parallel which may Re- 
 concile the Dodiin of the Ho- 
 ly Trinity to the Apprehenli- 
 ons of Men, and Save it from 
 thofe Contradictions you Charge 
 upon it? 
 
 You Dcfpife the Parallels I 
 have made ufe of, and have ta- 
 ken a great Deal oi Pains to 
 Fix Abfurdities upon them. But 
 whether you have not fallen 
 into Greater to Avoid them ? 
 I leave to your Cooler thoughts. 
 And whether you have not De- 
 rided me to your own Cofi ? 
 And if you have taken froni 
 me the Occaflon yet to fay, 
 O Subtile Socinian \ And to Re- 
 turn to you the Advice you 
 give me, when in the Conclu- 
 fion of your Farce you fay to 
 me, 
 
 " I heartily wifh. Sir, you 
 " wou'd Entertain the Coffee- 
 " Houfes for one year with a 
 " Courfe of your Philofophy, I 
 " dare promife you many Ad- 
 '' mirers •, and when that has 
 " Prevail'd, no doubt but your 
 " Divinity will go off 
 
 (27.) 
 
guagc, 
 
 (2-7.) After this you fay (for 
 I wou'd rails none of your Ar- 
 guments) that ther is one Text 
 Ffal, 45. 7. Where the word 
 Elohim is Us'd in the Singular 
 Number, (for wliich I will take 
 your word at pfefent) But you 
 Deny not that it is General- 
 ly taken in the TLnral. Which 
 is Sufficient to overthrow your 
 ObjeBion that God is Always 
 fpoken of in the Singulary a /, 
 Thou^ //e, &c. And as to His 
 being Mention'd likewife in 
 the Tlural^ you put it off with 
 the Modern Stile of Princes^ 
 who fay We for the Greater 
 Majefty^ as it is Now thought. 
 But I believe you will not find 
 this Fajlnon of. StUe to have 
 been fo old as Mefes- I remem- 
 ber it not in all the Hiftory of 
 the Bible. And can any Ima- 
 gin that God at the Creation 
 ihou'd take the Thral Stile to 
 Himfelf, and fay, Let «j-- make 
 Man .in our Image ^ after Our 
 Likenefs, in Profpeft only that 
 the like TlHral ftile wou'd be 
 taken up by Worldly Pri?ices ? 
 Is it not much more Probable 
 that the Princes ihou'd rather 
 take it up and think it more 
 Majeflkk, becaufe it had been 
 Us'd by God Himfelf ? But by 
 this Defence you own that God 
 is fpoken of in the PhiraUs well 
 as the Singilar Number. 
 
 pofing Terms y and for keeping 
 Stridly to the Scripture Lan- 
 
 talie 
 
 upon you to im- 
 
 pofe new Terms oi three Infinite 
 Alinds And this fo Peretnptorily^ 
 that you fay. Till I flat e my No- 
 tion (m thefe Terms^ ail my Com^ 
 ments on other Texts are j4rro'ws 
 fljot at no Mark. And as a Ge^- 
 neral Anfv^er to them All, you 
 fay to me, 
 
 " Your Expofitions are Pre.- 
 " carious, or go no higher 
 '' than Arianifm^ or are Ob*- 
 *' via ted oft in the Sccinian 
 " Comments \ and in Anfwer- 
 " ing their Texts you are as 
 " Modefl as if you had faid 
 " Nothing. 
 
 Sir, 1 was not asking your 
 Chara^er of my Performance* 
 If you had given any Anfwer 
 to what 1 have faid, you ihou'd 
 be Welcome. But this only 
 ihews you are Angry ^ and that 
 I have faid enough to give you 
 Difiurbance. 
 
 (i%.) In your laft Paragraph, 
 p. 8. You who are agaiiift im- 
 
 (29.) Your laft Demand of 
 me, p. 8. is. in thefe words, 
 " Pray, Sir, tell us whereabout 
 *' your Anfvver is to the Text, 
 " of that Day biorveth my Fa^ 
 " ther only^ which fome cannot 
 " find among your Anfwer'd 
 
 " Texts And no Text is 
 
 " more Urg'd by the Vnitari- 
 
 Sir, I will Gratify you all I 
 
 can. Tho' if you had Read 
 
 but the firft Page of my Fourth 
 
 Dia- 
 
Dialogue^ you might have Sa- 
 tisfy'd your felf. For there I 
 give ope General ^nfwcr to 
 thofe Texts which fpeak of the 
 Human Infirmities of Chrifi^ as 
 His being Paftble^ Improvable, 
 Rewardable, &c. Whereby Im- 
 proveable I meant tlie Text you 
 Mention, and that when He 
 fpake thofe words thatDay might 
 not have been ReveaPd to Him. 
 For He knew not all things 
 at once. It is faid Ltik. 2. 52. 
 Jefi/s encreafed in Wifdom and 
 Stature^ &:c. All which fhew His 
 State as Man, but have no Re- 
 lation to His Divine Nature, 
 which Communicated to His 
 Unman as He thought fit. 
 
 (30.) You Conclude thus to 
 me. 
 
 '' I afliire you I am afted 
 '' herein by no Pajfion, except 
 *-' it be a Pafionate Defire of 
 " feeing our H. Chrifiian Re- 
 " ligion refcu'd from the Bur- 
 " den of Contradidions. 
 
 Sir, if you think the Socinl- 
 ans Concern'd in Chrifiianity, or 
 Chrifiianity with them ; And 
 have fo lajfionate a Defire to 
 fee it Refcu'd from the Bur- 
 den of Contradidions, you wou'd 
 do well to Confider Se[i. 1 1 . 
 of my Prefiace to thefe Di- 
 alogues, for there you will find 
 more Flagrant and Irreconciable 
 Contradidions among t\\t.Socim'^ 
 
 i) 
 
 ans and among the Vnitariofif 
 too, than any they Charge up- 
 on our DoHrin. And then Chufe 
 which you think molt Free from 
 Contradidions. 
 
 (3 1 .) But I have one word 
 more. If you were Aded here- 
 in by no Pajfion or Prejudice, 
 what needed that fly Infi- 
 nuation you give, p. 4. of my 
 being yluthor of that Book 
 call'd the Regale, and coming 
 in with that Mobb-Ohjeclion of 
 Endeavouring to Reconcile the 
 Callican and Englifli Churches? 
 I wilh I cou'd Reconcile all 
 the Churches in the World. 
 But this was going out of your 
 way to Reach a Blow at me. 
 This had lio Relation to the 
 Difpute in which you and I 
 were Engag'd. It was Hall'd 
 in perfedly by Head and Shoul- 
 ders. But you have told me I 
 mult not lay it upon Pajfion 
 or Prejndice^ And fo I forgive 
 you, 
 
 (32.) And now, Sir, I have- 
 gone over your whole Vindt- 
 cation. I think I have left No- 
 thing in it which I have not 
 Anfwer^d. Becaufe you Com- 
 plain'd I had not Anfwerd 
 your Remarks fully enough. I 
 have Us'd many more Words 
 than I thought Necefiary to 
 Intelligent Readers. But I was 
 Refolv'd to make things Plain^ 
 that 
 
that you wight not Mifiah I h^vc Divided Mine into 
 
 my Meaning ^if PofTible) a- SeRiom, that I might not Ram- 
 
 nother time. And I fliall be We? but keep Clofe .to one 
 
 very willing to hear from tMng at once. If you did the 
 
 you again, how this Pleafes like, it vvou'd fave you many 
 
 you. Repetitions. 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 I, TT/5 Compkmetits. 
 rl 2. His 
 
 Concern for Mr, 
 Biddle. 
 
 3. Hs mifiakes me Quite through. 
 
 4. He makes me Jnfiify Contra- 
 didions. 
 
 5. A Blind-Man do's not think Sight 
 to be a Contradidion. 
 
 6. Nor do we think the H, Trinity 
 to be fo-f tho' we Vnderfiand it 
 not. 
 
 7. The Blind Man who thought Sight 
 to be like a Wheel. 
 
 8. This apply'd to the word Perfons 
 in God. 
 
 9. Why we nfe that Ward, and the 
 Word Trinity. 
 
 10. He Mis-States the Queftron. 
 
 1 1. Sight cannot be Explain 6. to a 
 Man Born Blind. Tet he Believes 
 what he do's not Undcrlland Ap- 
 ply d to the Doftrin of the Holy 
 Trinity. 
 
 12. He Charges npon me what J ne 
 ver [aid. 
 
 1 3. The Hereticks the Caufe of add' 
 tng New Terms in the Creeds. 
 
 74. The fame thing Abfurd i'a me^ 
 and Eafie tn Him, 
 
 15. Things are otherwife Prefent to 
 God than by Memory. 
 
 16. We may Difcover Contradidions 
 as to God. But not by way of 
 Meafuring His Nature with Ours. 
 Which the Vindicator Grants, Tet 
 Infers Contradidions no other way, 
 
 1 7. He runs Riot as to Scepticifm, 
 
 18. His Argument from our not 
 knowiug the liatute of things Turn'd 
 upon him. 
 
 19. Why the Socinians owning the 
 Texts which fpeak of the H. Tfini* 
 ty is not Sufficient. 
 
 This Exemplify*d in the Quakers. 
 
 20. His Argument from the Pagans 
 makes againfi him. And the Soci- 
 nians Jhew'd to be Worfe Idolaters 
 than the Pagans. And guilty of 
 Polythcifm. 
 
 21. His pretty Philofophy in making 
 the Under/landing and the Memo- 
 ry to be the fame. 
 
 It wiH come up to my Argument if 
 
 it be but Thought ther are three 
 
 Faculties in the Soul. 
 As likewtfe. That the Soil is Ail in 
 
 Atl, and AH in every Part of the 
 
 Body. 
 
 Wh.^ 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Wkit ts a Contradiftion to Soul is 
 None to Body, yind e Contra, 
 
 22 He faljly Charges the Chriftian- 
 Scheme with holding three Perfons 
 to be hut One Perfoi. 
 
 21' He fuppofes the Perfons of God 
 to be Like the Perfons of hAtn in 
 a Proper Senfe, with all their Va- 
 rious Parts and Diftinftions. 
 
 24. The Texts which Reveal the H. 
 Trinity are not Figurative, yet not 
 to be taken in a Strid and Proper 
 Senfe. 
 
 The Vindicator gives Sufpicion of his 
 being an Anthropomorphite. 
 
 25. The Socinians deny the Unitarians 
 to be Chriftians. And the Uni- 
 tarians thinl the vSocinians to be 
 Grofs Idolaters. Tct the Vindi- 
 cator makes Both to be the fame. 
 
 26. Some Sport with him about his 
 making the Light to be a Part of 
 the Sun. It woiid have Exhaufted 
 the Sun long ago. And makes it 
 as Bigg as the Firmament that 
 Contains it. 
 
 This he was Farced to, to Avoid the 
 Parallel J brought, 
 
 27. His Single In/lancc of Elohiin 
 being taken in the Singular. His 
 Simile of Princes taki?7g the Plural 
 Stile will not do as to God. 
 
 2S. The Vindicator hnpofes New 
 Terms as to the Trinity. Xct 
 Quarrels with the Church for it. 
 
 He Scolds at my Book. 
 
 29. Anfwer as to that Text^ of that 
 Day knoweth my Father only. 
 
 30. The Socinians tnore Guilty of 
 Contradidtions th.m the Ortho- 
 dox. 
 
 3T. The Vindicator fays he is ?m 
 Atied by Paflion. Tct he went out 
 of his Way to do me a Prejudice. 
 
 32. I have Anjwer'd more Fully than 
 was Needful^ except to the Vindi- 
 cator, to make things Plain to him. 
 Who mty let me here from him a- 
 gain, if he be not Satisfy d, 
 
 A Method whereby he may Save Re-. 
 petitions. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
(O 
 
 Remarks on Mr. Ch^L. LeflieV /;'/ Dialogue on the 
 Socinian Cgntroverfy. 
 
 s J B^ 
 
 I who am a true Scriptural Tri- 
 nitarian, am far from rejefting as 
 a Contradiftion, any Doftrine 
 that bears the genuine Stamp of 
 Divine Revelation, merely becaufe it 
 has fome Difficukys attending it 
 which I cannot folve, or becaufe I can- 
 not frame an adequate Notion of it j 
 nayj firmly believe there is no Contra- 
 diftion in the Scripture Account of 
 the Holy Trinity, to the Divine Vni- 
 ty : But yet I muft freely tell you, 
 that I am no way afTifted to anfvver 
 the common Objeftions of that kind 
 from what you offer towards clear- 
 ing the vulgar Notions of a Trinity, 
 from fome Mens imputation of Con- 
 tradiflion and Inconfiftency. 
 
 There may be Contradiction enough 
 in the common Explications of that 
 Doftrine,for ought you have faid in the 
 Matter. Nor have I ever met with lefs 
 rational Satisfaftion in the Point, than 
 in your late uncharicablf Dialogue. If 
 fuch poor Philofophy, fuch ftiallovv 
 Reafoning, and fuch grofs Divinity, 
 mufl baffle the Socmians^ I confefs 
 they ought to be the laft who pretend 
 to the Charafter of Men of Reafon. 
 
 To their Charge of a Contradiftion 
 upon the Explication of the Trinity, 
 you offer thefe things in your Defence. 
 
 ir Say you, That may not be a Con- 
 tradUiion in one Nature^ which k fo in 
 another, p. 7. But here you greatly 
 err j for a Contradiftion always confifts 
 of two inconfiftent Parts or Terms j 
 and \vherever thofe two Terms are u- 
 nited in any Propofition, 'tis always a 
 Contradidtion, let it be apply'd to what 
 Nature you will. Indeed there may 
 be fomething attributed to one Nature, 
 ^vhere. there is nothing inconfiftent or 
 contradiftory to it j while if attributed 
 
 to another it might meet with fome- 
 thing inconfiflcnt, whence a Contra- 
 diftion will arife in the one and not 
 the other : but as one of the Terms 
 alone is not the Contradiftion in any 
 Cafe, fo where both the Parts are join'd 
 (which is the Contradiftion) 'tis al- 
 ways a Contradiftion, and of the fame 
 frie, in any Nature. I fliould indeed 
 fuppofe you might mean thus, were 
 it not for thofe ridiculous Inftanees you 
 bring for the Illuflration of your me«n- 
 ing, p. 8, 9. where yoii intimate, thae 
 tho 'tis a Contradiftion, for our Legs to 
 move two^ards as foon as one, yet 'tis 
 none for the Eyes to reach a Star oi 
 foon as the Top of a Chimney^ or for 
 the Thoughts to go to R^me as foon as 
 the next Street : and gravely conclude, 
 Thui you fee that what ii a Contradiliion 
 to LegSy U none to Eyes nor to Thought 5 
 and oft Ipeak of the Motion of Sight 
 and Thought : adding ^hat all the Phi- 
 lofophy in the V^ovlflt cannot reconcile 
 its going two Tards as foon as one, from 
 down-right ContradiHion (for fo you 
 exprefs it). But are you indeed fo 
 very weak as to think you move all the 
 way to Rome, and are got thither as- 
 foon as you think of ir? No, Sir, what- 
 ever hafV you may be in thither, you 
 go no fafler than your Legs can carry 
 you. And fliould you challenge ali 
 the Philofophy in the World? who 
 have fo little as not to know, that when 
 you think of Rome, or any other Place, , 
 'tis only the Idea oik in your Imagina- 
 tion which you contemplate, and not a 
 Leap or local Motion of your Thoughts 
 to it. In like manner, when we fee 
 the Stars, our Eyes move not up to • 
 them, but their extended Uays flrike 
 upon the Eye. I fee you have a. Head 
 much fitter for entertaining and coia- 
 ing Mylterys, than ior explaining or = 
 A- defending-i 
 
(2 
 
 ttcreiidtnj *em. Ic's a wonder you did 
 nor cliink rather, thac Rome and Con- 
 jUtitinople fiiifc and come into your 
 Head: and then llnce in other Cjfes J 
 lefler Veflcl cannot contain a greater, 
 nor a NutHiel hold an HouCc ; you 
 mi^ht ucnder how your httie Head 
 (ho'iild hold furh great Citys ; and vvitii 
 the fame Philofophy infer, chat what 
 is a Contradiftion to Nntfl)ils is none 
 to Heitds^ and challenge all Philofophy 
 to reconcile it. 
 
 2. Vol I fay, No Contradi^hn can be 
 dhtrgd'm unyN.iture we don't underfiand^ 
 p. 7. For which Reafon, you fay, 
 n>e tm(l not obje^ Contradictions in the 
 Incomfrehenfible Nature of God^ from 
 comparing it with our own. I fhould 
 grant this, in an Objeft of which we 
 have no Knowjedg at all: but fiirely 
 if I have fame, the a partial Knowledg 
 of the Infinite God,I may difcern what 
 is contradiftory to that litde Knowledg 
 of him. Nor is any thing more ufual 
 or jiift, than to deny fuch or fuch a 
 Doftrine, becaufe incompatible to 
 the -Divine Attributes, to his Spiritua- 
 lity, Eternity, Gpodnefs, {fyc. though 
 perhaps fome wPthefe are not plainer 
 nor better known than the Divine Ll- 
 nity. So that one may as well per- 
 ceive fome things to be contradiftory 
 to the Divine Vnity, as we do others 
 to be fo to his Purity, and Spiritua- 
 lity, e^c. for why fhou'd his Vnity be^ 
 thought the only obfcure Attribute a- 
 mong Chriflians ? And therefore there 
 is no more Caution due here than in 
 all other Reafonings from other Di- 
 vine Perfeftions known but in part. 
 
 Nay, you your felf frankly grant, 
 that we may perceive fome things to 
 be a Contradiftion when affirm'd of 
 God : for you fay,/). 6. that 'tis a Con- 
 iradiBion to fay, three Perfons are but 
 one Perfon ^ and you are not ignorant 
 (or if you be, you are not moft fit to 
 write in this Controverfy) that the U- 
 nitarians take this- to be the very cafe, 
 I'll. ^1^^"^ )'o^* "^^^^ ^^^'^^ Perfons of one 
 
 ) 
 
 Pcrfiny whatever you fay ^ for they 
 imagine, that God Atcnigltty, in the 
 compleat notion of God, is but one 
 Perfon, eKprelfcd by fingle perfonal 
 Notes, /, Thou, or He. They fancy 
 you pray to him as one Perfon,. when 
 you addrefs thus, O Thou' Lord, (^c. 
 They don't cbferve any to cry, je ■ 
 hear w, dec. But if that' be your 
 meanin;^, pray confider if you do well, 
 by ufing the fingle Pronoun, to give 
 'emoccafion to fufpeft, that you take 
 God for one fingle Perfon, when you 
 may fo eafily amend it, by faying al- 
 ways, O Te in the Plural. Toey are 
 ready to fay, that when you prove 
 the Son or Spirit to be a Perfon, yoa 
 do it from fuch Perfonal Notes as fhew 
 each of 'em to be one f/e : and that if 
 under one He, Me, Thou, &c. (by which 
 God Almighty is perpetually eyprefs'd 
 in Scripture) three He's are included 
 (for inftance, if the Words, ?io G:ds 
 bejrre /we, mean none before w three) then 
 how fhall they be fure, that under 
 the Perfon of Son, or Spirit, tho fpo- 
 ken of as one He each, there may 
 not be many Perfons intended by you ? 
 l^QW you'l do well to fhew, that God 
 is not one He or Perfon, or thac 
 there are not three Perfons in him in 
 a proper Senfe, fuch as the Proofs 
 fome bring for the three Perfons do 
 mean, if they prove any thing. With- 
 out this,you did not well in making fo 
 liberal a ConcefTion, vis^. that 'tis a 
 Contradiftion for three Perfons to be 
 but one Perfon, if you hold both. 
 
 3. You advance this odd Paradox, 
 That if the Doftrine of the Trinity 
 be a ContradiBion, it could not be an 
 Invention • annexing this flirewd rea- 
 fon for it, For who could invent a Con- 
 tradition? p. 24. as if no Error 
 (which ever implies a Contradiftion 
 to fome Truth) can be an Invention : 
 whereas all Errors are nothing elfe 
 but Inventions •, and a Socinian will 
 fay, as you reprefent him, that you 
 run into thefe Contradiftions, bymif- 
 tnk'mz 
 
(J) 
 
 taking the holy Tejit. Whether you 
 do miftake it or nor, or whether you 
 get by the inifljke or nor, I meddle 
 rot i but 'cis a fair account, how 'tis 
 poifible and ealy for Coiuradidions to 
 be invented : and your faying you 
 don't miftake the Text, be it ever 
 lb truly faid, is not to the purpofe, 
 Imce they, believing you do miftake, 
 can fatisfy thenifelves how it might a- < 
 rile, and are no uay tempted to think it 
 better than an Invendon,merely for its 
 leeming to thema Contradiftion. 
 
 But tho you have faid fo little to 
 tljc purpofe againft the Objeftion of a 
 Concratliftion in the point •, yet, as I 
 faid, I argue not upon that head, 
 and therefore leave it, 
 
 To conudci what Notion you'l give 
 of the Trinity : for indeed till Men 
 know what Trinity in God you mean, 
 'lis in vain to prove any more than 
 a Trinity in gcnaa!, which is not de- 
 ny 'd. You offer us fome Parallels and 
 Images to help our Conceptions, but 
 very inconfiftent ones. One while 
 'tis a Trinity like three Faculties of 
 one Mind, and another while 'tis like 
 a Trinity of three Men or Alitids j 
 which two are jud as oppofice as three 
 Perfons, and one Perfon, which you 
 fay is a Contradiftion : 16 that both 
 cannot be truelmages of the fame thing, 
 
 I. You refemble it often by three 
 Faculties (that is, three Operations) 
 of the one Soul, }>. 14. where ycu 
 fay, the Vnderjlaiidiiig is the Father 
 Faculty j the Memory is begotten by it^ 
 and the Will -proceeds from both. This, 
 you fay , is an Image of the fever al Per- 
 fons of the Deity ^ p. 30. Now tho you 
 are out in your Account of the Na- 
 ture and Pedigree of the Facultys, 
 when you make the Memory another 
 Faculty, which is but an Aft of the 
 Underftanding, and lb is no Image of 
 a fecond Perfon ; and when, fupp:- 
 fing it another eflTential Faculty, ycu 
 fay, 'tis begotten by the Vnderjiaiiding 
 Faculty y whereas 'tis only the Exercife 
 _of the Memory that the llnderftand- 
 
 ing can occailoii, and hot the Prim- 
 pie, which is before any Aft of the 
 Underflanding: yet when you have 
 pleas'd your fancy ever fo much, 
 with thefe pretty jingles ^ this is no- 
 thing to the bocinians, it only fhews, 
 how three Operations of a Mind may 
 be in but one Perfon, not how three 
 Perfons may be in one Mind ; unlefs 
 the divine Perfons are but fo many 
 Operations or Thoughts. Eefides,they 
 will ask fuch Allegorical Trinitarians 
 (for I affure you in this Cafe, you are 
 not charg'd with keeping too much to 
 the Letter of the Text, as you pretend, 
 jf. 25. but too little, in making three 
 fuch diftinft Agents, as Father, Son, 
 and Spirit, to dwindle into a thin Fi- 
 gure or Propofop^ia) whether Ariw, 
 or Socinttf, or any Vnitarians ever 
 deny'd fuch a Trinity: Were they fuch- 
 Fools as not to believe, God knows 
 and loves himfelf ? (And can't he do 
 this without being 3 Perfons, which is 
 done by every fingle finite Perfon ?) If 
 this be eternal Generation and ProceJJioji^ 
 they are for it •, and they have been 
 barbaroufly us'd if this was all the 
 Charge againfl 'em, which all know 
 they were clear of, and that they be- 
 liev'd God has fomewhat anfwering 
 to our three Facultys. 
 
 You pretend, jD. jy. that notwith- 
 fianding the Llnlikelinefs of three Fa- 
 culties to three Perfons, you muft yet' 
 ufe the term Perfns, becaufe we mujl 
 not alter the Phrafe of Scripture; and 
 yet the Scripture has no fuch Phrafe 
 at all as three Perfons in. one God. 
 Your alledging the Words, the Image 
 of hii Father^s Perfon, is here imper- 
 tinent for proof of three Perfons in 
 God; it only proves God the Father to 
 be a Perfon,vvhich none deny. Tho the 
 word o^OTftttr/? f]gnify'd,then,S;/^j^^«ce 
 not Perfon, Heb. 11. i, you of aH 
 ought to give a better reafon than this 
 for ufing the Terms, three Perfons, of 
 God •, becaufe (if I 'miftake not) at 
 the end of Mt. GWeifis Manual you 
 have faid, that the word Perfons, ap- 
 A 2 - ply'd 
 
■ (4) 
 
 ply'd to God, is us'd in a Senfe infi- 
 nitely different from what it means 
 vvhti. us'd of MeD. Now if ic be in- 
 finitely different J 'tis at the uideft dif- 
 tance pofFible ; and nothing can be 
 more unlitly made ufe of than fuch 
 Terms as exprefs all the Unhkcnefs 
 pcfTible to the thing intended. 'Tis 
 a ready way to deceive Men, to ufe 
 terms that are the fartheft off of any • 
 vve can devifc,from expreffing the true 
 meaning : 'tis better laying nothing of 
 God, than what begets corrupt Ideas 
 of him. 
 
 However, will this fort of Trin'ty, 
 tike to three Operations of Man's 
 Mind, accord with the Scripture Tri- 
 nity of the Father, Son, and Spirit ? 
 who have fuch diftinft Parts and Agen- 
 cies affign'd 'em, as cannot befo much 
 as fliadow'd out by our three Faculties. 
 You grant theFather was not incarnate, 
 but the Son. Can the Underftanding 
 be incarnate, and font, and humbled^ 
 6cc. and not the Will / Are not the 
 three Facultys always in the lame hu- 
 man Mind, which is incarnate without 
 Divifion? Do you teach us, that the 
 divine Nature is incarnate, without 
 its Underftanding, or Father Faculty .^ 
 No, there mull be more Diftinftion 
 than this between the mt-incamate Fa- 
 ther an,d the incarnate Son. 
 
 BefidcE, don't you think the Son of 
 God knows him.felf, and retains that 
 Knowledg, and loves himfelf? And if 
 lb, then, according to you, he is the 
 Ferjon k.>'ow'>"^i and the Perfon ^nojTH, 
 loving and lov'd^ as you learnedly dif- 
 tinguilli, ^ 50. And this will make 
 three fuch Perfons in each Perfon, by 
 rcriefting on himlelf: for this feemsto 
 be your Argument, A Man knows him- 
 lelf , erg') he and himfelf are two Per- 
 lous. And at this rate a good Wit 
 may allegorize all the Abfurdities of 
 the Alcoran into fair Meanings, and 
 filence all your Objefticns againft it, 
 tho the vulgar t'eople be ftill left to 
 their own grofs Conceptions, while 
 
 they take t*he Itteral and obnous 
 meaning : nor do you build upon 
 fuch a Trinity, like that of three Fa- 
 cultys •, for you have another Scheme 
 which fits your Notions better. There- 
 fore, 
 
 2. You refcmble the Trinity by ■ 
 three human Perfons in the fame hu- 
 man Nature 5 but then left .the Sod- 
 nians infer, that three d.vine Perfons 
 will in like manner be three Gods, 
 as three human Perfons are three 
 Men, you will not allow it to be 
 jhiifly true^ to fay^ Two or three Men, 
 when fo many human Perfons are 
 fpoken of, p. 6. but think there may 
 be many human Perfons in the farm 
 one Nature. And yet in fhort,you tell 
 the Socinian, that if he roould allorv 
 that feveral Perfons might partake of 
 one divine Nature, as he does allow they 
 do of one human Nature, the Difpute 
 ■was at an end, as to the Subftance of it. 
 Eui Sir, the Vnitarians do not allow 
 one and the fame Nature to have 
 many Perfons in it ; they judg every 
 Man has a particular Nature and Sub- 
 ftance of his own, in which none 
 partakes, only that others have fuch 
 another like Nature to his: they cry, 
 human Nature in general is a mere 
 Ens Rationit, a Notion of the Mind 
 arifing from the comparing one Man's 
 Nature with another. 
 
 However, if three divine Perfons be 
 like three human Perfons as to their 
 Unity of Nature ; then I doubt they 
 will, in confequence hereto, bedeem'd 
 to be three infinite divine Minds, as 
 three human Perfons have three finite 
 Minds, let 'em be ever fo much one 
 in their Nature, or Kind. And if three 
 divine Perfons Hiould as properly be 
 accounted three Gods, as three human 
 Perfons can (in ftrift Sreech) be ac- 
 counted three Men, and are as truly 
 three infinite Minds or Spirit?, as 
 three Men are three finite Minds, 
 there is a fad end of the dilpute in- 
 deed. But on the other hand, if three 
 Men 
 
(5) 
 
 MJn for human Perfons) in the fame 
 one fingte Nature or Aiind^ be a Cori' 
 tradiftion, then you give the Unita- 
 rians too much occalion to think the 
 like of your Notions of the Trinity, 
 by making this ParalJel. 
 
 Moreover, If God teach us to num- 
 ber Men by trvo^ ten^ &:c. and yet in 
 cppofition to fuch Plurality, tells us, 
 there is but one God, or rather that 
 God k but One^ unitf, or «f, it warns 
 us that his Unity is incondftent with 
 fuch a plurality of Perfons as is in your 
 human Nature. You add, ;>. 1 7. If we 
 fay, there U not more than one Human 
 Nature, we cannot fay, there U more 
 than one Divine Nature, tho feveral 
 Perfons partake of it. Now this fhews 
 your Notion of the Unity, which you 
 facrifice to that of a Trinity: and 
 upon this Notion of feveral infinite 
 Minds, your Scheme is built ; as your 
 Arguments for the eternal Generation 
 of the Son, and ProceiTion of the H. 
 Chofl, do manifeft : for you tell us, 
 God muft needs generate and produce 
 other Perfons on thefe accounts. 
 
 I. Becaufc'tis a PerfeiUon in Man 
 to propagate: /".^r. We fee Trees fpring 
 from Trees, Beafts, Fifli, Fowl, and 
 Man propagate their Kind; and ffhiU 
 God be barren ? fay you, and hook in 
 a figurative Text, Ifai. 6 6 ..9. accor- 
 ding to the vulgar Tranflatlw, to back 
 you 5 and truly you wanted a better 
 Authority for fuch a Paradox. For 
 you ought to know, thu Nt«i's Pro- 
 pagation is fj far from being an abfo- 
 lute Perfeftion, that 'tis founded in 
 his Infirmity ; he need not be niulci- 
 ply'd, but for want of others to fuc- 
 ceed him when dead, or to aid and 
 aflifl him while living. And as An- 
 gels, who are more perfeft, do not 
 propagate, I fuppofe •, fo neither will 
 Men, when they come to a more per- 
 feft State: this will ceafe wich their 
 prefent Imperfcftions. It feems then 
 the nearer to God^ the lefs there is of 
 tkts Propagation. 
 
 Eut why mud Gcd be barren, for 
 
 not propagating ? Are not Angels and 
 Men his Offspring ? and he the Father 
 of the whole Creation .■' Would yea 
 have the Almighty propagate as thick 
 as the Trees? I doubt you'J think 
 him dfe, to be comparatively barren. 
 The reafon you give for not multiply- 
 ing Perfons and jProaf^^/io/ij-, or Commu- 
 nications in God [vz>.. If it be infinite, 
 it can be no more than one ; and to infinite 
 Productions nothing can be added ; but 
 human Produiiions may be repeated, be- 
 caufe finite'] Ihould be confider'd as ic 
 feems to lie againft any infinite Pro- 
 duftion in him at all. For it may be 
 objeded, that many infinite Produc- 
 tions are no more abfurd than many^ 
 infinite Perfons •, and that if infinite 
 Perfon may be repeated, and can have 
 an Addition, why not other Infinites i 
 2. Becaufe God would be Jiinted in, 
 his Happinefs, if there were not a Per- 
 fon (you muft mean another Perfon) 
 to communicate all hif Thoughts to ; and 
 this muft be an infinite "Perfon, for 
 fay you, nothing but infinite can contain 
 infinite. See more to this purpofe, 
 p. 32. And a little before, you argue 
 for your point, from Man's want of 
 fome to converfe with ; elfe his Life 
 ii a Burden, fay you. Who would be 
 content to live, if there wof never a 
 Man in the World but himfelf? Such a 
 folitary indigent Being you fuppofe 
 a great Jehovah to be, that without 
 Company he cannot be happy. What 
 a bafe ignoble Notion is this of that 
 perfect Being ? as if infinite Wifdom 
 and all Perfection cou'd want any 
 thing more ! and can't be hippy, un- 
 lefs it be multiply'd into two Minds. 
 Thus ycu make him barren indeed, 
 while you talk of the divine F£CHn- 
 dity • and tempt the Vnitarians to 
 think, that three fuch Perfons as you 
 would make 'em, are not io great 
 as their One, Selffufficient, Eternal 
 M'-ud. 
 
 By 
 
(6) 
 
 Ey thefe things you difcover your 
 Mind plainly, that 5011 are for tlirce 
 ifijinite Minds or Spirits j a ..d tiut by 
 ibe divine Generation of a Son, you 
 don't mean only bh- Sei'f-Reflcirm, 
 but a Produftion of another infinite 
 Mind : for ctherwife yru talk incon- 
 fjftently ; nor is there any fhiddo'.v of 
 relemblance between Man and God in 
 the cafe which you argue upo-i. For 
 you can't mean,' th.tt Man is folitary 
 and miferablc for want of conVerfing 
 with his omi Mind, but for want of 
 another Man to difcourfe with : and 
 accordingly mufl mean, that God 
 could not be happy neither, without 
 another infinite Mhd. Nor does any 
 deny him to contemplate himfelf, 
 fhat you need argue for that againfl! 
 the .focmiaiis; io that ycur meaning 
 is plain. You do well to have two 
 Schemes in readinefs, one a Trinity of 
 Facultys, which lerves to explain tlie 
 Vnhy ; the other of three Minds (each 
 with thofe three Facultys) which makes 
 out a fufficient Trinity. This latter 
 you and otliers make ufc of when you 
 explain the Incarnation, bccaufe 'tis 
 hard fliewing the Son's Nature or /■find 
 to be incarnate, and not the Father's, 
 if it be the fame particular indivi- 
 dual Mind that is both Father and 
 Son ^ the former is us'd in explaining 
 the Trinity in General, and in Thefi. 
 Now if thefe two happen to be in- 
 confiftent taken together, you cannot 
 help that, becaufe to be three Minds 
 and yet but one, is hard to reconcile. 
 
 In my Mind you needed not to 
 infift on the Authority of the Hca- 
 thenifh Philofophers about the divine 
 fecundity, and a Trinity in God; fincc 
 your Adverfarys have been fo willing 
 to own you to be Paganijfj enough in 
 your Notions. And as you own there 
 is fome Corruption in the Pagan N6- 
 tions of thefe Matters, fo they ima- 
 gine there is wore than you apprehend. 
 Vid. riatonifm mveil'd. 
 
 Let me only remark one thing 
 
 more, 17^. That when youilluflratc 
 the Union of tlie Divine Nature to 
 the Human in /. Ch. by the Union of 
 Man's Soul to h'S Body, p. $1. you 
 don't account well for the Communi- 
 cation of the Propertjs of the two 
 Natures. You (tho contrary to the 
 A/cxandiian and befl Copys) read that 
 Text, Alfs 20. 28. of God's Bloody 
 and think what was done in the iNlan, 
 may be faid as truly of the united 
 God 3 as Man ii f.t'id to eut, &c. wheu 
 it belotigs'only to the Body. Whereas 
 in thii lafl Speech the Propercys of the 
 Body are not at .^11 attributed to the 
 Soul, as thofe of the humane are by 
 you to" the divine Nature. To fay, 
 God p.'cd hii Blood, or was Flej}>, or 
 made FlcJJ;, is anfwerable to fuch Ex-. 
 prefTicns, &s the Soul drinl^<, the Soul 
 is made Body, ((fyc. And if we never 
 fpeak fo notwithfianding the perfo- 
 nal Union in Man, then it may feem 
 hard to juflify fuch ExprefTlons, as 
 God's Blood and dying, &c. by any 
 fuch perfonal Union of the two Na- 
 tures, as never is a ground for fuch 
 Communication of Propertys, in the 
 Inflance you parallel it by. 
 
 You fay nothing for the Procejfion 
 of the H. Spirit (as diflinft from Ge- 
 neration, which is a great Aiticle of 
 Faith) from . Scripture, only that he 
 proceeded from the Father, John 15. 2 5. 
 or goes forth. So all Gifts do, and 
 Chrifl: proceeded 'from the Father too, 
 Ch. 8.1^ & 14. 28. and he proceeded 
 (the very , word us'd of the Spirit) 
 from Jericho, Mark. 10*45. Is that all 
 the ground you would fliew for fuch 
 a diflinft Article ? 
 
 To conclude, Unlefs you flate your 
 Notion more clearly, what Trinity 
 you will maintain, 'tis in vain to 
 cap Texts aboUt you know not what. 
 'Tis eafy to bend a Phrafe divers ways. 
 Unlefs you fix your Notion of a Tri- 
 nity morediflinftly, had you not bet- 
 ter leave Men to believe only forae 
 Trinity in general, tho they can't 
 well 
 
(7 
 
 Weil tell what ? And tho you may 
 think there is no llich vaft difference 
 between believing and not believing, 
 one knows not what in particular, as 
 that Men Ihould damn and haereticate 
 each other for it ; yet certainly 'tis 
 better to be content with this littls 
 /mpUcit Faith, than to go about ex- 
 plaining what you cannot. For when 
 all's done, a Man's Faith is not his 
 Words but his Senfe and Meaning'^ and 
 he who fays a large Creed but means 
 mthingf believes no more nor makes 
 any more ufe of ic, than he who de- 
 nys it all, let him boaft never fo of his 
 Faith. 
 
 And when you have brought a 
 Text or two for Chrift's being call'd 
 Goij and fuppofe it to be the Su- 
 preme God that is united to the Man 
 Ch. J. yet if the Vnitarians fay, 'tis 
 God the Father, as they gather from 
 John 14. 10. who was manifefi in that 
 Flefl), and fo the Father and he be one, 
 in as near Union as you imagine of a 
 Second I'erfon ; and that therefore 
 he is cali'd, as you fay, the Everla- 
 fting Father, Ifai. 9. 6. which they 
 thinly gave great virtue to his Per- 
 formances ; what are 3'ou the nearer ? 
 You'l do great fervice indeed, if 
 you facisfy the Vnitarians Scruples ; 
 not by corporeal refemblances of the 
 Tqnity, from 3 (or 4) Dimenfions or 
 Poftures of a Body j or of the eter- 
 nal Generation, by the Light (which you 
 call an Ejfe^ of the Sun, but is in- 
 deed the very Sun it fclf, fo may well 
 be as old) nor by vain Boafts of the 
 early Fathers (fo often > ielded up to 
 the Arians ) nor by concealing their 
 flronged Objeftions. Shew 'em that 
 they have no ground to imagine Two 
 or Three Gods (or Infinite Mindt) to 
 be imply 'd in your Scheme of the 
 Trinity, as they have fancy'd, not fo 
 much from the Exprefltons God of 
 God, and one equal to God (and fo 
 far not the very lame) in divine Per- 
 
 ) 
 
 feftions; as from the Nature of yokf 
 Scheme it felf ; as v.hen you hold the 
 divine Nature to be perfonally united 
 to Man, but yet not the Father ; as if, 
 fay they, he was not in that divine 
 Nature that is incarnate, but another. 
 Alj'o that the Divine Nature and the 
 Three Perfons are the fame [elfe fay 
 your own fide, there will be a Qua- 
 lernity, viz^. Three Perfons, and one 
 Nature befides : fee Le Blanc Thef. 
 de Dei fimplicitate, p. 100.] yet the 
 three Perfons are not incarnate, tho 
 the divine Nature (which is the fame 
 thing) be: That tho there be three 
 Perlons in the divine Nature alone, 
 yet when that Nature is join'd to ano- 
 ther intelligent Nature, 'tis al) but 
 one Perfon. Indeed treo or three infi- 
 nite Aiinds would eafily folve all this ; 
 but then the Oxford Decree 1695. has 
 declar'd that impious and heretical. 
 No doubt you'l do it another way : 
 and having alfo made it appear, that 
 there is no fuch difficulty in fuppofing 
 a begotten Being to be felj-exijlent 
 and independent-, or elfe that he 
 fhould be Supreme God and the firfi 
 Caufe, tho he was not felf-exiflenc 
 but dependent J and may have all the 
 Perfeftions of God, tho he have not 
 that of unbegotten Self-exiftence : 
 Then I fay you'l go on fmoothly with 
 your Texts i but it you filently grant 
 'em, that thefe are really Contradic- 
 tions, and really chargeable on your 
 Opinions, you'l not wonder if they 
 conclude, all thofe human Comments 
 on God's Word, which fupport 'em, 
 to be erroneous. That you therefore. 
 Sir, may not lofe your Labor, nor 
 they the Benefit of it ; pray be fo 
 kind as to take this Advice, from one 
 who truly wifhes to fee the Unita- 
 rians Errors detefted, and that you 
 may write to better purpofe for the 
 Church, than you are faid to have 
 written for the State. 
 
 F I N I S 
 
( I ) 
 
 Mr. LES L 1 £'s Anfwer to the Remarks on 
 his Jirfi Dialogue againft the Socinians, 
 
 Since tbe Firft Dklogue was 
 Printed ther is come out a 
 Sodnitm Sheet againft it, In- 
 tituled, l^marks on Mr. Chxr- 
 let Lejlei's firfi- Dialogue on the Sod- 
 vim Controverfy. And I think it Pro- 
 per to take notice of it here, for it 
 may help to Illuftrat more at Large 
 what is there faid in fhort. And be- 
 caufe I hear fome fay, it is well 
 Wrote, and that many lay Strefs up- 
 on it. 
 
 (1.) Firft I Obferve that this% 
 mArker has not kept up to that Cha- 
 racter the Sodnian Writers give them- 
 felves(but without much Reafon, as 
 I have (hew'd in thefe ViAlogues) oi 
 being the faireft Mverfaries^ and an 
 Example to all others of Managing 
 Controverfy without Heat or Paffion, 
 or Perfonal J^fie£lions. For he has 
 treated me in a very liough Manner, 
 calling the Inftances 1 bring I^idicu- 
 lousj p. I. And that I am Paganijh in 
 in my Notions, p. 6. And lays, p. i. 
 Jf fuch poor Philofophyy juch jhallo-m 
 JReajoning^ and fuch grojs Divinity^ 
 mufl baffle the Sodnians^ 1 confefs they 
 ought to be the laft rvho pretend to the 
 CbaraUer of Men of J^eafon. 
 
 But notwithftanding all this Con- 
 tempt of what I have faid, I can- 
 not but think it has given him fome 
 Trouble, becaufe it has made him 
 fo jingry. For it is Lofers that have 
 leave to Talk at this Rate. And as 
 you ihall fee him Talk afterwards. 
 
 (2.) My Argument was, That we 
 cannot Charge any thing to be a 
 ComriMion in one Nature^ becaufe 
 
 it isfo in Another, unlefs we under- 
 ftand both Natures. Becaufe a Na- 
 ture \i»e underftand not cannot be Ex- 
 plain'd to us but by Allufion to fome 
 Nature we do underftand. Andt^er 
 is that Difference in Natures that no 
 AUufion will lie betwixt them, that 
 is, none that is Proper^ that will come 
 up to the thing, or give a Perfon 
 who Knows not the Nature a true 
 Idea of it, or even Reconcile it from 
 Contradi^i«n, while he Confiders the 
 Nature he do's not Underftand, by 
 way of AEufion to another Nature 
 which he do's Underftand. 
 
 C^,) To Illuftrate this I gave feve- 
 ral Inftancesy of which this J^emar- 
 ker hasp, i, pick'd out two to (hew 
 his Wit upon. One is. That if a 
 Man cou'd he Suppos'd to be with- 
 out thoughtf it wou'd be Impofftble 
 to make Him Apprehend what it was, 
 or the Progrefs of it, as from Hence 
 to liome in an Inftant,&c. It is Com- 
 mon to fay to a Man that is Mufe- 
 ingy Where are you'? And to An fiver 
 I was at J^owfjOr fuch a Place. Now 
 fuppofing any one Cif ic were pofli- 
 ble) not to know what Thought was, 
 he wou'd Apprehend your Body was 
 Remov'd to R^me and Back again as 
 foon as you cou'd fpeak. And 
 by AUufion to the Motion of Body, this 
 cou'd not be Reconcil'd to him from 
 being a Flat ContradiBion, that any 
 thing cou'd move a Thoufand Miles 
 as foon as a Tard. 
 
 In anfwer to this the J{emar ker tells 
 
 you p. I. That nhenyou think of Rome 
 
 or any other Place^ 'tis only the Idea 
 
 of It in your Imagination vhichyou Con- 
 
 A " templatei 
 
(2) 
 
 temphtt Ani not a Leap or Local Mo- 
 tion of your Thoughts to it. 
 
 Who knows not this that has any 
 Ihought? But upon the Suppofition 
 that a Man did not know what Thought 
 was, hecou'd have no Apprehenfion 
 of it but as of a Local Motion. And 
 what you call Idea he wou'd fancy to 
 be fome J/orfe or Coach that Carry^d 
 you very Swiftly '^ which yet wou'd 
 not folve the Cemradi^ion as to him, 
 becaufe the Sroiftnefs «f the Motion, 
 (uppofe it a Cannon Bullet, cannot go 
 troo yards to fcon as One. 
 
 (4.) But becaufe it may be tooEs- 
 ti-avagant to fuppofe a Man without 
 Thoughty tho' fome have very Little ; 
 and Siippofitions are Allow'd in Argu- 
 ment even of what never was •, yet 
 I Infift not on this, but have given 
 anothct hiftance which is i"<tff, and 
 daily before us, that is, of a Man 
 Born Blind. And how you coii'd 
 give him any Notion of J/^h, or Ex- 
 plain to him how the Eye can Reach 
 a Star as foon as the Top of the Chim- 
 vey ? He can feel his Eye with his 
 JJand, and that it is there Fixt and 
 do's not go out of his Head, how then 
 can he Imagin it gets a Thoufand 
 Miles off in an Inflant, while he Feels 
 it do's not Stirzt all.' He can have 
 no Notion of this but by Allul^on to 
 fome other of his Senfes which he has. 
 And by the word Reach^ how the Sight 
 can Keach3. Stxr,\\Q fancies/^rwiy oric-^-S 
 that being all the way by which he can 
 Keach to any thing. And then know- 
 ing that the i/lotion of Legs o'C Arms 
 muft go oyie yard before it go's two, 
 he takes your Defcription of Sight to 
 be not only feme Strange and Wonder- 
 ful thing, which he will readily Grant ; 
 "but he will Infift that it xsii^itCon- 
 tradi^io^» And therefore that he 
 muft not Bdieve it. And it is Im- 
 pofi'ible to Explain it fo to him as to 
 Reconcile it from be'w^TiContradiili- 
 en to hjni. 
 
 To this fays the RemarUr veiy In- 
 genioufly, rvhen roe fee the Stars, our 
 Eyes move not up to them, but their 
 extended R^s ftrfke upon the Eye. But 
 the man Born Bli-nd wou'd fay, No- 
 thing Strikes upon ray Eye, for then I 
 fhou'd Feel it. And he knows nothing 
 what you mean by Rdys or by See. 
 Nor cou'd think of any other way 
 but that the 5^emuft get uptoi?he 
 Star, or the Star come down* to 
 the Eye. And your talking of ]{ays 
 will not Solve the Contradiilion one 
 bit asto him. Nor can he be any other- 
 wife Convinc'd than by Perfuading 
 h*im that what is a Contradiction \n 
 one Mature he wnderftand', muft not 
 be Concluded to be fo in another Ma- 
 ture he do's not underftand, and that 
 the Nature of Sight is fuch as that 
 no AUufion from any other of his Senfes 
 can make hjni Apprehend what it is. 
 Nothing but this can Silence his Mur- 
 murings about Coniradi^ion. 
 
 Is it not Reafon then that our 
 Murmurings about Contradi^ion in the 
 Nature oi God fhou'd heSilenc'd,ke- 
 ing it can be told us no otherwife 
 than by fuch Hoards and AUufions as 
 are Proper to Man-, And that the 
 Divine Nature is Infinitly more £>i' 
 ft ant and Diver je from the Nature of 
 Man than one of our Senfes is from 
 another? And as the Contradiction 
 the Blind-man conceives in the Na- 
 ture of Sight is Caus'd by his com- 
 paring it with the Motion of his 
 Legs or Arms, and that occafion'd 
 by improper Words we muft ufe to 
 him, all others being VnimeEigible 
 to him but what have AUufion to 
 fome of the Senfes he has : So in 
 like manner thofe Contradiflions we 
 Conceive in the Nature of Goiare 
 all Occafion'd by the improper Pl^'ords 
 which muft be iis'd to us in Expref- 
 iing of His Nature, all Words being 
 totally VninteUigible tous, whichhave 
 no! AUufwn to fomething we un- 
 derftand. And thus we Conceiving 
 at 
 
of God after the manner of Me», 
 make all thofe things to be Contra- 
 diUions in God wliich in our Con- 
 ception of the Words are a Comrx- 
 didion to men. As that fever a I Ter. 
 fons fhou'd not be feveral Mew, and 
 that the Father (hou'd not be before 
 the Son^ &c. Whereas thefe terms ot 
 Father f Son,Perfons^^c. are not pro- 
 per to the Nmirs of God, ftlio' the 
 moft Proper we can ufe or under- 
 ftand) And therefor we are not to 
 Conceive of them in the manner they 
 are us'd and apply'd to Men^ nor 
 draw Confeqiiences from them as we 
 do when thefe Words are Apply'd 
 to Men. Othcrwife we fhall Run into 
 the like Contradi^ions as i\ic BUnd- 
 mm about Sight. 
 
 This will throw oiF all that the 
 J^marlier fays ot Inferring three Gods 
 from the Term of three Perfonst be- 
 caufe it is ['o among Men, He talks 
 like a Blind-man of Colour s^oi things 
 v)hicb he muft Confefs he do's not 
 underftand; yet will be inferring 
 ContradiBions in them. He owns he 
 cannot fpeak Properly of them, yet 
 finds fault with the Terms we ufe, 
 becaule they are not Proper^ tho' he 
 can find i\one more Proper. 
 
 (5.) He may as well. fay, That God 
 is not Eternal, becaufe we have no 
 •word to Exprefs Duration higher than 
 the word Beginning, and ther can be 
 no Beginning in Eternity. 
 
 He may fay it is a ContradiHion 
 that all things fhou'd be Prefent with 
 God (which yet he will not Deny to 
 be an undoubted Verity) becaufe it 
 is a ContradiBion to Men, that the 
 PaU or Future (hou'd be Prefent, be- 
 caufe then a thing wou'd be Pa(i 
 and not Pafi, Future and not Future 
 at the fame time. 
 
 Thefe and other things I menti- 
 oned in my firH Dialogue, but the 
 J^marker takes no notice of them, 
 nor will own the Abfurdity of infer- 
 
 ) 
 
 ring ContradiiVons in God from Con- 
 traditions in Man, occafion'd by the 
 Improper Terms we are Forc'd to 
 make ufe of to Exprefs God dice: the 
 manner of Men. 
 
 (6.) But he has laid his Strefs up- 
 on this Inftance I brought of the 
 Blind man. And here he thinks he 
 has an Advantage of me. And I 
 am willing to join Iffue with him up- 
 on it, That if he can find out any 
 IVords that are Profer, whereby to 
 Exprefs the Nature of Sight to a 
 Man Born Blind, and that he will 
 give the Blind-man leave to draw 
 Confluences and infer Contradiiiions 
 from Inch iVords according as he un^ 
 derftands them; then I will under- 
 take to folve ail the Contradiaions 
 that he pretends to mufter up in the 
 Terms whereby we Exprefs the Ho- 
 ly Trinity. And let him l^ew any 
 Difference betwixt thefe Cafes if he 
 can, only this, That far greater Du 
 fpanty ought to be Allow'd as to 
 the Propriety of Words when Terms 
 belonging to Men are fpoke of Cod^ 
 than when what belongs to otje of 
 our Sevfes is Apply'd to another. 
 
 (^.) And now let the Reader Judge 
 what occafion he had of thus Inful- 
 ting me, p. i. 
 
 " But are you indeed (fays he to me) 
 " fovery weak as to think you move 
 " all the way to ^0OTe,and are got thi- 
 " ther as foon as you think of it ? No, 
 *' Sir,whatever haft you may be in thi- 
 '"' ther, you go no fafter than your 
 " Legs can carry you. And (hou'd 
 " Tou Challenge all the Philojophy in 
 " the World ? Who have fo little 
 " as not to know, that v/hen you 
 " think of ^me, or any other Place, 
 " 'tis only the Idea of it in your I- 
 " magination which you Contem- 
 " plate, and not a Local Motion of 
 " your Thoughts to it. In like man- 
 " ner, when we fee the Star^ our 
 Syei 
 
" Eyes move not up to them, but 
 " their Extended I^ayes ftrike upon 
 *' the Eye. I fee you have a Head 
 *^ much fitter for entertaining and 
 '' coining Myfteries, than for Explai- 
 " ning or Defending 'em. It's a 
 *' wonder you did not think rather, 
 '* that Rome or ConftaKtinGph fhift and 
 *' come into your Head; And then 
 *' fince in other Cafes a leffer Vef- 
 " C(\ cannot contain a greater, nor 
 " a Nut-fhel hold an Houfe ; you 
 " might wonder how your little 
 " Head Ihould hold fuch great Ci- 
 '• ties ; And with the fame Philofo- 
 " phy infer, that what is a Contradi- 
 " flion to Nutjhfh is none to IfeadSy 
 « and Challenge all Philofophy to Re- 
 ♦* concile it. 
 
 Now, Reader, has he not fully un- 
 derftood me, do you think, and an- 
 fwer'd me fmartly? 
 
 (2.) But will you fee him freely 
 Conj'tffmg what he thus KidicuJes? 
 He fays in this fame p. i. 
 
 " ladeed there may be fomething 
 " attributed to one Nature, where 
 •* there is nothing Inconfiftent, or 
 " Contradictory to it; while if at- 
 ** tributed to another it might meet 
 " withfomrhinglncenftftent, whence 
 " a ComraiiHim will arife in the 
 ** one and not in the other. 
 
 Now this is the whole of what I 
 have been contending for. I defire 
 no more ot him. And having gran- 
 ted this, how can he Deny that what 
 IS a Contradiflion in one Nature^ that 
 is, of Man, may not be fo in another 
 Nature, that is, of God? Or are 
 ther any two N'atures more Viftant 
 and more Different than the Nature 
 of God and of a Creature ? Or do 
 we underftand the Nature of God 
 more Ferjeifly snd Clearly than our 
 own Nature ? Is it not Reafonable 
 then what I fa id, as he Quores my 
 words, p. 1. That we mufl not cb- 
 
 4) 
 
 jeS ContridiSliom in the hicompreken- 
 fible Nature of God, from Comparing 
 it with out evon. Becaufe we Vnder- 
 ftand not his Nature. To which the 
 l^marher fays, 
 
 (90 " I fhould grant this, in an 
 " objeft of which we have no know- 
 " lege at all; But furely if I have 
 " fome, tho' a partial knowlege of 
 " the Infinite God, I may dilcern 
 " what is Contradictory to that jit- 
 ** tie knowlege of him. Nor is any 
 " thing more ufual or Jufl, than to 
 " Deny fuch or fuch a Doclrine, be- 
 " caufe Incompatible to the Divine 
 " Attributes, to his Spirituality, Eter- 
 " nity, Goodnefs, ^c. 
 
 To which I reply. That the iV^fttre 
 and Attributes of any thing are Dif- 
 ferent. We may know the Jttri- 
 butes, when we cannot know the Na- 
 ture. As we may fee the Jiiver^ 
 but cannot Reach the Spring whence 
 it flows. And this Difpute of the 
 Trinity is not about any of the Jttri'. 
 butes of God, but Concerning His ve- 
 ry Nature and Ejfence, and how His 
 Being isCompos'd, (if I might ufe 
 that Word ) of which I may fay we 
 are totally Ignorant, it is a Light In- 
 acceflible to us, we knov Nothing 
 of it at all. And therefore cannon 
 Charge ContradiSlion in the R^veU' 
 tion that is given to us of it. If we 
 look Dirertly upon the Sun in its 
 Strength, we fee Nothing at all, 
 it Strikes us Blind. But if we turn 
 our Backs, we Difcern the Light 
 that comes from it. The Attributes 
 of God are the l^ays of the Sun, but 
 His Nature is the Sun it r'elf, we 
 cannot Look upon ir. It is Utter 
 DarJcnefs to Uj, through the Ex- 
 cefs of the Light. We can Difcern 
 Nothing at all in it, or fay it is 
 Thus or Thus, or that This or That 
 is Contra.iiflory to ir. Alafs, how 
 little do wc know of our own Na- 
 ture ; 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 ture? We know it only by tbe £f- Are ther j^xtipathys'm the Vnderjiaad- 
 
 feBs and the Qualifies we find in ifig ? I think this is generally Attri. 
 
 our Selves, But what it is in its buted to the Will, and it' is Agreed 
 
 felf wc cannot tell, we are Exceed- that it is a Diftinft F/icuhy from 
 
 ingly in the Dark. And fo as to the VnderUAniing. And ifther be 
 
 \he Nature o( Trees, Flsrvers, Plavts Different Faculties in the fame Soul 
 
 it Anfwers all the Purpofe for which 
 
 &c. We find by Experience fuch 
 Effcits and Vermes in them, but we 
 know not the Nature or E[}etice of 
 them, no not of -a Pile of Grafs, 
 why of that Colour, Shape^ or Vertue. 
 How then can we Know what the 
 Kature of God isj' Or can we fay it 
 is not Rightly KeveaFd to Us in the 
 Holy Scripture ? Do we Know of 
 what Compofition our own Souls are 
 made ? Or how they JB in Us ? Do 
 we Know any thing at all of the 
 Soul but by the Effals? We Know 
 we Thivk, therefore we Conclude 
 we have a S$ul, but what -that 
 Soul is in its felf, we Know not. 
 Yet we wou'd Know the Nature of 
 God\ 
 
 Cio.; This brings me to a Criti- 
 cifm of the J^emarker upon the 
 Parallel I made ufe of concerning 
 the three Faculties of the Soul.^ He 
 fays, p. 3. That the Memory- is not 
 another Fatuity, but only an Aft of 
 the VnderQavding. Now I thought 
 that the Vnderftavding was only Con- 
 verfant about what was then Tre- 
 fetjt before it. And that the Me- 
 mory brought back Fafl things, and 
 fo made them Vrefent to the Vnder- 
 jlxnding. Whence a Man may have 
 a good VnderUaniing, and yet a 
 bad- Memory, Do we fay of the 
 Vvdarftandivg that it Forgets ? I 
 take Truth or Faljhood to be the 
 Objeds of the Vnderftandiy^g. But 
 is Love or Hatred ib ? A Man may 
 have an Averfion, and not know 
 the Reafon of it. 
 
 Non Amo te, Sabidi, vec pojfum dicere 
 
 Qnare, 
 J Joe tantum pojfum dicere,Non Amo te. 
 
 rpofe lor which 
 T brought that Paralkh Nay, if it 
 be but fo Thought, it do's as well 
 for me, to Solve the Objedion about 
 ContradiBio», That Xien fhou'd not 
 think a Plurality oiVerfons in God to be 
 a Comradidipn when the fame i?i^- 
 culty arifes from a Plurality of Facul- 
 ties in the Soul. For Three Facul- 
 ties . can no more be One Faculty, 
 than Three Perfons czn be One Per- 
 fon. And yec thefe DitFerent Fa- 
 culties make up but One and the 
 Self, fame Soul, 
 
 Cii.\ But I hare SufKciently 
 Caution 'd that I intend not to briiig 
 any Proof from thefe Parallels, 
 Nor lay the ftrefs of the Caufe upon 
 them ) yet I thought them not 
 altogether Ufelefs, to (hew Men 
 how far they may Miftake in Charg- 
 ing ContradiBions J from one Nature 
 to another, 
 
 (ii) I have likewife told, That 
 no Parallel in Created Natures can 
 Answer. ExoBly or Come up to the 
 Nature pi God, only Point Bim out 
 at a Great Diflance, and with In- 
 finite Difproportion. And therefore 
 that we muft not Argue StriBly 
 from the . One to the Other. Yet 
 the Kemarker will not Obfcrve this, 
 but Argues of the Perfons of God 
 as of Buman Perfons, And fays, p. 
 4, If three Divine Perfons be like 
 
 three Human Per jotis And if three 
 
 Divine Perfons Jhould as Properly be 
 accounted three Gods, as three Hu- 
 man Per fens can, in StriB Speech, be 
 
 accounted three Men .Thenc6 he 
 
 Infers three Gods &c. 
 
 He 
 
(-6 
 
 'He cannot I thiok but fee the 
 F.iliacie of litis Argument, afccr all 
 that 1 have faid. But he will not 
 fee it! He will ftill Argue StrJclly 
 from the Word reifo?i, and Apply 
 it to God in the fame manner that 
 it is Ub'd among Men. If hewou'd 
 Apply the word Father fo, (which 
 himfelf gives to God) or Cod's be- 
 ing faid to Ilepem, to Grieve, &c. 
 What Work wou'd he make, what 
 ComraiiBioiis might he Infer? His 
 Brother SocinUn Mr. Biddk fas I 
 have fhew'd) turn'd Anthropomorphit 
 by this fort of Argument, and from 
 Man being faid to be made after 
 the Image of God, held God to 
 have a Body, and of Human Shape. 
 And he might as weH have made 
 Him a Bird too, becaufe ther is 
 Mention mads of His ivings and 
 Pral.xci.4' Feathers ! This Savours not of the 
 Sagacity the Socinians think Peculiar 
 to Themfelves. 
 
 fig.; From the like Grofs Con- 
 ceptions the RemarUr, p. 7. raifes 
 Difficulties how a Begotten Being can 
 be God. Thinking of Begetting af- 
 ter the Manner of Men ! And then 
 the Father mnPc be in Time, as well 
 as in Nature, before the Son, And 
 it having been told him that fup- 
 pofing the SuH to be Eternal, its 
 Light wou'd be as Eternal, he Re- 
 plys, p. 7. That this Parallel will 
 not do, for that the Light which 
 (fays he) rou call an EffiS of the 
 Sun, is indeed the very Sun it felf, 
 fo may well he as Old. By which the 
 very Sun we fee in the Firmament, 
 and is many times Bigger than the 
 whole Earth, can Creep through a 
 Cranny, and be All of it in this 
 Room, and in a Thoufand othej 
 Places at the fame Time! This 
 win help Tranf-Suhjhntiation not a lit- 
 tle ! But is it fo indeed that this 
 Subtile Socinian can fee no DifFe* 
 
 rence betwixt the very Sun it Self, 
 and the Light that f^ol^•s from it ? 
 It is thtn time to have done Di- 
 iputing with him. And he Runs 
 into as Great Abjurdities to get 
 Rid of thefe Parallels as he Charges 
 upon me for making Ufe of them. 
 He fays (as before (Quoted, Seel. 
 4.; That when we See the Stars, our 
 Eyes move not up to them, but their 
 extended Kays fir ike upon the Eye. 
 But if the Rays or the Light be the 
 very Star it felf, then the very Star 
 it felf Strikes upon the Eye. Let 
 him Confidcr whether ther is any 
 thing fo very Grofs as this in any 
 of the TiiraUcls I have produc'd. 
 And on whofe fide lies the poor 
 Thilojophy, and Shallow Reafoning. 
 
 (14.) Therefore leaving this Sub- 
 jcft, I will now only Anfwer an 
 Obfervation he makes from Scrip- 
 ture, wherein he fays, p. 2. God 
 Almighty is Perpetually exprejsd in 
 the Singular Number, Vnder One, He, 
 Me, Thou, &c. Now left the Reader 
 of thefe Remarks (hould be Carry'd 
 away with this, I muft mind him. 
 That this Socinian fays this, without 
 takmg any Notice of the Texts I have 
 given'to the Contrary in the 2d X>i- 
 alogue ^. ■^i,^c. Beginning with ihe 
 fir^ of Genefis where God is Spoken of 
 in the Plural as well as the Singular 
 Number according to the Hebrew, Hs 
 istherecalled Gods,^ndVs,as well as 
 God, and Me. And is He not fpoken of 
 in the Plural Number in the Form 
 of Beptifm in the Name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of tlie Holy 
 Ghoft ? The Rernarker ought to have 
 Marked this, and not to have put the 
 Obje^ion over again, without faying 
 fomething to the Anfwer had been 
 made to it. 
 
 If this (heet gives him not full Satif- 
 faftion, I (hall be willing to hear from 
 him again. 
 
 Con- 
 
Contents. 
 
 1. TTIS Elide Treatment of 
 rl me. 
 
 2. The yirgnmem I made ufe of, 
 That we ought not to Infer a 
 GontradiEiion from a NatuYc we 
 Underfland, to jlmtber which 
 we do not Underftand. 
 
 3. His Anfwer as to Thought Re- 
 ply'd to. 
 
 4. And as to a Man Born Blind, 
 
 5. Other Injlances I brought of 
 v^hich he takes no Notice. 
 
 6. I join Iffue with him as to the 
 Infiance of a Man Born Blind. 
 
 7. What little Ground he had to 
 Jnfult me here. 
 
 8. He Exprefly owns my Argu- 
 ment to the full.'** 
 
 9. His Diftindtion of our Partial 
 Knowledge of God will not do, 
 for we know nothing of the 
 Nature or EJfence of God. Nor 
 indeed of our own or any o- 
 ther Natnre. And our Difpute 
 is concerning the Nature oWod, 
 and not of His Attribntes. 
 
 10. He Confounds the Memory 
 and the Vnderfiandlng. Diffe- 
 rent Faculties in the Soul 
 fhew'd againft him, And the 
 Parallel Juftify'd. 
 
 11. I make this no Proofs nor lay 
 the Strejs of the Canfe upon 
 it. 
 
 12. How grofly he Argues from 
 Human Perfons to the Divine. 
 This made Biddle turn An thro- 
 pomorphite. 
 
 13. He makes no Difference be- 
 twixt the Light and the Sim. 
 By which the Sun it felf comes 
 in to our Eye. On whofe fide 
 lies the poor Philofophy and Shal' 
 low Reafoning. 
 
 14. His Argument that God is Per- 
 petually exprcfs'd in Scripture 
 in the Singular Number, fhew'd 
 to be otherwife ^ And he gives 
 no Anfwcr to what I have faid 
 upon it. 
 
 I invite him to Reply. 
 
 FINIS, 
 
C I ) 
 
 /i Vindication of the Remarks upon 
 Mr. Cha. LeflieV Firfi Dialogue on the Soci- 
 nian Controverfy. 
 
 SIR, 
 
 I Shall haften over your Preamble, in 
 which you reprefent me for a Socman, 
 as if everyone, who has not fo good 
 an Opinion of the Truth of Concra- 
 diftions as you have, muft needs be 
 r»?ch ', and alfo your feigning, me to be in a 
 Pafiotiy for only cenfuring your weak Argu- 
 ments, that you might poorly infer thence, 
 I was a Lofer by my Talking ; while a whole 
 Torrent of perfonal Refle^llions on the 
 Dead, by whole mouthfuls of Reproach, 
 "jizj' that pragmatkal Here kk^ ignorant Peccant 
 Biddle, Dial. 2. pag. 60. witneffes the Can- 
 dor and Tendernefs of your nieeliy imffenfive 
 Spirit : All this I wave as little to the pur- 
 pofe, and proceed upon the Argument. 
 
 I perceive, by your Anfwer to the Re- 
 marksy that you are refolv'd to found your 
 Scheme of a Trinity on My fiery and Igno- 
 rance, and to cover your felf from the Vni- 
 tarians by impenetrable Darknefs, which 
 you make your Defence. You feem to 
 admit, that as far as human Reafon can 
 judg, there are irreconcileable Contradic- 
 tions in your Scheme of Faith : and there- 
 fore, in order to fupport your Notions, you 
 endeavor to fupport the Credit of plain 
 Contraditlions ; intimating. That we con- 
 ceive of God no otherwife than as a blind 
 Man of Sight, i. e. with a "Mind full of Con? 
 traditions. To this end 
 
 You afferted, that what it a ContradiBion 
 in one Nature, may be none in another. I affirm 
 the contrary, that a Contradiction, con- 
 filling of two repugnant Propofitions, is 
 ever the fame, apply ic to what Nature you 
 will *, becaufe the fame thing cannot both 
 
 be, and not be at once, whether it be faid 
 of God or Man. 
 
 You attempted to prove your Paradox: 
 by the Motion of theThoughts to Rome, &c. 
 and of the Eyes to the Stars as joon at to the 
 Chimny-Top\ which, you fay, implys the 
 going two Yards as foon as one \ w'uch is a 
 Contradiftion in walking, you grant, but not 
 in the Motion of Thoughts and Eyes. Now 
 tho I had fhown, that there was really no 
 fuch Motion in the Thoughts or Eyes, and 
 you feem to be afham'd of it, and there- 
 fore fhiftoiF one Part on your Man without: 
 Thought, which is a contradi:tory Suppolition 
 (which it was time for you to quit, i>ag. 2. 
 and therefore I (hall not expofe you on it) 
 and another upon fome poor blind Man, 
 that your felf might not bear the fhame 
 of fuch Folly -J yet you are again trump- 
 ing up your old Inftances, and argue from 
 'em as if they were true ; efpecially from 
 the Motion of Sight, and the Impoflibi- 
 lity of a Born.Blind Man's Conception of 
 Sight, any otherwife than by aIlov«^ing the 
 aforefaid Contradiftion ( as 'tis in the 
 Motion of the Legs) to take place here in 
 the Eyes. You ask, p. 2. Now can you ex' 
 plain to him, how the Eye can reach a Star as 
 foon as the Chimny ? He feels hif Eye with hk ■ 
 Hand that *tit fix'd in his Head 5 how then can 
 he imagine it gets a thoufand Miles off, while he 
 feels it , does not flir ? Did ever any Man 
 trifle worfe ! I tell you, and you feem to ad- 
 mit it, that thert is no fuch thing as the 
 Eyes moving a thoufand miles ; and yet you 
 fuppofe your blind Man muft be falfly'told, 
 and muft beJieve it. I don't wonder if the 
 A ' poor 
 
(O 
 
 poor abus'd Man conceive that to be a flat 
 Contr.td'iUm^ which in Truth is fo even to a 
 feeing Man, and which he ought not to 
 believe. But does this prove that 'tis no 
 Contradi^ion to move a thoufan.i Yards 
 as foon as one, becaufe you falfly told 
 him, and he foolifhly believ'd you, that 
 your Eyes did move fo, when they never 
 cou'd do it, becaufe 'tis a Contradiftion ? I 
 tlought you were to prove a real Contra- 
 didtion in one Cafe to he none in another ; 
 and now you fuppofe a Contradidtion which 
 is not, and conclude frora it as if it truly 
 were. So that 
 
 This is in efFedi your Argument ; Suppo- 
 fing the Eyes did move to the Stars as foon 
 as to the Chimny, or your Thoughts to 
 Rome in an inftant (as they do not) then 
 here wou'd be an Inftance of that being a 
 Contradiction in one Cafe, vi^. in Legs, 
 which is none in another, w>. Eyes : but 
 the there be no fuch thing in the Premifes, 
 yet the Conclufion is true, becaufe it wou'd 
 have been true, if the Premifes had been 
 fo. No doubt, Sir, you argue very defpe- 
 rately! How does this prove, a Contradic- 
 tion in one Cafe may be none in another? 
 
 But, fay you, 'r« impofjible to explain to 
 him what Sight U, fo as to reconcile it from be- 
 ing a Contradi^lion to him. I anfwer, that a 
 true and juft Explication of it will not con- 
 tain any real Contradifiion in it: and if 
 to him it appears a Contradiftion, 'tis 
 from his Miftake alone ; and you are not to 
 fhew that a feeming Contradiilion may be 
 none (for who doubts that ?) but that a real 
 Contradiction may, in fome Cafes, be none. 
 And I pray what Contradidlion will appear 
 to him, according to what was faid. That 
 the Eye moves not up, but the Star jirikes on the 
 Eyf ? To this you fay, The blind AUn does not 
 feel thif^ p. 2. nor kjwws what you mean by 
 it, or by Seeing. But is this any Contra- 
 diftion to him, that he (hou'd not feel eve- 
 ry Jubtile Particle that touches on him ? or 
 that he (hou'd have no Idea of Sight ? You 
 add, Be can't thinks of any other way, but that 
 the Eye mufi get up to the Star, or the Star come 
 diwn to the Eye. I expefted he cou'd only 
 imagine his Eve went up to the Star, as you 
 had Aiggeftcd before, toreprefent the Con- 
 tradiction of moving fo far in an inftant -, 
 and now you allow him another Concep- 
 tion of Sight, v;^. That the Star may extend 
 
 to hii Eye. But this Is quite another Mat- 
 ter from your Inftance of th- Eyes going up 
 fo many thouland Miles, and has no fuch 
 Appearance of a Contradidion, Nor will 
 it ferve your Turn for an Example of a Con- 
 tradi^lion's becoming m Contradiction : So that, 
 it feems, he may be convinced another way^ 
 than by perfuading him, that what is a 
 Contradiftion in one Nature is none in another, 
 which you fay is the only way, and I that 
 'tis no way at all ; and if he be to be con- 
 vinc'd this way, he muft be fiippos'd to 
 have a worfe blemifh than want of Eye- 
 fight. 
 
 The moft you can reafonably pretend to 
 here, is. That I can't by my Words help 
 him to forma juft Idea of Sight (which is 
 thro his want of neceflary Organs) but it 
 does not thence follow, that he ought to 
 take up with a Conception that implys plain 
 Contradidions, which he knows muft be 
 wrong, and ought to be rejefted : For tlio 
 he may not conceive what Sight is (nor is 
 it made his Duty, as in the other Cafe, to 
 which you parallel it) yet he may be lure 
 'tis not made up of Contradictions. A 
 Man may not vindcrftand a thing, and yet 
 underftand very well that Contradidions a- 
 bout it are falfe ; and this is all the Strefs 
 I laid upon thit Injiance. So that this is no 
 Argument againft objefting Contradidions 
 to fome Mens Notions of the Divine Na- 
 ture ; fmce in no Cafe whatever are the 
 blindeft Creatures oblig'd to believe diredi- 
 Contradidiions, nor wou'd they become no 
 Contradiclions, if they fhou'd believe 'em 
 erroneoully. 
 
 To what purpofe then was that faint 
 Triumph, p. 3. / will pin Ijjue with him upon 
 it, if he can find Words proper to exprefs the 
 Nature of Sight to a Man born blind, and will 
 give him leave to infer Contradiclions from Juch 
 Words, according as he underftands 'em ; then I 
 Witt undertake to folve all the ContradiiHons in 
 the lerms, by which we exprefs the Holy Trinity. 
 To explain it fo as to enable him to form 
 a clear Idea of it in Iiis Imagination, I 
 neither undertook, nor is it his Duty to 
 have fuch an Idea, much Icfs to take up 
 with any that are falfe. But ftill I fay, 
 that a true Explication of the Operation 
 of Sight will never lead him to infer Contra- 
 diHions. If he imagine any in it, which is a 
 certain Contradidiion (in other Cafes'* he 
 
(?) 
 
 as certainly does not rightly take In the true 
 Explication of thky and ought to con- 
 clude he is in an Error, and to fet himfelf 
 againft it ; and muft either bring his 
 Thoughts to a Confiftency, or explicitely 
 believe nothing in the Matter : for no Man, 
 pretend what he will, does believe apparent 
 Contradiftions to be none, or (which is the 
 fame) to be pofTibly true j he muft, at leaft, 
 fufpend his AfTent. 
 
 And yet, I believe, as to matter of Faft, 
 that many fuch blind Perfons, tho they 
 have no diftinct Idea of Sight, are very far 
 from entertaining Contradi^Hons about it ; 
 at leaft they wou'd be fo, if they had un- 
 derftanding Inttrudors that did not err, as 
 is fuppos'd in your Cafe j where God is re- 
 puted the Teacher of your Notions of the H. 
 Trinity, who will hardly be thought to 
 leave any Dotlirine upon us, to be believ'd 
 under the unavoidable Notion of a Contra- 
 dirtion. 
 
 Therefore if there were no Difference 
 between the two Cafes you think to be fo 
 like, vix,' of a blind Man's conceiving fuch 
 a thing as Sighty and your Conception of 
 the Trinity j yet there is no reafon from 
 thence for taking up with Contradictions 
 in the latter, fince 'tis not requilite nor fit 
 to do fo in the former. 
 
 Befides, who can eafily believe fuch a 
 Cafe to be really true in the Chriftian Dif- 
 penfacion, r/';^. That the All-wife and Good 
 God fhou'd impofe upon a Generation of 
 Men, born blind, a long Crecdy of the na- 
 ture of Light, and KefraBionsy and Colors, 
 or a S}jUm of Opticks ; of which they cou'd 
 have no manner of Conception, nor make 
 any UCe, only it might fet 'em together by 
 the. Ears in ignorant Contention? Or that 
 ever he wou'd be pleas'd with fuch of them- 
 felves, as lliou'd prcfume to be paraphrafing 
 on Light and Colors, &c. in their own mvel 
 devtf'd Terms, which they think more pro- 
 per and clear, and fay, are equivalent to 
 hii (but being wholly ignorant of the Sub- 
 jert, cannot know what Terms are more or 
 lefs proper) nay to anathematize and per- 
 fecute all that aifent not thereto ? Verily, 
 you infmuate no Honor to your Caufe by 
 fuch an untoward Reprefentation ! You 
 own your felf blind, and yet you force your 
 Neighbors to take you for their Guide : 
 Theretore, I conclude, Man is not fo un- 
 
 capable of God's Rex'elatlons, as a blind 
 Man of knowing and ufmg the Sun's Light ; 
 and ri fuppofeyou pretend greater Incapa- 
 city in Men, and lefs Benefit from Revela- 
 tion thereupon, than is true or fit, merely 
 to cover your own Errors, and feign your 
 felf blind, that you may be excus'd in 
 holding Contradictions. Tho BUndnefs it 
 felf, as I have fhewn, does not conftrain us 
 to take that for no Contradiftion in one Na- 
 ture, which is evidently and truly fo in ano- 
 ther, as you pretend. 
 
 After this Abfurdity of yours had been 
 expos'd as ridiculous, you wou'd fain hook 
 me into your Company to take fnare, cal- 
 ling Spedators, p. 4. to fee me confeffmg what 
 I had ridicuL'd. But why fo ? Did I fay a 
 Contradiilion may fometimcs be no Contradiiiion ? 
 No. I .had granted, fay you, there may be 
 fomething attributed to one Nature, Tvhere there it 
 nothing inconjljlent or contradictory to it ; while, 
 if attributed to another, it might meet with 
 fomething inconfiflent ; whence a- ContradiCiion 
 will arije in the one^ and not in the other : And 
 fo I fay ftill ; only I added what you 
 omit, that one of the two Terms of a Contra- 
 diction ii not the Contradi^ion, but both together 
 are, and are fo in any Nature. And now let 
 as many as you will fee, if I fay what 
 you had faid. Is this all one, to fay that a 
 Contradiftion (which is two inconfiftent 
 Propolitions) is fometimes no Contradic- 
 tion, which is what Tou faid ; and .that one 
 of the Propofitions alone is no Contradic- 
 tion, which is what / faid ? Do I, that fay 
 Dependence and Derivation of Being is no 
 Contradiftion, when faid of a Creature, 
 where is nothing repugnant, fay the fame 
 as he, that fays fuch Dependence and De- 
 rivation may be no Contradiftion, when 
 faid of the Independent, Self-exiftent God, 
 and Firft Caufe, where the other repug- 
 nant Term is found ? As mutual Blows 
 make the Fight, fo two repugnant Terms 
 make the Contradiction -, and this I fay ftill, 
 on fure Grounds, is always abfurd, fay it of 
 what Nature you well. 
 
 Well, but if I did not fay what you 
 faid (becaufc you are refolv'd we Ihall a- 
 gree) you fay you meant the fame as I fay : 
 That this is all you contend for, and you de fire 
 m more. But this is not all you contended 
 for, you faid more, in faying, a Contradict on 
 in one Nature may be none in another I nay, 
 A 3. you 
 
(4) 
 
 you meant Tmre^ if Words car. Iliew your 
 meaning, by your Inftance of going two 
 Yards as foon as or.e \ i. e. to go but one 
 Yard, and yet nme than one at once. This 
 is your Refemblance, how a Contradic- 
 tion in one Cafe may be none in another ; 
 that is, ttvo contradidory Propnfitions may 
 become not contradidory, as if the Ve- 
 rity of Proportions coa'd be changM. Nay, 
 I mufl add, that this is not aU you defire^ 
 for your Argument needs more to defend it 
 againft the Vn'ttarians. 
 
 You know they don't deny that fome 
 things may be Contradidiions, if alfirmM of 
 Men, which are none when faid of God ^ 
 as to be Eternal, or Jnjwitc^ is not, with 
 theniy a Contradiction when faid of God, 
 becaufe 'twere fo if faid of Man. You 
 were not fo weak to argue for what they 
 always afferted j contrariwife, you did fup- 
 pofe the Sochun to charge you with holding 
 two oppodte repugnant Proportions, i^i:^. 
 That God is Vnoriginatey and yet a derived 
 Vature, is the fvjl Caufe, and yet has a Fa- 
 ther and a Caafe (as the Greek Fathers ex- 
 • prefs it of the Son) that he is but one He, and 
 yetrAree //eV, &c. Now that fuch fort of 
 Contradiftions, if real, can ever be true, 
 youafiirm'd, but I never faid ; and there- 
 fore pray don't call me any more to be 
 your Voucher in fuch a Cafe ; for you cer- 
 tainly intended more than I faid or you 
 pretend : and 'tis incumbent on you, ei- 
 ther to fhew that thefe are noContradiftions 
 which they objed for fuch, or that they are 
 not chargeable on your Faith ^ or if they be 
 real Contra.ii^tions, that cleave fall to you, 
 yet there is no Abfardity in them, becaufe 
 Contradiftions fi. e. two oppofite Propofi- 
 tions) may fometimes be none, or not op- 
 pofite ; and thzt to be, zndnot be,, may fome- 
 times be the fame. And then you'l do more 
 towards the reconciling the Oallkan and Eng- 
 /;//; Churches, than if their two Synods bad 
 fat at the fame time, or than is done by the 
 Author of the Resale, &c. Tranfubftan- 
 tiation will then be a credible "My ftery ! 
 
 And now fmce I faid nothing that has any 
 Likenefs to wliat I expos'd in yours, you 
 need not pretend to wonder, hew I can deny, 
 that what h a Contra fiction in one Nature, may 
 yet bensne in another. I (hou'd wonder more, 
 if I did not dfuy fuch an Abfurdity. 
 
 Yowr otheli iiitance, which you complain 
 
 was not taken notice of, v/^. That V« w 
 Contradiiiion for all things to be prefent with 
 God, tho it be a ContradHHon to Men that 
 the pail or future things JJm'd be prefent, is 
 to the fame purpofe as the reffc : for in 
 one fenfe 'tis no Contradiftion to either, 
 j. e. for a paft t ing to be objeiiively pi-^jcnt 
 in the Idea, and fo it may be with "Man ; 
 and in another fcnfe 'tis a Contradiction in 
 both, /. e. to behold that as ailually doing 
 now which is paft-, for foGod himfelf does 
 not behold the original Chaosy as now adu- 
 ally exifting void of Form, nor does he 
 judg Adam and Eve to be now in their firft 
 Innocency. I doubt fome are fond of mak- 
 ing abundance of needlefs Contradictions, 
 on purpofe to keep fome darling Abjurditysof 
 their own in countenance. But tho 'I am 
 not fo vain as to pretend to reconcile all 
 Difficultys, or to fay which fide is wrong, 
 much lefs to fathom the boundlefs Perfdlions 
 of my glorious Creator ; yet I think it is 
 no Arrogance to fay, that I am fure both 
 fides of a Problem, or real Contraditfion, 
 cannot be true, about any Object ; or if they 
 may be both true, and a Contradiftjon in 
 one Cafe be none in another, why will you 
 not have a little Charity, an4 allow that 
 the Vr.itarians and you don't contraditt each 
 other ? But tho, in fome Cafes, 'twou'd 
 be a Contradidion to affirm and deny the 
 fame thing \ yet of the Divine Nature to 
 do thus, may polTibly be none ; and fo v.'e 
 are good Friends. 
 
 Your next Refuge is, That//;e Nature of 
 God being incomprehenfible, we mnj} not object 
 ContradiUions in it, from comparing it wiih our 
 own, becaufe we underhand not hit Nature, p. 
 4. To this 1 faid, it might have fome fair 
 Pretence, it we had no Knowledg at all a- 
 boiit it •■, but that we have lb much Know- 
 ledg, tho partial, as warrants us to deny 
 what is contradiftory to it : hence we juftly 
 deny many things for being incompatible to 
 the Divine Attributes, to his Spirituality, 
 Goodnefs, ((jc. And why may we not as 
 v;ell difcern what is contradidory to the 
 Divine 'L'ni;/, vOiioh is as manifeft as tiie 0- 
 thers ? You reply, That the Attributes and 
 Nature are different \ and this is a iJifpute not 
 nhout Gid^s .attributes, but his Nature, of which 
 we are totally ignorant ) that ^tis utter D.u\ncfs 
 to Hi, &c. 
 
( s) 
 
 I might anfwer you, Thzt EJfcntial At- 
 tributes, or Perfections, are the very Ef- 
 fencc under fo many various inadequate Con- 
 ceptions ; that God is not compounded of 
 Eflence and Perfeflions, as of diiFerent 
 things, but that his very Nature is Good- 
 nefs. Power, Wifdoin, ^r. But I will not 
 obfcure my Argument, by entring on meta- 
 phyftcAl Nicetys. I have enough to fay with- 
 out this : for fuppofmg what you crave, 
 there may be good ground to objeft Contra- 
 didiions in this Cafe ; for, i. The Divine 
 Vnity is one of his Attributes by confent of 
 all, and fo may be argu'd about, and Con- 
 tradictions may be difcern'd and objefted 
 here as well as in other Attributes. And, 
 2. Were it otherwife, yet may Contradic- 
 tions fafely be difcern'd and ftarted about 
 the Divine Nature, on thefe Accounts. 
 
 1. 'Tis fufficient for this, if I but know 
 what God U not in any refpeft : All al- 
 low one way of knowing God is per v'lam 
 Negatmif^ by denying of his Nature every 
 thing that argues Imperfeftion. Now if I 
 do but know what God certainly « tiot, I 
 may t^en object againft any thing tliat, in 
 contradiilion thereto, does affirm him to 
 be what I know he is not. Thus if I know 
 that Derivation of Being from any other Caufe, 
 is what cannot belong to the firft fupreme 
 Nature, I may juftly objeft Contradiction 
 to thofe who fhail affirm this unoriginate 
 Nature to have a Caufe. If I know his Ma- 
 ture can be but one, i object foberly againft 
 them that (hall fay, there are nuny fu- 
 preme Divine Natures. I will objeCl: a- 
 gainft all Imperfeftion, as a Contra iiftion 
 to that ever glorioHi Jehovah: and I mult 
 know, in fome Inftances, what is Imperiec- 
 tion, eUe I Ihall not know but God maybe 
 mutable and wortal in hii Nature, if I cannot 
 know that th-j-fe are Imperf^ftions. 
 
 2. If I know but any Property or Perfec- 
 tion of his Nature, I may know that to be a 
 Contradiftion to his Nature, -which denys 
 that Perfw'Ction or Property. If I know he 
 is a necejftvy eternal Beirg^ I know well that he 
 IS of a Nature tliac cannot die. If I know 
 from Reafon or Scripture that he is ail- 
 hioiving, I know 'tis a Contradiction to ^ay 
 of him, who k that Nature, th^t he is igno- 
 rant of any one thing. Nay, 
 
 3. If I knew neither what he « mt, nor ^ 
 '.vh-.u any Perfection of hb Nature h *, yet 
 
 if I knew but what is a Contradiction in the 
 Nature of the thing, and to it felf, I may 
 fafely fay, 'tis a Contradiction when ap. 
 ply'd to God, becaufe 'tis fo in it felf. Thus 
 to be and not be at once, to be but one fingle 
 Perforiy and yet 3 fuch Perfons, being repug- 
 nant, may fafely be objecled for a Contra- 
 diction, without any regard to the Nature 
 'tis apply'd to, becaufe of the mutual re- 
 pugnancy of the two Propofitions, which 
 always deftroy one another, and cannot be 
 faid of the fame thing. So that I don't, in 
 this Cafe, objeft a Contradiction in God, 
 from aSuppohtion that his Nature is refem- 
 bled by mme, but from the bare Nature 
 of a Contradiction. I may doubt whether 
 God be a pure Spirit, or be only a grofs 
 Body ; whether my Soul be material or 
 immaterial : but leaving this ftill in doubt, 
 I am fure 'tis not both material and immate- 
 rial. And if anyone (hall fay, There are 
 both many Gods, and but one fuch God in Na- 
 ture ; that once he was not in being, buC 
 yet eternally was and is to come ; 1 hope, 
 inthefe Cafes (like to which Contradictions 
 the Socinians pretend) one needs not ftay 
 till he knows perfectly what the Nature of 
 God is, before he pronounces 'em to be Con- 
 tradictions. And therefore 'twas not right- 
 ly faid of you. Dial. i. p. j. That no Contra- 
 diiiion can be charged in any Nature we dont 
 underftand, efpecially when your felf had 
 granted to the Socinian, That it is a Contra- 
 diHion to fay. Three Perfons (in God) are but 
 one Perfon ; which, I reprefented to you, 
 was what the Socinians charg'd your Scheme 
 with: and therefore you were bound (but 
 wou'd not attempt it) to Ihew, that this 
 Contradiction is not chargeable upon you ; 
 inftead of which you cry, a Contradiction 
 in Man may be no Contradiction in God, 
 when 'twas granted 'em, that this were a 
 Contradiction even in God. 
 
 Hiving made it appear, that our Igno- 
 rance of the incomprehenfible God, does 
 not render us v/holly uncapable of difco> 
 vering.certain Contradictions in Mens No- 
 tions of him, I may conclude you have not 
 taken an effectual Courfe to convince the 
 'Unitarians, by faying they muft not argue 
 from Contradictions : So that the ]>^latter 
 refts as at the end of the Reimrks, vi:^^ 
 That it will be expeCted you ihall fhew that 
 thofe and the like Difficultys, objected by 
 
 them. 
 
16) 
 
 them, are either not Contradiftions, or not 
 truly charg'd on your Faith of a Trinity in 
 God. If you go on to appear fo willing to 
 allow 'em tho.fe two Points, I dare fay you'l 
 gain no Ground. 
 
 Beiides, let me add thefe Remarks : 
 I. Thacyoa have laid a fair Foundation 
 for Sceptkijm : for nothing can be faid of 
 God, tho moil abfurd, which on your 
 Principles can be confuted j becaufe not 
 l<nowing his Nature, we muft not fay any 
 thing is a Contradiftion to it. Nay, lince 
 you fay wc know not the Nature of .vlan (per- 
 liaps he may be three Perfons and one 
 3^1an) nor of Trees, or a Pile of Orajs, we 
 cramot then urge Contradiclions about 
 them, and lb cannot argue about the Na- 
 ture of any thing ; fince all Arguments 
 tend to (hew a Contradidion in whit we 
 argue agamft, and fo we can prove and be 
 certain of nothing. 
 
 Nay, we cannot confute Tranfubftantiatioiiy 
 for we know not the Nature of Bread and 
 Flefh (for Senfe cannot reach that) and fo 
 may notobjed Contradiftions in the Cafe. 
 
 Nay, you can't confute a SocmUn this 
 way; for you can't tell whether a Denyalof 
 a Trinity be not conliftent with a Trinity, 
 according to you, becaufe this is about the 
 l^atureof Ood: and not underrtanding that, 
 we muft not objed Contradiftions here. 
 How know you that God is not three Ejfen- 
 ces and one Perfan .^ The Scripture fays ijot 
 exprefly either this or the contrary. 
 
 2. You can never juftify any longCreeds 
 
 or Explications of the Trinity, c^c. in o- 
 
 ther Words than Scriptural : for how fhall 
 
 Men believe your Pretences of Humility, 
 
 that you can't comprehend God, when at 
 
 the fame time you are for explaining his 
 
 Nature in unintelligible Terms, novel, and 
 
 more obfcure than the Scripture ? If you 
 
 don't know the Divine Nature, then be fi- 
 
 lent about it. How dare you fay this or 
 
 that is equivalent to the Scripture-Terms, 
 
 or more proper, when that is to be judg'd of 
 
 by the Nature of the (unknown) Subjed ? 
 
 But you are for explaining the Text, and 
 
 urging that it muft h^vethk and that fenfe ; 
 
 fometimes itmuft be J?^«)'<ir/'i/e, and fome- 
 
 times literal •, and are for fcruing Reafon as 
 
 long as you can hold it, and then run to 
 
 "Myftery, when Reafon and fcholaftick Wit 
 
 are fpent j and tell your Adverfary,he muft 
 
 not argue about the inconiprehenGble God; 
 as if you meant, that you may reafon, but 
 only 'tis not fit for a Socman's Reafon to 
 meddle ; it muft be, becaufe their Reafon 
 is of a leifer Size. 
 
 Nay, is it any great Sign of Humtlity of 
 Reafon, to be fo conrident of your Dedutiions^ 
 as to opprefs or anathematize fuch asteftify 
 their DuTent from them, thothey affent .to 
 the Text whence you pretend to infer 'cm ? 
 And how know you whether their Senfe 
 and Inferences or yours be trueft, lincj the 
 Terms you fay are all but AUufioni, and 
 that about a Nature you know nothing of? 
 Of all Men fuch may f;^em the proudeft 
 Exaltcrs of human Reafon in matters of 
 Faith, eVwH while they decry and reproach 
 it in their more peaceable Adverfarys, 
 
 3. You cou'd not confute the Pagan 
 Notions of the Divine Nature your way : 
 fuppofmg they held many Gods, or that 
 there is but one Divine Nature, and all the 
 thoufands of particular Gols but a muL- 
 t'jtude of Perfons in that one Nature (as you 
 fuppofe many Men in but one human Na- 
 ture) you cou'd not confute 'em by the 
 Light of Reafon at leaft, becaufe you al- 
 low not Contradiftions to be an Argument 
 here. 
 
 For the Honor of Chriftianity, I befeech 
 you, never infift on it, that to be a Chriftian 
 is to believe, that a Contradiclbn may fame- 
 times be none at all, and that this isth»e only 
 way to perfuade a Man to be fuch. I thank 
 God I am convinc'd without it. 
 
 I (hall do you no Injury if I pafs by your 
 wonderful Proofs for the Memory's being 
 another Faculty from that by which we un- 
 derftand, p.^. vi:^. That the Underftanding 
 is only converfant about what is prefent be- 
 fore It : as if we cou'd not underftand any 
 thing that is paft, and knew not formerly ; 
 or as if the Idea of what is paft may not 
 become prefent to the Underftanding, which 
 yet in the next Line you own. You ask, // 
 the Vnderfianding forgets ^ I anfwer. As much 
 as the Memory. But I have fhew'd, tl.at 
 three Facultys in one Mind is no parallel 
 for your Trinity. 'Tis neither a Myftery, 
 n« will it refemble (what theVnitarians oh- 
 }eft to you) how three Pcrfpjgs can be but 
 on« Perfon •, unlefs inftead of three Facul- 
 tys making but one Soul, you had fhown 
 that three Facultys make but one Faculty, 
 
 or 
 
or three Minds ^ but one MinJ. Nay, you 
 are fo tenacious, that whether there be re- 
 ally three Facultys in the Soul or not, you 
 fay it does as well for you if it be but thought 
 fo. Right or wrong, 'tis all cne to you. 
 You will hold to the Concliifion, let what 
 will become of the Premifes. This is true 
 Courage ! 
 
 You find fault, that I »•/// argue jlr'i^ly 
 from the word Perfon, as 'tk m'd among Jfen j 
 when I only (hew it does not anfwcr the 
 Parallel in that Point (of three being but 
 one in th? fame Senfe) for which you bring 
 it. And tince you ufethe word Ferfons for 
 explaining better the Scripture-Language, 
 you muft fuppofe it to be more proper and 
 lefs ambiguous; and till you give another 
 Senfe, I muft underlland it after the known 
 ufe of it. You add, pag. 6. If he woH'd ap- 
 ply the word tather f, and the words Repent 
 and Grkve, that are faid of God, wh.tt Worl^ 
 wou'd he m.ike ^ &c. As to t\\c firft Term, 
 I fee nothing abfurd in it. For the other 
 Terms of A.f/'i.'/i^, &c. the nature of the Sub- 
 jeft bi Is me give 'em a figurative Senfe, and 
 I fhou'd not dare to ufe 'em of God, if the 
 Scripture had not done it, which is not your 
 Cafe j much lefs wou'd I put 'em into' ray 
 explicatory Creeds, But if at the fame time 
 the Ath.inafians wou'd publickly declare', 
 they no more believe three Perfons to be in 
 Gody th.ui that God can repent or grieve proper- 
 ly ; and wou'd give us another fair and open 
 Senfe of the Terms, as of the other, that 
 may comport vvith the Scripture-Account of 
 God, of his Son J. C. and his H. 5pirit,-and 
 with the reft of their Scheme^ then .you 
 might have fome Pretence for talking thus. 
 But if you alTign to the Sacred Three all the 
 various Parts and Diftinc'tions of Perfons in 
 a proper Senfe, and for that reafon do give 
 'em thefe Cha rafters : How can confidering 
 Men think, you don't defign by it, to give 
 'em an Idea of three proper Perfons in one 
 eternal He .^ And you your felf deny the 
 Expreffions are figurative, ^ 25. Dial, 1. fpeak- 
 ing of fuch Texts as are alledg'd for a 
 Trinity of Ferfiiis. 
 
 You are miftaken, in faying, / raije Dif- 
 ficultys how a begotten Being can be God, from 
 grofs Conceptiais of bcgettir.g after the manner of 
 Men, pag. 6. I never had a Thought of 
 more than of a Being derived from amther^vi hich 
 I think is the allow'd Senfe of Begotten^ as 
 
 • apply'd to the Lord Jefus, who receives hk 
 Aaturedependrntly on the Father, fays Dr, Whit- 
 by on John 14. 25. fpeaking alfo the Senfe 
 of the antient Fathers: So that the Diffi- 
 culty is no other, than how a derived de- 
 pendent Being can be God .«* which the Vnitarians 
 infifton much. 
 
 You having illuftrated the Coeternity of 
 the Son with the Father by this, that the 
 Light is as old as the Sun, tho the Effe^ of 
 It i I reply'd. That the Light U really the 
 Sun rt jelj. Upon which you fct Up a hi- 
 deous Cry, as if I were bringing the whole 
 Sun upon your Head, and fetching it out 
 of the Firmament ; even all that huge Sun, 
 tliat is fo many times bigger than the whole 
 Earth : For, fay you, By which we fee the 
 very Sun, fo man)/ times bigger than the whole 
 Earth, can creep thro a Cranny, and be all of 
 it in this Room, and in a thoufand other Places 
 at once : This will help Tranfubjiantiation. A- 
 gain, If the Light be the Star, then the very 
 Star Jhik,es on the Eye; and then you crow 
 merrily. Let him confider on whofe fide the 
 poor Phihfophy and jhallow Reafoning lies. It 
 feems, you imagine, the Sun is not made 
 of Parts ; and tiiat if the Sun (hines in- 
 to a Room, it muft quit the Firmament, 
 -and muft come down, all or none. I can't 
 breathe in the Air, I warrant you, with- 
 out being fo unmerciful as to fup it all up ; 
 nor fay, 1 ftand on the Earth, unlefs I cover 
 it all over, from Ea'lto Weft. You can-* 
 not beli-ve any fubtile Streams, or Effiuvia 
 of Light, that are a part of that huge lu- 
 minous Mafs, which penetrate fmall Pores 
 of Bodys. I did not fay every Stream of 
 Light was the whole Sun, or that the Parti 
 that are above are beneath. But I fancy 
 you hop'd to find an Inftance from me, 
 how a Contradidion in one Cafe may be 
 none in another : the whole huge Sun in a lit- 
 tle Cranny/ Ah this fubtile Socinian.' as you 
 call me. Thus you deride me to your Coft, 
 as Laiiantii'H did the Antipodes, for going 
 with their Heels upraoft. 
 
 I heartily wifti, Sir, you wou'd entertain 
 the Co^ce Houfes for one Year with a Courfe 
 of your Fhilcjophy, I dare promife you rasny 
 Admirers ; and when that has prevail'd, 
 no doubt but your Divinity will go oflF. 
 
 All the Anfwer you give to the Objeftion 
 againft three Perfons in God, from his be- 
 ing fpoken of fingularly. as /, Thtu. He \ is, 
 
 ' That 
 
That intlie nrft of Gev.eps, &c. God is Ipo- 
 jken of pUirally-, for inftead of God created y 
 you fay. Dial. 2. ^tis Gods ke created: That 
 three Perfons are mention'd, the Father^ 
 Word (becaufe God fpake, and Speech con- 
 fains Words) and Spirit^ and theje Gods made^ 
 &c. So that if Plurality be exprefs'd, as 
 you fny well, 'tis a Fluralityof Gods ; if the 
 Singular hi God, the Plural is certainly 
 Gods. Pray ftick to that. 'Tis an obvious 
 Reply to this, that 'tis an ufual Hebraifm to 
 put the Plural for the Singular ^ and fo Prin- 
 ces and others fay We, when 'tis but one. 
 You fay indeed, that, in the Royal Lan- 
 guage, We notes the King and his Council ; 
 as if Our Royal Pleafure, and We command, did 
 relate to any but himfelf. Dial. 5. But to 
 filence you once for all in this matter: 
 Xnow that this Plural Term Gods, Elohim, 
 is faid of one of the Perfons alone ; Pfal. 
 45. 7. Thy Throne^ Gods, is for ever andever : 
 'And, Geds, thy Gods have anointed thee, 
 •which the Apoftle applys to Chrift, Heb. u 
 9. Now unlefs the Son have another Tri- 
 nity in him, the Plural Word can't intend 
 three Perfons, but one, only it is more 
 TnajeJiicI^. 
 
 But what muft we fay to this, that in the 
 New Teftament (the proper Place for this 
 'Article) there is not fo much as one fuch 
 Expreflion, but always lie in the Singular ? 
 It had been wee* to (hew where many Per- 
 fons ever ufe the diminutive Language / 
 
 ana ^hc , wl.Icii yoi aim at, in telling us. 
 That 'tis faid of a King, Nc march'd, &c. 
 when it means all hit Army : but tho it fup- 
 pofes all the Army, it does exprefs the 
 King alone, and his Authority, and there- 
 fore is Singular *, for if three Princes toge- 
 ther have the Command, it wou'd no lon- 
 ger be, He march'd, but They, which fhews 
 you are out : So that the Objeftion (with 
 thegreatcfft part of the Remarks) lies on 
 your Hands ftill. 
 
 As for your Comments on other Texts, 
 they are Arrows fhot at no Mark, till you 
 ftate your Notion, whether three infinite 
 Mmds, or but one. Your Expjfitions are 
 precarious, or go no higher than Arianifm, 
 or are obviated oft in the Sodnian Com- 
 ments ; and in anfwering their Texts you 
 are as modeft (on /ohn 17.3. i Cor. 8. 5.) as 
 if you faid nothing. Pray, Sir, tell us 
 whereabout your Anfwer is to the Text, of 
 that Day linorr-s my Father only, which Pome 
 cannot find among your anfwer'd Texts j 
 and yet it was in that little Book,, which is 
 all that you venture to attack, and no Text 
 is more urg'd by the Vnitarians. Pardon this 
 Freedom, Sir, in purfuance of your Defire to 
 hear from me again ) who, I affure you, am 
 afted herein by no Paflion, except it be a 
 paflionate Defireof feeing our H.Chriftian 
 Religion refcu'd from the Burden of Con' 
 tradiftions. 
 
 FINIS.